Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Penny Singleton: Difference between pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox actor
{{editabuselinks}}
| name = Penny Singleton
{{shortcut|WP:RSN|WP:RS/N|WP:V/N}}
| image = Penny Singleton Blondie.jpg
Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=new a new section]. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{tl|resolved}}.
| image_size = 200
| caption = Penny Singleton as "Blondie"
| birthname = Marianna Dorothy Agnes Letitia McNulty
| birthdate = {{birth date|1908|9|15|mf=y}}
| birthplace = [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]], [[United States|U.S.]]
| deathdate = {{death date and age|2003|11|12|1908|9|15}}
| deathplace = [[Sherman Oaks, California]], U.S.
| yearsactive =
| spouse =
}}
'''Penny Singleton''' ([[September 15]], [[1908]] &ndash; [[November 12]], [[2003]]) was a [[Hollywood]] actress best known for her role in the series of motion pictures based on the comic strip ''[[Blondie (comic strip)|Blondie]]'', followed by the popular ''[[Blondie (radio)|Blondie]]'' radio program. She is also well known as the voice of Jane Jetson from the cartoon show the [[Jetsons]].


Born '''Marianna Dorothy Agnes Letitia McNulty''' in [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]], and known as '''Dorothy McNulty''', she was the daughter of an Irish-American newspaperman, Benny McNulty - from whom she received the nickname 'Penny' (because she was "as bright as a penny"). She began her show business career as a child by singing at a silent movie theater, and toured in [[vaudeville]] as part of an act called ''The Kiddie Kabaret''. She sang and danced with [[Milton Berle]] (whom she had known since childhood) and actor Gene Raymond, and appeared on [[Broadway theatre|Broadway]] in [[Jack Benny]]'s ''Great Temptations''.
The ''guideline'' that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|Reliable sources]]. The ''policies'' that most directly relate are: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]], and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability|Verifiability talk page]].


Singleton appeared as a nightclub singer in ''[[After the Thin Man]]'' (at the time, still credited as Dorothy McNulty). She was cast opposite [[Arthur Lake (actor)|Arthur Lake]] (as [[Dagwood Bumstead|Dagwood]]) in the feature film ''Blondie'' in 1938, based on the [[Blondie (comic strip)|comic strip]] by [[Chic Young]]. They repeated their roles on a [[radio comedy]] beginning in 1939, and in guest appearances on other radio shows. As Dagwood and Blondie Bumstead, they proved so popular that a succession of 27 sequels were made from 1938 until 1950 (the radio show ended the same year). Husband Robert Sparks produced a number of these sequels. Singleton dyed her brunette hair blonde for the rest of her life. She also toured in nightclubs and roadshows of plays and musicals.
If your question is about whether material constitutes [[WP:NOR|original research]], please use the [[Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard|No original research notice board]]. This noticeboard is '''not''' a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.


She was active in union affairs and was the first woman president of an [[AFL-CIO]] union. She led a strike by the [[Radio City Rockettes]].
This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "''which sources in [[Article X]] are reliable?''" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]].


She became familiar to [[television]] audiences as the voice of [[Jane Jetson]] in the [[animated series]] ''[[The Jetsons]]'', which originally aired from 1962 until 1963, reprising the role for a [[television syndication|syndicated]] revival from 1985 through 1988 and for assorted specials, records, and ''[[Jetsons: The Movie]]'' (1990).
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 20
|algo = old(12d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{Archive box|auto=yes}}


Singleton died in [[Sherman Oaks, California]] following a [[stroke]], and was interred in [[San Fernando Mission Cemetery]] in [[Los Angeles, California]].
__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__


==Personal life==
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards|R]]
She was married to
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]
*Robert Sparks (1941 - 22 July 1963) till his his death and had a daughter
*Dr. Laurence Scogga Singleton, a dentist (1937 - December 1939), divorced him and had a daughter.


== Add new questions at the bottom of the page, not below here ==


==Filmography==
<!--
===Features===
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{col-begin}}
NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION
{{col-break}}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*''[[Good News (films)|Good News]]'' ([[1930 in film|1930]])
-->
*''Love in the Rough'' (1930)
*''[[After the Thin Man]]'' ([[1936 in film|1936]])
*''Vogues of 1938'' ([[1937 in film|1937]])
*''Sea Racketeers'' (1937)
*''Swing Your Lady'' ([[1938 in film|1938]])
*''Outside of Paradise'' (1938)
*''Men Are Such Fools'' (1938)
*''Racket Busters'' (1938)
*''Mr. Chump'' (1938)
*''Boy Meets Girl'' (1938)
*''Secrets of an Actress'' (1938)
*''Garden of the Moon'' (1938)
*''[[The Mad Miss Manton]]'' (1938)
*''Hard to Get'' (1938)
*''[[Blondie (film)|Blondie]]'' (1938)
*''Blondie Meets the Boss'' ([[1939 in film|1939]])
*''Blondie Takes a Vacation'' (1939)
*''Blondie Brings Up Baby'' (1939)
*''Blondie on a Budget'' ([[1940 in film|1940]])
*''Blondie Has Servant Trouble'' (1940)
*''Blondie Plays Cupid'' (1940)
*''Blondie Goes Latin'' ([[1941 in film|1941]])
*''Blondie in Society'' (1941)
{{col-break}}
*''Go West, Young Lady'' (1941)
*''Blondie Goes to College'' ([[1942 in film|1942]])
*''Blondie's Blessed Event'' (1942)
*''Blondie for Victory'' (1942)
*''It's a Great Life'' ([[1943 in film|1943]])
*''Footlight Glamour'' (1943)
*''Leave It to Blondie'' ([[1945 in film|1945]])
*''Life with Blondie'' (1945)
*''Young Widow'' ([[1946 in film|1946]])
*''Blondie's Lucky Day'' (1946)
*''Blondie Knows Best'' (1946)
*''Blondie's Big Moment'' ([[1947 in film|1947]])
*''Blondie's Holiday'' (1947)
*''Blondie in the Dough'' (1947)
*''Blondie's Anniversary'' (1947)
*''Blondie's Reward'' ([[1948 in film|1948]])
*''Blondie's Secret'' (1948)
*''Blondie's Big Deal'' ([[1949 in film|1949]])
*''Blondie Hits the Jackpot'' (1949)
*''Blondie's Hero'' ([[1950 in film|1950]])
*''Beware of Blondie'' (1950)
*''[[The Best Man (1964 film)|The Best Man]]'' ([[1964 in film|1964]]) (scenes deleted)
*''[[Jetsons: The Movie]]'' ([[1990 in film|1990]]) (voice)
{{col-end}}


[[Image:Pennysingleton-3 crop.jpg|thumb|right|180px|<center>Penny Singleton in 1989</center>]]
== Newspapers in countries without a free press ==
===Short subjects===
*''Belle of the Night'' ([[1930 in film|1930]])
*''Campus Cinderella'' ([[1938 in film|1938]])
*''Screen Snapshots Series 19, No. 1'' ([[1939 in film|1939]])


== External links ==
{{resolved}}
I am interested in whether a newspaper in a country without a free press can be considered a RS on news events? Specifically, I would ask about the [[Jordan Times]], a newspaper that [[Freedom House]] considers "partly free" for the year in question. However I am more interested in the broader question. Thanks for any thoughts. [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 14:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


* [http://www.geocities.com/blondieseries Blondie: The Movie Series]
:Common sense seems to suggest no as the answer to the general question. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
* {{imdb|id=0802325|name=Penny Singleton}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Singleton, Penny}}
::Yes it would seem so to me as well, particularly in contentious areas such as the I-P conflict. [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:1908 births]]

[[Category:2003 deaths]]
Note that free=/=reliable and unfree=/=unreliable. I would think this is obvious. I also think that Freedom House rankings are full of shit, personally. Last year, IIRC, Pakistan's noisily critical press was declared as unfree as China's, and India -- with draconian freedom of speech regulations and a very active press council -- was declared "partly free". Load of rot. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Deaths from stroke]]

[[Category:American film actors]]
:The rankings are one thing. The descriptions of a free press another. Of course free does not necessarily mean reliable as witness the tabloids, for example. Still, unfree would seem to suggest unreliable. So how does one determine reliability of an unfree or partly free press? Do you have any thoughts on the Jordan Times, Relata? [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:American radio actors]]

[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
::An unfree press might publish articles which are planted, in which case those would be unreliable. Or it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable. A free press might practice self-censorship, and be reliable, or be held hostage by commercial interests, and be unreliable. Merely using a non-descriptive statement as "free" or "unfree" is, in the end, not helpful at all. On the Jordan Times, I don't have the slightest opinion, though I believe I have both added and removed academic book reviews from it at various points. [I note, however, that Jordan had a widely-publicised clampdown on the press in 1997, which seems to have eased somewhat a few years later. It is also true that this newspaper seems to largely be described as "independent".] --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Vaudeville performers]]
:::I don't understand the claim that "it might be censored, in which case articles it published would be reliable". Why would a censored article be reliable? [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::If there are two facts, X and Y, then just because X is censored does not mean Y is untrue. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::It does not mean Y is untrue, but it does not mean Y is true, either, which is what you imply when you say "it might be censored, in which case articles it published '''would''' be reliable". In addition, selective censorship can easily lead to biased, misleading articles, which would alo smake the article unreliable. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Correct, I should have said "need not be unreliable". --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:This is honestly an issue of case by case review. [[Pravda]] was probably a horribly unreliable source for the happenings of the Soviet government. Perhaps it might have been a reliable source for reviews of plays and works of art (maybe), I don't know. State control or state influence means that we should treat as suspect (or at least qualify as non-independent) claims made by the source about the government. Determination of that control is ''again'' a case by case manner. I can't support Freedom House's rankings as an editorial tool on wikipedia. We should review and act on individual claims about the editorial freedom of individual publishing houses. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::I agree. You can't generalise this, particularly as the degree of state control is highly variable. In some "non-free" states, such as the old Soviet Union pre-Gorbachev, the media was entirely a creature of the government - it was owned by the state and reflected only official views (even on issues such as theatre and art which, let's not forget, were also subject to strict ideological controls). In modern Russia the media isn't formally under state control or ownership, but the state directs it from behind the scenes. At the next level down, the media in some countries may be subject to what could be called ideological conformity on some issues, even if they aren't controlled or directed by the government. I'm thinking of countries such as the Arab Gulf states, where the media is relatively free but still has to operate within certain ideological limits (such as not being overtly critical of the regime). I'm not familiar with the ''Jordan Times'', but I would guess that it falls into the latter category. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::That's an interesting thought Chris, as to what entails "ideological" limitations in regards to something like the [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]. Freedom House said that the Jordanian press practices "self-censorship" since should one anger the government a reporter can lose his credentials and his livelihood. In which case, since Jordan involved itself in the Al-Durrah case (in particular after the reported death of the boy), there could well have been an "acceptable" viewpoint in relation to the reporting of the incident. [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: Let's not confuse presentation and facts. The facts in an article may be correct, but the presentation and/or selection may have a bias. // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]] ([[User talk:Liftarn|talk]]) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yes, exactly so. This is the same in a lot of countries. It's almost always the case that certain avenues of argument are closed off by general social and political convention. (You'll never see criticism of [[King Bhumibol]] in the otherwise raucous Thai press, for instance). This isn't so much a restriction on free speech as a form of self-censorship, as you say - an unwritten agreement that the scope of free speech has certain boundaries. But the Western media has just as much of a self-imposed bias in various directions, as the whole "[[political correctness]]" debate makes clear. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Self-censorship due to state control of the press is very different from "political correctness" in a free society. A reporter can choose to be "politically correct" or not. In a country with a free press, there will be plenty of reporters who are neither politically correct nor self-censoring. In a free society with a free press, the marketplace of ideas and commerce will ultimately decide who "survives", not the government and its ideological thrust. [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Where are the articles arguing in favour of underage sex and racial discrimination in the mainstream Western media? Every publication self-censors, for commercial, social, moral or political reasons. There's no such thing as an unfettered "marketplace of ideas" anywhere, simply because some ideas are considered unacceptable by the general population. The government doesn't ''have'' to censor if social pressure does the job for them (this is very much the case in Thailand with regard to criticism of the king, for example). -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Articles in favour of underage sex and in favour of racial discrimination would not be the purview of mainstream reliable sources. They would be opinion pieces anyway. [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Jordan Times is controlled by the government. That makes it absolutely off limits, except when it is referencing itself or it has something to do with official Jordanian government policy. In general, non-free presses should be avoided, especially on controversial issues. <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:Apparently the paper is published by the Jordan Press Foundation. According to Alan George, the JPF is "62 per cent owned by the government via the Social Security Fund" [http://books.google.com/books?id=GhSge_Tq09sC&pg=PA211&dq=%22Jordan+Press+Foundation%22&sig=ACfU3U1HZMvi-6OoJjrJytn7kxavkiQYBg]. Partial state ownership certainly doesn't make it off-limits; plenty of broadcasters (the [[BBC]], [[France Télévisions]] and [[RAI]] are European examples that come to mind) are wholly state-owned. Don't forget that state ownership doesn't automatically equate to state control - it did in the case of ''Pravda'', because that was directly managed by the Soviet government, but many state-owned media outlets have a strict arm's length relationship with the government. [[WP:V#Reliable sources]] sets out four criteria: it must be a (1) reliable, (2) third-party (3) published source with (4) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Note that the question of ownership doesn't enter into the equation. Its articles are quoted by [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22jordan+times%22&btnG=Search+Books numerous published authors], so it clearly does seem to have a reputation as a reliable and accurate source, satisfying the first and fourth criteria. It obviously also meets the second and third criteria. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Do you think that if it were "controlled," as opposed to "owned," it would make a difference as to its reliability? I'll also point out, the books you link to are intriguing, but a) there is no context at all for the citations in the books, and b) the standards of any given random book may not be Wikipedia's -- is [[Winnie the Pooh]] a reliable source? What happens if we ask [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22in+winnie+the+pooh%22 Google Books]? <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::It may make a difference, but it really depends on the degree of editorial independence enjoyed by the media outlet in question. Some are totally under the grip of their government masters - ''[[The Herald (Zimbabwe)]]'' is a case in point. Others are stridently independent, like the BBC. Some are in-between with a sort of compromised independence, like RAI. The only real way to tell is to to find out what others say about the outlet in question and, in particular, determine how widely it's cited as a source, hence the usefulness of reviewing Google Books to answer that particular question. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Given we have no good way of teasing out what parts of the Jordan Times are independent (assuming any part of it is at all) I'm not sure how we can rely on them as a source. They are controlled by an undemocratic government, that makes them automatically highly suspect. Google books doesn't help at all here, although looking at the books on Google might. Again, despite our inability to write reliable articles, we do have higher standards than many of the works we reference. <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Again, ownership isn't part of our reliable sourcing criteria (nor should it be, considering the POV mischief that would permit - e.g. people trying to disqualify the BBC or Al Jazeera on the grounds of government involvement). You have to apply the criteria we have, not the criteria you'd like to have. If the JT is a reliable third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then I see no reason not to use it. Note that I'm not arguing that it meets those criteria, since I don't know much about the newspaper - I'm just stating for the record that those are the criteria we have to apply. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::but policies and guidelines a descriptive of a community standard of behavior. I agree that we can't claim "[[WP:V]] says no state owned media" but it we instead claim "An editor has raised a concern in good faith that the lack of editorial independence at newspaper X renders it unfit to be used as a reliable source on issue Y", then that is another matter entirely. If we have good reason to believe that a newspaper would make editorial judgments at the behest (or in advance of that behest) of their owners on a particular matter, then we can discuss that. Even in England, we would be incorrect to cite a British paper on a matter subject to a [[DA-Notice]] as an authority on the matter--we would expect that they would withhold items related to the issue from publication. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Of course ownership impacts reliability, especially when the owner is a state which censors and controls the media -- very much the case in Jordan. There are tough cases, to be sure, but this isn't one of them. You keep saying you don't much about the newspaper... fair enough. From what I know, it is unreliable, and I have seen no evidence that it meets the criteria you set out. Could a story in the JT be true in all its particulars? Most definitely. But there's no way to know, and good reason to be skeptical ... thus, it is unreliable. <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::We simply don't operate on that basis - it amounts to a back-door way of eliminating all media citations from particular countries. I see from Reporters without Borders that Jordan is actually rated the third most free country in the Middle East in terms of press freedom, after Israel and Kuwait. But then again, you're blurring the difference between government ''ownership'' (which in this case appears to be only partial, if George is right) and government editorial ''control''. The British government owns and funds the [[BBC World Service]] 100%, but it doesn't exercise control. Your case seems to be based entirely on the assumption that the newspaper has no independence due to the government's partial stake in the fund which owns it. I don't think that's a logical conclusion. You certainly haven't cited any sources to back up your assumption that the newspaper is not independent. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Per your suggestion, I went to Reporters without borders. First sentence of their 2008 report on Jordan? '''“State security police have kept journalists under pressure despite King Abdallah II’s promises of democratic reform.”''' If that’s not a ringing endorsement, what is? More: '''“…self-censorship continues.”''' Also '''“state security stopped the weekly Al-Majd from coming out for allegedly “undermining national interests.” It had planned to run an article about Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his plans to boost his party. Copies were seized at the printers.”''' This is in addition to several other examples of censorship. So we have that, we have Freedom House, if TB is correct. As to your point about state ownership not equaling state control, that’s quite right. So… here we have the NYTimes ''“Once they are a sovereign country, we could sit down and have a conversation about unity,' said Abdullah Hassanat, editor in chief of '''The Jordan Times, a publication controlled by the Government'''.”'' (February 13, 1999, emphasis added). Okay… so Jordan papers are out, at least until something significant changes (argumentum ad googlem aside). For the larger question of whether unfree presses should be used, I think the answer is obviously no. If someone wants to introduce an unfree press cite, the onus is on them to show why a) it’s relevant and useful to the article in question and b) believable/reliable. <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another perspective: there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. [[Hugo Chavez]] got a law installed in Venezuela prohibiting criticism of *him* in the press, and has gotten television stations not favorable towards him shut down, while there remains a large state-dominated media machine. The press is not free in Venezuela; specifically, private enterprises cannot criticize Hugo Chavez, and leading private newspapers now often avoid identifying journalists in bylines. Do these restrictions mean that Venezuelan press articles aren't reliable on every other score, excepting that they aren't allowed to criticize Chavez? No, it just means that non-Venezuelan sources have to be used to complement what Venezuelan sources aren't allowed to report, and we have to use editorial judgment in interpreting Venezuelan sources, wrt 1) the state-owned enterprises and 2) limits on privately owned press freedom. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::The problem that I see with what you are saying, Sandy - is that once there is ''any'' state censorship, we can only guess whether other things are reliable -- that goes to the very heart of the definition of "reliable." [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Press sources that are not independent or are arms of the government like [[Granma (newspaper)|Granma]] should be used only to express the opinion of the controling entity, and sparingly at that. They should '''never''' be used for facts. Freedom House's rankings are a good place to start in evaluating media outlets. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:No they aren't. See above. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::First, I agree with ChrisO that sources on ''political subjects'' from countries with ''official policy of censorship'' (like [[Glavlit]] in the USSR) are unreliable. The problem arise with sources from countries without official censorship but where press is still "not free" according to independent reliable sources (not necessarily Freedom House). Then, some discretion should be applied. For example, reports by independent journalists and well known opposition newspapers (if any) from such countries should be considered reliable.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Again, censorship implies that material is excluded. It does not mean that false information is included. That is disinformation. There is a correlation between the two, especially in totalitarian societies, but they are not the same thing. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::::It's common practice that false information has been used by totalitarian countries, take Nazi Germany or Soviet Union etc. They even have an article on WP about it: [[Big Lie]].--[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::In controversial cases, why not just describe the source (preferably with a WP:RS for description) and let readers decide for themselves? ie, "the partially government owned such and such" or the "military contract owned so and so" or "the neconservative controled this and that"?? '''Carol Moore 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]'''
::::::PS speaking of Israel-Palestine, I have created this page '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions]]''' which has a link to all the specific and general topics that might possibly be related to I-P, or just about anything political. In case you want to bookmark it for a quick look at the various links to topics covered here before. ''''Carol Moore 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]'''
::::::As I indicate above, Jordan papers are clearly off limits. Carol, your suggestion is an invitation to well-poisoning, and creates a false equivalence between media outlets that tend to lean towards one end or the other of the political spectrum, and censored oulets that cannot be trusted with any confidence. To reify that elision into WP policy would be horribly damaging. <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

===POV-based exclusion of sources?===
It's hard to see IronDuke's approach as being anything other than a way of excluding media sources from countries which you don't like. If you want to describe a particular country's point of view about an issue, then ''of course'' media from that country is likely to be the best source. Your approach simply assumes that everything published in the media of a country such as Jordan is inherently inaccurate. Of course, coverage of certain topics may be biased or incomplete due to ideological preferences about the topic in question. You would not necessarily look to the Russian press for unbiased coverage of the war in Georgia, for instance. But it's taking it to a ridiculous extreme to apply this sort of caution to ''every'' story in ''every'' media outlet in a particular country. Are Jordanian sports reports off-limits? How about reports on cultural or economic affairs? What about political matters involving countries outside the Middle East?

As well as that, the "IronDuke standard" is ridiculously ill-defined. What counts as "censored media"? Israel's media are heavily censored about issues to do with security matters; does that make it off-limits? Many consider Britain's media to be muzzled by very strict libel laws. India has a very active press commission. Thailand's media is distorted by political ownership and subject to drastic limitations in certain areas. In fact, if you look at Reporters without Borders' [http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025 list of press freedom for 2007], Jordan is actually ranked higher than many "westernised" countries, including Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico and so on. It's in a roughly equal position with India. How about it, IronDuke - are you going to argue that the whole of the Mexican and Indian media should be excluded? Where do you draw the line? Considering who's brought this up, it's clear that this whole thing is just an attempt to exclude the reporting of one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict; nobody should take it seriously. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:Chris, you switched from third person to second person in your opening salvo, so I'm not quite sure what you think you meant. Do you mean that I don't like Jordan ? What gave you that idea? Or that it would be appropriate to assert it here?

:As for excluding India and/or Mexico … I'd certainly listen to arguments for and against with an open mind. Lay em on me, and I'll tell you if I think for our purposes they are better, worse, or about the same as Jordan .

:''"If you want to describe a particular country's point of view about an issue, then of course media from that country is likely to be the best source."'' Well, okay, that's actually not true at all, is it? Unless by "country" you mean "governmental view." And I think I said before, we might be able to use the papers for that. And okay, Chris, sports scores too. But not to support factual assertions about things that actually did/did not happen in the Middle East. Right?

:''"What counts as "censored media"?"'' Well, I answered this above. At length. Showed why Jordan won't do for the purposes that TB is interested in. Good stuff there, you should check it out. Your argument, BTW, leads directly to "all sources are fine," since it's impossible to draw a totally precise line. You don't actually believe this, of course, but it's where that sort of water-muddying leads.

:''"Considering who's brought this up, it's clear that this whole thing is just an attempt to exclude the reporting of one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict; nobody should take it seriously."'' That is not a useful remark. I don't have to give you the alphabet soup of what it violates, I'll just say TB's enquiry is in and of itself entirely proper; no serious, neutral person could have a problem with it.

:In sum, I think from what you've written, we can all agree that Jordan papers should not be quoted when it comes to Middle-East matters, except to reaffirm a government position (and that this should be made clear in the text). Resolved? <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Denial of the Holodomor ==

-''library science is not a reliable source in this respect'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denial_of_the_Holodomor&diff=238419500&oldid=238280656] claims [[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] regarding <br />
'''Denial of the Ukrainian famine''' (1933) ''according to'':<br />
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=IvqbuSm4sHYC&pg=PA137&dq=%22Denial+of+the+Ukrainian+Famine%22&sig=ACfU3U1vl37YboYBLmdEhxnMx0uktju8aw Evolution in Reference and Information Services By Di Su, Jessica Tan Gudnason, Di Ed; p. 137] ISBN 9780789017239<br />
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=1e13PNeB4DIC&pg=PA80&dq=%22Denial+of+the+Ukrainian+Famine%22&sig=ACfU3U3hf6hFd8xYr9RbpK5NoCQSZmLtXw Legitimacy and Force By Jeane J. Kirkpatric; p. 80] ISBN 9780887386466<br />
and keeps removing the fact and the sources from the article. Any thoughts?

Also, once this is here are sources like for example:

*''The Soviet Union dismissed all references to the famine as anti-Soviet propaganda. Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power and the Soviet empire disintegrated'' @ [http://books.google.com/books?ei=_WZ3R9CwDZnmtQO3xeXQCg&id=c-8YAAAAIAAJ&dq=Holodomor+Denial&q=%22Denial+of+the+famine%22&pgis=1#search Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity By Dinah Shelton; Page 1055] ISBN 0028658485
*''After over half a century of denial, in January 1990 the [[Communist Party of Ukraine]] adopted a special resolution admitting that the Ukrainian Famine had indeed occurred, cost millions of lives...'' [http://books.google.com/books?id=5Ef8Hrx8Cd0C&pg Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts - Page 93]

reliable sources that would define the subject unlike [[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] claims the article is a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]], [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NPOV]]?

