Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 64

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

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

→

FAIR (again); article that has already led to one defamation lawsuit being used as a reference

Hello. Fellow editor Annoynmous is seeking to use an article that appeared in FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) as an RS for highly critical contentious facts. The "facts" relate to both what a living person (Steven Emerson) has supposedly done and said, and what others supposedly said about Emerson.

The article in question is the only one that John F. Sugg wrote for FAIR. That suggests that his "opinion", which is also in the article, is not necessarily that of FAIR. Sugg's full-time job was as a senior editor for an alternative newspaper now named Creative Loafing, in Tampa Bay.

The proposed use is in the first 5 paras here. (See the left column). George has since tried to address the most immediate problem by changing some contentious critical claims to unsourced claims. But I think unsourced claims also have to be deleted since this is a BLP.

My understanding from this prior discussion and this one is that FAIR would not be an RS for such contentious "facts". Especially with regard to a living person. See WP:GRAPEVINE, which instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced." But as Annoy is insistent on putting it in the BLP, I thought I would bring the question here as to whether the article is an RS for those purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And, as is discussed below, Sugg writings have already led to one defamation lawsuit by Emerson. It would seem poor risk-sensitivity to use Sugg's article as a source here at all.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you list the specific facts it's being cited for? While those paragraphs are very poorly written, they seem to be statements of Sugg's opinion for the most part. ← George^talk 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Sugg states his own opinion briefly. He accuses Emerson of: "exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists", a willingness "to push an extremely thin story—with potentially explosive consequences," and "mistakes and distortions." I do not think Sugg is notable enough for his harshly contentious opinion to be reflected in a BLP. And as it is his only piece for FAIR, it would not appear to be "FAIR's opinion".

Specific "facts" asserted by Sugg, according to those 5 paras, are:

That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India.
That Emerson claimed that the Yugoslavians were behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.
That Emerson stated that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by a bomb.
That the Columbia Journalism Review alleged that passages in Emerson's book The Fall of Pan Am 103, "bear a striking resemblance, in both substance and style" to reports in the Syracuse Post-Standard.
That a New York Times review (5/19/91) of Emerson's 1991 book Terrorist that "chided that it was 'marred by factual errors…and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias,'" and said that "his 1994 PBS video, Jihad in America was faulted for bigotry and misrepresentations".
That "veteran reporter Robert Friedman accused Emerson of 'creating mass hysteria against American Arabs'" in a 1995 article.
That Emerson said the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 showed "a Middle Eastern trait" because it "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible." [FYI – something along the lines of this final point was said by Emerson I believe, and there should be RSs to reflect it rather than this]

--Epeefleche (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also unsure about Sugg's notability, and more research would have to be done on that. And I wouldn't cite his article as FAIR's opinion, unless he was an editor there, or the publication expressed that view. In general, I would treat this source like an op-ed – cite it for statements of opinion, but not for facts. However, an accusation is not a statement of fact, and accusing someone of saying something doesn't make it a fact. We can verify that Sugg accused Emerson of saying certain things, so write that, not that Emerson necessarily said them (e.g., Sugg accused Emerson of saying X, not Emerson said X).

It would be better to cite the original sources, where possible, both for Emerson's own statements, as well as those of the other people Sugg listed as accusing Emerson of saying certain things. These sort of indirect third person accusations get quite tedious (e.g., Sugg wrote that Friedman accused Emerson of X) ← George^talk 11:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). So, even if he were notable (and writing for a non-RS alternative weekly paper doesn't make someone notable), I don't think we could cite his statements of fact. His statements of opinion were those reflected above in the para beginning "Sure". I agree w/you that if those third-party RS statements (such as the NYT) exist, they would be fine to quote.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes he states his opinion by citing facts. He cites articles where Emerson made statements that he regards as foolish. I don't understand why because he's apart of an alternative newspaper that doesn't make him a reliable source.

It should be noted that Epeefleche regards a book by Sean hannity as a reliable source for senate testimony.annoynmous 12:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the only supposed "facts" he cites are his paraphrasing of articles written by others, articles that are mostly not-verifiable in that I cannot find them on the net. (maybe someone else can) We don't know if he is accurately reflecting his source or not. Things extraneous to this discussion, ie Epeefleche's views on other things, are not relevant to this discussion. Please stay focused. Stellarkid (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that not relevant. The fact is that instead of finding the actual senate testimony epeefleche chose to reference a book by a radio talk show host.

The fact of matter is that Sugg cites articles with quotes made by emerson and gives his interpretation of it. FAIR is clearily defined as a liberal gorup in the article and everything is stated as Suggs opinion.

I should also add the Stellarkid recently added an article ny Robert Spencer that criticizes Sugg and there literally isn't one source to back anything up. Spencer goes for almost 3 paragraphs without one source to back anything up and stellarkid views this as a legitimate source. I'm willing to except that FAIR is a partisan source, but at least in there articles there are sources listed. annoynmous 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as we don't have qualms re using FAIR/Suggs to tell us what is in a NYTimes book review, we can use a FrontPageMag/Robert Spencer article to tell us what they think is in it. Neither one is the original RS, but since the tertiary source(s) disagree, I can't see anything wrong with using it. Take out the FAIR/Suggs reference and I will happily remove the FPM/Spencer reference. Stellarkid (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Sugg and FAIR are not RSs, especially as to highly contentious "facts" in a BLP.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sugg and FAIR are two different things, and as I said earlier, I would treat this particular source like an op-ed. Per WP:RS, "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution". I'll try to pop over to the article and clear these paragraphs up a bit. ← George^talk 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The inflammatory weight of the remarks Sugg makes seems to me to outweigh what his credibility allows. These are harsh claims he is making and if they can't be verified or echoed by other sources I would stay away from citing his article at all. Ink Falls 22:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with George, FAIR and editorials are good as compliments to provide alternative viewpoints to events already covered by more mainstream, non-partisan sources. Soxwon (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Complements perhaps, if we have the more mainstream sources as well. Stellarkid (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. Except there is no FAIR opinion piece here. And there is no editorial here. And there is no op-ed here. What we have here is an article, w/various assertions of fact. FAIR, as discussed at the prior discussions, is not an RS for those assertions of fact. The limited amount of "opinion" here is not the opinion of FAIR, but rather the opinion of a 1-article-for-FAIR-ever writer who seems to be non-notable, and who worked for a non-notable alternative weekly. Thomas Friedman, he ain't. And he is disparaging a living person–we are obliged to only use the highest quality sources for that. He certainly isn't in that category. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. So the whole kit and kaboodle of the Sugg article should be dumped, with only original RS sources used?--Stellarkid (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. As Ink Falls says above.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a tangled web. Contrary to George, I feel that FAIR should to some degree be considered to back Sugg, his piece is the kind of media criticism they publish, and it could be considered as FAIR's view of Emerson. Most of what is used from Sugg is his quotes of other sources, and of course should be cited to originals if possible. I have little doubt they are authentic and have cited a couple to other sources or originals. The NYT book review is hard to track down, but I used Emerson's letter in reply to source some of what was used from it. But one other source reprinting pieces critical of Emerson is this, which notes that Emerson sued Sugg for defamation in 1999, but withdrew the suit in 2003, see also [1]. The suit shows Sugg is notable with respect to Emerson and should be used for context for Sugg's criticism.John Z (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

#7 appears in "After bombings, America faces up to prejudice" Charles M. Sennott, 21 June 1995, The Boston Globe. Zero^talk 08:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@John – FAIR's view would be reflected in a FAIR editorial. Or by a senior FAIR employee, who can speak for FAIR. This is an article, not an editorial or an op-ed. And it is by someone who wrote only one article for FAIR, and does not seem to have worked for them. I don't think it can be considered FAIR's opinion.

This is also a BLP, so as mentioned it needs the highest-level sourcing for this sort of harsh criticism. I see you supplied an RS source for one phrase, and apparently as I expected there is a non-Sugg source for #7. Those (and any more that can be supported by RSs) are of course fine.

As to John's suggestion that Sugg is notable because he was sued by E for defamation ... and we should therefore quote or use as a reference on Wikipedia language from the ~~article~~ very author who has produced writings that led to the defamation suit by E? I don't see it. It's just the opposite–this (thanks for pointing it out) shows the danger of reflecting on Wikipedia language from an author who Emerson has already sued once for defamation.

I urge someone to delete all such Sugg language that is not RS-supported at this point, given this new information. This would accord with the direction in WP:RS that "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you seem to forget the relevant fact that the lawsuit was dropped. Nothing that Sugg wrote was proved to be defamatory so this line of reasoning fails. annoynmous 11:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@Annoy--Untrue. We know that Emerson brought a lawsuit swearing that Sugg defamed him in his writings. People drop lawsuits for various reasons. Including the sense that the harm will not be repeated by the defendant. Here, we are again spreading language from the author of articles that the subject of a BLP sued over.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That FAIR printed it as an article, rather than an editorial shows that they are to that extent standing behind Sugg's veracity, even more than if they had printed it as an op-ed. Our choice of treating controversial items from anything in FAIR as opinion rather than fact, especially in a BLP, is something different, but has the same result (as if it had been a FAIR op-ed) of identifying Sugg's article with liberal / left / progressive / FAIR-like opinion. The lawsuit seems to have been over things Sugg wrote earlier at the Weekly Planet, not FAIR, specifically over the provenance of a document Emerson showed to reporters and to Emerson's claims of a death threat from militant Islamic fundamentalists and a consequent FBI witness protection offer. Of course the fact that there has been litigation indicates we should tread very carefully, but we can certainly state that there has been a suit, and if written very carefully, we might quote Sugg's opinion from FAIR to show readers what else these two have been fighting about. Again, since most of our article's Sugg material is just him quoting other people, the sensible thing is to just track down the originals, and avoid headaches, which people have been doing. That Sugg later repeated them then causes no further reliability or BLP problem, but may not be noteworthy enough for mention.John Z (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@John: 1) For reasons stated by various people, I think consensus is clear that we can't use the Sugg article as an RS for "facts" (though Annoy still maintains we can). 2) I disagree w/John on this point–the Sugg article IMHO can't be said to reflect FAIR's opinion, for the reasons stated above. It's certainly not a FAIR editorial. Nor is it a FAIR op-ed. And WP:RS on op-eds is clear that it is focusing on op-eds in "mainstream" RSs, which is not the case here. And this is a BLP, making the reason to not quote a non-notable trashing even more evident. And the two have been involved in litigation over defamation; the reason to not quote it could scarcely be less clear. 3) We could say there had been a suit, if it were notable, but it's not clear to me that it is, and that should not be used as reason to put the camel's nose under the tent, which would appear to be the goal. 4) I agree that we can use original RS material. All of the non-RS Sugg material should be deleted immediately, however, per the above-cited guidances, and the fact that Emerson has already brought one multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit w/regard to writings by Sugg. No need to raise the risk that Wikipedia could be subjected to defamation claims by E; our guidance makes clear that our goal is to avoid such claims, by deleting such material from BLPs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reasons above from anyone for dissociating Sugg from FAIR in a highly unusual way. Printing something as a news article indicates more support than an op-ed, not less. Disregarding other things like the suit, Sugg's reputation, etc. the standard thing would be to take Sugg's and FAIR's reliability as equivalent. For the moment, "according to FAIR/Sugg" in-text attribution may be enough, I agree that Sugg and FAIR are not enough for unattributed controversial statements. Much of this debate is futile, as we just need cite Sugg's original sources. The person who put the camel's nose under the tent about the suit, who made Sugg's critique notable with respect to him, was Emerson. The suit seems clearly notable, getting about 30 gnews hits, seems to have made page 1 of the Village Voice here.John Z (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again the lawsuit was dropped and no defamation was ever proved. Both sides give different reasons for why it was dropped, but the fact is it was dropped. Epeefleche can create all the subterfuge he wants, but the fact is that what Sugg wrote is still legitimate criticism of Emerson. John Z has added several links that confirm several things mentioned in the FAIR article. I see no consensus that we can't use Sugg for facts. annoynmous 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

<- The Sugg article appears to have been used as a source in these 2 cases.

"Emerson campaigns against what he sees as radical Islam and was initially funded by the right-wing media tycoon Richard Mellon Scaife (Sugg 1999)"
"Along the way, critics charged, Emerson had sounded many false alarms, made numerous errors of fact, bandied accusations about rather freely, and ceased to be regarded as credible by much of the mainstream media (see Sugg 1999)." The journal article is here behind a paywall.

