Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

More specifically, is Shibli Nomani's Sirat an-Nabi (The Life of the Prophet [ Muhammad ]) a reliable source for the life of Muhammad?

I believe the answer is yes. Nomani was the professor at Aligarh Muslim University, and considered a reliable source for Islamic history. He has been referred to as the "leading Muslim historians of the day [1857 - 1914]" by Francis Robinson (head of the Department of History, at Royal Holloway, University of London). (Source: The British Empire and Muslim Identity in South Asia, by Francis Robinson. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Ser., Vol. 8. (1998), pp. 281.)

Further his works (including Sirat an-Nabi which is in question here) have been regarded reliable. A review published by Annemarie Schimmel (from Harvard University) regards Sirat an-Nabi as an important biographical work. This review also confirms that Nomani was a professor in Aligarh. Finally the review praises the Murad's work. (Source: Review of Intellectual Modernism of Shibli Numani: An Exposition of His Religious and Political Ideas by Mehr Afroz Murad Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1983), p. 810)

What do you guys think?Bless sins 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomani's status as a historian does appear to be recognised (cf. "Cambridge History of Islam" vol 2B (1992) p. 646, 699 Cambridge University Press; "Nationalism: Critical Concepts in Political Science" (2000) p. 924 Routledge; and others). feedback from experienced RSN contributors would be welcome. ITAQALLAH 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he's also considered a "a well-known scholar and historian". (Source: Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. A Venture in Critical Islamic Historiography and the Significance of Its Failure. Vol. 41, No. 1. (Jan., 1994) pg. 27, Numen © 1994 BRILL)Bless sins 01:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Nazi_and_Soviet_sources; comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the book Muhammad at Medina written by William Montgomery Watt and published by the Oxford University Press a reliable source?

W. M. Watt was the Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh. Also, the Oxford University Press is the largest university press in the world.

Since WP:RS says "the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses", shouldn't publications of the Oxford University Press be considered reliable sources?

A user has said that the above mentioned publication (Muhammad at Medina) makes claims "contradicted by sources" and "not born out by the sources". The user also says that the book is "Islamophilic" and "vilifies the Banu Qurayza".

Thus the question is: should William Montgomery Watt's Muhammad at Medina published by the Oxford University Press be considered a reliable source?Bless sins 06:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. --Aminz 06:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the highest level of reliability you can get per WP:RS. → AA ^(talk) — 07:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, that does not make everything said in everything they have published true. Steve Dufour 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that whatever Watt says is not necessarily the truth. But WP:V says "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."Bless sins 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Steve Dufour 14:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the only caveat might be if there were many scholarly reviews/opinions out there criticising the book for its poor research. It is quite a old book, (1956) which might meant for example that modern scholars do not consider a reliable source anymore, despite its publication history. But this would need to be proven by finding such reviews, commentaries in reliable publications. Otherwise the criticisms noted above appear to be personal opinion and original research.--Slp1 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the book is old. But Islamic history isn't exactly cutting edge research. The sources used by secular and Muslim scholars on Muhammad's life are discussed here: Muhammad#Sources_for_Muhammad.27s_life. Basically, not a single major historical source for Muhammad's life has emerged during the past 1,200 years.Bless sins 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have done zero research on the dispute or Watt so am not passing judgment either way. However, IMHO even if the sources are the same, the understanding of historical context and interpretation may well have changed a great deal in the last 50 years. A book that was considered highly reliable 50 years ago may be seriously outdated today. But it would be up to those objecting to the citations to show that this is the case.Slp1 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) One factor to consider is exactly what the book is being used as a source for. For example, it sounds like the book would be a reliable source for facts: X did Y on date Z. On the other hand, judgmental passages that would have escaped close editorial scrutiny in 1956 probably wouldn't be published by the Oxford Press in 2007, and so it would be best if they were used only where an article is talking about English views of Arabs in the mid 1950s. 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(moved here from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources)

See also: #FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily

Would we consider www.frontpagemag.com to be a reliable source? I'm not particularly familiar with it, but it seems to be an extremely partisan outlet. It seems to be more of a group blog than anything else - I can't find any indication that it has "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight", as WP:RS#What is a reliable source? puts it. If it doesn't engage in fact checking or have editorial oversight I presume it would have to be classed as what WP:V calls a "questionable source". -- ChrisO 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would consider FrontPage Magazine to very rarely be a suitable reliable source as a primary source for anything. As a secondary source (making commentary on subjects reliably reported elsewhere) I would consider it reputable, though biased. Therefore, is someone wanted to cover a subject, FrontPage Magazine could be used to demonstrate notability as per WP:N, however, other contributions of coverage by other secondary sources would be desirable to satisfy WP:NPOV. --SmokeyJoe 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage Mag falls into that category of "pretend news" sites (along with CNS News and the now defunct and discredited Talon News). They try to lay out their website in a way that resembles news sites rather than blogs, and they assign titles such as "reporter" and "editor" to people involved, but that doesn't make it a news site. They are not held accountable for their articles, they don't follow journalistic practices, there is no structure of fact-checking and they don't even make the attempt to feign objectivity. They are opinion blogs, nothing more.

It has nothing to do with whether you agree with their opinions or not. There are an equal number of opinion sites on the left of the spectrum which should also not be used as primary sources for factual information. --Loonymonkey 00:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not just opinion blogs, it is slightly more. It’s a well-above-average blog site, as shown by the occasions when it itself is cited. Agreed, it is not a reliable primary source for factual information. --SmokeyJoe 00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what about this: "Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism", FrontPageMag.com. In this case the FrontPage is not adding any bias, but simply reporting the discussion as a primary source. Although FrontPage is not a reliable source on the Qur'an, Professor Khaleel Mohammed certainly is. The question here is whether this symposium took place and FrontPage is accurately reporting Professor Mohammed's words. Please note that WP:BLP would apply since we are attributing this to living persons.Bless sins 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tough question. If its at all contentious, I would suggest that it be avoided; given the site, there is no guarantee that Mohammed has not been misquoted. Tough because it is a better than normal example of their product: in particular, the arguments are quoted in full, which means that distortion due to the cherry-picking of quotes is eliminated. Relata refero 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because FrontPage is far right in its ideology, most thing it says can be considered contentious. BTW, I need a yes or no answer. Should I avoid using it as a source (I can't find any other source for the symposium)?Bless sins 02:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, how do you know of the symposium beyond this source? --Haemo 04:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And how important is it if you only have this one source? --Slp1 12:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing. I don't know of the symposium beyond FrontPage, and FrontPage is the only source for this symposium.Bless sins 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I wonder if undue weight comes into the equation as well. If only FrontPage reported it, how significant was it really? -- ChrisO 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(out dent) On the simplest possible grounds FrontPageMag.com fails the WP:RS test. It's self-published & it's making an exceptional claim while being an "extremist" source (extremist in WP:RS's terms). Short answer, don't use it as a reliable source. Longer answer find someone else who has published about this symposium, if it was important someone else will have written something somewhere. If you can find a reliable source talking about it in the same way frontpagemag.com does then a sentence giving frontpage's info might be okay--Cailil ^talk 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll stop using it.Bless sins 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When you look up the newspaper artdaily.com in wikipedia there is a notice that says that the articke might be taken down because it is missing reliable or verifiable sources. Artdaily.com has been reviewd by Britannica.com and a series of other prestigious sources. How do I implement them in the wikipedia article so that the verifiable source message disappears?

I hope you don't mind that I cut the long list of citation stuff that you posted here, I only did so because it takes up so much space. We don't need it to answer your question. It isn't personal. Anyway... See: WP:Cite which goes into great detail on how to cite your sources. If you need time to figure out how things in Wikipedia should be done, ask an admin to help you move the existing article to your user space. It will not be deleted from your user space. Then you can work on the article at your leasure, adding info and sources and bringing it up to standard. When done, it can be moved back into the main space. Good luck. Blueboar 21:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Episodes can be used as reliable sources, right? I mean if I editing an article on a tv show and I need to cite something in the article, I can use an episode from that show as a references, correct? If I need to cite information about the character, or something that happens on the show, an episode would be considered a reliable source? I mean, it's not easily changed as per a website. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Episodes would be primary sources and acceptable only in certain cases. See WP:PSTS - an article relying on primary sources "should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."--Cailil ^talk 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If Cailil's comment is supposed to mean, "no... an episode is a primary source, so you can not use it", then I disagree. If intended as "Perhaps... it is a primary source, so be careful how you use it... don't use it to support your own analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation of the show - as that would be Original Research" then I agree. I would say an episode of a tv show is a very reliable source for blunt factual statements about the plot of the show. Less reliable for discussion of character development and things like that. Blueboar 23:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I do mean "perhaps but be careful."--Cailil ^talk 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification... I agree. Blueboar 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that needs to be considered is taking statements out of context. Also, if you are watching a video, try to cite the time at which the statement is made. Bless sins 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say an episode of a tv show is a very reliable source for blunt factual statements about the plot of the show. That's exactly what I mean. I mean to use an episode to support factual statements, like what this character drove, or his alias, his firearm, etc. This discussion was brough about because over at Talk:Miami Vice, Arcayne removed citations to the firearms sections that were cited through the episodes, stating that it was OR. The firearms used were those ones stated in the article and cited by the episode. I don't see why that user finds it synthesis/OR. I mean do the character have to come out and say on the episode: Hey, this is a Bren-Ten or a Beretta? If the object looks like it, is the same size like it, and functions like it's suppose to, isn't it safe to say that the object is what it is suppose to be? It's not like we're saying they're using an M4 when it's a Walther PPK. Is this borderline, wrong, correct? And can this website be used to support the facts through the episodes? And this section of that website talks about Miami Vice and backs it up with sourced information. A little guidance/direction would be helpful. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to be extremelycautious in providing commentary about a TV show. Caution applies to avoiding WP:NOR, WP:V and a myriad of other policies. Remember also that this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of indiscriminate information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In many cases, there are reviews that can be cited. For some types of articles, where the material is often challenged, such as popular culture sections, it is in practice useful to find and cite these. In some cases, it may be appropriate to cite specifically to the exact time in the show.But for the straightforward plot, I think needing to use a secondary source could be an absurd requirement. But I know not everyone agrees with me here. so as Jossi says, be very careful.We don't always agree on everything about this, but we certainly do agree on that piece of advice. DGG (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(My interpretation is as follows:) The primary sources should be reliable for purely descriptive comments, like the names of characters, plot descriptions, and other undisputable "facts". While any further discussions (quality, moral, impact, etc.) should need independent sources. Oceanh 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

This one brings on many issues. But is IAFD.com a reliable source? Also, edits done by this Griffievjr "contributions" appear to lack reliable sourcing. I would like to think that a website that requires me to be 18 years or older is not a reliable source... nevertheless perhaps my logic is wrong on this one? I figured I should ask before I go proding and contesting every source this user:Griffievjr has added. Any suggestions? --CyclePat 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• IAFD is similar to IMDB in that it relies on user-contributed content. It can be considered reliable for non-controversial items such as who appears in what film. Beyond that, I wouldn't rely on it. Tabercil 04:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

An article on the Hexayurt was deleted on the basis of WP:RS in spite of having having sources including the New York Times ("mainstream newspapers" are listed among the "most reliable publications" in WP:RS) and the book Design Like You Give A Damn by Cameron Sinclair.

Have I missed something? Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The NYT most definitely is a reliable source as far as we're concerned. Some people may not like its politics, but that's not relevant for the purposes of deciding whether it's an RS or not. -- ChrisO 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem may have been that the article did not actually cite the NYT itself... but instead linked to a Hexayert site that quoted the the NYT. Its not quite the same thing. Blueboar 13:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be - but it would have been easier to fix it than to get it deleted. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Turns out the NYT article is behind a paywall. I think a PDF of the article was linked. My understanding is: a full citation of the NYT article is adequate, if there is no live link; and the PDF should not be linked due to copyright concerns. Correct me if I'm wrong - thanks! --Chriswaterguy talk 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite several long arguments at RS talk, we were unable to reach a consensus on whether newspapers, in general, are reliable (and include this in main policy). My rule of thumb is that modern newspapers are reliable unless contradicted by more reliable (ex. academic) sources. Of course in controversial cases attribution is useful, and old newspapers are similar in unreliability and bias to 1911EB.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the AfD I'm puzzled by the commenters saying there were no reliable sources. Could they have meant that there was only a link to a copy of the original NYT article? However the actual article (which I did find at the NYT site) includes only about 120 words on the Hexayurt in a 2-page review of new disaster relief devices, which might be considered to be a passing mention. The article also has COI issues. The creator has the option of taking it to WP:DRV if he wishes. EdJohnston 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the passing mention thing a serious problem? It does establish the existence of the Hexayurt, and the basic facts. (Obviously a full article, or several articles would be preferred, but it does qualify as far as I can see).