Thanks!--[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

:Er, I checked the talk page, and you seem to be mentioning a great deal of things that are unrelated to RR's comment about one specific source being inadequate for this purpose. Broadly speaking, RR's complaint - and it looks reasonable, on a first look, to me - is that the article is written such that it labels any failure to conform to a maximalist, intentionalist vision of the Ukranian famine of 1933 as an orchestrated master plan of genocide as "Holodomor Denial," a concept that does not seem to be well-defined or subject to serious academic study. It is as if someone were to write an article called "Iraq Sanctions Denial" about people who say that the UN sanctions on Iraq did not kill 1/2 million people; yes, the best evidence would seem to indicate that this indeed happened, and two consecutive UN Humanitarian Co-ordinators for Iraq resigned in protest of this "genocide," but that doesn't mean that "Iraq Sanctions Denial" is suddenly a notable topic and that people who say the evidence is unclear or Saddam is mainly to blame can be labeled as "Iraq Sanctions Deniers." &lt;[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]&gt; 03:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

::Basically you're saying the article has [[Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines|notability]] issues? Please also comment on the question about the sources above. Thanks!--[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Rather than notability per se, I am concerned that there has been some POV-forking, or that there is a potential for POV-forking. It might be better to reabsorb the denial article and the genocide question article back into the main article on the Holodomor. Keeping such articles within a sensible length usually helps with maintaining NPOV and does not detract at all from the importance of the events. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 09:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Termer, Relata is correct. The first reference above is to a book dealing with library science and more specifically the impact of the internet on information services. This is not a reliable source for a contentious piece of Soviet/Ukrainian history. That much is clear. The second source, which clearly Relata was not directly referring to in his "library science"{ comment, is from a book by [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]], who seems to be well known for her anticommunist polemics. She may have held a PhD but in 1988 when the book was published she had long been entrenched in the front lines of Cold War politics, and should be very hesitantly used to source contentious aspects of Soviet history. That should also be rather obvious.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 11:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think Itsmejudith might have some valid points and in case [[WP:Consensus]] can be reached about it, why not to keep all Holodomor related subjects in one article. I'd be open to that. However, I brought the books here to validate the reliability of the sources in the context, not that much what to do about the article in general. That I think would be a separate discussion that everybody could give their input in the relevant talk page.<br />
:::::Regarding J. Kirkpatric being "in the front lines of Cold War politics" according to [[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]], that is a statement that would need some clear sourcing on its own I think. Has Kirkpatric been referred to by any other scholars as not being a reliable author who has promoted fringe theories about Soviet history or anything like that?--[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I linked her entry in the hope that you might actually read it. She was a foreign policy adviser to [[Ronald Reagan]] and an outspoken critic of communism ''as a political figure''. In terms of the Soviet Union, as far as I can tell, she was a polemicist and not a scholar. Where are her qualifications as a Russian or Ukrainian historian? We don't need an emphatic statement by another scholar about something that is this obvious. There are several writers who have PhDs and/or have taught at respectable Universities who also should not be used as reliable sources in areas that directly relate to their highly politicized public life - especially without any evidence that they have any academic expertise in these areas.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, in relation to the first two sources, Relata is quite right that the first relates to library science, not to history. Also, the second is not a mainstream historical work. History articles should be sourced from books and articles by qualified and practising historians, published in academic journals or books from academic presses. Their authors will usually have worked directly with the primary sources and will be competent users of the relevant language(s). I doubt whether Kirkpatrick was working in that way. Her writing would probably be a good source for commentary on current affairs or recent foreign policy, but not for unpicking events that happened decades ago and that professional historians are struggling to understand. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Fair enough, including PelleSmith' points that Kirkpatric would be more like a primary source that would be valid only for citing a POV on the subject rather than a secondary source that an article on WP should be based on. How about the 3rd and 4th book in the context?--[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::3 and 4 are both RS. Only one caveat, that you avoid giving prominence to any points that these sources only mention in passing. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]]! It all makes sense. Coming back to your previous points regarding the article in general, please let me know if I got it right. Since no serious mainstream scholar has really denied the occurrence of the famine ever. the subject itself is not considered "serious" subject of study since the 'denial of the famine' is limited to ...the communist Party of SU politics and some of it's supporters opinions. Therefore it's getting mentioned as a fact by those RS-s only in passing. But in general the subject itself is not serious enough or the denial is limited to too marginal political groups and therefore there is no point of studding it really or having a separate article on WP that: like put by someone at the articles talk page: ''provides a list of "crack-pot fringe-theorists" who deny the occurrence of the famine'' . Therefore it would be better to keep the subject as a part of the main article [[Holodomor]]? --[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::It seems that some people are working hard to draw parallels between this famine and the [[Holocaust]], hence the term [[Holodomor]]. And hence there is an article on [[Denial of the Holodomor]]. But [[Holocaust denial]] is a notable phenomenon in its own right. There is an extensive literature on it. There is no real parallel with denial of the Holodomor. Well, morally perhaps there is a parallel but we are looking for verifiability not truth. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 09:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hello, as a contributor to this article, I personally find the above entry repuslive. Here's why:

In 1932, soviet authorities started taking away grain from people and by 1933 those people were starving to death. The people in Ukraine who were dieing started using the word "Голодомор" - "Holodomor" which is derived from the word "holod" "голод" (hunger) and "moryty" "морити" (to cause to suffer). "Holodomor" described the situation that they faced - starvation, unless they joined the collective farms. There was a holod, a famine, throughout Ukraine, and people were starving in the streets. The soviet union was exporting grain in record quantities. Hence the idea of "moryty" - using food as a weapon.

More than ten years later, a word started creeping into the English vernacular - holocaust. It was from the greek word for sacrifice by fire - holokauston, and referred to Hitler's extermination policies. This word did not become common in English until it was connected to the word "genocide" in the 1950s, and the whole horror of Nazism sunk in.
The word "Holodomor" is now becoming widespread, as the horrible results of communism are starting to sink in.

Although the words "Holodomor" and "Holocaust" may seem similar in modern English, they are in no way related.
Although these two events may seem equally horrible in nature, they are in no way related.
Although the articles about Holodomor Denial and Holocaust Denial may seem related, they are not. There has been no attempt to link the two. Please do not try to read into any reasons or find any hidden agendas by any editors. Thanks, [[User:Horlo|Horlo]] ([[User talk:Horlo|talk]]) 09:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::the similarity between 2 words Holodomor and Holocaust seems to be a concern for some editors. The similarity might be intentional and then again, it might not. (it is actually a good question how the name Holodomor came into use?) The real parallel would be there only if "Holodomor" would be accepted as an act of genocide by the majority in the world. So far it's not, so the name itself might confuse the reader. That's why I've suggested renaming the article to [[Denial of Ukrainian famine (1932)]] that would refer clearly to the denial of the occurrence of the famine as such and it would have nothing to do with "[[Holodomor genocide question]]".--[[User:Termer|Termer]] ([[User talk:Termer|talk]]) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Christ, I had another look, and that article is an atrocity. It perniciously lumps everything together: naive offhand remarks by visting diplomats in 1933, official decrees from Soviet news agencies that Ukraine is an earthly paradise, and mild revisionism criticizing the political use of dubious claims about a Stalinist master plan of genocide is all treated as one phenomenon. Renaming it "Denial of the Ukrainian Famine" would be a silly little diversion. &lt;[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]&gt; 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Allah, Yahweh, and Vishna to you also, my friend. What you may call an atrocity, others may call a work in progress. While it is difficult to organize such a vast topic as Holodomor Denial into one easy article, editors have taken on the task with a steady determination.
Please help to improve the article, but please do not use phrases like "silly little". Thanks, [[User:Horlo|Horlo]] ([[User talk:Horlo|talk]]) 09:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I did not realise that the two words were not at all connected. Thank you for enlightening me. Let us please keep civil here, all of us. I am coming new to this topic. I have proposed merging this article into the general one on the Holodomor for reasons I gave on the merge discussion talk page. I hope you will see that I am not doing this to advance any position at all. It is to ensure that we have good quality articles based on reliable sources, i.e. what was hoped for when the question was raised on this page. Although Eleland's wording was harsh I'm sure it was offered for the same reason. All our articles are work in progress. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, sorry if I came across gruff, but the great famine is still being denied - believe it or not, a Brazillian senator just came out with a claim that the Holodomor was a nazi invention. I think that that one act just gave a validity and relevance to this article. There are people denying the Holodomor, and people tracking said denial. That's why it should not be merged, but I will surely contribute to the discussion on the merger page.
::I understand that you are simply responding to questions here. However, I have learned that editors' motives are as varied as the editors themselves. Therefore, when the first sentence I read starts with God's name, and includes words like atrocity, I think it is natural to challenge said editor. Hopefully, we can keep building. Thanks, [[User:Horlo|Horlo]] ([[User talk:Horlo|talk]]) 07:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Myspace blog ==

I know this has probably been brought up before but what is the reliability of a myspace blog? (The situation: The birth year of [[Alex O'Loughlin]] has never been reliably pinned down but on what is presumably his myspace page he blogged clarifying his birth year.) My first thought is to say no to the use of myspace personally, ''but'' the section on 'self-published and questionable sources about themselves' makes me hesitant on this. Should/can this be used as a source or not? --[[User:ImmortalGoddezz|ImmortalGoddezz]] (<small>[[User talk:ImmortalGoddezz|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/ImmortalGoddezz|c]]</small>) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:'''If it can be verified by a reliable source that it is his blog''', there should be no problem using it as a self-published source. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

*My gut says no. We have no way of knowing whether or not he (or someone else) operates his myspace. [[WP:BLP]] is stricter than [[WP:SPS]] with regards to blogs, etc. My opinion is that it is better to leave the birth date blank unless we can cite it reliably, but there is a wide range of opinion on that. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

::How can/should one go about verifying the legitimacy of a MySpace page as actually being that of the celebrity in question? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:::If it is directly linked to from their "official" site with some pretty obvious "this is me (or really a publicist or intern) on myspace". [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the replies. Since the actor doesn't have an official site and I can't link the myspace to any official news report about him I'm going with my instincts and removing the info. --[[User:ImmortalGoddezz|ImmortalGoddezz]] (<small>[[User talk:ImmortalGoddezz|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/ImmortalGoddezz|c]]</small>) 17:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== University Thesis ==

Is a University Thesis by someone about another person that is passed away considered to be a reliable source?[[User:Vivaldi27|Vivaldi27]] ([[User talk:Vivaldi27|talk]]) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:That's pretty borderline. If it's a biographical article I'd still try to find more widely-published sources. It would be a different matter if it was a thesis about an uncontroversial technical topic. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:usually no. Most universities will let you get a MA or PhD with almost any thesis and the university is not officially on the hook for the claims made in the article. What is the source in question? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::Finding a thesis is often useful as it gives you the name of an author. You can then search for books or articles written by that person. Academics often derive articles from their thesis while they are writing it or soon afterwards, and the whole thesis might be published in amended form as a book. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 10:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:A PhD thesis is certainly a RS. It isn't self-published and goes through a review process by a group of experts in the field. That's more than most books. Is a university Thesis something different? [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think that is true at all. Not all university theses are created alike. Plenty of PhD granting universities out there will accept a thesis that could never get published in academic press. The purpose of the thesis is mainly to demonstrate that the writer can formulate an independent work of scholarly interest. Usually the thesis ends up being published somewhere, but that is only after it is submitted for peer review. I absolutely disagree that a thesis is RS simply because of the review committee. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::A PhD dissertation (at the very least in the humanities and social sciences and in the United States) goes through a rigorous review process by the dissertations readers most of whom are experts in the field and who are "on the hook" in some way or another. Protonk, the reason why a given PhD dissertation may not be publishable has nothing to do with the perceived reliability of its content. Do you have any evidence of that being the case because I've never heard this before?[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Here are three older discussions related to this one: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Dissertations.3F 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Dissertations.3F 2], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#unpublished_Master.27s_thesis 3]. I will note that I only think a PhD dissertation from an accredited university (and not a lesser type of "thesis") should be considered reliable yet even in that case should be avoided when possible for novel and contentious claims.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec) I know that PhD's in the US in all fields go through a rigorous review. One of the elements of reliability (in terms of the "publisher") requires that the publisher take responsibility for the content. I also realize that many PhD dissertations are not publishable for reasons other than reliability (good and bad). Novelty bias, scope of subject, length of dissertation all impact likelihood of publication and do not impact what we would consider accuracy. Another element of reliability is editorial control. While PhD theses may be vetted for claims and evidence, most universities will eventually accept a thesis on most any subjects (assuming that the major professor ok's it). This is the antithesis of reliability in a publisher sense. We rely (rightly or wrongly) on third parties to select and cover topics. Fact checking is only an element of that outsourcing. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm with ProtonK here, and I'll add that, as always, the devil is in the details. If you're looking blanket statement that PhD theses from ''qualifier1, qualifier2, qualifier3'' university are always/never reliable sources, then I don't think you're going to get one. In many subjects, theses from certain universities may be valid sources for certain types of claims, but in many cases they won't be. Theses aren't "published" in the usual sense of the word, and if claims made in a thesis are notable and/or valid, then one would hope that the claim would eventually show up in an unambiguously reliable source. In my own field (chemistry), crappy not-otherwise publishable material is sometimes (not often--but still with an unfortunate regularity) crammed into theses, since sometimes the best way to get rid of a lackluster grad student is to pass him/her out of the program. It's clean and easy, and everyone gets what they want--the prof gets rids of an underperforming grad student and the student gets a PhD. Happens all the time, even at "prestigious" universities. [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I realize now that I wasn't as clear as I had hoped to be. Here is my rundown: Reliability of a source (in this case, the word source refers to the publisher not the author) stems from three things. A reputation for fact checking. A reputation for selection and control of content. And a reputation for responsibility for that content. A PhD thesis from a major university only meets the first element. The rest are at best met on a case by case basis within given departments. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I disagree with this assessment. To suggest that there is no "selection and control of content" by seasoned experts in the field who are not the PhD candidate themselves is absurd and clearly wrong. Sure the university itself may not take responsibility in the manner of a publisher but it seems like neither of you are willing to account for aspects of the dissertation process that are simply different from the publishing process but may accomplish similar ends in terms of reliability. To suggest that dissertation readers (as opposed to the university as an institution) take no responsibility for the content of the dissertation is odd. We get it, the dissertation writing process is not the same as the process of getting a book published by an academic press, but why on earth is that the standard by which the dissertation needs to be judged in terms of reliability? Yilloslime, in your hypothetical situation everyone does not "get what they want". The university and the department in question will lose in the end if they continue to produce scholars who can't get jobs in no small part because the research that was approved and supervised by the department is of poor quality. Don't forget that a lot of garbage is published by university presses as well for various reasons. Could either of you offer something more than simple anecdotes to support the assertion that PhD dissertations cannot be considered reliable sources in most instances? I'm happy to repeat the notion that they should not be used for contentious and novel claims. Thanks.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 23:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Keep in mind that I'm not saying "never", I'm just saying "not usually". First, I don't agree that universities have incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. That incentive is transferred largely to the student. In most fields there is a pressure to produce something worthy of publication in order to seek academic employment. In that case it is in the interests of the student to produce something of quality. For students who will not seek academic employment the university has no real incentive to control quality. Efficacy of graduate programs are judged based on the employment prospects of graduates and time to graduate, not the quality of dissertations. Second, we have ''no'' information on individual colleges and departments. While we can (and often do) judge sources bu their public face--tabloids are rebuked as tabloids, journals which practice rigorous fact checking are noted--we have no real way to determine this for the thousands of PhD programs in the United States alone. We can spot obvious diploma mills but review of these programs from a fact checking and editorial control standpoing is spotty at best. Third, we still don't have strong editorial control. While I agree that selection of a topic and scope are subject to the whim of the major professor, there is no guarantee that this results in some meaningful selection. I also want to contest the "just anecdote" notion. I don't see that you have offered some data about the overall accuracy of doctoral dissertation (or the average eventual publication). We are both providing reasons for our arguments and anecdotal (sometimes) examples. I can tell you that I go to a large Midwestern PhD granting university who is not in the top 10 academically. Our standards for dissertations are lower than the standards for publication in most fields. I have plenty of reason to believe that there is considerable variation in the quality of dissertations between universities and that they may not always be reliable sources. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I don't have much more than anecdotal information myself, but I'm not asserting that a certain form of large scale research project ''supposedly'' done under expert supervision and receiving the stamp of an accredited university is often an unreliable source for facts. Is it possible that your experience is more salient in specific fields of research? I can't imagine many of these "PhD mills" in the humanities and social sciences, but maybe my experience isn't the more common one. The idea that oversight comes in the form of professorial "whims" seems pretty cynical to me. Of course the scope of the project isn't in question here the reliability of the finished product is. You are convincing me, even if only by example, that there is a lot of variation across programs and disciplines which would make a generalized statement here more problematic. Yet what I'm not convinced of is that the difference in "quality" between universities relates directly to the reliability of information within dissertations. That was my initial concern when it was suggested that the fact that most dissertations are not published speaks to their unreliability when I don't see any evidence of this. When advised on how to write a dissertation that would have a better chance of being accepted for publication I've never come across any advice about reliability and/or the accuracy of information. I'm not sure good data exists on the accuracy of information from books published by academic presses either. Perhaps no one needs to use a dissertation as a reference anyway if we all agree that novel/contentious claims should be avoided from these sources leaving factual information which can always be sourced elsewhere. Protonk I do not doubt that your appraisal is entirely sincere and based upon good experience in this area, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise with my "anecdotal" comment. Cheers.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I'll attempt something of a reply here, but I think we agree on some narrow issues. One of the biggest issues with [[WP:RS]] is that we have three distinct connotations for the word source. We may mean source in the manner that RS means it: a publisher of information. We may mean source to be the author of that piece of information. And we may mean source to be the actual font of data that the piece compiles. In the case (broadly) of PhD dissertations I still think that they are not a homogeneously reliable source in the first definition. If there is a wide disparity in dissertation quality and appropriateness of topic selection then I am hesitant to leave the judgment of the accuracy and acceptability of a dissertation to the editor alone. I kind of answered this below, but I feel that there is a big continuum of PhD quality from top flight universities to diploma mills. there are plenty of PhD granting universities who have competitive admissions, comprehensive examinations and difficult coursework but which may (or may not) not undertake strong control in the selection of topics and coverage of material (I concede the point that fact checking is largely done). I also want to revisit my "whim" comment. I just threw that out there. I didn't mean it literally and I should have clarified. Topics are agreed upon (usually where I have seen) between student and professor but my point was that there are many more students than professors and the assent of the major professor to a student topic isn't the same thing as an editor pushing for a story and selecting among different stories (Mostly because students eventually write the dissertation where reporters or columnists may--for some papers--write several stories before one is selected). Remember, back to the "sources" issues. the problem at hand isn't the "reliability" of the information but of the PhD dissertation process. That is the important element. We may accept the NYT as a reliable source even though they messed up and published the WMD business in 2002-2003. This is a rough cut from a blunt tool, but it seems to work reasonably well. I just feel that if we apply it to dissertations we end up with the answer that usually it is impossible to tell if the dissertation process is reliable school to school. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
(out indent, EC)
*OK, this is verging upon the bizarre. Let's go one thing at a time.
:* ''First, I don't agree that universities have incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. That incentive is transferred largely to the student. In most fields there is a pressure to produce something worthy of publication in order to seek academic employment. In that case it is in the interests of the student to produce something of quality. For students who will not seek academic employment the university has no real incentive to control quality. Efficacy of graduate programs are judged based on the employment prospects of graduates and time to graduate, not the quality of dissertations.''
::*Believe me, there are strong incentives to maintain doctoral dissertation quality. Schools do ''not'' want to be known as a paper mill. Faculty members don't want to be known for having shoddy PhD students. Graduate programs are judged almost solely on how good of students they produce. US News rankings have been making a bigger deal about number of graduates, ''but'' for departments it is peer-review that matters. And believe me, quality of PhD students (which is judged mostly by what they've done/written) is the number one issue there.
:::*I'm not saying that they don't. Schools are certainly rated on the success of their graduates and this gives the university a strong incentive to get them to write publishable dissertations. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between being accountable for inaccuracies, bias and topic selection and being accountable for student outcomes. And it isn't just diploma mill vs. not. There is a pretty big leap from (say) the University of Chicago and the University of Phoenix. Most top of the field schools will produce dissertations that go on to be published in some form. Schools which don't (a big chunk of them) still have rigorous and comprehensive PhD programs, but we can no longer say that a high percentage of their students' dissertations go on to be published. It is those schools which we are concerned about. Not harvard.
:* ''Second, we have ''no'' information on individual colleges and departments. While we can (and often do) judge sources bu their public face--tabloids are rebuked as tabloids, journals which practice rigorous fact checking are noted--we have no real way to determine this for the thousands of PhD programs in the United States alone. We can spot obvious diploma mills but review of these programs from a fact checking and editorial control standpoing is spotty at best. ''
::*At the very least the same is true of newspapers and magazines in the US. Which local papers are "reliable?" There are a lot more local papers than PhD granting institutions. And we have a high degree of certainty that more time was spent on the thesis than a news article. Both in the writing and the editing.
:::*Maybe. There are [[Editor & Publisher]], [[Columbia Journalism Review]], and other journalism reviews. For schools we have [[Inside Higher Ed]] and [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]], whose focus isn't really on the quality of dissertation.
:* ''Third, we still don't have strong editorial control. While I agree that selection of a topic and scope are subject to the whim of the major professor, there is no guarantee that this results in some meaningful selection. ''
::* And somehow you think that the selection of topic and scope by a news reporter and her editor results in meaningful selection? Why one and not the other?
:::*Yes of course I do. Newspapers have a limit to their possible coverage, the number of pages they can print. They also have meaningful tradeoffs in assigning a reporter to issue A rather than B, or C or D. The only thing that limits topic selection for dissertations is grad students. We can cherry pick bad topics just as easily as we can cherry pick good topics.
:I think you are holding one type of publication to a higher standard than the others. The work is reviewed by a committee (by definition) and directed by an expert in the field. If a Thesis claimed that "Bob Jones was a murder" I'd certainly be hesitant to take that as fact just because someone wrote it in a thesis. But I'd be hesitant to take that as fact just because the NYT said it. That "discovering the optimal scheduling algorithm for certain caches is NP-hard" is something I'd believe from a thesis, esp. as it would have evidence therein to back it up. In that case, there's also a journal paper (which should be cited instead). [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:*I'm going to respond inline just to make things worse. :) Like I said above, my suggested answer isn't never but "often, no". I don't see that as descending into silly season. The field that I dabble in has plenty of MA and PhD theses which push the discipline forward, mostly because it is so new. I wouldn't have a problem citing one in a paper but I probably wouldn't (even if I knew the research) cite it in wikipedia. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Example of an unacceptable PhD'''. I just searched googlebooks for sources and found a full-text rendition of a PhD thesis that looked like a thoroughly researched, spot-on source on topic... until I found that it cites guess what - wikipedia - and on a gregarious scale ([http://books.google.com/books?id=Gi7vcuGpAW8C&pg=PA386&vq=wikipedia&dq=El+Lissitzky&lr=lang_en&num=20&as_brr=1&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U11-Kd2tsHeefSCC_P8W1jX4IZJiA go figure]). At page 387 the author even argues that wikipedia has more or less quality than paper encyclopedias. Why in the world a thesis needs to cite ''encyclopedias''? beats me. This one is from Oslo School of Engineering and Design. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm sure you can find more, even in the US or the UK. This is sad, but true. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Gibnews.net and [[User:Gibnews]] ==

{{Resolved|No, this is not a reliable source. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}
I would appreciate a second opinion on this issue. [[User:Gibnews]] runs a Gibraltar-based news website [http://www.gibnews.net], which he has used as reference or primary source in various occasions in the past. At the moment, there is an ongoing content dispute centered on this particular issue, whether he should be allowed to use this website as a reliable source, which he uses to back up his edits (many of the published pieces seem to be official press releases from Gibraltar local government). Link to dispute [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar&diff=next&oldid=240548152 here]. Regards, --[[User:Asterion|<span style="color:#0000FF;font-weight:bold;">'''Asterion'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Asterion|<span style="color:#00EF00;">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:No way, jose. Not a reliable source at all. check their [http://www.gibnews.net/contact.htm about us] link. they basically say they will run uneditied releases from anyone. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::In addition, I feel very uncomfortable about the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] this represents. An editor citing his own website as a source? What is to stop him adding <RANDOM> to his website and then citing that on Wikipedia as evidence of a claim? The website would surely count as a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] and wouldn't be usable as a reliable source anyway. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

