Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to WT:V.

FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily

See also: #Is FrontPageMag.com a reliable source?

There is currently a controversy on Islam in the United States over the inclusion of information that is thought to be irrelevant by some and relevant by others. Setting aside the issue of relevance since it isn't pertinant here, there has also been a concern raised about the reliability of the sources used as references for the disputed information. I will reproduce the disputed paragraph below with its two references so that those commenting here have some context. Note: I'm not asking for help or advice about the relevancy issue since that is a content question and not a source question. Thanks.

• According to Paul Sperry, the Pentagon has also criticized Islam at least on one occasion. He writes that after a detailed project undertaken to study Islam, Quran and Hadiths, the Pentagon has concluded that "Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)." In its briefing paper titled "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers", the Pentagon has concluded that "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor. The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise where 'beautiful mansions' and 'maidens' await him." It also describes 'Zakat' the Muslim charity as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." The paper also says that the actions of Prophet Muhammed could be considered quite radical by today's standards.[1] [2].

While the main issue on the talk page has been relevance I was hoping to get some help on the secondary issue of reliability, either in this particular case or more broadly for those two media outlets. Are FrontPage Magazine and/or WorldNetDaily reliable sources for news in this context? In general? How are these media outlets classified? What are they comparable to? Other than the fact that some editors identify a bias in these sources and other editors deny any such bias I don't think any of us have a good understanding of the reliability issue. Any help would be great. Thanks.PelleSmith 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• WorldNetDaily has a reputation for publishing fringe theories. FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda. Neither site has a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism. In the example above, there is no way these would be reliable sources. Try the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. If the Pentagon took such a position, it would be reported widely. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• ditto to what Jehochman noted. WND and FPM demonstrate very little in terms of evidence of reliability. ITAQALLAH 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. If the Pentagon had made that point, it would've been widely reported. → AA ^(talk) — 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. They are both right-leaning rumor mills. Ngchen 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. --Aminz 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. Note that they are good sources for opinion, where that is warranted. Arrow740 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. There was a well-documented case of them verbatim reporting from an Onion article about Harry Potter's satanic ties. --Haemo 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... This caught my eye, and there is less there than Haemo seems to think. Them is WorldNetDaily, btw, not FPM. There is no particular reason to believe the author got the quote directly from the Onion, and WND seems to have corrected it in some fashion (whether with just an excision or with an errata, I don't know). Chasing the chain of custody of quotes to the root has been a problem on occasion for both the WP and the WSJ, I think. Not arguing strongly for WND's reliability here -- just saying the proffered example doesn't prove much. Andyvphil 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Jehochman. --Raphael1 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. PR^talk 09:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know what standards these magazines have for oversight and fact checking? That is to say what is known about how they operate in terms of how reliable they are? Thanks again.PelleSmith 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue with their standing among "peers" and mostly appear to be op-ed pieces.--Tigeroo 16:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to contrast this discussion with the one on Counterpunch above. Beit Or 20:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now in the archive. But, yes, as with Counterpunch, Media Matters, FAIR, etc. FPM should be citeable, but with appropriate caution. The subject here is politics, not particle physics, and the borders between opinion and fact are correspondingly blurred. In this area a damned lot of nonsense is published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and that's just the way it is. Andyvphil 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how we work. Relata refero 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not that dissident publication on the left and right should not be considered reliable sources. Some are, some are not. The problem is that both FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily have a long history of publishing material that is hysterical, unsupportd with documentation, and later shown to be factually dubious, bigoted, or just plain false.--Cberlet 13:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We should have in mind that User:Cberlet has his own controversy with FrontPage.[3] — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And left-wing magazines don't do any of this. Riiiiight.... - Merzbow (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is right about Islam

I disagree with your consensus. Although, I have to agree with User:AA that if the Pentagon had reported it, it would have been reported a lot more widely, which is a good point. That said, it could be due to political correctness, that criticism of Islam is being omitted (which is a very common phenomena these days). So it's not necessarily so that WorldNetDaily is making this alleged Pentagon report up. But whatever the case, and how much of a WP:RS the WND is, it is absolutely right about one thing: "Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)." In its briefing paper titled "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers", the Pentagon has concluded that "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor. — This is true. For those interested in knowing how this is supported by the Qu'ran, I recommend Sura 9:111 if you want to find out more about what the Pentagon is talking about. As for FrontPageMag and its reliability, it's a very biased magazine with an obvious agenda (very often, pro-conservative, pro-Israel, pro-right wing, etc.) but it's not necessarily so that everything reported there is by default inaccurate since it would of course be an ad hominem. Of course, the stuff reported on FrontPage should be taken with some precautions, but I wouldn't discard everything from that site as unreliable. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA - The World Factbook

Is CIA - The World Factbook a reliable source? On their web-site they say that they use the list of most reliable sources for their info, but they do not publish them because of the "Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources.", thus some argue that because CIA - The World Factbook do not publish sources it is not trustworthy, moreover in some cases editors argue that it is biased. What do you think? andreyx109 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the credibility of the Factbook questioned before. It seems to be a reliable source, so if there is a specific disagreement, it should be resolved by comparing various sources. International statistics are very complicated, due to the use of wildly differing standards from country to country. If someone is pointing out a discrepancy between the Factbook and another source, it's worth investigating and discussing. If someone is just objecting to the Factbook because they don't like it, their objection is unhelpful. <eleland/talkedits> 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the situation and the claim. You can source many things from the CIA factbook, such as a the land area or population of a country. For those sorts of facts, I think this source is quite reliable. If you are sourcing info about the political leanings of a government, this might not be reliable because the CIA has a bit of an axe to grind with, for instance, Cuba. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked into it a little more, and the issue appears to be Christianity in the United Arab Emirates on Christianity by country. However, the source which 88.106.77.208 used actually referred to the religions of foreign guest workers within the UAE, not to permanent residents. Given the large number of Sri Lankin, Filipino, etc workers in UAE there must be a lot of Christians there, but the vast majority of these people are residents for only a few years at a time. <eleland/talkedits> 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but if you look into the references, which i have provided you will see that it states that of all the population (foregin and citezens) 9% are Christians. (foreign only 10% Christians).

The problem with CIA fact-book is in Discussion of Christianity by country, as editor of the article is arguing that CIA is not reliable source as it does not provide any references. If you want to investigate it further please check the Discussion board. andreyx109 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you have a point there. I was misled by the "citizens" thing; apparently some 85% of the population are non-citizens (what a country!). Anyway you can work that out on the talk page, but the Factbook is a generally reliable source. Doesn't mean that other reliable sources can't be used, but it's reliable. The argument that "the CIA figure have no source" is nonsensical and confusing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"but the Factbook is a generally reliable source. Doesn't mean that other reliable sources can't be used, but it's reliable" - On what basis are you saying the CIA Factbook is a 'generally reliable source', or 'it's reliable' - Simply saying something is reliable doesn't make it reliable. The only reason I can see for stating the CIA Factbook is reliable is Appeal to Authority. Are you saying it's reliable becuase it's the CIA? Sorry but that's not good enough. The CIA factbook publishes figures which have no source for and there fore can't be trusted as reliable. The CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency of the USA. Therefore there is also the danger political bias too,especially when no sources are published. "Space considerations preclude a listing of these various sources." is no excuse. There's certainly no excuse of space considerations when publishing figures on the Web. In fact if you look through the figures of religious adherency ( which is the issue here ) then in some cases there is a source, for example a census, but in most cases there is no source and there is no indication that the figures could not have been simpply a guess or made up.Vexorg 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook also has problems with not saying how they count, e.g., unemployment figures. I remember this was a problem with their numbers for Sweden in the '90s, as the Swedish government unemployment statistic was off by over 4%, which was more than could be explained by how many people were in training programs, etc. 1of3 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The CIA-WF is considered reliable enough to cite in dissertations at major academic institutions. If you look at peer-reviewed scholarly articles you will see it cited. That seems good enough for me, at least for these purposes. Epthorn 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the CIA says that the CIA "...sometimes engages in propaganda...". If that is true, how can Wikipedia editors know which of their publications meet the standards of WP:V and which do not? SaltyBoatr 16:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the same issue arises citing the New York Times, etc. The Factbook has a generally good reputation. But it can be wrong, or have a particular agenda. When it is in conflict with other usually reliable sources, there is a need to cite both sides of the disagreement. I'd suggest that you look at its coverage in an area where you are expert and I think you will find that it is pretty solid and surprisingly evenhanded. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

Is Robert Spencer a reliable source in the field of Islam? He is the author of The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, amongst other books.

He is also the director of "Jihad watch" which is considered a hate and Islamophobic website. (Sources:[4], [5]).

I think he violates WP:RS#Extremist_sources, what do you guys think?Bless sins 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - he would certainly seem to qualify as an extremist source (in the sense of being on the fringes). I would be very, very wary of using him as a source for anything much. -- ChrisO 09:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would agree... At best, he could be cited for a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. Something along the lines of: According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah" <citation>. This really depends on whether Mr. Spencer is considered an expert on Islam, and whether his opinions on Islam are notable or not. If he is simply a crank who wrote a book and runs a website, then his opinion does not rate mentioning per WP:UNDUE. Blueboar 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per ChrisO. I remember reading how he has very little in terms of scholarly publications. In addition, I doubt he is considered an expert on Christianity either, if he were trying to do a study on comparative religion.Ngchen 14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, on looking into the subject a bit further... I'm not so sure about that... according to our article on him (see: Robert Spencer) he does have some credentials in the field (He has an MA in Early Christianity). He has authored six best selling books on Islam, and has been an op-ed contributer to several mainstreem newpapars. While his views are controversial, he does have notable supporters. So he is not a complete crank.

Extreme? Possibly... but even extreme views might still be considered notable and worthy of discussion in an article. Controversial? Definitely. I don't think we can simply write him off as unreliable, but I do agree that we should be very careful not to give his statements more weight than they deserve. I would definitely say that anything that is included about his views be carefully attributed as being his views, and not stated as absolute fact. It really depends on the article and how he is being used in that article. This one has to be taken on a case by case basis and argued out in the article talk page. I don't think we can make a blanket determination here. Blueboar 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have severe doubts on the context in which he is quotable. As an expert on Islam, for example, he has limited qualifications, and might be considered extreme. As a notable critic of Islam, I thought at first he could be considered quotable in relevant situations, except that he then serves as a primary source of criticism, and we should quote instead those who have analysed his work and those of others and can represent his views in reliable secondary sources. Relata refero 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you slightly misstate WP:PSTS here... while secondary sources are preferred in general terms, and certainly for any statement of fact, there is no rule in Wikipedia that says we can never cite a primary source. We simply need to do so with extreme care. In fact, when discussing a particular person's views it is better to cite the primary source directly rather than getting it second hand from a secondary source (who might take something the source says out of context). Once again, we have to ask whether we are talking about statements of fact (where we should cite reliable secondary sources) or statements of opinion (where we should attribute the opinion directly and cite the primary source). I really think this gets us far beyond WP:RS... we have to consider what our three core policies (WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) say. Please note that I am not arguing that the views of Mr. Spencer should be discussed in an article on Islam... I am simply pointing out that, under some cicumstances, it may be appropriate to do so... and in those circumstances, then we can and should cite him. I don't think we can simply exclude his views as "extremist", or declare his books unreliable by fiat under WP:RS. It depends on the context of what is said in the article. Blueboar 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source in any way on comparative religion in general. However, I strongly disagree with But I am more concerned with your belief that I have misinterpreted WP:PSTS.Where in PSTS does it indicate that for statements of opinion we should cite the primary source? It would be remarkable and inappropriate if it did so, because in our citing of PSes we are almost certain to fall into the trap of choosing those statements which are outrageous, or unrepresentative. In fact, PSTS says the direct opposite:"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source", and a PS should not buttress "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." In any case, choosing 'representative' statements of opinion from a primary source is the same as saying "here, I argue that this is this source's main thrust", which is clearly original research (for an example, see the history of Max Mueller). I do not claim that this is necessary everywhere - obviously no one would intend it to apply to plot synopses, for example - but for anything even reasonably contentious or challenged, we need secondary sources. Relata refero 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If we include a statement such as: According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah"<citation>, you have to cite exactly where he says this. In this case, it is best to cite the original work and not someone else quoting that work. Note that such wording does not contain any interpretation of the primary source. It simply quotes the source and attributes it to its author. Doing this is definitely not Original Research. Now, if the article contained any further comment on the quote... that would be OR. It would also be OR if we took the statement out of context. Thus the strong caution about using Primary Sources that is contained in WP:NOR... but it is a caution, not a ban. WP:NOR definitely does NOT say we can never use primary sources. There are times when doing so is appropriate, and citing a direct quote is one of them. Blueboar 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. In choosing a quote, we are choosing to represent the author's views. When the author himself is a primary source - "an individual very close to the subject of the article" - then we are, in effect, structuring an argument based on primary sources. In such occasions, we are required to use reliable secondary sources that discuss such arguments as far as possible; wikipedia users ourselves should not be given license to assume we can place all possible statements in the correct context. When Spencer is himself the subject of the article, or primary source, we can quote him directly only if that particular quote is considered relevant by secondary sources, which should also be cited. We should ideally say that "blah blah Islam is murderous blah blah according to notable critic Spencer", but source this to somebody who is an expert on Spencer. Can you seriously look at the second paragraph of this revision of the MM article, my earlier example, and tell me that this is not precisely the kind of OR that a lax approach you suggest to implementation of policy will allow?Relata refero 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the example you raise, the statements being made are not given with direct attribution or quotes. The language used constitutes an editor's interpretation of what MM said. I would say that was OR. But that isn't what I am talking about here. I am talking about directly quoting the source (keeping the statement being quoted in context) and attributing that quote to the source. Doing so is not OR in any way shape or form. But to settle this... I will ask for the opinion of those editing at WP:NOR. Blueboar 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think we should exclude his views as "extremist".--Aminz 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That source is an Ad hominem attack against him. Yahel Guhan 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think his views should be allowed to be presented only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles, and then, attributed to him with According to Robert Spencer... I do not believe he is an extremist in his views, but rather partisan. Yahel Guhan 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Should the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be used as a resource on Jews? And the source provided by Aminz is a reliable and scholarly one.Bless sins 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar and others, here is a reasonable compromise. Spencer's views should be quoted whenever another reliable source quotes it. Thus, if CNN considers some of his views noteworthy, then we quote those views. This ensures that only the most notable of Spencer's views are quoted. Otherwie we shouldn't be quoting extremist views. This is how we treat other extremist sources (such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion).Bless sins 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My view was that he should be given space only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles not because of him being reliable in anyway but because he is a notable critic of Islam: The "criticism of Islam" article is supposed to record notable criticisms of Islam and these criticisms may come from every corner. But in practice we encountered a problem: Spencer is only a contemporary critic of Islam. Islam has been around for hundreds of years. It is thus recentism and undue weight to use him too much. Furthermore most of what is attributed to Spencer does not really belong to him. We should not credit Spencer with the criticisms that he has not himself proposed but is repeating those before him.

In my view we should have a section on "contemporary criticisms" and there we include the new criticisms coming from Spencer and people like him. Right now, the criticism article rely too heavily on Spencer. --Aminz 05:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right.... although I would allow for quoting him directly. In any case, I certainly agree that his views should be limited to "criticism" sections and articles and should not be given undue weight. This is really more of a WP:NPOV issue than one of RS. Blueboar 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I say in my reply above, his views are notable in relevant articles, but WP editors should not be given license to decide which of his views are. Experts on Spencer or on the criticism of Islam more generally should. Relata refero 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolulte rubbish... While we can debate whether it is appropriate to discuss Mr. Spencer and his views in any given article, if you are going to discuss his views you should quote him directly, and with proper citation so that editors can check to see that the quote is in context. I seriously doubt that there are "Experts on Spencer" to quote. Blueboar 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses. Why should we trust editors to check the context? Show me the policy that says that. And as for 'experts on Spencer', I meant, of course, experts on the criticism or political controversies surrounding Islam who discuss Spencer, of which there are many. Relata refero 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

...and the names are? Beit Or 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But again, that is not what I am talking about. I am saying that, as a noted critic of Islam, it might be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say. Once that discision has been made we have to deside how to use him. Now, given his biased (and possibly even extremist) views, I would not use him to support a bald statement of fact (ie "Islam is blah blah blah"), but instead we should use him only for a statement of opinion (ie "According to noted Anti-islamist Robert Spencer, 'Islam is blah blah blah'"). And if you do that, you should cite the quote to where Spencer says this. No more, no less. And while there is no rule that says editors have to check that sources are in context... I know plenty of editors who do check them. I know I do... Since I edit on some fairly controvercial topics, I frequently check the sources in criticims sections, and make sure that POV editors are not taking things out of context. I agree that, all to frequenlty, such quotes are used in ways that constitute OR. But (and this is a big "but") quoting someone directly is not automatically a form of OR. It can be done properly... As long as you keep the quote in context, and do not go beyond what the source is saying, it isn't OR. Blueboar 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this passage may be of relevance from WP:SPINOUT: "However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." Spencer wouldn't be reliable for content on Islam, Muhammad etc. - not even for criticism - except in the instance of a reliable source (i.e. book review in a reliable publication) covering the claims made by Spencer (that is, after all, how someone becomes noted for criticism). in theory, this restriction should extend to Criticism of X articles, to prevent them from becoming slanted. primary source usage in this instance has major drawbacks, as can be seen in a few such articles, where excessive attention is given to the every musing, argument and deduction emanating from him. he has plenty of books published - and thus, there is virtually no limit to the amount of content that can be added citing Spencer's works. i disagree with using a partisan source (just because it happens to be partisan) in an article which analyses partisan views as documented by reliable sources - or at least, that's what an article should be doing. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaquallah, in this case, there already is a well established Criticism of Islam article. And, in that article, it would be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say (he is, after all, a noted modern Critic of Islam). The key is not to give his views undue weight, and not to present his views as being fact, but only as his opinion. Also, according to the folks over at WP:NOR, he counts as a secondary source on Islam. Thus, the cautions about primary sources do not really apply. I would still use him sparingly and with caution, but the point is that he can be used. Blueboar 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on definitions used in above discussions: Spencer is not a primary source on Islam. He's a secondary source. He may not be a good source, he may be a "one trick pony" who writes of nothing else, he may not be a source worthy of note, but he is a secondary source. Examples of primary source texts on Islam would be the Koran or Hadith texts. Neither primary sources nor secondary sources are totally unacceptable sources in every situation, so I think it would be more constructive to the dispute to focus on whether or not Spencer's views are worthy of note in a general encyclopedia. For example, where else in academia is he being cited? If the claims on the wp article about him are accurate, then his views appear notable but controversial. Where and when controversial sources can be used is the core issue here, and the "primary source" objection is just a misapplied technicality to excuse ruling out this particular source.Professor marginalia 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this is how i see the issue (corrections welcomed): Spencer is a secondary source on Islam (albeit unreliable). he is, however, a primary source for his own views on Islam (meaning, he's a primary source for criticism). when the actual article subject is critical views, such as Criticism of Islam, then the critical sources are themselves primary sources for those critical views. the scope of the article (in this scenario) isn't Islam, it's what critics say about Islam. Blueboar, yes - it would be completely appropriate to discuss the views of Spencer in an article like criticism of Islam - but only to the extent that it's been covered in sources secondary to such criticism. as a noted critic of Islam, it's expected that at least his most significant or important claims will have been covered to a reasonable degree in books, newspapers, journals and so on. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

just to clarify, this works both ways as well. in an article on `Muhammad in Islamic piety` (as a theoretical example), those texts in the form of pious or devotional passages, or other texts reflecting Islamic views, would constitute primary sources in relation to the topic, while studies on such texts and ideas would be secondary sources. ITAQALLAH 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Confirming my agreement with Itaqallah, Spencer appears not to be a reliable secondary source to base the article on, but in terms of WP:NPOV his views may be notable enough to be represented as a minority view, subject to undue weight requirements. He's a primary source for that view, and if notable enough then there should be reliable sources about his view from a mainstream perspective, which should be used as the basis for the section. However, like all primary sources, he can be cited and, if appropriate, quoted for his views providing care is taken not to introduce original research in interpreting or citing quotes out of context. .. dave souza, talk 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC) There is a logical disconnect here... Can someone explain difference between Spencer discussing Islam (where you say he is a secondary source) and Spencer criticising Islam (where you say he would be a primary source)? Are you saying that if he is saying something positive about Islam he is secondary, but that he suddenly becomes primary when saying something negative? Blueboar 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It depends not on what he is saying, but what the subject of the article is. If we are considering quoting him about Islam, whether or not he is reliable, whether or not he is critical, he is a secondary source. If we need material for an article on Criticism of Islam, whether or not he is reliable, he is a primary source, as he is one of the most popular living critics of Islam, and as such is a major constituent of the subject of the article. Relata refero 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

that's not the implication here. speaking in very general terms (this includes Spencer and others) - a partisan (pro- or anti-) source discussing a subject is a secondary source when the article topic is about that subject ("X"). when the article topic itself is the very partisanship of the partisans ("positive/negative view of X") - the original partisan source is no longer secondary, it is primary. that's just how i believe the sources are classified, and why i think a secondary source on Criticism of X is a source which discusses critics and the views they express, not sources which themselves synthesise critiques (IMO primary). ITAQALLAH 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are RS and NPOV issues, and some PSTS disputes. I suggest focusing on RS, NPOV, and NOR as a whole, without obsessing over PSTS. Jacob Haller 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The PSTS issue emerges from OR. The question is who can correctly interpret Spencer's comments and ensure they are taken in context. One solution is that we only quote reliable sources quoting Spencer, making the assumption that reliable sources have done their homework.