I don't know if that makes any difference regarding the Sugg article or whether these sources have already been found.Sean.hoyland – talk 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The assertions that Sugg makes about Emerson seem to qualify as "exceptional claims", and they therefore require exceptional sources, per WP:REDFLAG. This article, written by a little-known journalist in a semi-reliable source, may not be sufficiently strong for these assertion. Since he seems to cite many of his print sources, we should be able to track them back and use those original sources. It's much better to use the CJR's criticism of Emerson rather than Sugg's view of the CJR's criticism, for example. Will Beback talk 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is agreed that FAIR (and Sugg) can only be used in a contentious matter, especially a BLP, for their views, ascribed to them. Most of the matters sourced to him have now been re-referenced to more usable sources. At present there are only two statements. One is Emerson's remark about theOklahoma City bombing,--that he made the remark is not really in dispute, and other sources can be found for this. That leaves just one: that he " accused Emerson of focusing on 'unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims,' and wrote that Emerson's 'lengthy list of mistakes and distortions... mar his credentials as an expert on terrorism.' " I do not regard that as an exceptional claim, but the mainstream view—I think it a succinct statement of the general opinion. I see no reason why it can not be used as an opinion, which it clearly is. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: As related problems with the article have continued today (edit-warring/campaigning/vote-stacking), I've raised all of the problems at an AN/I here. If people think it best to roll up this conversation into that one, that's fine with me.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be said that Sugg is arguable the most prominent critic of Emerson. Whenever anyone mentions criticism of Emerson they usually reference Suggs articles. If your going to have a criticism section for Emerson you really can't not inculde Sugg. annoynmous 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you having a criticism section? Isn't it our policy that criticism should not be isolated in a section, but integrated into the text?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh in with one remark. "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything – so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. (I should note that even if Thomas Friedman himself tore into someone, that would not automatically mean that it is noteworthy.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact is that no defamation was ever proved. Whether or not Sugg is RS is different matter, but epeefleche is making the argument that Sugg should be completely dismissed because Emerson filed a lawsuit against him, even though he withdrew it. Sugg's criticism is valid as long as it is stated as his opinion and the organization he wrote for FAIR is indentified as a partisan source. All that was done.

I should point out that epeefleche is insisting that a book by Sean Hannity is a valid source for senate testimony.

Previously in the article he had also listed this as a source.

The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005,

Say what you will about FAIR, there far more reliable than Sean Hannity and a book that says there was a middle eastern connection to 9–11. annoynmous 03:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you even arguing about this now, annoynmous? Jimbo did what Jimbo does best: Cut through the absurd bureaucracy brought about by circuitous and non-sensical arguments thrown up in an attempt to justify a poor edit, and instead uses a heaping helping of WP:CommonSense. Given Sugg’s *novel* claims and the fact that there was a defamation lawsuit over them, Sugg alone can not be considered as a free-standing WP:Reliable source when it comes to a BLP on Wikipedia. It’s not complex. Greg L (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing this because the fact is the defamation suit was dropped by Emerson. No amount of talk is going to change that fact. This is excluding the fact that Jimbo had nothing to do with this case before epeefleche contacted. Even an editor on the incident noticeboard called this innapropriate:

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo would be the correct essay to refer to. You are correct, contacting Jimbo is trying to short-circuit the discussion and is largely frowned upon. There are only specific instances where it is appropriate to contact Jimbo, usually in terms of something that he would actually be involved in. SilverserenC 05:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Further more I would like to point out that Epeefleche has interpreted comments on this page to give him permission to remove FAIR from just about every article on wikipedia. Just look at the recent edits he's made. I know that wasn't agreed to in any consensus. This controversy was specifically to do with the Steve Emerson article. annoynmous 06:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As the essay that Silverseren directs us to (Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo) says: "[W]hen Jimbo does respond he rarely takes sides, unless it is a completely egregious and unescapably important issue that must be responded to." Which I gather it is. Given Jimbo's comments on his talk page and above, and his deletion of offending material at the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what's going on with Epeefleche? He seems to be on a rampage, removing any mention of FAIR from many articles. I haven't yet gone through the above discussion, but what he is doing looks harmful to wikipedia at first blush. What I am seeing is not removing cases where FAIR is being used as a source, but simply removing cases where it is mentioned that FAIR criticized someone. Surely such criticism is (in at least some instances) notable and reasonable to include in articles. Any ideas? --CAVincent (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, this overzealous and not a good idea. If Jimbo meant "I hereby banish FAIR to the outer darkness, begone!" I think he would have said that. And places where a source is mentioned in the text are less problematic than ones where it is used without comment as a source.John Z (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some kinda punishement for this. I mean a mass deletion of an organization from wikipedia seems ery vandal like. He surely wasn't given permission to do anything like that. annoynmous 07:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of FAIR contentious BLP edits and fact statements, and their restoration just now by Annoy

Annoy appears unwilling to respect the above comments, and related statements by Jimbo on his talk page to me that Annoy is aware of ("I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:05 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4), to the effect that FAIR: 1) should not be used as an RS for contentious statements in BLPs, and 2) should not be used as an RS for facts. I've deleted some of those, w/an edit summary pointing here. Annoy reverted my deletions.

In doing so, Annoy just now inserted highly contentious statements in BLPs, as here, for which FAIR is the only source:

And inserted FAIR statements of fact, as here: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Some of those edits obviously fit into both categories. Per the above, the reversions/insertions were improper.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This was in regard to one specific article, not every single article on wikipedia that mentions FAIR. In my opinion this is borderline vandalsim. annoynmous 07:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think considering that Jimbo's input is being regarded as quite important by Epeefleche, perhaps it would be wise to ask Jimbo for a clarification on the slightly ambiguous phrase "I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough". I think perhaps it should be asked of him whether "not good enough" refers to "not good enough for this material/article", or "not good enough for Wikipedia as a whole" (i.e. a blanket opinion that it does not constitute an RS). Regardless of Jimbo's opinion, of course, it's also important to determine whether this discussion offers a consensus for the edits he has performed. Just an uninvolved editor's opinion, anyway. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested it should be deleted in all cases. Just that it should not be used for contentious statements about BLPs (e.g., as in the above Michael Reagan said Mark Dice should be killed – which Annoy just restored), or as an RS for facts.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's important to note that this discussion was not in regards into whether FAIR was a notable source. It was more about whether the author of the piece John Sugg was notable enough to inculde in this article. That's different from FAIR in general as a RS. Also each of the articles epeeflech edited had it's own context and who is he to say that the supposed "criteria" Jimbo gave him applies to each of those articles. That's a matter that should be discussed on the talk pages of each individual article. At least I thought that's how wikipedia worked.

I also must say I continue to believe there should be some penalty for this in regards to epeefleche. It seems like outrageous behavior to me. annoynmous 08:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(after ec, in response to Epeefleche) What I'm saying is, Jimbo should be asked for a clarification of whether his "not good enough" was specific to that article/the material it was being used as a source for or whether it was a more general statement that it's not an RS. I also think that consensus should be sought here for the edits you'd like to make, or an agreement from other editors involved in this discussion that the consensus is in favour of your edits. However, I also feel that in the meantime, annonynmous should self-revert his reverts of your removals (my, that's a mouthful :)), as for BLPs I feel it's always better to have contentious statements under discussion temporarily out of an article than to have them temporarily in. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Should I do that. At best epeefleche had permission to edit one article, not 20. Other editors above like John Z and CAvincent disagree with epeefleches rationale for what he was allowed to do. annoynmous 08:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dreaded Walrus, not sure I agree with the suggestion that Epeefleche's removals should stand while this is under discussion. I'm not going to take the time to review all his removals, but from checking a few it looks like some would be valid if it is decided that FAIR is not a RS for BLPs but his brush was so broad that some of the material he removed would still be fine even if that were the consensus. Here is an example from the George Will article, which is on my watchlist and is what brought me here. If his removals are reverted back to, expect some regular editors of these articles to again insert the material in cases where it is reasonable. I considered going through all of Epeefleche's removals myself to try to decide which were valid, but since I don't know about many of these individuals, I'm disinclined to try. --CAVincent (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

CAV--My intent was only to delete entries that were contentious as to BLPs, or presented facts. If by accident I deleted anything not in one of those categories, I'm happy to be reverted. Your example above, it strikes me, falls into both categories, however. As it contains the assertion that Will commented on the presidential race while his wife was a senior staffer for the Dole presidential campaign, and also that Will commented on a Dole speech, with FAIR asserting that he failed to disclose that his wife had helped write it.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're reading way too much into Jimbo's comments, and jumping to conclusions about what he said. Jimbo was commenting on the Sugg piece published by FAIR, in the context of the lawsuit by Emerson against Sugg, and in the context of Sugg's own notability – not every single article ever published by FAIR. Other articles by other authors, also published by FAIR, should be discussed individually on these noticeboards if you're seeking a judgement on whether or not they're reliable for what they're being cited for. ← George^talk 09:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be said that Epeefleche didn't just remove FAIR as a source. He removed any mention of them. The article on Bill O'Reilly had a mention of FAIR as an organization that has criticized O'Reilly. That was it and epeefleche removed them. annoynmous 09:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He's done it again, he just removed FAIR from articles on Don Imus and Pat Buchanan. I swear if any other editor just massively deleted a particular group from over 30 articles he would get some kinda ban. annoynmous 10:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving this diff (regarding Annoy just now re-inserting Sugg/FAIR into the Emerson article) as an FYI, since while it relates to the above I assume that AN/I is the correct place to seek action on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You were never given permission to completely remove Sugg. All that was said that claims with no citation should be removed. Suggs general opinion is allowed. Even when Jimbo personally edited the article he didn't completely remove Sugg. annoynmous 11:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's above comment with regard to using FAIR in the Emerson article was clear. It is at odds with your assertion: "I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because a defamation lawsuit was dropped without a decision doesn’t prove the source is reliable. To my knowledge, there has never been a lawsuit against the Weekly World News whereby they conceded for the record that they fabricate stories; they typically had “settlements” wherein the lawsuits were dropped. Sugg quacks and waddles like a duck… so he’s a duck. Sugg is clearly not a reliable source and has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions (like how the U.S. government was actually responsible for flying those planes into the towers and for dropping them the rest of the way with explosives pre-planted in them). It is not Wikipedia’s role to give equal weight to every conspiracy contrarian who crawls out from under a rock attempting to pitch a book or a half hour on Larry King. If a wikipedian wants to get something into Wikipedia—where there is an assumption by our readership that the material has been given an encyclopedic treatment and the information has been properly vetted—then the editor needs to look towards sources that are well recognized as being reliable ones. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is your opinion of Sugg, not fact. Sugg is allowed to have his opinion of emerson expressed. No evidence has been shown that Sugg fabricated any story or mislead his audience.

The point I was making is that citing the lawsuit as a reason to dismiss Sugg altogether is faulty. If Emerson had proven that Sugg defamed him that would be a different story, but he didn't. It's like saying that we should dismiss a New York Times writer because Emerson sued him. annoynmous 23:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read this subsection for the first time. It appears Epeefleche had good reasons for certain edits, Annoynmous didn't like those edits, JimboWales got involved and essentially upbraided Annoynmous quite convincingly and essentially agreed with Epeefleche's actions in a certain matter, then Annoynmous and others made like what JimboWales said was of little consequence and Epeefleche was a bad guy for contacting JimboWales, and Epeefleche should be stopped. Anyway, that is essentially the message I got from reading the above. I thought you all might like to know how others may be viewing what's going on here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is completely false. The only thing Jimbo ever gave permission for was that sources that had no links should be removed. As several editors have stated above Jimbo never gave epeefleche permission to delete Sugg altogether and he certainly never gave permission to remove FAIR from over 30 articles.

I'm going to ask this again, is somone going to discipline epeefleche in anyway, or is he going to get away with going on a massive delete campaign? annoynmous 23:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not, that is the message I got from reading all that. Further, I used "in a certain matter" to indicate a limit, a restriction, so I suppose I agree with you, but you responded to something I did not say or do. Be that as it may, there you go again. I'm sure happy I'm not subjected to your crusades. I give epeefleche credit for continuing to politely explain why his edits are wiki-compliant. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How has epeefleche been polite? Instead of trying to discuss on the talk page he complained to everyone he could to get me banned for something. When all that failed he contacted Jimbo. I noted the irony that I had been accused of canvassing when epeefleceh contacted Jimbo who have never been involved in the dispute until now. The conversation was nowhere near as desperate as too need Jimbo's involvment.

Even an editor on the incidents noticeboard scolded epeefleche for constanstly complaining on every noticeboard he could. I have to say I'm still shocked that an editor can get away with massively deleting material from over 30 article and not get so much as a warning. annoynmous 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you: I'm still shocked that an editor can get away with massively deleting material from over 30 article and not get so much as a warning. Well, because Epeefleche pointed out to the community how Sugg is an unreliable source. He then got a big WP:BOLD and deleted material sourced only to Sugg. Jimbo backed one of those edits that Epeefleche was being editwarred on and even jumped in and made the edit himself that was being editwarred over. You’re not happy with any of this; you think Sugg is a swell and reliable source, the edits based on him are encyclopedic and good and should be put back, and that Epeefleche should be sanctioned by the community for having bad editing judgement and having morning breath. Got it. You have your opinion. Please note that much of the community and the highly influential founder of Wikipedia has their opinion and disagrees with you. The consensus seems to be clear here. Greg L (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how an appeal to Jimbo can ever be 'canvassing' or 'forum-shopping' in this important instance, as is implied, unlike the other examples of the different noticeboards posted to. Of course, Jimbo's view is not binding because it does not necessarily represent consensus, but it is a strong indicator of whether material of this type is appropriate for WP. IMHO, stuff like that remaining on WP creates risk for WP (and the editor who placed it there, and any editors fighting to keep it there), and the appeal served to short-cut the discussion. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. Greg L (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So mass deleting FAIR from over 30 articles is just "morning breadth". Where did Jimbo ever give permission for this to epeefleche. I know Greg L wants to make out that he speaks for everyone on this page, but CAvincent, John Z and George agree his behavior was wrong. I continue to insist that there should be some penalty for this.