I think easier for someone else to start the article again. Yes it was COI, though it was a GF mistake. I have slight COI issues as I'm an associate of the creator, at Appropedia, so I plan to ask a non-conflicted Wikipedian to create the article (probably by leaving a note at Talk:Emergency management. --Chriswaterguy talk 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see the problem - there's plenty of nonsense in newspapers. Then again, there is in academic writings as well. Your rule of thumb sounds wise. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a general policy as to whether or not think tanks should be referenced as sources? I ask because of the following [1] being sourced on the LYNX Rapid Transit Services article. In my opinion it should not be used as it is from a conservative think tank, and I feel the same standard should apply to liberal think tanks. Thoughts? Patriarca12 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, think tanks can be a valid source. But you are correct in that they can easily exhibit bias. As such, I think the best way to deal with it would be to write "The Liberl/conservative think tank X has claimed Y." This way, the information is put out, while the reader is aware of any possible bias. IMO, the same guideline can be used for reputable, yet biased sources such as political magazines and such (e.g. Salon.com, The American Conservative, National Review, etc.) Ngchen 16:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, think tanks are acceptable as POV commentary sources, as in, "According to the X Foundation, this argument is specious because blah blah". There is a definite variance in quality of "think tanks", though; the RAND Corporation is an eminently reliable source on many questions, while this "John Locke Foundation" appears to be little more than a pen name / 501c3 cover for a few conservertarian ax-grinders. Barring some evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't think that their POV is worthy of inclusion at all. If, let's say, a couple of newspaper editorials, or an opposition politician, have made similar statements than cite them, not this little website. <eleland/talkedits> 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that finding reliable sources that comment on a think tank's importance is the best way to determine its quotability in Wikipedia. One way to get an index of which ones are significant would be to find a survey (like the one at [2]) to see which ones are the most quoted in the press. This particular list only went down to #25, and the John Locke Foundation was not in the top 25. I also noticed that many of the top 25 have their own WP articles, but often with no reliable sources commenting on them at all! Clearly there is room to improve. As for the John Locke Foundation, my studies didn't confirm one way or another whether it's a significant organization. If you had access to Nexis, you could look up how often it is quoted in the press. EdJohnston 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In many instances think-tanks fall afoul of the self-publishing and reputation for rigorous fact checking criteria. If they do research that is published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals or is reported widely in mainstream media, then their work meets Wikipedia standards. If not, then Wikipedia is not the forum to establish their position. The same criteria should apply to links to think-tank papers. The existing criteria suffices to sort the influential from the crackpots Lettering 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that different think tanks have different levels of credibility. Some are essentially crackpot organizations, while others are quite respected. The respectable ones, which you note tend to get referred to in the media (even if it's not on the topic in question), are quotable as reliable sources.Ngchen 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, I would like to request your august input on the reliability of the following sources: http://www.fathermag.com and http://mensnewsdaily.com for WP articles. On the Fathers' rights movement talkpage, and in particular [3] we have one editor Rogerfgay who appears to be able to post his own articles (in response to requests for sourcing, see above on the talkpage) to mensnewsdaily.com. There is also another editor who is requesting input about an article written by Rogerfgay and cited to http://www.fathermag.com. Input on the acceptability of articles on these websites (including comments on editorial oversight etc) would wonderful before I respond anymore to any of this.--Slp1 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
While I am in the questioning mood and while you are at it, how about Glennsacks, the website of a prominent father's rights activist? The particular article in question [4] is being used as a source as for the claims of opponents of the fathers' rights movement, (NOW) [5] which seems to be in contradiction of "it does not involve claims about third parties;" though the article has also apparently been published by the the Houston Chronicle, so that may well make it a Reliable Source. Thoughts, please.--Slp1 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew this question of reliability and these sorts of websites reminded me of something in the past. Please see [6] for a related discussion (though it isn't too easy to follow, I find!) Slp1 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor Dave. He has had problems accurately estimating the level of specialized knowledge that others have on the issues he is concerned with compared to his own. He sometimes does not consider the real effects of decades of propaganda against his pov. If one assumes that everyone else understands what he understands, it is easy to understand his reaction. Everyone else must be acting intentionally as part of the conspiracy. I do wonder myself to what extent some Wikipedia articles are intentionally misleading. But one can about as easily pick out the propaganda campaign as the source of "common knowledge" that leads some well-intentioned editors to present what seems to be the "accepted" view. Rogerfgay 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I add these notes for your consideration concerning the decisions about reliability. Although the discussion of the David Usher case may be interesting, it may not be related to the requests concerning the reliability of material from Rogerfgay. Mr. Usher was indefinitely banned for making a legal threat against Wikipedia. Other editors offered kind advice to Mr. Usher, and suggested that he was an inexperienced editor. In contrast, Rogerfgay has stated that he has done the hard work of learning to be a Wikipedia editor. As an additional piece of information, Mr. Gay stated that for reasons undisclosed, he would not edit the article in his particular area of expertise, which is child support. Notably, both Roger Gay and David Usher were acknowledged for their contributions to Stephen Baskerville's new book, Taken Into Custody. Stephen Baskerville is a leader in the fathers' rights movement and the President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. Michael H 34 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The link to the David Usher's user page [7] was placed, as was noted above because there is a comment on his userpage about the reliability of some similar websites, and not to compare the behaviour of Usher and Gay, which is, as Michael H points out, quite dissimilar. It would be nice to have some voices weighing about these websites, though! Pleeeease ;-) --Slp1 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A special thanks to Michael and Sip1 for fairmindedness. I have not been editing some sections of some pages related to child support because of my level of expertise and standing related to the issue. My written analysis may be appropriate as reference material, but my experience at Wikipedia says self-referencing is a good quick way to create a problem. So - this reason is not undisclosed but revealed for all the world to know. In my specialty area, I am acting in the role of expert on the discussion pages and leaving it to other editors to decide. This will not stop me however, from editing outside my speciality area, or whenever the edit does not include self-referencing, as I have mentioned on the talk pages. I would also ask that references not be generally rejected merely because some association can be made with the fathers' rights movement. I take it that fair-minded people are in favor of civil rights, and would not reject references merely because material has been written by someone else who favors civil rights. If we do that, it would mean that only material written by people who are against civil rights can be used as references at Wikipedia. Baskerville, BTW, is not only the president of ACFC (largest fathers rights organization in the world). He is a university professor who has done his research and analysis within the academic context and is well published on the subject. I don't know of anyone in the world right now who has provided the depth of policy analysis that he has on this subject. His new book is enjoying great sales for a work in policy analysis and is getting great reviews. Rogerfgay 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for finding this late, I've been very busy. Before I go further I must declare that I was very involved with Mr. Usher and his situation. I do agree with Michael H 34 and Slp1 that Roger Gay has taken a different approach and a very considered one to wikipedia, he has also complied perfectly with WP:COI. However, the issue is not the user but the sources: mensnewsdaily.com is still not a reliable source - its self-published, its partisan (now described in WP:RS's terminology as "extremist" which is I think an unhelpful term), and there seems to be no editorial oversight. (None of these issues are a reflection on Mr. Gay's work just the structure of that site.) The same can be said for www.fathermag.com.

On the matter of Glenn Sacks - I tend to consider his website okay as a primary source. That is to say, it should be used with care (ie for descriptive purposes only) because although notable it's still a self-published "opinion" piece. Again even if published in a newspaper an opinion piece is still only Glenn Sacks opinion and if used in the article it must be noted that it is an opinion held by Mr. Sacks. In this case (due to the claims about third parties) I would err on the side of caution. If Sack's points about NOW can be backed-up by another published reliable source then they should be mentioned, other wise they border on an "exceptional claim."

To address Michale H 34's point that "Roger Gay and David Usher were acknowledged for their contributions to Stephen Baskerville's new book, Taken Into Custody". I don't doubt the importance of Messrs. Gay & Usher within the ACFC, and I think it is unfortunate that so few scholarly works from this perspective are published; however publishing on pages like mensnewsdaily.com fails WP's test for reliability (see WP:RS#Scholarship) - if they have anything in a journal or other scholarly source it would be eminently acceptable as a source--Cailil ^talk 13:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC) NOTICE I have no conflict of interest. Rogerfgay 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MND has a mix of articles to be sure. Some of the articles are very well written and authoritative. To the extent that many of those articles are mine :) - I am maintaining a policy of limiting self-reference, as I've said above. I do however suggest (as strongly as I may) that there has been a lack of balance generally in dealing with issues that are of concern to fathers. MND exists because of the gap. It is one of the few sources that you will find on the www that can provide a significant balance. Rogerfgay 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member of ACFC. My work has always been independent. My specialty work in the area of child support is not political (although I recognize the overly political nature of the issues just now and cannot avoid them completely). MND generally provides a balancing view, and some specific articles are quite authoritative. Rather than excluding all reference to MND, I think it reasonable to make exceptions. There are many articles that are written to Wikipedia standards re: the use of outside references in support of facts reported, etc., and authors who have great credibility as one thing or another. Particularly related to an article on fathers' rights, it would not make sense to exclude articles by those who provide a fathers' rights perspective. Rogerfgay 12:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for communicating your ruling concerning MensNewsDaily. Does the same apply for Fathermag.Com? I am surprised about the ruling concerning Glenn Sacks's published article. As a "prominent leader" of the Fathers' Rights Movement, I suggest that Mr. Sacks speaks for more than just himself, unless he is publicly contradicted by other "prominent leaders." However, I will remove this citation. I will restore it only if the Reliable Sources board indicates that this source is acceptable or if I find an additional source. Michael H 34 02:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

re Fathermag.com: I think so judging by "The same can be said for www.fathermag.com." --Slp1 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I missed that. Michael H 34 14:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have a query about the validity of self-published articles on personal websites on Roman historical personages. I found and added two articles which I considered well-written as external links to an article on Scipio Africanus. These articles have now been challenged as sources or as external links, (after several months's existence within the Wikipedia article) as contrary to Wikipedia policy. After looking at several pages (not only the one cited by the editor concerned), I would agree that the articles are self-published. However, the policy does not state that self-published articles are completely unacceptable.

I was under the impression that external links were to be given for those wanting to learn more online about the subject of an article. [8]. The guide says "The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". (This article also suggests that if the online link is a source, that it be listed under that alone and not as Further Reading or External Links).

The websites I listed are well-written, cite the best-known and most well-regarded scholarly literature (even if they don't provide inline citations and footnotes for each fact). Those interested can go on to the scholarly literature, provided that they have access to good libraries. (I don't). In those aspects, they fulfill the criteria listed for "Citing sources - Further Reading"

An editor apparently feels otherwise. If online sources are not acceptable or are acceptable only in limited circumstances (as in websites of academic classical studies organizations), could this be clarified on the relevant pages? For example,

• Are personal websites run by academics on their pet topics or favorite personages reliable sources?
• What about sites such as Lacius Curtius which are works entered online by one person, or Diotima about whose authorship I know less?

Can we and should we cite them as online sources? If the author is not an academic but a person interested in that subject writing an essay based on his or her own reading, is that a valid external link? (For that matter, we do link internally to other Wikipedia articles which may have one contributor or many thousands of contributors).

If we obtain offline (printed) sources for the same facts, should we move the online sources to external links or remove them altogether? Should we integrate all information from a carefully written online website into an article without crediting said author of self-published article, and adding in the works cited as our primary sources without reading said sources? (This smacks of copyright violation to me, and it astonished me when the suggestion was made. I hope I didn't misunderstand something).