Another issue is what to quote. Certainly some of Spencer's opinions are notable and certainly some aren't, and we should quote only notable opinions. One very reasonable way determining which opinion are notable, is that the notable opinion will have appeared in reliable sources, while non-notable opinion will be ignored by reliable sources.

Finally, saying that Spencer is unreliable, but still may be quoted is setting a dangerous precedent. If unreliable, yet popular sources, such as Spencer can be used, then what else? Can I use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, quite popular, to talk about the Jews? (Obviously not, nor should I be able to use Spencer).Bless sins 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite appalling that you compare Spencer to Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there really is no comparision. Spencer criticizes Islam (and maybe Muhammad), but doesn't specificly call muslims some of the names Protocols does. Yahel Guhan 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are unreliable sources, as far as WP:RS is concerned. Spencer specifically calls Islam as "the World's most Intolerant Religion". His writings are considered "bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice".[6] Anyways, I got a sufficient response out of this. Whether the Protocols are a reliable source (I beleive they aren't) is the topic of another notice.Bless sins 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You think your "resolved" tag is a funny joke, because I don't think it is funny; it really is disruptive, considering the discussion isn't resolved. Reguarding your arguement, Spencer calls "islam" intolerant. That is not bogotry. He doesn't say "all muslims are intolerant" which would be bigotry. That quote is one view, which you seem to be repeating throughout this argue. For criticism sections and articles, though, he is a reliable source, as he is a notable critic. Yahel Guhan 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, when he calls Islam "the World's Most intolerant religion" he is calling all Muslim intolerant. This is because, by definition a Muslim is someone who follows the teachings of Islam. If someone doesn't believe in Islam, then they are not a Muslim.Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that you have a point that Spencer needs to be covered in Criticism of Islam article, please note that as demonstrated above, he is not a reliable source in such articles, he is a primary source.Relata refero 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Relata, I disagree... Spencer is a secondary source (allbeit a biased one), even for criticism's of Islam, and from the comments at the WP:NOR Talk page, others agree with my view of the matter. But... even if he were a primary source, you are incorrect in saying that a primary source is automatically unreliable. You seem to equate reliability with "true" or "unbiased"... that is not the case. Your comparison with the Protocols is off base... what makes the Protocols unreliable is not the fact that it contains all sorts of unsubstantiated, hateful and biased allegations against jews... It is unreliable for a host of other reasons, the main ones being: The original was not reliably published. There is no accountability or editorial oversight... We do not know the author, so it is unattributable, even as a statement of opinion.... In Spencer's case, we do know who wrote it... We know who published it... And when we question the accuracy of what he says, we can phrase things as being Spencer's opinion. Blueboar 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I miswrote that: he is a reliable source, but a primary source, and thus to be used with accompanying care. Blueboar, the points you've made on NOR, while interesting, have all been satisfactorily answered, I believe.

I didn't mention the Protocols ( I wouldnt) and the comparison was made precisely because it was claimed that Spencer is a sufficiently extremist source: and, thus, we should avoid using it (though not by me, and I disagree with that.). Relata refero 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that Spencer may be covered on Islam related articles, he should be covered by a reliable secondary source. Why? I'm outlining the problems below.Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense to quote him from second hands when we can quote him directly. Beit Or 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Why directly quoting Spencer is inappropriate:

1. Spencer holds some views which are notable, and some views which are non-notable. How do we decide which views are notable? We see if those views have been covered by a reliable secondary source.
2. Quoting Spencer from a reliable source ensures that a reasonable limit is put on how much space he is given.
3. I argue that Spencer is an extremist source per WP:RS#Extremist_sources, because he is "anti-religious". Am I right? If yes, he "should be used only as source about [him]self and [his] activities in articles about [him]self, and even then with caution." Using a reliable secondary source, however, solves this problem.
4. Finally, if we quote Spencer directly, we are setting a dangerous precedent: namely that popular extremists who are not at all experts in the field may be used as sources. Do we really want wikipedia filled with hate-speech that characterizes the faith of 1.2 billion as "most intolerant", that says that the Quran teaches "cutting people's heads off"[7], that "Islam has always rejected it [reason]",[8] and last but not least "Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government." [9]?Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave the Protocols as an example. If I dig down deep enough I could find extremist publications that demonize not just Muslims, but Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, non-whites, and all of the publications would be notable. Is this the type of encyclopedia you want?Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the points above:

1. "Spencer holds some views which are notable, and some views which are non-notable." You postulate this distinction, but provide no evidence that it is in any way meaningful.
2. No, these are good writing, a sense of measure, and adherence to WP:NPOV that put a limit on how much space is given to any individual author.
3. "Anti-religious" is vague. Betrand Russell is fiercely anti-religious, but is he not quotable as a critic of religion in general and Christianity in particular? I don't think so.
4. This is based on the assumption that Spencer is an extremist. You have asserted his extremism, but provided no proofs.

Regarding your last paragraph on Jews, Christians etc., please mind WP:POINT. Beit Or 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether he is an 'extremist' is irrelevant to the point that in articles that focus on the subjects to which Spencer is 'close', as in articles about himself, his institute, and critics/criticism of Islam we should, wherever possible, use secondary sources rather than relying on the dubious abilities of wikipedians to extract the most notable and representative strands of his thought.

Extremism is relevant to how much he can be quoted elsewhere, of course. (So is WP:UNDUE).Relata refero 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Russell example above is interesting in that it might help clarify the approach; in a Criticism of Christianity article, quoting large parts of Why I am not a Christian would clearly be OR; we would need to find a secondary source that would summarise Russell's arguments, delineate their context and importance. In a Criticism of Christianity article clearly Why I am Not a Christian is a source text. Relata refero 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Relata... I have to respond to one of your points above... you say "I argue that Spencer is an extremist source per WP:RS#Extremist_sources, because he is "anti-religious". Am I right?"... Short answer: No you are not right. Long answer: Being anti-religious does not make you automatically extremist. In Spencer's case, he is certainly an ardent critic of Islam, but he falls way short of being extremist. For example, he does not call for the illimination of Islam, or for the eradication of Muslems the way true extremists will. Compare his comments and actions with recognized extremist groups like Hamas, the Neo Nazis, Arian Nation, the KKK etc. and you see a vast difference. No, Spencer is definitely biased, bigoted and POV... but he is not extremist. The point of WP:RS#Extremist_sources is to say that religious or anti-religious extremists have limited reliability... not to say that anyone who has a religious or anti-religious view is by definition extremist. Blueboar 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no opinion on whether Spencer himself is extremist, so your points are irrelevant if addressed to me; I suggest those who do think Spencer is extremist should respond. Incidentally, if that is the interpretation of WP:RS#Extremist, that section needs to be rewritten. And you appear to confuse extremism with militancy. Extremism can be non-militant in nature. Relata refero 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument, Relata. "...quoting large parts of Why I am not a Christian would clearly be OR." Why? Is he an extremist? Is quoting small parts not OR then? I am lost. Beit Or 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, extremism has nothing to do with OR. Quoting large parts of a primary source is the very definition of OR. Small parts of a primary source that have been indicated by secondary sources as being central, might perhaps be quoted. Relata refero 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How then do you propose writing articles on current events, for instance, where we have primary sources (news reports) only? Beit Or 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper reports are not primary sources for events they cover, but are primary sources for articles about the media. Relata refero 08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar: Yes bieng anti-religious doesn't make you extremist. But holding extreme anti-religious views does. One doesn't need to explicitly call upon the eradication of one religion to be considered an "extremist". Spreading hatred for a particular religion, without calling upon its destruction, is also extreme. Beit Or asked me to find some evidence for Spencer's extremism.

"The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism ... bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice." Source:[10] Carl W. Ernst William Kenan Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina)Bless sins 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One man's remark on his personal website is not sufficient to establish Spencer's extremism. And where and how does Spencer spread hatred for a particular religion? Beit Or 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also point out that WP:RS#Extremist_sources starts off by saying that it is talking about: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist..." So, I think real question here should be: is Spencer widely acknowledged as an extremist. In other words, before you can write him off as an extremist, you have to show that a whole bunch of reliable sources have called him an extremist. Biased, partisan, POV... all those I will give you. Blueboar 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jihadwatch

The original poster indicated that Jihadwatch was recognized as a hate site by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and The Guardian. I don't think we can trust either of those sources on anything related to US Foreign Policy. To me, Jihadwatch has been more of a website that attacks radical Islamic terrorism, rather than Islam itself. ----DanTD (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, your opinion of the Guardian is drastically at variance with established consensus and WP:RS. It has an established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Some, mostly American, commentators see it as a haven for ultra-leftism and fabrication, but if that were the case, the UK's notoriously strict libel laws would have knocked it out of business years ago. Excluding the Guardian for facts because of its liberal/social democratic editorial line would be like excluding Canada's National Post because of its conservative/neo-conservative editorial line. <eleland/talkedits> 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New section; no, he's not an extremist, yes, he is a WP:RS

I argue that Spencer is a reliable source, not an extremist, and not 'anti-religion' (as someone stated above). He is anti-Jihad, and there's nothing extreme about being that, but rather, very rational. Look, this entire opposition to citing Robert Spencer on Wikipedia, comes entirely from biased Muslims who are opposed to Robert Spencer, not because he is wrong about Islam, but because he is critical of Islam. He is not conspiring against Islam. He is simply telling the truth about Islam, from Islam's own sources, whether it be from the actual Qu'ran or by quoting truthful Muslims like Osama Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary. I am seriously beginning to doubt if any of you have read his stuff or seen him in action. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Muslim, but a Christian, and I have read material by Spencer and find it biased and unreliable. In my view Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot and a conspiracy theorist, and I am not alone

• "Regnery, a conservative publisher, has seen fit to publish another Robert Spencer book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)1. Perhaps some readers will consider this spiteful and rather vile book a camp classic, a hoot. But we Muslims will not. These assaults hurt, not because they hit home, but because they are so wildly off the mark. Spencer's reckless, scattershot approach harries the Muslim American community and leaves very little ground for moderates and humanists..." Modern-Day Crusader by Adem Carroll, The Public Eye Magazine - Summer 2006.

You don't have to be Muslim to abhor Islamophobia.--Cberlet 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From Public Eye's "about us" page: "Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights." Nice unbiased source there, c.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So they are biased against "movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights?" Yeah that's a horrible bias. We should add here that the constitution of the United States of America is likewise biased. In fact I think this may be one of the worst systemic biases around in that wretched place we call "the free world." Personally I blame the Enlightenment.PelleSmith 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Political Research Associates -- SEWilco 15:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you find “Islamophobia” ABHORRING?!?! Anyone in his right mind should be anti-Islam as much as possible. There is nothing good about Islam and if you abhor criticism of Islam, that makes you in alliance with extremists. To criticise Islam, is common sense and a rational thing to do. There is nothing extreme about it. To answer your fallacious arguments: I have read material by Spencer and find it biased and unreliable. — On what grounds? What is unreliable about his books as far as his truthful criticism of Islam goes? How has he misrepresented his sources? Never mind his 'conservative Regnery publisher' because I don't care about which publisher he's released under, what I care about is how Robert Spencer's expertise on Islam meets a WP:RS. Also, he is a notable best seller, which qualifies him as a notable critic of Islam. Being that he is a notable best seller, would he have been a 'right wing extremist' as his opponents on the left are trying to portray him as, he would have been a lot more condemned than he is today. So tell me: how is Robert Spencer misrepresenting genuine Muslims like the righteous Muslims found in Dispatches? In my view Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot and a conspiracy theorist, and I am not alone — Your view of Islam does not count since you don't know anything about Islam anyway, and to claim that you are not alone, is ad populum. Calling Spencer an anti-Muslim is extremely disingenuous. He is simply anti-Jihad, which means, in reality, that he is anti-Islam (as a political and religious ideology). He is not anti every Arab, Indonesian, or whatever. He is simply anti-Islam (and that's good thing). Calling him anti-Muslim is just a false tactic used in order to portray him as some sort of racist (as if Islam had anything to do with race or any kind of racial aspect for that matter). What matters here is Spencer's reliability as a notable critic of Islam, not your left-wing agenda; for the record, User:Cberlet has a long history of political controversy with Robert Spencer's boss, David Horowitz, as can be read more about in this article. This isn't a personal attack on Chip Berlet, but I'm just warning about the political POV here from his part, and that admins must have this in mind that there is a serious NPOV issue going on here. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are totally right. There is a serious NPOV problem here. Lets also warn the admins about the person who posted this: "Anyone in his right mind should be anti-Islam as much as possible. There is nothing good about Islam and if you abhor criticism of Islam, that makes you in alliance with extremists. To criticise Islam, is common sense and a rational thing to do." He/she should probably be topic banned ... don't you think?PelleSmith (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

whatever the solution... this verbose, incendiary use of Wikipedia as a soapbox must stop. ITAQALLAH 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic banned? Why? I personally don't edit Islam related articles that much to begin with, and when I do, I keep my personal POV out of the articles. It's not like I go berserk and add text that says Islam is a tool for terrorism (which is what Islam essentially is; after all, Muhammed himself stated that he had been made victorious with terror[11]). All I demand is that Islam-related articles be more NPOV and allow writers critical of Islam to be reflected in the articles (which is sort of an impossibility right now due to the influence of Muslim Wikipedians tightly controlling the articles; violating WP:OWN). I have been critical of Islam on talk pages before. But what I say on the talk pages is my personal point of view. The topics/articles is a different matter, where I try to be more professional. And for the record, this discussion is not about me, it's about Spencer's reliability as a WP:RS. If you're going to topic ban me for being critical of a terrorist religion, then you better make sure you follow through with your logic and topic ban all the atheists working on the Christianity article. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

From Public Eye's "about us" page: "Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights." — How about, we protect movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights? Seriously, that's Islam in a nutshell, and it seems that the PRA is protecting Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, I didn't realize that Chip had referred back to the group he's part of in his initial BLP violation on Spencer. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems more like a political catfight between two different political organisations, rather than anything remotely concerning Spencer's reliability as a critique of Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Al insan al kamil

Al-Insān al-Kāmil#External links is a very good example of how Robert Spencer is being censored on Wikipedia by Muslim Wikipedians trying to push their POV. See the article's history regarding the link to Robert Spencer's entry on al insan al kamil Examples: [12][13] — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is not a scholar on Islam. he isn't in a position to discuss concepts in Islamic or Sufi theology. if you have any academic, non-partisan links or references you'd like to use, please do so. ITAQALLAH 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. See his bio in his article. His course of study in university included Islam as a focus. He's not a Muslim theologian, but his degree is related to theology. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

as far as i know, his MA is in Early Christianity. you don't need to be a Muslim to be a reliable source on Islam. the general required standard on Wikipedia is a qualification in Islamic studies or in Near East/Oriental studies (as a verifiable demonstration of competence and expertise in the field, the same way a qualified biologist is a reliable source on biology-related topics). most major universities offer them. examples of some prominent scholars include G. R. Hawting, Annemarie Schimmel, Carl Ernst, Montgomery Watt, John Esposito, and the list continues. Spencer isn't in the same league as these individuals - scholars in general don't give his publications the time of day. ITAQALLAH 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

His degree is Religious Studies, same as the department Esposito chairs. His thesis was on monophysitism and the Church of England, but a religious studies degree doesn't necessarily focus on any one religion, especially in the case of the religions of the Book. They're all very linked and, based on my own experiences, you study them together. (Especially if he focused on early christianity, that's the heart of judaism and islam, the ME). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

as yourself, i respectfully disagree. i don't believe a general qualification in Religious Studies (and the specific extent of his education in Islam is unknown) necessarily reflects competence in Islamic history, theology, treatises, and associated topics. a contraindication is in the comments of Carl Ernst (part of the same dept. from which Spencer qualified) who dismisses Spencer's credentials and publications.[14] ITAQALLAH 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter if his major was Monophysitism and not Islam? The opposition to Robert Spencer is purely because of his critical books on Islam, not his qualifications to speak on Islamic issues (although, that is being used as a case in point against him). His arguments about Islam are well founded and in perfect agreement with Muslims like Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary. He is not misinterpreting Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i suppose it's telling that those two aren't scholars either. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say they know Islam better than most scholars. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Two professionals in a field, who have strongly held viewpoints will disagree. This doesn't discredit either of them. They are both carrying degrees in the study of religion, of theology and are published authors in the field. Your, my, hell Allah's opinion doesn't matter. They are published authors writing on their field of expertise. Spencer is a notable author writing for a publishing house. This meets our credentials. Because others, and perhaps you, disagree with his statements does not make them any less reliable and it violates WP:NOR to discredit them in the manner you are attempting to. If you can find rebuttals to his exact statements, those could be used via talk on the articles his words are being used in to discuss the content of his work. He meets RS as it is written. His individual statements... may be up for discussion and review but calmly and in a calculated, reasoned manner. With all due respect, Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

it's one thing when there is scholarly difference amongst peers (scholars know how to disagree without making it personal), it's another thing when one questions the other's very education on the topic ("... he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity", says Ernst - i am inclined to believe him, he is an Islamic studies professor at the university from which Spencer graduated). i don't oppose scholars just because i disagree with their views - as one who frequents academic journals, i customarily come across views i am at odds with, whether that is Caetani's, Friedmann's, Crone's, or anyone else's . however, if a writer has a noticable lack in pedigree, does not have his work peer-reviewed by scholars nor published by academic press, then the unreliability is self-evident - irrespective of whether he is Ahmed Deedat or Robert Spencer. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How many times should we discuss Spencer? He is only notable as a critic of Islam but he does not have any reputation as an scholar. --Aminz (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer's reputation

According to this reliable sources are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

What reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" does Spencer have?