== Chronicles from the 17th and 18th century ==

Are chronicles from the 1600s and 1700s reliable sources? In my opinion, even quoting from such an old source directly (i.e. without a secondary source acting as a filter) is original research, because words change their meaning over such long periods of time (either by losing some of their original meanings or being enriched with new meanings the original author never intended to use). Of course, if the meaning is undisputed within the community then that isn't a problem, but what's the proper course of action if the meaning is disputed? --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 13:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:In most cases I would agree, though there may be exceptions. I would, e.g. tend to accept (attributed!) excerpts from [[James Cook]]'s log books or [[Joseph Banks]]' reports to show their contemporary impressions. I would not allow them as sources for statements of facts in the editorial voice, of course. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 14:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::There's nothing wrong with describing what they say without any original interpretation, especially when the source is available online (those works are obviously PD) and anyone can verify if the wording in the article is conformal or is just the personal view of an editor.[[User:Xasha|Xasha]] ([[User talk:Xasha|talk]]) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The problem as I see it is that with such old sources one needs to be a historian to determine what the chronicler actually meant, specifically because of the way a language evolves over time. In my opinion simply copying information from such an old source can be misleading as a result. In other words, I think that such old sources ''require'' interpretation by a contemporary specialist, especially regarding controversial matters. --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::While that can be a problem, it's not substantially different from many modern sources. To read a modern research paper, you also need to be a specialist and be aware of nuances of meaning in words that have more vague or even quite different colloquial interpretations (see e.g. [[Metallicity|metal]] in astronomical contexts, or [[Resolution (logic)||resolution]] in formal logic). However, mindset and context are often very different for older sources - that's why I picked Cook and Banks as examples that essentially have a modern scientific mindset, even if they have a quite different set of cultural baggage. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::When the author and athe age are explicitely named in the text (and not hidden in a ref tag) the reader understands it is just the opinion of that particular author, and not necessarily [[WP:TRUTH|the truth]]. So it's perfectly acceptable.[[User:Xasha|Xasha]] ([[User talk:Xasha|talk]]) 19:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, it is not acceptable per [[WP:PRIMARY]] (''only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person '''without specialist knowledge''''') -- you cannot ask the average reader to be familiar with the mindset of a chronicler in the 17th century. --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::But it requires an '''educated''' person, thus someone with a fair knowledge of culture, not just some punk from the street.[[User:Xasha|Xasha]] ([[User talk:Xasha|talk]]) 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I'm sorry, not every educated person is a historian. --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The answer to this is that while such documents ''are'' considered reliable sources... their ''utility'' as sources, and the appropriateness of citing them or quoting them in a specific article is limited. Such sources are considered "Primary Sources"... and as such (while we can use them) we must use them with great caution. We have to be particularly careful not to misuse them in ways that would violate wikipedia's [[WP:No original research]] (WP:NOR) policy. It really depends on how you use them and what you are trying to use them for. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up question: if the quotation of such a source is disputed by other editors, is it reasonable to seek consensus by eliminating said source in favor of a secondary source, or is that an unacceptable proposal? --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:I doubt that this can be properly answered in the abstract. It's obvious that you have a specific source in mind, the meaning of which is disputed. Is it in English? Are the disputed terms translated - in which case some interpretation may be involved - or presented as written? [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::You're right, I do have a specific source -- and dispute -- in mind; and yes, it is obviously disputed. While the source is not in English, one can find enough references and discussions to make up their own minds, but unfortunately there's a lot to read. However, if you're willing to investigate, by all means -- see here: [[Talk:History of the Moldovan language#Cantemir, Ureche et al]] (other sections within that talk page might also be relevant). --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 00:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Right, so this is essentially about Moldovan nationalist claims. Someone is claiming that 17th century references to the "Moldovan language" imply that "Moldovan" was recognised as a distinct or separate language? That certainly seems to fall into the [[WP:SYN]], since these chronicles seem to be making no claims about linguistic separatness from Romanian, just describing the language people speak in Moldova. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree. It can be argued however that the person inserting those sources is not breaking [[WP:SYNTH]] because the article does not contain any such claims -- it simply quotes the chronicle, and the chronicle does indeed contain the words "Moldovan language". And in my opinion that's the debatable point -- can you quote a chronicle as a reliable source in this context, given that the very word "language" has evolved significantly over the past 400 years, as to include a sense of separateness that the original author never intended? Mind you, my claim that you cannot ''requires'' interpretation of the chronicle, which contradicts the letter of [[WP:PRIMARY]] -- but I posit that given the age of the source and the dispute around that specific wording it is reasonable to reject that specific primary source and require a secondary, modern source to provide the proper interpretation (and, incidentally, the ''reliable'' sources all agree there was indeed no intent on the part of the chronicler to imply such a separateness from Romanian). --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 10:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on availability of reliable academic interpretations. Once you dig into a relatively small academic field with plenty of nationalist agendas, they become a dying breed. However, the 1600s-1700s sources are too recent to cause any misunderstanding to present-day native Romanians, just like an average Englishman can keep the track of a ''Hamlet'' play. Plus, Costin was not a monk so his mind was not as rigidly indoctrinated as that of a monastic chrohist and he apparently did not insert biblical riddles in the text (the first thing to remember reading older Eastern European chronicles). To me, translation/interpretation of his statement is not a problem at all. It's all about presentation - whether it's a one man's opinion or something larger. I would take his words for what they are worth: that, ''in Costin's opinion at the time of writing'' ... then follow his point. Nothing more. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I think that naming a 17th-century politician and pamphletist a ''chronist'' is itself a cause of conflict. ''Chronist'' invokes medieval standards of passing (copying, altering, synthesizing) knowledge of past centuries through compiled chronicles; a 17th century text is quite different, it's an original work. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:I tried to be as succinct as I could, but I think that has affected the presentation -- it seems I have to explain the matters in more depth. The word [[language]], in its modern interpretation, intrinsically implies a sense of identity -- when you say "the Klingon language" you uniquely identify that language, and do not expect that specific language to be called any alternative names (see for example the lack of articles on the [[Austrian language]], [[American language]] etc). This interpretation is relatively recent, and it has come about roughly at the same time as the concept of a [[nation state]] (late 18th century, compare [[Nation state#History and origins]] and [[History of linguistics#Historical linguistics]]). By contrast, in the 17th century and early 18th century (when there was no notion of a nation state, and no political load associated with linguistics, let alone any serious claim on Moldavian's distinctiveness from Romanian), "language" simply meant "the way we speak over here", without any political, national or ethnic load -- it could translate to modern "language", "dialect", "speech", "accent" or "variety" just the same. As such, chroniclers like [[Dimitrie Cantemir]] write about the Moldovan language in one chronicle, and then in another they explicitly say there is no such thing as a Moldovan language, since Moldavians speak Romanian -- they don't see any contradiction in that, and feel no need to explain things in any detail (Miron Costin specifically makes the same point explicitly; incidentally, historians agree that it was Cantemir who reiterated Costin's statement when he said Moldavians spoke Romanian).
:Of course, you can dismiss all of the above as my original research -- but the academic interpretations all concur (actually, proper academic papers don't even discuss the matter, they simply include Costin, Cantemir and Ureche as sources when discussing Romanian)<sup>*</sup>. In this context, I don't think it's fair to give the modern reader a false impression by quoting Costin with "''at the time of writing, the Moldovan language was this and that''", because it's not reasonable to expect the average modern reader, educated as she may be, to be aware of the intricacies of how the concept of language has evolved since the 1600s.
:Regarding ''chronist'', please see [[chronicler]]; cross-reference [[Miron Costin]], [[Dimitrie Cantemir]] (specifically "''Hronicul vechimii a romano-moldo-valahilor – aprox. "Chronicle of the durability of Romans-Moldavians-Wallachians"''"), and [[Grigore Ureche]]. --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:----
:<sup>*</sup>) For clarity, I don't have academic sources to support my theory regarding the synchronicity between modern linguistics and the appearance of the concept of a nation state -- while I don't have sources for that assertion you can verify the synchronicity in the articles provided. --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 00:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, wikipedia has no text on ''chronicler'' (the man) and ''chronicles'' as art/craft/tradition/ideology (you name it), just a bare definition followed by an arbitrary list. One big void. As for your opening paragraph, I am surprised that the obvious subject (changing sense of language and national identity over time) needs presentation at all. Those who attended middle school should remember it; those who press their agenda won't listen. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::If I understand your reply correctly, you're basically saying "I agree there was no such thing as a distinct Moldavian language in the 17th century, and the chronicler/politician/pamphletist certainly doesn't suggest that, but the average reader is already aware of that". If my understanding is correct, why do we need to include that information in an article entitled "History of the Moldovan language" -- is the title in today's Wikipedia meant to reflect realities in the 17th century? --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 01:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::1. No, you did not understand it correctly. 2. If the article is titled ''History...'' then historical references presenting the changes in attitudes towards the subject are relevant. The title does not reflect anything, it's the content that reports historical views ''and'' (ideally) modern interpretation of those views (i.e. how the understanding of language in 17th century relates to contemporary understanding). 3. Whether the subject exists and whether it warrants a separate ''History..'' is a whole different story, but the articles are already there. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::What if there are no modern sources on the topic? Is the article's existence reason enough to warrant its continued existence? Can I create [[History of the Australian language]] and defend its existence by its prior existence? --[[User:Gutza|Gutza]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Gutza|T]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gutza&action=edit&section=new T+]</sup></small> 03:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Hello, Gutza. The issue you are attempting to resolve would greatly benefit from secondary sources which confirm that historical Moldavian spoken in the principality of Moldavia was Romanian by just another name, while the (Soviet) creation of Moldovan and its current use <u>to further a political agenda</u> by insisting it is, at once, a language and ethnic group ''distinct'' from Romanian and, at the same time, a language and ethnic group ''continuous'' over six centuries with Moldavia/Moldavian (and note '''both''' <u>cannot</u> be true if historical Moldavian is simply Romanian which it is) is a completely different animal. —[[User:Vecrumba|PētersV]] ([[User talk:Vecrumba|talk]]) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Are NBA official height listings reliable - do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? ==

Here are some links and quotes calling into question the reliability of NBA list heights
[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/alexander_wolff/news/2001/06/20/hoop_life/ Sports Illustrated - Heights of Hilarity]
[http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=422341 Sporting News - Predraft height hype is out of hand]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/sports/basketball/22score.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/N/National%20Basketball%20Association/N.B.A.%20Draft NYtimes - When Height Becomes a Tall Tale]
[http://www.draftexpress.com/article/A-Historical-Look-at-the-NBA-Pre-Draft-Measurements-2912/ Draft Express - A historical look at Pre Draft Measurements]

From Sporting News "A sampling of current NBA players measured by the league in advance of the annual draft shows their teams have doctored the heights for 12 of 15 -- 80 percent. Only one of the names I picked at random -- Kevin Durant -- is listed precisely at his barefoot height (6-9). Chris Paul's height is rounded up from 5-11 3/4 to 6-0, which counts as a square deal. "

From Sports Illustrated "It was in the run-up to the 1992 Olympics that the world finally learned what the cognoscenti had long suspected -- that Charles Barkley was more like 6-4 5/8 than 6-6, and Magic Johnson closer to 6-7 than 6-9. Likewise, it was a measurement in 1988 before the Games (citius, altius -- but not unduly altius) that exposed Danny Manning, who had been a 6-11 freshman at Kansas, as a 6-9 NBA draftee-to-be. "

From NY Times " “They lie,” said Charles Barkley, a basketball commentator for TNT. “I’ve been measured at 6-5, 6-4 ¾. But I started in college at 6-6.” Even the N.B.A. lies, apparently. According to Barkley’s biography on NBA.com, he is 6-6."
and
"Sam Smith, a longtime N.B.A. writer who recently retired from The Chicago Tribune, said: “We sort of know the heights, because after camp, the sheet comes out. But you use that height, and the player gets mad. And then you hear from his agent. Or you file your story with the right height, and the copy desk changes it because they have the ‘official’ N.B.A. media guide, which is wrong. So you sort of go along with the joke.”"

From Draftexpress "A human’s height does not include the addition of shoes, so it’s misleading when a player chooses to be listed at their in shoes height. The NBA has also done a poor job listing players consistently across the board. Many players are listed at their height in shoes, but some are listed at their barefoot height, and some are listed above their in shoes height (John Starks) or an inch below their barefoot height (Kevin Garnett, Desmond Mason)."

I think I've made a strong case of showing that the NBA does not list heights accurately - and that draftcamp measurements (which are generally freely available) are a much more reliable source (since the NBA official guides have a poor record for fact checking and accuracy from sports journalists in relation to height), feel free to look up your favorite players' heights here [http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort= DraftExpress Pre Draft Measurements] and compare to their official team roster height.[[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 12:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:Sports promotions fiddling with the heights and weights of their athletes where it is desirable is nothing new. Unfortunately, I do not see an easy solution to finding reliable numbers for this info. The exceptions I've found are in combat sports, where the fighters are generally measured by a government athletic commission which would, in theory, have no reason to pad the numbers. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">[[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|<font color="#090">talk</font>]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|<font color="#4682b4">email</font>]] // 17:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
::I'm not making any comment on the reliability of these sources, but could it be that these guys have actually shrunk a little as they've aged? Afterall, they're running around all the time, and that's got to compress the spine after awhile, etc... [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:::[[east718]] I agree that pro-sports fudging numbers is nothing new, which is my point. The thing is WE DO have a reliable source for NBA heights and that's when players are measured barefoot in the NBA Draft Camp so I think that should be the preferred source, or the olympic measurements.

:::[[Yilloslime]] That's possible for some players, though I doubt it would be many or by much. For instance [[Michael Beasley]] was listed at 6'10" in college, measured at 6'7" barefoot in the draft camp, and was listed at 6'10" in the NBA - so he didn't have his spine compress 3 inches for his draft camp measurement, then expand 3 inches when he started playing in the NBA[[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One more source [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030611/ai_n14549297 Many players in NBA are telling tall stories]
Quotes " '''The NBA doesn't measure players,''' which is probably why 1993 Most Valuable Player Charles Barkley got away with being listed at 6-foot- 6. Many who played against Barkley said he was, at most, 6- 4. "

" '''NBA spokesman Tim Frank said the league counts on its teams to give accurate measurements of their players'''"

" The NBA's top official isn't about to call for league-mandated measurements of players. '''Commissioner David Stern, '''whose height isn't listed in the NBA guide but was once estimated at 5-foot-9''', said the disparity between reality and hype only adds to the intrigue of the game.''' "[[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:I've noticed how sources do not agree on this, just as a casual basketball fan. I'm not sure what this noticeboard can do to solve that problem, though. Is DraftExpress considered a reliable source? It may be way more accurate, but is it considered reliable in general. If it is, then the issue should be debated at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball]] on which source to use. If DraftExpress is not considered reliable, then maybe the infoboxes and height stats in say [[Michael Jordan]] should say "Official NBA height" instead of just "height". It looks like you have the sources at hand to make an article describing the discrpancies in NBA heights. If that article was created, and "Official NBA height" was used instead of "height", it might even link to it. I think I may create that page myself, you've provided a number of good refs. ;-) - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 07:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== IMDb ==

I'm getting a little tired of this one. We have a whole slew of templates for citing [[IMDb]], and IMDb ''is'' cited, probably over a million times, in Wikipedia. Yet I keep running into people asserting (twice with regard to [[Rudolf Wanderone]], for example, once on its talk page, once on its 2nd peer review page) that IMDb isn't a [[WP:RS|reliable source for Wikipedia purposes]]. This really needs to get settled. Maybe have a referendum on this issue ([[WP:RFC]]?), or whatever it takes, and either declare it a non-reliable source ''categorically'' or clarify the guideline that sites like this can be reliable for some things (titles, release dates, other basic information) and non-reliable for others (movie trivia, mostly contributed by readers). If it is deemed wholly unreliable, then we need to immediately [[WP:TFD|TfD]] the IMDb templates and set up bots to remove (or, as with deleted images, comment out) IMDb citations that use them. This hemming and hawing on the issue, and ensuing general confusion, is making the [[WP:PR]], [[WP:GA]] and [[WP:FA]]/[[WP:FL]] processes much more painful than is necessary. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> &#91;[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]&#93; &#91;[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*I think an RFC is a good route to take. I think that there are some serious issues with sourcing imbd. We have a general consensus here on the noticeboards that the bare facts of a movie (but not an actor) can be sourced to imdb most of the time, but that anything beyond that is usually user-driven and so not acceptable. This consensus '''here''' doesn't at all translate to general practice which has been (probably not a million times, but thousands of times) to cite imdb for the details it provides on everything except trivia, quotes, errors and obvious fan generated stuff. I don't have a strong enough opinion to force the issue (mass TfD is probably not the right route), but it should be discussed. At the very least if there is some wide community consensus on the issue I can make an FAQ for this page listing past links to it. Maybe I should do that anyways. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:[http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0573683/ According to IMDB itself], some guy named Sundar Chakravarthy managed to insert into Julianne Moore's IMDB biography that she was married to him from 1983-1985... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*I'm a regular at [[WP:BLP/N]] and would say that I don't think there is any dispute that IMDb isn't a suitable source when it comes to LP. I would go further and say it isn't suitable for anything about people period. Beyond that I can't say [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil]] ==

I am developing this article and I use an authoritative and comprehensive published lexicon to cite the existence of borrowed words in [[Tamil language]]

Some people who dont accept the lexicon's authority are threatening to delete my work and have extensively tagged my article with "citation necessary" tags. Kindly help. ­ <span class="sigSrkris" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000">[[User:Srkris|Kris]] ([[User_talk:Srkris |talk]])</span> 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:I think they're "threatening" deletion on the grounds that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] and the article is likely to be of interest to scant few English speakers. It also looks like the article might contain a lot of [[WP:OR|original research]], another reason for deletion. [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

::I can't comment on sourcing issues, but from [[Lists of etymologies]] and [[:Category:Lists of words]] it seems this sort of list is acceptable. At the very least, if it's not it's a wider issue [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Screenshots OF sources ==

{{resolved}}
Pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightscream#Bridget_Marquardt_divorce this discussion] over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridget_Marquardt&diff=240422986&oldid=240422548 these edits], is a screencap of a source appropriate, as [[Special:Contributions/70.108.115.9|User:70.108.115.9]] suggests? My guess is that it isn't, but I said I'd ask here. If so, how would it be used? Uploaded to a site like ImageShack and then linked to? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
*Nope. I can get you a screengrab of almost anything. Court documents (even the pdf from the clerk of courts) are iffy in BLPs anyway. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 04:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== ETC magazine ==

How should ETC [www.etc.se] be used in articles? I can hardly find any info on the magazine, but it seems to be a partisan publication of the socialist left in Sweden. [[User:Troopedagain|Troopedagain]] ([[User talk:Troopedagain|talk]]) 02:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:I can't tell, but maybe someone at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden]] can help. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::ETC is definately left of centre, but is not a party organ or a fringe publication. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia's pictures not verifiable? ==

On the page about the Israel Supreme Court building there is a picture of this building that shows CLEARLY a pyramid with an circular window at the top of each face. This picture was considered as verified.

I just added a note below the picture to point to the presence of this pyramid. My note was erased on the pretext that it is not verifiable. To be honest I consider this the same as the well documented Zionist media control that we all know but refuse to discuss about.

The picture used to be at the top right in poor resolution was improved and brought away from immediate view. Another disinformation tactic or a chance event ? [[User:911allo|911allo]] ([[User talk:911allo|talk]]) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:There is nothing essentially wrong with the phrase "Note the blue pyramid with a circle at the top left corner in the above image." If you were writing about pyramids in architecture, or simply describing the design of the building one would not need a reliable source simply to describe what is vissible. The problem is that evidently think this motif has some specific significance linked to Zionism and "disinformation". I'm sure there are guide books and other sources explaining the meaning or function of this motif. You seem to think that it refers to the "[[all-seeing eye]]". Maybe it does, but there's nothing sinister or masonic about that. It dates back to [[emblem book]]s. Look for literature on the architecture. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 15:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Entertainment Online ==

Would articles that appear on E! Online be considered reliable for news about celebrity and reality TV stars? [[User:BaldPete|BaldPete]] ([[User talk:BaldPete|talk]]) 17:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
*I would consider Eonline.com, the web site of the [[E!]] network, a reasonably reliable source for celebrity/reality TV star news. It is associated with a mainstream cable television network owned by [[Comcast]]. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 06:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Luzon Empire]] vs [[Ancient Tondo]] ==

Regarding the contradictions between the [[Luzon Empire]] and [[Ancient Tondo]] articles, I'd like to solicit comment about the source used by the Luzon Empire to say:
<blockquote>"Some contemporary Philippine historians[6] agree with their Chinese counterparts, and are willing to speculate further that after the fall of Nan Song (南宋國, "Southern Song Empire"), Zhang Shijie's fleet and the last Song emperor may have escaped to pre-colonial Philippines and established the Luzon Empire or the Lesser Song Empire (呂宋國)."</blockquote>
The reference says <blockquote>
"Pangilinan, et al on the initial translations of ''DongXi Yanggao''<nowiki><!-- is this the same as ''A study of the Eastern and Western Oceans''?--></nowiki> ([http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/directory/sumita/5A-161/index.html 東西洋考], Book 5.)"
</blockquote>
The article has no other reference by Pangilinan, whose interpretation of the DongXi Yanggao reference is supposed to be the argument referred to. My question is whether this source is sufficient to merit the continued existence of Luzon Empire when Ancient Tondo, which sticks to the more orthodox interpretation, already exists. I'm sorry if this also happens to be an Original Research question, but I've raised the matter there already and what I'm asking for here specifically is whether '''this source''' justifies the existence of the Luzon Empire article. Thanks. [[User:Alternativity|Alternativity]] ([[User talk:Alternativity|talk]]) 18:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Is a bio in a conference program a reliable and independent source? ==

{{Resolved|Only really a source in terms of [[WP:SPS]]. Claims regarding notability or the importance of the subject probably shouldn't be cited to a conference biography. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 13:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}
There is some disagreement at [[Kaveh Farrokh]] on whether a bio published in a [http://wais.stanford.edu/waisprogram.pdf conference program] constitutes a reliable independent source. An edit I made in which I called this an "autobiography" was reverted as being "[[WP:OR]], because the bio does not mention by whom it was written. However, nobody will tell you that you're doing OR if you call a bio posted on someones own webpage an autobio, even if the author isn't mentioned. I don't know of any conference (and certainly not one of modest means such as this one seems to be - their website does not even have its own URL, but is hosted on a university server) that will research someone's bio themselves. Conference organizers invariably ask participants to send a short bio themselves (which they then may or may not edit, for instance to fit a page). In the present case, the item cited from this bio constitutes a high school award, hardly something that a conference organizer would go to great lengths to uncover (disregarding the fact that I have not been able to find this award anywhere, except on the original conference site and in Wikipedia and mirror sites). Anyway, the case boils down to whether a biography published in a conference program is a reliable independent source for anything. I would appreciate the opinion of the community on this. Thanks. --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:These bios appear to be user-submitted, so they are clearly not independent. One of them is even written in the first person. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 22:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
*(ec)I think we consider "publisher bios" as reliable, so why not conference bios? Publisher "bios" are usually written by the agent or the publisher (in concert with the author). Those conference bios are normally written by the participant, but I don't really see the problem. It isn't enough of a source to confer notability, but the facts mentioned on there shouldn't be rejected out of hand unless we have some reason to believe that the conference doesn't police its bios. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:*Comment: I think publishers (and agents) will do some checking, I don't know any conference organizers doing this, so only something glaringly untrue would be caught. BTW, part of the disagreement is about terming this an "autobiography" instead of a biography". --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
*Followup question: Do you mean "good enough to use in an article" or "good enough to ''base'' an article on"? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:*It's being used to source a highschool award and to support the claim that the subject speaks 4 different languages and has a working understanding of 6 others (4 living and 2 dead). None of this is very important or notable, of course, but the article is weak on notability anyway. --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::*That high school award should be removed, anyway, as it seems kind of hagiographic to list it. As far as the cite....eh. [[WP:SPS]] exemptions apply here. We really shouldn't be using this biography to source the 4 languages claim, but it isn't outside the realm of the guidelines to do so. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::::*I agree completely, but other editors keep reversing me when I remove it, even though I have tried to explain on the article's talkpage that including it is kind of disparaging. --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:::*(edit conflict)PS: In the present case, this bio has been shown to contain some fluff, such as "contributed articles to internationally recognized academic journals such as the International Journal of the Sociology of Language", which turns out to be a single 1-page book review. --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm also involved in the article and raised the issue on the article's talk page earlier. Anyone who has attended any such conferences (I have) knows that participants submit their own information. And as Crusio says just above, the subject took a one page review and turned it into a claim for journals and articles plural. I believe the award bit (it was removed but replaced, someone thinks it makes him look important I guess), but who knows about the languages? [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 05:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[The_Star_(Malaysia)]] ==