wikibiohistory 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an External Link, and a site that is used as a source to back a statement in an article. External Links are not held to the same standards of reliability as source links used as references or citations... WP:EL specifically states that "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" should be considered as possible external links. Thus, I would say that these personal websites are perfectly OK to add as external links for further information... just don't use them to back any statement in the article itself. Blueboar 01:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Although Bill Thayer, who maintains LacusCurtius, is not an tenured professor anywhere as far as I know, U of Chicago hosts his site, and he himself is regularly seen at classics symposia. Even if "self-published", as in, hosted on his own webspace at the university, I would think it extremely odd if information based on LC was being removed. Personal opinions of recognised authorities on self-published sites are RS. Relata refero 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your clarifications. I was worried, because I had a debate with someone more experienced about External Links. I wanted the external links to stay for people without access to good printed sources or subscription-only academic sources such as JSTOR. wikibiohistory 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/ a reliable source? It looks like self-published papers posted for discussion, but some papers are published. There doesn't seem to be any peer-review before posting on SSRN. --Foggy Morning 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it looks like a reputable academic website, though I cannot find evidence of any peer-review. Inndeed, judging by Social Science Research Network, posting there seems to be a step in obtaining informal peer review prior to submission for publication, for more formal evaluation. The most conservative approach might be to treat papers there as being self-published, meaning that they might be considered acceptable if written by an established expert in the field, as per WP:V: "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". I would expect that many articles distributed here might be written by previously published academics, and thus qualify. --Slp1 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SSRN merely serves as a repository for working papers and for versions of papers published elsewhere. As a look at, for example, the economics research archive shows, it links conveniently to various other locations for working papers. Note that working papers are generally not peer-reviewed, but to all intents and purposes meet RS, as they are frequently merely longer, unedited versions of papers published elsewhere. Frequently published papers cut down on tedious mathematics or extra statistical tables and refer one to the working paper. Relata refero 20:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So if there's no publication data for an article on SSRN, we shouldn't use it as a source, right? --Foggy Morning 00:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, if the article is written by an established expert (with previous peer-reviewed journal articles/books in that academic area) then I think it would be okay use SSRN papers.Slp1 01:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How many peer-reviewed articles qualify a writer as an established expert in his or her field? I don't mean to be difficult about this, but I'm trying to figure out which unpublished materials can be used as good references from papers posted to SSRN. They get like 300,000 papers a month, like 4 million in the past year. They've got over 16 million papers on their database. As best I can tell, it's a structured academic discussion forum, with added notes if a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm a bit lost here regarding what we can use or can't use in Wiki as sources.... --Foggy Morning 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the social sciences, graduate students typically produce one to four working papers over the course of their doctoral degree. More than four papers to a name indicate that the person in question is almost certainly employed at a university, or, at any rate, now does peer-reviewed research for a living. Relata refero 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you post the name of the article you are interested in? Someone with access to published journal databases (me for example) could do a search and let you know what the person has published in the past.--Slp1 11:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've done that right off. There are two external links listed in Weighted average cost of capital to SSRN. Those are the ones I'm not sure about right now. But I have come across other papers that are posted to SSRN and used as references in wiki articles, even if the papers are unpublished. In general I'd tend remove unpublished papers unless there's some explanation on the talk page justifying using it. Does that make sense? --Foggy Morning 00:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're both written by tenured professors. The first one, by the Columbia Business School prof, has been published elsewhere; the second, by the prof at Duke, is not yet published, but certainly seems useful. I would suggest that there's no major necessity to remove it, especially as both authors have published, according to the list at SSRN, papers in the Fulbright Teaching series and so seem quite respectable. This is an example of why a general rule about removing working papers may be avoidable. Relata refero 09:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that these are reliable as External Links. Their authors are well-published academics who qualify as "established experts". Since they are external links you might want to take a look at the guidelines there to see if they are appropriate in terms of content, if you haven't already, since there is useful information there about the purpose of EL and things to be considered.--Slp1 02:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to have enough content directly related to the topic to justify suggesting a reader go take a look at them. WP:EL says "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." They're related to the topic in a roundabout way, but so are thousands of other articles. How about if I move them to the talk page and see if anyone can explain why they should be included as external links? Does that seem fair? --Foggy Morning 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Are emails posted on publicly accessbile email lists reliable sources for the comments of the writers? IIRC we do not consider Usenet postings to be reliable because of the ease of spoofing addresses. This is probably less of a concern with established email lists. The issue came up in regard to Essjay controversy, and it was pointed out that our article on Citizendium makes extensive use of email postings as sources. Obviously, even if reliable emails would be considered primary sources and would have to be treated with the usual caution. Thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have worked with an author who wrote a book, I also helped him in several roles of advocacy. In behind his book he included communication which occured between himself and some university proffesors, musicologist, etc. These emails, for this example, are published within a reliable source. --CyclePat 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a different circumstance. I agree that emails, or anything else, that's published in a proper book could be used as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an effort to classify Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy with various "hoax" categories. Because this is effectively WP:BLP, we clearly need to be careful. So far, the only source put forward on the matter is the leaked Army investigation into the matter that pretty much states that Beauchamp made it all up. While I have no reason to doubt the report, I'm concerned that the report of the investigation doesn't meet the definition of independent since, IMHO, the Army is an involved party. Any input would be appreciated. Ronnotel 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a couple of things. The authenticity of the documents is not in doubt, confimed by both The New Republic [9] & by a source in CENTCOM [10]. What we are talking about specifically is the Cross memo:

• 
  Cross memo (1)
• 
  Cross memo (2)
• 
  Cross memo (3)
• 
  Cross memo (4)
• 
  Cross memo (5)

The Cross memo summarizes the findings of the Army's investigation in to the allegations. I would submit that the Army's investigation is the outside source since the subject is stories Beauchamp submitted as true to TNR and now their non-fiction status is in question. This is matter between Beauchamp and TNR not between Beauchamp and the US Army. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The above by Steven Andrew Miller asks us to accept an Army Investigation Memo as the final finding of fact in a dispute between the Army and one of its soldiers, after the soldier published an account of atrocities during the Iraq War. There has been heavy reporting on this by several reliable news sources. To put in plainly, the soldier, Beauchamp, and The New Republic, who published him, stand by his reporting. The Army disputes the events ever took place. Since when, in the United States, do Army memoranda trump the free press?

I encourage all interested editors to visit the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Talk page and weigh in. --Eleemosynary 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you keep framing this as The New Republic vs. the United States Army. The issue is TNR vs. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. The Army is the outside agency that investigated the claims, and frankly has no dog in the fight. The issue is about TNR's reputation, not the Army's. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You're the one attempting to frame this, in a way backed up by... wait for it... no reliable source. --Eleemosynary 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

We've got a discussion going on over on the Steam page. One user referenced two forum threads (edit; sources 1, 2) as a way of backing up the statement "Free Weekends are criticized by existing players for flooding a game’s servers with newbies, and allowing cheaters free reign." I reverted the edit on the grounds of WP:RSEX, but the editor brought up a question of how we should cite public opinion. I'm not really sure how to proceed from here, as I can understand his viewpoint. The conversation is here; what do you guys think? Is quoting the forum acceptable, or does RSEX prevail? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a baaad idea to cite forum threads in this manner. It is impossible to judge public opinion — the public is very large — from forum threads which represent the views of one or two or twenty people. If reliable secondary sources say something like, "fan reaction on internet forums was very negative" then cite the secondary source. Otherwise, it's no better than another "some argue, critics say, others respond, however critics point out" section of the kind which plagues fan-edited articles. <eleland/talkedits> 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Eleland. Also, trying to deduce public opinion based on the forum violates WP:OR.Ngchen 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject I'm concerned with is an American Spectator op-ed (originally published in the Jerusalem Post) that is to be cited for the criticism made therein. Its claims aren't taken to be the truth of the matter, only proof that this criticism has been made. The article is not freely accessible at the American Spectator or JPost websites, but I have found it posted at the [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939558/posts Free Republic]. The question is simply whether linking directly to this post of the article should be considered unreliable. Thanks. JrFace 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, articles posted on Free Republic usually don't text added or changed. However the posters often delete material unrelated to their point, and they almost always truncate the article to avoid copyright infringement. Plus they are accompanied by strident POV material. However, it's fine for editors to use an FR-posted version as a starting point to for their own research. Sometimes research costs money. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Will's remarks are exactly right, and that concern about convenience links has, I think, been written into policy somewhere. If you haven't read the whole text in the original source, someone who chooses to challenge the link on the grounds that the full reference does not support the statement included in the article is on a pretty good wicket. Relata refero 08:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not policy... but it is in our reliability guideline... see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Convenience links. Blueboar 22:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using google to find book sources for articles, but what happens is that the only ones I'm really able to access are the ones in the public domain, which means that they are frequently 100 years old, or older. Would they still be considered reliable sources? Is there some kind of guideline on how old a source can be? I've looked through and haven't really found anything. Hires an editor 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the age of a source doesn't affect its reliability. The only thing to consider is whether knowledge in the area has significantly changed from the time the source was published. If so, then of course newer sourced would be preferable. Ngchen 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, assertions supported by ancient historical sources, unless you have a modern source interpreting them in the context of other historical documents, need to be stated e.g. in the form, "[Historical author] says _______" because ancient historians are notoriously unreliable and in disagreement with each other. Publicola 07:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sources should be appropriate to the claims made". How many fields are there where the state of the art has not changed in a century? Those are the fields where hundred-year-old sources are completely reliable. Anything else, they should be compared with modern literature. There are plenty of old books which remain, for want of something better, very widely cited today. Monumenta Germaniae Historica would be a good example of this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could I please get a second opinion on ITFacts.biz. I know nothing of the site...Thanks! E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a blog to me, but I wasn't able to find any hint of an "About Us" or similar page. Publicola 07:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is antiwar.com a reliable source for the purposes of ascertaining antiwar opinions and criticism of groups/people from an antiwar perspective which could be considered "hawks?" I ask because a dispute exists at Foundation for Defense of Democracies over the use of antiwar.com criticisms of the group in question, even if clearly labeled as from antiwar.com. Ngchen 22:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no it isn't a reliable source for any article, except its own. To give an example, L. Ron Hubbard once claimed that human bodies stopped gamma rays better than concrete. This is obviously not the case, so using his book as a reference in the gamma ray article would be improper. However using it to discuss claims of false knowledge in the L. Ron Hubbard article would be acceptable. Anynobody 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the articles: "Antiwar.com has repeatedly accused the organization of being a front for the Israeli-lobby. [11] Also, antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo has accused it of being in favor of "permanent war" and of being hypocritical with regard to supporting democracy with regard to Uzbekistan. [12]" is badly written, but along the right lines. The writings (or at least the name) of Justin Raimondo must be known to millions. Unless he's credibly accused of falsification (or even if he's known for it!), his claims (with anti-war used as a reference) deserve mention. Nobody's going to misled into thinking the FDD is discredited thereby, but the link takes people to a relatively prominent critic of the FDD, and enables readers to get a broader view.

And there's another point - it's important there be some link to critics (either anti-war or other), since some people will see a statement by the FDD and wish to challenge it - one of the important purposes of articles is to enable readers to find criticism and potentially add to them. PR^talk 09:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It's OK to have critical sources, but they must be reliable, and it's very hard to me to see how antiwar can even come close in passing the RS criteria.--Aldux 18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User Ronz is concerned that sources used to support background for the superfruit article are without substance or present biased points of view. S/he has listed them on the talk page, and the history shows our slight disagreement. Your assistance is appreciated. --Paul144 02:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The references are listed and discussed in Talk:Superfruit#Reviewing_references. Six of the references are identified as ones we could use help with. --Ronz 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am curious of other editor opinions whether Western Goals Foundation is a WP:RS reliable source? SaltyBoatr 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would definitely be a POV source with a strong conservative bias... I would say it is "conditionally reliable"... reliable for an attributed "statement of opinion", but not for a "statement of fact". Ultimately, however, I would need to see the statement it is being used to support to know for sure. Blueboar 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am asking in context of this diff and of this diff. Thanks. SaltyBoatr 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by. IMO, I would advice a case-by-case approach. I believe that in the specific question, the report, it should stand in the tenets of WP:RS. As observed by Blueboar, the foundation has strong conservative bias, but many fully reliable works present also strong conservative or progressive bias without putting in doubt their value. Personally, as I said, if facing a similar condition, I would accept the source.--Aldux 12:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... put things in context and it can make all the difference.

Your first example is not actually a source. It is an external link. The rules for reliability are very different with external links, since they are not being used as a source to support a statement in the actual article. They are mearly links to other material that might be of interest to the reader. So including it there is fine.

The second example is being used as a reference... however, you slightly misrepresent the citation in question. The citation is to a document entitled: The Swiss Report: A special study for Western Goals Foundation, it is a document hosted on constitution.org (here is a link to the document in case anyone wants to see it). It is not actually authored by the Western Goals Foundation, but by Generals George Patton (not the famous one... I think it is his son) and Lewis Walt. The Western Goals Foundation is essentially acting as the publisher of the paper. I would say it is indeed a reliable source, as used. Blueboar 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to call into question validity the source when it comes to sourcing bands genres. The site lists Green Day and The Offspring as alternative pop and post-grunge.[13], it lists blink-182 and Korn as post grunge[14], Rancid as alternative pop[15]. I and others have spoken out against as a bad source of genre information.[16] I am seeing this site used for multiple band pages in the genre section of the infobox, can we get an official ruling, or open a wider discussion on whether this source is reliable?Hoponpop69 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would call it a reliable source, as far as WP:RS is concerned... which is not the same as saying that it is an accurate source. It's simply that I can not find any reason to call it unreliable. It seems to fit into all of our criteria for reliability (we know who runs the site, we know there is editorial oversight, it has achieved enough positive commentary from the media to say that it has a good reputation, etc.) That said, I think that is a call that is better made at a project level and not at a policy/guideline level. I would raise the issue with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. If the consensus there is that it is not reliable, then I would bow to their judgement. They know the subject matter and the reputation of the site far better than we would. Blueboar 02:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Their method of choosing genre is entirely subjective. Which makes it no worse than anyone else. Genre is unfortunately a highly subjective selction open to interpretation in many areas, especially in boundary areas as well as micro-genres that become highly specific. I'd say AMG is probably as good as anyone else unless you have a better source to suggest. Arthur 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the consensus on using this as a primary (factual, rather than opinion) source? It doesn't seem very reliable at all to me, but I wanted to get other opinions. --Loonymonkey 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not, and has never been, a reliable, factual source. --Eleemosynary 08:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is: "Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." CNS meets that measure. Kyaa the Catlord 09:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may think so, but you haven't explained why you think that. CNS is the broadcast arm of the "Media Research Center", a conservative think-tank funded by various rich industrialists. Would you also accept citing CounterSpin, the radio show produced by FAIR, for factual information? On CNS's own website, their founder and president bills himself as "one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today." He is also "Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Committee (CVC), an independent multi-candidate political action committee that has helped elect dozens of conservative candidates over the past ten years. He was National Finance Chairman for the 1992 Buchanan for President campaign, and Finance Director and later President of the former National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC)." This is your reliable third party!? <eleland/talkedits> 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think anyone could argue that CNS has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Quite the opposite, in fact. As it is not a journalistic outfit, there isn't any secondary fact-checking whatsoever and, when proven wrong, it doesn't publish retractions. --Loonymonkey 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I need a reality check before I challenge something. Is radicalreference.info a reliable source? It is a page where people can write in questions and get answers... essentially an information forum. this is their "about us" page. Blueboar 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It sure doesn't look like it has a reliable publication method. I'd say no on the WP:RS. Arthur 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Arthur. Just as wikis aren't considered reliable, neither is this site.Ngchen 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really confusing, pardon me for being dense. This issue cannot be the Wiki software, so the issue must be that 'ordinary' people create the website with group editorial oversight (honor system). Yet, when an 'ordinary person' singularly creates a website like constitution.org (see thread above), that is seen as reliable. What is the difference?