Epeefleche says that Jimbo gave him permission to remove sugg. He was mentioning that in the context of the lawsuit, which I pointed out above was dismissed. Jimbo specifically said:

Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully.

My point is that Jimbo is wrong to say that based on the lawsuit Sugg should be dismissed when in fact the suit was dropped. Now if emerson had been succesful in his suit than a case could be made that sugg shouldn't be included, but since nothing was ever definitively proven in a court of law than I don't see any reason why his opinion can't be included.

It should be noted that when Jimbo edited the article himself he did not remove sugg. He said that it should only be removed after the original sources were found.

On canvassing, my frustration with the matter comes from the fact that what I did wasn't canvassing. I only left messages talk pages of people who had a history with the article. I didn't just send them out at random. I ackowledge that contacting jimbo is allowed in certain circumstances, I Just feel that epeefleche was operating under hypocritical reasoning. Instead waiting for this discussion to reach a final conclusion he decided he didn't have the patience for that and went to the top. annoynmous 09:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP is clear - poorly sourced contentious material must be removed from BLPs. Editorials can never be used for contentious claims of fact (such as what a person said). And your messages specifically said that someone must have a "penalty" which does not seem to come close to a neutral post at that point. Lastly, Jimbo speaking ex cathedra has the power to do so. If you wish to open an RFC/U on him, I suggest you do it. Collect (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of BLP indicates that "Editorials can never be used for contentious claims of fact (such as what a person said)." ? The reason I ask is that I see editorials/opinion pieces (in respectable sources) used like this quite often making claims about what someone has said (e.g. 'according to <unnamed person/coworker etc> X said...') and all sorts of other claims about a living person's opinions/bias etc etc. I'm never quite sure what to do about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite the usual disclaimers, I believe editorials do represent the views of the journal. However, stuff which is unattributed and clearly not the journal's opinion (e.g. comments like '<unnamed person/coworker etc> said Ohconfucius is a faggot...', or even tamer comments like '<unnamed person/coworker etc> said Sean.hoyland smokes [something he said he does not smoke]') ought almost certainly be deleted, and without hesitation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Editorials are statements of opinion - and hence material from editorials must be ascribed as the opinion of the writer. See [14]. Frequently "quotes" in editorials turn out to be substantially incorrect. Including the "quotes" that Palin believes dinosaurs are "Jesus ponies" and the like. That is why editorials are not considered valid sources for claims of fact. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is little to be gained by continuing to argue with annoynmous. His own user page suggests he is immune to social pressure. It states as follows:

I chose annoynmous because I'm persistent and I don't just back away because people want me too. I think a lot of people at wikipedia give up on the talk pages when they shouldn't because they get intimidated by other editors. I refuse to be intimidated.

Sugg is an unreliable source simply because his allegations are consistently preposterous when compared to the totality of evidence from reliable sources. Among Sugg’s other nonsense that don’t appear in reliable sources are…

That Emerson was involved in an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India.
That Emerson claimed that the Yugoslavians were behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.

Well… how silly of U.S. for thinking it was ~~Osama bin Laden~~ young men with Middle East connections (Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj) behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, not Yugoslavians. And to think that Pakistan would consult with a red-headed American journalist (someone who makes a living by revealing information) as they plot thermonuclear war with their nuclear-armed arch-enemy neighbor is asinine. After reading utter rubbish like this, a claim that Bush Jr., during a G-8 conference, crawled under a conference table, inserted matches into the shoes of Germany’s chancellor, and lit them in order to give her the “hot-foot” gag would look plausible.

Faced with evidence of Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction), having anything on Wikipedia (not just biographies of living persons) cited to him needs to be stripped from Wikipedia unless it corroborated by at least two other citations to sources that have a long-standing record of being reliable.

As for annoynmous, our continuing to argue here with him in vain attempts to get him to concede to anything seems, according to his own user page, an exercise in futility. For the rest of us to engage annoynmous in the face of abundantly clear evidence that he will never agree with those who take him to task is, in my opinion, tantamount to insanity. Why? I believe ‘insanity’ has amongst its many indicators “repeating a behavior that consistently fails with the expectation that doing it again will somehow result in a different outcome.”

It seems that the only effective way to deal with annoynmous is to leave it to the community at the ANI against him. Whether annoynmous “accepts” criticism or not from the community will be irrelevant there. Wikipedia is not to be used as the playground of those who would POV-push by cluttering it with rubbish cited to absurdly non-reliable sources. If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner. Greg L (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that Greg L has proved once again that he knows nothing about nothing. He apparently loves character assassination more than facts. He clearily ignores the fact that with the exception of Jimbo, a majority of editors on this page agree that Sugg should be allowed as long as only his opinion is stated and statements of fact are omitted. Heres a statement by editor DGG from the very committe he mentioned above:

I do not take it as the conclusion of the RSN discussion that the FAIR source cannot be used. Although it was initially used inappropriately to source a great number of controversial factual statements, for every one of which better sources have now been substituted , it can still be used to give the opinion of the author. Removing it from this article is unnecessary, and legal proceedings being taken elsewhere are irrelevant--even if it is eventually held that Sugg libeled the subject, that very fact will be relevant. Removing it from other articles is POINTYy. It has been challenged at RSN several times in different contexts, and always upheld as a usable source for opinion, ebven in BLPs.

Also for you information steve emerson did say the Yugoslavians were behind the the 1993 WTC attack. He also said that TWA was brought down by a bomb. Even the Robert Spencer piece in Frontpage defending Emerson admits he said this, but he gives the lame excuse that other reporters said the same thing and Emerson was just as stupid as they were. The fact of matter is that Suggs article exposed Emerson for the fraud he is and when Emerson tried to sue he ultimately failed to prove any defamation and then dropped the suit.

Greg L apparently operates under the same rationale that epeefleche does of "I don't like you, your not allowing my bias to reign on wikipedia, how can I get you banned".

Also if were gonna talk about editors using dubious sources, you need look no further than Epeefleche. He thinks a book by Sean Hannity is a good source for Senate Testimony. He also thought this was a reliable source for the article:

^ "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005,

I've asked Epeefleche dozens of times why he added this source, but he's never answered. This is the editor Greg L is going out of his way to defend. An editor who thought an ambiguous statement on a talk page by Jimbo gave him permission to go on a massive deletion campaign.

The funny thing is that if you looked at the talk page of the article you would know I've recently decided to give up editing the article. I frankly don't need this nonsense in my life. It leaves you in a depressed state. In fact originally I declined to edit the article altogether until I stupidly took the bait from a suggestion by stellarkid that it would be okay to edit the article.

I must say that I find Greg L's tone and attitude greatly insulting. Surely some of you on this page, even those who think I'm wrong on the general dispute, must agree that this is very rude behavior.annoynmous 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I also don't apologize for my user page comments. It's an attitute cultivated spefically to deal with editors like Greg L who think they own wikipedia. annoynmous 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I misinterpreted the #2 Sugg quote as referring to the second WTC attack. I’ve struck and corrected my post, which still shows that Sugg is an idiot. As for your refusal to apologize, no problem; Wikipedia, has mechanisms like the AN/I for dealing with intransigent editors. You might well be correct that Sugg is spot-on accurate in all his novel claims. What you don’t seem to appreciate is that the rest of the community, upon Epeefleche having pointed this out, seems to have had an epiphany here and there is a developing consensus opposite your views. The AN/I against you will bear this out one way or another. If the verdict of the community is contrary to your wishes, then as they say in the military: “So sad – too bad;” you’ll simply have to stop with your POV-pushing or be blocked or banned. Again, it’s not about you being right or wrong, it’s about whether your conduct conforms with our guidelines as viewed per the community consensus. And none of your above rant changes the point of my above post: arguing with you here is utterly pointless as you seem to me to be clearly immune to social pressure; that’s what AN/Is are for. Greg L (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to this discussion anyway. All you've done is hurl insults and whined about why I don't except a consensus that only exists in your head. I count at least 3 editors who agree with me, and even more who think epeefleche's deletions of FAIR from over 30 articles was wrong.

I must say I'm restraining myself from the urge to use some strong language against Greg L, but I believe in civility. I must say that no other editor on this page has used the insulting tone Greg L has. Even Jimbo, who's reasoning I disagree with, has stated his objections in a kind and courteous manner.

Someone needs to tell Greg L that you can't ban someone for responding on a talk page. So no matter how annoyed he get's he's gonna have to put up with me. annoynmous 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. I am not in the least bit annoyed with you. I am merely pointing out that further debating you here is utterly pointless and won’t change your mind. Goodbye; I will no further waste my time dealing with you. Nor will I bother weighing in on the AN/I against you; I’ll leave that task to others. If the community tires of your defiance and perceives the need to protect itself from you in what is a collaborative writing enviroment, then it has mechanisms to ensure that no one has “to put up with” you, as you say. Good luck and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd love to say I'll miss your company, but I've heard lying makes you age faster. If you had spent more time actually contributing to this discussion, maybe we wouldn't have gotten sidetracked on this petty tangent. I for one would love to see Greg L's complaint to the AR committe, "the editor wouldn't stop responding to me on the talk page".

To the other editors I'm sorry for the flippant tone, but I find Greg L's antics slightly amusing. annoynmous 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, yes, you can be banned for responding on a talk page, if your comments are either repetitive or uncivil, or violate WP:BLP, or for any of a number of other reasons. I don't know whether your edits have risen (fallen?) to that level. I don't think you want me to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I haven't done either of those, so I don't see how that's relevant. I recognize the uncivil prevision, but what prevision is there that says you can't be repetitive. I don't think I have been, but even if I was I don't see how you can ban someone for that. I'm allowed to respond to arguments against me and there's no rule that says I have accept people who say "just shut up and stop talking". annoynmous 19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Look on a serious note, I'm not trying to be a pest, I just get angry at editors like Greg L who operate with this smug attitude as if they own the discussion and I'm suppossed to obey like a good little dog. Although I disagree with some of the other editors, I have no personal beef with them and value there contributions. As I said above I've made a descision to stop editing the article in question altogether. It's just that I find Greg L's comments hurtful and insulting and I don't think I ever said anything on this page to warrant them. annoynmous 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would highly suggest that Greg L strike several of his own comments above that are violations of WP:BLP, including: "Sugg… has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions," "Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction)," and "Sugg is an idiot." We get it, you don't Sugg, but you still aren't allowed to violate BLP when discussing him. ← George^talk 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

George, I am rather amused at editors who employ the “I made it blue so it must be true” stunt. Just linking to WP:BLP and alleging my statements here are in violation of WP:BLP does not make it so. My style tends towards actually quoting relevant passages. The relevant passage is Where BLP does and does not apply, which states as follows:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot; consider using off-wiki communication instead. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.^[1] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.

The meaning is clear there. The last sentence speaks straight to issue at hand. Even on one’s own usertalk pages, one can’t make false allegations about living people. User talk pages are not to be used as blogs to besmirch someone’s reputation. However, this is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard where we are discussing the reliability of a source. It would be utterly impossible to have full, fair, vigorous debate about the reliability of using Sugg as a citation source in our articles if wikipedians were not free to opine that the author’s work are worthless pieces of fiction and similar such talk.

I find your comment to be an attempt to use wikilawyering arguments to presume to tell me what I may truly think and how I may express my thoughts here, in a venue where policy issues on reliable sources is being debated. I’ll thank you not to presume so much. Perhaps you might like it if I limit my real opinion of Suggs to such wikidrivel as “I find Sugg’s writings to lack a certain degree of ‘truthiness’ ” but such muzzling is simply a retarded notion, otherwise no real work could be done in shaping Wikipedia’s guidelines or in determining whether certain sources are truly reliable, or in determining whether an editor is correct in citing a certain source. Sugg may not write material that is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium and be free of legitimate and frank criticism of its quality here in these venues. I will, however, be sure to take care to not mention what I really think about Sugg and his work on my own talk and user pages.