Please don't answer this by arguing Spencer has a degree, because this would imply that anyone with a degree is a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See Robert Spencer#Spencer's responses to critics. He seems to be claiming that his critics have failed to show him to be inaccurate. If he were obscure and his work not examined that would be a weak argument. He seems to have provided plenty of material for critics. Google Scholar isn't much help (notice the other Spencers with work before 1980 aren't him). -- SEWilco (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

SEWilco, his work doesn't appear to have received peer-review, nor any sort of review in academic publications. as with most polemic, scholars just don't give it the time of day. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" does Spencer have? — He has never been proven wrong by Muslims. Only personal attacks on his reliability has been made. But never ever have they proven him wrong on Islam. In fact, most Islamist pretty much agree with him on what he's saying about Islam. That said, there's nothing wrong with his reliability as far as Islam is concerned. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

reliability (and reputation) is positively established, not assumed until disproven. this non sequitur about not being "proven wrong" is also incredibly subjective. some may indeed argue that they have proved him wrong on various issues (Khaleel Mohammed, or even [15][16]) although - again - it has nothing to do with the criteria specified in WP:RS. Islamists might agree with some of what he says (just as they might with Zakir Naik), certainly not most or all - but that means nothing here. this issue has been discussed ad nauseum... perhaps it's time to give the discussion a rest until some new evidence of reliability surfaces. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer meets the criteria at WP:V where it states, and I quote: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." He is published by Regnery Publishing and Prometheus Publishing. Do you dispute that these publishing houses exist and are, albeit sometimes controversial, respected? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

a publishing house is not necessarily reliable by default. respected? are they known for peer-reviewed, high quality publications on Islamic studies (or is this where they are, as you say, controversial[17])? (not a rhetorical question) it goes without saying that a publishing house should have a record of competence or pedigree in the topics it publishes on (Regnery's focus appears to be conservative politics and 'Politically Incorrect Guides™') and that is the spirit of the section you quote when read as a whole, regardless of the semantics of 'respected'. ITAQALLAH 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Itaqallah, do you know what a semicolon is? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

i did indeed pick up on it, but it does not exempt publishing houses from needing to possess some sort of authority in a particular field to be considered a reliable source there. peer-review is a standard facet of most reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me let you in on a very well kept secret. Journals are peer-reviewed. Non-fiction books for the most part are not. They have editors, not a peer-review process. This does not make them not reliable, actually it fulfills the same sort of fact checking required by RS... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

let's assume that peer review is not a feature of standard published texts in Islamic studies - do you concede that a publisher should be known for good quality academic material/books in the field it publishes (non-academic material is also usable where it is mainstream, see WP:SOURCES and WP:REDFLAG) for it to be considered a reliable source on that topic? ITAQALLAH 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that Regnancy has published at least 1 New York Times best selling book? It is a mainstream publishing house. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Kyaa, your first sentence i agree with. lots of books, including some written by Spencer, are known to be best sellers. that simply means that the book has been widely sold - something true for many controversial books which inevitably entice peoples' interest. not that it makes the books - or its publishers - reliable. as for 'mainstream' - if you mean the publishing house is well-known, then yes. if you mean that it reflects mainstream literature (in this case, on Islamic studies) - then i'd have to disagree. ITAQALLAH 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, he has been published and has a few bestsellers as well. If he totally made shit up about Islam, some academic scholar on religion would have proven him wrong on what he has written in his books. So far, no one has, because they can't since they know what he's writing is the truth about Islam. All they've done so far is to attack his publisher for being, and get this, "Conservative" (wow, how evil). Let's face it, he passes as a WP:RS. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

scholars don't waste their time on every crankish publication released - to claim it's because they secretly know the crankery is true is extremely naïve and reflects a poor understanding of the issue at hand. in any case, he has been criticised precisely for his fundamental lack of scholarship and expertise - by real scholars - and his publishers have been criticised for pursuing a partisan agenda (not surprised after looking at this). it's mind-boggling how a controversial writer and publisher, writing specifically for a Christian Republican target audience (do the staunchly anti-darwinist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal stances give it away?), can be hailed as a reliable resource for information on Islam. ITAQALLAH 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep repasting that Carl Ernst link as if it had any validity at all. You also make it seem like there's some universal scholarly consensus that Spencer is a fraud, by posting that link when you write 'by real scholars'. There has never been any academic debate involving "real" scholars and Robert Spencer where they have proven him wrong. All you have is one shitty scholar who was probably paid to trash Spencer's publisher (as if his publisher had any relevance beside publishing the books). Again, that link is not worthy of paying attention to, simply because it does not focus on his content. Do you understand what I am saying? Either prove Spencer wrong (not his publisher, but Spencer's statements in his book), or just accept that he is right about Islam. do the staunchly anti-darwinist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal stances give it away? — What kind of a question is that? What does anti-darwinism have to do with Spencer's truthful and accurate criticism of Islam? And what's wrong with anti-feminism and anti-liberalism? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Elias, your conditions about whether or not Spencer has been proved wrong have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy - please stop these verbose appeals to ignorance. as per what Wikipedia policy and guidelines actually say, sources are judged by their authors' qualifications, reputation for scholarly works (Spencer fails on both counts, which is what what the link shows), the presence of a peer-review system, the nature of the claim made by the source. few of your arguments have tackled these issues. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the criticism of the New York Times, Fox News or any other media outlet make them unreliable sources? No. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Times isn't a WP:RS in itself to begin with. And Faux News is obviously biased (although they can make a good point every now and then). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

comparing journalism with academic disciplines doesn't work, IMO. all news media outlets offer a perspective, but at least they are established in their journalism. Regnery's forte is clearly conservative politics - and its publications on that topic might very well be reliable sources (i've not maintained that Regnery is an unreliable publisher as a whole, only that it's evidently not a reliable one in the field of Islamic studies).

however, when it publishes in areas of academic discipline - biology, anthropology, orientalism, and so on - then partisan goals (pro-Islam or anti-Islam, for example) cannot precede scholarly endeavour. to be honest, you've a problem if you find a source or publisher declaring it will challenge mainstream understanding of an academic discipline (that's the impression i get from many of the books in the P.I.G series). when these kinds of publications are rightly criticised as polemic tracts by qualified experts, then that raises a red flag. at the end of the day, if you are going to invest in exploring a scholarly topic, you at least publish authors who have the necessary tools. ITAQALLAH 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a serious confusion. Please see Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence. The burden is upon those who add or restore the material. This would be anyone supporting the inclusion of Robert Spencer. Thus users like EliasAlucard (assuming he/she supports the inclusion of Spencer) must provide (not ask for) evidence that Spencer has a reputation for accuracy.Bless sins (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Antony Beevor

Hello, I come here with a question. The British historian Antony Beevor, is cited several times in the "Soviet war crimes" article, would he be considered a reliable source? He has been criticized over the years for his bias approach towards the Red Army, as he depicts them as "Asiatic hordes". Anyways, I would just like some clarification. Thanks, Bogdan ^що? 04:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he would be. He has a pretty good reputation as an historian, and if his published works are being cited, that would certainly qualify as a reliable source as far as we are concerned. -- ChrisO 01:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

MS (disambiguation)

talk:MS (disambiguation) will explain that we are having trouble with WP:OR and WP:V. Some of the articles referenced or listed in the disambiguation page lack proper referencing to show a clear link with the term MS. I believe WP:OR applies to disambiguation pages just as much as regular articles, specially when the the satelite articles are not properly referenced. Others believe we should be more lenient of WP:V. Essentially do we delete the "unsourced information"? In short, the disambiguation list is sourced from the main articles, nevertheless those same articles have unreliable, totally missing, unsourced, etc.. information. I am moving with my right to remove the articles from the disambigation per WP:OR. Some think we should keep it until we remove the information from the main articles. Note: I have also added, citation required, to the ones that require the information. --CyclePat 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"my right to remove the articles"? Where is that right asserted? -- JHunterJ 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We wikipedian have an obligation to protect copyrighted information and to provide reliable sources. As per WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I direct your attention towards "it may be removed" which implies an obligation or "a right", specially if used in conjuction with WP:BOLD, to remove such violations of our clear policies. Would you please now answer the question. Do you or do you not believe that unsourced information should be included? --CyclePat 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see how many dab pages require sources? This seems an uncommonly high standard to me, for example the removed MS - Microsoft because in someone's view the linkage is no properly sourced on the microsoft page. Arthur 22:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No dab pages require sources, per WP:MOSDAB's terse "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." There was a discussion about making the note less terse here. -- JHunterJ 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That does not deal with issue at hand. Do you or do you not believe that unsourced information should be included? I would like to point out that WP:MOSDAB recommends that the description be kept to a minimum. At issue is the "fact". There are no references within some of the articles on whether MS is or is not an abreviation. And those articles that do have a reference are not properly sourced. --CyclePat 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I already posted at Talk:MS (disambiguation): All material in our articles should be sourced. Because dab pages are not articles, sources are neither necessary nor even appropriate. To comment specifically on the inclusion of Microsoft, anybody who was interested in seeing that material was properly sourced could find a plethora of references on the 'Net that refer to Microsoft as "MS." I would do so right now myself if I didn't have to get ready for work. --Tkynerd 12:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Home from work, and: [18] [19] [20]. --Tkynerd 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a lengthy comment to Talk:MS (disambiguation) opposing CyclePat's removal of the disputed links. SlackerMom 05:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

EgyptAir

I have given a firm warning to user:Dethme0w on removing a "citation required" and violating WP:OR. The EgyptAir page states its relationship to the the term "MS", however it does not provide sufficient, verifiable information. This information is hence in violation of WP:V and unsourced information. Again, the main article is not properly sourced and there appears to be some sort of dispute in this regard. I have place my warning on the related pages. I will delete this information and then leave it for someone else to take care of... obviously we can't monitor every wikipedian that has an axe to grind and some "unreliable information to provide" or can we? --CyclePat 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just been threathen with a block from user User talk:Dethme0w in regards to EgyptAir and feel I can no longer debate this issue. I originally posted this at the WP:ANI board and will post the warning on the main article to show what has happened. I feel as though I can no longer safely debate this one item (EgyptAir = MS).

Campus watch

On the Campus Watch article, under the 'support' section, it references someone who supports Campus Watch and the citation comes directly from campus-watch.org/endorsements.php. Is using Campus watch's web site a violation of WP:V/WP:RS? Also, if Campus watch is considered a reliable source, then is the quote notable enough to include? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't use an organization's own website, to post a quote about that website. The most we should use the organization's website for, is minor historical data such as date of founding, name of director, date of an upcoming event, or something like that. It absolutely should not be used to prove the existence of testimonials. --Elonka 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A question in a similar vein: Bat Ye'or's biography is currently balancing negative quotes about the quality of her research (which is literally all you can find from academic historians of the issues she writes on) with positive quotes from back-of-the-dust-jacket "blurbs". Interestingly, one of our citations on that article is a book review which grumbles about how a previous review was taken out of context (In the vein of "Good on her for broaching this topic, too bad she's a hack", and you can guess where they terminated the quotation). Am I on solid ground to delete or tag these reviews in the absence of any source other than the dust jacket and non-reliable web sites copying it? <eleland/talkedits> 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Or even better: you could elaborate on the quotes, putting them in context. Ga-david.b 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The debate over the use of quotes from Daniel Pipes at Campus Watch continues to rage unabated. It seems to me that under WP:SPS these quotes are allowed, particularly in rebuttal to criticism. But whichever way the chips fall, it would be helpful if someone from this board could intervene, because the situation has devolved into senseless revert war. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jenkem

I'm sorry to crosspost (this is also on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard), but I just gotta drop this bomb on the reliable sources crew. The article on jenkem needs urgent attention with respect to reliable sources. Wikipedia stands a strong chance of being dumped on by the traditional media again, some of whom seem to be using this article as a reliable source. Please excuse the puns - I'd like to get more eyes looking at this issue, since we are being cited as a source for this (probable) hoax. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal feelings (and I am not a RS expert) is that a limited article with the BBC, Children of Aids book, Life in Zambia, and such are good enough. Everything south of (and including) the First Media Reports should be consolidated and referenced using the available media stories online. As an aside, I never heard of this topic before coming across it on the Fringe board. And now I know more about it than I have ever cared to. spryde | talk 19:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead of this article should be fixed, because it treats this as a real phenomenon, "Jenkem is an inhaled gas.." It would be better to speak in terms of reports, since the evidence is so shaky. It's possible to have a real article about the rumor, without stating that the thing exists. EdJohnston 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Spartacus Schoolnet

I was wondering what people think of Spartacus Schoolnet as a source. I certainly wouldn't use it in areas where there is great controversy - it's certainly not a "gold standard" source - but I've found their work generally quite solid in areas where I'm expert.

I noticed that we didn't have an article on confessed and convicted Soviet spy Allan Nunn May. The Spartacus article on May seems accurate on everything I know about, evenhanded and to-the-point. But I seem to remember them being questioned as a source in the past, I believe because of presumed leftist leanings. Any comments? And if the comments are negative on this source, any suggestions what would be a more acceptable source on May? - Jmabel | Talk 19:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, since it is the web version of Spartacus Educational meant to provide materials for teachers, and since it is praised by many reliable sources as a model website, it falls almost certainly inside WP:RS; I, at least, wouldn't have difficulties at using it.--Aldux 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be objecting, I'll go ahead and do this (just a stub for now, but at least it will be a cited stub). - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

IP address lookups

Ok, this is admittedly a strange one. On the SpySheriff article an editor would like to post the following info:

SpySheriff is on a US server made in May 28th, 2005. SpySheriff IP address has been found to be 64.28.183.99 it's been found out that SpySheriff & Spy-Sheriff.com is on that IP address This is in United States, California, Newhall. ISP Cernel INC.

His reasoning based on his talk page is:

If you've seen the history you'll see me giving a link showing the source, that is just one link, other sites as well say that SpySherrif and Spy-sheriff are located on those servers, this is the link I used, I can give more links if needed, as I do belive but just do a google search on the ip then you'll see, I did more research then that.

LINK: http://www.domaintools.com/reverse-ip/?hostname=64.28.183.99

And further he says:

Links: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/64.28.183.99/postid?p=512494 McAfee Has not given any rating at all, but the comments say something else, I have not in any way contact with the reviewers.

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.spysheriff.com Now, netcraft is a service you should trust at that, they know what they're doing.

http://www.domaintools.com/reverse-ip/?hostname=64.28.183.99 Saying that SpySheriff and spy-sheriff are on the server.

Check this ip 64.28.183.99 on http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp http://www.ip-adress.com/ and http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm

http://www.ipaddresslocation.org/ip-address-location.php?ip=64.28.183.99

Now those are just "Ip locating" software, and 1 link showing to McAfee siteadvisor ratings and Netcraft. So what more do you want?

My question is, are such lookups considered a reliable source? Are they considered original research? Are they even appropriate - can/should wikipedia articles be listed IP ranges for software creators? Arthur 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's original research. It's on par with Arthurrh being an article about you, and my listing your entry from the local phone book as a reliable source. • Lawrence Cohen 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it's original research to point out the location of an IP address provided the lookup is done using reliable sources. However, I couldn't quite see where the IP address itself was obtained from, so that could be OR. Whether the article itself (SpySheriff) meets WP:N & WP:ORG is another matter that may result in an AfD. → AA ^(talk) — 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is not Wikipedia:Original research to cite DNS and WHOIS databases for information as to which IP addresses are associated with a website and which addresses are associated with the IP address and name. However, I am finding it difficult to think of any circumstances where this information would actually be relevant to a Wikipedia article. Anomie 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well for the matter, this could be relevant for example that SpySheriff hosts more sites and that we know the location for example. --Kanonkas 17:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 2nd, isn't netcraft a reliable source?

MEMRI

Is MEMRI http://www.memri.org/ a reliable source. I think it is based on the content it has. Yahel Guhan 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Whittaker of the Guardian (who has a Masters' in Arabic language) has exposed at least two cases where MEMRI promulgated translations which were misleading at best, and probably knowingly fraudulent. MEMRI has also been extensively criticized for its extreme one-sidedness in the guise of "Media Research". Finally, all of MEMRI's founders are former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both.

That being said, MEMRI might sometimes be a reliable source for opinion and commentary, but I'm very leery about using such a group for factual information in the absence of independent confirmation. <eleland/talkedits> 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It can be used if properly attributed, and when describing opinions and not facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See here for a related discussion. Relata refero 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a related question which is a little trickier, and pertains to the use of sources like MEMRI and CAMERA for opinion purposes.

Basically, these organizations can be counted on, every time, 100%, to praise Israel and condemn perceived enemies of Israel. Pretty much anything that happens in and around Israel, they'll express an opinion on it, and it's always the same opinion. They are well-funded and active, but it's very difficult to know how significant their views actually are. Nonetheless, such groups tend to be used heavily in Middle East articles as sources of criticism and commentary.

Now, there are some occasions when these groups do get play in actual media outlets. There was a fraudulent Sabeel-bashing editorial in the Boston Globe recently by a CAMERA member, and MEMRI scored a media home run with their mis-translation of Tomorrow's Pioneers material. Obviously, those controversies deserve mention. But a lot of the supposed controversies MEMRI, CAMERA et al document don't seem to exist outside of a narrow partisan "echo chamber" environment. Pallywood is an excellent example - Israel wonks are obsessed with it, but the media don't take it seriously and probably haven't even heard of it.

So, what is the guideline for judging when an opinion is important enough to be mentioned? Personally, I would favor keeping to reliable factual sources and only using partisan sources when it's been established, factually, that a genuine controversy exists. Is that the usual practice? <eleland/talkedits> 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For evaluating whether or not they are echo chambers and to what degree they should be quoted outside their narrow concerns, I would suggest WP:FT/N. Relata refero 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I use the FTN often and greatly appreciate it, but I am leery of bringing such a fine, effective institution into the Israelistinian tarpit. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just thought that Moreschi and co. might be able to evaluate the notability of opinions quite dispassionately. Relata refero 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

More specifically the question (at least the question I have) is whether MEMRI is a reliable source on the Qur'an, its exegesis, the hadith/sunnah or classic Islamic theology. If yes, what makes it a reliable source in any those fields? I think the best way to go about this is to look at each individual author, and evaluate him/her for his/her credentials.Bless sins (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is Is MEMRI a reliable source for views on the qur'an, exegesis, the hadith/sunnah or classic Islamic theology. Any answer your second point. Either it is or it isn't. Yahel Guhan 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The MEMRI seems to talk of Islam as if it is an expert. The question is, should we consider it as one? Also, "Either it is or it isn't" never works, since there are exceptions.Bless sins (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews

Is Wikinews, our sister project, a reliable source? I was under the impression that it does have editorial oversight, and also issues journalist credentials. • Lawrence Cohen 18:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I do not believe that there is any editorial oversight, nor do I believe that Wikinews satisfies WP:V, which is the core policy that this guideline is based upon. I should also clarify that Lawrence Cohen is asking this question in the context of reliability to source a BLP article, specifically an interview of a third party, who comments about a subject. In this case, not reliable at all. See WP:BLPN#Paul Wolfowitz. - Crockspot 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that it is not reliable. If Wikipedia itself is not considered reliable (even with all our policies and guidelines in place to ensure that only reliable info is included), how can Wikinews (which does not have nearly the same level of reliability requirements) be considered reliable? Blueboar 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We DO have editorial oversight. All edits are monitored (small enough wiki), and anything which does not meet our requirements is unpublished within minutes. Also, after a period of a week (usually, although it is slightly backlogged atm), pages are fully-protected indef, as our form of archiving. Therefore any articles older than that period have editorial review by the admins, and cant be vandalised or edited by anybody. We do have a level of reliability requirements, and in the case of OR (original reporting), there has to be notes or evidence supporting the text. We do issue journalist credentials for the purpose of original reporting. In this particular case, David is accredited. We have an open accreditation/deaccreditation system, visible at n:WN:AR. Archiving can be seen at n:WN:ARCHIVE. Lastly, you can see information on our OR at n:WN:OR, and n:WN:CS. 202.36.224.9 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Monitored by whom? Is there a list of managing editors somewhere on the site? ATren 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In spite of the various levels of editorial checks undertaken, the openness of Wikinews means that it does not (in my view) reach verifiability standards nor is it truly reliable. Just as Wikipedia is not by our own standards a reliable source, so isn't Wikinews. It is a great project and I don't want to knock it, but let us not kid ourselves that it is as reliable as the great newspapers of record. Sam Blacketer 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends upon the information being cited. We have no reason to assume that if a person at Wikinews (myself) is conducting a recorded interview and transcribing it and holding it out publicly as a notable person's words (such as Senator Sam Brownback or ACLU President Nadine Strossen) that they are lying and the interview is a farce. Transcriptions of a notable person's words on today's topics are still their words, and to knock a sister project as "unreliable" (how? In the transcription) and to deny the information and the words of these people only would serve to hurt Wikipedia. I also note that these interviews, after several weeks, are archived so that they can no longer be edited. --David Shankbone 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with David here- interviews at least should be taken to be reliable sources especially after they are in protected form. JoshuaZ 18:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the userid David Shankbone. David Shankbone is not a person it is a userid. Userids on wikis are unreliable; they deliberately vandalize articles every second of every day. IP addresses are even worse. --Gerry Ashton 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? --David Shankbone 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe his point is that Wikipedia has no way of knowing whether the claimed interviews are actually occuring or whether people are making them up. We don't have a definite link between user names and people in real life for example. (This may be more of a Wikinews relevant issue, but we (speaking now as a Wikinewsie) could probably deal with this but making a central repository of the actual names and contact info of our editors who do original reporting. It wouldn't be hard to keep that confidential. However, I suspect that there would be serious Foundation issues involved with doing so. Maybe someone should bring it up at the water cooler there). JoshuaZ 19:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is already done in the accreditation process. Aside from that, all of these arguments could be used by just about any source for a quote. Since there would be serious legal ramifications involved with fabricating an interview, and since there is proof that they in fact occur (see Tom Tancredo's blog; Evan Wolfons's site; John Reed's MySpace), there's no reason for us to presume bad faith. Especially since photographs typically go along with the interview. --David Shankbone 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. So presumably at minimum interviews from accredited reporters should be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. JoshuaZ 20:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So the Wikinews accreditted reporters are vetted for their real life identities for liability purposes? If so, and given the wide array of editorial eyes on articles, I would think that a protected article would be fine for a source, then (if their identities are known, as all reporters should be!). • Lawrence Cohen 20:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think only from accredited reporters - that system of accreditation does mean something. It's also worth noting that we direct people seeking credential verification to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. --David Shankbone 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikinews had an accreditation process, so I read about it. I notice that it is only intended to obtain press passes from third parties. I also note that editors are supposed to write articles before getting the accreditation, in order to show they are worthy of accreditation. I also note that while the third party could compare the editor's driver license or other reliable ID to the press credential from Wikinews, to see if the names match, Wikinews does not. The editor can't suffer any "serious legal ramifications" if the editor can't be found. --Gerry Ashton 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a winning argument Gerry, but conjecture. Regardless, there are other arguments above that defeat that interviews conducted at Wikinews are just made up. As to the accreditation process, addresses and such are indeed obtained (how would one receive their press pass if not?). --David Shankbone 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

leaked documents?