1)'Ordinary' is the same.

2) Many people, versus a singular person is different, and the many is unreliable, and the singular is reliable. Huh? Why?

3) The editorial oversight is also different. With Wiki's there is group consensus fact checking and editorial control (honor system). With a private site it is just personal editorial honor. How is group editorial oversight less reliable than individual editorial oversight? SaltyBoatr 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't constitution.org primarily a repository of historical documents, and wasn't the main theme above that use of the historical documents was reliable, but use of the editorial was not? And isn't this site merely editorial? I don't see there any signifcant set of authoritative documents. It looks like it's primarily excerpts from docs of unknown reliability and a healthy does of opinion. Are are you simply trying to reverse the consensus above on constitution.org? The difference with this site seems pretty obvious. As was explained above, constitution.org is not the source, it's merely a convenience link. The document stored there is the source. Arthur 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthurrh is correct. Constitution.org is not a reliable source. It is a repository of documents... and as such it is, with some caveats, generaly acceptable for use as a convenience link... a pass through to those documents. It is the documents that are the reliable sources. That is why we should not cite constitution.org as the source, but the document itself.

We have a very different situation with radicalreference.info. That page is an online forum where people can ask questions and get a reply (I am not sure who does the reply... or what qualifications one has to have to reply... I think it is a group of volunteer librarians, but I am hazy on this point). I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. Blueboar 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the distinction. Purely storing public domain documents is different. SaltyBoatr 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting comment on the reliability of a book by the French historian Laurent Dailliez. I have another editor who is including information from Dailliez's book at Franco-Mongol alliance, but I have checked the book (Les Templiers) myself and:

• It has no sources, no footnotes, no bibliography
• The information that is being cited from the book (that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols in the 13th century) is not confirmed by any other source that I can find, and I've reviewed literally dozens of other books about the Crusades.

I've brought up the issue at the article talkpage, but so far the only two people participating are myself, and the individual who added the information (who has been adding a great deal of other info from questionable sources or primary sources from the medieval period), so we have a stalemate. I would appreciate further opinions about this and other questionable sources, at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez. Thanks. --Elonka 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, its published by Tempus. I have a dozen books by Tempus that have similar formatting - no sources etc. - which I have picked up over time, especially at National Trust locations in England. They used to do a lot of local history, and I've used them extensively in articles on stately homes and smaller villages; they are quite commonly used among local history people and have a fairly decent reputation for fact-checking.

This particular occurrence is a little more difficult. If there are no other sources of a fairly major claim like this, use the extraordinary claims - extraordinary sources criterion, even if the book itsel seems OK. Relata refero 07:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE comes into play here too. This is a fairly unique claim that goes against the vast majority of reliable scholarship. It doesn't quite rise to the level of being Fringe... but it comes close. Blueboar 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Dailliez is referenced by Alain Demurger, Sharan Newman or Joseph F. O'Callaghan. Laurent Dailliez is a rather prolific French History Doctor who graduated from Ecole pratique des hautes études. He is a Researcher in Medieval studies at the CNRS, a historian of the Crusades and a specialist of the Knights Templar. Among other books, he wrote "Les Templiers", considered as a classical study of the Knights Templar. Dailliez is also the author of the article on the Templars in the leading French language encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Universalis ([17]). Dailliez is mentionned in the bibliography of the French specialist of the Knight Templars Jacques de Molay, and referenced repeatedly from his book Jacques de Molay, dernier grand maitre du Temple (1974).(Demurger, Jacques de Molay, p. 380) He is also extensively referenced in The Real History Behind the Templars by Sharan Newman (References in Sharan Newman), or in Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain by Joseph F. O'Callaghan,(References in Joseph F. O'Callaghan). Dailliez wrote "Les templiers ces inconnus", "Sur les chemins de la bretagne des calvaires", "Règle et statuts de l'ordre du temple", "Jacques de molay, dernier maitre du temple", "La France des templiers", "Les Templiers", "Guide de la France templière", "Les chevaliers Teutoniques", all referenced on Amazon: [18]. Probably as reliable as any reputable historian around. PHG 13:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG, please do not muddle the issue. We're not discussing whether or not Dailliez has written books, or whether or not we can use an encyclopedia as a source. The issue here is about whether or not we should use Dailliez's 1972 book Templiers: Les Inconnus as a source, for a claim that is highly controversial and is not backed up by any other source. In that 1972 book, Dailliez said that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. This is an extraordinary claim, that needs extraordinary sources. I have reviewed dozens of books and articles about the topic, none of which say anything about such a treaty. Further, last week I actually had the opportunity to meet Dr. Malcolm Barber, the world's #1 authority on the Knights Templar, and when I asked him, he said he'd never heard of such a treaty either. My guess is that Dailliez just made a mistake (historians do that from time to time). In short: Dailliez's book Les Inconnus is not a reliable source, and we should not be using it to source extraordinary claims. --Elonka 13:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been unable to determine whether Human Nature Review meets the reliable source criteria. It is not listed in Index Medicus and it's web site does not list any editors.

The particulars are whether this is a reliable source for Capture bonding:

Henson, K. (23 August 2001) "Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be done to mitigate the effects," The Human Nature Review. 2: 343-355

Thanks. Publicola 07:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does list the editors... way down at the bottom of their main page it says: The Human Nature Review edited by Ian Pitchford and Robert M. Young. However, it does not give us any further information as to who these people are. It does not list any credentials or even a "who we are" type page. I would say it's reliability would depend on the reputations of Mr. Prichford and Mr. Young... along with the reputations of the various contributing authors. A few things that struck me right off ... according to the website, they claim to be affiliated mostly with websites and e-forums, which leads me to think that it is not really a reliably published scientific journal. The content strikes me as unreliable as well... most of the articles seem to be nothing more than reviews of other papers and books. I am also a bit concerned with the fact that one of the first things you come to on the page is "visit our store"... that always strikes me as a sign that the source is iffy. Without knowing more, I would definitely place it in the "questionable" category... leaning towards unreliable. Blueboar 23:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... having done a bit more research (googling the editors)... I may have been hasty... Here are the CVs for Robert Young and Ian Pitchford. They do seem to have good credentials. Still questionable, but now leaning towards reliable. Blueboar 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... Now I understand why this is potentially controvercial... see the Wikipedia entry on Keith Henson (the author of the article being cited)... he is a noted critic of scientology. Blueboar 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think one should also look fairly closely at the author, Keith Henson. He seems to be an outspoken critic of Scientology and an electrical engineer rather than a psychologist, so it would probably depend what claim was being made using the cite.--Slp1 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no sign that this periodical employs academic peer review, so it needs to be handled with care. If an author publishing publishing in this journal has credentials and a track record of work in the field that they're publishing on, then I think the article could potentially be used as a source. But in the case of Keith Henson and the Wikipedia article Capture bonding, the situation is different--since Henson doesn't seem to have any credentials in psychology or a related field, I don't think his articles on Human Nature Review can be used as the main sources for Capture bonding--in fact, I don't think his articles should be used as sources at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

After a closer look at the details, I would agree with --Akhilleus's analysis that Henson's work should not be used as a main source for Capture bonding --Slp1 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if several people could review Talk:Blackwater Worldwide, and specifically Talk:Blackwater Worldwide#Logo. There, Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) argues that the New York Times article, "Blackwater Softens Its Logo From Macho to Corporate" is a biased and individualy a possibly unacceptable source for information on Blackwater USA changing it's logo recently. He is quite strident on our dissecting and questioning the reporting of the New York Times, and implied that we illustrate where "facts" may be in question from the NYT report. I contend that us doing that would violate WP:OR. If you care to reply, would you mind reviewing Talk:Blackwater Worldwide#Logo and replying there? I feel it is beginning to go in circles, and I find it bizarre that anyone could insist that the New York Times is not an acceptable source for something so trivial as a logo change of a corporation. • Lawrence Cohen 15:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you probably know this already, but objecting to the NYT as a non-reliable source for our purpose is completely at odds with policy. NYT is in the top tier of journalistic sources and its news pieces may be cited in virtually all contexts. Without reference to the dispute in specific — I haven't checked the article or the talk page — news article in the NYT are good sources. <eleland/talkedits> 15:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing that talk section and replying there? • Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An RfC on the article talk page on this matter has been initiated. • Lawrence Cohen 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We're having a discussion on Talk:Steam_(content_delivery)#Steam_Review_.28and_other_references.29 as to whether or not steamreview.org is a reliable source. My argument is twofold: one, it's essentially a blog, so as per WP:SPS, it should not be used as a source; and two, one of the editors on that page has a link to it on his user page, so that seems to be a COI. The counter-argument is that the editor said that until he founded the site, "nobody else was covering Steam beyond the press releases." We'd really appreciate if someone could make a ruling on this. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, OK. This is what the editor of Game Developer Magazine thinks. It should also be noted that there's still nobody else covering Steam beyond the press releases! --Tom Edwards 18:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I come here because of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Cumbrowski. Admin User:Durova suggested that this noticeboard is more appropriate in this case than the COIN. I request a review of the following sources regarding their reliability for the subjects where they are used as reference.

1. Immigration Resources at Cumbrowski.de for the "Other imigration sites" section of the article to United_States_Permanent_Resident_Card
2. Affiliate Training at Cumbrowski.com as reference for the lack of training and certification in affiliate marketing paragraph at the article to Affiliate_marketing
3. Several pages at RoySAC.com as reference for the article to ASCII_art, including this, this and this

I also would like to mention that I am a major contribiutor to the content of the articles to affiliate marketing and ASCII art.

• Notes to RoySAC.com: I am an ANSI/ASCII artist since 1992 and also founded an international art group called Superior Art Creations (I did not create the Wikipedia article, it existed already before I became an Editor). My Website at RoySAC.com started out to be a site to show only my own artwork, but it was expanded significantly to become a resource and archive for ASCII and ANSI art in general due to the increasing amount of loss of information and artwork about this unique type of art.

• Notes to Cumbrowski.com: I am an affiliate marketer since early 2001 and have seen both sides of the business first hand, as affiliate and affiliate manager. You can learn more about it here. Cumbrowski.com is a resources site to this subject. I recomment to check out my Editorial Note, which explains the what, who, how and why of the site.