If you feel my comments here unnecessarily slander Sugg (I find he does a good job doing that all by himself), just go find some uninvolved Admin to protect Sugg’s reputation by refactoring my above comments. Such Admin can then leave a notice on my talk page that my opinions stated here about him and his pure fiction (which resulted in a lawsuit) “rises to the level of defamation”, that Wikipedia does not protect such speech even here at this venue where vigorous debate in search of the truth is central to the venue’s purpose, and to remind me to speak more *nicely* about Sugg and his fine works here in the future. Greg L (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I will, however, be more than pleased to add a few “IMHO”s to some of my statements if that makes it clearer that I am not saying that Sugg’s work flat sucks as a matter of indisputable fact because he masquerades fantasy as being the truth in order to make a buck, but that I am simply opining that <stumble all over myself to appear as inoffensive as possible>“In my so-very humble opinion, I find that Sugg’s work flat sucks because it masquerades fantasy as being the truth in order to make a buck and hasn’t any role in being used in citations of fact here on Wikipedia—IMHO.”</stumble all over myself to appear as inoffensive as possible> Greg L (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than derail this thread, I've moved the issue over to AN/I. ← George^talk 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no harm if you “derail this thread” since no one is getting anything done here anyway except a bunch of “nyaah” and “neener neeners” that accomplish nothing. Wikidrama moves on to the next curtain call. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In closing

Thanks to all for participating in this discussion. I believe we've now addressed the issue posed at the opening of this string.

Jimbo provided clear and direct input above. He wrote:

'No defamation was ever proved' is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything – so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. ...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)".

The Emerson article now matches Jimbo's view of what it should look like ideally. A number of the Sugg statements were replaced with references to RSs, and the Emerson article now does not rely on/reflect the FAIR/Sugg article.

I understand that Annoy disagrees with Jimbo, and believes Jimbo is wrong, as Annoy has made clear above. Various other issues were raised that were not pertinent to this RS/N, which I'll not summarize. But curious readers can read them above.

A second RS/BLP policy issue that grew out of this one remains, however. That of whether it is proper to delete—from Wikipedia articles—text and refs that rely on FAIR: a) to make or support a contentious statement in a BLP, or b) to assert a fact. I've opened that issue up as a new post, reflecting my thoughts, some of which are already expressed above, here. That way interested editors can discuss the policy issue there, unencumbered by this string.

The related AN/I, regarding Annoy's editing, is taking place here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FAIR; RS for contentious BLP edits and statements of fact?

In this RS/N conversation I made the points that per policy, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting): 1) should not be used as an RS for contentious statements in BLPs; and 2) should not be used as an RS for facts.

As editor Annoynmous is aware, Jimbo commented: "I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:05 pm, 1 May 2010, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

FAIR highly contentious statements in BLPs

Following Jimbo's comment, I deleted some highly contentious statements in BLPs for which FAIR was the only source, such as the ones below. Annoy reverted me. Re-introducing the highly contentious statements into the BLPs.

Pertinent policies are as follows:

WP:GRAPEVINE instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced."

WP:RS says: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove ... poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person".

WP:BLP; Reliable Sources says: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source.... This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."

FAIR not an RS for statements of fact

On the understanding that FAIR is not an RS for statements of fact, I deleted a number of such entries from various articles. Annoy reverted me. Inserting FAIR statements of fact, as here: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].

Some of those edits obviously fit into both the BLP/contentious and fact categories. I believe the reversions/insertions were improper. I do not believe FAIR can be used as an RS for facts at all, including non-contentious facts. This is especially true in BLPs. And with regard to apparently important claims that are not covered by mainstream sources.

Pertinent policies are as follows:

WP:BLP; Questionable sources and external links says: "Material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections."

WP:BLP; Public Figures says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article.... If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

WP:REDFLAG says: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: ... apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; ... reports of a statement by someone that seems ... embarrassing, controversial ... Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included."

Opinion

I think that as a general matter, all agree it is acceptable to use FAIR for its opinion (where that is all that is given). As in "FAIR does not like X's book". See also this prior discussion and this one.

Mixed – opinion plus

Sometimes, an opinion is mixed with assertions of fact and/or a contentious statement. Where it is both opinion and either fact and/or opinion, it's not OK to use it, IMHO.

So, it would not be OK to reflect FAIR saying: "Our opinion is that Person X's racism is bad", where there is not RS support for the fact that Person X is racist.

Or "Our opinion is that the fact that Y did such-and-such is bad," where there is no RS support for the fact that Y did such-and-such.

The reason is that the harms that we are seeking to avoid (including harm to the individual, and potential lawsuits against Wikipedia) are more significant than the benefits of reflecting the opinion. Furthermore, it is a "camel's nose" problem.

I would be interested in the thoughts of others. The related AN/I, regarding Annoy's editing, is taking place here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two things here: FAIR in relation to one BLP that is contentious at the moment, and FAIR in general. I'm only going to comment on FAIR in general, as Jimbo seems to have weighed in on the question of the particular BLP. FAIR, it seems to me, does two things. The first is to collate things that have already appeared in the media. If we can see that FAIR is doing that, we can trace the sourcing back, and there is unlikely to be a problem. The second thing it does is undertake original investigative journalism. This leads to more complex cases for us. Our main question must be "does FAIR have a reputation for good-quality, fact-checked investigative journalism?" I do not know at present and suggest that people should present evidence here of commentary about FAIR's reputation in this. Not, please, anything that only relates to FAIR's political position. I think we know that the political position is squarely within what is called "liberal" in the US. They will always be contentious, otherwise what is their point in existing, but they're not extremist (at least not to my reading but then I'm in the UK). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Couple of points with respect to your comment. 1) if the issue is going to be FAIR in general as you have defined it, I think that conversation should take place here at the RS/N . 2) The other and equally important point is whether the comments above should stay or be reverted based on BLP issues, and if you agree that the above comments sourced to FAIR are appropriate or whether they should be reverted until a more primary source is found? This needs to be clearly addressed since it is causing problems across multiple articles. You tend to be fair, so please be quite clear about your opinion. Also,fyi, in US, "progressive" is generally thought to be left of left. :) Stellarkid (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum and online polls - reliable, notable?

The following issue also crosses into undue weight territory, but this seems like the best place to start the discussion. In the Salvia divinorum article, editors are in disagreement over the inclusion of self-selecting polls by local news operations (Indianapolis news station, Bangor (Maine) Daily News, Miami Herald). I'm involved in the discussion, so I'm presumably not presenting this completely impartially.

1. Are those news sources reliable sources for conducting and reporting their own polls? The WP article did qualify one of the poll results by including the disclaimer that it was "not a scientific survey and should not be used as a gauge of public opinion. It reflects only the opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate".

2. Are the "opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate" (and other self-selecting surveys) notable for an encyclopedia article, even with the explanation/disclaimer? The discussion is happening at Talk:Salvia divinorum#Online polls?. Thanks, First Light (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When an otherwise reliable source publishes something along with a disclaimer that the item should not be considered reliable, that item should not be included in WP. These online polls fit that criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Torah - The Blueprint of the Universe site

An IP is consistently adding material toGog and Magog from this article [27] a website which says "The purpose of this website is to provide substantial evidence that the Holy Torah was given to us by G-d, and that no other "holy" texts come even close to it." The exact source is on a page which says "In this area users can post different discussion topics". I have no reason to suspect that the IP (well, IPs, probably the same editor) are not just newbies, but it would help if I could point to a discussion here - or have it explained to me that I'm wrong if that's the case, but this looks pretty cut and dried. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm at 2 reverts there so I can't remove this (which I would have done with a pointer to here). Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even for a religious website it is very poor quality. Zero^talk 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else look at this please? Zero^talk 04:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of images/videos to determine if a member is in a band?

Over on How To Destroy Angels (band), I've been having a disagreement with another editor about whether or not Atticus Ross is in the band. Every article I can find says that the band is just Trent Reznor and his wife. But another editor has been including Atticus Ross, stating that he's in one video on the band's official website and he appears in a promotional image. As far as I know, videos posted on Vimeo and images aren't reliable sources. Can anyone make a judgment on whether or not he should be included? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For clarification: He was the first band member to be shown at all and the promo image for the band clearly shows him standing by lead singer Mariqueen Reznor. Pitchfork gave no evidence for Trent even being in the band (although it's an accepted fact among the NIN fanbase), they are using as much guesswork as anyone else. Sheepdean (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The latest information, from this article, says "As previously reported, How to Destroy Angels is Reznor's collaboration with his wife, former West Indian Girl frontwoman Mariqueen Maandig.". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet they post an image of Atticus Ross. Pitchfork is not infalliable, surely a band's own promotional info is the purest source? Sheepdean (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And in a petty thing - her name isn't even Mariqueen Maandig anymore, she took her husband's name at marriage, which perhaps comments on PF's journalistic abilities? Sheepdean (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Every single article, including those not published by Pitchfork, show her as Mariqueen Maandig. Just because she took her husband's last name does not mean that she gets credited as such. While Britney Spears was married to Kevin Federline, we didn't go through all her albums and change them to say "Britney Federline". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blabbermouth has posted that the project does in fact include Atticus Ross. [28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 (talk • contribs) 19:40, May 4, 2010

That site seems like a blog to me, which means it's not acceptable as a reliable source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blabbermouth is a news site and is acceptable as a citable resource [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 (talk • contribs) 19:55, May 4, 2010

Having a Wiki article makes the site notable, not reliable as a source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blabbermouth is directly cited three times on the main Nine Inch Nails article (which was approved as a featured article under Wiki standards), and is cited countless times on many other articles on Wikipedia. Blabbermouth is a reliable news site that often posts exclusive news and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 (talk • contribs) 20:21, May 4, 2010

Blabbermouth.net articles (not the forums and comments) would appear to be a RS for wikipedia, however it states he is a "frequent collaborator", which is not the same thing as being "in the band". --Insider201283 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article. The mention of "collaborator" is referring to his working relationship related to Nine Inch Nails - NOT in reference to the HTDA band. The post clearly states HTDA is a new project featuring TR & Mariqueen (they are mentioned as a pair to highlight their marriage) along with Atticus (who is a longtime NIN collaborator). Please make sure you don't misquote news articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 (talk • contribs) 13:30, May 5, 2010

My apologies you are correct, the source is fine to use to support the claim --Insider201283 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits on Shanghai and Beijing articles

Hi, your help is needed on the Shanghai article. User:BsBsBs removed several sourced statements [30] regarding Shanghai's population statistics in the lead introduction but insist on keeping a statement ("After Chongqing and Beijing, Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China") in which he did not find a reference for, but insist "it doesn't need a reference, it is evident to anyone who knows math". And this has led to edit conflict on the article. See the Talk:Shanghai#Population. Likewise in the Beijing article, the user insist on keeping a statement in the lead and in the demographic section in which wasn't referenced [31]. Your input and help is needed at these two articles. Thanks!--TheLeopard (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems BsBsBs did end up finding references, however the references the user found [32] are only individual municipal populations statistics, but not an actual reference that support the statement "Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China".--TheLeopard (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A source is needed to support the Shanghai claim. A list of municipalities and their populations would suffice. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved. --BsBsBs (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple TV and discussion about Digital Monitor Power Management

In the Apple TV article there is a disagreement on whether this edit [33] can be supported by the sources provided by the editor. The editor, AshtonBenson wants to include content that says that the Apple TV lacks support for Digital Monitor Power Management. He provides 5 sources to support this section (which is not in the article right now):

Support forums hosted by Apple computer, [34], [35], [36]
A user review on Amazon.com, [37] which incidentally refers to a 3-Port HDMI switch and not the Apple TV so the review may be buried in there (who knows).
Older Apple Support documents that make no specific mention of the Apple TV (in the first) or Digital Monitor Power Management (in Both), [38] (Circa 2007), [39] (Circa 2008)
A government supplied "Energy Star" list of products (no mention of ATV), [40]
An Apple TV manual that makes no mention of Energy Star compliance (or a lack there of). [41]

The discussion can be found here Talk:Apple_TV#AshtonBenson_and_Apple_discussion_forums and Talk:Apple_TV#Power_Management_Limitations. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC). There may also be WP:OR/WP:SYN issues here as well since the user considers a lack of mention for this type of power management in various documents to mean we can affirm that the ATV does not support Digital Power Management.Mattnad (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mattnad, you have misrepresented me. I have edited your quotation of my comments to accurately reflect my true statements. If you want me to participate in this discussion, you must not misrepresent my statements. AshtonBenson (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

AshtonBenson wrote:

In the Apple TV article there is a disagreement on whether this edit [42] can be supported by the sources provided by the editor. The editor, AshtonBenson wants to include content that says that it has been widely reported that the Apple TV lacks support for Digital Monitor Power Management. He provides 5 sources to support this section (which is not in the article right now):

A plethora of comments on the official support forums hosted, moderated, and supervised by Apple computer,
An identity-authenticated product review by someone who is an Amazon "top 100 reviewer"
An Apple Support document that makes mention of support for Digital Power Management
Evidence that both Apple TV and the EPA omit the Apple TV from all listings of of Energy Star compliant devices (from which any reasonable person would conclude that the device is not Energy Star compliant)
An Apple TV manual that, unlike other Apple manuals, does not indicate Energy Star compliance.