The work of employees of US Federal agencies is normally in the public domain, correct? What about when someone leaks the document?

I uploaded Image:Map of camp delta from "Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure".jpg. So, does it matter that the Bush Presidency has fought the Freedom of Information Act request for this document? It is still in the public domain?

Cheers! Geo Swan 06:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What methodology do we use to know that it is a reliable source? Arthur 06:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything useful in Pentagon Papers? Copyright status of work by the U.S. government? (SEWilco 07:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Was this from the big to-do about it getting leaked onto Wikileaks that was in the news today? If so, the question is (I think)--is Wikileaks reliable? I'd say no, but has the US confirmed their doc is authentic? Have reliable sources confirmed it is? • Lawrence Cohen 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Lawrence Cohen. Leaks by themselves are not reliable, and are a big WP:OR trap. News about the leak (such as the leak having taken place) though can be reliable.Ngchen 12:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it an "OR trap"? Unless you're talking about inviting speculation as to why it was leaked or why it was not released normally, I don't see how it's any worse of an "OR trap" than any other source. I do agree that it is not reliable unless it is confirmed to be non-fake in some manner. Anomie 14:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaks (which will likely continue over time through places like the leak website) open an interesting twist on RS, though, don't they? In that: random Internet Guy leaks Government document that says Thing X about Person Y. We can as mentioned trivially report on the leak, if the leak is notable, but what about the contents of the leak? In this case, we can't source to the Government document about Guantanamo. Who leaked it? Who confirmed its genuine? How do we know it hasn't been tweaked? That kills it. But--what if Wired News, the New York Times, and CNN all report on the content of the leaked document. Can we then report what Wired/NYT/CNN had to say about the content, even if it is potentially wrong or untrue information? Would it require strict wording that "The leaked document, as reported by CNN, says Thing X about Person Y" ? • Lawrence Cohen 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly use CNN, New York Times etc. as RS's and if there is no doubt amongst them that the leak is genuine, then I don't believe we need to add any caveats either. However, if there are RS's which throw doubt on it, then both viewpoints and appropriate caveats should be added. → AA ^(talk) — 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

List of musical works in unusual time signatures RfC

A discussion about reliable sources for this article can be found here. Additional input would be most welcome.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Are anonymous university library help pages reliable sources for historiography/library science theory?

In the article primary source, the issue has come up whether three unsigned help pages from university libraries count as reliable sources for the definition of primary source. The three websites are:

• "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources";
• "Library Guides: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources"; and
• "Primary Sources", Lafayette University Library

It is perhaps relevant that there is extensive writing on this subject in peer-reviewed journals and books which are clearly reliable and cited in the article, so it's not an issue of websites being the only sources on the subject that exist.COGDEN 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia favor academic notions of sources rather than the more common journalistic guides like The Associated Press Guide To News Writing or The Associated Press Guide to Internet Research and Reporting? 64.237.4.140 (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't about how "academic" they are, it's how reliable they are, under WP:RS standards. The two AP Guides are published books, which are fact-checked and widely cited. The library web help pages are not published (other than on a single web server), and unsigned. We don't know who wrote them, what their credentials are, or whether all the content on the pages are endorsed by the University, or whether it's just material written by some librarian webmaster who looked up the definitions on Wikipedia. We just don't know. That's why I think they are not reliable sources. COGDEN 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also perhaps relevant that Cogden has been trying to weaken both the primary and secondary source policies for reasons that can be guessed at, but that I won't articulate here (yet). It is also relevant that he is doing so against consensus.

As for his objections above they are bogus -- the sources are most certainly reliable, or shall we change RS to disallow any .edu sources that do not meet with Cogden's approval? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the idea that these are "anonymous"... All three are from the library page at respected Universities... the first from the University of Mayland, the second from James Cook University in Australia, and the third from Lafayette College. OK... we don't know the name of the individual who typed them but, since they are on official webpages of the universities in question (as opposed to personal pages hosted by the university), we can safely assume that what they say has University backing. In each case, The University itself is the source. These are clearly reliable sources according to our rules (not to mention fitting the rules of common sense). Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if the university itself is the source, where's the fact checking? Is there any way to tell whether this information has been subjected to some kind of checking? Also, is it relevant that these cites do not cite other sources for their claims? As far as we know, the cites are just making this stuff up. COGDEN 18:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, there ought to be a consensus in the academic community. Although an unsigned library web page is reliable enough to cite, a source that includes a good bibliography would be better. Also, although in this case, making stuff up would not be appropriate, in other cases it is perfectly appropriate for a reliable source to make stuff up (it's called an arbitrary decision). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar.Ngchen (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But remember that they are talking about P/S/T sources from the standpoint of writing academic papers--which is not the same purpose as writing wikipedia articles. They are intended to help the students satisfy the requirements of the faculty. Now, I've been an academic librarian, and faculty, and what we do at WP is somewhat different. An academic paper is supposed both to summarize the state of knowledge, and to advance a thesis at some level of originality. In the western academic tradition, academic research--even at undergraduate levels-- is supposed to be OR to some extent. The student is supposed to use the background from the sources, to take and defend a position. It's different here, and much closer to journalism. DGG (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant to whether unsigned library help pages are reliable sources. Do you think they are or are not? And if so, why? COGDEN 18:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since User:Jim62sch made a comment about User:COGDEN trying to weaken the RS rules, and acting against consensus, I am burning with curiosity to know what this issue is: It is also perhaps relevant that Cogden has been trying to weaken both the primary and secondary source policies for reasons that can be guessed at, but that I won't articulate here (yet). If there is a thread somewhere else that could help show us what the effect of this policy decision might be, please point to it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jim62sch's comment about me "weakening" any policy is bullshit and a red herring. But there is a dispute going on at WP:NOR since July, which has involved numerous editors and admins on either side. A certain faction of editors including Jim62sch are of the opinion that the WP:RS policy doesn't go far enough, and that to truly protect against any possibility of an editor introducing original research, there should be additional limitations on the citation of otherwise reliable sources. For example, if a source is a primary source, it's not enough for it just to be reliable, it also has to be backed up with a secondary source. So, for example, if you cite Albert Einstein's peer-reviewed journal article for the proposition that E=mc², Einstein's word on that subject isn't enough, since Einstein, as the primary source, is too close to the subject to be truly objective. And if we cite Einstein, we would be somehow sharing in Einstein's original research. Thus, the only citable conclusions available to a Wikipedia editor are second-hand conclusions. You can't cite Einstein's conclusions, but you can cite what Joe Schmo says that Einstein said, even if Joe Schmo is an idiot. But, like I said, this is an entirely different issue than that above. If you'd like to take a look at this discussion, it has been going on in the archive pages of WP:NOR since about July. It's quite a controversy. COGDEN 20:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, you continue to misunderstand the basic concept of NOR. The policy does not ban all research that happens to be original to someone... it just bans original research made by Wikipeida editors. Mentioning Einstein's conclusions about relativity is not considered a NOR violation... because these conclusions are external to Wikipedia. One of our editors did not come up with the concusions, Einstein did. Of course, any interpretation of Einsteins conclusions could well be OR... if one of our editors went beyond what Einstein concluded and stated, for example, that Einstein's theory means that Aliens could not have visited Earth, that would be OR... since Einstein does not discuss this. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree with you 100%. I'm just stating the opinion of a group of editors over at WP:NOR, which I oppose. COGDEN 20:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

IMDb Publicity

I'm wondering if I can use IMDb as a reference for confirmation of a subject being on the cover a particular. IMDb has a section entitled "Publicity" which basically lists magazines and covers a certain actor or personality has been on. When I used it for the Vanessa Angel, another editor said it shouldn't be used as it's not reliable. I know the trivia & bio sections of IMDb sections cannot be used as references, but does this also pertain to sections with credits (ie publicity or movie/tv appearances)? I can't find anything to verify that she was on the cover of these magazines except for a few websites that aren't really reliable and basically just took their info from Wiki to begin with. I've used that section to find back issues of magazines and from personal experience (I know, like that counts!), it seemed pretty reliable. Short of tracking down the two old magazines myself (Vogue and Cosmo), I'm at a loss as to how to source this info. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First, we have to ask if the fact that Vanessa Angel appeared on the cover of Vogue and Cosmo really all that important as a peiece of information that we have to include it in the article in the first place, or is it just trivia. Second, assuming it is worthy of discussion, is this the type of thing we need to have a source for? If so, I would think each magazine itself would be the source (all you would need is the issue date). The information is then verified by looking at the magazine and seeing her on the cover. I see this as being similar to citing a TV show episode for facts about that episode. In short, I don't think you need to use IMDb at all. Just cite the magazine issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not incredibly important to the article, but since the article isn't that long to begin with, it just adds to it a bit. I think listing the magazine itself should do. Thanks for the suggestion! Pinkadelica (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, though, that you shouldn't cite the magazine unless you have seen the covers yourself. Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning Lori Drew on Megan Meier article

Resolved

Currently, the Megan Meier article uses terms like "mother of a friend of Meier's." to describe a woman who may or may not have driven a young teenager to suicide. Obviously, we need a reliable source before we can mention names.

• The original article on Megan's death does not mention the woman's name, but it does describe her in enough detail that persons with good internet research skills identified her name rapidly from property and business records, and published it across a number of weblogs. [21][22][23][24]...
• The identification by these weblogs has been noted by various media sources. [25]
• A Google search for '"Megan Meier" mother' returns a number of results that give the woman's name. [26]
• Moreover, news video broadcast by various large TV stations shows the woman's last name on a police report, including CNN and various FOX affiliates. [27]

None of the previous sources are sufficient to reliably assert the full name of the woman concerned on the article. However, does the sum total of these add up to something that can be taken as a reliable source? John Nevard (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

not at this point. It would be OR SYNTHESIS, which is a particularly poor idea on topics like this. Wait till it is published by a truly reliable source. And even then I'm a little dubious about it. The problem of course, is not as much about naming the mother, but that it also names the daughter.01:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just need to keep an eye on this search and this search. If the world decides the mention of the name is worthwhile notable, it will show on one or the other. • Lawrence Cohen 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An acceptable source was found at Talk:Megan_Meier#Further_source by another editor, which is this. I'll tag this as resolved. • Lawrence Cohen 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting sources on DAB in the UK.

These two documents claim two opposite facts:

• 1: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/DRDB_UK_DAB+_policy.pdf
• 2: http://www.worlddab.org/upload/uploaddocs/WorldDMBPress%20Release_November.pdf
• Wich one is the more reliable source?

Background: the first document, DRDB_UK_DAB+_policy.pdf is used to claim tha the UK is going to switch from DAB to DAB+ (third paragraph in the intro on this link): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=172456581&oldid=172397580#_note-3

best regards, Ga-david.b (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, press releases are not exactly the best source of information as it tends to be one sided. Another problem is your first link appears to be discussion of the second. I guess I would need more context on which article you are going to use this in and what fact it will back up. spryde | talk 12:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that needs backing is wether DAB or DAB+ (aka the "New High Efficiency Audio Option") will be used in the UK instead .

Activistcash.com

Resolved

Is it a reliable source? MrMurph101 (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some sort of muckraking operation. Ironically, it doesn't seem to clearly disclose where it gets its funds. I have to say it is borderline, being unfamiliar with it myself.Ngchen (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good source for information on activist funding and quotes, obviously focusing on the more extreme ones. Stating where CCF figures come from where you reference them is good practice. Haven't seen any serious criticisms of the CCF, just various versions of 'they are funded by people who we say are bad so they must be bad'/'they say this research on a thing is fundamentally wrong. but this thing is bad, and so questions about research don't matter'. John Nevard (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The website is an attack site run funded, run, and self-published by a partisan lobbying organization, Center for Consumer Freedom, and is paid by large companies to deny basic scientific facts about nutrition, epidemiology, health risks, pesticides, etc. It is certainly not a reliable source of information about science, nutrition, current events, or partisan organizations. However, if you ignore the editorializing and slant there is a lot of good, useful stuff on there, and they usually say where they get their information from. I would suggest using it as a source only for what the website itself and its parent organizations are doing (and even there, clearly indicate in the text where the information comes from on any claims that are controversial or likely to be challenged), and otherwise only on uncontroversial factual information that cannot be sourced elsewhere. Otherwise, simply follow the links and directly quote the sources from which activistcash.com got its information. Also, for WP:BLP reasons avoid linking to any of the hit pieces they do on individuals (for possible defamation, e.g. accusing one activist of "burglary" who has not ever even been charged with burglary). Wikidemo (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Article, William Richard Bradford, inaccurate and out of date

I was reading your entry on William Richard Bradford.

Yes he was the inspiration for a case on CSI Miami, because one of the pictures is the sister of one of the actors in the show. The real sister of the real actor.

The inaccuracy part:

the authorities do NOT BELIEVE that MOST of these girls could be pictures of his victims right before their death. HOW DO I know this? Because I HAVE SPOKEN, at length, on the telephone, with the head of the Los Angeles Cty Sheriff's office, the Detective in charge of this case.

MOST OF THE GIRLS IN THESE PHOTOS are believed to BE ALIVE. Many, many of them have been positively identified since the airing of the CSI show, and the publicity of the poster. The poster itself has been updated recently.

About 1/2 (according to the direct source, the head law enforcement investigator on this case) of the girls have been identified and found alive.

A few are in fact dead and unidentified. Law Enforcement is pursuing continuing interrogations with William Richard Bradford to see if he will give up more information about the people in these photos and help them identify, dead or alive, the unidentified women in these photos.

It is, if you are concerned for accuracy, very important to update these kinds of things often. This is a hot case, and the changes are occurring freqently, and the best place for official sources are the officials doing the leg work.

Patricia member, Cold Cases (we're also trying to ID these girls) ColdCases @yahoo groups. (founded by the man who founded the DOE Network... google DOE Network and see)

I posted this before I joined, it's my first and only post here. I will now read how to do this properly. I have now got a username. If I have put this here in error (as I suspect I might have), please move it. I will 'watch' it and see what is happening. Feel free to instruct me. MrsMagellan (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium

While I dont have problem with linking to citizendium per se, alot of links have appeared lately with wordings such as: a much more detailed article at citizendium, more detailed article... etc. While some of those links are usefull Im starting to suspect that the main motivation to adding them has been to generate traffic for their project, if thats indeed the case then its problematic. My suspicion grew even more after investigating a little bit: Just last week Larry Sanger himself made a post at http://blog.citizendium.org/ (scroll down alittle) asking people to deliberatly Google bomb because he felt they were not getting enough exposure by google. This guy in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cryptographic_hash seems to be adding/reverting to keep the links in place with the wordings I described above.I was gona add a list of articles but his contributions page already does that. Can somebody have a look at this? 201.50.174.173 (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The citizendium blog link above is 404. Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

whole site seems to down. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I can't figure out what 201.50.174.173 wants us to see from the contribution history above. Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews redux

Same Wikinews interview that inspired #Wikinews and this BLP/N on Wolfowitz. The interview is with Craig Unger, noted journalist who tried to sell the October surprise conspiracy in the early 90's and has recently published two books about conspiracies in relation to the Bush administration. This interview has been added as a source by the author to these articles:

• Rumsfeld BLP problem?
• Team B an especially strange block quote
• Christian Zionism basically the topic of Unger's new book, so he is probably notable in the field, but I suspect the book should be used instead
• Wolfowitz also citing the Daily Mail, so probably fine if the interview was removed

My understanding is that most editors thought citing Craig Unger's book would be more reliable than a Wikinews interview recording his off-the-cuff remarks. Some editors also expressed uneasiness that the author himself was inserting the story, but I don't think this matters: they're either permissible or not. The route shouldn't matter.

I asked user to cite to the book directly, but got no response. I don't want to merely delete these additions because I'm unsure of where the community stands and I also promised to try not to revert this user. So, to what extent may Wikinews interviews be used as a source? My view is that interviews should only be used as a source on the commentator unless the interview itself is notable in relation to some topic (that is, unless it has been covered elsewhere). Cool Hand Luke 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews conducts interview with notable people. It's one of the things we do, it's one of the things we were set up by the Wikimedia Foundation to do. Those interviews are not unreliable, as they are the transcribed words of the people. I'm not quite sure what the issue is, but if the issue is "We should not use Wikinews interviews as sources" then I think we should alert User:Jimbo and Wikimedia. The links you point to are an interview with Unger about the book, not "off-the-cuff" remarks but questions related to his research. It's surprising, Luke, that you just can't seem to stop focusing on my work, but okay. Let's see how the conversation goes and whether we need to have Wikimedia involved in it. --David Shankbone 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by "off the cuff" is they're a record of his extemporaneous remarks and they are less reliable because the commentator must rely on memory and the claims are not vetted by a publisher. If you look at the two previous discussions I cited:

• User:Thatcher131, User:Will Beback, and User:AnonEMouse said that interviews were not reliable for these reasons. AnonEMouse specifically suggested citing the book instead, which I think is appropriate.
• User:JoshuaZ was concerned about interviews being marginally related to the topic, Wolfowitz in that case (which goes to WEIGHT, I think).
• User:Corvus cornix thought it was OR (which I disagree with).
• User:Blueboar, User:Sam Blacketer, User:Gerry Ashton and apparently User:Crockspot went further and claimed that Wikinews is simply not a reliable source. I don't don't agree with that—not in all cases, at least. (Apologies if your views are more nuanced.)

In my opinion, interviews are certainly reliable, but only for views of the person giving them. I think there was a consensus that they are not reliable for third-party commentary, and I would like to confirm that. You wouldn't reply to me, so this looks like the correct forum.

It's not an issue with Wikinews, it's with interviews generally. Unless the remarks are established as notable, we can't assess their WEIGHT let alone their veracity. Cool Hand Luke 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So what, exactly, is your point? That a journalist talking about a book he wrote and the research he discovered on, for instance, Team B or Christian Zionism or Paul Wolfowitz is unreliable? The issue, to me, was the prominence of a Wikinews box that led to an entire interview, and not quoting the remarks of a notable person and the source for those remarks. So, perhaps you can clarify with a statement exactly your issue is if it was to be written as a guideline. And regarding the book, there is a link to a chapter wrote and was re-printed on Salon along with the interview. So, some kind of guideline that fleshes out your concern would be in order. --David Shankbone 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the guidelines need to be changed, but if I were to make something explicit, I would include interviews as self-published sources. As mentioned in the previous discussions, interviews (and perhaps Wikinews interviews in particular) share all the characteristics of self-published sources. As such, they should never be a source in third-party BLPs, and they should be used sparingly otherwise considering that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (See WP:SPS). Cool Hand Luke 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the paragraph on Wolfowitz has four sources, including a fifth (David Nelson). So I don't see your issue. I think a broad-based "Interviews are self-published sources" argument is hurtful to Wikipedia; it depends upon with whom the interview is conducted. If it's Bob Gioevans who believes the world is flat, then probably it would be a "Self published source". If it's with a notable person who is published in other areas, or is notable in some field, then I disagree. All interviews are not equal. --David Shankbone 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Interviews published by sources that might be held liable for defamatory remarks are more likely to vet comments and be held accountable than Wikinews, but I don't think such speculation is helpful.