• Notes to Cumbrowski.de: The immigration resources page is a stand-alone page on the site and added there due to the lack of a better alternative place to put it. I became over the past 5+ years somewhat of an expert in the subject although I would have preferred not to become one. It happened out of necessity rather than interest. The page makes pretty clear what its purpose is and who created it and why. I don't see the need to add anything to it.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[19] it looks like a fansite to me.Hoponpop69 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To me, too. I see no evidence of the sort of editorial oversight process that could make a web site reliable, nor even an "about this site" page that could explain why it might be reliable: it's just some single person's site. So unless you can make some claim that the person who runs the site is independently recognized as a having some kind of professional expertise on the subject, I'd say no, it's not reliable. —David Eppstein 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This site is in no way reliable- I would like people's comments on its template for deletion here. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure that it isn't reliable. I would have to know more about their vetting and editorial process. Blueboar 14:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Having looked further... there is some indication that they pull material from... Wikipedia! For us to use it as a source might result in a circular reference.... and as such, I can not call it reliable. However, looking at the discussion at the deletion page, the issue is not whether we can use the website as a reference or source... the issue is whether we can use the template for it as an External Link. That is a very different issue. The rules for reliability on External Links are different than for sources. See WP:EL. Blueboar 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it has been discussed in the past at the BLP/N, and is considered definitely a little unreliable. I certainly would not rely on it for anything controversial about a living person. Relata refero 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

By it's nature, the article Masonic conspiracy theories is about all the various unsubstatiated claims and theories that involve Freemasonry. In order to maintain a NPOV, the editors of that article have agreed upon certain conventions... we don't discuss the "truth" or "untruth" of the theories, or comment upon them in any way; and we must have verification that the theory actually exists. To substantiate the latter requirement, we cite sources in a particular way... not as support that the individual conspiracy theories listed in the article are factual or "true"... but purely as verification that the theory exists. Recently, however, this has raised an issue (and caused a brief edit war), as many of these theories are only discussed on fringe websites, blogs and POV rant pages. Such sites are not usually considered reliable sources under WP:RS. So... The question is: Can a site that would be normally be considered unreliable be cited purely as verification of existance? Can unreliable sources be used in a limited context such as this? Please comment at the RfC at Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories. Blueboar 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this peer reviewed journal an unreliable source as claimed here by user Orangemarlin and unsuitable to cite on Wikipedia articles. Or is it a matter of his brand of POV?.Jagra 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, alternative medicine material doesn't belong on a page about a general condition, except perhaps as a tidbit. Otherwise, there are serious weight issues.Ngchen 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the longest Articles in Wikipedia, do you think one sentence might be undue weight when it is refering to anti-oxidant treatments in a condition known to involve oxidative stress and damage (see Article) and could you explain IMO ??Jagra 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to say the deletion is POV... and that the statement might work if attributed to Alternative Medicine Review... but I would have to know more about the peer review process you mention. Who conducts the review, what are their qualifications? I would also need to know more about how the medical establishment regards the material published in the journal ... completely dismissive? guarded acceptance? qualified approval? etc. Blueboar 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that all medical science papers accepted for Pubmed inclusion must satisfy a certain level of peer reveiw, Pubmed/Medline policy which includes "Quality of editorial work: The journal should demonstrate features that contribute to the objectivity, credibility, and quality of its contents. These features may include information about the methods of selecting articles, especially on the explicit process of external peer review" The particular journal details and this is the journal reveiw board, I think that addresses your querry! As to medical opinions i suspect it would elicit a spectrum of responses. I also note this particular reference is already cited three other times in the Article in different contexts. It did not draw critism in those cases why now in this case, if not POV? Jagra 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jagra, IMO is short hand for "In My Opinion"... As to the fact that Aleternative Medicine Review is cited in other articles, I have never liked the "Other stuff exists" excuse... different article means a different context. All that said, looking at the list of reviewers, I would say that it is a reliable source. However, given the fact that alternative medicine is generally looked upon with scepticism by the mainstreem medical community, I would suggest phraising things as an opinion, with full text attribution: "According Alternative Medicine Review... blah blah blah". That tells the reader that the treatment being discribed is considered "alternative" and is not approved by the mainstreem. Blueboar 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments Blueboar, The reference is actually cited three other times in the SAME Article, without the qualification you suggest, hence my confusion. The use of the word 'alternative' in the title I think evokes an emotional response in conservatives (as above) rather than an appraisal on scientific merit, although the reason given is "unreliable source", which we agree is incorrect! Jagra 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the sentence remaining, but I can see why someone could want its removal. While it is noteworthy, it only suggests that it may be beneficial and no study has confirmed the hypothesis. Contrast this to say, fish oil, which too has been suggested to have potential therapeutic use (due to a detected depletion of omega-3's in CFS patients possibly as a result of oxidative stress) plus also been found somewhat beneficial in trials. The latter evidence is what is missing for ALA etc (correct me if I'm wrong). - Tekaphor 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

About a month ago I posted a question here about the reliability of FrontPage Magazine as a source for news. I am very grateful for the response that query got, but now I have another question about this source's reliability. At Council on American-Islamic Relations I am currently having a disagreement with another editor concerning the use of (what I deem to be) a news article from FrontPage Magazine in the "Criticism" section and another news article from FrontPage Magazine in a general content section--see here. Here are the two sources in question:

• CAIR's Al Qeada Link Exposed
• Saudi Gazette, November 2002 quoted in http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19241 Michael Graham, Killed in Action

Is the first article an appropriate one to use in order to source criticism? I personally cannot find anything directly critical about it since it reads like a news article and not an opinion piece at all. I'm not suggesting that FrongPage Magazine isn't itself critical of CAIR, but I think that is a separate issue. It is claimed that the second source above is reliable in its reference to the Saudi Gazette, even if the FrontPage Magazine itself is not reliable for news. Here is the text regarding the Saudi Gazette (though there is no quote from the Gazette only paraphrase), as found in FrontPage Magazine:

• "Finally, no less a source than the Saudi Gazette declared in November 2002 that the World Association for Muslim Youth (WAMY) – a government-funded organization responsible for radical, Wahhabi proselytizing and recruitment – gave financial support for a 2002 CAIR weekly advertising campaign in American publications. This gift to CAIR alone was valued at $1.04 million."

Is FrontPage Magazine reliable in either of these contexts? Is it reliable at all, in any context? There is a third reference that I originally also called a news piece that in the end adds a one liner that seems to be "critical," even though the rest of the article is simply their version of "news." Any advice here would be appreciated. Thanks.PelleSmith 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. As a whole, FrontPage may be useful sometimes for criticisms or commentary, but given its highly dubious reputation I would reccomend a "ten-foot pole" rule, ie, don't report lurid details or uncorroborated allegations, and certainly not about living people. That article is currently a horrifying mess thanks to the use of these crap sources, and violates every WP policy I can think of. I wish you luck in cleaning it up. <eleland/talkedits> 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is quite a mess. I've made a single cleanup edit; I recommend others have a quick look too. Relata refero 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eleland. FrontPage is more of an opinion blog than a news service. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Eleland. If there really was a link between CAIR and al Qaeda, the mainstream media would be all over it. Obviously, there is not, and FrontPage is rumor-mongering again. It is precisely this type of stuff that makes it a rumor mill, IMO. Ngchen 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks to me like exactly the sort of situation envisaged in WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources; to quote: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known; Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media." -- ChrisO 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Eleland. Though they attempt to emulate the style and aesthetics of a news organization, they do not meet any of the criteria for such. It is an opinion blog and should be considered no more reliable or useful than any other opinion blog. --Loonymonkey 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: Can someone comment on the specific links I provided in terms of whether or not they would be reliable for criticism? I clearly think these two are examples of "news" and not critical opinion--but another editor claims otherwise. I'm being told by this editor that the above discussion is irrelevant to the dispute we're having. Thanks.PelleSmith 02:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In each case, FPM quotes another source; in the first, it is the Washington Post; in the second, the Saudi Gazette. In each case, interpretation is provided rather than reporting. As such, I concur with Merzbow that it is opinion and not news. However, in the first case FPM's view of the indictments in texas are probabl ruled out as non-notable, as several much more reliable sources have discussed them and have established a more nuanced view; and in the second case the opinion is about the Saudi organisation, and as such seems irrelevant to a CAIR article unless discussed in more reliable sources. Hope that helps. Relata refero 14:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at exactly how you're trying to use the material, but don't really see any problem using the cites, except that you may be able to improve on them by chasing the chain of custody back further. The first cite says "Former CAIR civil rights coordinator Randall Todd 'Ismail' Royer faces federal charges that he and others 'conspired to provide material support to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization and to his Taliban protectors in Afghanistan,' according to the Washington Post". Well, the WP does report that about him. What the Center for Security Policy adds is that he was the/a "Former CAIR civil rights coordinator". Can you confirm this from other sources, and what does it mean? If he held an important position in CAIR while performing the actions for which he was indicted, objecting to mentioning that CSP made the connection, published in FPM, is obtunded IDONTLIKEITism. And Frank Gaffney's assertion that the Saudi Gazette said that WAMY gave $1.04m to CAIR for an American advertising campaign is citeable as well, though it is again unlikely that you will have to rely solely on FPM for this information. Andyvphil 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. [20] (SEWilco 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

NOTE: I'm moving this text here because this argument is already one that Merzbow and I are having on the entry talk page. It is clearly informative but I hope that we can distinguish the commentary of third parties from our own hopeless argument. Cheers.PelleSmith 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FPM has no distinct criticism and news categories on its site, as any news organization that explicitly publishes both usually does (i.e. news and op/ed section). A quick glance at its front page makes it clear its an opinion site full of opinion articles. It is quite incomprehensible that anyone could mistake this. In this context, and especially given the name "CAIR's Al Qeada Link Exposed" - the article qualifies as criticism. Neutral news articles aren't titled "<somebody's> <evil terrorist> link exposed". - Merzbow 04:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on the entry talk page, my problem with your perspective is that having a biased point of view simply makes FPM unreliable, it doesn't qualify a specific piece of writing as criticism.PelleSmith 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Merely having a biased POV would be to write in an ostensibly neutral tone, but to leave out or distort crucial facts. This article's tone is the antithesis of neutral, beginning with the title. - Merzbow 06:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any questions for uninvolved editors about source reliability or did you want to recreate the talk page argument here? I wont repeat the point I've already made about your claim to "criticism" in hope that you will take it back to the talk page. Thanks.PelleSmith 13:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Having a biased perspective doesn't make the source unreliable per se. Rather, it is the routine invention of bogus information that makes the source unreliable. As I noted previously, if CAIR were truly linked to al Qaeda, it would have made national news. If the Pentagon really lableled Islam as somehow being intimately connected with terrorism, it would have made the national news. Since neither of these items made headlines, it is fair to conclude that the information is bogus. Yet FPM publishes it anyhow. Therefore, FPM is unreliable for almost everything.Ngchen 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that about eighty six hundred times[21], that the source www.constitution.org is used as a reference in Wikipedia. I am curious about the opinion of other editors about whether this source meets the reliable source policy. While at first glance the website appears to be scholarly and impressive, when you look deeper it appears largely anonymous and without reliable publication process. Also, there are indications that lead me to guess it is a blog of user Jon Roland and to some extent this also may be a policy question of WP:COI. What is the consensus opinion of editors on the question of the reliability of this source? SaltyBoatr 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you would need to evaluate the usage on a link-by-link basis. If a link is citing apparent original research hosted on constitution.org, that reference should likely be removed. If the link is instead citing a copy of a document on constitution.org that does not consist of original research, and that document passes appropriate notability tests, I would think it is fine. To clarify what I mean, the website has a large collection of national constitutions here. I see citing one of these constitutions as fine. I would see linking to an article giving Jon Roland's opinion of the meaning of one of these constitutions as original research. The key distinction to me is to differentiate between the material itself, and the website hosting the material. Regarding the WP:COI guideline, that seems to be a question independent of RS. - Hoplon 19:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, when the new country of East Timor came into being and adopted a new constitution, they asked us to host a copy of it. When I asked if they had asked any other sites to do so, the requestor said we were the only ones they had requested it of. I believe we were also the first to put the new constitution of Qatar online, which came to us in a press release. Jon Roland 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see that a collection of primary documents, like that collection of national constitutions, could be convenient for original research about those documents. But, use of primary documents is limited by Wikipedia policy. See WP:PSTS. So, setting aside the primary documents which are of limited use on Wikipedia, what remains appears to be mostly personal commentary by Jon Roland, and a few other people. Also, the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' guideline test found in WP:RS appears to be obscure or lacking. SaltyBoatr 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think primary sources can be very useful and appropriate as external links and such like, but personally given the up-front point-of-view of the website, I would actually prefer to avoid it even for the primary sources. There is no evidence that he is "an established expert" who has published in third party publications, so I would say also his self-published commentaries are unreliable for WP purposes.--Slp1 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

At http://www.constitution.org/jr_cv.htm there is a partial list of some of my writings published in reputable publications, such as

• "United States Constitution", Jon Roland. Entry in Encyclopedia of Leadership, Vol. 4, Ed. George R. Goethals, Georgia J. Sorenson, & James MacGregor Burns, Sage Publications, 2004.
• "Public Safety or Bills of Attainder?", Jon Roland. Published in University of West Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 34, 2002, and republished in Vol. 35, 2003.
• "Hurst's Law of Treason", Introduction by Jon Roland, Published in University of West Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 34, 2002.

Not included are several articles in the Dictionary of American History, Encyclopedia of Activism, Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties, and the upcoming Encyclopedia of the U.S. Constitution, from Sage Publications. It seems I am regularly asked to contribute articles on constitutional topics to such encyclopedias, for which I have a reputation as a constitutional historian. Jon Roland 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A citable work that discusses me as notable is

Jonathan Karl, The Right to Bear Arms: The Rise of America's New Militias, HarperCollins, New York (1995)ISBN 0061010154.