{{resolved}}
Is this considered a reliable enough source for Wikipedia's purposes. <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]], [[User:Vivio Testarossa|My master]]</sup> 02:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:Foreign sources are hard. Can you summarize what you think of it? Why it should be, or should not be considered reiiable? - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 02:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::What is a 'foreign source' really? --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Mainstream newspaper therefore generally reliable. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 19:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: The Star is pretty big over there. I'd equate it to a paper like , say, the Dallas Morning News. Not a worldwide paper, but certainly not the Four-Streets-With-A-Stoplight Gazettte. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''</font><sup>[[User_talk:Logical_Premise|&nbsp;Ergo?]]</sup> 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's reliable then. I'll mark this as resolved. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[The Electronic Intifada]] ==

Can [http://electronicintifada.net/ The Electronic Intifada] be used as a reliable source? I am working on [[Cinema of Palestine]], and there is one editor there that disagree:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cinema_of_Palestine&diff=241793963&oldid=241751624] I cannot see that EI has been discussed here before, (see: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions]]), therefor I would very much like to hear your opinion. Regards, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:It's a marginal case. In this case you want to use it for a statement about cinema, so it is not so controversial as it might be in other circumstances. And you also have a named author who would seem to be an authority in the field. So I think on balance the statement could be left in and attributed to the author. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::Strongly reluctant though of course we must be to accept anything with a "Palestinian POV", the Electronic Intifada (and/or its founder, Ali Abunimah) has started to [http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2630.shtml be] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300741_2.html quoted] [http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat_03/2003-08-21-abuminah.htm regularly] [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.htm in] [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E1D71630F935A2575AC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 impeccably] [http://www.theage.com.au/news/us-election/how-does-obama-do-it/2008/05/23/1211183103726.html?page=3 "mainstream"] and [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1212041458169&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull yes] [http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/gross200411110927.asp even] [http://www.forward.com/articles/7773/ Israeli and Zionist] sources.
::They claim to have been favourably reviewed in several "mainstream" sources, including the center-right Jerusalem Post. An unfavourable review at the Jewish Telegraph Agency wire still called it a useful resource for understanding Palestinian opinions.
::The Financial Times [http://nigelparry.com/archives/00000017.shtml apparently said]: ''"The Electronic Intifada is a highly professional site, apparently designed and run from the UK, which blends links to newspaper stories, in-depth comment on the way the conflict is being presented in the media, the Live From Palestine "diary project" and snippets such as a running total of Palestinian and Israeli deaths. The design is clean, using interesting fonts and images, and the material is up to date. On Tuesday morning there were already links to a dozen articles covering the Gaza City attack"''
::An ITV program called "The Web Review" supposedly [http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article977.shtml gave EI a 10/10 rating] "''In form this site is a slick newsroom, rational and cross-referenced. But electronicintifada is also a democratic bombshell, a fascinating look between and behind the lines. [...] It is so incredibly professional. It is so slick. It is so well done. It kinda blew me away, really. [...] An unashamedly, very well deserved 10 out of 10."'' [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== [http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?lang=english Zochrot, or "Nakba in Hebrew"] ==

Is the NGO [http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?lang=english Zochrot, or "Nakba in Hebrew"] a RS? From their web-site: "Zochrot ["Remembering"] is a group of Israeli citizens working to raise awareness of the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948". I encounter edits like this:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beersheba&diff=123739914&oldid=123682085], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beersheba&diff=prev&oldid=118937781]. Again; this NGO has never AFAIK been discussed here before, so I would very much like to hear your opinion. Regards, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:It seems to be an advocacy organisation. Definitely not suitable as a source for history. Of course you could always use them as a starting point and look for the sources that they use. Or if a writer who publishes elsewhere has a signed article on their website, that might be OK. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Maps by Andrew Andersen ==

I would like to bring attention to various maps of Caucasus region (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan), which are apparently made by a blogger named Andrew Andersen, who claims to be a PhD. Here is the list of images, all sourced from the same so called [http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/ "Atlas of Conflicts" website of his], which are rather frivolous and unsubstantiated by any scholarly source on the subject. There are many other available historical maps of the region, which can be used with much better, established, reference base.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Geom-0150bc-0600ad.jpg Image:Geom-0150bc-0600ad.jpg]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Geor_1450_1515.jpg Image:Geor_1450_1515.jpg] (this one even shows a [[Shusha|city]] that was founded in 18th century on a map pertaining to 15th century)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DRGMap.png Image:DRGMap.png]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AzerbaijanDemocraticRepublicMap.png Image:AzerbaijanDemocraticRepublicMap.png]

There might be some others from the same source, that I can find in Wikipedia.

According to [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]], in particular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources section on self published sources]:
"''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.''"

In fact, according to these sources [http://www.martlet.ca/old/archives/031009/opinion.html], [http://www.martlet.ca/old/archives/031106/opinion.html] from University of Victoria newspaper, Andrew Andersen is known as formerly sessional professor at the University of Victoria, who was removed from his position for "racism and prejudice against minorities, Muslims in particular in May 2003". There is a substantial body of past discussion on the subject [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qazakh/archive#Andersen here], and this is some interesting input/info from an administrator back then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AQazakh_Rayon&diff=109942284&oldid=109830808].

I think provided how much edit warring conflicts these maps have led to all across Wikipedia, it's time to find less controversial and truly scholarly sources. Removal of some of these controversial and baseless maps may greatly assist in lowering tensions in Armenia-Azerbaijan editing conflicts. Thanks. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:All of these maps are in Commons. I counted about a dozen or so different maps but there seems to be more. Partial list of affected articles: [[Azerbaijan Democratic Republic]], [[History_of_Azerbaijan]], [[Centre for Military and Strategic Studies]],[[History of Abkhazia]] [[History of_Georgia %28country%29]],[[Colchis]], [[Georgians]], [[Kutaisi]],[[Mtskheta]],[[Tao %28historical_region%29]],[[Tbilisi]],[[Tamar of Georgia]],[[Democratic Republic of Georgia]],[[Red Army invasion of Georgia]],[[Treaty of Moscow %281920%29]],[[David IV of Georgia]], [[Kingdom of Abkhazia]],[[Kipchaks in Georgia]],[[Lucullus]] etc.--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 19:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:: The fact that the maps of Andersen are used in many articles in WIkipedia does not make them reliable. This author has no third party published works, he just maintains a website, and anyone can do that. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Are the maps incorrect, or does the objection only concern who made them? - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Yes, the accuracy of the maps is being disputed. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 05:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::If the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 05:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Peregrine Fisher, it's not a blog it's a web site dedicated to conflicts in the Caucasus. How would you go about purging all of these maps from Commons and then cleaning up the articles?--<big>''' [[User:Eupator|<font color=#00N510>Ευπάτωρ]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Eupator|<font color=#974423>Talk!!]]</sup></small></font> 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: That's exactly what is happening here. The maps are used to promote certain views, and they come from a self-published source, which contradicts [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources]]. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 05:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Blog or website, what's the difference? Still a self-published source. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that neither Atabek or Grandmaster have said what they think is inaccurate about all these maps. In fact, they have deliberately avoided doing it. They attack the source of the content rather than the content itself. A discussion of one of the maps took place here [[Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Dubious_map_by_dubious_Andersen]]. I gave an analysis of the accuracy of the map there, neither of them bothered to reply. That was probably because the real reason for their objection is not that the maps are in any substantial way inaccurate for their purpose here, but that certain of the maps indicate borders or regions which disagree with their POV warring aims. The Andersen maps do not seem to disagree substantially with similar maps published in other sources. The difference is that, because of their licensing, the Andersen maps are available to be used within Wikipedia articles but those from the other sources can't be used. In essence, Atabek is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia procedures in order to censor Wikipedia. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
: I think it would be good if you minded [[WP:AGF]] and stopped making personal attacks on other editors. The maps by Andersen were discussed a million times on various articles, where certain people tried to include them to advance their position. The rules are the rules, the sources must be reliable, published by authoritative publisher. If this source does not conform with the requirements, it should not be used. Simple as that. [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] ([[User talk:Grandmaster|talk]]) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::You and Atabek lost (and lost long ago) the right to expect others to assume that you are ''always'' acting in "good faith". I gave credible reasons above why it should not be assumed you are acting in good faith on this occasion. Your continued reluctance to point out specific flaws in the maps you want removed just emphasises the weakness in your position. It should be remembered that what you are wanting removed are '''images''', not sources. The standards for images on Wikipedia are different than for sources. For example, you cannot remove an image of the Parthenon simply because the photograph wasn't taken by a known archaeologist or doesn't show the Parthenon under the best lighting. You have to point out some flaw in the actual image, (like proving it does not actually show the Parthenon but is some other monument), or indicate a flaw in its usage (like finding it being used within a page about Gothic architecture), or get it removed by uploading an even better image of the Parthenon to replace it. You have done none of these things for the Andersen maps. [[User:Meowy|<font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">'''Meowy'''</font>]] 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Is Netflix a usable source? ==

We have a small conflict on [[List of Heroes episodes]] where someone adds titles sourced to Netflix. Problem is, it's a paid subscrubtion site. Unlike (subscription) magazines, where you can walk into a shop or library to verify the source, Netflix only allows access to their catalogue if you are a paying member, making it impossible for ayone else to verify the source. This is why I keep removing those title, but other pose that Netflix is a usable source, even if it is payed access only. Opinions? <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color: #008;">'''''E''dokter'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color: #080;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 13:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
*I don't know. I don't think the "paid subscription part" bothers me but it is an open question whether or not netflix can and should be used as a source at all for episode ordering and what-not. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 14:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
*My understanding of the issue is that some people want to source to Netflix the titles of episodes that have not aired on television yet but which are listed on Netflix as episodes that will become available for instant viewing in the future. I would expect that the list of upcoming episodes would be picked up by some freely available source after it appears on Netflix, and the episode titles could be sourced to that. But even if they aren't published on another source in advance, Netflix has over 8 million subscribers, so there is likely a significant number of Wikipedia users who are Netflix subscribers and can confirm that the upcoming episode titles are correct. Sources which require a fee to access are not prohibited from being usable sources. That said, if the information can be sourced to a freely available and reliable source, we should use that instead. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
*That's imo acceptable. You can't usually "walk in a library" to verify content of, say, 18th century ''printed'' book. You also usually cannot physically see the paintings hidden in the stores of any major public museum (these vaults are far larger than the viewable collections), or the films and tapes in studio's video archives. Not without special research permit from the studio boss. So the Netflix entry barrier is inomparably lower. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 13:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Wikinews being used as a source for UFO sightings ==

Apparently, some of the UFO-enthusiasts who have been stymied by the [[WP:OR|original research]] rule have gone over to WikiNews and begun "reporting" on UFO sightings. Then they come back here and add their sighting to [[List of UFO sightings]] with a citation to Wikinews. I think this is very smelly. Does anyone else? How should I handle the removal of Wikinews-cited UFO sightings. Also, can someone alert Wikinews people that they are being used in this way?

(Cross posted to [[WP:NORN]].)

[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Wikinews is not a RS in this capacity. It may be reliable sometimes. There's a long discussion at [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#Wikinews: Please post definite answer]] where even Jimbo chimes in. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm going to go on the record and say that Jimbo is wrong there. Community creation and vetting of news is a great idea and works to produce a quality product but it isn't reliable in the sense that the English Wikipedia defines a reliable source. The opinion of some people is that once we eliminate the "vandalism" problem (a la the flagged revisions debate), wikipedia can become reliable, but I feel this is an oversimplification. We (and wikinews) may be reliable in some connotations of the term but not as wikipedia defines it. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::While I'd like to take Wikinews as a secondary source, I think the rule that should govern here is ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources''. If it was an article about what kind of aircraft were seen at an air show, Wikinews should be fine. But if its an article about a phenomenon that's debatable if it even exists, it needs a stronger source. There is a pecking order of secondary sources, you know. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 02:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Manhattan Institute article and author as source of facts ==

In [[Community Reinvestment Act]] it is being challenged that Howard Husock's article [http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities] in the Manhattan Institute's [[City Journal (New York)| City Journal]] (January 1, 2000) is a reliable source '''for facts''' because the author is the Vice President of the Institute, as well as a contributing editor to City Journal. However, the [http://www.city-journal.org/html/about_cj.html Journal does have an editor] and according to his [http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/husock.htm bio], Husock was ''formerly the director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He is a prolific writer on housing and urban policy issues. Husock is most recently the author of The Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake, a collection of his City Journal essays, and of the Reason Foundation study Repairing the Ladder: Toward a New Housing Policy Paradigm. His work has appeared in periodicals such as the Wall Street Journal, Public Interest, The New York Times, Policy Review, and Reason. In 1999, Husock co-authored the study "Keeping Kalamazoo Competitive" for the City of Portgage, Michigan, an examination of proposed tax-based sharing and urban growth boundaries for the Kalamazoo metro area. Husock has been a speaker at housing and urban policy forums sponsored by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Massachusetts Department of Communities and Development, and the Urban Development Institute.'' If this isn't good enough ref for a paragraph full of '''factoids,''' I don't know what is :-) Carol Moore 15:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

*I would consider that an acceptable source, albeit opinionated. Other opinionated publications such as [[The Nation]] have been accepted here as reliable sources. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Do note that the [[Manhattan Institute]] is widely held to be a conservative think tank that receives heavy corporate funding. City Journal is their own internal publication, not an independent newspaper, and Husock is the vice-president of the Manhattan Institute, as well as a contributing editor of City Journal. His article in City Journal is essentially a self-published source [[WP:SPS]]. Carolmoore was using it as a ''Reliable Source'', to back statements of fact in the encyclopedic voice. Does no one have a problem with that? Carol has said that if no one raises an objection she will reinsert Husock's writings as plain statements of fact. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 15:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's a reliable source and not to be treated as self-published. City Journal a magazine of political comment with a pronounced viewpoint, like so many others around the world. Since the piece is an essay rather than news reporting, statements from it should be attributed. I'd prefer it if they were attributed to both the author and magazine. I also think it is appropriate to use an epithet such as "conservative" or "market-oriented" (but not both) to describe the magazine. It is an interesting point of view and a notable addition to the article. It would be good if it could be balanced by some very different points of view. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::It's not an epithet, necessarily. But we shouldn't treat a work of opinion there as though it were the same as a work of opinion in the NYT op-ed page. SPS can (I'm not sure that it does, some evidence will have to be discussed) apply to things that look nothing like someone's livejournal. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Being an employee of a conservative or liberal or progressive think tank doesn't per se mean you are either biased or self-published. City Journal has an editor and it is WP:OR to state that Husock can override his judgment. The guy is an expert in his field. Do we have to go through all the wiki articles now and delete all factual statements by all employees of think tanks - or label them as opinions? I can see I'll have to at least make it clear that the "facts" a couple liberals put forth were obtained from their self-published blogs on their liberal think tank web pages, evidently with no evidence of editing at all?? Carol Moore 15:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]'''
::::WP:OR applies to statements made in articles. Editors here and anywhere outside of article spaces are encouraged to use their heads when examining sources. lk's examination of the source argues that the manhattan institute has an incentive to only publish a certain kind of material. Don't make this about "conservative" or liberal. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
*We can, however, argue that the material in the city journal is probably about the same as the material in [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566635314/manhattaninstitu/ his book]. It's probably fine, just as long as we accept that he is pretty conservative. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It seems to me that the first thing to decide is the status in principle of ''City Journal'', which is likely to crop up as a source in various parts of the encyclopedia. I haven't heard an argument yet why it is different from other political magazines such as ''[[The Economist]]''. NYT is not a reasonable comparison, as daily papers are mainly there to carry news and naturally have greater fact-checking facilities than weeklies or monthlies. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, for starters there is no way to compare it to the economist, period. MI is a conservative think tank and City Journal is their pet publication. This is less an RS issue than a NPOV issue. They have PhD's and what not on there but I would cite it about as much as I would cite ''[[Mother Jones]]'' in a wikipedia article where there was a right/left split in opinion--never. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If I can paraphrase the above, City Journal should be viewed as a biased source. At best it as reliable as an opinion piece in the New York Times, and if used as a source, the source of the information should be noted in line. Is that essentially correct? [[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, and to be fair to Carol, she does that in the CRA article. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually, I did that. It was previously used to source statements of fact in the encyclopedic voice. Carol has stated that she intended to revert back to the previous version since the people here didn't have a problem with City Journal.[[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::: OIC. Well in that case your revision should definitely stay. I took that article off my watchlist a few days ago because I hate "partisan" wiki articles and it was filling up the page (otherwise anything from [[WP:ECON]] that I assessed is on there), and at the time of the watchlisting it was just carol and some IP's editing the article. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk] '''mistates''' my intention! I have no problem with stating where either facts or opinions come from. My issue is can I use facts from his article in the factual section. Of course now that I've realized he has a book - and it's searchable online - the issue is any problem with using the book for facts. And I have no problem mentioning where the book comes from. Carol Moore 17:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]'''

:::::Well, your intent is probably noble, but is unimportant (to me). I think that in this case, the source and his leanings should be stated and that facts from him might be treated with suspicion, just as facts from Gordon should be treated with suspicion. If you want to use straight facts from either, might I suggest adding the proposed text to the talk page to see if anyone objects first? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Note to answer above: exact text has been in article for a while and is very relevant to history of the Act.
::::::Of course now that I've found the exact book pages and am ready to put back material in the factual section, I'm wondering how much I have to write to describe the author, since this is the [http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Trillion-Dollar-Housing-Mistake-American/dp/1566635314/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product only book ref'd]. I know [User:Lawrencekhoo|lk] wants me to write
:::::::Howard Husock, vice-president of the [[free market| market-oriented]] conservative [[Manhattan Institute for Policy Research]], author of ''America's Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy'' (ETC existing 3 sentences.) [REF: Howard Husock, ''America's Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy'', [http://www.ivanrdee.com/ Ivran R. Dee publisher]], 2003, 66-67, ISBN-10: 1566635314]
::::::How much of that is necessary in the text?? Carol Moore 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

:::::So I take it that you were not being entirely truthful when you said, ''I have no problem with stating where either facts or opinions come from''? [[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::May I suggest, "Howard Husock, vice-president of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, writes ..." [[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Did I not ask an honest question? I don't know how much is asked or what others might think is too much or most appropriate. Assume Good Fait.
::::::Also, since such a tadoo made about not using his articles in factual section, seems like I should mention he's the author of a book in the factual section, even I don't mention name of book. Carol Moore 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

I have no general problem with the use of this article (elsewhere it's cited as a book) or author.

I have a specific problem: Husock asserts that the US Senate Banking Committee found in 2000 that various left-wing advocacy groups had made, as of 2000, $9.5 billion in fees out of a law called the Community Reinvestment Act (won't go into CRA specifics here). Suffice it to say, that is an absolutely stunning amount of money. That of course does not mean that it's not true. But I can find no other mention of this, can't find the senate banking committee finding, etc...

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, so I don't think Husock's assertion about this finding is sufficient. As far as i can tell, he does not provide a citation in his book for this information (if he does, i invite the guy who cites the book and presumably has a copy to furnish it) and i can find no information to this effect anywhere on the interwebs that is not sourced to Mr. Husock. On this specific matter, i think a citation to the "Senate Banking Committee finding" is required to make the claim.

:The ''Preceding unsigned comment evidently was added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)'' at some point who brought this up at the talk page.
:This probably was put together in 1998 or 1999 by Sen Gramm staffers and haven't yet found out if it's in a hearing. The fact that Husock doesn't include better references and probably got the year wrong doesn't help. I must not let myself get too turned against theInstitute, however, because another author wrote some anti-Palestinian screed for it. ;-) Carol Moore 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

== The Smoking Gun ==

Would Thesmokinggun.com be considered reliable, particularly with regard to their supposed speciality, the legal troubles of celebrities?

If not, two further questions.

Would it be fair to include information from the web site if is confirmed by the copies they have of court and arrests records?

Would it be fair to include information from an accepted reliable source such as the Associated Press if AP article was based on what appeared on Thesmokinggun.com? [[User:BaldPete|BaldPete]] ([[User talk:BaldPete|talk]]) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:The Smoking Gun appears to be a reliable publisher of primary sources. However primary sources like court documents should only be used with great care. See [[WP:PSTS]] We have to avoid making mistakes of interpreting primary sources, or assuming that they tell the complete story, or that they are even accurate. For example, we may see an indictment but we may not see the motion that tossed out the indictment. Or we may be looking at the wrong "Liz Smith". Affadavits in divorce fcases are notorious for being exaggerated. If an event hasn't been mentioned in secondary sources then we shouldn't use a primary source about it. Where primary sources are useful is in providing details that might not have been mentioned in the secondary source, like the exact date. Also, it's important to avoid giving excess weight to salacious material that is not part of the subject's notability. That's tricky with celebrities, who may become known as much for their arrests as for their performances. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

: I agree with Will Beback, with one caveat. The Smoking Gun usually provides a synopsis of what the person in question was busted for. So looking at the synopsis would be using a ''secondary'' source. Trying to draw inferences that can at all be controversial from the ''documents'' from TSG would be original research with primary sources. That being said, I would say TSG is reliable. [[User:Ngchen|Ngchen]] ([[User talk:Ngchen|talk]]) 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would consider The Smoking Gun a reliable source, at least to the extent that their coverage is backed up by the original documents which are typical of their web site. TSG has been owned by Court TV (now [[truTV]]) since 2000, meaning it is now part of [[Time Warner]] Inc. (Note, however, that the original documents shown on TSG may include items filed in lawsuits which contain unconfirmed allegations. Thus, TSG could serve as a reliable source to establish that the allegations were ''made'' in those documents, but not necessarily to establish that the allegations are ''true''.) --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:*That kinds of leaves us in a bind with respect to BLP's. What hypothetical situation can you envision where we would want to source the existence of an allegation that had not been covered in secondary sources just in order to note the allegation? I agree w/ you and will that TSG has a good record vetting primary documents and displaying them unaltered. I just can't think of a case where we would need them to summarize a primary document that wasn't otherwise made available to the public. Thoughts? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::*I don't know that we'd really want to use the synopses as secondary sources for the purpose of establishing the notability of an incident. In that context it should at least be a source independent of TSG. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::*[[WP:BLP]] specifies questionable sources as, "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs." The primary documents on TSG don't fall under this definition. A copy of a court transcript, arrest record, court filing, or other legal document which is what often appears on TSG appears to meet the definition of a reliable source which can be used in a BLP. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::*I think that's missing the forest for the trees. BLP is there to help ensure that we only use sources with a clear and sound editorial policy for citing claims about living persons. The primary documents at TSG are there because they are leaked and not otherwise publicly available (as appellate briefs, summary decisions, etc. are). So we could cite those sources only in very limited places, even more limited than in places where we could cite "publicly available" primary documents. My question above was "What situation can we envision where we would cite TSG's copy of primary sources where we wouldn't just cite the secondary source discussing the event? Because we wouldn't note the event in the article simply because it is in TSG." I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't envision a scenario like that. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Two points: First, once a document is on TSG it is publicly available. Second, there are several scenarios when a primary source might be used to supplement a secondary source. A primary source may list details of an episode, such as the exact date or a verbatim quote, that don't appear in the secondary sources. Protonk is right that primary sources, especially of the type found on TSG, need to be handled with great care, but their use is not totally prohibited. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::With respect to Protonk's comment that "the primary documents at TSG are there because they are leaked and not otherwise publicly available": that may be true for the occassional document, but the vast majority of the documents on TSG are documents that are publically ''available'' (in the sense that members of the public could obtain them, if they were willing to undertake the effort and expense), but not very ''accessible''. TSG gets most of its materials by just getting copies from their publically accessible repositories (court clerks, etc.) or via FOIA requests. There may be a few leaked documents, but those are exceptions. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 19:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I guess I was including the tour notes and other stuff. Yes, the court documents are mostly available to anyone. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The question is how do you confirm that what it's publishing is authentic? That's the point of the line in [[WP:V]] about using sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Does TSG have such a reputation? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 10:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, it has a reputation for accuracy. The Smoking Gun is part of CourtTV (now renamed [[truTV]]), owned by Time Warner. It's not just some guy getting documents. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 16:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Hibari Misora ==

This section "Claims of Korean ancestry" at [[Hibari Misora]] contains no reliable references. The edit summary shows that most edits have tried to remove it for that reason. The article has not had many editors, so I decided to improve it. This user "Caspian_blue"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Caspian_blue] directly added that one section back into the article. I find that odd, because the user has the article of their watch list, but they have not edited the article before.

I tried to create a discussion with the user, and for them to explain how the references are reliable. However the user deletes my posts, makes rude comments, and ignores the question. Stating the references are "RELIABLE" and that I am page blanking, creating dishonest edit summaries, falsely labeling, and leaves me numerous warnings, and threats of being blocked. This was after I included many notable references to update the article.

The section in general is just nonsense, as none of the references are notable. However the book reference in particular is misleading, as this book "美空ひばり時代を歌う" does not mention anything about such a topic. It is impossible to find any information relating to the "weekly newspapers" which apparently wrote about it. The Korean newspaper isn't even named. The English reference is just a personal website about Japanese music, last updated in May 2007. The final references are from a Korean site, and using googles web translator, it appears the title says that 70% of the Japanese entertainment industry is actually Korean. It seems to be an anti-nationality statement, and an opinionated editorial. In addition, the user "Casbian Blue" appears to have an anti-Japanese persona, judging from this users activity.