Ashton, don't edit other people's comments. I've restored Mattnad's post above, and just above this is what AshtonBenson changed it to. For a diff of what was changed between the two versions, see this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not RS for that citation. Dlabtot (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center

Would like to ask if editors here regard a report from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center as a reliable source in the following context:

This is the report, which an editor wants to use in the infobox of the Gaza War article. The source, which appears on the website of an NGO and lists no sources of its own, has just been added to support a new edit adding two weapons systems to the Gaza side of the infobox.

Sagger ATGM^[2]

Konkurs AF-5 ATGM^[3]

Please note that report is dated April 2008, while the conflict took place Dec 2008 - Jan 2009. (My concern is that while the report may or may not be reliable regarding what Hamas had, how could it be reliable regarding what Hamas actually used in the conflict, as it predates the conflict timeframe by eight months?)

The corresponding sources for Israeli weaponry were published after the conflict, and report on which Israeli weapons systems were actually used in the conflict. This "not just had but used" distinction has been a requirement in the addition of weapons systems to the infobox, so would appreciate uninvolved editors' feedback on whether (1) the source itself; and (2) the fact of the predating of the report, satisfy RS criteria in this context.

Thanks. RomaC (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

2 cents. Put it into context, this is an intelligence estimate, so there will always be errors. However, professional intelligence estimate such as this will always be notable opinions. So this report is reliable on what weapons had been used against the Israeli. Thus it is reliable to say something like "IDF had been attacked with missiles such as AT-4 and AF-5 during battle with Hamas", but not for statement such as "Hamas had AT-4 and AF-5". Jim101 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not sure I get that. We have a report on Hamas weapons that came out eight months before the War, and the question is whether we can use that report to support listing (in the infobox) Hamas's use of those weapons during the war. Sorry for the confusion. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center would need to be cited only with attribution, so it wouldn't be appropriate for an infobox. Also, you are right to point out that a report published before an event can't be a reliable source for what happened during that event. I'm not sure what Jim101 is talking about in his comment above. Dlabtot (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that intelligence report, like reports from Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, should not be taken as facts because intelligences by nature are guessing games. Thus my thought is that intelligence reports should always be used with attribution in a controversial issue. Jim101 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for commenting. Dlabot, thanks for your reasoning I agree that an April report can't reflect events occurring the following Dec-Jan, but this is what has happened with a rash of new edits to the Gaza War infobox (several more weapons systems have been added and sourced to this same report since I first posted here). This is my first time using the RS/N, how would you suggest I proceed back at the article? I am outnumbered by editors who are building a huge Gaza arsenal in the infobox, using this old and questionably reliable source to do so. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN performs strictly an advisory function; a consensus formed here is not enforceable and it's not a part of dispute resolution per se; which is the course to follow if you are in an intractable dispute. But frankly, imho, dispute resolution doesn't work that well, so beyond advising you to pursue dispute resolution, my biggest piece of advice is to remember that Wikipedia is Just A Website, and if some things here are wrong, it's really No Big Deal. Dlabtot (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In milhis articles, it is possible to reach a compromise by attributing in the info box. For example, break down the weapons into two sections, like confirmed weapons and probable weapons. The second point of my earlier comment is that for professional intelligence reports like the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, even though the reports are not facts, it is an important and well established opinion that cannot be ignored. Thus IMO you have to put those estimated arsenals somewhere in the article. Jim101 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Watching a program and using that as a citation

Following the 2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting in Cleveland, Ohio, on his radio show Gibson commented "I knew the shooter was white. I knew he would have shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again. And I could tell right away because he killed himself. Hip hoppers shooters don't do that. They shoot and move on."

[The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007]

and is it fine to use you tube videos like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8sFzuWouo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstoryonly%2F2008%2F1%2F25%2F163014%2F652&feature=player_embedded to support content in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what you are asking. People reads books and use them for citations. Would you please restate/clarify your concern? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Books are good sources and researchable. TV programs are not, I am asking if I watch a TV program and I think that is interesting I will add some of that to the wikipedia, is my reporting of my viewing a wikipedia reliable source, and if so would I have to attribute myself as the source of the report, as in-the primary source in the TV show that I watch and it is being reported by me, I am in that case the reporter should I add my name to the citation-publisher=The TV show|works=Off2riorob. ? Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you can link to the youtube video because unless it's posted by Gibson or his show, its a copyvio. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I was led to believe, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how long the clip is for it to be a legal copyvio problem and secondly you dont need a link to source something. As long it happened you can source the show itself without linking. If for whatever reason you want to link it check places similar to HULU and such to see if there's any place that legally keeps archives of his show. It is verifiable because someone can always contact the producers and ask for a written transcript of the show. Verifiable does not mean it is able to be verified by EVERYONE and right away from their own computer, it just means SOMEONE could if they wanted to do the work verifying it.Camelbinky (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this your personal position? If it is policy could you link me to it please. Content in BLP articles should I read be sourced to the highest quality of sourcing, there is a clear copyright issue there. The uploader is not official, it is just that the copyright has not been enforced. If you were to do this, would you name the uploader, as in who do you attribute it to, for example= ((publisher=Youtube/via uploader mickytheblue-original copyright-Fox News)) ? Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That an online resource is not needed is clear in WP:V, specifically WP:SOURCEACCESS. The statement about copyright not applying if the clip is short enough seems dubious. Taemyr (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Many programs have transcripts of shows available. If that is the case, a transcript can be cited in an article, even if it is an offlie (paper only) resource. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a documentary film or tv show could be a reliable source, depending upon the reputation of the producers, and as long it is obtainable - i.e., to be verifiable I have to have some means of viewing the documentary and verifying that it said what the text added to Wikipedia says it said. Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe I'm not clear about what you are actually asking. Dlabtot (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As to the youtube link, no. Dlabtot (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Asian Tribune

I just used this article from the abovementioned publication for our article Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But the two articles seem to overlap on quite a few points so I am wondering who is copying who. Anyone have an insight on the reliability of this publication? Thanks, 86.41.80.244 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

looking through the history of the Wikipedia article, and what it said in the weeks before the Asian Tribune article was published, they do not seem to overlap that much... so any overlap would come after the fact (ie if anyone is "copying" it is Wikipedia.) The Asian Tribune article looks (at first glance) like a reliable media source to me. Is there a reason to question it? Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not especially, just hadn't heard of it, top-tier pan-Asian news orgs are uncommon, and it is published by a vaguely-titled NGO rather than a commercial publisher. Thanks very much for the research, it is appreciated. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Court document as source for fact a case was dismissed

Simple question. Is this UK Companies court document, received via email from The Treasury Solicitors office[43], a reliable source for the statement "the case was dismissed" in reference to the case it refers to? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you own amwaywiki.com, the source you link to? Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I linked to a document, not a website. Do you believe the document is a forgery? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that. You do own the website that hosts the document, right? Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It could only be acceptable if http://www.amwaywiki.com is a reliable source, but as an open wiki it is absolutely not a reliable source. I could make a "document" like that with Photoshop in 10 minutes. Moreover, a wikipedia editor who receives a document by private email cannot use it on wikipedia on account of the ban on original research. You need to find a newspaper article or official (eg UK govt) website with equivalent information. Zero^talk 13:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, what is so complicated about this? AmwayWiki is not the source under discussion. The source is a UK government document. A copy of it is available via that link. Secondly, since the document required NO interpretation, then NO original research is occurring. I do not appreciate being accused of forging government documents. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No one has accused you of forging anything. Your document, however, is not reliably sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes you have. I received a copy of the source document from the UK government and uploaded it on that Wiki. You are claiming it may not be accurate - that is directly accusing me of having forged it, as has Cameron below. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. We've merely stated that your personal email communications and uploads to amwaywiki.com are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful with documents that are hosted on wikis or the like, I was recently involved with an article where it relied heavily on sources that, on the face of it, reliable but were actually photo-shopped and altered. Can you point towards the original document on an official site? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cameron, as I stated I sourced that source from the UK government. If it has been photoshopped, then I did it, and I do not appreciate it the accusation --Insider201283 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't appreciate what people tell you over and over, why do you keep asking? Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there is apparently confusion over what a Wikipedia source is, I'll rephrase the question -

Is a document published by the UK Government dismissing a case a reliable source for the the statement "the case was dismissed"?

--Insider201283 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it was published. How does one go about verifying the existance of the document? Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Same way you verify the existence of a book or newspaper or anything else that isn't online. You go to the publisher or an archiver (like a library) and ask to see it. Just because something is not online does not mean it is not a source. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the archive of this document located, and how do we acquire the document? There are wikipedians througout the kingdom, so I'm certain we can have somone go grab a copy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you where I got it. NOTE TO OTHER EDITORS: Hipocrite is one of the editors I am in dispute with. They want reported allegations from a court case published in Wikipedia, based on one news report from a small town newspaper in another country altogether, and contradicted by the actual court documents, but they do not want the fact it was dismissed in the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) You said "email the UK." We're in a dispute because you previously asked for help from this exact board about using sources, and I found that you were using sources poorly, and tried to fix your article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You did no such thing, you removed sourced claims, claiming the sources were unreliable. You are falsely claiming the source is AmwayWiki, when it is not. The source is a UK government publication. I uploaded a copy there for convenient access, and you are saying it might be forged - ie directly accusing me of a serious crime. As best I can tell the document is covered by Crown Copyright, otherwise I'd uploaded it to media commons and you could no longer use the bogus obfuscation about amwaywiki. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283, I understand your frustration but you can't use an unpublished document that you obtained by yourself. Those are the rules, please read WP:OR and WP:V. And publishing it yourself doesn't count, see WP:SELF. There have been many cases like this in Wikipedia over the years. It doesn't have anything to do with trust, it just the way the rules are. Zero^talk 14:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Zero0000 - on what basis are you claiming the document is unpublished? AFAIK all UK court judgements are published. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia requires that all sources be verifiable, by which we mean that they need to be published by a reliable source, so any reader can go to a public library and check the contents for himself, if they are not published online. If a reader needs to submit a special request to some government agency to obtain a copy, this would not be a "published" document, but one that is supplied on request. In such cases we should rely on a secondary source (such as a newspaper article or a legal gazette) which reports on the topic. Crum375 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea if you have to submit a special request or not. I would assume it's available in UK government archives, I simply asked for a copy. The UK government is clearly a reliable source, and the document is clearly verifiable. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It was previously requested that you inform us as to how, exactly, you asked for a copy. You said it would be too hard to search through your old emails to find out how you asked for a copy. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the first line of this section, I told you where I got it from. I do not have the original email sent, no, it was a year and two computers ago.--Insider201283 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I believe out-of-the ordinary methods of obtaining documents require extensive directions within the citation of how to the document, i.e., "send email to lordhighbaliff@YYYY.gov.invalid requesting document XXXX."

I also believe using a court record to support the claim that a case was dismissed is unwise, because sometimes cases are dismissed in a way that they cannot be reopened, but in other situations a variation of the case is reopened in a matter of minutes or days. In general, Wikipedia editors are not qualified to determine whether the case can be reopened or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if true, that does not change the fact of whether a case was dismissed or not. Ideally of course we just need to know where the UK publishes their decisions or makes them available. The document has a reference number, I assume that's what's used for finding it. Just because we don't know the "ordinary" method for retrieving a source does not make the source invalid. When I was a university researcher, my method of obtaining most sources was to email the interlibrary loans librarian and ask them for a copy. Does that make a journal article they emailed me a copy of suddenly an unreliable source? Of course not. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/chancery.htm -

Judgments from the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal, and from the Administrative Court, selected by the judge concerned, are available for free on the Bailii (British and Irish Legal Information Institute) database. If a High Court judgment is not available on BAILII , contact the court direct for a copy.

From what I can find it's not on the online database, so therefore contact the court directly for a copy. WP:V states The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources --Insider201283 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Court documents like this are primary sources that are published (ie made available to the public) by the court. Anyone may request a copy to verify what they say... they thus pass our test for primary source reliability, and we can cite the decision. That said... what is less clear is whether we may include a courtesy link to the pdf file copy at amwaywiki. The key is determining whether we trust the host site to give us a true and exact copy of the original decision. In this case I don't. Thus, I would say that you may cite the original decision... but you should not include a link to the pdf file copy as part of the citation. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was exactly the way I had originally included it in the article. I provided a link in talk to the copy I had uploaded to amwaywiki. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The very limited ways in which primary sources can be used do not include interpretation of the type you have engaged in. Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. The document says "IT IS ORDERED THAT the said Petition be dismissed". I wrote in the article "the case was dismissed". Which part of that exactly was it you considered to be disallowed "interpretation"? --Insider201283 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

amwaywiki.com is unusable on WP for any purpose Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not in dispute, and AFAIK it's not being used anywhere, so what's your point? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the published source that you are referring to? Who published the alleged source on what date? Dlabtot (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear: obtaining a document from a court and interpreting that document is original research. You need to find a published source. Dlabtot (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, interpreting the document would likely be OR. Obtaining a source and reporting what it says is not - it's the basis of wikipedia. Unless you're defining "reading" as "interpreting", which could be argued, and in which case we can shut this site down. :-) The document is In the Matter of Network Twentyone Support Systems Ltd and In the Matter of The Insolvency Act 1986, Petition 2653 of 2007, Ref: LT6/23859A/ARl4E, published by The High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court, April 3, 2009.--Insider201283 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The document in question is a publicly available official court document, and is thus reliable.