I have been looking at these approximately 80 600 links and they are typically to a 'source document' that has been copied verbatim from public domain sources (often Google books or project Gutenberg). It is not for me to judge intent, but the hosting of copied public domain text in this way serves (at least unintentionally) as a type of Google bomb raising the web traffic to that site. This in itself is not bad, except that I question this relative to the WP:WPSPAM phenomena. SaltyBoatr 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the documents on the site were not copied from other sites, but are often copied to other sites. For more important additions we have a page http://www.constitution.org/whatsnew.htm which has the dates the items were added, and while it is often difficult to find out when files are added to other sites, most of the documents originated on this site. One of the reasons we ask for those who copy them to link back to our site is because we try to always have the most accurate versions of everything. Even things like our copies of Supreme Court decisions are often more accurate than the versions published on other sites like http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/ , http://www.findlaw.com or http://supreme.justia.com/us/ because we often find errors they didn't, and it is much easier to get errors corrected on our site than those others (try it sometime). Jon Roland 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to mischaracterize what anybody has written, but I do think I see a rough consensus among the admittedly few who have commented here. I see that consensus as being that personal commentary found on this site is not citable, that primary sources found on this site are citable (within conventional WP boundaries), but that a site perceived to have less vested interest would be preferred for those primary sources. Do the others who have commented here agree that this roughly expresses consensus? - Hoplon 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jon Roland has done an enormous amount of work to scan and OCR and put in html a lot of constitution-related documents. He had these sources online well before google started--at least 5 years and probably longer in some cases. Politically he is a well-known libertarian somewhere to the right of Justice Scalia, but thus far I have not seen one single change or major error in any of his documents (apart from routine typos, which are infrequent.) So his resource is very solid and is widely used. They are much easier to use than the google scans (because he did the OCR and html markup), Wiki articles often refer to these documents and having a good online edition is valuable to users. His commentaries, on the other hand, are not what is at issue. Most scholars have "vested opinions" (that is strong opinions) on these matters.Rjensen 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I must object to being described as being "somewhere to the right of Justice Scalia". Such labeling is inapropriate in general, and in particular for characterizing people on a simplistic one-dimensional spectrum, and especially on non-distribution issues. Keep in mind that the original meaning of the "left-right" paradigm was based on division within the French Assembly at a time when the main issues were how to divide wealth between the rich and the poor. As any libertarian or constitutionalist will tell you, libertarianism and constitutionalism are not on a left-right spectrum, but about issues that have nothing to do with distribution (or redistribution). Wikipedia editors, when they see terms like "left" or "right" in this context should reach for their editing erasers (did you think I was about to say "reach for their guns"? :) Jon Roland 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, his website is unambiguously a self published source. WP:SPS says: "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." And, after checking about twenty instances I found the public domain primary documents to be easily available elsewhere on a website which is not self published. Convenience is relative, and caution is the policy.

The convenience that Hoplon mentions is that the constitution.org links are found at the top of a Google search page. The same texts, non-self published, are available with few more clicks elsewhere. I see that the 600 links from Wikipedia to Constitition.org help give Jon Roland a high rank Google score. Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to serve to increase Jon Roland Google rank score for his (partially political, partially source document repository) blog? SaltyBoatr 14:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That is "caution", not summary rejection. When I started the site in 1995 and started putting primary source documents on it, almost always being the first to do so, I expected (and hoped) that other sites would emerge that would overtake my efforts and those of a few friends so I wouldn't have to do it. However, it has taken a long time for others to approach our level of comprehensiveness, and most of the ones that might have been expected to do so still haven't overtaken us. Also unfortunately, most of our more active members are not computer professionals who are comfortable administering a website, although there are now a few. I have tried to get others to do the editing work, but I usually have to do the final edit to clean out all the errors. I had a conversation with the Yale Avalon Project people a few years ago about the productivity of their rendition into HTML documents and they reported taking months to render documents that I would do in a few days, and do more accurately. Of course they were using graduate students who were new to proofreading and rendering, so that is understandable. But most other contributors have a similar problem, and have come to prefer to donate money and let me do most of the rendering work, or to attend to other functions like organizing meetings. Jon Roland 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Portions of his website are would be WP:SPS, those where he (or coauthors) are writing for themselves. But much of his website is non-SPS, particularly where he is providing source material for reference. There are many websites or companies that operate in this "SPS/Non-SPS" mode. Google, for example, would be SPS at [22], but not-SPS at [23]. They are self-publishing their blog, but they are not the publisher of the scanned books they provide. - Hoplon 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the analogy. For instance this diff[24], pointing to this constitution.org article[25]. At, constitution.org, the actual book (if any) is not scanned verbatim. Also, it is mixed with Roland's editorial and political commentary. Roland's selective scanning and editorial commentary obscures the distinction between fiction and fact. We see Jon Roland's opinion that the 1884 book was biographical, but there is a valid question as to whether the book was actually fictional. Was that Davy Crockett speech real, or fiction? Jon Roland presents it as biographical fact, not fiction, with apparent political intent. SaltyBoatr 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the book, Edward S. Ellis, The Life of Colonel David Crockett (1884), which seemed to be a reputable biography on first impression, and not a novel. I was only interested in that one passage, because it was the only one that seemed relevant to constitutional matters. As webmaster I resserve the right to publish relevant excerpts of longer works online, and take care not to do that in a way that distorts the positions of the author or anyone he might cite in turn. Granted there is a POV in our selections, but it is mainly about relevance, and there is material on our site, when we can find it, that takes contrary positions to those we support. We have come to our positions precisely because they are the positions supported by the historical evidence, even if later commentators might want to take opposing views. Our primary position is that positions on matters of history be based on historical evidence, and not on personal policy preferences. I have had to abandon many of my own policy preferences when I found they conflicted with the historical evidence of what the Constitution meant when it was written. On further reflection I came to the position that the Founders were wiser than I am, and that my former policy preferences were misguided. Jon Roland 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not cite the actual books and documents themselves?... skip the link to constitution.org entirely. Granted, doing so has to be done with caution (see the cautions about using primary sources at WP:NOR) but in this case it amounts to the same thing. Blueboar 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this article[26], just created by Jon Roland makes use of reference links to his self published website. See also [27] for a discussion of the book publisher. SaltyBoatr 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I proposed the following clarification on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability:

It is acceptable for an editor to cite to a reliable source not authored by him, previously published by a reliable publisher elsewhere, a copy of which also appears on a website for which he is the webmaster, without having to omit the link, especially if there is no link available to a reliable site to which he is not a contributor.

I submit that if a source cited is itself reliable and verifiable it should not be necessary for an editor who happens to also be the webmaster to remove a link to the site he administers.

Jon Roland 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Saltyboatr is trying to impose his own, idiosyncratic, misinterpretation of WP:SPS. Let us examine the definition of "Self-publishing" from Wikipedia's own article on the subject. It states:

Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers.

Now saltyboatr seems to be trying to extend this definition to exclude an editor from citing to a work written by someone else because it happens to be on a website for which he is the webmaster, apparently on the presumption that any website is the "personal website" of its webmaster, the editor. But let us examine the personal website Wikipedia page, which states in relevant part:

Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature. The content can be about that person or about something he or she is interested in. Personal web pages can be the entire content of a domain name belonging to the person.

By that definition, http://www.constitution.org is not a "personal website". It might contain some pages written by the webmaster, and one of them, his CV, is of a personal nature, but it should be obvious to any fair-minded visitor that those few pages do not make the site as a whole "created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature". And as anyone can verify by doing a whois search on the domain name, it is not owned by the webmaster, but by an organization, the Constitution Society, which is incorporated.

Now, it might be possible to satisfy Saltyboatr by citing to a work while omitting the link to the copy on the only site that has it online, but all that accomplishes is to inconvenience the reader by making him go to the library or engage ILL to get a copy. Of course, he can also do a web search on the book and find the link to it that way. But a policy should be about more than inconveniencing readers. Jon Roland 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this seems to be mainly a debate between SaltyBoatr and myself, and he as chosen to "go anonymous" for "security" reasons, I feel at a disadvantage since I am using my real name and rely for security on my guns and the aid of friends. Since he seems so fond of quoting Mark Pitcavage, and his writing style is similar to Mark's, I can't help become suspicious that he is Mark Pitcavage, and if so, given the fact that Mark is professionally employed to work against those his sponsors find it convenient to oppose, I think it appropriate that SaltyBoatr disclose his true identity to at least those on this forum and who disclose their email addresses, Mine is jon.roland@constitution.org. Jon Roland 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I resent the personal attack, please assume good faith. SaltyBoatr 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymity, or more precisely pseudonymity, is well accepted on Wikipedia. There is no requirement for SaltyBoatr to reveal his true identity to you or any other editor. If you feel this puts you at a disadvantage, you are free to abandon your current account and create a pseudonym for yourself. - Hoplon 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here: 1) WP:WPSPAM, posting links to your own site, and 2) WP:V verifiability.

1) Jon Roland should refrain from posting links to his own site, even with a pseudonymous username. And, 2) The questions about verifiability for www.constitution.org would still remain due to an obscure publication process for that website. Wikipedia has a policy to rely upon sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Clearly, www.constitution.org does not meet this standard. SaltyBoatr 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be fair on a first reading, but a closer consideration does not support it:

• WP:WPSPAM is obviously inapplicable. I am not inserting links to our site to raise its ranking in the search engines. I have been editing here for only about a year, and added very few links to the site. Most of those 600+ links were added by other editors, with no notice to me. Indeed, it was them doing so that led to my involvement. As for search engine rankings, our site was in the top 5-6 position on a search on "constitution" on almost every engine since the engines came into existence, which was after our site came into existence, and remained at or near the top ever since, long before Wikipedia itself came into existence. If you do a link:constitution.org in Google or its equivalent on other engines you will, depending on the engine, find hundreds or thousands of other domains that link to it, most of which predate Wikipedia, and of course they do help sustain the high ranking, but as explained at http://www.nd.edu/~networks/ (also see http://www.constitution.org/ps/ecncr.htm ), the gathering of links by a few nodes is a self-accelerating process.

• On "obscure publication process", how many reputable media have transparancy on that? I can explain how it works for our site:

• Various people, including me, contribute suggestions for works that should be added. Some also contribute print editions for use in scanning, or, less often, sets of scanned images.
• We decide who is going to do the rendering (OCR, saving into HTML and other formats, corrections of errors). Sometimes that is someone other than me, but I find I usually have to do the final edit, if not the first.
• I upload it to our ftp site for further review, and send out email to scholars who I think might be interested and available to further proofread it. Sometimes, in response to demand for putting the work online in even a rudimentary state I yield and put it up before all edits and formatting are completed, label it as unfinished, and then do further edits as time permits. I used to refrain from putting up image files because of the lack of server capacity and the slow speeds of most peoples' connections, but with more capacity and more people using broadband, we have begun to put up the page images, usually embedded in searchable PDF files, much the way Google Books does it.
• After the work is online in a stable state, it continues to get many visitors, some of whom may spot and report errors. If they have done a good job of reporting, such as sending the exact page and line, or surrounding text (since page numbers are usually not preserved in HTML documents), or a page image, it usually only takes a few minutes for me to correct the error.
• Sometimes it is not an error so much as variants in different print editions. Then I either have to pick one that seems most accurate, or post a note reporting the variants. For example, I did that for the Federalist Papers, for which there were variants in different newspapers of the period, inserting the additional or differing passages into the main document in brackets [] with a note explaining that they appeared in different source publications.
• Peer review then consists of the webmasters of scholarly sites linking to it rather than to alternative sites, which many of them do, which can be reasonably taken as peer approval. It is a more informal process than that used by many journals, but as more journals go exclusively online, our operation does not differ that much from the way they do it. Most of them do so silently and we only find out by reverse-searching for links to our pages. Sometimes we correspond. But a lot of them correspond with us and many ideas for additional works comes from that interaction.

What else would you like on this point? Jon Roland 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the site would be a great place for editors to do some background research, and could be used as a Convinience Link host for most of the documents listed there (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Convenience links for the various caveats and limitations on using convenience links). In almost every case, however, I would think it would be better to actually cite the original document and not constitution.org ... for example, if I wanted to refer to something Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers, I would cite the relevant Federalist Paper itself, and not constitution.org. I see nothing wrong, however, with including a convenience link to contitution.org's copy of that document. Blueboar 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Didn't know about doing that. I will look into it. I am also considering just commenting out the links and inviting other editors to decomment them. But since I am also sure to get someone to do that, it does seem a little silly. Jon Roland 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looked at Wikipedia:Convenience_links, and it seems that convenience links is what I am already doing. Now I am not using the style of following the print cite with a phrase "available at <link>", but surrounding the title of the work with the link. However, is that difference in style really material to the concept? If I were just linking to the title and author without the rest of the print edition information, such as publisher and year, then I can see the WP:V or WP:SPS problem, but when the print information is included, it seems unimportant where the link is inserted. I will ask for clarification on this. Jon Roland 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Wikipedia:Convenience_links says: "It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments,...". And, I notice that in many or most instances at www.consititution.org, that he(they?) add editorial comments. So, in those cases, I see that 'convenience linking' is not appropriate. SaltyBoatr 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I take "comments" to mainly mean annotations, like footnotes or endnotes. Commentary in an external file should not be material, even if there is a link to it inserted. I admit that in many of our HTML editions we renumber footnotes to make endnotes out of them, and move them to the end of the chapter or book, but that is not a material change, especially as we normally also preserve the original footnote numbers in the note. The key test is whether the editor has read the print edition he is citing to, and in every case with the works on our site, I have read it. Now, admittedly, the last time I read it might have been years ago when I was creating the HTML edition, but I was satisfied at that time that the HTML version was accurate. Of course, if anyone reports an error I will refer back to the print edition to see if the report is correct, and if so, correct the online version. Note, however, that Wikipedia:Convenience_links is not a policy document, but an essay. Jon Roland 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many public domain texts quoted on constitution.org that contain added editorial commentary. As with this example the distinction between commentary and text is ambiguous causing a real risk of confusion or misinterpretation by the reader as to what is public domain text and what is editorial commentary. SaltyBoatr 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks... Wikipedia:Convenience links is indeed an essay... a really good essay in my opinion, but not officially part of "the rules"... the section in WP:RS is what you should follow. The key, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that the linked document be an accurate representation of the original.