If "it's with a notable person who is published in other areas" then the views are likely to have been picked up in reliable sources. Indeed, we know they were in this case. Simply: if the remarks are worth reporting, they would have been quoted in news stories. For example, if we were writing about a company and wanted to cite a conference call. There would be no context or weight for including, say, the chairman's claims that the company is being plagued by a conspiracy of short-sellers. If and when news articles are written about these remarks, then we would have reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So your issue appears to be with a Wikinews interview being used at all, since Salon published the pertinent chapter and the interview backs it up? Because the paragraph on Wolfowitz is not only heavily cited, the interview in fact backs up already published sources. So, again, I don't understand your issue. --David Shankbone 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I cited four examples of its use. I said myself that Wolfowitz would be fine if you cut the cite to the interview. If this were just an issue with Wolfowitz, I would have used that talk page. I found the first examples more problematic. Concentrate on Rumsfeld. Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would we cut the cite to an additional cite to the source backing up Salon? What use would that serve? --David Shankbone 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews convenience break

What Luke is arguing is that we should not use interviews with primary sources, the newsmakers themselves, on Wikipedia. There is no cause for us to not use the words of notable primary sources, the people directly involved with events and research. This is a major change in policy Luke is espousing and is currently covered nowhere in our established guidelines and policies. --David Shankbone 22:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't treat Wikinews interviews any differently than we would treat other self-published remarks by otherwise notable people. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(Aside: Newsmaker's work products are sources, but they remain people.) My claim is simply that we should treat interviews like self-published sources. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If Tashi Wangdi makes a statement about what he knows about the 11th Panchen Lama's whereabouts, and it hasn't been reported in another source, that doesn't make his words a "Self Published Source" since he represents the Tibetan government in exile, who is in a place to know such information. That makes Wangdi a primary source. --David Shankbone 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Two scenarios for policy examination

Question. Would both of these be reliable sources for "new" information? Both are hypothetical and fictional(obviously, for BLP concerns), and are both issues that could be seen as possibly touchy along the lines of the Wolfowitz scenario.

• If Bill Clinton appears on Larry King Live, and announces a previously unknown fact about Hillary Clinton: "Hillary in college at Yale was briefly married to Donald Rumsfeld." As Bill Clinton is clearly an authority on his wife of 30+ years, would this be sufficient to source the fact that (again, fictionally for this example!) that Hillary briefly was wed to Rumsfeld? In this scenario, Bill's statement is not vetted nor screened--it went out live on the air, but there is no way anyone can argue that Bill is not a complete expert on this third party, his wife. Is this a valid source for this statement, about third parties? If the answer is "Yes", then why would it be any different if Bill Clinton made this statement in an interview on Wikinews, as opposed to Larry King Live?
• If Bill Gates is interviewed by Time Magazine, and says (again, fictional example): "It is my understanding that the US Department of Justice this week is going to offer a full and unconditional written apology and settlement to Microsoft for bothering us so much about trust laws, and US Attorney John Jacob Jingle-Heimer Schmidt has confirmed this to me." Is this a reliable source for the fact that the USDOJ will be giving MS an apology and settlement? In this scenario, Bill is clearly a recognized expert on Microsoft, and their relationship to the USDOJ with anti-trust laws. Is this a valid source for this statement, about third parties? If the answer is "Yes", then why would it be any different if Bill Gates made this statement in an interview on Wikinews, as opposed to in Time Magazine?

Are both scenarios fine to use for sourcing? If both of those are, I fail to see why Wikinews wouldn't be a fine source in the same vein--it's journalist are vetted, known to the Foundation by name, and acreddited journalists. Please tell me if I'm reading these wrong, and I'd like views on my two scenarios.

I'm wondering if the problem isn't with the fact that the known expert, Unger, made the statement, so much as it is the fact that this appeared in a Wikinews interview. If that is the case--do we need to let the Foundation as David mentioned know that Wikipedia does not consider Wikinews a viable tool for the project? Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this commits the same error as Shankbone: assuming that people can be reliable sources. Reliable sources are characterized not just for their human expertise, but also for fact-checking. This is why we value peer-review and publications with a reputation for fact-checking. Using Bill Gates' statement to impute behavior to a living U.S. Attorney is not allowed. Luckily, such quotes would be so sensational that they would practically guarantee reliable coverage: news stories reporting the comment and trying to get confirmation from the implicated parties. This is a central axiom to WP:SPS: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Incidentally, noting Unger's checkered past, and the interview's complete failure to ask a single challenging question, I would also challenge the notion that he's an expert. I won't argue that point, but it's a worthy aside. For various reasons, interviews are often biased in favor of those being interviewed. Because the interviewee often cannot carefully choose their words, and because they must rely on memory, blog posts could actually be a better source in some cases. At any rate, we should grant an expert interview no more deference than an expert blog post, and WP:SPS is the proper analysis. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Luke is saying several things here:

1. That people are not sources. That's not true. People are sources. If Bill Gates, involved in Microsoft litigation, can't be taken as a source of what the Attorney General is doing, then who can be? Who would a fact checker corrborate Gates' words with? Gates? The Attorney General? If the Attorney General said, "No, that's not true" and Gates stuck to his guns and said it was true, then you have a case where two people are saying something different. What if the Attorney General is lying? We aren't here to decide that a source is unreliable. Our policy is WP:V. One sees this throughout history, that notable people (generals, politicians, etc.) are often quoted as saying one thing, and others say another thing. That is how history gets recorded. The question is: who is the one saying what? There is no "truth computer" that people can go to in order to "fact check"--it always comes down to people's words, whether it be Bill Gates or a journalist who spoke to someone who was supposedly "in the know". How are we to take Bob Woodward at his word? The fact checking a publication would undertake is "Did Bill Gates say this" and not "Can anybody else substantiate Bill Gates?"
2. That Wikinews is in itself not reliable to be used; in other words, that if a person says something at Wikinews, then it should be notable enough to have been said somewhere else, and by default we should use that source instead of Wikinews. This prejudice against a website doing important work is unfounded. My interview with Tashi Wangdi, the Dalai Lama's representative, fleshed out many issues related to religion, Tibet-China and the Tibetan government-in-exile's position on a variety of issues, and was appreciated by many people on those pages. Are we really here to say we shouldn't use Tashi Wangdi's interview on the Tibet articles because it is on Wikinews? Or Ingrid Newkirk's interview on animal rights articles?
3. That he doesn't like Craig Unger. But that's also not what our policies speak to. Craig Unger is not some small-time conspiracy theorist, but a fellow at New York University Law School, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair (magazine), the former deputy editor of the New York Observer, and former editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine. He is a New York Times best-selling author. I question the veracity of quite a few notable people out there on the left and right, but the fact is that my dislike and questioning of their truthfulness (Robert Novak, say) doesn't mean I think we should discount them because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Luke, you say a lot of different things, none of which serves our purposes here on Wikipedia. And yes, Bill Gates making a statement about something that happened in regard to the Attorney General certainly should be used if he is directly involved. --David Shankbone 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:SPS. We don't care if the source is expert, we can't use them to implicate living people. Period. Clinton's extemporaneous comment involving the behavior of a political rival isn't even a close call. We wouldn't allow it from Larry King Live or anywhere else. This isn't an anti-Wikinews argument. I'm not arguing #2 at all. And I don't have anything against Unger or his views; #3 is irrelevant. This should apply equally to all interviews, which are forums for one party to speak their views. Without the fact-checking, corroboration, or request for comment that accompanies reliable news sources, they are self-published and should follow the same rules.

And people are not walking reliable sources; it's not as if every remark about Bush to have flown from a pundit's lips is encyclopedic. The articles (their work products) are sources—for their institutional fact-checking and expertise. Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the last time this came up that we already do the opposite of what you're saying. At the same as the first round of this Wikinews issue, on this page, were issues involving Lyndon LaRouche. Its apparently endorsed on Wikipedia to use expert self-published sources, isn't it? From the Dennis King/Chip Berlet material? • Lawrence Cohen 23:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And SPS mentions established experts may be used. Bill Clinton is a walking reliable source about his wife Hillary, unless it comes out that he lies about her. One wonders how a publication would fact check against Bill Clinton? Time Magazine is doing an article on the candidates favorite ice cream flavors, and they can't get Hillary on the phone, but they get Bill. He says chocolate. Do you really think they would not print that? How would they fact check that, exactly, absent Hillary's confirmation? The question is: can people rely on Bill Clinton knowing what his wife likes? --David Shankbone 23:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If they couldn't corroberate the fact, no they wouldn't print it as fact (especially if it were meaningful rather than trivial). They might print it as an attributed remark since in this case it is meaningless and doesn't appear to be related to a material or personal interest of Mr. Clinton. In most of the interviews you're conducting, the interviewee is talking about topics where he has a deep-rooted interest (for instance by being outspoken on one side of an issue). In those cases Time would attempt to substantiate the facts presented by the interviewee and indicate where its research suggested that the facts were not in line with the statements. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My view of interviews published in self-publsihed venues like blogs or Wikinews is that we should regard them as reliable sources for the statements of the interviewees unless we have reason to doubt the veracity of the interview. Interviews, regardless of where published, should not be used as reliable sources for facts about 3rd-parties, but they may be used to cite opinions if the interviewee is notable in regard to the 3rd-party. (Bill Clinton's opinion of Hillary Clinton is notable, John Doe's opinion is not). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with this view by Will Beback. - Crockspot (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. What about Tashi Wangdi, the Representative of the Dalai Lama, on the whereabouts of the 11th Panchen Lama and the Tibetan people's feelings about the Chinese government's appointed Panchen Lama. Would Craig Unger, a noted journalist who has written two books and numerous articles for major publications on the Bush Administration, be considered a notable source as it relates to the administration? Would Bob Woodward? --David Shankbone 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a question about the WP:SPS policy, as I said (and you said was absurd). Can I take it that we're now on common ground on this point? Cool Hand Luke 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and how I would answer your questions (although I doubt you care about my views), is that the relationship must be supported by access to the person him or herself. An official representative for Tibet (or a President's wife or spokesman) have been given special access by the third-party. A journalist—even one that has written two partisan political books—has not, and really should not be exempt from BLP. Cool Hand Luke 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See my comments below, but you raised many issues, and the only issues people appear to be agreeing with you about are biographical details of people. The Wolfowitz reference to the interview would be fine because the same details have been published before, and only serves to back up his already published material that is also used as a citation, along with the other four citations to the exact same material. The Team B and Christian Zionism articles were perfectly fine to cite to him. You raised a very broad spectrum of issues, and in the end, the issue is biographical details. See my further comments below. --David Shankbone 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Will summed this up quite clearly. 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (Jossi)

Thank you Will. Just a tiny additional question--in general, would expert journalists fall under this, for the topic they are noted for covering? For example, Jeremy Scahill is noted as an expert on Blackwater Worldwide, and their founder Erik Prince, and has written the only book exploring them (to date). He is often cited by other media an expert on Blackwater. Does an expert journalist like this in general fall under the realm of a notable view for interviews, or does it have to be someone closer (e.g. Bill and Hillary)? EDIT: just realized David asked basically the same question. • Lawrence Cohen 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of my interviews are done with people who are directly involved in issues and thus are notable for what they think. Ingrid Newkirk on animal rights, for instance; or Tom Tancredo on immigration. My interviews with journalists, even those who have reached the top of their field such as Craig Unger, are scant. Indeed, he is the only one. So for my work, it's important to point out that a reading of this policy will have far-reaching effects on Wikipedia, the sources we cite to, and what information we use those sources for. A few examples I posted on Jimbo's page to illustrate:

1. Scooter Libby: According to Jackson Hogan, Libby's roommate at Yale University, as quoted in the already-cited U.S. News & World Report article by Walsh, "'He is intensely partisan...in that if he is your counsel, he'll embrace your case and try to figure a way out of whatever noose you are ensnared in.'"
2. Dick Cheney: The conservative Insight magazine reported on February 27, 2006 that "senior GOP sources" had said Cheney was expected to resign after the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2006; however, only Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left office following the elections.
3. Al Sharpton: In April 2007, the New York Post wrote that tension exists between Sharpton and Barack Obama. According to Post political reporter Frederick U. Dicker, "Sharpton has launched a 'big-time' effort to tear down Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate for president."
4. Most of Michael Moore controversies are allegations made about Moore by third parties, e.g.: [[On March 12, 2007, Canadian filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine appeared on MSNBC's Tucker to talk about their documentary Manufacturing Dissent, which investigates Michael Moore. They reported to have found that Moore talked with General Motors Chairman Roger Smith at a company shareholders' meeting, and that this interview was cut from Roger & Me.[1][2] However, the actual encounter was not captured on camera by Moore, and occurred before he became a filmmaker.[3] Moore told the Associated Press that had he met face-to-face with Roger Smith during production and tried to keep the footage secret, General Motors would have made it known through the media to discredit him.

All of these examples, only but a few that exist, fail Cool Hand Luke's reading of the SPS guideline. I quote a pretty acclaimed journalist who did a great deal of research and interviews with high-ranking government employees and people involved, as well as looking over government documents. --David Shankbone 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

David, I don't think you have any idea what would fail my SPS standard—you didn't even understand what my problem was until several others chimed in to agree that interviews were basically self-published. Moreover, what I think really doesn't matter. The actual SPS policy matters, and that's why I brought this up here—to determine what the consensus is.

None of these things you cited are interviews. They are not bare dialogs giving platform to a single source who is making extemporaneous remarks. These stories been vetted into news stories from reputable publishers that presumably ask for both parties for comment and weave numerous sources together, checking them against each other. You asked above what would happen if the AG denied Bill Gate's hypothetical claim. The answer is that a press article would likely report both, and we would then be able to cite both. Reporters don't do anything magical when they take numerous primary accounts and weave them into a secondary source, but that doesn't mean that we should act as reporters. Not on this project, anyway. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Moore controversy example below is exactly analogous to the situation at hand. Do you really not see that? --David Shankbone 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The interview doesn't seem to be cited. I agree that the article should be rephrased to follow the sources, but it is not exactly analogous; it cites news stories instead of primary interviews. Maybe analogous to Wolfowitz, which is probably fine. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And from what I understand by what is being said, none of the information from Unger's interview is wrong to put in, it's just wrong to put it in because it was from an interview, and not cited to his fact-checked book, that says the same things about the same people? And that only relates to BLP, and not to Christian Zionism and Team B, but only to Donald Rumsfeld. --David Shankbone 06:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe they still have a WEIGHT problem, but since you now agree they're self-published comments, we can have a productive discussion on the particulars. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Flags of the World

FOTW is used in several places as a source for flags of relatively difficult to pin down areas/peoples, some of whom probably don't have a legal or cultural flag - consider this. It looks to me like a contributory website, a wiki of sorts. Thoughts? Relata refero (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Landmark Reformers' Group

There has been some discussion on the Talk:Landmark Education page about the inclusion in the article of in item on the Landmark Reformers Group, where the only real source for the existence of this group and their opinions is a blog and an online petition. Jossi has pointed out that these do not qualify as reliable sources for wikipedia purposes. Has anyone got any comments on this? Should the item be removed from the article unless some other source references can be found?

Jossi was right. No need to worry, Dave. I read up on Jossi's links, I agreed with his rationale, and removed the offending non-sourced material. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on “Reliable Source”

First off, forgive me if I query in the wrong area, Wiki-newbie onboard (old fart, too) and fail to use the snazzy Wiki terms that seems to run one around in circles. In order to keep this short, I will omit names, and speak as if a hypothetical scenario.

An investigative journalist writes a book. No major publishers accept the book at that time. The journalist creates a website, and sells his book, in trade paper format. A book publisher reads the book, and then buys it. A few mixed book reviews (pro/con), nothing mentioned in academia land, and now this book is a Reliable Source in the eyes of Wikipedia?

Sign me confused in Seattle Jim (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many topics that are covered by encylopedias, but are not of interest to academics. Thus we cannot require that all reliable sources be academic, or endorsed by academics. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gerry, I can relate (understand) the reference to academia. Still, what part of my “hypothetical scenario” makes it a “Reliable Source” in the eyes of Wikipedia? Even with the removal of "academia land" (still playing the old guy card) Jim (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I recommend that you read WP:V and carefully consider the distinction between verifiability and truth. --Tkynerd (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes it reliable under our rules is that it was picked up by a publishing firm and thus ceased to be "self-published". Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tkynerd and Blueboar. I read WP:V (see above, run around in circles). I was looking for a more definitive answer, which Blueboar gave. Evidently, if somebody publishes it…it is a ‘Reliable Source’. Or, read WP link this, that or the other thing. Lather, rinse, repeat. LoL..Thanks again, Jim (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable source reprints reliable source

There is a good bit of discussion going on at Mediation Cabal, RFC, and Mediation request regarding using an unreliable web source that reprinted a Saturday Evening Post article. The Saturday Evening Post article is fine as a reference for the material and a proper cite journal tag has been created for it (acceptable for Verifiability). However the dispute is to use the web link to an unreliable web site in the reference (url=). The option of adding "format=reprint" was brought up in the Mediation, but we're entering into a gray area on policy. Please comment. Should this link be included in the reference? Should we link to an unreliable source that reprints a reliable source, making it easier for a reader to verify the information or should we stick with a direct reference to the reliable source, which may be more difficult to verify (purchase, library, or web search)? Morphh ^(talk) 20:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would say that citing the original directly (e.g. using {{cite journal}}) and using a convenience link to an online reprint is ok as long as (1) the reprint is not violating copyright and generally is acceptable per WP:EL (excepting the points regarding relevance to the article subject), and (2) there is no reasonable belief that the reprint is not an accurate reprint. The WP:RSness of the website as a normal source does not apply, since the reliability of the source comes from the original publication. Regarding this particular situation, however, someone should just upload the public-domain article to Wikisource and be done with it. Anomie⚔ 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But is Wikisource considered a "reliable source" in this context? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Saturday Evening Post would be the source, not Wikisource. Anomie⚔ 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Editorial in The Jerusalem Post

One editor is claiming that editorials are self published sources. I was under the belief that the newspaper was the publisher not the journalist who wrote the piece. Can someone confirm that editorials are not self-published? --Neon white (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Editorials in a reputable newspaper are not self-published. They may not reflect the views of the newspaper management, but that's a different issue. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume op-eds are the same considering they would be subject to the same editorial policy as editorial columns but are just written by individual contributors not employees of the newspaper? My understanding is that anything in a newspaper is published by the newspaper and not the individual even if it doesn't necessarily represent the views of the newspaper. --Neon white (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)--

However, they are opinion pieces, and therefore can only be used for very limited purposes, particular if a living person is involved --Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Such as? --Neon white (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it involves any third parties and is only being used to source a quote. --Neon white 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Millisecond

Does millisecond need to have reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs)

I don't know why CyclePat is doing this. He has been warned, clearly and explicitly, not to do exactly what he's doing here—demanding references for trivial facts, and starting long, timewasting discussions. He was warned just about a week ago that he needs to adjust his idiosyncratic understanding of WP:V and WP:SYN, following a block he received for edit warring over trivial references. The definition of 'millisecond' (one-thousandth of a second) doesn't need a footnote—and it certainly doesn't need four footnotes in the first sentence of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what user:TenOfAllTrades is talking about in terms of warning me for what I'm doing here. I also do not know what he is talking about in term of a warning concerning an idiosyncractic understanding of WP:V and WP:SYN follow a block, which he administered. Surelly someone can answer the above question without bias and with substantiated references to what the community believes? --CyclePat (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

i believe the policy is that anything on wikipedia should have a source but saying that common sense should also be used. There are things that are obviously correct. I really depends on what you believe needs a reference. --Neon white (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps CyclePat is referring to Wikipedia:Common_knowledge#Examples_of_common_knowledge_not_requiring_sources, which would suggest that requiring sources for commonly known information such as "millisecond" could be construed as tendentious editing. Arthurrh (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Millisecond, from milli- and second, one thousandth of a second. Nothing more need be said. Guy (Help!) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like there's plenty of information on that page which needs references. I don't think the SI prefixes need notes, but information like "5 milliseconds – a honeybee’s wing flap" is hardly common knowledge! That being said, since the information is prima facie reasonable and not controversial, I would oppose actually removing it just because the source is not provided. Anyway this board is for determining the reliability of sources so it's kind of out of scope. <eleland/talkedits> 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can newspapers/magazines be self-published sources?

In WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves it says to use self-published sources it must be releveant to their notability and must not be unduly self-serving to be able to use in articles.