That said, it is a primary source. And, as with all primary sources, interpreting, analyzing, or drawing conclusions from the document would indeed be OR... however a purely descriptive statement (such as "the petition was dismissed on 3 April, 2009") would not be OR. That is a fact stated in the document itself. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

one thing to check... I am not familiar with UK legal terminology so I am not sure if the "Petition" equates to what we in the US call the "Case" (as in: "Case dismissed") or whether it equates to a "motion" (as in: "Motion denied"). You should probably double check to see exactly what was being dismissed. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

a formal letter to a court of law requesting a particular legal action[44] A person or body petitions a court for a certain action, the court hears the position, and the petition is dismissed or accepted. A petition is similar to a "complaint". Dismissing the petition is the same as dismissing the complaint or case. The article would be better served using the word "petition" I think. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. And I agree... use "Petition" in the article. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, please explain why you believe "publically available" is a sufficient substitute for "published". As far as I know there is no such convention and attempts to legalise it have been unsuccessful, see WP:ARCHIVES. Zero^talk 04:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to preempt Blueboar, in RS/N there's consensus[45] after consensus[46] after consensus[47][48][49][50] that, with provisos, court decisions are RS (including, interestingly enough, by people who are saying something different here). None of them mention WP:ARCHIVE - which was before my time but frankly looks bizarre. If a document is available to the public, then it's been published - that's pretty much the definition of the word. Many on WP:ARCHIVE seem to think a document can be made available to the public yet not be published. How? Telepathy? --Insider201283 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Publication is a legal concept with non-obvious meaning. See publication for a taste, and this paper for an example of an argument about it. A sillier example: if anyone on the planet asks me my shoe size, I will tell them, but still I have not published it. To be clear, I have no interest in the wp article this case is referring to (didn't even look at it) and don't especially mind if the result goes your way. But I think the issue deserves proper consideration because it goes to the heart of what the Wikipedia rules allow and what they don't. Can I discover something buried in some dusty national archive and use it as a source on the grounds that in principle any member of the public can obtain it? I think most experienced editors would say it has to be published in some other place first. I remember a case long ago where someone wasn't allowed to use a birth certificate obtained through official channels. What we need is clarification. Zero^talk 07:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think publication requires some kind of fixed form that can be verified by another person, whether digital or paper or other recorded multimedia. Alas our brains are not fixed form, so your verbal acknowledgement doesn't fit the bill! Once said, it's gone. On the other hand, if it was recorded by a security camera by a reliable party, and that film was publicly available in it's original from or as an accurate copy, then that's a published source, even if you have to make the effort to go and ask to look at it or get a copy. Can you discover something buried in some dusty national archive and use it as a source on the grounds that in principle any member of the public can obtain it? Absolutely. WP:V explictly states - the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources. Can't get much clearer than that. Back in 2006 I suspect the WP community was rather more biased towards internet sources, since then it's taken a more scholarly bent. --Insider201283 (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to reset this discussion and look at it from a different direction, another issue with this source is the idea that Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. There is a danger that articles become messy news agregators so there has to be some basis on which information is reproduced. If the fact that the application was dismissed was so unnewsworthy that no reliable source has been found that reported it then surely per UNDUE this information is not significant and should not be included. Regarding the other arguments, I do generally agree that this falls outside the idea of primary sources and into original research as the context of a case or motion being dismissed requires intepretation and if there is secondary sourcing interpretation to fall back on then this clearly cannot be percieved as a reliable or verifiable fact to fall back on. For example, oral and table applications get rejected at the first review all the time but are still often accepted later on so one dismissal really needs some context and reliable reporting to be used in any meaninful way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, court documents of this nature are RS, but I would think failure to report the outcome of a case speaks to notability of the whole case, rather than just the case outcome. Reporting serious allegations against a company while not reporting they were dismissed takes WP:UNDUE in a whole other direction. On this particular issue, as Blueboar pointed out, we're talking about a petition being submitted and dismissed - not some particular aspect of a case, and the source is being used for nothing more than "the petition was dismissed". Zero interpretation is required. In the wider (wikipedia) case though, it has been argued elsewhere, and I agree, that court judgements are both secondary sources and primary sources. The judge typically gives a secondary report on the primary source information of the complaint and evidence, ie the judge is the expert author interpreting the primary source documents, and his reporting of that is a secondary source. The judges published decision would however be a primary source for that decision. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why you bothered to ask the question if you are so unwilling to accept what anyone tells you if it doesn't chime with your own understanding? This is not a judges summing up and even were it we would expect to use the reporting of that summing up rather then relying directly on the transcript of the case but since you are not listening I guess this whole edit will pass you by. I'm sorry you don't like the outcome but the considered response of the majority of the editors who have reviewed your request is that the court document doesn't fly and these arguments are as policy based as much as anything here ever is. So I think you should just accept the inevitable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not realise you'd made a particular opinion known on the current issue, but rather were talking more generally, and I responded primarily in the more general case. I thought I was agreeing with what you were saying, but clearly I misunderstood. There has been no real consensus here - only a handful of the editors who have given opinions are uninvolved. As already noted in the numerous links above, the overall Wikipedia consensus[51],[[52],[53][54],[55],[56][57], at least in the past few years, is that court documents are reliable sources but need to be used with care, with the standard warning of avoiding interpretation of a primary source. A few editors have pointed that out here as well, and that concern has been addressed since the source is not being used for any such interpretation. As such it appears the document in question is fine for what it's being used for "The petition was dismissed". Wikipedia even has a template for citing court cases [58] so the idea court cases can't be cited is clearly not a tenable one. Are you disagreeing with this? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1) primary sources can be used with care, 2) it's simply stating verbatim what the source does. No OR, no Synthesis. It appears to be a valid copy of an order (I spent most of the summer arguing with the Chancery Division over a probate case). However, the fact that it's hosted on an open wiki is a problem. I can verify that it looks like a valid order - I can't verify that it is one. If the TSol was willing to send you a copy, could you ask them to email OTRS with a copy verifying that it is a true likeness? Would that be acceptable to people here? Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For the record (and this isn't direct at you in any way Ironholds), I find the implication I have committed a serious crime and forged this document extremely offensive and a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I don't know if there's much chance of getting TSoL to forward a copy to someone other than the person requesting it, but I guess we can try. Where should I ask them to send it to?--Insider201283 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi bio and Huffington Post source

duplicate thread with #Deepak Chopra

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

This Huffington Post blog by Deepak Chopra [59] is the sole source for the following text in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi biography:

"Following the Maharishi's death in 2008, Chopra wrote that the Maharishi collapsed in 1991, reportedly after being handed a glass of orange juice by "a foreign disciple". He was taken into intensive care with kidney and pancreas failure. Chopra says that the illness was kept a secret by the Maharishi's family and the foreign disciple was never apprehended. He tended to Maharishi during a year-long recovery." Source is here: The Maharishi Years - The Untold Story: Recollections of a Former Disciple

No other sources can be found to substantiate these events. Should this text remain in the article?-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chopra is certainly notable enough that his opinion should be mentioned. However, it should be attributed to him as being his view, and not stated as a blunt fact. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at #Deepak Chopra, above. Will Beback talk 17:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the involved parties (like me) were not notified and able to participate in the previous post I would welcome any additional input. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You were notified.[60] Next time I'll send you an engraved invitation. ;) Will Beback talk 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the thread above is still open. There's no reason to have two threads on the same issue, so let's just continue discussing it there.

Long War: The IRA & Sinn Féin

<ref>{{cite book | last = O'Brien | first = Brendan | authorlink = Brendan O'Brien (Irish journalist) | title = Long War: The IRA & Sinn Féin | publisher = The O'Brien Press | date = 1999 | pages = 153 | doi = | isbn = 0-86278-606-1}}</ref> was used as a source for a factoid in a biography, but the subject states that the claim was incorrect. A second cited source does not include the claim. It looks to me as if the O'Brien of O'Brien Press is the author himself, making this self-published. Is it reliable? Guy (Help!) 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This looks like the same book, published in the USA by Syracuse University Press; the accolades on the back cover make it look like O'Brien's a serious journalist and regarded as an authority on this subject. So it looks like this book is a reliable source. He could still be wrong about whatever factoid is in question, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

O'Brien is widely cited in books about the Troubles. See: http://www.obrien.ie/author.cfm?authorid=7 ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is a passport a reliable source?

The passport issued by France in 1837 to Chopin bears the phrase "issu de parents français". A copy can be seen here [61]. However, a certain Polish editor is insisting "I see you are still having problems understanding what a proper source means." Is a passport a reliable source of why somebody has the citizenship which they had at the time when their passport was issued? Varsovian (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is a reliable primary source, with all the limitations of such. Am I correct in assuming that the issue is whether Chopin is to be categorized or called "French" or "Polish"? Remember that passports focus on national citizenship, not ethnicity. Also, people can have more than one nationality (and even more than one ethnicity). Thus, Chopin can be both French and Polish. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Are these documents aviliable anywhere? While we don't require online resources for our sources, we do require that they are published. So the source in this case is actually the web page. What guarantee do we have of the reliability of it? Taemyr (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The passport itself is not 'published', it can't be considered a reliable source. Even if it were, using it would require interpretation which is verboten for primary sources. Dlabtot (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If the question is (French) citizenship, then there is a published source cited in Chopin: "Tad Szulc writes (Chopin in Paris, p. 69): "[...] the French granted him permission to stay in Paris indefinitely 'to be able to perfect his art'. Four years later, Frédéric became a French citizen and a French passport was issued to him on 1 August 1835." If that source is accepted, then the matter should be settled. The challenge was: "Do you have a source that Chopin's mother was "French-Polish"?" The French citizenship wasn't challenged. There is a primary source (passport) and a secondary source (Tad Szulc: Chopin in Paris). Assuming the quote is correct, the matter should be settled. --BsBsBs (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source has been verified: http://books.google.com/books?id=dyGlBVqYFjwC&pg=PA69&dq=%22chopin+in+paris%22++%22Fryderyk+became+a+French+citizen%22&ei=h0HjS5ymD42SkATUrtHVCQ&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22chopin%20in%20paris%22%20%20%22Fryderyk%20became%20a%20French%20citizen%22&f=false --BsBsBs (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something? While a discussion at Chopin's talk page was going on, another was taking place right here with no notice on the talk page (if there was one, I did not see it), resulting in no participation of those who have been involved in the matter for days. Then hardly nine (9) hours after the discussion began, it was over, the verdict being handed down quickly, kangaroo court style.

Although the matter has been settled by "higher-ups" while we were not given the chance to plead our case here, I shall give my thoughts on the matter anyway:

As much as I would like to take into consideration the findings of Mr. Tad Szulc, which can be nothing but right since he put his findings into a book form (yes, there is sarcasm in my tone), I want to point out that Chopin's first French passport was issued to him in 1834, year Mendelssohn invited him to be a guest piano solo performer at the Niederrheinisches Musikfest in Aachen. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6JN8id3MrU8J:wapedia.mobi/en/Lower_Rhenish_Music_Festival+Music+festival+in+Aachen+in+1834&cd=2&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Furthermore, if Chopin had come to France as a foreigner, he would have had to wait five (5) years after his arrival to France before he could become a French citizen. He arrived in France in 1831, thus, if a foreigner, he could not have got a French passport before 1836. Consequently, am I allowed to suggest that Mr. Tad Sulzc may have given the wrong information?