SaltyBoatr, in the example you give, the line between "commentary" and "document text" does not seem ambiguous at all... at least not to me... there is actually a physical line between the commentary (above the line) and the document text (below the line). Any reasonable person should be able to tell the difference. Furthermore, I don't really find the commentary objectionable as it simply gives some historic context behind the document. The text of the document itself seems to be an accurate representation of the original. But this is really besides the point. I admit that I have not looked through every document on the site... Obviously, if a document has been changed, or if the comments are inserted in a way that clearly is ambiguous, we should not use that version of the document as a convenience link... but from a brief scan through the site I don't really see that as an issue. It looks to me like they take great care to make sure that the documents are accurately represented. I would say the site is reliable for use as a host for convenience links, with the caveat that judgement be reserved on an individual basis if a specific copy of a document has a problem and is objected to.

I also remind everyone that these documents would be primary sources... and WP:NOR contains some strong cautions about how such sources are used. They can be used... but only with great care. I would recommend that anyone using these documents become very familiar with that Policy. Blueboar 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am confused then, Blueboar's opinion seems at odds with the WP policy WP:SPS, especially considering that in almost always the text found at constitution.org is found elsewhere in the public domain without the added self published commentary. And in the instances where it is not in the public domain, the policy of WP:COPY is a concern.

I guess this touches on a fundamental rift in policy interpretation among Wikipedia editors. To a large part still, Wikipedia is a compendium of all sources. (With a risk and reputation for sometimes using crackpot sources.) Should we try control quality by using the most reliable sources? Or, expand the encyclopedia and use the most sources? This rift is not new[28][29] . SaltyBoatr 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain what I see as the difference... it depends on what exactly is being said in the article and what is being cited. If an article is discussing something said in the editorial commentary that constitution.org adds to some of its documents, and you cite to a constitution.org page in support of a statement made in that discussion, then we are dealing with Self Published Source (SPS). If an article is discussing the document, and you cite to that document, and link to constitution.org simply as a convenience link, then we are not talking about an SPS... it isn't self-published. For example, if you say "Declaration of Independance states that 'all men are created equal.'" and cite: <ref>''The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America'', Continental Congress, July 4, 1776, paragraph 2 - see: [http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm this] link, hosted on constitution.org</ref> you are not citing constitution.org as the author, or even the publisher. You are citing the original Declaration itself... you are simply using constitution.org as a link to an accurate transcription of the document. Blueboar 16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Blueboar, and find your hostility towards PD texts at Constitution difficult to explain, and I've always considered myself a RS hardliner. Also, I hope you know, that apart from the fact that Google Books doesn't provide html format, books between 1870 and 1922 are unavailable out of the USA, even if PD, so be careful not to provide external links to such works (I tell you just in case you didn't know of this).--Aldux 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please point specifically to this 1870-1922 policy, thanks. SaltyBoatr 18:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like details with cites on this. I am not aware of any such restriction, and pay close attention to the subject. We rely on http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html as a reliable guide to IP issues. Jon Roland 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We disagree then. The commentary associated with the public domain text fails WP:RS though you are willing to give that editorial commentary a pass to get to the convenient public domain text. I see a risk[30] that this website publishes a POV commentary closer to fringe than neutral. I believe that the easy and safer: <ref>[http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html Declaration of Independence at the National Archives]</ref> is the choice more aligned with WP:POL. SaltyBoatr 17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Salty, I have no problem with using a different convenience link where one is available... in fact, I would agree that one without commentary would be preferable. But, that does not equate to disallowing using constitution.org as a convenience link, which is the thrust of this thread. I just do not see any good reason to disallow it on a blanket "unreliable" basis. They do a really good job of maintaining the integrety of the documents they host. Blueboar 18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret my 'thrust' in this thread; which rather is to seek opinions about the WP:RS of that website source. And, thank you to everyone for sharing their opinion, I have learned a lot. Regarding the 'convenience links' essay, (which is far from WPpolicy) I call attention to the arguments against. Isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and not a link repository? SaltyBoatr 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an additional consideration for convenience links. One of my main motives in assembling the collection of works online was to eventually duplicate and extend the functionality of the Syntopicon for these works, with cross-links between passages on related ideas, something one can't provide using copies on remote sites, because one needs to insert <name> links into the HTML versions. So using documents at constitution.org is not just convenient for one document, but, increasingly, as we insert the links, it will enable students to wend their way through the works of many authors who discuss similar ideas, especially to trace the development of those ideas through history.

Saltyboatr seems concerned that visitors not be exposed to our commentary while they visit, but there is commentary at many sites with source documents on them. We take care to clearly separate our commentary from the original document content. He will also find when he becomes more familiar with scholarly work in this field that our commentary is not as "fringe" as he seems to think. Jon Roland 18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While I grant that you appear to take care to get the source document accurately transcribed, you often also take care to annotate the source document with your POV 'guidance' commentary. I also accept that you don't actually see your point of view as 'fringe', but others do. I disagree that public domain text at Gutenberg.org, the Google book scans, etc. carry the editorial 'guidance' found at your site. You explictily declare your intent on your homepage to offer "guidance on constitutional interpretation". SaltyBoatr 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of Wikipedia:Convenience_links I would appreciate comment on whether it is material to present them with a phrase like "may be viewed at <link>" or surround the title of the work with the link, so long as all the publication information for the print edition is included in the cite. I prefer the latter, if only because it saves words and space, which can be a problem with long cites. Jon Roland 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is the original document that is being cited, not constitution.org. In essence, what we are doing is combining a citation and a footnote... the part about the host site being the footnote. So I would say, yes, you should differentiate between the document citation and the link information so readers know the difference. Please do include some form of "may be viewed at <link>" type language. Being electronic, Wikipedia does not have to worry about how long our cites are.

By the way, I do understand the concerns that Salty has about editorial commentary... If we move the discussion from "is it reliable?" (or rather "is it acceptable?", since the reliability rules are a bit different for convenience links) and instead talk about what is "best practice", then Salty is quite right. Best practice is to link to a completely clean version of the document (ie with no commentary of any kind, just the document), and such a link is indeed preferred if one is available. The nature of the commentary does not matter to this distinction. What we want is to come as close to the original as possible. Blueboar 20:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One reason I do not think the difference between a following phrase and a surrounding link is material is that I don't think it will confuse anyone, given the information of the print edition, which makes it obvious that it is not the print edition but a copy. 75.44.30.166 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems a novel concept that reliability policy is a bit different for convenience links, really? If true, then editors seeking to evade WP:RS and push a POV could exploit this loophole. An example of this risk, is diff where constitution.org falsely characterizes[31] the fictional speech as verbatim, and the author as a biographer. Indeed, Edward S. Ellis was a dime novelist. The reason this is interesting is that Ron Paul is attributed[32] as quoting Wikipedia on his house.gov website[33]. This has been characterized[34] in a way that reflects poorly on the reliability of Wikipedia. Strict adherence to WP:RS with regard to external links (and convenience links) could help avoid such WPembarrassment. SaltyBoatr 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps... but to close this loophole would require changing the policies and guidelines. Right now, External Links are governed by WP:EL, which has a much lower thresh hold for inclusion than sources used to support statements in the body of an article, and convenience links are essentially the forgotten child. The essay WP:Convenience links was an attempt to clarify some rules as to their use, but it never gained the consensus to promote it to guideline status. The best we could do was the brief mention now in RS. (and a lot of people want to see even that removed) What consensus exists places convenience links in an undefined status somewhere between WP:EL and WP:RS. That means we have to talk about them in terms of "acceptable" and "best practice" and not firm "reliable/unreliable" rules. Blueboar 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

With all this discussion about www.constitution.org and all the links to it made by many editors, I wonder if it is not time to create an article on the Constitution Society and its website. I am forbidden from doing so, but if some of you joined together in creating one, we could move this discussion to Talk:Constitution_Society 75.44.30.166 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No... this is basically done.

Salty... as to your Crockett example... I did say that this would have to be taken on a case by case basis. That is one where I think you are right to challenge. I see a bad citation, made worse by some OR writing. The article should not say that this is Crockett's speech... it should say that it is a speech that Ellis says was given by Crockett. It needs to be attributed and cited to Ellis. As for how constitution.org presents it... they don't actually claim that this is Crockett's speech, they do attribute it to Ellis. However, I would agree that they imply that Crockett did indeed give the speech. In this case, I would say that the speech was taken out of its context by constitution.org (ie removed from the context of being part of Ellis's book) and, thus, is a good example of a situation when constitution.org should not be used as a convenience link. The text should be rewritten and cited to Ellis with no link provided. Blueboar 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this illustrates why a convenience link to constitution.org may be better practice, because if you go to the Crockett page now, you will find that I have added a cautionary "if accurate" comment, and linked it to a file which is a record of a debate with someone on the authenticity of the speech, which had previously only been linked at the bottom of the page, where I added a second link to a new page that contains the further debate contributions to which you have directed me here. Someone else might cite to the speech on the floor of Congress, which, of course, makes it citable (if not reliable) as a fact of what happened there (subject to House Rules on "revise and extend"). If one goes to our page now, it has added comments, but they are comments that provide debate on the authenticity of the basic document. It can be argued that in an important way, an online copy with commentary on authenticity and accuracy may be better practice than one that lacks that kind of commentary. Jon Roland 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I see that the constitution.org public domain texts often are associated with commentary and editorial 'POV guidance', either directly on the page or one click away. The WP:RS 'convenience link' guideline states: "It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, emendations, edits or changes.". SaltyBoatr 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to how Saltyboatr came up with the count of "600+" for cites to constitution.org. I did a wikipedia search on "http://www.constitution.org", using the search field on the left panel, which seems to find the links to it, and get a count of 7509. Searching on just "constitution.org" yields 9543 hhits, which seems to be finding the domain name in the body text of articles. Since I don't recall inserting more than about 100, that seems to be some kind of peer review and vote of notability for the site, and by extension, the Constitution Society. Jon Roland 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing he used exactly the method available at the link he gave, repeated here for convenience. Arthur 21:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon... the search field at left gives a much broader range of hits than the link Salty gave us... For example, it would include talk pages where constitution.org is being discussed. I may be wrong on this next part, but I beleave your search would also would include "close" hits, such as articles containing the word "constitution" and the abreviation "org"... words that fulfill only part of the criteria. Blueboar 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A webmaster inserting 100 links to his own website is engaging in spam. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jfjfp.org/ It this a reliable source? I say it is not because there is nothing academic or scholarly about the website, but I am posting here for a community consensus on this issue. Yahel Guhan 02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, no, it's not a reliable source, but it does depend what you want to use it for. For any kind of major claim or anything controversial, it shouldn't be used at all. However, if someone was using it as a source on the article about the organization, it might be acceptable as a source for some minor non-controversial background information, such as when the organization was founded, or the date of an upcoming event. But only for minor info, and even then, not if there was any controversy about the information. --Elonka 06:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to correct Engelberts biography several times, and it still has false information. Engelbert is NOT Anglo-Indian, his Mother was NOT Anglo-Indian, she was British. Engelbert was born in India of "British" parents. This information is absolutely wrong. I have been Engelberts Fan Club president for 34 years, and know that it is a FACT that he and his mother are BRITISH, not Anglo-Indian. Please correct this obsurd information msacker

Given that the statement that she was Anglo-Indian is unsource (and had been taged as such for a while), I have removed it. However, to say that she was British also would need a reliable published source. Unfortunately, we can not rely on what any editor (even the president of his fan club) say he or she knows to be fact. The soulution in this case is to not mention either origin or put Humperdink or his mother into any category without citation. Blueboar 14:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be a FAQ, so apologies in advance. Would an email from an obviously expert source be regarded as RS, if posted verbatim in a footnote or on talk page? --Dweller 10:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't prove the email came from the purported author, so it is not a reliable source. --Gerry Ashton 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought that might be the answer. <sigh> --Dweller 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it proper to use a newspaper opinion column [35] as a reliable source in an article about a living person? [36] Arthur 23:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the type of information. For that particular source, I'd probably accept that it was reliable for the question of, "What year was the individual in divorce proceedings?" In which case we could source the year, 2003, unless some other source disputed that information. However, on the specific question of, "Can an opinion column be used as a reliable source that someone punched his attorney in court?" I would say, "No," unless a better source can be found. It's definitely negative information about a living person, not to mention that it's disputed even within the source itself. Bottom line though, we need to be very cautious of WP:BLP, which demands that we be very strict on sourcing requirements for negative information about living people. --Elonka 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the way I see it too. In other words, if it's non-libelous info, use it if you can't find a better source. If it's potentially libelous, find a better source. Arthur 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/ is a website self-published by LaRouche critic Dennis King. King, who edits Wikipedia as User:Dking, and other editors wish to use this site as a source on LaRouche related articles. Could some uninvolved parties take a look at this and give an opinion? --Marvin Diode 20:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very careful about using a website that is clearly a political agenda as a source. It sure doesn't look like it meets guidelines of WP:RS. What is their publish process? Are they peer-reviewed?