Daniel Pipes, the founder of Campus Watch, is a journalist, among other occupations. Pipes has written two articles, one glorifying and praising Campus Watch’s intentions, and another refuting a criticism about Campus Watch. One of the articles was a opt-ed opinion article published in the The Jerusalem Post and the other was published in FrontPage Magazine. A user keeps adding these two articles as citations on the Campus Watch article. When I state this is a WP:SELFPUB violation, he says the sources are not self-published because the newspaper and magazine are not published by Pipes. Are these articles self-published sources or are they not considered self-published because Pipes wrote them, but didn't publish them? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not self-published, because Pipes didn't publish it. Of course, the potential bias should always be taken into account when the founder writes about the organization. The criteria in the reliable sources guideline are a minimum standard; when many sources that meet the reliable sources criteria exist, only the best of them should actually be used in an article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post's editorial page is a reliable source for most opinion purposes. The fact that the founder is writing about his own organization doesn't make it self-published, the fact that the Jerusalem Post thought it worthy of publication means that it probably is relevant and significant. I can't speak to the specific information because I didn't bother to read the article ( :) ), but it's not self published anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was misunderstood to the what actually is a self-published source. So, even though the Jerusalem Post's article is an opt-ed opinion article, is it still considered a reliable source? If it reliable, should it still be used to present this text:

"Critiquing professors is more revolutionary than it may sound, for academics have long been spared public criticism ... . Who would judge them? Students suppress their views to protect their careers; peers are reluctant to criticize each other, lest they in turn suffer attacks; and laymen lack the competence to judge arcane scholarship. ... [W]e consider the work of these specialists too important to be left uncritiqued."

It seems to me that Pipes' opinion article is not a reliable source to describe the how "revolutionary" and "important" his organization's actions are and does not seem notable enough to include in the article. Am I wrong here? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, source reliability depends on the nature of the statement. We're talking about an op-ed piece by the founder of the group, so it's a reliable source for non-controversial background information on the group and a reliable source for most opinion purposes. That is, we can say "Pipes considers his work to be important and revolutionary", as long as we don't overwhelm the article with his opinions. I would except from that any particularly lurid or accusatory opinions about other living people, like Pipes' accusations of somebody's al-Qaeda links or whatnot. That gets into WP:BLP#Criticism issues.

Of course, Pipes' subjective opinions, or his statements on factual issues except non-controversial background on himself or his group, cannot be taken as factual on his word alone, whether or not he was published in a reputable paper. Good luck with the article, I know how difficult it is to work for objective editing on these types of issues. <eleland/talkedits> 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, his articles aren't self-published. Newspapers generally will let an organization whose views are criticized write a rebuttal on their editorial pages. On an article about Campus Watch, Pipes's comments should stay, if for nothing else out of a respect for balance and fairness. The article should clearly indicate that (1) the comments are on behalf of Campus Watch, and (2) Pipes is the "leader" of campus watch.Ngchen 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

stopanimaltests.com as source

There is an editor who wants to use http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-lemasPigs.asp as a source on Stopping power. The editor is claiming not allowing this source is censorship [28]. I feel that an anti-animal testing site is unlikely to be a quality source per WP:VER and WP:RS. Comments? Arthurrh 18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

PETA owns the web site. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable per Christopher Mann McKay. PETA is too partisan to be considered reliable in the area in question.Ngchen 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as advocacy it would fail as an RS in animal testing, and this isn't even an area of expertise. It seems he's trying to use PETA as a source on ballistics, which is very strange. Cool Hand Luke 05:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Youtube video

I would like to ask what should be a simple question - Is Youtube a reliable source? Or, to put it another way, should a youtube video be linked to in an article in mainspace, where it appears as a reference for a particular incident?

In the article MacGregor State High School, it appears that a youtube video is given (along with a citeweb for a local newspaper and a local tvnews program) as the source for the incident. I am wondering whether the youtube video is considererd viable, or verifiable here? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the right question. YouTube is undoubtedly a reliable source, say, for recorded interviews and seminars (that aren't potentially copyright infringement). For example, Google sponsored a series of talks by notable people and posted them all on YouTube. Assuming there's no synthesis problem, we could certainly cite these as a primary source. Care should be taken when handling primary sources; we have to insure that secondary sources exist to demonstrate weight and avoid original synthesis. I think WEIGHT's a bigger issue in this case then whether YouTube is, in the abstract, a reliable source.

Also there's a problem with claims that cannot be verified by examining the source. For example, someone tried to use a video to support the claim that Sulejman Talović was shouting "Alahu Akbar" during his shooting spree. The words could not be distinctly heard in the video, and this interpretive gloss was therefore original research. Similarly, it won't be clear to third parties exactly what high school depicted. All that one can say is that the uploader claimed that it came from a fight in this high school. It's best to rely on secondaries. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

IETF meeting logs

This IETF meeting log is being discussed as a WP:RS to SMTP protocol work, and as a reliable source to information about opinions on these.

As i see it the log, while unconventional, is the equivalent to a regular transcript of a meeting. It is published by the IETF as the official meeting log of the 7 nov 2006 meeting.

Now the question is: Can it be used as a reference and is it a reliable source?. --Kim D. Petersen 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate criticism

There is currently an open RfC on this issue at RfC: Should the following criticism be included?. One of the objections raised in the editors involved in this issue is whether the sources being cited are WP:RS. In this case both sources, Roger Pielke Jr. and Steven McIntyre have met the criteria for being WP:N in their own rights and both have relevant publications in respected journals. The sources in question are articles published on their respective websites (i.e. sites operated by themselves). Under these circumstances WP:SPS seems to allow the use of these as WP:RS sources:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Emphasis is in the original. I would seek outside opinions on this matter. --GoRight 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree in part. It's obviously an expert source in the field of climatology, and I think they should freely be cited there. However, even expert self-published sources should not be used to make controversial claims about living people. "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" It probably shouldn't be used to discredit BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that I know where you have come down here. Are you saying that these should be valid sources for the general Global Warming articles, but not in the BLP pages of the individuals in question? If so I completely agree, as WP:SPS makes this quite clear at this point (it is actually the subject of active debate at this point, see the WP:BLP talk pages).

While the second reference from McIntyre mentions Gavin Schmidt by name, it is directly in the context of his being that author of the site's posting policy. The criticism in that post as well as the criticism in the proposed addition to RealClimate are in reference to that posting policy and the implementation thereof at a website level. Neither seeks to discredit any specific individuals, at least IMHO. If this is not clear in the proposed text that can, and should, be rectified. Given this, where does that leave us in your opinion? --GoRight 20:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Are you saying that these should be valid sources for the general Global Warming articles, but not in the BLP pages of the individuals in question?" Precisely.

I'm not sue that their self-published criticism of RealClimate is notable though. They have some history with this site that makes them perhaps less reliable. There are some traces of secondary coverage: It looks some of Pielke's criticism has been covered in Volokh Conspiracy, and this article says in relevant part "As part of his campaign, Mr. McIntyre charged that Mr. Mann had denied him access to the fundamental data and computer codes needed to replicate his work. Mr. Mann and his colleagues started their own blog (http://www.realclimate.org) in part to respond to comments made by critics such as Mr. McIntyre." Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I refer you to WP:NNC. Once RealClimate has been established as notable in its own right, as is evidenced by its having a dedicated Wikipedia article, the content on the page is controlled by the policies WP:NPOV and WP:V, along with the guideline WP:RS, and the notability criteria do not apply (to the content). I would agree that this criticism is not notable enough to warrant its own article, but its inclusion in the discussion of a notable topic does not violate the three primary governing policies and guidelines for content, at least IMHO.

The history between the groups should not be a factor here. Criticism is rarely, if ever, leveled by neutral parties. A google search for "RealClimate" and "censor" yields lots of references from non-RS sources regarding this issue. The essence of WP:RS is that when a controversy such as this rises to the level of being mentioned in reliable sources it becomes reasonable for inclusion under WP:NPOV. I have provided not one but two such sources, although we are admittedly here to assess whether they are, in fact, WP:RS in this context. --GoRight 16:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

Are the former journalists Leonard Davis, then second-in-command of AIPAC, now Israel's no.2 diplomat to the USA (as Lenny Ben-David), and Midge Decter, grande dame of the US neo-conservative movement, reliable sources for statements made by the leader of the Palestinians during the 1940s, in the absence of any further confirmation or citation?

And do the word of an ultra-right talk-radio host and Internet columnist, and the esteemed author of "The complete idiot's guide to Jewish history and culture" vouchsafe the claim? <eleland/talkedits> 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the esteemed editor is a historian who specializes in U.S.-Middle East policy, and the author/editor of 17 books whose work has been published in academic journals and major newspapers, the answer would seem to be 'Yes'. Please do not use this forum to soapbox about "grande dames of the US neo-conservative movements or about "ultra-right" radio hosts. Isarig 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Mitchell Bard has not been cited on the page. The citations 46, 47, and 48 are Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Chuck Morse, and Benjamin Blech. Please talk sense, and avoid trying to paint evaluations of source reliability as "using this forum to soapbox." <eleland/talkedits> 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do calm down, and adopt a more civil tone. What I'm talking about is that your were asking about "Myths and Facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" - a book whose most recent editor is Mitchell Bard, a noted historian and academic author, which meets WP:RS. Now stop using this forum to rant about your political opponents, and edit according to policy. Isarig 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But the 2006 edition isn't cited. The 1982 edition is. The 2006 version is available online, and makes no mention of the Mufti's supposed statement. Accusations of my "ranting" juxtapose oddly with accusations of incivility. <eleland/talkedits> 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: is a Haganah press officer and later IDF Lieutenant Colonel, a confidant of David Ben Gurion and his personal media strategy adviser, writing in 1947 during the run-up to civil war in Palestine, a reliable source for what Husayni may or may not have said during the 1940s, in the absence of further confirmation or citation? <eleland/talkedits> 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if someone is "a second-in-command of AIPAC" there is reason to suspect them of not being a reliable source on controversial Israeli-Palestinian matters. But suspicion doesn't make one an unreliable source, and the two men may very well be reliable sources. The burden of evidence is (for showing something is a reliable source) is upon those who insist on its usage. As of now I don't see any evidence provided for the reliability of Leonard Davis and Midge Decter.Bless sins (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

DISPUTED ARTICLE: Japanese Red Army. REASON?: Link to YOUTUBE.com video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army

So, user RJD0060 is reverting my edits. I've added a link to a youtube video from a Japanese broadcast news source that recorded the aftermath of the Japanese Red Army's bomb attack on a Mitsubishi Heavy Industries LTD. headquarters building.

I don't know where he thinks this is a "copyright violation". Look at the Kevin Cosgrove article. There is a link to his 911 call on Youtube.

This video gives solid audiovisual evidence that an attack took place on 1974. The video link is a source for the line in the article which reads "The JRA launched a series of 17 bombings on buildings belonging to large corporations, including Mitsui & Co. and Taisei Corp, injuring 20 people. Eight people were killed in the bombing of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.'s head office building in Tokyo.". This "fact" previously had ZERO sources to back up its claim that the JRA launched bomb attacks against 17 buildings, INCLUDING the bombing of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.'s head office building in Tokyo.

[29] is the link. See the video for yourselves. Parliamentary Funk 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the user failed to explain the whole story, I'll fill in the blanks. I reverted the initial addition of the video to the article Japanese Red Army. The user then questioned the reversion. I replied stating my reason for its removal, and noted that while I disagreed the video was acceptable per RS (on a basis of verifiability), that s/he was free to re-add the video and I would not remove it. I then consulted 2 other editors, and both seemed to have agreed with me that the video was not appropriate, mainly on the basis of verifiability (since it isn't in English being the main reason). For the 2 editors' who agreed with me, see this and this. After hearing these 2 other opinions I removed the link again. I am glad the user decided to use further resources like this noticeboard, and I am comfortable accepting the consensus that will be achieved here. Thanks in advance. :) - Rjd0060 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Material being in Japanese can be reliable. I think the link should stay. The only problem with the youtube video though, is that the video itself can be a copyright violation. Stuff gets added to Youtube all the time by people violating copyright, and although youtube does a good job cleaning up, videos violating copyright make it there all the time, albeit for short time periods. An alternative to the video would be say news-based websites or newspapers, even in Japanese which have covered the incident. Hopefully there are Japanese reading Wikipedians who can assist in the search.Ngchen 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a copyright violation at U-tube is pertinent to whether or not we link to it. --Kevin Murray 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a Japanese language source is not acceptable at WP. I've seen plenty of non-English sources, though it does require extra effort to verify that it is pertinent, perhaps request some help at the Japan project. The intermediary source might be U-tube, but the link demonstrates that coverage was given by the original source. One resolution might be to cite the original broadcaster under the Reference section and move the U-tube to a See also or External links section. --Kevin Murray 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion; an alternative if it cannot be properly verified. - Rjd0060 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would add a concern that while I don't object to the inclusion of the other references, and don't dispute the notability of the topic, I don't see enough mainstream sources to verify that we are presenting a neutral pint of view. I looked into some of the references and notes and these are to more obscure sorces. Do we have a political or terrorism project where we can seek advice on the sources? --Kevin Murray 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one of these? - Rjd0060 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• After a bit more research I feel better about the credentials of some of the sources, especially where I have linked from the notes or references to either WP pages or websites. Some remain a bit sketchy. I'm surprised that more mainstream information is not available. --Kevin Murray 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Times - "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party"

• Staff (December 2, 2007). "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party". Gulf Times. Gulf Publishing and Printing Company. Retrieved 2007-12-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • I would like to hear some feedback from individuals who regularly post/monitor this Noticeboard, (not from the editors who regularly post at Talk:Prem Rawat) about whether or not this citation can be used in Wikipedia articles. Thanks, Cirt 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Are there lists within Wikipedia of newspapers that are considered reliable or unreliable sources, and is there a procedure for a newspaper to be placed in either list? --John Brauns (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid beat ups like this have no place in Wiki or any other serious encyclopedia.Momento 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of the Gulf Times and London Evening Standard is noted. I would like to hear some feedback from individuals who regularly post/monitor this Noticeboard, (not from the editors who regularly post at Talk:Prem Rawat). That is precisely why I posted this notice at this noticeboard. Thanks, Cirt 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

I think you should be more candid with us. This attempt to have an appalling, mistake riddled article deemed reliable is another attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines.Momento 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for comment from someone from this noticeboard who is not a regular poster at Talk:Prem Rawat. Cirt 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

• Not a regular contributor to this noticeboard, but I would assume that whether the newspaper is reliable depends on how it is used. It is not a reliable source in that everything it says is true, but it is a reliable source for that something has been reported in the media. That is it cannot be used to state that the followers have infiltrated the event, nor that they have been asked to inflitrate the event, but possibly that they have been accused of infiltrating the event, and certanly that they have been accused of being asked to infiltrate the event. Labongo 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response, that helps a bit. Cirt 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

A tabloid cannot be used for any of these claims in a BLP, in particular as it is misleading and obviously factually inaccurate and sensationalistic. The event was a a gala dinner a private event by invitation only, and could not have been "infiltrated". Tabloids, and other such yellow journalism cannot be used in Wikipedia to assert claims such as these. That is obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi is being economical with the truth here. Yes, the gala dinner was by invitation only, but the invitations were issued by the lawyer representing the Gandhi Foundation who happens to be a long standing follower of Prem Rawat. I can supply his name if Jossi requires it. --John Brauns (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I would tend to agree. TimidGuy 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. We have heard from two regular posters from Talk:Prem Rawat, and two who do not regularly post and edit Prem Rawat. I think that is fine for now. Thanks for your responses. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Single-pole Lavvu

On the Lavvu article there is a discussion whether the "single-pole lavvu"/"Bell-tent" should be included or excluded in the article. I, as one of the two involved parties, argue that it should be included since it is a commonly used term, and is used by several companies selling lavvu's such as [30] or [31] (note that most of the links I provide are in Norwegian where single-pole lavvu = enstangs lavvo). In addition, there are several blogs using the term: [32], [33], [34], and [35]. Finally, the largest camping magazine in Norway has an annual test of the different single-pole lavvu's: [36].

The other party, User:Dinkytown, argues that "There has never been a history of a "single-pole lavvu". Only until a manufacture puts the name "lavvu" on a bell or conical tent design within the past ten years has there been this conflict. The lavvu is Sami - not Norwegian. There was never a "en-stangslavvu" ten years ago. Those who claim to have a NPOV on this subject have an economic interest in calling their tent a "lavvu". Dinkytown 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)" (quote from comment on Talk:Lavvu).

Two RfC has been posted, but unfortunantely has not received many comments: Talk:Lavvu#RfC: Can a lavvu have a single pole and Talk:Lavvu#RfC: Do commercial websites hold the same weight and historical value as a source when they conflict with centuries old primary documents and common knowledge?.

So the question is what can be considered as a reliable source for either excluding the single-pole lavvu as a lavvu, or inlcuding it as a lavvu?

Thanks.Labongo 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Single-pole Lavvu 2

On Talk:Lavvu there is a second issue regarding what type of sources can be used. The following RfC thread (that has not received any comments) from the talkpage summarizes the issue:

"Should the article include a table containing the weight, size, materials, etc, for different lavvu designs? [...]

• Comment from one of the parties: yes since it is useful to compare these properties for the different contemporary lavvu designs. Also, the table is intended for illustrative purposes and not as a complete list of all lavvu’s ever produced, and not a complete list of all possible design parameters.Labongo 10:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from one of the parties: No - it has not been proven that this single-pole tent satisfies any requirement of the historical definition of a lavvu (see "Definition" in main article), it satisfies all the requirements of the definition of the bell tent (see "Controversy" of article) so comparing one tent with another is a mute point. In addition, there was erroneous information with this data (40cm diameter tent?!). This is the 'lavvu' wiki page, not 'comparing tents' page. These specifications are not on the tipi page, so why are they here? Dinkytown 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)" from Talk:Lavvu#RfC: Should the article include a table of specifications.

A revision of the Lavvu article containting the table in question is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavvu&oldid=169353581

Thanks. Labongo 10:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Reliable sources blanked out in neo-Nazism article

The following references (and perhaps more) have been blanked out of the neo-Nazism article because the sources support a point of view that two editors wish to suppress, that neo-Nazism is considered an ideology, not just a movement:

1. "Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology..."
2. "Neo-Nazism: An ideology which draws upon the legacy of the Nazi Third Reich..."
3. "Where parents and teachers have fallen short of educating German children about the horrors of their past, as well as the dangers that come with allowing neo-Nazism to continue, the promoters of neo-Nazi ideology and organizations have been able to make inroads."
4. "...the ideology of neo-Nazism is secondary
5. "None of the suspects admitted of embracing the neo-Nazi ideology"
6. "...their movement offered a new approach to the neo-Nazi ideology"
7. "They are dedicated to the neo-Nazi ideology..."
8. "The ADL report suggests that the neo-Nazi ideology combined with the gang lifestyle provides..."
9. The neo-Nazi ideology is made very attractive to the young...
10. At the beginning, racism and neo-Nazi ideology were (generally speaking) unknown within skinhead subculture.
11. What is a fact is that in the Czech society there is quite a significant minority of youngsters who like the neo-Nazi ideology...
12. "They are dedicated to the neo-Nazi ideology and attracted to violence."
13. At the same time, the denial of the Holocaust is a central component of the neo-Nazi ideology.
14. It is appropriately symbolic, given the neo-Nazi ideology of many of those involved..."
15. ...the law enforcement authorities recognized the neo-Nazi ideology behind these crimes...
16. "...to pay homage to the memory of millions of Holocaust victims and join forces in combating the neo Nazi ideology"
17. documented at least 8 acts of vandalism motivated by the neo-Nazi ideology...
18. ..."denial stirrings are closely connected with the neo-Nazi ideology and the rise of the radical right in politics
19. A common characteristic of "Blood and Honour" and Hammerskins is the neo-Nazi ideology..."Barkun, Michael. [1994] 1997. Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Movement, Identity. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
20. Berlet, Chip, and Stanislav Vysotsky. (2006, Summer). Overview of U.S. white supremacist groups. Journal of Political and Military Sociology 34(1), 11-48. (Special Issue on the white power movement in the United States, B. A. Dobratz and L. K. Walsner).
21. Berlet, Chip. 2005. “When Alienation Turns Right: Populist Conspiracism, the Apocalyptic Style, and Neofascist Movements.” In Lauren Langman & Devorah Kalekin Fishman, (eds.), Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium: The Evolution of Alienation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
22. Berlet, Chip. 2005. “Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism.” In Roger Griffin, ed., Fascism, Totalitarianism, and Political Religion. London: Routledge.
23. Blazak, Randy. 2001. “White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi Skinheads.” American Behavioral Scientist 44:982-1000.
24. Blee, Kathleen. 1999. “Racist Activism and Apocalyptic/Millennial Thinking.” Journal of Millennial Studies 2:1. Retrieved July 4, 2004 (http://www.mille.org/publications/summer99/blee.PDF).
25. Blee, Kathleen. 2002. Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
26. Burghart, Devin and Justin Massa. 2001. “Damned, Defiant and Dangerous: Continuing White Supremacist Violence in the U.S.” Searchlight July, online archive.
27. Burghart, Devin, ed. 1999. Soundtracks to the White Revolution: White Supremacist Assaults on Youth Music Subcultures. Chicago, IL: Center for New Community [in cooperation with Northwest Coalition for Human Dignity].
28. Dobratz, Betty A. 2001. “The Role of Religion in the Collective Identity of the White Racialist Movement.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:287-302.
29. Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 1995. “Conflict in the White Supremacist/Racialist Movement in the United States.” International Journal of Group Tensions 25:57-75.
30. Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 1996. “Ideology and the Framing Process in the White Separatist/Supremacist Movement in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Ideology 19:3-29.
31. Dobratz, Betty A. and Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 2000. “White Power, White Pride!” The White Separatist Movement in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. Dobratz, Betty A., Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds. 2001. Research in Political Sociology 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, edited by. Amsterdam: Jai/Elsevier.
33. Durham, Martin. 2000. The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
34. Durham, Martin. 2002. “From Imperium to Internet: the National Alliance and the American Extreme Right” Patterns of Prejudice 36:50-61.
35. Durham, Martin. 2004. “The Upward Path: Palingenesis, Political Religion and the National Alliance.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:454-468.
36. Eatwell, Roger. 2003. “Reflections on Fascism and Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 4: 145-66.
37. Gardell, Mattia. 2003. Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
38. Goodrick-Clark, Nicholas. [1985] 2004. The Occult Roots of Nazism. London: I. B. Tauris.
39. Goodrick-Clark, Nicholas. 2002. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU Press.
40. Green, D. P., D.Z. Strolovich, and J.S. Wong. 1998. “Defended Neighborhoods, Integration, and Racially Motivated Crimes.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 372-403.
41. Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
42. Griffin, Roger. ed. 1998. International fascism: Theories, causes, and the new consensus. London: Arnold.
43. Griffin, Roger. 2003. “From Slime Mould to Rhizome: an Introduction to the Groupuscular Right.” Patterns of Prejudice 37:27-50.
44. Griffin, Roger. 2004. “Introduction: God’s Counterfeiters? Investigating the Triad of Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 5:291-325.
45. Kaplan, Jeffrey and Tore Bjørgo, eds. 1998. Nation and Race: The Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
46. Kaplan, Jeffrey and Leonard Weinberg. 1998. The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
47. Kaplan, Jeffrey. 1997a. Radical Religion in America: Millenarian Movements from the Far Right to the Children of Noah. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
48. Ridgeway, James. 1995. Blood in the Face : The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture. New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
49. Shanks-Meile, Stephanie. 2001. “The Changing Faces of the White Power Movement and the Anti-Racist Resistance.” Pp. 191-195 in Dobratz, Walder, and Buzzell, eds., 2001.
50. Vysotsky, Stanislav. 2004. “Understanding the Racist Right in the Twenty First Century: A Typology of Modern White Supremacist Organizations.” Paper, American Sociological Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.
51. Whitsel, Brad. 1998. “The Turner Diaries and Cosmotheism: William Pierce’s Theology of Revolution.” Nova Religio 1:183-197.
    