--Frania W. (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Consequently, am I allowed to suggest that Mr. Tad Sulzc may have given the wrong information? -- certainly you are allowed to suggest that. And if you managed to get your research and conclusions published in an independent reliable source, it could possibly even be included in Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One consideration... Chopin's father was considered a French citizen (by France), so he might not have had to wait five years. The French have traditionally considered anyone born of a French citizen parent to be automatically French.... no matter where they were actually born. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Frania, before we get bogged down here, let me say you are correct. You are more than correct. The problem is simply that despite Chopin's father being a Frenchman, having been born in France, who emigrated to Poland, some people simply cannot tolerate calling Chopin, "Polish-French". It just upsets and offends them too much. Don't you understand that these editors can only see this kind of an issue from their own point of view? Passports, baptismal certificates, the Code Napoleon, are only acceptable "evidence" if they confirm their own position. If you come up with a source that is scholarly and indisputable and confirms your position (you have already), it will be contested as being a minority viewpoint. A minority viewpoint that is offset by hundreds of articles printed in "tygodniks", which if questioned will cause you to be defamed as, a bigot, racist, anti-this and anti-that. Because even though they are not in the English language and untranslated, they are articles from their "neck of the woods", and therefore you are discriminating against them because you are a closet enemy of their homeland. Been through it myself. Next you'll get the "google hits" argument. And there are are couple of other tried and true tactics. You might even get the, "but it does no harm leaving Chopin as exclusively Polish". After this matter is finally assessed by people who can look at it objectively and have no nationalistic axe to grind (and I know you do not), I'm certain there will be adjustments made to the article. A little patience and persistence will get the article right. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So it seems we have the problem (again) of a primary source document saying something different to a secondary source? The primary source document of a passport is reliable - but is it published? Only if it (or authentic copies) are available for review by the public, and thus verifiable. If that is the case, then it is a reliable, verifiable, primary source document. However - one then has the concern of whether interpretation is being used, or the primary source is simply being used to report a fact. issu de parents français states he was given a passport (and thus had citizenship) because a parens was french - no interpretation is necessary. Is the authenticity of the passport image in question? Is the original, or copies from an acknowledged authority, available for review and verification? If so, it's a usable source for the claim under WP:RS and speaks to the (un)reliability of the Szulc book. Alas, as evident in this discussion, some editors have the view that secondary sources trump primary sources, even for statements of fact, so it may be an uphill battle. I'd suggest the solution is to report what both say and let the reader decide which is likely to be more accurate. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283: the so-called "primary sources" I have brought into the discussion are given by Emmanuel Langavant, a French jurist also professor at the Lille University in France (not a fly-by-night blogger as I mentioned somewhere else). Mr. Langavant put up Chopin's baptismal register (in Latin, and which he translated into French) & his 1837 passport (again writing out the contents of the manuscript passport). So, we are not only seeing facsimile of the original documents, but their explanation by a respected jurist. Mr. Langavant does the same type of exercise in his explanation of the 1804 Code Napoléon, the civil Code that was in effect at the time of Chopin's birth (1810) in the Duchy of Warsaw, where Frédéric Chopin was born.

RE the three above cases, I do not understand how I can be pegged with the label of original research, when I am showing, not "my OR", but that of someone else, a professional in the field, to boot.

My posting of the Encyclopédie Larousse article on French nationality, according to the 1804 Code Napoléon as pertaining to Chopin's case, was only to show the exactitude of what Mr. Langavant is saying.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The following was addressed as an answer to Blueboar, but met an edit conflict:

Blueboar: this is exactly what I have been saying until getting "blue" in the face (not really meant as a pun because of your name... but kind of!)

Born in France, Chopin's father was French and, according to the 1804 Code Napoléon in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of Frédéric Chopin's birth, because of this French nationality of his father (case of jus sanguinis) our darling little Pole was also a darling little Frenchman!

All the documents I have brought to the discussion are being rejected because considered primary sources; personally, I do not agree with this, but that seems to be Wikipedia policy, or at least its interpretation in my case, and, if so, there is nothing I can do about it until I come up with a good secondary source, the one I brought, that of a French jurist, Emmanuel Langavant, showing his baptism register, 1837 French passport with mention of his parents being French, and the explanation of the Code Napoléon a child born of French parents outside of France is French, again not being accepted.

http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin5.htm (baptism register)

http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin6.htm (nationality)

http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin7.htm (1837 passport)

The online Encyclopédie Larousse article on French nationality is also being rejected. The paragraph with title L'Empire et le droit du sang rétabli explains the Code on French nationality at the time of the birth of Chopin, i.e. during the reign of Napoléon I.

http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/nom-commun-nom/nationalit%C3%A9/72722#908448

Then comes the "accepted proof" given by a Tad Szulc totally wrong, but accepted because published in a book form - thus a perfect secondary source, although he does not seem to give any proof of was he is saying. Has anyone ever seen his proof of Chopin having become a French citizen? Any respected historian would be more than happy to show a facsimile of such a document in his published book. Unfortunately, Monsieur Szulc does not seem to have done so, but we must take what he is writing as Gospel Truth. This does not make any sense to my logical mind.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As a P.S. to my above comment: could not it be asked of those using Tad Szulc as a reference to look into his book in more depth, i.e. beyond page 69 quoting the sentence saying that Chopin became a French citizen in 1835 etc. and see if TS gives a source for his affirmation and, maybe, a facsimile of the document showing that Frédéric Chopin did become a French citizen in 1835, thus shutting me off forever? - although, if Chopin did become a French citizen, then he would be... French-Polish, or maybe only - oh, my God! only French? (Oh, la! la!) (Please remember that my argument is that Chopin was Polish and French at birth.) Seriously, the reason for my asking is that Wikipedia demands that we use only "reliable" secondary sources, but how do we know that secondary sources are reliable & more knowledgeable than a civil code & official documents? There are thousands of (historical) books filled with inexactitudes transmitted from one author to another, then being sanctified by the sacrosanct "Google hits syndrome". If Wikipedia keeps this up, within a few years it will be the laughing stock of the scientific/literary/historical community, and will be only the encyclopedia of the tabloids - a few articles come to my mind, Marie Antoinette, Comtesse du Barry, Louis XVII, to name only these three.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If they don't like the primary source... try some secondary ones... a simple google books search turned up several secondary sources that seem to say he was at least partly French. I realize you are up against POV pushers, but stick to your guns. Sooner or later you will find an impeccable source that they can not shoot down. You might also raise the issue at WP:Neutral point of view or at the NPOV notice board. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

Deepak Chopra is a noted physician, guru, author, and lecturer. He first came to prominence as the top assistant to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the creator of Transcendental Meditation, though the two later had a falling out and Chopra went his own way. Following the Maharihi's death two years ago, Chopra wrote a recollection of his former master. He published it in his own blog[62] and on the Huffington Post.[63] It includes events and conversations that haven't been reported elsewhere. In particular, it recounts an occasion when the Maharishi became severely ill, possibly due to poisoning, and his family in India chose to keep it secret from most western followers. There is now a controversy on talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Huffington Post about the usability of this source. I am not aware of any official response to Chopra's article from the movement, so the only controversy seems to be in the mind of one editor. My view is that Chopra is a notable, reliable source for his own personal experiences with the Maharishi, and that the material in the article is clearly attributed to him. (See Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Years in Vlodrop (1991-2008)). I believe he would be an adequate source even if his recollection was only published on his blog, but the fact that it was also on the Huffington Post tends to add more weight to its reliability. Am I correct? Will Beback talk 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is a letter that was posted in response to Chopra's article, purportedly written by a senior Indian official of the movement, that denies some details of Chopra's account but not the essential facts of the illness. [64] Will Beback talk 16:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that Chopra's account of the Maharishi will be of wide interest. It's only his memory, and it seems though their relationship was up and down, so attribute it. Either Huffington Post or his own writings are appropriate sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be of interest, but it's still a self-published source (The HuffPost source is also a blog, and HuffPost blogs have a poor reputation for fact checking!), so under WP:SPS the question is whether Chopra could be regarded as an "expert" on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and has any RS published sources on him. A quick google suggests he does[65], so SPS sources would be OK both for info and his opinion, though obviously care should be taken for the former.--Insider201283 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is no other source, then I advise pulling the content. It is hearsay by Deepak Chopra - it is not his opinion, which could be simply attributed to him, but is being presented as factual events. To present it as fact without a second source is questionable at best; to present it with only Chopra's word smacks almost of repeating gossip. Given that it is known he and the maharishi had a falling out, the content is particularly questionable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The only hearsay is the part about the illness being caused by a glass of juice handed by a foreign disciple, which I don't mind leaving out. Chopra was a first-hand observer of the illness itself. Are we assuming that Chopra is a liar? The material is clearly attributed to him. While it's not a suitable source for the article, there is a purported letter from an Indian official confirming that there was a severe illness and there is no statement from the movement denying that the Maharishi was ill. Will Beback talk 20:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, Will. The "cause of illness" bit seems dodgy to me - not that I think Chopra is being dishonest, merely that he's not a medical expert and that's a bit too much detail to hang on just his recollection. Otherwise, I'm fine with it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Chopra is certainly notable enough that his account of the illness is note worthy. If there is doubt, it can be written as an "According to..." statement rather than a blunt statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Source

Got an IP user who believes this is a reliable source and my revert of the edit adding it was inappropriate. Input? --N419BH (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg Palast, the author of that article. Note how he is a NYTimes Bestselling author and a BBC Correspondent. He has his own Wiki. You should read it. Then talk to me about sourcing. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also: http://www.becnellaw.com/danielbecneljr.htm , that's the laywer. One of the most prominent personal injury lawyers in LA, winning the largest settlement EVER in LA for an individual in 72. Also here: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Transocean_under_fire_over_US_oil_spill.html?cid=8803398 He confirms the inside source and the lie. I mean, Wikipedia has taken far less reliable sources for other pages. But shall I keep going? 24.255.165.125 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious if you read the introduction section of this page, specifically the part that says: "Before posting a question"? Just because we are trying to figure out ways to make this noticeboard work better and I'm wondering if our efforts to improve the introduction are a waste of time, if no one even reads it. Dlabtot (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. User talk:N419BH, User talk:24.255.165.125 would be the two pages where the debate has been occurring. I'll go through the page history and have the exact edit in a minute. --N419BH (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for apologies. I was asking if you read that section or not before you posted your question. IOW, this is not an attempt to shame you and I don't care whether you did or not except in terms of data for determining the utility of refining those instructions. In fact, to anyone familiar to these particular sources, your question has a clear and obvious answer even without all the additional requested info. So, meaning no disrespect. I ask again: before you posted your question, did you read the introduction section of this page, specifically the part that says: "Before posting a question"? Dlabtot (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not. Perhaps bold them and include them above the edit box as well? --N419BH (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree sir. We're talking about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In a Truthout article, the author Greg Palast interviews the lawyer on behalf of the plaintiffs in the upcoming case about what caused the spill. The lawyer, who I provide links for above, says that the spill was caused by BP lying about how deep the oil well was. Palast is also an expert on reporting on oil disasters, as he reported on the Exxon disaster. You can see on his Wiki that he works for the BBC and is a super-reliable source. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. The source is being used specifically to support the statement, "This just in: Becnel tells me that one of the platform workers has informed him that the BP well was apparently deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported. BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews, who, therefore, poured in too small a cement cap for the additional pressure caused by the extra depth. So, it blew. http://www.truthout.org/slick-operator-the-bp-ive-known-too-well59178" --N419BH (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I mean, I know that's worded poorly but it's only because I suck at Wikipedia. I quoted directly and hoped someone more savvy would spruce it up. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally, both truthout and Greg Palast are established reliable sources, although with a decidedly leftward bent. Broadly, the advice would be to cite with attribution. Lacking more specifics, that is my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with truthout; what makes it an established reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you have a look at their Wikipedia article? Or perused their website? Now that you have (I assume) made yourself familiar with them, do you have some objection to calling them RS, although one with a decided viewpoint? Dlabtot (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at both now, thanks. They do seem to have an editorial board, which is helpful, though not necessarily conclusive. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

<- I'm curious how "deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported" becomes "was caused by BP lying about how deep the oil well was". I don't understand "BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews" either. It's the drillers on the rig that monitor the trajectory and depth of a borehole in order to hit the target specified on the well plan. This looks like a situation where higher quality sources are required. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious how "deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported" becomes "was caused by BP lying about how deep the oil well was".

...and I'm curious where "deeper than the 18,000 feet depth" comes from. We're talking about the Gulf of Mexico here, not the Marianas Trench. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be the total measured depth of the wellbore i.e. from sea level, kelly bushing or whatever datum they used on the rig down to the subsurface target/reservoir they were trying to hit. A TD of 18,000 feet isn't deep in that area. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazon books "product description" as reliable source?