I don't feel it belongs in the article, and that it is bait for prejudice vandalism. Trying to find any source relating to such a thing is almost impossible. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.40.233|220.253.40.233]] ([[User talk:220.253.40.233|talk]]) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Debito Arudou]] and Japanreview.net ==

Now, I understand that the website Japanreview.net has significant connections to [[Debito Arudou]]. I have the feeling that citing it is appropriate in Arudou's case because Arudou let an editor from the website look at his rough draft; another editor from the site gave a negative review his final book. Also I read C S and JReadings rationale. Anyway, I just want to triple check that the source can be used, so please look at the talk page and confirm or deny the rationale here. Thanks [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:To further this explanation, Debito Arudou himself is involved in the discussion. He believes that JapanReview.net is not a reliable source and should be deleted from the article. Several other editors have attempted to show that the website is not only reliable, but that it is linked to Debit Arudou himself. Arudou continues to insist that his article is unfairly biased because of this existence of these references, and has even called into question the neutrality or possibly even conflicts of interest of other editors who disagree with his position.

:It would be appreciated if outside views can determine if the source of JapanReview.net is reliable, possibly to calm Mr. Arudou's beliefs that his article is biased and that Wikipedians are trying to "troll" his biography. I realize this goes a little beyond a Reliable Source problem, but it is the heart of the matter it seems. [[User:The359|The359]] ([[User talk:The359|talk]]) 05:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Arudou Debito here. Hello. The issue, as I see it, is not whether Scalise, Honjo, and I have any relations or connections. (We did; I was interviewed by them, and Scalise did proof an MS of the book. We were friends, but had a falling out.) The issue is whether the source itself, Japanreview.net, counts a "reliable source" suitable for Wikipedia under its guidelines. My arguments for why it is not:

::It is a website, not a publication. It is run by two people (Honjo and Scalise) who are not established, authoritative, or professional editors. The website has nothing anything approaching established practices of vetting or peer review. Moreover, it has been defunct since July 2005. Further, it has (in my view) shown unprofessionality and bias in its reviewing style, particularly in regards to this author's work. And the website has become a source for lifting quotes (as purported Letters to the Editor, but essentially no more than posts to a website nonetheless) from non-authorities in the field for inclusion on the WP as "criticisms", while editorial bents remained disinclined towards including any established sources that were positive towards the person being biographied. (For example, there was for years a large section containing Criticisms only, with no balancing out with positive reviews or appraisals, and it was, for the most part, edited for years by a "J Readings", who, not coincidentally, I believe is Honjo and/or Scalise, especially since almost all that "Criticisms" section, again mainly maintained by J Readings, sourced Japanreview.net.)

::There are many other issues about sourcing (not just Japanreview.net, but for now that is the topic under discussion here) which I brought up to the Talk page last August, and many were remedied by conscientious editors. However, as weeks have passed and attention drifted, we have editors trying to smuggle back in deleted and unreliably-sourced content all over again. Such as the Japanreview.net website. And when I brought the issue back up yesterday on the Talk pages, I was accused by editors, in spite of the primary assumption of good faith, of trying to make the WP entry into an "advertisement" and a "micro-managed resume" (by none other than J Readings), moreover of trying to "edit" my own site (when in fact all I did was ask other people to edit it, after re-raising the concerns I had last August with an NPOV tag).

::Putting up material critical of me is fine, properly sourced. But for the sake of balance, I have also asked for properly-sourced material that is NOT critical of me also to be considered. It has not been (even my most recent book, which came out way back in March, was not included until I demanded it be), even after years of waiting and finally pointing it out. Then my character is publicly impugned for doing so by Wikipedians. Given the attitudes of the current editors on the Talk pages, I do not feel as though the biography is approaching the standards for neutrality that Wikipedia aims to have.

::To repeat, I can live with criticisms. As long as they are from established, reputable, authoritative, and genuinely published sources. Places like Japanreview.net are not -- they are essentially blogs. And if (as editors have claimed) the primary criteria for how good a source is is whether the information stands up to consensus regarding content and content alone, then information gleaned from website Debito.org (my site, with copious archives of materials not written by me but published in major newspapers and journals) should also be citable at Wikipedia. However, the systemic presumption of COI just because I happen to the one being biographied (understandible, but unproven), used as a means of accusation by hostile-sounding editors, in my view an automatic bias. In sum, if Japanreview.net is considered a "reputable" source, so should Debito.org be.

::There are many issues here entangled, and for that I apologize. But they still aren't being resolved, and part of the problem I believe is that the smaller pond of editors there have predispositions towards the person being biographied. We need arbitration. Thanks for your consideration of this article. [[User:Arudoudebito|Arudoudebito]] ([[User talk:Arudoudebito|talk]]) 07:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It is not an appropriate source for a [[WP:BLP|biography of a living person]]. Some of the authors are scholars publishing elsewhere, and it can be treated as a self-published source of such a scholar. If articles are published somewhere else as well as on this website, then they may well be RS and both sources can be given. But material published only here cannot be used in a biography. You could get further opinions at the [[WP:BLPN|biography of living persons noticeboard]]. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I would go further, and say that it is perhaps a questionable source ([[WP:QS]]), as it relies heavily on personal opinion.
:::::But the source is used merely in a review of a book, rather than discussing the subject. I realize that this article is a biography, but if we had a separate article on "Japan Only", would this source not be useful? If we cannot a negative book review because it relies heavily on opinion, then should we not also remove the positive book review from The Japan Times? [[User:The359|The359]] ([[User talk:The359|talk]]) 17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::It is not a reliable source, and is a self published website by an energy analyst. It also applies to the biography above this dispute, and I would assume this outcome applies to that as well. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.144.103|220.253.144.103]] ([[User talk:220.253.144.103|talk]]) 20:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::No, the Hibari Misora issue is unrelated. The book review of John Lie's ''Multiethnic Japan'' was a re-publication from the [[Asian Wall Street Journal]]. You can see it clearly at the bottom of the page. [[User:J Readings|J Readings]] ([[User talk:J Readings|talk]]) 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::(I should probably take this up to the next section, but whatever...) The issue really with the Hibari Misora article is that we should be citing Lie's book for facts because it's an academic book. If we wanted reactions, then we could obviously cite reviews. So, in that sense, I agree with you: the Scalise review at JapanReview is technically inappropriate and should be replaced with the cited passage from John Lie's ''Multiethnic Japan'', but that issue has absolutely nothing to do with citing JapanReview overall as a reliable source. [[User:J Readings|J Readings]] ([[User talk:J Readings|talk]]) 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
How is a self-published book review from a credible author any worse than a book review from an equally credible author published in a newspaper? If we can't allow something because it is someone's stated opinion, then does the article not have undue weight by having only book reviews which praise? If there is no criticism, there shouldn't necessarily be any praise in the article either, even if that source is deemed reliable. [[User:The359|The359]] ([[User talk:The359|talk]]) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::The notability of the source hangs on the subject it deals with. "Japanese Only" is a book about how discrimination in Japan affects the lives of foreigners there. While JapanReview in itself may not be 'reliable' - although this is up for debate as it has been cited a number of times by third parties and has itself been covered by a major English daily in Japan - Yuki Honjo's review of the book attracted a significant response from well-known expatriates in Japan who have themselves published material on the subject relevant to "Japanese Only". Even Debito himself wrote a response. This, if nothing else, shows that the review has entered into the discourse on the subject in Japan and is notable.--[[User:Anarmac|Anarmac]] ([[User talk:Anarmac|talk]]) 20:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanreview.net is not a real source under Wikipedia rules, no matter how you try to dress it up (it's a website, and a defunct one at that). The Japan Times is a real source (it's a major newspaper in Japan that's been around for more than a century). Let's stop trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Moreover, are we arguing with a straight face that we cannot allow praise unless criticism exists? This also falls foul of Wikipedia rules. [[User:Arudoudebito|Arudoudebito]] ([[User talk:Arudoudebito|talk]]) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::For the record, I am not arguing and I have not argued that anything published in the Japan Times is not a 'real source'. But aside from merely stating over and over again that it is not reliable or notable, you have not answered the points above about Honjo's review, specifically that it attracted a fair amount of attention from several well known expatriate commentators in Japan. What is more they are commentators who have written non fiction titles on Japanese society in either Japanese or English, or both (Clark, Tasker and, might I add, yourself), or have commented on Japanese nationalism in the domestic and international media as 'experts' (Dujarric). If Honjo's review were really just a trashy piece of blog-hackery, do you think it would have generated such a response? --[[User:Anarmac|Anarmac]] ([[User talk:Anarmac|talk]]) 23:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Further, websites do not have to be ''up to date'' or currently maintained to be reliable sources. In fact, we use the Internet Archive to find sources from web pages which no longer even exist. [[User:The359|The359]] ([[User talk:The359|talk]]) 00:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Also, (Arudou) please read the point about the Japan Times above. Nobody is suggesting that we get rid of the Japan Times quotes because they are from the Japan Times. The suggestion was that perhaps reviews of the subject do not have as much authority as the subject matter itself, so if you get rid of Honjo's review on that basis, the JT reviews would have to go too on the same basis. It is about consistency. Two reliable sources - until you show us otherwise by addressing the reasons why many editors here believe JapanReview.net is unreliable - have offered reviews. If they are irrelevant, then they both go. If they are relevant, then they both stay. Even editors who have toned down the Honjo quotes believe that her review is a reliable source.
:::::::::Finally, you are not getting anywhere by claiming on your own authority that the source is not notable. It also doesn't help that there are a few others who similarly have not offered convincing rebuttal of the arguments for the source's reliability. I think many of the editors here have been incredibly patient in the last little while and would probably appreciate a reason as to why a source that generated ample attention from prominent expatriates in Japan who have written on the topic should be dismissed out of hand.
::::::::: If I and others have merely dressed up the Honjo review or smeared lipstick on it, it should be fairly easy for you to undress it or wipe the lipstick off with your own arguments. Please do so. Don't just stand there calling "lipstick! lipstick!" That's not how you convince people. --[[User:Anarmac|Anarmac]] ([[User talk:Anarmac|talk]]) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a request for comment section about this: [[Talk:Debito_Arudou#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Japanreview.net_be_used_as_a_source.3F]] - After this, if there is a consensus, it will stick. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Mainstream article that evidently used Wiki article as sources ==

This Sept 29 [http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html Business week article]] evidently used an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Reinvestment_Act&oldid=240692145 earlier version] of [[Community Reinvestment Act]] for it's four of six of its most prominent links. One of those sources has been kicked off the wiki article because it is a law firm serving clients who profit off the Act and its statistics were obviously biased.
The Business week article is just being used in external links right now, which I'd like to delete. But more importantly I have a problem with it being used as an opinion source or even worse to back up credibility of the law firm's piece.
Anyway, I haven't noticed this issue before so I thought I'd bring it up and let people chew on it. Carol Moore 15:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]''

Just to explain. The white paper by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley has been repeatedly removed from [[Community Reinvestment Act]] by [[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]], because she claims (without evidence) that it serves clients who profit from the CRA. There is no evidence that the writer for the BusinessWeek article used Wikipedia for a source apart from the fact that it is addresses the same topic and quotes other (well known) sources on the subject, some of whom are also quoted in the Wikipedia article. Note that the BusinessWeek article is not being used as a source for any statements of fact. It would only be used as a source to observe that the viewpoint expressed in it does exist in the community. She also repeatedly removes links to other articles that dispute her position, this BusinessWeek article being an example. Sources that conform to her views are given more leeway. Please also see the entry on the Manhattan Institute above on this page. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Turns out this very issue is being discussed right now at [[WT:V#Self-fulfilling verifiability]]. Carol Moore 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

*Remind me, again, what is so wrong with the business week article/blog post? Because they link to a source you don't want to include in wikipedia? Really? The NYT links to ''wikipedia'' all the time, that isn't a reason to remove their blog posts or news articles. As a blanket summary of facts, the BW post seems to get it right. The liberal bogeyman of Glass-Steagal repeal didn't cause the crisis nor did the conservative bogeyman of the CRA. CDS law changes and changed requirements on leveraging both probably had a much greater affect, but neither were a singular cause. As I read the CRA article now, it seems to be ok up until the last segment where it balloons into absurdity listing criticism after criticsm without much restraint or balance. That article '''has''' to incorporate the fact that there is a political dimension to the CRA criticism that is plain as day (just like the Glass Steagal article should). We don't need to conduct OR to do that, just find sources which make that claim and note them in the criticism section. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::First, most of it repeats sources already in the article, which is why I had question that in name of this Section. Perhaps the general solution is to say: "Business week used these sources above to come to same conclusion" it would be ok, though a bit redundant -'''and isn't the redundancy of criticism in the article something you have a problem with above?'' :_).
::Second it shouldn't be used to validate something which two wiki editors have already rejected on other Bias and factual grounds. It's just an ad hoc opinion piece and we can't assume the guy has read and would defend Traiger's statistics, which another wiki editor picked apart.
::Third, I am trying to get the best sources to do this article, but we need someone besides government employees and liberal think tanks as sources! I'm not sure which political dimension to the CRA criticism you mean. Identifying people as pro-govt policies or anti-govt policies would make most sense to me since liberal and conservative don't neatly describe those any more. (Or should I say the spectrum is liberals and most conservatives on the more statist regulation side and libertarians and lots of independents on less statist side.) Carol Moore 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

:::Just jumping in here (having added the link in question once and then restoring it after [[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] took it out). I'm afraid that I have no idea what the rationale could possible be for removing a BusinessWeek article from the External Links section. What does it mean to say that the article uses an old Wikipedia version of the article for four out of its six links? If true, it hardly seems a disqualification, but I don't even see how such a claim can be made. The bulk of the BW article is commentary by the author, in any case. The links are just included at the end. Are you claiming that BW is not a reliable source? I don't see anyone making anything close to a case for that. If a source meets Wikipedia's standards for [[WP:RS]], and is being cited properly, it should stay in. The standards for External Links are even looser, and I don't see any serious claim that the BW article should be excluded here. As to your other point, two Wiki editors don't get to veto sources they don't like. In my experience dealing with hot topics, it's better to be more inclusive rather than less.[[User:Notmyrealname|Notmyrealname]] ([[User talk:Notmyrealname|talk]]) 22:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The other problem is the redundancy factor. In fact I found about four articles from WP:RS that were just repeating stuff from three other sources already in the article and didn't bother to use them. Isn't it common sense on wikipedia not to pack the sources redundantly in controversial articles? Carol Moore 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

== Citing old encyclopedias ==

I have noticed that a lot of articles refer to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (published, I think, around 1913). Like the 1911 ed of the Encyclopedia Britanica, the old CE is noted for its high scholarship and depth of coveage on topics. However, like the 1911 EB, it is dated. This leads to a problem... In many cases the old CE is being used as a citation for statements about ''modern'' Catholic scholarship or opinion. I think we need some discussion about how reliable such old encyclopediae are. My personal view is that, while they ''can'' be reliable, their reliability is limited. We need to develop a consensus about when they should, and when they should not be used. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The one case I've run into which didn't bother me was an entry allegedly written by Proudhon about contemporary anarchism, something you wouldln't find in something more recent. So there are specific cases where it will work. But accept for very specific contemporary sources like that, I think using them very problematic. Even most historical facts have been re-written one or more times since then. Carol Moore 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

:There was an archived discussion on this noticeboard about using a ca 1910 encyclopedia. The basic feel was: if you are trying to source how people felt about a subject in 1910, good. If you are trying to provide a reader in 2008 a factually correct rendition of a subject, it might be better to identify the source (and time) rather than present it as fact. I don't know that we have a "policy" on this per se, but the Britannica 1911 guidance suggests that we should replace material sourced to those encyclopedias ASAP. In your exact example, it would be totally unacceptable to use CE to talk about modern catholic opinion, if only because of [[Second Vatican Council|Vatican II]]. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::OK... The article that propmted my question is [[Catholicism and Freemasonry]]. I am going to have to ask for additional help here, as there is a history of conflict between me and another editor that means any challenge I make as to the use of the CE will be seen as POV (the other editor is a stauch Catholic and I am a Freemason). I realize that the Catholic Church has had serious issues with Freemasonry since the 1700s... I also realize that it still does. I have no problem with the article discussing these issues, whether historical or current. My concern here is purely with the heavy use of the old CE to back statements that seem to reflect the Church's ''current'' objections. I would appreciate it if a few non-involved editors took a look at this. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Are IMDB and personal websites reliable sources ==

So I've encountered a user who has argued that an IMDB page, a myspace page and a personal website are reliable/verifiable sources for a living person biography [[Kristen Aldridge]]. I had been citing WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB # 3 as why they don't apply I have this guy and an admin who seems to know the other saying they don't apply. I've reached my 3 edit limit for the article but was hoping some more experienced editors could chime in. Are these sources considered reliable? [[User:Tmore3|Tmore3]] ([[User talk:Tmore3|talk]]) 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:personal websites are by definition self-published and so all the restrictions of self-published apply. IMDB is a mixed bag and frankly I personally would not use it for a living person biography. Better sources should be out there and those should be used.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 03:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal websites are definitely self-published. The non-user contributed parts of IMDB are probably OK. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|lk]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 09:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the position that such sources are usable under WP:SELFPUB with use of inline citations.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[WikiPilipinas]] ==

Is [[WikiPilipinas]] considered a reliable source for a) in-text references, or b) External Links sections? I noticed a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=%2A.wikipilipinas.org lot] of links to various pages on it, and such a large collection needs some community input rather than one editor making any potentially damaging decisions. [[User:Orpheus|Orpheus]] ([[User talk:Orpheus|talk]]) 06:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

: For in-text references, it should not be used at all, since it's a wiki. See [[WP:SPS]]. Wikis are not reliable sources. As an external link, it might be usable, but [[WP:ELNO]] discourages the use of open wikis as external links unless they are stable and have a large number of users. I don't know whether WikiPilipinas meets those criteria. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 14:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Exactly right. I agree. It may be usable as a general external link (that is, linking to the website's home page rather than a specific subpage), but as you rightly say, it needs to meet the [[WP:ELNO]] criteria first. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::: That seems pretty clear. Any volunteers to help with the cleanup then? :) [[User:Orpheus|Orpheus]] ([[User talk:Orpheus|talk]]) 09:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Savepasargad.com as a source? ==

There's a dispute on [[Cyrus cylinder]] about the use of http://www.savepasargad.com, the website of the "International Committee to Save the Archeological Sites of Pasarga", as a source. It sticks out like a sore thumb, as literally every one of the other 59 sources used in the article is an academic work. Specifically, two pieces by a Canadian-Iranian linguist are being cited (see [http://www.savepasargad.com/~New-050508/01.General-News/Newss-Pages/Professor%20Kaveh%20Farokh-E.htm] and [http://www.savepasargad.com/~New-050508/01.General-News/Newss-Pages/kaveh%20farrokh.htm]). The problems I perceive with the website are:

* [[WP:V]] requires the use of '''"reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."''' I see no evidence that savepasargad.com has any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or even that it checks facts and accuracy in the first place. It's wholly unclear whether they have any kind of editorial process.

* The website itself is clearly an advocacy website and the two pieces being cited are very much advocacy pieces on behalf of a particular Iranian nationalist viewpoint ("Retort to the Daily Telegraph’s article against Cyrus the Great Attack on the Legacy of Cyrus the Great", "Response to Spiegel Magazine's Attack on the Legacy of Cyrus the Great"). This would have to count as a questionable source, I think ("promotional in nature" - [[WP:QS]]). As far as I can see, it's a rather amateurish website that's been put together by a group of ''ad hoc'' campaigners.

* It is unclear whether the source is a ''third-party'' one; it appears that the author of the cited pieces is a member of the Committee on whose website they are published. I am not sure whether this meets the requirement for a source to be independent of the author. It is certainly not the same kind of relationship as between, say, an author and a mainstream book publisher. If you can e-mail a piece to a colleague and say "please put this on your website", that strikes me as being self-publishing by proxy.

* Finally, the reliability of the two pieces is questionable as well. It's about an historical issue relating to ancient Mesopotamia. As already mentioned, it's by a Canadian-Iranian linguist; he has no qualifications as an historian but has a sideline as an amateur historian. [[Osprey Publishing]], a reputable publisher, has published two books by him on ancient Persian history. Note that despite the title of the first piece the author is not a professor - there seems to be some degree of self-promotion going on here. He doesn't appear to have any sort of reputation as an historian; I've been unable to find any references to his books by any other academic sources, other than a handful of (very mixed) reviews. The claims being made in the two pieces are contradicted by the prevailing view within the academic community, which raises a [[WP:REDFLAG]] for me. As WP:V puts it, "exceptional claims require high-quality sources". I'm not sure this counts.

Any thoughts? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 08:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:*Your analysis seems spot on. An advocacy site without any evidence of a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I note also that the entry we have for the linguist in question, [[Kaveh Farrokh]] sources its claim that he is an "expert in the field of Iranian history" to [[Radio Free Europe]]. Hardly a reliable source for those credentials. Kaveh appears also to be a psycho-linguist by training, and he appears to have absolutely no academic qualifications as a historian. I do not think you can use his writings from this advocacy site, and be cautious in using his books within a field he has no training.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 14:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::*It turns out that his specific area of work is as a student counsellor at [[Langara College]] in Vancouver [http://www.langara.bc.ca/academic-services/counselling/who.html], so your caution seems to be a good idea. I certainly think it would be inadvisable to quote him as if he was the equivalent of the professional historians cited everywhere else in the article. We would never, for instance, quote an unqualified amateur theorist alongside [[Stephen Hawking]] in an article about [[black hole]]s; I'd sincerely hope that we take the integrity of our historical articles as seriously. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:According to [[User:Khoikhoi|Khoikhoi]], he is using the site merely for verifiability to attribute the statement to the author. The issue of whether Karrokh or this site is reliable or not is another one altogether, and not in question. If [[Noam Chomsky]] chooses to put an article on an obscure blog or website, we cite the blog or website on the grounds that it is Noam Chomsky, not refuse to put it up unless we have some reason to believe that it is a Noam Chomsky impersonation. The discussion is not over whether you believe, shall we say, [[Tom Holland]] (a writer of fiction ''and'' history, who has written about ''[[Vampire |vampires]]'' )-- or [[Kaveh Farrokh]] (who has written two history books about ancient Persia) nor over the question of who is "credentialed" and who is not. This does not belong on this board, but on the talk page. [[User:Tundrabuggy|Tundrabuggy]] ([[User talk:Tundrabuggy|talk]]) 03:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Is thepunksite.com a reliable source for punk bands? ==

This site [http://www.thepunksite.com] is one of the biggest punk rock webzines with constant news updates and hundreds of album reviews and interviews.
Can this be regarded as a reliable source when determining the notability of a punk rock band?