    

I, and another Wikipedia editor argue that these sources meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable references, and should not be dismissed as "not good enough" and deleted from the article simply because they contradict the personal opinions of two other Wikipedia editors. Please advise. Spylab 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another comment:

An editor at Neo-Nazism is insisting that when the author of a reputable published source is "wrong," that no further discussion is required. When I suggested that "we need to rely on reputable published sources," the response was "Not if they cannot differentiate between Neo-Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, and 'hate groups' and based on that, claim that Neo-Nazi groups are ideologically not homogeneous."[37] I have tried an RFC [38], the page was locked for edit warring, and within a few hours of the page protection expiring, two editors had reverted back to the lead that was being disputed. I tried a compromise edit that blended the two positions...reverted. I am really trying to avoid another time-consuming mediation. I really think an admin calmly explaining how the Wiki guidelines on reputable published sources work would help this situation.--Cberlet 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, what is the point of listing 51 sources here? Are we going to discuss the merit of each one? Of course Neo-Nazism is an "ideology" as well as a movement. This is apparently a question of WP:SYN, not WP:RS. Revisions like this are clearly nonsense (I find it funny that it was Elias reverting it, since he used to try the exact same tactic of heaping up footnotes instead of presenting a summary of varying opinions). Can somebody explain what this is about? Is the question, is Neo-Nazism 'one' or 'several' ideologies? What sort of dispute is that -- I would ask you up front whether this is a question that is even debated in reasonable literature, or whether this is just a homegrown Wikipedia controversy. If a controversy doesnt exist in academia, we cannot present it as one on wiki. If it does exist, try to cleanly point out the competing positions instead of spin doctoring. dab (𒁳) 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Spylab and I have tried every conceivable way to have a serious discussion, and two editors simply dismiss our cites because the authors we cite are "wrong." This is an example of two editors taking over a page and not allowing other views to be considered. Here is an NPOV lead that takes into account both positions in the dispute:

"Neo-Nazism (literally new Nazism) refers to several post-World War II political movements and ideologies that promote in a variety of ways an updated or revised version of Nazism. Many of these groups seek to revive the ideology of National Socialism. Other groups have gone off in different directions and devloped variants on the original Nazi ideology. The term Neo-Nazism is rarely used by Neo-Nazis themselves."

Reverted. But there is no real debate in academia over this. It is an issue where for many years Neo-Nazism was almost exclusively a revival of Hitler's national socialism. But in the last ten years, the scholars I cited all suggest this has changed, and Neo-Nazi groups are today much more complicated. This is simply rejects as "wrong." What are we supposed to do. These editors are violating multiple Wikipedia policies. It really is a form of edit warring. These same authors were involved in edits on Nazism that got me blocked for 24 hours for "sterile edit warring" whatever that is supposed to mean. It was ludicrous to block me and not the other editors. Now the same thing is happening on this page, and I don't want to be blocked again. Why can't an admin just go to the page and explain [[WP:RS]? I am trying to avoid mediation.--Cberlet 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The point of listing 51 sources is that all 51 sources are being dismissed out of hand by two POV-pushing editors, who swear up and down that neo-Nazism is not an ideology, and that any source that claims it is an ideology are "wrong" and should be ignored. There has been an extensive debate on the talk page, attempts at rewording the article as a comprimise, a Request For Comment, and a posting on the administrators notice board, and nothing has been resolved.Spylab 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is good proof in the form of diffs that the edit-warriors are doing what they're doing with no real basis, then you probably should consider filing an arbitration request. Persistent edit-warriors have been topic and/or site-banned when their edit-warring has become obvious. Of course, before the ArbCom will take the case, be sure to show that the talk page, RfC, etc. have all been tried first.Ngchen 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to file an arbitration request, and do not know where the page is to make that request. The reason I posted my message on the Reliable Sources page is because another editor (possibly an admin) linked to this page after CBerlet posted a message on the admin noticeboard page. Spylab 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You will have to pursue dispute resolution. Yes, it is time consuming, but it is the only way we have in Wikipedia to resolve disputes that involved editors cannot resolve by themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't an admin just go to the page and explain [[WP:RS] in a neutral way? I am trying to avoid mediation. This whole dispute is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of [[WP:RS].--Cberlet 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The link for filing an arbitration request is here. Reliable sources is something that POV pushers tend to use to suppress everything they don't like. That being said, does anybody want to go through the list and identify each different source so we can debate the reliability of each one. After all, it is possible that some of the 50+ sources are fine while others are not. Glancing through the list, it seems that a bunch of them have common authors and publishers, so their reliability would rise or fall as a whole. BTW, if there is a genuine misunderstanding of reliable sources, then going to the ArbCom is premature.Ngchen 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking this to ArbCom is a very radical decision. This is a content dispute, no need to overdo it with extreme measures. I've taking this to RfC, but we have gotten no response from those guys. Really, this is just a simple debate that more Wikipedia editors need to get involved in. So far, it seems only four Wikipedia editors have been (for the most part) discussing this issue, and it is only me and another guy who agrees with me, and Spylab and Cberlet. Really though, what we need is more Wikipedia editors engaging in the discussion, so that we can reach a consensus. And blocking and banning users and stuff like that, is not necessary. Whoever blocked Cberlet for it should apologise. Personally, I think I'm raising some serious concerns about the factual accuracy of the article, and these concerns should be taken seriously and not be viewed as a user who is simply trying to stir up an edit war. At the end, this content dispute will most likely improve the quality of the article once we've agreed on what's what. WP:DR could also work. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Discussion about image use and WP:NOR

Please come participate in the discussion here. It involves image use policy issues far beyond the template itself. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GameSpot and CNET

I have used GameSpot and have considered it a reliable source until Jeff Gerstmann got fired. Many other gaming blogs are showing that other sites with sources inside GameSpot are showing that he got fired due to his review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, and due to the fact that Eidos, the game's publisher, demanded that CNET fire him or lose Eidos's advertisement contracts. Apparently, GameSpot surrendered. Should GameSpot and other C|Net-commissioned publications after Mr. Gerstmann got fired no longer be considered reliable sources due to this controversy? I know about the idea of innocent until proven guilty, but GameSpot's reputation is ruined and will stay ruined unless the manager who fired Gerstmann himself gets fired or someone within CNET or GameSpot comes clean on why Gerstmann got fired. As of right now, nobody within CNET or GameSpot who is willing to disclose their identities are willing to explain why and settle the matter once and for all. If these allegations are proven, GameSpot's name will be ruined until the manager who surrendered to Eidos's demands is fired, and anything Gerstmann writes in the future will be considered a really reliable source, because he has shown that he will tell his honest opinion and the truth no matter what.

No matter on how we rule on this issue, articles written before the firing should still be considered reliable. Jesse Viviano 10:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with what sources can be used for video game materials. I have an article we are currently debating on whether the developer can be used as a reasonable source for references. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-19_World_War_II_Online. If we similarly can't rely on game media, that leaves nothing as a source. I'd appreciate some others reading this note to comment on the mediation cabal case, as well. I'd really appreciate some broader input on this issue.

It's an unfortunate fact that authors with POV issues (and there are many for video games) use verifiable source issues to force selective text to be removed from articles, even with no reason to believe it's not valuable to the article -- just unverifiable.. But I'm rambling...Warthog32 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just saying that one particluar source has gotten poisoned by Josh Larson, who is the manager of GameSpot who does not know that a Chinese wall needs to exist between the advertising department and the editorial department except in very extreme cases like when a reporter proves an advertisement to be fraudulent or misleading where the bad advertisement needs to be pulled. He fired Gerstmann because some of GameSpot's advertisers were unhappy with his reviews of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men and Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. He believes that there should be synergy between the two departments, not a Chinese wall. This works in Maxim, Larson's former employer, where the main focus is the women in teasing clothing are the main focus and not the articles, but not in a magazine involved in serious journalism, even if it is niche journalism.

There are other competing major sources, like 1UP.com, that are not tainted by this mess that we can use for sourcing new articles. It is unfortunate that we must exclude recent articles from GameSpot as reliable sources due to Josh Larson's apparent ignorance or moral bankruptcy. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the source being used for? Even the very best review is still an opinion, and as an opinion I can't see Wikipedia citing it separately from other outlet's reviews, which will immediately show up any issues with GS' copy. They aren't going to be unreliable with factual copy either as they have a host of competitors that will, again, immediately show them up for it. Within Wikipedia's remit, I don't see why Gamespot shouldn't continue to be a citable source. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just a preemptive move. There are plenty of links to GameSpot on Wikipedia for references before the firing. They are fine. What I am concerned about is if new references to GameSpot after the firing are used as references, some people will laugh off the article as depending on a game journalism site whose management has shown that it will compromise editorial integrity, meaning that the article will be based on a source whose reputation is ruined. I am not active in writing video game articles (except to correct the obvious error I run across). Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not insulting the editors at GameSpot in my comments above. They are some of the best reviewers around. It is just that GameSpot's reputation is considered ruined due to a manager who apparently either is unethical or does not know better about keeping advertising and editorial departments separated by a Chinese wall with extremely limited exceptions like an editor shooting down a false advertisement. Without this Chinese wall, game reviewers will have a conflict of interest between keeping their jobs by not making the advertising department angry at them and doing their jobs properly by slamming games that are high profile and are utter garbage with bad reviews. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact policy, but I expect that Wikipedia is better off considering the facts of whether a source is reliable rather than its reputation. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Edwards. In addition I believe there is no way to tell if other magazines/websites do not have similar conflicts of interest, but that they are better at keeping it secret. I assume the idea of having references to the reviews is to tell the readers what the biggest and or most respected reviewers think of the game, so as long as GameSpot has "many enough readers" it should be included. Labongo (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ArabNews

Is ArabNews a reliable source? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For what material? The reliability of a source, depends in many instances in the context in which they are used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On Daniel Pipes: In October, 2001 Pipes said, before the convention of the American Jewish Congress. "[The] increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews." [39] —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If properly attributed, I do not see why it cannot be used. Please discuss with other editors that are actively engaged in that article. WP:CONSENSUS on this as a valid source, is still needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably is reliable. Although I must admit I am not familiar with it. Considering how it's distributed worldwide, and its own stub article doesn't have anything denouncing it for false or misleading stories, I would make the educated guess that it is reliable.Ngchen (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do other reliable news sources quote it? Is a news outlet out of Saudi Arabia free from legal constraints about what they may write? Hard to see how we can use this as a WP:RS. IronDuke 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Arab news is a reliable sources since it is a mainstream newspaper (thus satisfying Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources), much like the The Washington Post, or Vancouver Sun. Infact, it is Saudi Arabia's oldest English newspaper. With regards to Daniel Pipes, you better get another source to support a contentious claim like that.Bless sins (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Nation

This this article from The Nation a reliable source? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Same answer as above. Reliable for what material? "Reliability" is not an absolute distinction: it requires context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

the following reference was deleted off the Daniel Pipes article b/c the user said it was a unreliable source: According to writer Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." Pipes is a regular contributor to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians[40] —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable. Although this source is biased, it is well-regarded as the premiere source of liberal opinion in the United States. Before people jump over me for having a liberal bias, let me say that National Review is also reliable.Ngchen (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source for facts, but certainly a reliable source for the views of liberals on the subject. As it is properly attributed, I would see no problem in using it. In any case, you will need to reach WP:CONSENSUS with involved editors there.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about it being unreliable in terms of facts. Sure, it may present facts in a biased way, but I doubt it publishes outright falsehoods as truth.Ngchen (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that if you want to show what liberals are saying, quote a liberal source. If you want to cite a conservative opinion, use a conservative source. For other things, it is better to use a centrist source. For example, I am comfortable quoting from MSNBC and CBS for liberal opinions and Fox News for conservative opinions. This is because sources will twist around the words of opposing opinions to make them look bad. However, I find those sources to be too biased to be used for controversial content that is easily skewed like the war in Iraq. I would rather use sources that I think are more centrist like ABC News and CNN for those topics. Even though I am somewhat liberal, I am disgusted by the blatant liberal bias in CBS and MSNBC, and of course I am disgusted with the blatant conservative bias in Fox News. Some people will consider my opinion on who is the centrist sources as bad, and I know that different people will have different opinions. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that everyone who is offering an opinion on this cite read the actual reference. I'm not certain that the article being used could be used due to the unapologetically biased nature of the article. Wow. I've not read a hit piece like that ever before... it isn't journalism. I'm not exactly certain what it is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read the first page of the cite, I must say that sure, it is biased, and written in an non-encyclopedic tone. But that doesn't mean that facts gleaned from the article are unreliable. It is, perhaps muckraking journalism, IMHO.Ngchen (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it definitely falls under the WP:REDFLAG clause. I feel dirty having read it all. There's focused, driven editorializing and then there is demonizing through propaganda tactics. That article clearly is the latter. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how there is any redflag violation. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how a fringe opinion such as that is useful as a source in an NPOV manner. I was kind of hoping the last line would be something like "oh yes, and he eats babies too." Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a fringe opinion. By all measures, the Nation is a mainstream rag. That doesn't mean that it's unbiased or doesn't have an editorial slant, but tell me what source doesn't? "Reliable source" doesn't mean no bias; that's a mistake too often made by Wikipedia editors. If there's an issue of balance in the sources used in the article, that needs to be hammered out on the talk page. But to paint the Nation as an unreliable (let alone "fringe") source, including that particular editorial, is absurd. bobanny (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular editorial is beyond the pale. I'd love to show you, line by line, how it uses propaganda techniques, but we're all able to read and discern for ourselves. I'd expect that sort of rant from a blog, not a reputable publication like the Nation. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of propaganda techniques doesn't separate the Nation from other reliable sources. Contrary to popular belief, propaganda is not the science of lying. It simply means propagating an idea or perspective through whatever means, whether rhetorical devices, logical argumentation, or whatever, all of which are used by the most respectable newspapers and magazines. Even if you don't agree with how that editorial depicts Pipes, the way it was originally used in the Wikipedia article was simply to say that this opinion of Pipes is out there. bobanny (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bobanny. According to Kyaa the Catlord's logic, most all main-stream media would be considered an unreliable source, especially Fox News--which is widely used on WIkipedia.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News is at least presenting itself as news as is, for example, CNN. The Nation exists mainly as a journal of opinion. Their conclusions cannot and should not be used as facts. IronDuke 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course, no opinion printed anywhere should be used as a fact. What I am saying is that facts extracted from The Nation can be used. Likewise, the same applies to Fox News and National Review.Ngchen (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, in the context the text was used on the Pipes article, it is not presenting any opinion, only facts. What are you suggesting is an opinion?—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

non Wikipedia Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

I have a couple of other editors telling me that Dictionary and Encyclopedia entries on a subject aren't usable as sources that we have to use papers by scholars for sourcing. What argument can I use against this? Alatari (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If the dictionaries and encyclopedias are published by real corporate publishers with a decent reputation, then they are reliable. Something like the World Book Encyclopedia would be reliable, but something like the (fictional) Encyclopedia of Irreproducible Results wouldn't be.Ngchen (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm talking about Merriam-Webster and others. What WP policies do I quote? They only want to use college professors research, museum curators statements and some other texts. Alatari (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources policy should be good enough. Also point them to this noticeboard. One would have to be totally unreasonable to discount secondary sources such as reputable newspapers, dictionaries, and the like. The only caution is to make sure to avoid novel, original synthesis of previously published material.Ngchen (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's generally best to use secondary sources where possible. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, i.e., based on secondary material, and therefore a degree away from the most authoritative source. That's not to say they're not reliable, but ideally encyclopedia sources should be limited to uncontroversial material. I don't know why dictionaries would be considered unreliable. Of course, it all depends on the situation, and I suspect the issue is more a matter of the best source, not whether these are reliable sources generally. Is there a specific debate you could point to? bobanny (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't want to cite a specific debate for fear of silencing these comments. I'll use your advice above if the debate reopens. Alatari (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Publisher's "blurb" quotes and Bat Ye'or

A dispute has arisen as to the sourcing of favorable quotes reviewing Bat Ye'or's work. The sources are the "blurb" quotes on the back cover of her book. One side argues that since publishers of academic books are reliable sources, evidence must be presented that this particular quote is either taken from a longer review or taken out of context, or it is a priori reliable. The other side argues that blurb quotes are often taken out-of-context, even by reliable publishers, and points to a book reviewer griping about a "misleading" blurb "quoted out of context" from one of his prior reviews.

Neither side has located the originals, assuming the reviews were first published elsewhere. <eleland/talkedits> 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems in quoting from backmatter or dust-jacket flaps, if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would that mean we say "According to a review reproduced on the back cover of X, person Y said..."? <eleland/talkedits> 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all blurbs are created equally -- I suggest considering them on a case-by-case basis and using common sense. Blurbs exist to sell something, not to convey information. Some quote very selectively from reviews. I'd especially watch out for ellipses (…) indicating something has been removed from the text or brackets [] indicating other editing; those don't mean a blurb is automatically unreliable, just that it needs closer examination. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, we already have a source accusing that. Somebody reviewing the English translation of one of Ye'or's books took time out to note that the English edition carried a quotation from him, "quoted out of context" in a "misleading" way, from a past review. <eleland/talkedits> 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with using blurbs is that your source then typically consist of a single, or a few, sentence(s). I believe blurbs should genereally not be used as sources since they are either: (i) taken from a larger piece of work that can be sourced, even if finding that work is difficult, (ii) only consist of a few sentences and can hence be considered as random statements. Labongo (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"According to a review reproduced on the back cover of X, person Y said..."? meets the requirements of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Register

As a willfully tabloid source, not reliable surely, right? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate on which (main namespace) articles you would like to see The Register removed as a source?