WP:SPS contains a specific exemption for acknowledged authorities. Dennis King is the leading authority on the LaRouche movement. He is the author of the only 3rd-party biography of LaRouche, published by Doubleday. He is cited in countless newspaper articles on LaRouche and the movement. There is no serious question about the veracity of his information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPS would disallow the use of this source in many cases as it reads "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer" Arthur 01:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The article in question, Kenneth Kronberg, concerns a deceased person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. Kenneth Kronberg is a WP:COATRACK article which was created as a vehicle to smuggle in a WP:FRINGE theory from Dennis King's website, LYNDON LAROUCHE AND THE ART OF INDUCING SUICIDE. As the title suggests, the article accuses LaRouche of using some form of mind control to cause Kronberg to commit suicide. LaRouche is, of course, a living person. --Marvin Diode 06:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How does the belief that the actions of the LaRouche movement led to the suicide of Kronberg count as a "fringe theory". It appears to be the mainstream view because it has been published in a mainstream reliable source. Also, we aren't using the link you provided as a source. The page we're using as a source is this memo. Do you have any basis for disputing the accuracy of the memo as posted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This request is the latest of many by pro-LaRouche editors aimed at Dennis King/user:Dking and his colleague Chip Berlet/user:Cberlet. [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] etc. Most of the accounts bringing these complaints have been blocked as sock puppets of a banned user, User:Herschelkrustofsky. This latest complaint doesn't appear to bring any new information to the previously resolved coplaints, and appears to be yet another effort to silence a legitimate researcher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, my request was for some uninvolved parties to take a look at this and give an opinion. The forest of diffs you include are references to unresolved issues, including the RFC which you helped suppress. --Marvin Diode 00:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The article may be about a deceased person but the SPS is being used to provide information about a living person and so is disallowed under BLP. Relata refero 10:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved here's my opinion. Will Beback is correct WP:SPS has one major caveat, "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". This is the case here. King's work is notable enough for inclusion, however WP:BLP complicates this by saying: "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory, or impossible to verify otherwise, unless written or published by the subject of the article". I would say that if King's website expands on something or reiterates something that has already been published in third party reliable sources then it could be used as a primary source (i.e. for descriptive purposes only). For example if a book or a printed article says X and his website says X led to Y then it might be okay to add "Dennis King's website says X led to Y."
  There is a WP:BLP issue here and "do no harm" trumps WP:SPS, but doesn't rule such a website out all together. In this case I would treat King's website like an opinion column (I do realize that it is in fact far from an opinion piece, and made up of work that seems to be based on investigative reporting, but WP's policy make this situation tricky). That is to say use it with extreme care, use it for description only, not interpretation as per WP:SPS and WP:PSTS. It should "never" be used as the first source for new controversy - as per WP:BLP--Cailil ^talk 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The piece of information that is contested here is an internal LaRouche movement memo. Excerpts of it have been printed in reliable sources (a print magazine, Washington Monthly, and a newspaper). The complete memo is posted on the King site.[50] So it "expands on something or reiterates something that has already been published". No one disputes that the memo exists, or that the contents psoted elsewhere are correct. In fact, no one disputes that the version on the King site is correct as well. I agree that an internal memo is a primary source and should be used with all the usual care. But I don't see any firm basis for saying that the complete version of the memo is unreliable, or that King is an unreliable source in general. Lastly, the viewpoint on Kronberg's suicide is not a fringe POV since it's been published in a couple of reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to correct a few things here. Of the two published sources which mention what is called the "morning briefing," one has been discussed already on this noticeboard[51]. It is a small paper, the Falls Church News-Press, owned by a disaffected former member of the LaRouche organization, who is also editor in chief, and the author of the article cited by Will. THe discussion about it on this noticeboard was unfavorable (other than Will's comments.) The other published source, the Washington Monthly, quotes only a few words from the purported internal document. Neither paper discusses how the document was obtained, or offers any proof that it is authentic. I don't think that the document can be considered a primary source at all, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the purported longer version on King's website is authentic. Since this is a BLP issue, all of this spells CAUTION in caps.

I would also like to clarify that my request here is not for a discussion specific to this purported document, but for a more general reading on Dennis King's website, because I am confident that the group of editors which is promoting the use of this site will make other attempts to include it. --Marvin Diode 22:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did Marvin Diode claim that the Kenneth Kronberg article is a WP:COATRACK article created to launder Dennis King's views on LaRouche into Wikipedia? It seems to me that that is an absurd claim. Kenneth Kronberg's death was clearly newsworthy--covered in the Washington Post and elsewhere, not just the Falls Church paper of a "disaffected member"--and the excerpts from the morning briefing of April 11 formed part of the context in which to view that story.

It seems obvious that if the quotes offered from that morning briefing, or the full version offered on King's website, were inaccurate or invented, the LaRouche organization in its coverage of this matter, internally and externally, would have made that charge publicly and vociferously. As far as I know, all that was said was that the documents on King's website had been "stolen," not that they were inventions or misquotes. (This charge was made in a public press release that appeared on the LaRouche PAC website.) In fact, at the time it seemed to me that the charge that the documents had been stolen was an implicit admission by the LaRouche organization that they were accurately quoted.

The piece on the LaRouche PAC website to which I refer was posted May 5, less than a month after Ken Kronberg's death, and reads in relevant part:

"May 5--Pro-fascist New York investment banker John Train's long time hod-carrier, Dennis King, has launched a scurrilous slander campaign against Lyndon LaRouche. King has posted a series of smears on his website and other internet blogs concerning the recent death of long-time leading LaRouche collaborator Kenneth L. Kronberg. These slanders, along with King's posting of stolen documents, are a distasteful exploitation of a personal tragedy in pursuit of Train's political vendetta against LaRouche and a disrespectful disregard for the memory of Kronberg." [52] --Hexham 05:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post did indeed publish an obituary for Kronberg, but it was straight, factual coverage, with no reference to King's mind control theory. --17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a reliable source for a memo whose contents and existence have been corroborated in other publications. Use in the article seems fine, the memo is not analyzed, just summarized. Only suggestion I have is that perhaps King could modify the web page containing the memo [53] to remove the title at the top, which contains analysis and could be prejudicial. - Merzbow 06:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It may meet RS guidelines, and have been mentioned elsewhere, but BLP as it stands doesn't permit it being cited to the SPS, as far as I can see. Cite it to the mention in the Wash monthly, changing the text to reflect what the WM says. Relata refero 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode argues that the Falls Church News-Press should not be cited because it is a "small" newspaper. I am not aware that size of circulation makes a source unreliable under Wiki standards. If that were the case, then most academic journals (which have circulations much, much smaller than the Falls Church paper) could not be cited. Also, much of the finest journalism in the U.S. comes from small newspapers: Look at the case of the small weekly in Port Reyes, California that won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the implosion of the Synanon drug rehabilitation cult.

In addition, Marvin Diode complains that the owner/editor-in-chief of the Falls Church News-Press is a "disaffected former member" of the LaRouche organization. I should think this would enhance Mr. Benton's credibility in speaking of such a complicated matter as Mr. Kronberg's reaction to a suggestion that he commit suicide. If Mr. Benton had not been a former member he perhaps would not have understood so quickly the potentially devastating impact of such a remark on a longtime LaRouche follower.--Dking 18:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, in the previous discussion, the article in question was written by the owner of the newspaper, and it was considered likely that this meant that the source was self-published. Relata refero 18:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Benton's paper is a recognized local newspaper which appears on a regular schedule, has advertisers and a stable circulation and covers the subject matters that a normal local paper would cover. That its owner and editor are one and the same person is irrelevant--in past generations the owners and editors of most small newspapers were one and the same person (as Jimmy Stewart in "Who Shot Liberty Valance?"). Or are we to adopt a policy that articles published by someone else in Mr. Benton's paper can be cited because they are not self-published but anything by the editor cannot be cited? Relato refero's argument seems pretty weak to me.--Dking 01:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A reading of the policy as written seems to suggest precisely that. Unless the owner of a source is known to be also subject to the fact-checking imposed on other contributors, SPS seems to apply. Relata refero 12:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a dispute on Michael E. J. Witzel about whether the article should say he's biased against Hindus; an example of the material some editors want included is in this diff. In my opinion, unless material like this is supported by extremely strong sourcing, it's a BLP violation. On the article's talk page, there's a dispute about how strong the sources for this material are: there's two op-ed pieces, a court filing, some isolated quotes in news stories, and some websites of political organizations. Input from uninvolved editors would be welcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can use language which in the vein of "Person X notes that Person Y is an anti-Semite because...", if we say "notes" we're implicitly confirming the opinion of person X. If conservative Indian papers have criticized this person, their criticisms should be summarized as an unconfirmed opinion rather than fact. Direct quotations would be best, as long as they aren't overly hostile or potentially defamatory. <eleland/talkedits> 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We then get into the problem of how prominent the criticism is; one of the major problems right now is whether the sources cited establish that the criticism is notable and worth including in the article. After all, when an op-ed writer says something, it doesn't mean that their opinion is widely shared. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the significance of the newspaper and the guest writer. India has about a gajillion papers of all sorts of editorial views (it's not like America where you have 500 papers saying the same thing) so it would take some careful judgement. In any case, unless it is clear that a person is universally or near-universally criticized, an article should not be dominated by criticism. <eleland/talkedits>

Is it a reliable source? The site is mainly needed for reviews. It is an active site for film reviews, and every new released film receives its own review on this site. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is reliable for at least documenting basic movie facts: Titles, production year and actors. But i woul not trust the site for judging on qulatiy on movies as this site is selling tickets and could be suspected for trying to sell a few extra tickets by being to easy with the criticism. Ga-david.b 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that according to what I've witnessed, the reviews generally do criticise actors and films, regardless of your mentioned concern. To be honest, I am not aware of its tickets sale. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

First of all: I’m bringing this to your attention because of a long time conflict around the article Digital Audio Broadcast. The conflict has made it impossible for me to negotiate the content with the below mentioned user.

On the following adress Digital Audio Broadcasting#Criticisms of DAB, we have the following paragraph:

The source in question is http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/future_radio_poll.php, a poll that is done on a website with 1) visitors with a anti DAB bias, and 2) a context that should be leading because of choice of articles on the same page as the poll were held.

The reference is added by a anonymous user user81.107.206.242 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=81.107.206.242). The anonymous user’s edit correspond with a number of edits regulary done by User:Digitalradiotech, the owner of the http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk website. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Digitalradiotech)

If the reference is found unreliable, I would suggest to remove everthing from after "In complete contrast..."

Best regards Ga-david.b 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When the registration data for that web site is looked up at http://www.whois.net, it states in part "Registrant type: UK Individual". That suggests the web site is a personal web site, and in the absence of other information, wouldn't be considered reliable. --Gerry Ashton 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. but still i am reluctant on editing the source away from the article as i’m afraid that the orignal poster will be very upset, so i need some more input on this. Ga-david.b 11:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Home from work, and: [54] [55] [56]. --Tkynerd 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His reasoning based on his talk page is:

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

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

And further he says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

• The original article on Megan's death does not mention the woman's name, but it does describe her in enough detail that persons with good internet research skills identified her name rapidly from property and business records, and published it across a number of weblogs. [57][58][59][60]...
• The identification by these weblogs has been noted by various media sources. [61]
• A Google search for '"Megan Meier" mother' returns a number of results that give the woman's name. [62]
• Moreover, news video broadcast by various large TV stations shows the woman's last name on a police report, including CNN and various FOX affiliates. [63]

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

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

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

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

These two documents claim two opposite facts:

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

I was reading your entry on William Richard Bradford.

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

The inaccuracy part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is an editor who wants to use http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-lemasPigs.asp as a source on Stopping power. The editor is claiming not allowing this source is censorship [64]. I feel that an anti-animal testing site is unlikely to be a quality source per WP:VER and WP:RS. Comments? Arthurrh 18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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