[[User:Strummer25|Strummer25]] ([[User talk:Strummer25|talk]]) 10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan of the webpage at thepunksite shows about 99% of the articles as being authored by the same person: Bobby Gorman; that alone should send up a red flag. Furthermore, the format of the thepunksite site practically screams "blog". I don't see how this could qualify is a "Reliable" source except in an article on thepunksite.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 10:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Bibliographic articles ==

We have very stringent policies and guidelines related to reliable sources, but how these apply to Bibliographic articles? Is the threshold for including a source in a bibliographic article any different than for any other article in Wikipedia? Some examples: [[Bibliography_of_work_on_Objectivism]], [[Richard_Nixon_bibliography]]. And how we do apply standards for inclusion in bibliographies about [[WP:BLP|living people]]? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:The logical sourcing issue with bibliographic articles concerns things like title, author, etc. In most cases a book, etc, is a sufficient source for its own existence and for the name of its author, etc. In all kinds of articles we mention the existence of books, magazines, TV shows, songs, court documents etc, that would not meet one or another definition of "reliable source" for Wikipedia articles. We don't require that a source meet all standards for reliability before mentioning its existence. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::So, you are saying that in a [[Bibliography of Sarah Palin]], we can list a series of books, magazines, blogs, TV shows, irregardless of the provenance, reliability, and other such criteria? I would argue that that type of rationale is incompatible with [[WP:BLP]], and [[WP:V]]/[[WP:RS]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Let's use another example. Say we have an article on a famous fringe scientist who has self-published many books. Even though those books are not reliable sources, it is still appropriate to list them in a bibliographic section or article. Likewise, Orson Welles' ''Macbeth'' is not a reliable source for anything except itself, yet we include it in both [[Orson Welles]] and [[Macbeth]]. Just because we list the existence of books, magazines, radio interviews, etc, in an article doesn't mean we vouch for the accuracy or reliability of those works. If that were the case we'd have to make huge deletions from this encyclopedia. ''[[The Protocol of the Elders of Zion]]'' isn't a reliable source, so should we delete that article or any mentions of the book, including [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions)]]? I don't think so. The guideline on reliable sources concern using publications as sources. It doesn't deal with which publications we can mention. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: ''It doesn't deal with which publications we can mention.'' ... but then, what about BLPs? Are you asserting that we can add whatever we want to a bibliography about a living person? Maybe this thread needs to be moved to [[WP:BLP/N]] [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, you asserted that it is a reliable sourcing issue. What policy basis are you asserting now? Can you give a reason why we should exclude some publications? (and let's "play it where it lies", as they say in golf). [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Ah, golf... I have not played in months... My question is: what are the standards for bibliographical articles on living persons? Which sources should be listed and which ones should be avoided? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The obvious reasons for excluding an item item would be when it either isn't about the topic or isn't by the subject. For example, ''[[Primary Colors]]''. That's an anonymously published ''[[roman a clef]]'' which is widely acknowledged to be about [[Bill Clinton]]. On the one hand [[Joe Klein]] has now admitted writing it so it could be included in a list of books by him. On the other hand, there is a dispute over how much of it is fictionalized so it probably wouldn't be in a list of book about Bill Clinton. Those are simple [[WP:V]] issues. Including items where the connection is marginal is an editing decision. Those would be things like cases where the topic is only mentioned in passing, or where the subject made only a slight contribution to the effort, such as a [[walk on]] part in a movie. Other issues are libels and hoaxes. We mention the fake Irving biography in the [[Howard Hughes]] article, so even significant hoaxes can be included. If a work has been found by a court of law to be libellous then it is proven to be false but the court case probably made it notable. Including the name of the title of a work is not the same as including its contents and it is not an endorsement either. The responsible thing would be to list the work and describe, at least briefly, the controversy. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: The objective of a bibliography section/article if to present a balanced collection of as many relevant sources as is reasonable for a single section/article. In case of Nixon there is a wealth of thoroughly researched books, popular and academic, in case of Palin you just don't have as much choice and cannot practice as much discretion/censorship/etc. Excluding outward hate sites or proven libel, use the relevance test: if it's relevant, inclusion is ok. I'd take an opportunistic stance on this: my primary concern is that the bibliography must stand usable after she loses the bid. Thus ephemeral web sources that would soon, quite likely, vanish should be excluded. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 05:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Good points. To expand on my previous remark, I'd also say that self-published works about a subject should generally be excluded. I can't see a good reason for including a blog entry, for example. Of course, self-published works by a subject should be included. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 07:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is much latitude in the policies of Wikipedia. Jossi's question, "What are the standards for bibliographical articles on living persons?" seems to be pretty well answered in WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. There may be some newspaper articles about a person, but these generally are variable both in the research and in the argument. A critical book (an "academic" text for want of a better term) generally has followed a process of collecting evidence, which may include newspaper articles, testing the claims made in newspaper articles and elsewhere against the evidence, and drawing conclusions about the subject. Other books may critique that position, using a different set of evidentiary frameworks and coming to a different conclusion. In both cases though, the process is thorough and uses the process of dialectic to arrive at positions. Newspaper articles may not do that. Whilst some journalists are impeccable in their research, others are not so and the history of journalism is littered with the detritus of these weapons of mass delusion.

So I don't see the objective of a bibliography as "to present a balanced collection of as many relevant sources as is reasonable for a single section/article", as NVO claims above. That statement contains two words which would only add to debate: "balanced" and "relevant". These are selections an editor will make. As I see it, Wikpedia presents information and arguments made by others who have spent some time and effort in their work. It's not an archive; it doesn't fulfill the role a presidential library would. At the same time, the WP:BLP overrides the argument that everything can be included in a bibliography. A really close reading of those policies does clarify most of the issues. [[User:Errol Vieth|Errol V]] ([[User talk:Errol Vieth|talk]]) 11:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Have you had a chance to read this thread? It'd help if you could respond to the points already raised. As for newspapers and magazines, they are generally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, except for fringe or self-published publications. There's no reason to exclude them from bibliographies. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Silly question. I wrote answers to the original questions at the top of the thread. I made the points about newspapers and magazines, but it seem you did not read those points. Newspapers and magazines come down the list in terms of Wikiepedia policy. Statements like "they are generally considered..." are weasel statements; because they are not generally considered. Making statements like that shows that you are not interested in a discussion; rather, you just like to pretend that your speak for the authorities, whoever that might be. But you don't. There are great reasons to exclude them from bibliographies; I've elaborated on those reasons above. [[User:Errol Vieth|Errol V]] ([[User talk:Errol Vieth|talk]]) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Question about unpublished sources and interviews for [[Carmen Rodriguez]] ==

{{resolved}} --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 08:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm coordinating an educational project ([[WP:NRG|North of the Río Grande]]), and for one of the articles, on the Chilean-Canadian writer [[Carmen Rodriguez]], my students have shown the immense initiative of getting in touch with the author herself. They therefore met her, and interviewed her at length (three hours), an interview which they recorded. Thanks to that interview, they therefore have a number of sources that we want to ask about. They include:
*the taped interview itself
*her CV
*the manuscript of an unpublished talk given by a Chilean academic at the launch of one of her books
These sources are not needed to establish the author's notability, but as the intent is to take this article to [[WP:GAN|GAN]], and hopefully even [[WP:FAC|FAC]], we would like the article to be as comprehensive as possible. Obviously, these unconventional sources are a goldmine. Can the students use them, and if so how? Or if not, are there any precedents or workarounds?
Many thanks. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

: [[WP:PSTS]]: Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::In part due to my article I wrote about [[Ann Bannon]], I also established contact with the subject, and it has, to my utter humility and astonishment, turned into a friendship. We have visited on several occasions, and we have a wonderful email correspondence. I am unable to use any information not published by a reliable 3rd party source in her article, including her thoughts on her books, publishers, and other things. Her hairdresser witnessed the [[Stonewall riots]], and she told me about them, but I can't use that for that article. Her daughter was emerged from the San Francisco Opera House in the middle of the White Night riots, when Dan White got off virtually free for murdering [[Harvey Milk]], but I can't use her description for Milk's article. Your students should cherish the relationship they just struck, maybe see if they can get the interview published (you could help with that?) and use it then, but they can't use anything until it's published by a 3rd party reliable source. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
: While admirable work, this is not appropriate research for Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be based on primary research, as outlined in [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]]. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is based on previously vetted material. Perhaps your students should work the material up for an undergraduate journal article instead. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:@-jbmurray: See if you can get that published in your college newspaper or website. Once published there it may be possible to cite it in the article. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::@Moni3, Awadewit, and jossi... Hmm, yes, let's see if they can write up the interview and get it published. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, copied over from [[User_talk:SandyGeorgia#RS_question|User talk:SandyGeorgia]]:) Yes, I feared as much. In fact, mind you, I think the taboo that's being broken here is less [[WP:V]] than [[WP:OR]]. After all, research (particularly historical and scientific research) for instance, relies precisely on primary sources: letters, interviews, diaries, as well as experiments, lab notes, and so on. It's not that the students are drawing on personal experience--per the example of an eyewitness report of an accident--let alone a waking dream. In fact, they are being suitably scholarly in searching out primary and unpublished sources. It's just that when scholars do this, their reputation and training is what provides verifiability. Here on Wikipedia, because these are sources that nobody else can access, they are regarded on unreliable.

NB the use of primary sources would not make Wikipedia a primary source; it would make it a secondary source, along the lines of the sources that Wikipedia itself uses. But Wikipedia's goal is to be a ''tertiary'' source, that relies on (usually scholarly or journalistic) secondary sources.

I do wonder, however, how much leeway is provided by the final paragraph at [[WP:PSTS]]: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 01:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:*The key point is always that editors are not supposed to be interpreting data or evidence for themselves and sharing that interpretation on Wikipedia - the sources are supposed to do that. That is why we stay away from primary sources. While this can be a delicate line, in this case I feel it is clear. I also feel we should try to make this distinction as clear as possible and avoid trying to push its boundary. As you rightly point out, original research is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. No one submits their discovery to the Britannica. :) [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::*Fair enough, A, about not pushing boundaries. :) --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 05:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Using the Radio Free Europe web site as a RS for someone's expertise ==

At [[Kaveh Farrokh]] there is an attempt to use a news report on a film [http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/01/e840ee45-68ca-4718-bf39-c2f01168d738.html World: ''Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' Stirs Up Controversy'' by Golnaz Esfandiari] as a reliable source to say that the subject is an expert in the fields of history and linguistics. This diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaveh_Farrokh&curid=6595558&diff=242969141&oldid=242911325] is the one in question. Ignoring the fact that RFE is a private organisation but government funded, I don't see how this specific article is a reliable source for his expertise. Particularly as his PhD is from a Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, he works as an educational counsellor, his professional writing is about dyslexia and his PhD I think about language acquisition, to call him an expert in linguistics on the basis of newspaper articles doesn't work for me, although it obviously works for other editors. He has no qualfications in history or linguistics, although he has written 2 books on history. I hesitated bringing it here because this is also being discussed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kaveh_Farrokh] where I posted this morning, but as my edit was reverted on the grounds RFE is a RS for this claim, I've brought it here as the issue is whether this article can be used for these specific claims. Thanks. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:This seems to me to be primarily a problem of [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. A major problem with using this piece from RFE is that neither Farrokh's publisher, nor his own books, describe him as an "expert" in history and linguistics (see [http://www.ospreypublishing.com/authors/kaveh_farrokh/]) - they characterise him as a researcher, author and sometime lecturer. The RFE piece is not even about Farrokh - it just quotes him in passing. I think what we have here is a bit of "journalese", where the writer has used a brief description to explain why Farrokh's views are relevant; it isn't nearly as authoritative as his official published biographical profiles. Authoritative sources like official profiles should be given more weight than passing references in random media articles. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think this type of mention is authoritative at all and I'm not quite sure that [[Radio Free Europe]] is the most reliable of sources to begin with. We should be looking to the comments of known experts for this kind of credentialing if other criteria cannot be met (proper degrees, university teaching positions, publication in peer-reviewed journals, etc.). Since no reviews can be found I think the publisher looks like the most reliable source here, certainly not RFE.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Official MTV interview as source? ==

I'm currently working on ''[[HIStory]]'' and it's corresponding singles and album tracks that have their own article. I plan to get them all to featured or good states so every detail available is important. Jackson gave a very rare but informative interview to MTV
[http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1536070&vid=104441 here]. Unfortunately it's just the video and I haven't been able to find a transcript of the interview. Could I still use it as a source, since it's an official interview with MTV and if so, how would I go about sourcing it? Cheers. — [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#4173E4">'''''Realist'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#D80B0B"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*An interview conducted by MTV seems to be an acceptable source for a music-related topic such as those you are working on, particularly given that it can be accessed at MTV.com so other editors and Wikipedia users can view it as well and confirm that Jackson did say what he is quoted as saying. In regard to how you cite the interview, use the citation template [[Template:Cite video]] and fill in as many fields of the template as you can that are relevant. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 00:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
**Thank you. — [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#4173E4">'''''Realist'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#D80B0B"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, the interview is considered a published source, and you can include brief quotes and what time they appear in the video, and what the original air date of the television program was. You might ''also'' want to look through some newspapers because I'm sure there were news articles about it the day after it aired. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== voice-compass.com ==

http://voice-compass.com/english/main/home.html seems like a "who's who"-type publication for the voice communication industry. So far, we have no idea where the original information for the article, "More Efficiencies in Automated Calls by Adaptive Audio" from Chapter 6: "Summary and Editor´s Recommendations", came from, nor to what degree it has been edited for publication in this book. See discussion: [[Talk:Adaptive_Audio#Establishing_WP:N_and_WP:V]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:The voice compass is definite not a "who's who"-type publication it is book about the voice market from a netral point of view which explains to non voice and non teckie people the benefit of using speech technology in many different market areas. Only a 15% are company informations and all this is free of charge. The book gives the world wide market a clear structure. It is writen mainly by the author detlev artelt (me) and by 3 other international voice experts (see http://voice-compass.com/english/main/the-voice-compass/further-information/co-authors.html). On 640 pages there are different sections who explain different technologies and a huge section with recommonidations. The voice compass list beneath this all companies who are acting in this market in more than 45 different tables to give the reader a fair chance to ompare products. --[[User:Talkingweb]]
::Note that the comment above is the sole contribution by the editor to Wikipedia to date. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Using Wiki as a source? ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor%3A_The_Australian_Outback&diff=243052600&oldid=243000364 This diff here] is what I'm referencing. A blog has been cited previously, and now the editor is citing another article on Wiki after I informed him that the blog wasn't reliable. I have objections to including the information about how Colby Donaldson should have been kicked off of the show based on these rules (that so far haven't been properly sourced) when it seems to be original research and we don't know what went on behind the scenes. Any thoughts on this from users or admins more experienced? [[User:Atlantabravz|Atlantabravz]] ([[User talk:Atlantabravz|talk]]) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Wikipedia should not be used as a source. He should be given warnings for adding information that is sourced by unreliable sources. If he is a good faith editor he will stop. — [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#4173E4">'''''Realist'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#D80B0B"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Edits reverted and notice given to user. I'm not an admin so can't do much more to help myself, sorry. — [[User:Realist2|<span style="color:#4173E4">'''''Realist'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Realist2|<span style="color:#D80B0B"><sup>'''''2'''''</sup></span>]] 01:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I think it is pretty cleaned up now. Oddly enough, the editor hasn't answered the talk page comments and proceeded to make that last questionable edit after I had explained on their talk page about original research and proper sourcing. I wanted to list the issue on this board to show the editor the concensus on proper sourcing in case he or she tried to re-add it. [[User:Atlantabravz|Atlantabravz]] ([[User talk:Atlantabravz|talk]]) 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Are Ad hominem quotes reliable? ==

{{resolved}}

One of the issues I have in articles is Ad hominem quotes like this one in the Jesus myth article: "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..." (Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). ''Jesus and Archaeology''. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.) There are several problems with this quote in particular: possible [[Wikipedia:Libel]] as it basically states that anyone that questions the idea "Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived" is not reputable scholar (even among the Historical Jesus group there are those who dispute the 'son of Joseph' part so are they somehow unreliable scholars? The logic here is circular in any case: anyone who supports this theory is not a "reputable scholar" because no "reputable scholar" would support this theory), [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] issues as the statement is an Ad hominem attack and doesn't really add anything to an encyclopedia article, [[WP:V]] issues as Charlesworth is the editor of the very book in which his comment appears and Eerdmans presents themselves as "Publisher of religious books, from academic works in theology, biblical studies, religious history and reference to popular titles in spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature." creating COI concerns. The quote has been put back in with claims that Charlesworth is an "expert in biblical archaeology" failing to explain what supports this and later that Eerdmans is "reputable academic publisher" something not even claimed at Eerdmans' own web site. More troubling is this review by Jonathan Reed from University of La Verne in Review of Biblical Literature 10/2007: "One minor criticism must be raised: scattered throughout the book are numerous illustrations, mostly from Charlesworth’s collection, which, although at times helpful, at other times seem misplaced or could be replaced with something more appropriate. So we see, for example, a bichrome Canaanite decanter in Klassen’s article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass, or the excavations at Cana in Kloppenborg’s article, but none at all of the Theodotos inscription whose letters are analyzed in a way that is hard to visualize without a picture. Of course by using his own photos, Charlesworth was able to keep the cost down, so that at $50.00 for over seven hundred pages, we should be thankful." When an editor is given this kind of free reign one has a right to call the work "self published" especially when you have things like a Canaanite decanter picture being used in a Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass article. Good grief, that is insane as even a courtesy investigation by John Q Surfer shows the Canaanite culture extending a far greater range in both time and region than the Sidonian culture. That is almost akin to using a picture of an Olmec artifact in an article on the Zapotecs and makes one again wonder about the "reputable academic publisher" claim.

On a more general level I would like to see Ad hominem quotes forbidden regardless of subject matter or source as I can not see any reasonable use for one in ''any'' article. They don't really add anything to an article, they serve as a lightning rod preventing article improvement, and they may have other issues as well. The fact you don't see such quotes in articles on other fringe theories like Flat Earth, Creationism, or New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky) raises the question of why are Ad hominem quotes in the Jesus myth article and why editors are fighting to keep them in when better quotes exist. Even in the heated issue of Holocaust denial you have "reputable historian" used in the context of ''methodology'' rather than regarding people who hold to Holocaust denial itself.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no idea what you mean by an "ad hominem quote." But there's no problem with the quotation as given. James Charlesworth may or may not be right in his assertion; but he can surely be quoted as an eminently reliable source. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 08:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::By "ad hominem quote." I mean a quote that attacks the ''people'' who support a theory rather than the theory itself. Compare Charlesworth's quote to this one: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher." (Stanton, Graham. ''The Gospels and Jesus'' Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2002), p. 145.). Notice the more neutral tone and wording of the Stanton quote. That is what Wikipedia ''should'' be striving for not quotes like Charlesworth's. Furthermore, as a possible ''self-published'' source per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: "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''." But we have a whole host of relevant fields (ethnology, anthropology, archeology, linguistics, theology, etc) involved. By Charlesworth's statement Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies), Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden), Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology), and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto) are not "reputable scholars" simply because they support the Jesus Theory. Given that most of these people are alive I see some serious [[Wikipedia:Libel]] issues here.

::On a related note Eerdmans demonstrated they had problems with their fact checking with ''Jesus Now and Then'' By Richard A. Burridge, Graham Gould because on page 37 they let this little gem pass: "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." While the authors do spend a couple paragraphs qualifying that sentence be basic fact is that the sentence as it stands is ''blatantly not true''; of those three only Tacitus expressly mentions Jesus, Suetonus is hotly debated and Pliny only mentions the Christian movement. When sources allow statements like that it is red flag time. The "eminently reliable source" idea is put into question by the idea to save a few bucks on the cost of the book Charlesworth was editing he put pictures with articles in such a manner that they seemed misplaced or inappropriate.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah, so your notion of "ad hominem quotes" is a reference to the content of the quotation, not the reliability of the source. As such, it's irrelevant to any attempt to determine reliability. We can and should quote sources regardless of what they say about other sources, in order to reflect and represent the views and debate among such reliable sources. (Issues of libel are a matter for the original publisher, not for us, and you're massively overstating the case.) You can't only quote people you like, or whose style you prefer. Meanwhile, again, this is evidently a reliable source. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think you need to go back and reread [[Wikipedia:Libel]]: "The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is '''their responsibility''' to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] is even more blunt about the matter: "The burden of evidence for ''any'' edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." [...] "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.''" [[Wikipedia:Libel]] makes it painfully clear that repeating any potentially defamatory claim is the responsibility of the editor that either puts it in or restores is and NOT the publication it comes from. Also there is the issue of is a personal opinion regarding the ''people'' who hold to a theory with no apparent backing to support that opinion really relevant to an ''encyclopedia'' article on that theory? I have yet to see on valid argument of when this would be a good idea.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::This is a matter of style, but not about the reliability of the source. Charlesworth is a notable source competent in the field. As long as his opinion is properly attributed, there is not RS problem here. Any libel problem would be Charlesworth's. I also think that you misread him a bit. You should probably parse "a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph" as "a Jew named 'Yeshua ben Yosep'", i.e. the "son of Josef" bit is not a claim of actual parentage, but just a more precise rendering of the common name. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The problem is that Wikipedia is '''encyclopedia''' and using an option implied as fact that attacks ''people'' who hold to a certain belief rather than criticizing the belief itself does nothing to serve that goal. On a related note, I keep seeing "notable" being brought up but there is nothing about someone having to be "notable" to be a Reliable source. Roland Fischer may not be "notable" but until the quote above his "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text) quote appears in the peer reviewed article "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" in ''Anthropology of Consciousness''. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 published by no less than the American Anthropological Association. You wouldn't believe the trouble I am having having with regards to one editor to getting that quote ''in'' the Jesus Myth article.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think you've misunderstood how it works. The point is not to edit-war with another editor by trying to keep a reliable source ''out'' of the article. And especially when it comes to controversial topics, citing someone is not the same as ascribing to their point of view. The point is to provide a sense of the range of views that are given by reputable and reliable sources. It really doesn't matter whether or not those sources attack others or not. To take another instance, there's no problem citing (say) [[Christopher Hitchens]] on [[Mother Teresa]], though his criticism of her is often vituperative, and indeed I see he's prominently featured in the article about her. But he's not the only source cited, either.
:::::Anyhow, I'm going to mark this "resolved." The source in question is clearly reliable. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Reliablity of [[Gothamist]] and it's sister sites ==

Considering it's gained awards, reputation and is editored. Is there a point where a serious professional blog site becomes reliable? Are these sites any less reliable than a newspaper? --<span style="color:black; background: white; border: 1.5pt dotted black; padding: 0pt 4pt;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 10:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:You're saying that rather than a blog it is actually a local news magazine. You may be right. If so the authored main items may be reliable; of course the responses by the general public will not be. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Use of blog as a source over news media ==

{{resolved}}

Several dozen rugby league articles, such as [[Gareth Ellis]], have been edited to include a blog source from [http://www.nrllive.com.au/2009-nrl-player-movements/ this site]. Other [[WP:SOURCES|reliable third party]] sources such as [http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/tigers-have-one-ellis-of-a-star-says-lyon/2008/02/07/1202234066598.html this] from a news outlet are available to support the same information for the same player. Is the user-generated blog acceptable when other sources are available? Thanks, <span style="font-family: tahoma; color:gold">&bull;'''[[User:Florrie|<font color="darkorange">Florrie</font>]]'''&bull;[[User talk:Florrie|<font color="darkorange">leave a note</font>]]&bull;</span> 12:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:For some reason, the first link is a dead one. I agree that it is preferable to use reliable sources and favour the removal of the former if the latter becomes available. I guess it also depends whose blog it acutally is as well, is it a published or notable author? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hmm, even more reason not to use it, I suppose. As far as I could gather when I visited the site it was a personal blog thing with members posting about player transfers/movements and the blog owner updating a list. <span style="font-family: tahoma; color:gold">&bull;'''[[User:Florrie|<font color="darkorange">Florrie</font>]]'''&bull;[[User talk:Florrie|<font color="darkorange">leave a note</font>]]&bull;</span> 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Talk:List of new religious movements]] ==

Could use some more eyes on this whole page, but of course the most recent stuff is at the bottom. Questions regarding usage of primary vs. secondary sources for sourcing in the article, as well as other issues. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 13:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Histrionic personality disorder ==

there are no citations for putting this disorder in gender categories or links that show any symptom differentiality in patients due to gender

In females
Women with HPD are described as self-centered, self-indulgent, and intensely dependent on others. They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships. As well, they over-identify with others; they project their own unrealistic, fantasized intentions onto people with whom they are involved. They are emotionally shallow to avoid distress and have difficulty understanding themselves or others in any depth. Selection of marital or sexual partners is often highly inappropriate. The majority of the time their partners will have symptoms of personality disorders, equal to, or far worse than their own. Women with HPD often tend to enter into abusive relationships with partners who increase the abuse as time wears on. Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships, which is exactly the same for males. Women may show inappropriate and intense anger masking their internal battle between the quest for intimacy and avoiding pathology. Women with borderline tendencies often form entirely negative convictions towards the male gender and treat them like pawns as a defense mechanism concealing their own inadequacies. They may engage in self-mutilation and/or manipulative suicide threats as one aspect of general manipulative interpersonal behavior.[2]


In males
Males with HPD usually present problems of identity crisis, disturbed relationships, and lack of impulse control. They have antisocial tendencies and are inclined to exploit physical symptoms as a method of false control. These men are emotionally immature (although they tend to believe the exact opposite), dramatic (although many are adept at covering it up), and shallow (although they tend to believe their feelings are so deep that no other single person could ever understand). Men with HPD may dwell on their own emotions and create a false sense of reality, effectively convincing themselves of whatever they need to believe to feel comfortable in their relationships. HPD males with antisocial tendencies shift between periods of isolation and those of extreme social conquest (each shift can last a matter of days to periods lasting several years). They may require isolated retreats in order to obtain a comfortable level of understanding and acceptable functioning. HPD antisocial males are dependent upon no one in particular, but crave the dependence of others. Although males often have chameleon-like social skills (similar to HPD females), they tend to have trouble keeping lengthy friendships afloat as their paranoia (real and imagined) may eventually lead to a near complete and permanent disposal of all interpersonal relationships at a given time, effectively eliminating any emotional responsibility and accountability. They tend to genuinely search for intimacy (many believe in "the one") while remaining unable to regulate their perceived level of intimacy for any given interpersonal relationship, making it very difficult to build anything other than turbulent relations. Males with HPD may believe in the supernatural, such as fortune telling or telepathy, including the belief that there are many hidden messages and notions in public works that are specifically meant for them. When HPD antisocial males believe they are being manipulated, they may morph into sociopathic relations with their perceived enemies, yet remain overtly loyal to perceived friends. HPD men are oftentimes intensely driven by their quest to conquer life, despite having no real sense of direction or control, resulting in frequent changes of overly passionate interests. [2] Both men and women with HPD engage in disinhibited behavior, such as promiscuity and substance abuse.[3]
:You are right; this lengthy distinction between male and female sufferers is not found in the source (2) cited. And that does not seem to be a reliable source anyway - at least to me it seemed to be just an authorless web page. Best to delete and then see if anyone wants to restore any gender-related distinction based on better sourcing. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Publisher in Pakistan: Dar-ut-tazkeer ==