FYI, see also preliminary discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#The Register --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking as a general question - it's in wide use, and I'm interested in the general sense of its reliability. This would, of course, not equate to a consensus to remove in all cases, but I'm interested in the general case, as it seems both widely used (1800 or so articles, I'm told) and poor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting jossi (#The Nation): "Same answer as above. Reliable for what material? "Reliability" is not an absolute distinction: it requires context." I agree to that, also for this source. I think the discussion is moot without at least producing some examples. You also suggested: "not (...) a consensus to remove in all cases" - could you give some examples where you would not remove The Register as a reference? That might be valuable too, in order not to embark on a witch hunt for those cases where none is due. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've assumed correctly. I'm unaware of any specific consensus regarding The Register, but last I knew tabloids and such rags were considered unreliable sources by everyone except a handful of headcases and soapboxers. If someone is seriously arguing a tabloid is a reliable source, I'd recommend smacking some sense into them or an appropriate drug intervention. :-P Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

News and Policy

There's a discussion going on at Moneybomb about whether or not newsandpolicy.com can be used as a reliable source. Specifically, this article is being cited. The criticism is that the site is a blog, not a reliable news source. What do you guys think? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. They aspire to be a reputable news source according to this, and claim their writers are experienced journalists. It does look like a blog though, and unless it has achieved a reputation as a reliable source, it can't claim to be reputable. On the other hand, try looking beyond whether or not it's a blog in getting a consensus. For example, the writer's website spells out her cred as a legit journalist, and not just some blogger. Also, the article is a reprint from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which claims to be the biggest newspaper in Ohio. On that basis, I'd say unequivocally that it's a reliable source, whatever its editorial. bobanny (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreen examples

Can somewhat please step in? Regrettably, An anonymous editor and I seem to be embroiled in an edit war about whether I should be removing all examples of mondegreens without references. This editor's ideas about what constitutes a reference are very different from mine. Check our my last edit summary[41] and the editor's edit summary in response[42]. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and famousamericans.net discussion on WP:AN

There have already been a variety of related discussions about spam, coi, copyright, and link quality in different places, so I started a more centralized discussion of all aspects these links at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam? (permanent link)

I'm leaving this entry here to point WP:RS/N regulars to the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. Your inputs there on the reliability of this stuff would be helpful. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.straybullets.org

I can't find any info on editorial policy or the nature of this publication, it seems a little amateur. It calls itself a 'Cyber Webzine' and only produced three issues the last one being in june, possibly making it inactive. My initial thoughts are that it is a one man fanzine and therefore not particularly reliable but i wouldn't mind a second opinion as there doesnt seem to be much info on it. --Neon white (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

laroucheplanet.info

Three editors at United States v. LaRouche wish to link to this site. The argument is that the site includes a transcript to a court document. However, the site more generally is anonymous and contains material which would clearly violate WP:RS and WP:BLP. Arguments have been made on both sides, citing various aspects of WP:EL. I'd like to get the views of people on this board.--Marvin Diode (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

External links dont necessarily have to be as reliable as citations as long as the info is relevant and correct. Is the document's authenticity in question? --Neon white (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not by me. But I am concerned that it is just being used as a Trojan Horse to get "LaRouche planet" linked to the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously if it seems like it's an attempt to promote the website that's a different issue. But as i does contain relevant info it can't be said to be solely promotional. --Neon white (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said for any external link. The site in question has valuable historical documents whose veracity isn't questioned. Many sites have parts that aren't entirely reliable. A linked forum doesn't invalidate a site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While any external link might be considered an attempt at promotion, most of the websites in question don't pose big problems with BLP and other core policies. WP:EL is ambiguous on this sort of thing: "Links normally to be avoided" includes Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". On the other hand, "links to be considered" includes Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. The "LaRouche planet" site appears to fall into both categories, so it is a tough call. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What misleading information are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few examples: [43][44] I can't say for certain whether they are misleading, but they are certainly unverifiable. When such vitriolic attacks are posted without listing any author who accepts responsibility for them, it arouses suspicion. --Marvin Diode (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New perspectives and other hitherto unused primary sources.

While trying to do a solid audit of citations used in an article, one of the references (a book) used has very little information about it on the internet. Book reviews are short, but what is noticeable on this book review, done by the University of Hawaii Press, is the new perspectives and other hitherto unused primary sources:

The Philippines Under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction

ed. by Ikehata Setsuho; Ricardo Trota Jose
Distributed for Ateneo de Manila University Press

Although much has been written on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, one aspect of that period has remained uncovered: the Japanese point of view. This book, written by Japanese scholars and a Filipino, attempts to provide that point of view, presenting new perspectives of the Occupation based on Japanese and other hitherto unused primary sources.

Is this a Reliable Source or Original Research?

Used in this article: Yamashita's gold Jim (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing a secondary source which uses primary sources is best practice and is not OR at all. If the book was printed in a reputable university press and was well-reviewed by knowledgeable reviewers than it is an excellent source, exactly the kind we want on Wikipedia. Of course, it should not be combined with other sources to advance a previously unpublished point, as that's against policy. And information which is supported by a citation to the book must closely match what the book itself says. I know that the Yamashita's Gold article is having problems with people pushing fairly kooky theories from a non-scholarly book as if they're reality, but in principle The Philippines Under Japan is an excellent source. <eleland/talkedits> 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have that book on order, and it should arrive soon. If upon reading that particular book, if there is no mention as to the claim in the Yamashita’s gold article, am I justified in removing it, like I did the fiction novel previously? Jim (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"extremist" source?

In 2002 Gujarat violence, User:Bakasuprman has removed a report authored by Concerned Citizens Tribunal as an "extremist source". the citizen tribunal consists[45] of two retired Justices of the Indian Supreme Court (one of them - V. R. Krishna Iyer heads the tribunal), two retired judges of the Bombay High Court, Aruna Roy, Tanika Sarkar and 3 others. its work has been widely reported[46] and has been relied upon by, among others; Christoph Antons, Volkmar Gessner, Globalisation and Resistance: Law Reform in Asia Since the Crisis, 2007, Hart Publishing, Isbn: 1841136808 and Rowena Robinson, Tremors of Violence: Muslim Survivors of Ethnic Strife in Western India, 2005, Sage Publications, Isbn: 0761934081. the copy of the report linked to, published by Sabrang Communications, is the one that the Tribunal itself links to[47]. independent news sources reporting on the publication of this report have been included in the article text.

this has been pointed out to him, to no avail. Doldrums (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because a source was used in a book (along with hundreds of others) really does not give any rubber stamp of approval. Sabrang, is an unreloable source, since it is funded and published by Teesta Setalvad, who was accused by a victim of the violence, Zaheera Sheikh of coercion to falsely implicate 21 people. The organization is controversial in the media, and some allege is has been used for embezzling foreign funds. Also of note is that it is an Advocacy Group. There is really no logical way that Sabrang can possibly fit under WP:RS, noting all this obvious controversy that surrounds it. When writing an article as contentious as 2002 Gujarat violence, it is obvious that only reliable, non-controversial sources should be used. Using a political ideologue in an NPOV article is nonsensical. This has been pointed out to him, to no avail.Bakaman 01:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

such grave allegations! are they true? how do the BBC, the New York Times, AFP or mainstream Indian news sources regard this supposedly "extremist" "unreliable" "controversial" "falsely implicating" "embezzling" person? where does WP:RS or WP:V impose a blanket ban on "advocacy" and "controversial" sources, irrespective of how notable it is and how many independent reliable sources regard it as reliable? Doldrums (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the people who quote it, it's good enough for us too, providing we do as they do and say where the information is from. So, yes, reliable in this context as a source for whatever it is that the report says: just summarise, paraphrase or quote the report as necessary. Where other sources disagree, note this. You should not attempt to draw your own conclusions from the report, or judge which source is right when they may disagree. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Altermedia

Is Altermedia a reliable source? --Gutza ^{T T+} 08:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No - it isn't notable, it doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. If you think it is, then you would need to establish that before it could be a reliable source. Secondly, it seems to present articles in a very biased way with an anti-Jew anti-black POV. It is also taking a political position in support of various parties, such as the British National Party. It is definitely not neutral. I checked the front page of the UK site, headline : "Islamic beheading in UK"[48]. Contrast this with the same story from a reliable source, BBC News, which has nothing about an "Islamic beheading".[49] They are clearly distorting facts with their POV. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for existence of opinions (points of view) about some issues. Reliability as a source for facts should be weighted for every local version of Altermedia separately. --Dezidor (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia states clarly that unreliable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. Below, I explain just what is unreliable about it (and "unreliable" is an understatement). Dahn (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one determine which local version can be used, and which specific issues it can be used for? --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a bit: this section is a consequence of a long thread on Romanian wikipedia, where altermedia is used as a reliable source. In the process of the discussion, I investigated a bit and it turns out that only two reliable sources (of the academic kind, mind you) even take altermedia into consideration. They are Thomas Greven, Thomas Grumke, Globalisierter Rechtsextremismus?: Die extremistische Rechte in der Ära der Globalisierung, VS Verlag, 2006, pages 171-171 and Wilhelm Hofmann, Franz Lesske, Politische Identität- visuell, LIT Verlag, 2005, page 160. Both cite altermedia as a portal, and both define it as a venue for far right extremism (with, in at least one case, emphasis on its promotion of antisemitism, xenophobia, the Klan etc.). Outside of these sources, altermedia as a whole has little covering: it is simply ignored, in both academia and mainstream journalism.

A larger debate was carried in relation to the Romanian altermedia, which, it was claimed, is an independent section - its independence is, however, easily dismissible by citing altermedia itself, as it defines itself as part of the portal in question. Three main issues have been noted. One is that ro.altermedia.info is run by a high-ranking member of the far right group Noua Dreaptă: Dan Ghiţă, whom altermedia itself indicates as its president and editor, is Noua Dreaptă's vice president (as mentioned here, here, and here) and has for its "reporter" Bogdan Stanciu, who is Noua Dreaptă's spokesman. The other issue clearly observable is its involvement with far right politics and its support for Noua Dreaptă's actions (accompanied by praises of fascist politicians such as Iron Guard leader Corneliu Zelea Codreanu); these activities are, to say the least, bordering on illegality in Romania. See for example here, here and here. I left aside the other myriad of claims it makes on all sections, all of which are visible to the naked eye (from "curing" homosexuality to denying the Holocaust to ranting about Jewish conspiracies to the links leading to "news of interest to white people").

The third and most important issue in respect to altermedia Romania is its reflection in reliable sources. For all its presence in blogs and forums, there are few reliable sources (mainstream or academic) mentioning it at all. Here they are: an article in the Romanian daily Curentul, where altermedia is referred to as an "Iron Guard nest" ("nest" is the terminology used by the Irion Guard to define its smallest active cells), and attributed the qualities of "the Guard's propaganda tentacle", "tool for propagating Noua Dreaptă's fascist ideology" etc.; an article in the magazine Observator Cultural, where altermedia's Holocaust denial is discussed in passing, where altermedia's connection with Noua Dreaptă is again mentioned, and where the author accuses it of promoting an Iron Guard-inspired view of Romanian history; an article in the daily Cotidianul, headlined "Hatred Boils Over on the Internet", where altermedia is mentioned alongside other extremist and neofascist sites; the Wiesel Institute, in a document dealing with Holocaust denial and antisemitism in contemporary Romania, cites altermedia several times (pages 10, 17, 33, 34, 40, and 44) - the document argues (page 17) that "under the cover of 'right to expression and access to information', the publication hosts messages with an antisemitic and denialist character" (a dismissal of both altermedia's character and its claim to reliability). There are a few more informal sources mentioning altermedia's neofascist character, antisemitism etc., but I just concentrated on the most relevant ones (reliable themselves).

The issue of editorial control was also brought up, and altermedia simply states that it encourages anyone to contribute as long as they feel that their material is censored elsewhere (by "the New World Order", mind you). This is a clear indication that the source is self-published and it places itself in contradiction with the mainstream (see WP:V and WP:RS for the implications of that). Altermedia, under any form and with any section, is not cited as a source of information in any reliable source. As shown, it is simply a study case for neofascism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, racism and xenophobia.

In short: there is absolutely no way that this could be considered a reliable source, under any standards on Earth. Dahn (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Dahn is correct in stating that this is basically a spill out from the Romanian Wikipedia -- I simply tried to be as neutral as possible in how I asked the questions because I didn't want to risk being accused of tainting the topic with my POV. I hope I have been successful in not revealing my personal opinion on this source's reliability or my motives for asking these questions. However (or maybe even more so), please do try to give this inquiry a bit of your attention, this is setting a precedent on our Wikipedia. Thank you. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the labeling of a source as unreliable and its entire removal from wikipedia (+policing for possible new entries) is not unprecedented. I do believe this was accomplished in the case of Stormfront, Al Qaeda and others, and I have seen editors who simply remove such links from the articles. This may be without precedent for the Romanian wikipedia, but even there, I am led to believe, there has been agreement on at least some links to sites promoting Holocaust denial. As for your query, I find it entirely reasonable. Dahn (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In short: I see that you and Gutza expand disputes from Romanian Wikipedia (see long dispute at this page) into English Wikipedia and I don´t know where else. I think that it is kind of harassment. Local Altermedias are very different as well as language versions of Wikipedia and sources in Romanian language are not problem of overwhelming majority of editors of English Wikipedia. Solve your personal problems with Romanian Altermedia at Romanian Wikipedia and write encyclopedia (this account is not about writing encyclopedia). Thank you, --Dezidor (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, me and Gutza agree that it is not a reliable source, as do several other users who formulated their opinion there. Above, I clearly indicate that the only two reliable sources even mentioning altermedia (as a portal, i.e.: in its entirety) do so only to highlight its extremist character. Additionally, the reason why this was posted here is so that the source itself, and in its totality, be exposed for scrutiny by the community. Please make sure you address these concerns, and not ulterior assumptions. Dahn (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you drop my account in the pot, please make sure you check out my record of contributions over here (including my two featured articles). I only joined the Romanian project very recently, after a period of contributing as an IP, and after being asked to sign in by several administrators - precisely because they appreciated my input. Dahn (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One additional comment: writing a proper and reliable encyclopedia is precisely why one needs to look into what sources are used and for what purpose. Dahn (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you both are against this source. But sorry, it is very difficult to believe that there is no connection between your dispute at Romanian Wikipedia and your actions here. It simply look likes that you want to write at Romanian Wikipedia: At English Wikipedia they said... --Dezidor (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dezidor, I don't see what relevancy it has that it is discussed over there, given that I am bringing up the entire source for review here. I could just as well bring it for review because I please - meaning that I have a right, and, ultimately, a duty, to ask that these sources be exposed for scrutiny by any section of wikipedia. I do believe that this is the purpose of this page. Your answer, which was the second one to Gutza's first post, was that different altermedias "should be weighted for every local version of Altermedia separately" - based on what logic, and according to what rule? For the third time: the only two mentionable sources that cite the entire portal (no "Czech altermedia is okay, Portuguese altermedia is bad") discuss it as a source for nothing other than extremism; all other reliable sources that I was able to find discuss the Romanian section (which is not subject to some peculiar and particular rules) say very much the same. Am I missing something? Dahn (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And even if I would want to cite a verdict passed on the English wikipedia as additional information there (as if what I posted there isn't as clear as what I wrote above), what's to say I'm not allowed to, given that the portal we're discussing is international, and that wikipedia enforces the same rules wherever? Dahn (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind all the assumptions. (And by the way, Dahn is among the project's most committed editors, so please.) Yes, the debate originated at ro.wiki, but why not have it here as well? As long as everyone stays civil, I don't see the problem. It's a good idea to establish a solid case here as well that altermedia should be avoided as a source. Biruitorul (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS#Extremist_sources:

"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."

Any publisher of material that advocates far right (or even far left) politics is not a reliable source (with the minor exception of an article about the publisher). The rules are very clear. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

We are looking for confirmation that each or all of the following are or are not reliable sources to support a statement like: Quackwatch articles are not subject to peer review.

• The Consultant Pharmacist - Website review: A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.
• When You Can’t Critique CBP In The Peer-Reviewed Literature, You Can Always Send Your Article To Quack Watch - Instead of challenging them in the appropriate scientific forum (peer reviewed index-medicus journals) Dr. Barrett and Allen Botnick, DC have elected a forum for which there is no recourse other than Dr. Barrett's. My perspective is that Dr. Barrett and Botnick and the like would lose a formal debate with CBP® Researchers if forced to follow the scientific etiquette of peer-reviewed journals.
• Quackwatch Mission Statement - Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request.

Any input from this noticeboard would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have never seen this web site before, and so am assuming the current copy of the Quackwatch article is mostly correct. The ASCP link says "For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." This is a fair criticism, but the article is from 1999, so the question is, is there now peer review of articles? The Quackwatch article says "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request." So, it seems that there is in effect a peer review system, but it is reactive rather than proactive. By that reasoning, I would conclude that the literal statement "Quackwatch articles are not subject to peer review" is not supported by the sources.

BTW Quackwatch appears to be functioning by itself as a reliable secondary source. Unless they are conducting their own research and arguing against established medical and scientific consensus, they would not be expected to submit secondary source articles to another journal for peer review. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch (QW) is not a reliable second source as it has been deemed by ArbCom as a partisan site. The articles are primarily one-sided POV. The references cited are largely 'cherry-picked' to further that partisan POV. Alternate POVs are not fairly reflected or represented.[50] By QW own mission page, they are not peer-review. Peer-review is not a some time process. Either it is or it isn't. Otherwise QW would state on their website that they are peer-reviewed. An accurate rephrase of the contentious statement would be Some Quackwatch articles are subject to peer review.--Anthon01 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right in that peer review should occur before publishing. They are doing, as they admit, review after the fact, and they're upfront about it. But they aren't publishing fundamental research and thus one wouldn't normally expect their articles to be peer-reviewed, though it would certainly strengthen their arguments. The more important question is, are they exercising editorial oversight? What did they do when alerted to the issues brought up by the paper you cite? Ignore it? Or investigate and possibly correct the articles? No publisher is perfect, and if they have investigated and corrected the articles in question, it would add to the argument that they could be considered a reliable source. And as for the ArbCom ruling, they found that one editor had inappropriately used Quackwatch as a bad reference. I don't think that is the same as ruling that Quackwatch is not a reliable source for anything, ever. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for your input. We have decided to go another way with this information and are now only citing the first source but noting that this is the author's opinion. If you (or anyone else) would like to come to the article and give your input here or there or anywhere, I would appreciate it. Thanks again! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

TMZ.com

TMZ appears to be in most respects a gossip site, but they have broken a number of celebrity related news stories. The reliability has led to some contentious discussion on The Hills, especially in regards to the criticism section. The articles cited often refer to the folks involved in not-so-neutral terms, and often quote anonymous "insiders." Is TMZ a reliable source for citing evidence of possibly less than honest "reality television?" --skew-t (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can you establish that this site has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? What have other reliable sources said about the site? Do they publish corrections when a mistake is noted? If not, then it isn't a reliable source. TMZ themselves say "TMZ.COM DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE MATERIAL, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, FACILITIES, SERVICES OR OTHER CONTENT IN TMZ.COM OR ANY SITES LINKED TO TMZ.COM IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE."[51] If they don't make any representation regarding the correctness and accuracy of their content, then they are definitely not a reliable source - they aren't even claiming to be reliable.

BTW it shouldn't really matter - if any of the news they publish is notable and accurate, then it is almost certainly going to be also reported by a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a standard disclaimer that many publishers have. I think it's fine to quote TMZ, but if it's a contentious issue some editors may prefer to phrase it as "the entertainment newsmagazine TMZ says ..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that TMZ references are probably going to be used in news about celebrities, WP:RS#Biographies of living persons and WP:BLP#Sources both apply, in particular "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." and "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias, emotional arguments and reliable sources

I'm working on the puppy mill article because it seemed really vague and could have used some citations. As one might imagine, the entire issue is emotionally charged, with tons of OR online. I've found that I have a hierarchy of preferred sources with this issue:

1. Good, unbiased, but a little light on material - American Kennel Club and Westminster Kennel Club, anything .gov
2. Well established organization making no extraordinary claims - ASPCA
3. Sites that obviously intend to inflame an engender action but may have factual information via 'undercover investigations' - Humane Society of the U.S. (see [52]), In Defense of Animals ([53])

Would the members of group 3 be considered reliable sources by the community? Does the age of the organization matter? Should either be cited in an online encyclopedia? —Rob (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to restrict group 3 to "organisation Y claims that..."

Also consider using non-US sources. There are similar UK organisations for example The Kennel Club (UK)

Mayalld (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)