In one of the articles, it has been questioned by another editor whether a book published by Dar-ut-Tazkeer is verifiable or not. Since the book is in Urdu, how can be claim be considered 'verifiable'? The book is by [[Khalid Masud]], titled Hayat-e-Rasool-e-Ummi published in 2003 by Dar-ut-Tazkeer, and he has disputed on page 560 that the age of Aisha (wife of Prophet [[Muhammad]] was 6 or 9 at the time of marriage on the basis of unreliability of a primary source. This is not the only such work, but one published in print that I know of that comes closest to being verifiable. Thanks. [[User:Oiqbal|Omer]] ([[User talk:Oiqbal|talk]]) 01:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would like to make sure that I understand what the dispute is about. Is the dispute about what the book says about [[Aisha]]'s age at marriage, or whether the book is accurate about that? We have a number of editors here on the English Wikipedia who know Urdu; see [[:Category:User ur]] for those who have identified themselves as knowing Urdu. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 06:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*: In case this is about the language, see [[WP:NONENG]]. English language sources are preferred ''if available''. Being in a foreign language does not disqualify a source. It is considered ''reliable'' under the same criteria as an English language book - i.e. if it is published by a reputable academic publisher, or written by an recognized expert in the domain, or if it has received favourable reviews from other competent scholars. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*:::The dispute is about if the source is reliable or not. Its statement about Aisha's age (evidently) directly contradicts what is said in all the reliable sources already used and thus it is suspect. And as for sources in Urdu, they don't need to be used here, as we have a large number of English-language sources of quality.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*::::It does not contradict what is said in all the reliable sources already used. [[Asma Barlas]]'s book published by ''University of Texas Press'' says the same thing. Other sources are not talking about what modern Muslims think about Aisha, but assert their own opinion from the primary sources. Thus no contradiction as the context is different. --[[User:AAA765|AAA765]] ([[User talk:AAA765|talk]]) 07:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== http://www.newsmakingnews.com ==

This site is being used as a reference source on a [[WP:BLP]]. The majority of the sites content is self published work and the site provides no publisher oversite or verification of material. Because of the nature of the content, I would go so far as to say it should be blacklisted as a source for any article on WP because of its lack of reliability. Please see it's sourcing use at [[Michael Riconosciuto]] and the open [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#living_person_subjected_to_self_proclaimed_biographer_posting_slander|AN/I]].--<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:JavierMC|<font style="color:#fef;background:darkblue;">'''Javier'''</font>]][[User talk:JavierMC|<font style="color:darkblue;background:white;">'''MC''']]</font></span></small> 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Looks like the issue solved itself as the site doesn't have anything on it.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::The site was incorrectly addressed as http://www.newsmaking.com. It is actually http://www.newsmakingnews.com. I have corrected the title to reflect this. Hope this helps, '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 15:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Doh. Thanks Gazimoff, it was so late last night I was almost falling asleep at my keyboard. Sorry for mislinking it. But the orginal point remains if someone could take a look.--<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:JavierMC|<font style="color:#fef;background:darkblue;">'''Javier'''</font>]][[User talk:JavierMC|<font style="color:darkblue;background:white;">'''MC''']]</font></span></small> 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: Not a reliable source. But looks like it is being dealt with on the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 22:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
====Not quite dealt with====
:: Please see this on the article talk page. This was left by one of the major contributors to the article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Riconosciuto#Deletion_of_material_from_subsection_Early_career_in_science] --<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:JavierMC|<font style="color:#fef;background:darkblue;">'''Javier'''</font>]][[User talk:JavierMC|<font style="color:darkblue;background:white;">'''MC''']]</font></span></small> 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Putin reported as gay icon ==

This was reported by a [[News Corporation]] [http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22295632-13762,00.html news portal] about Putin emerging as a gay icon, so I added it to the relevant section in the [[Vladimir Putin]] article, but [[User:Setraspdopaduegedfa]] keeps removing this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=243321982&oldid=243317831],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=243312975&oldid=243263581] claiming that it is "not a reliable source". [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not really a sourcing issue. It seems to be silly gossip and not worth including in an encyclopedia. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I believe it is a sourcing issue. [[Gay icon]]s can be heterosexual, according to Wikipedia's own article, which states gay icons can be historical, celebrity or public figures who are embraced by the LGBT community for their glamour, flamboyance or strength. Certainly there is much news about Putin being considered a gay icon [http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&rls=en&q=putin+%22gay+icon%22&btnG=Search here]. Whether or not it is fit for inclusion into an encyclopedia is not the question being asked here. [[Vladimir_Putin#Anecdotes]] already states that pictures of his muscled torso had ''"Women, .... screaming with delight"'', so it would be NPOV to also note that gays also apparently admire him too. Now is the news portal www.news.com.au considered a reliable source or not? [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]]. It's one-day-fluff. There are exactly zero hits for ''Putin "gay icon"'' on Google News, and the only hits on plain Google seem to refer to that one article. If someone still talks about the topic in six months, it might be worse adding. However, this is a [[WP:BLP]], and I would expect better sourcing than 2.5 sentences in a single filler article. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 19:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Zero hits on Google News means nothing, since old news articles are aged out and this is from 2007. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Marting, try changing the query so that articles from all dates are shown. Also try using Lexis-Nexis and other academic search databases. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Speaking as a member of WP:LGBT, this has to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen. However, I will search some gay news sites to see what there is to see about Mr. Putin and his pectorals. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::*[http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid48339.asp Exhibit A] that it may be true, but many more stories about how government oppression of homosexuals in Russia is condoned by Putin: [http://biggaynews.com/index.php?s=vladimir+putin&sbutt=Go example]. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, but note that the text in [http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid48339.asp Exhibit A] is, to a large part, identical with [http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22295632-13762,00.html the news.com.au story]. These are not an independent sources, its just gossip making the rounds. However, the original source seems to be the AP, which is a plus. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: (Outdent) after reading the article, all I see that should matter is this "Some claimed that Mr Putin, by stripping to his waist, was pleading for more tolerance of homosexuality in Russia - where gays and lesbians are for the most part forced to remain closeted.". There's nothing to support this assertion anywhere. So, you have to choose. Is the fact that a major news story repeats this unverifiable fact enough to include it in the article, despite the fact that most of the anti-gay laws in the country were put in PLACE by Putin? Or is the fact that it's a mere rumor and some people's completely unsupported suggestion simply indicative that LGBT people in Russia are so oppressed that they try to make anything into a pro-LGBT lifestyle statement? Either way...it looks like it should go in, no matter how much the logical part of me rejects the idea. Icon status by the LGBT community isn't conveyed by facts but by assertion, unless we're going to write up a policy on when someone can be called a gay icon. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''</font><sup>[[User_talk:Logical_Premise|&nbsp;Ergo?]]</sup> 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Note that [[Anita Bryant]]'s anti gay stance didn't disqualify her from becoming a gay icon. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: That is a very good point. If gay people are saying "he's a gay icon", doesn't that make him a gay icon? :D --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''</font><sup>[[User_talk:Logical_Premise|&nbsp;Ergo?]]</sup> 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: Looks like an invention of ''very'' bored anonymous "journalists". August 24, no war, no murders, must fill 1,000 words... [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think being a gay icon is any concern BLP wise, as others have pointed out it says absolutely nothing about ther person's sexuality. On the other hand, we've had the problem before where absolutely everyone is called a gay icon and so it's better if we have something more then one source saying it [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Question about old ref ==

Hi. I'm working on [[Casu marzu]], and there's a ref left over from another editor [https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/1821/1/V14N07_309.pdf here]. Is it reliable? It's from the ''The Ohio Naturalist'', from 1914. Thanks. [[User:Intothewoods29|Intothewoods29]] ([[User talk:Intothewoods29|talk]]) 03:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Also, is [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=CRC+Press&aq=f&oq= CRS Press] reliable? It looks like a good medicinal website. Thanks again. [[User:Intothewoods29|Intothewoods29]] ([[User talk:Intothewoods29|talk]]) 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I think you mean CRC press, and yes it's very reliable. The Ohio Naturalist could qualify as a reliable source depending on how it's used. How is being used? [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks. The Ohio source talks about how high fly larvae can jump, and that's what I'm using it to back up. [[User:Intothewoods29|Intothewoods29]] ([[User talk:Intothewoods29|talk]]) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'd be reluctant to use a 1914 article as a source on anything scientific, or, in fact, on anything but what the people thought back then. Fly larvae seem to be a harmless enough topic, but even there you should be able to find something more recent. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Sources quoted in other sources ==

Let's say one book quotes and sources another book to which I don't have access. May that quoted information be presumed to be reliable and if so, should it be sourced to the original book, sourced to the book by way of the source that quotes it or sourced to the RS to which I have access? I relaize that reads a bit confusing; I've confused myself just writing it. For example, Smith page 50 quotes Jones page 10. Can I include the information and if so should the cite be <nowiki><ref>Jones p. 10</ref>, <ref>Jones p. 10 quoted on Smith p. 50</ref>, <ref>Smith p. 50</ref></nowiki> or something I haven't thought of? And in the bibliography section, should Jones and Smith be listed separately, should Jones be mentioned as included in Smith or should it just be Smith? [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:For this to be considered reliable, I would require both Smith and Jones to be independently reliable, and both to directly discuss the issue at hand (otherwise Smith may omit context irrelevant for his argument, but not for another argument). Also, I would expect the full attribution, i.e. <nowiki><ref>Jones p. 10 as quoted by Smith p. 50</ref></nowiki>. In general, it would be better to get a copy of Smith directly. You might be able to get it via Interlibrary Loan, or someone at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange]] may be able to help. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 08:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::*The specific instance that I have in mind involves information on the critical reception to and production of a TV show, in which one researcher in one instance quotes with attribution another researcher and in another instance quotes with attribution a book written by someone associated with the production. Ideally yes it would be best to get the originals and I am pursuing that course (I have to pay my library fines first!). In the first instance if I say "Smith quotes Jones as describing the series as 'symbolic of an entirely new approach to tree sloths'."<nowiki><ref>Jones, p. 72, quoted in Smith, p. 19</ref></nowiki> would that be acceptable under RS? In the second if I say "Smith quotes director Brown's account of filming the episode as being 'more fun than a sock full of lemurs'."<nowiki><ref>Brown, p. 113, quoted in Smith, p. 36</ref></nowiki> does that pass RS muster? [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 10:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. It is common enough to cite direct quotes in this fashion (where one published work is quoting another). In both of those instances it is expected that the intermediate work be cited per [[WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]]. Both the original and the intermediate work are expected to be reliable (or the original is a primary work that the intermediate work interprets). The [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/03/ APA style guide] mentions basically how to do it. That can easily be adapted for WP footnote style. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Osho Rajneesh - selective sourcing ==

{{divhide|Not relevant to this noticeboard}}
:There seems to be an issue with the dependence upon Judith M. Fox's book in this article. I question why of the 350 odd citations, 100 (including ibidem's) are taken from one 54 paged [http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/osho.htm "booklet"]. Some sections in the [[Osho]] article depend almost entirely on Fox. This would appear problematic considering the abundance of material available on the subject.
:In light of this observation, I am seeking an opinion as to whether or not this issue warrants the placement of an appropriate tag, or tags, to highlight this concern.It is essentially one editor, [[User:Jayen466|Jayen]], who is responsible for the weighting issue arising from the use of this source.
:Notable also, in terms of questioning the quality and reliability of the source, is the fact that the book in question is published in conjunction with an Italian organisation called [[CESNUR]], owned by one [[Massimo Introvigne]]; who seems to have a reputation for his stance against so called anti-cultists, or cult-apologists.
:Generally, I have found that there is resistance to the inclusion of material that questions offically endorsed appraisals of Osho Rajneesh; despite numerous valid sources being offered, for example [[Talk:Osho#Review_of_sources_covering_the_move_to_America]] & [[Talk:Osho#Medical_condition_as_possible_pretext_to_enter_America__-__source_review]].
:The officical view, that endorsed by individuals sympathetic to the Osho movement, is always presented as the primary version of events, with all other perspectives sidelined as secondary. This is not a neutral presentation of verifiable sources.
:Another observation is that the weighting of Fox's assessment of Osho's teachings gives it primacy over the views of other scholars, such as Carter, Metha, Urban, Mullan, etc. all of whom have written on the nature of the subject's teachings. Instead some of their views are relegated to one small section entitled ''Assessments by scholars of religion''. This simply adds to the imbalance.
[[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to my analysis, the article lists 201 different source locations. Of these, ''35'' (not 93) are pages in Fox. However, it is true that some of these pages have multiple citations. Overall, the article has, according to my reckoning, 347 ''individual'' source citations. Of those, 98 are to Fox. So there would seem to be some potential justification in raising the question of undue weight. To check if this is borne out by the facts, let us look at what is actually cited to Fox, taking each citation in turn, from the beginning.

* Fox p. 9 (3 cites) is used for the number of Osho's siblings and the occupation of his father, his going back to live with his parents aged 7, and his youthful flirtations with politics.

* Fox p. 10 (2 cites) is used to source Osho's criticising Gandhi and socialism, and his speaking against Brahminism.

* Fox p. 12 (1 cite) is used to source that sannyasins wore a locket with his picture.

* Fox p. 11 (1 cite) is used to source that his sannyasins did not live an ascetic lifestyle.

* Fox p. 15 (1 cite) is used to source that the number of Western visitors increased.

* Fox p. 16 (1 cite): the arrival of Western therapists in the ashram.

* Fox p. 17 (6 cites): the Ashram beginning to offer therapy groups, these becoming a major source of income, there being Dynamic Meditation at 6 a.m., Osho holding a spontaneous morning discourse, the way therapies were chosen, the fact that therapies allowed violence and sexual contact between participants.

* Fox p. 18 (3 cites): daily meditation and therapy programme in the so-called "buddhafield", visitors having darshans, "madhouse" carnival atmosphere in the ashram.

* Fox p. 20 (1 cite): some individual sannyasins engaging in drug running and prostitution.

* Fox p. 47 (1 cite): sannyasins discussing planned drug runs or prostitution activities with Osho and Osho giving his blessing.

* Fox p. 21 (4 cites): alternative commune locations in India sought, Saswad castle commune started, tensions with the Desai government, Osho entering a period of silence.

* Fox p. 22 (4 cites): Sheela becoming the new secretary, back problem and move to US, Sheela claiming it was for health reasons, Sheela being keen to go to the US.

* Fox p. 26 (1 cite): Osho's AIDS warning.

* Fox p. 27 (1 cite): Osho ending his period of public silence.

* Fox p. 50 (1 cite): lack of evidence linking Osho to Sheela's crimes.

* Fox p. 48 (1 cite): allegations that Osho was addicted to nitrous oxide.

* Fox p. 29 (1 cite): Osho returning to his ashram in Pune in 1987.

This covers the first 33 citations to Fox. As the article grew, I used Fox as a convenience cite for several reasons: Her book is short and contains the essential outline of Osho's life. Second, it is, unlike FitzGerald or Carter, strictly choronological, making it easy to find things. Third, having been written quite recently, it is one of the few books that covers all of Osho's life, from his birth to his death. Fourth, along with FitzGerald, Fox was one of the first sources I bought for working on this article.

There is nothing cited to Fox in the above that could not just as easily be cited to Carter, FitzGerald, Joshi, or Gordon.

CESNUR is an organisation of mainstream scholars of religion. According to [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jh7lqcV6kWMC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=cesnur+%22Teaching+New+Religious+Movements%22&source=web&ots=RFjcwXLwaL&sig=qLF-qdxRbSZGRjriMv4ony7N_D8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA58,M1 this Oxford University Press publication], CESNUR is a recommended source of objective information on new religious movements. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jh7lqcV6kWMC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=cesnur+%22Teaching+New+Religious+Movements%22&source=web&ots=RFjcwXLwaL&sig=qLF-qdxRbSZGRjriMv4ony7N_D8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR9,M1 The same publication also mentions] that Massimo Introvigne lectures at the [[Pontifical University of the Holy Cross]] in Rome.

"Judith Fox (= Judith Thompson, = Judith Coney) holds a doctorate in the sociology of religion from the London School of Economics, University of London. For more than twenty years, she has researched new religions, culminating in such books as The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism and Sahaja Yoga. She edits a series on new religions from Curzon Press." [http://www.signaturebooks.com/osho.htm#judith] Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)



:This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox (include the ibidem's).

:Cites in the teachings section are almost entirely from Fox, particulary the first sub-section, and it is mostly Fox that is being paraphrased.

:Her work ''The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism'' was not a culmination of 20 years research, as claimed above, it was written in 1986.

:Fox is not a practicing academic and does not currently hold a research position at a university.

:Fox's ''Osho Rajneesh'' publication appears to hold many biases and is not a neutral source, I would point to the first paragraph of page 9 as a good example: where she essentially states that Rajneesh was the reincarnation of a man who lived 700 years ago.

:[[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

* ''This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox.'' I did count them. It is 35 out of the 201 numbered notes, or just under 100 individual citations out of the roughly 350 individual citations overall. It is ''not'' 93 out of 201, as you claimed.
* There are indeed many cites to Fox in the teaching section. This partly reflects the fact that she devotes a whole chapter to a complete outline of his teachings and gives the best overview. Other sources tend to have scattered references to various aspects of his teaching here and there, and to focus on particular points. But the various aspects that Fox describes of his teachings can be found in accounts by others as well. (For the record, the Teaching section has 76 citations, of which 48 are to Fox. Note that every sentence sourced to Fox has a separate citation, even where these are 3-sentence units, and that each primary source quote that is given in Fox and is reproduced in this article has a separate, double citation to both Fox and the primary source.)
* Bromley disagrees with you about the neutrality and objectivity of CESNUR, and he is a leading scholar of religion. It is true that Fox reproduces a legend about Osho's former incarnation; I did not think (and still don't think) that section is encyclopedically relevant to our article. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*I am not sure whether a scholar working at a university or not is necessarily relevant to this discussion, but according to [http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no17517.htm this page], relating to an Oxford University Press publication of hers, Judith Fox taught at the University of London in 2000 at the time her book on Rajneesh was written (the copyright is 2000). (She married or divorced or something, hence the name change. But she is also generally known as the leading scholar on [[Sahaja Yoga]].) <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


::''This is misleading, count the total number of individual cites attributable to Fox. I did count them. It is 35 out of the 201 numbered notes, or just under 100 individual citations out of the roughly 350 individual citations overall. It is not 93 out of 201, as you claimed.''
::go to the reference section, look at the cites, '''count the ibidem's'''. [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Well, Fox is not the only source with ibidems. If you count her ibidems, you also have to count the ibidems for the other sources. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::I believe she was cited here as an academic at one point or another; that is generally someone with a track record of peer reviewed, university endorsed, research.
::The question relates more to the neutrality of the Signature publication - it's usability as a reliable source, and the degree to which it is being depended upon, in light of the fact that it is essentially a 54 page booklet, and that other sources are largely ignored, relative to the disproportionate coverage given to Fox's views - than to her academic credentials [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I mentioned above that her book on Sahaja Yoga was published by Oxford University Press. Judith Fox/Coney/Thompson has a twenty-five-year history of contributing to peer-reviewed journals, including on this specific topic. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::But this is not an article about Sahaja Yoga. [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{divhide|end}}

I have hidden the above discussion. Please continue this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard (where I notice it is cross-posted) or else rephrase your question to be about ''source reliability''. Undue weight and NPOV are not issues for this board.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 20:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, sorry, it does stray off topic, the NPOV board is better suited. [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 01:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Published author posting information through a blog ==

{{Resolved|Nail, meet head. This is a textbook example of the exception from [[WP:SPS]]. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}}
The site is http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com ; the author is Joe Pelletier, a [http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/used-books/getSearchResults?author=Joe+Pelletier published author]. I'm thinking of using [http://blackhawkslegends.blogspot.com/2007/04/hugh-lehman.html this post] as a reference, because of the fact that it's a published author writing about the subject in question. Does this blog/author pass as reliable? Thanks, '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Maxim|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:I'd say fine for non-controversial material. Don't use any negative comments about living people and watch out for minor errors because this isn't fact-checked in the way a book should be. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 21:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Practically Edible ==

Is [http://www.practicallyedible.com/ Practically Edible] a RS? I want to use [http://www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/encyclopaedia!openframeset&frame=Right&Src=/edible.nsf/pages/casumarzu!opendocument this page]. According to its page, it's the World's Biggest Food Encyclopedia with over 10,000 "detailed" entries. The sources page is [http://www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/encyclopaedia!openframeset&frame=Right&Src=/edible.nsf/pages/acknowledgements!opendocument here]. I'm pretty sure it is, but I thought I'd get a second opinion. Thanks ahead of time. [[User:Intothewoods29|Intothewoods29]] ([[User talk:Intothewoods29|talk]]) 22:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:It seems like a reliable source to me. Of course, like ''all'' reliable sources, it may not be reliable for a ''specific'' statement in a specific article in Wikipedia. Context is everything. To fully answer your question we would need to know how you are useing it.[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no comment on the website itself but for food articles, I would just check out [http://www.amazon.com/Food-Cooking-Science-Lore-Kitchen/dp/0684800012 On Food and Cooking] from the library. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

: I don't expect you're going to find a single word about [[Casu marzu]] in ''On Food and Cooking''; since that website is derived from ''The Wall Street Journal'' article that you already have, what other information do you need from the website? Part of the FAC process is not only whether a sources is reliable, but whether it's the best source. What does that source offer that the WSJ doesn't offer? We can discuss whether that specific text can be reliably sourced to that website on article talk. For example, if it's the translations of the Sicilian terms, better sources can possibly be found. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::I found [http://www.journalofparasitology.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1645%2FGE-236&ct=1 this JOP article] that mentions the cheese in the section on "Botflies and other insects." Don't know if that is any help. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::: Thanks, Tim ! Into is already citing that source in the article, so I assume he has access to it; I don't :-) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Airlinerlist.com and Airfleets.net ==

The article [[Singapore Airlines fleet]] contains sprawling [[Singapore_Airlines_fleet#Full_Aircraft_Listing|lists]] cataloguing the registration numbers, dates of delivery and first flights, and other info about every aircraft in Singapore Airlines' fleet. Setting aside the issue of whether wikipedia should be hosting this type of stuff, I'd like opinions on the sources of this information. It's not obvious from the citations in the article, but the editor who supports the inclusion of this material says that the data on individual airlines comes from http://airlinerlist.com/ and http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Singapore%20Airlines.htm. These look like self-published fan sites to me. What do people here think? Do these sources meet the requirements of [[WP:RS]], and can they be used as citations for the detailed info these tables: [[Singapore_Airlines_fleet#Full_fleet_by_delivery_date]], [[Singapore_Airlines_fleet#Current_fleet_by_aircraft_registration_number]], [[Singapore_Airlines_fleet#Aircraft_to_be_delivered_by_registration_number]]? [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 16:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Sites such as airlinerlist.com, airfleets.net, ch-aviation.ch, airliners.net, jetphotos.net, etc are not reliable sources as they are indeed fan sites produced by enthusiasts. If one is wanting aircraft registrations, there are other sources, such as the aircraft registry of the civil aviation authority, and other sources, such as airclaims.com (unfortunately a subscription service). Fansites have no expectation of fact checking (and this shows in a lot of areas), and hence, they can not be considered reliable sources for encyclopaedic articles on WP. --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Dialogue]] [[Special:Contributions/Russavia|Stalk me]]</sup> 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for your input Russavia. I am especially curious to hear the opinions of editors who, unlike Russavia and me, have not been involved with the article in question. ProtonK?—I know you're out there. [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
*Uh, oh. I've been mentioned by name. :) Ok. Planelist.net (which Airlinerlist.com links to for spreadsheets and photos) is registered to a Thomas Noack from Germany. He also runs planespotters.net, another self published collection of airline photos. Airlinerlist.com appears to be linked to Noack but not run by Noack, though much of their content comes from him. It appears as though Airlinerlist is registered to a Servaas Verbrugge, another airplane photo afficionado. One [http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=dadb8819-ca3f-4315-aa40-db460d20eb0a news story] gives a photo credit to Noack, but that is all I can see as far as any indication that he is some expert on the subject (the exception needed for [[WP:SPS]]). The "about editors" link on the airlinerlist site gives an indication that this is probably a fansite. As for http://www.airfleets.net/, I can't seem to get anything but a blank page (in safari and firefox), so I can't tell. My guess is that airlinerlist is probably not a reliable source for data on airlines. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the outside opinion, ProtonK. I would still appreciate input from additional uninvolved users who frequent this page. <humor>DON'T MAKE ME NAME NAMES!</humor> [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both are self-published websites by people who are not recognized as professional authorities in the field. These are therefore not reliable sources and any information sourced to these websites should be tagged and then removed if reliable sources are not forthcoming. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 15:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I have [[User_talk:Huaiwei#deadlinks|also had trouble]] with http://www.airfleets.net/ in the past—the site might not be 100% stable. Anyways, it appears to be working now (in Safari at least) if you want to try again. [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 02:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Finnish source ==

Does anyone know if [http://www.seiska.fi seiska.fi] is a reliable source? I don't read Finnish and don't know much about that site, but an editor recently used [http://www.seiska.fi/viihdeuutiset/_a66676/sillanpaa+kaapista+ulos/ this] as a reference. The "Hot or not" at the top of the page makes me question it. -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:The picture at the top of the main page [http://www.seiska.fi/] ([http://www.webcitation.org/5bQFEBkT0 permanent link]) isn't particularly inspiring either. Nor their overuse of exclamation marks and question marks in titles and choice of stories. It looks a lot like some sort of tabloid/gossip mag [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Common sense and interviews ==

Many of the Wikipedia guidelines are worded as such that they '''disallow''' print interviews, including bios and other promotional/publicity materials, where someone is, in a sense, talking about themselves, but '''allow''' an interview if the subject "''Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network''". In other words, not only it that more notable, but more reliable. My question is at what point should common sense kick in and an editor be able to cite an interview with the subject of an article as a reliable source no matter what the media? Example - An article on an actor has a "claim" that the actor wanted to be like another actor. Now to back this up an editor needs to cite a reliable source. To me the best source would be an interview with that actor - irregardless of the format. And by "interview" I mean the person in question is talking about themselves, something that the current guidelines seem to frown upon. I can understand why the guidelines are there in this case - "hype" provided by a studio, label, publicist or even the subject of an article is not always reliable. However if it something "common sense" such as "Who influenced you?" or "What is your favorite song?" why would the actual person not be a reliable source? [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] ([[User talk:Soundvisions1|talk]]) 00:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
*that seems like a misreading of policies. We tend to discourage the use of interviews for interpretive claims about what was said in the interview--in other words, if Actor X is asked if he dated Actress Y and pauses for a long time before answering inconclusively, we are '''not''' allowed to interpret that pause and inconclusive answer. However if the actor gives an interview to a reliable source we can cite the things said in there as "actor X said he wants to be like Person A". If the actor gives an interview to a blog or otherwise self-published source, we are to be ''very'' cautious about citing claims from there, even if the actor said them (or the source put the words in print as the actor saying them). So if Brad Pitt talks to 60 Minutes about how he really likes Clark Gable, that is fine. If Jonah Hill gives some blog an interview, then we have to be really careful even deciding to cite it at all (remember, they could just be making it up or editing the responses). [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:*I am not asking about "interpretive claims". Two examples: '''Q''': "What do you think about the film?" '''A''': "It was the most fun making the film. It is the best film ever made". If the interview was done during a press junket, no matter what the media source for that was, it might not be anything more than opinion and "hype". However asking a question like that 20 years after the fact: '''Q''': "What was it like working on that film?" '''A''': "I was one of the most fun films I have ever worked on. I still believe it was one one the best films ever made" Now the comments take on a slightly different meaning. In both case we see and/or hear a direct interview and a direct answer. In either case an Editor could write "Even the actor has said the film was their favorite film to work on" and then cite the interview. However I have noticed that Editors will either remove such a sentence, or question it, because it came from an interview and, as such, it is not a "Reliable source" or "only an opinion and not NPOV". And that is part of my question that maybe was not made clear. Again - none of what I am asking is about anyone making "interpretive claims" of an article, only using an actual interview from any media. And I will go one step further - An Editor sees an interview on a television special. The subject of the article talks about a location where an event happened that is not in the article so an Editor uses that, and cites the source as being an interview with the subject. Another editor says that the interview does not mean anything as it is just an "opinion" and that the person doing the interview has been known to "not tell the truth". So now the first Editor finds interviews with other people as well as more interviews/quotes form the same person and they all say the same basic thing. Now all those interviews are cited, and they all come from various sources and periods over the last 30 years. The challenging Editor comes back and says that none of those are "reliable facts", they are all only "opinions". To further back up their claims the challenging Editor says the cited sources themselves are not valid and uses Wikipedia guidelines such as NPOV, Notability and Reliable Sources. Or is that what you mean when you said "misreading of policies"? In the example given the challenging Editor would be misreading the Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines? [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] ([[User talk:Soundvisions1|talk]]) 13:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::*Maybe I dont' understand. If a claim is made in an interview, say "I thought X was a good movie", then the best way to source it is to say "Actor A thought X was "good"" or "in a 1990 interview, actor A said movie X was good". Or something like that. The actor is (obviously) a reliable source of fact on his opinions about the movie or his observations from filming the movie. He isn't a reliable source (normally) for '''all''' claims of fact about the movie, so it is best to identify the source when using information from an interview. '''If''' this interview is given to a reliable source, then there should be no problems. If editors are removing material sourced to that interview and you are attributing and citing it properly, then you should try to get some outside opinions on your ''precise'' problem. If the interview is given to an unreliable source (blogs, podcasts, etc.), then you need to be more careful and it can be a reasonable position to say "I don't think this is a good enough source for the claim".

::*In your case, using an interview to describe some objective fact is usually not done unless the interviewee is some expert on that subject. Even if it is some run of the mill fact (like the movie went over budget), it is still best to cite the interview as the interviewee's opinion. What, exactly, is the article and dispute in question? This noticeboard doesn't work to give broad advice for narrowly worded hypothetical questions because context is very, very important. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::*Sorry Protonk, I try to keep everything NPOV anymore so as to not have anyone say I am [[Canvassing]].If you want me to list something specific I will though. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] ([[User talk:Soundvisions1|talk]]) 23:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::*Bringing a discussion to this noticeboard isn't canvassing. And telling me what the article is just basically to save me time. I ''could'' look through your contributions and find an article that you added or removed material from an interview, but it might not be you and it might take a while. Again, if you are looking for a strong "Yes you can add the content" from here (which really has no power except that most of the editors here are not involved in the articles), then you won't get it without a look at the source and the article. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 23:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::*# [[Talk:Heart (band)#Facts with Citations from the main page concerning Disputed/Questioned items]]. Dispute about about the year 1974, band members and move to Canada. 20:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Picture of a memorial raised by the Slovak government about a controversial issue as a source ==

[[Image:Madarizacia_pamatnik.jpg|150px‎]]<br>
Should this picture be accepted without a confirming third party source? I never heard of "tens of thousands of Slovak children deported to Hungary for denationalization". Very controversial claim and this memorial raised by a government often linked to anti-Hungarian views is the only reference for this right now. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 06:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::The photo is an adequate source, IMO, for the existence of the memorial and for the existence of the claim if makes. However plaques and memorials are poor sources for facts. They are typically erected by partisans and cannot be corrected easily if there is an error. Further, the text is not attributed. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Should it remain without a neutral reference confirming it or should it be removed? We are talking about tens of thousands of ''allegedly'' deported children. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 04:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::::My instinct is that the view of a national government is notable and worth mentioning. But there should be no implication that the events actually happened. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::What article does this concern? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 06:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== The American Thinker ==

{{user|Kauffner}} has been inserting material into [[Dreams from My Father]], sourced to [[The American Thinker]]. I think that despite its vaguely scholarly air, this source is [[WP:QS|questionable]]: I don't see evidence of fact-checking on that site, and I'd certainly say that the claim being promoted (that Barack Obama did not in fact write his acclaimed memoir) falls into the category of [[WP:REDFLAG|an exceptional claim]], thus requiring an exceptional source — which this isn't. If this claim gets picked up by mainstream media, then it can be included as a "controversy" — but the views of one writer on a highly partisan website don't constitute a controversy. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 10:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:The writer of the article in question admits that he has no positive evidence, bases his conclusions on nothing more than a few similarities in style and vocabulary, and makes no attempt to consider any alternative views - it is a feeble argument from an obviously partisan source, and certainly unsuitable to support such an exceptional claim. --[[User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dios Bous|Adelphoi En Kardia Dios Bous]] ([[User talk:Adelphoi En Kardia Dios Bous|talk]]) 10:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::Kauffner seems unwilling or unable to accept that this view reflects Wikipedia policy. Any interested parties are welcome to join the discussion at [[Talk:Dreams from My Father]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Rice ==

I tried to verify the following material from the [[rice]] article.<blockquote>The Encyclopedia Britannica—on the subject of the first certain cultivated rice—holds that:<nowiki><ref>''rice''. Encyclopaedia Britannica 2008.</ref></nowiki><blockquote>The origin of rice culture has been traced to India in about 3000 BC. Rice culture gradually spread westward and was introduced to southern Europe in medieval times. With the exception of the type called upland rice, the plant is grown on submerged land in the coastal plains, tidal deltas, and river basins of tropical, semitropical, and temperate regions. The seeds are sown in prepared beds, and when the seedlings are 25 to 50 days old, they are transplanted to a field, or paddy, that has been enclosed by levees and submerged under 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 inches) of water, remaining submerged during the growing season.</blockquote></blockquote>
However, when I [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/502259/rice consulted] Encyclopedia Britannica, this quote was nowhere to be found.

I also tried to verify the following text:<blockquote><nowiki>Bruce Smith of the Smithsonian Institution advises caution on the Chinese rice hypothesis.<ref name=Harrington>"Earliest Rice" by Spencer P.M. Harrington in ''Archaeology'' June 11, 1997. Archaeological Institute of America (1997).</ref> No morphological studies have been done to determine whether the grain was domesticated.<ref name=Harrington/> According to Smith such a rice would have larger seeds compared to the wild varieties, and would have a strong rachis or spine for holding grain.<ref name=Harrington/></nowiki></blockquote>However, when I checked [http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/rice.html the source in question] I couldn't find any mention of Bruce Smith or his statements.
Is this allowed? Exactly what is the user who made these edits trying to pull?
Also, [http://www.agri-history.org/pdf/R-r.pdf this PDF] is cited as a source for Indian consumption of rice by 8000 BCE.

This source strikes me as fringe, not only because the 8000 BCE Indian rice date is an outlier well outside of the mainstream, but also because it gives a 3700–2000 BC date for the Vedas, an antedating associated with fringe nationalist claims. [[User:Satyam E. Jayate|Satyam E. Jayate]] ([[User talk:Satyam E. Jayate|talk]]) 12:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:I know only too well how easy it is to insert misleading claims about the first dates of rice cultivation because I added material to [[paddy field]] that claimed an early date for Vietnam; this was reverted and correctly so. Let us, for the time being at least, assume good faith on the part of editors and see what needs to be done to improve the article. You raise questions about three sources. The first is Encyclopedia Britannica. The most likely reason for the discrepancy is that Britannica has changed its text. Well, we should not be using Britannica as a source anyway for such an important article. I believe there are a number of scholarly books and articles devoted to the question of when rice cultivation (and wet rice cultivation) emerged, and where. The debate is by no means settled, as new archaeological discoveries are being made and they can be interpreted in different ways. So this scholarly debate needs to be represented properly in the encyclopedia and that must be done by referring directly to the work of those scholars. Which brings me to the second source you mention, Harrington. This is a poor source because it is from the Online News section of ''Archaeology''. I found the WP sentence word-for-word at the end of the second paragraph of Harrington. That doesn't matter: the important thing is to make use of the scholarly sources instead of this. And your third source. It seems like a good and relevant article. The problem is not that it is fringe, but that it is being used for purposes other than the ones it was written for. The original research that it presents is mainly on the first millenium BCE, when it is agreed that rice was being cultivated in India. It uses literary sources to find out some more detail about that cultivation. The fact that it gives early dates of the Vedas might ring alarm bells but the article does not insist on these dates and the point does not really affect the paper's main line of argument. So I would say that this paper is OK as a source for the article generally, but not for the point in question: the first date of rice cultivation. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 13:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Joe Baugher ==

I've been writing aviation-related articles for about a decade now. During that time I've come to rely on [[Joe Baugher]]'s extensive list of [http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/uscombataircraft.html American Military Aircraft]. This list consists mostly of articles created by collecting information from other sources, essentially identical to the process used to create articles for the Wikipedia. They tend to be much longer than suitable for a Wikipedia article, but the creation process is similar, and the results excellent.

On several occasions I have been able to check his references after the fact. I have yet to find a single error that isn't in the original source. The simple fact that he includes his references in the articles is a good indicator of their quality, IMHO. Further, when I conducted a straw poll over on the Aviation project, every one of the "known suspects" agreed that JB was a good source.

So why am I here? Well during an FA on the F-20, the article was failed because it used JB as a source. I pointed out that he is well known, so much so that he even has his own wiki article. That resulted in a more focused counterclaim, that ''no one has referenced his aircraft articles'', and therefore ''they'' fail the SPS requirement. I have never seen this before, generally when someone is a well known and trusted author you are free to use their works for references in spite of the fact that not every single thing they have written has not been mentioned by someone else. This entire point seemed, well, nuts.

To add to my confusion, it seems that the source is being failed for all the wrong reasons. As I see it, SPS is an attempt to weed out low-quality references, for the simple reason that ''many'' SPS's fall into the low-quality category. But JB's writings absolutely do not. And the criterion right above SPS is "Reliable sources", which states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", a label that his works fit to a T.

Soooo, which is it? In my opinion, Reliable trumps SPS. Further, IMHO, that SPS's primary concern is weeding out low-quality sources like moon-hoax conspiracy sites, ''which are generally SPS'', and not to weed out high-quality sources ''just because they are SPS''.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

[[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:You'll appreciate that FA have to have impeccable sources. You say his work has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". OK, so apart from you, who says that? Can you find any mentions of the quality of his website? You say he is trusted; who trusts him? At this stage you'll find it is worth tracking down as much as you can about how his work is put to use. Otherwise, all we have to go on is that you personally have never found an error. Good luck. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::1) who besides me? I said above; everyone that weighed in on the topic in the Aviation Wikiproject.i Colletively the group likely edited 10% of the entire body of aviation articles here.
::2) find any mentions? Meaning what, exactly? This is what I'm asking YOU!

::Mr. Baugher has both published several articles on aviation topics, and has been cited by others (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Joe+Baugher+&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N Google Scholar]), so at minimum I think he qualifies as an "expert writing in his field". Which would mean that his opinion is notable. Perhaps attribution is the way to go here... as in: "According to aviation expert Joe Baugher, the best feature of the F-14 Tomcat was its modified Greeblefrob recipricating doohicky <nowiki><cite to his webpage></nowiki>." [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Remove ''other'' Baughers (Hugh B., Brigitta B.) from the g-search, and it shrinks down to an unacceptable low number. But I would agree that there are scarcely any more reliable sources in the paramilitary fandom. Yes, the topic is not the subject of refined academic research, and exposing it to the same level of scrutiny as [[Jupiter]] or [[Winston Churchill]] is pointless. Sourcing from Baugher is not good for FA ''but'' it's what's available. Just accept the fact that some topics are not properly researched for a FA, and some will never be. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::::NVO, what do you base any of your comments on? Why do you describe this as "paramilitary fandom"? What is paramilitary about an aircraft? What is fandom about a technical article? Have you even looked at the reference in question? The articles are fully referenced. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Sarah Palin e-mail controversy]] ==

The sources in this article need a proper [[fisking]], and the unreliable ones removed. <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 18:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
*See the item near the top of the page: ''This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "''which sources in [[Article X]] are reliable?''" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]].'' I think many of the regulars here may be reluctant to get involved unless a specific source is identified as problematic. However, I may take a look at the article myself. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
**With respect, that is a poor use of this noticeboard. It should be a resource where editors concerned and knowledgeable about reliable sources may be notified of issues. Thank you for offering to take a look. <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 16:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
***Not in my mind. I would prefer to not wade into article by article controversies, especially those related to american politics in an election year. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Is an official site "reliable"? ==

There is a disagreement with a user over the use of [http://www.eurovision.tv eurovision.tv] as a source of information for [[Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest]]. It is the official website of the contest and includes a history section. The other user is claiming that this is a POV violation since we are only using this website to source a fact. He says that it is not the official stance of the contest and that some IT person wrote it so it cannot be trusted. He also claims that the sites disclaimer voids any information from being reliable. There was an error on the site, so I sent an email, they acknowledged the error and corrected it. This did not please the user (even though it was something he complained about) as he now thinks that it cannot be trusted because they change things because of emails. We then tracked down "the official history" book of the contest [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eurovision-Song-Contest-Official-History/dp/1844429946], but the user does not "trust" the author. So are we right to be arguing for these sources? [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011/Stephen]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:Such a site would normally be considered reliable, as would the book. If there is another source that contradicts it on a specific issue then you could mention both. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::The only thing that contradicts both is the user's knowledge of Yugoslav politics. He feels that the contest has no right to say and do what they have, so the article should ignore it, but I don't see how you can write an article about the contest not in terms of the contest, get my problem? [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011/Stephen]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The organizers of the Song Contest should know what happened in the Song Contest, which is the subject of this article. It could well be the case that they slipped up when they were describing the status of Yugoslavia and its related state entities at any particular time. Can you resolve the problem by adding a text in a footnote, with the UN or similar as a source? [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well its known what happened, but this user and now another one don't feel that the EBU and the contest had the right to do what they did claiming that they are "not God". They provide example like the Olympics, etc where other things happened, but that can't change what happened at the contest. In particular, they want to split the page into "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the ESC" and "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the ESC" since the 1992 (last entry) was performed by the latter. The contest considers them to both be Yugoslavia, even though they weren't politically the same country, so having two articles would not correctly document the Yugoslavia that participated, especially since it was the same broadcaster as the previous entries, and under the same membership. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011/Stephen]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::::And people who are interested in knowing more about participation in Eurovision will be able to find the information in a single article. All we can really say about sources is that yes, the song contest's official publications are reliable for what happened in the contest. Not of course for what constituted a particular nation state at a point in time. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::This is somewhat like my thread above ([[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Common_sense_and_interviews|Common sense and interviews]]) where I ask if the source of information is direct from the subject of the article is it reliable or should it be disregarded as "just an opinion". While I am speaking about a one on one interview it would apply to "official websites" as well. In my opinion I think that if the information is only about a certain "fact", such as "When was the first Eurovision contest?" or "Yugoslavia first was represented at Eurovision during the 19xx competition" there is no reason why that information could not come from an "official" source. I think the way several of the WP guidelines are currently worded it forces editors to question certain statements, thusly causing a backlash of automatically saying that '''any''' information coming from either an "official" source or from someone directly involved with the articles subject is NPOV, thusly not reliable. I strongly feel that common sense should be used and information looked at on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket generalization. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] ([[User talk:Soundvisions1|talk]]) 16:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Is Amazon.com a reliable source? ==
Hi, wondering whether Amazon.com is usable as an inline citation, such as at [[I Want You, I Need You, I Love You]]. I've been going through song stubs to remove copyright violations and obviously unreliable sources (blogspot, tripod, etc.) and a reasonable number of Amazon.com cites keep turning up. I haven't actually removed them because I suppose Amazon.com is fairly accurate about their listing data. Still, it doesn't look very encyclopedic to be citing a sales listing. Seeking additional opinions. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 10:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:*In cases such as this it seems more like a "sales pitch" in that it is not really information on the release but a page selling the release and contains information on the release. While not always a good idea you could use the [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289701/ Elvis '56 (1987) (TV)] listing at the internet Movie Database which includes the soundtrack listing. You might even cite a library's listing such as: '''''Skagit Valley College Library'''/Media Services 781.64 PRES/el Presley, Elvis. Elvis 56 [CD] 1996''. I am not against using amazon to easily show quotes in books. For example if I said "Ted Nugent has said living the clean, sober lifestyle is a way to start living like he does". I could cite the book "Ted, White and Blue" and link to [http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/102-6492921-2233712?ie=UTF8&p=S00R&asin=1596985550 Chapter 1, Page 4] which is an excerpt from the book that will show you Chapter 1 and allow you to "turn the page" and read Page 4. [[User:Soundvisions1|Soundvisions1]] ([[User talk:Soundvisions1|talk]]) 16:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::*Actually, IMDB has been specifically disallowed as a reliable source because it's an open edit site. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That is not true without qualification. <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Where did you obtain such an opinion? IMDB is open edit; hence unusable. A formerly featured list I created years ago when sourcing standards were looser had used IMDB to verify that historic films had existed. All of those citations later had to be removed because IMDB isn't even valid for that much. It leaves me doubtful about the value of the advice I did seek, to find that unsolicited opinion repeatedly asserted. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 18:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:If we are talking about ISBNs, release dates, formats etc., then Amazon is quite reliable. The concern as you say is the commercial nature of the enterprise - I don' t think it's a violation of [[WP:SPAM]], but it's something a free project should seek to avoid. I would say that Amazon cites should be replaced by non-commercial reliable sources where possible - [[Ottobib]] and [[WorldCat]] are exceptional for books, while Allmusic and IMdB are great for music and film - but if an Amazon source is all that can be found, it should be ok (unless the article is going for [[WP:QA]]). <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 16:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that it depends on ''what'' you are trying to source. For basic facts, it can be seen as a source of last resort... use it if you can not find the information anywhere else. Definitely do not use it for reviews or opinions about the book. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:::That's an interesting issue - if Amazon quotes, in it's editorial reviews section, a review from a reliable sources, can that be used to source a Critical reception section of a Wikipedia article? For example, [http://www.amazon.com/Perry-Bible-Fellowship-Colonel-Stories/dp/1593078447/ref=pd_cp_b_2/104-2616775-5450314?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_r=053VNZ6NYC1500D6AC83&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_i=1932386343 this Amazon page] contains extract from a review of the work in ''[[Publisher's Weekly]]''; if that review could not be found online elsewhere, could it be used? Furthermore, what about notable Amazon (user) reviewers who are under [[WP:SPS]] considered credible? <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The problem there is that they may only quote an excerpt. I'd say you at the very least need the issue number, etc. And although I used a review from Publisher's Weekly, later on I found a review from them that was pretty ropy and that I wouldn't rely on. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
*As far as the "editorial reviews" are concerned, I think the discussion about that hasn't been archived yet. I'm not sure what to do if the excerpt AMazon has is the only available copy. My gut says: "don't cite" because citing excerpts isn't a great idea, but I'm not too sure. I have ''also'' notices that Amazon doesn't always get the name and date right for newspaper reviewers. I have had to modify my searches more than a few times to correct for an inaccurate Amazon reported review date in order to find the right review in Lexis-Nexis. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 17:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:02, 11 October 2008

Penny Singleton
File:Penny Singleton Blondie.jpg
Penny Singleton as "Blondie"
Born
Marianna Dorothy Agnes Letitia McNulty

Penny Singleton (September 15, 1908 – November 12, 2003) was a Hollywood actress best known for her role in the series of motion pictures based on the comic strip Blondie, followed by the popular Blondie radio program. She is also well known as the voice of Jane Jetson from the cartoon show the Jetsons.

Born Marianna Dorothy Agnes Letitia McNulty in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and known as Dorothy McNulty, she was the daughter of an Irish-American newspaperman, Benny McNulty - from whom she received the nickname 'Penny' (because she was "as bright as a penny"). She began her show business career as a child by singing at a silent movie theater, and toured in vaudeville as part of an act called The Kiddie Kabaret. She sang and danced with Milton Berle (whom she had known since childhood) and actor Gene Raymond, and appeared on Broadway in Jack Benny's Great Temptations.

Singleton appeared as a nightclub singer in After the Thin Man (at the time, still credited as Dorothy McNulty). She was cast opposite Arthur Lake (as Dagwood) in the feature film Blondie in 1938, based on the comic strip by Chic Young. They repeated their roles on a radio comedy beginning in 1939, and in guest appearances on other radio shows. As Dagwood and Blondie Bumstead, they proved so popular that a succession of 27 sequels were made from 1938 until 1950 (the radio show ended the same year). Husband Robert Sparks produced a number of these sequels. Singleton dyed her brunette hair blonde for the rest of her life. She also toured in nightclubs and roadshows of plays and musicals.

She was active in union affairs and was the first woman president of an AFL-CIO union. She led a strike by the Radio City Rockettes.

She became familiar to television audiences as the voice of Jane Jetson in the animated series The Jetsons, which originally aired from 1962 until 1963, reprising the role for a syndicated revival from 1985 through 1988 and for assorted specials, records, and Jetsons: The Movie (1990).

Singleton died in Sherman Oaks, California following a stroke, and was interred in San Fernando Mission Cemetery in Los Angeles, California.

Personal life

She was married to

  • Robert Sparks (1941 - 22 July 1963) till his his death and had a daughter
  • Dr. Laurence Scogga Singleton, a dentist (1937 - December 1939), divorced him and had a daughter.


Filmography

Features

Penny Singleton in 1989

Short subjects

  • Belle of the Night (1930)
  • Campus Cinderella (1938)
  • Screen Snapshots Series 19, No. 1 (1939)

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=244608274"