I am involved in a good article review for an article. We are looking at a book source which is in itself reliable, but would also like another reliable source to describe its highlights. The Amazon website which sells this book has a brief "Product Description" section describing the contents of the book. Is this product description considered a reliable source to describe what's in the book? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined against advertisements, catalogs, or other promotional items as relieable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So if a major corporation sells a product and says it contains X, Y and Z on its webpage, this information cannot be used in an article? Crum375 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What major corporation, product, and webpage are you referring to? Dlabtot (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case it's Amazon Books, and the product webpage is here. But my question was about the general case, of any large corporation and any of its products (assuming we skip any marketing hype). Crum375 (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case crossref found a reliable source here. But I think in general corporate material about their own products counts as WP:SELFPUB: useful for non-controversial factual information (how many pages the book has, what year it was published), not so good for anything substantive. If you do want to use the publisher's information to source factual information about a book, though, better to find a web page about it on the publisher's web site than to use Amazon. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably been restated a million times here at RSN that we are looking for independent sources and that independence from the subject matter is a significant factor when determining reliability. The conflict of interest in a source that is actually trying to sell the subject in question is so obvious that I am embarrassed for you that I have been forced to mention it. Dlabtot (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. If an author publishes a book with a third party (i.e. non-SPS) publisher, that book is generally a reliable source. If the author, or the publisher, adds a summary of that book, for example on the dust jacket, is that summary any less reliable? I don't see how "independence" is an issue for RS. Where do you see it in the WP:SOURCES policy, for something like a book? Crum375 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We aren't talking about a dust jacket; we are talking about an ad by a reseller. Dlabtot (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my reply below. Crum375 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A good reliable source for what's in the book would be a book review published in a newspaper, magazine, or academic journal. For academic monographs, looking up the title in crossref.org can often turn up reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication at Amazon as to who wrote the summary. If it was attributed to the author of the book, I'd be inclined to accept it, but as it stands it might have been written by the publisher with an eye on sales rather than accuracy, or even by someone at Amazon who just looked at it briefly. David's advice to find a book review is good. Zero^talk 03:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If a summary is issued by the publisher, and appears on the dust-jacket, it would be a joint effort between the publisher and the author. From our perspective, the reliability of a source is a combination of the author and the publisher, and a source may even be anonymous and still be considered reliable, if the publisher is reliable. Here is this specific publisher's summary (see under "Editorial Reviews" tab, "From the Publisher" section). Crum375 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you introducing the off-topic subject of a book's dust jacket? Yes, if a book is RS, so is it's dust jacket. We are talking about amazon.com, a reseller. Please keep on topic. Dlabtot (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC) On second thought, after reading Michig's response below, no, the dust-jacket is just another form of advertising, so, not RS. Besides, why would you cite the dust-jacket and not the book itself? It makes no sense, like most of the hypotheticals posed at RSN. Dlabtot (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply here. This is a specific book, sold by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. The "Product Description" or "From the Publisher" sections on the book vendors websites is the summary provided by the publisher to describe its product. The question is whether that is a reliable source for the summary of that book (which is a reliable source in itself). Crum375 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think all of us who responded understood your question when you originally asked it. Dlabtot (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So is the book summary in "Product Description" or "From the Publisher" (for Amazon and Barnes & Noble respectively) a reliable source in this case (assuming the book itself is)? Crum375 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not as a source to verify facts stated in such a description. If you could tell what the source of the description was then it could possibly be used to verify that that source stated that about the book, but a description of a book by a shop selling it is unlikely to be an acceptable reference or even a very useful one - people who are selling things often lie or at least bend the truth when describing them. If you're looking for a source for what the book contains, it's better to cite the book itself.--Michig (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The publisher sells the book wholesale to the book vendors, such as Amazon and B&N, who in turn sell it to individual readers. The publisher creates a summary of the book, which is then included by the online vendors in the book's webpage, under a "Product Summary" or "From the Publisher" section (for Amazon and B&N respectively). The book is considered reliable, and the summary is logically approved by both publisher and author. If we trust the publisher as a reliable source for the book, why can't we trust its summary of it? Crum375 (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite simple - even the most authoritative, apparently reliable, balanced book can be described by the publisher without such high standards of integrity. In the case above, does the author describe his book as a "provocative study"? Unlikely, but publishers will tend to talk books up to make them sound more interesting - publishers are not reliable sources for anything other than dry facts about a book (publishing date, ISBN, number of pages, etc.). I don't really see how a one-line summary such as this from the publisher is ever likely to be useful as a source. Note that even if this book meets the criteria of being a reliable source, that should be as a source to be used in articles about subjects covered in the book.--Michig (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is contained in the responses already given. Obviously you didn't get the answer you were hoping for. Dlabtot (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was just hoping to get a clear answer, regardless of specifics. In this case, I am still confused. You, Dlabtot, said above that a dust-jacket summary would be a reliable source. Michig above says the publisher's summary would not be reliable. So which is it? Crum375 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I see Michig's point. Why do you keep bringing up a dust-jacket? We aren't talking about a dust-jacket are we? Why do you keep re-phrasing and re-asking the same question? Dlabtot (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Because my question is both specific and generic; i.e. I hope to rely on the results for other situations. In this case, the publisher summary appears to be on the dust jacket and on the vendors' websites, but it seems to me the fundamental question is whether we consider the publisher's summary of a book reliable, assuming the book itself is a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who has responded to you disagrees. And we don't generally make generic responses at RSN, we deal with specific citations to specific sources, and consider the context. As is explained in the instructions at the top of this page. Dlabtot (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think dust jackets and publishers' summaries should be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. Far better to follow David Eppstein's suggestion above and turn to reviews in other publications. Since Thompson's book is an academic monograph, the best source will be a review in an academic journal. Such a review may be found here. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider what this would mean: if anonymous publishers' descriptions could be used as reliable sources regarding books, then virtually every book mentioned on Wikipedia will be "a groundbreaking study" or "a bold reevaluation" or "a courageous call to arms" or some such over the top thing. Eugene (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Amazon writes the product description; a search for some of that text returns hits from many other booksellers. I believe that is written by the publisher (and is probably on the dust jacket), so it would be a primary source. Which means it should be fine for non-controversial details. Not for peacock phrasing such as "this is the best book ever", but should be fine for an overview on what the subject of the book is. Note there are also capsule "editoral reviews" on Amazon that come from a third-party source whose name escapes me, but that doesn't seem to be what this debate is over. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting the peacockery, assume that this is on the dust jacket, and it says, "Professor X, the author of this book, says Y." Would you accept that publisher as a reliable source that X says Y in this book? Crum375 (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't. The publisher's description is an advertisement, designed to get potential customers interested in the book. It may well be accurate, it may not. But it's not impartial; it's designed to make sales. If you want to establish non-controversial details about the book, why not turn to the book itself? If you want to establish controversial details about the book, well, then, you turn to independent reviews. Like this one. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's reliable, but not independent. So, it can be used for basic facts, but nothing controversial. I think there's a (justified) bias against financially motivated sources, but it doesn't necessarily make them unreliable as we define it, it just means extra care must be taken. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to comment on something above: the content of the dust-jacket of a book, and advertising material such as product summaries, is determined by the publisher. The publisher might ask the author's opinion on it, but the author doesn't usually have any real say in it. Expect over-simplification, excessive hype, and dubious claims of connection to current events and popular fads. It is not correct to take such material as a valid expression of the author's view. Zero^talk 05:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and in this specific case, the contentious statement isn't technically wrong, it is more an over-simplification. Rejecting "the Jesus of the Gospels" is not entirely inconsistent with Thompson still requiring a historical Jesus. He explicitly states in the book that the emergence of Christianity requires a historical person to make sense of, but the Gospels do not. Hence, the Kirkus review on that same Amazon page states: "Unlike many in the historical Jesus debate, Thompson is not interested in disputing Jesus' existence per se." Nevertheless, rather than dismissing the publisher's simplified account, I would encourage editors to include something that makes this clear to all readers. For example:

Although Thompson's Messiah Myth is described by the publisher as rejecting the historicity of "the Jesus of the Gospels", Thompson states in the book that he is not interested in the historicity question; in fact, he makes clear that making sense of the origins of Christianity requires a historical Jesus, but he rejects the idea that such a historical Jesus is essential to the Gospels.

I'm sure you can do better than this, but dismissing the publisher's summary as unreliable is a short-term solution. The right thing to do is to deal with this in the article, so that (I can naively assume) this issue isn't raised again and again. Vesal (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

YouTube citations

The following YouTube citations/links which contain network/cable TV clips were removed from the Peter Schiff article per WP:YouTube because it appears they were not published on YouTube by the copyright owners and are therefore not reliable sources. Some editors on the page disagree with this assessment. Please give your input are the links below reliable sources for a BLP?

name=morningjoe1>Peter Schiff, Joe Scarborough (host) (March 25, 2009). The Economics of a Stimulus (Flash) (Television production). New York City: MSNBC.
name=BernankeLiar>Peter Schiff (March 2008). Peter Schiff calls Ben Bernanke a Liar (Flash) (Television production). New York City: CNN. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
name= obamanomics1>Peter Schiff (November 3, 2008). Peter Schiff on Barack Obama economics and Ron Paul politics November 3rd 2008 (Flash) (Television production). New York City: CNBC. Retrieved 2010-04-19.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Some editors have dismissed the possibility raised by KBob, but I feel that the potential of some violation is certainly significant enough to investigate.

Also, I'll note that the problem seems to be emphasized for this article because a lot of Peter Schiff's notoriety and controversy centers around YouTube videos. BigK HeX (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If they were posted to Youtube against copyright, then it isn't a question of reliability... it is a question of legality. We can not legally link to material that violates copyright laws. You may be able to cite the original reports without a link, but people might challenge their validity if they can not see them. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's bad sourcing in general. These videos are primary sources, and if their content is significant enough to mention in an encyclopedic article, there ought to be appropriate secondary sources discussing that content. At best, it skirts the limits of the purposes of WP:V to make a user suffer through 8-10 minute video clips in hopes of spotting the 10 seconds of pertinent material. Let's cut to the chase: if this guy calls Ben Bernanke a liar, and there's no independent, reliable secondary coverage, it's not significant enough for an encyclopedic article. And if there is such coverage, that's what should be cited as the source. Sourcing patterns like this reek of promotional intentions -- especially for a political candidate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree – very well stated. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo makes very valid points here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

1911encyclopedia.org

Is 1911encyclopedia.org considered a reliable source? http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page

It looks just like a wikipedia fake. Secret killer (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia, it's a version of the 1911 Britannica. However, it's not clear to me how closely the source adheres to that version; on its "about" page is says it has "edited, updated and added to entries". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

lifesitenews.com

Is this a reliable source in general? Specifically this news story and this one, which are cited in the Crispian Hollis article (see the last paragraph). The about page claims accuracy as the top priority. Thoughts? --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously a pro-life/anti-abortion website, so it has a marked agenda. Its not clear what the quality of its editorial oversight is, or whether it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is: would you remove the {{BLP unsourced}} tag from the article based on that source? --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the source is used in the article, you can't really put an unsourced tag on it. But I'd be very leery of using that source in relation to a BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Munich Re publication a reliable source? Warning: LaRouche also discussed :-)

Fast context: Talk:Zbigniew_Jaworowski#Jaworowski_and_21st_century

It is a book published by the Munich Re, about climate change - and specifically an essay in it authored by Stefan Rahmstorf

Rahmstorf, Stefan (2004), "The climate sceptics", in Schüttle, Klaus (ed.), Weather catastrophes and climate change – Is there still hope for us?, Munich: Munich Re, pp. 76–83, ISBN 9783937624815 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

There is a flyer to see the chapter/contents which can be found here[66]

The context for the question is the following paragraph that has been in our article (BLP) on Zbigniew Jaworowski since the articles inception:

Jaworowski published several papers (Jaworowski, 2007; Jaworowski, 1999; Jaworowski, 1997) in 21st Century Science and Technology, a non-refereed magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche.

Originally this was referenced to the publications themselves - since the connection between "21st ..." and LaRouche is well-known (and on their site). The rationale for the description is (i guess) to make clear that 21st Century Science and Technology is not a regular publication, and not a scientific one. This was contested by a couple of editors who wanted a reference for it. So I linked 4 of Jaworowski's publications in the magazine[67]. That was contested again, now as a synthesis (ie. connection between 21st+LaRouche and possibly Jaworowski) - so i looked for such a reference - of which there were quite a lot, but to a large degree in blogs and other self-published sources. So i looked further and found a few:

Something by Alexander Cockburn [68] - i'm dubious about this
A mention by Eric Berger[69](climate scientist) - but in the comments section, not very useful
And finally the Munich Re reference mentioned above.

This was reverted again... This time with claims of self-publication, unreliable sources and BLP violations.

The section in question here is a Q&A part of the Rahmstorf essay:

Often cited in recent sceptics’ publications as a scientific publication is an article which appeared in 21st Century Science in late 2003, written by the self-appointed climate researcher Zbigniew Jaworowski under the headline The Ice Age Is Coming! Solar Cycles, Not CO2 Determine Climate.

Comment: This article by the Polish nuclear researcher is written for laypersons. Along with sceptics’ standard arguments, he asserts, among other things, that the warmest temperatures in the 20th century were reached around 1940, that a cooling of the climate has already commenced, and that a new cold phase will reach its climax in 20 years’ time. The periodical 21st Century Science belongs to the organisation of American multimillionaire and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. According to its own advertising, this organisation also flatly rejects the theory of relativity, quantum theory, and other achievements of modern science.

Which ought to cover the SYN claim. Since we have all three connected here. I'm going to follow this up on WP:BLP/N depending on the results of this - since there is also a claim of BLP violation here. So don't consider this a final answer where you will be put in front of an angry BLP-peloton afterwards for a stance on whether this is a reliable source or not :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am involved in this debate and disagree with kim. Associating a BLP with a figure as controversial as LaRouche requires rock solid sourcing. Initially, the Munich Re reference was not supplied (it was originally sourced to a blog), but even with this new source, the claim is controversial enough that a single essay from a partisan author and published by Munich Re (which as far as I can tell is an insurance corporation which publishes content relating to risk assessment, certainly not an independent entity) is far from sufficient to include this fact in the article.

It has the appearance of cherry-picking a minor detail that is unflattering, digging up a source which mentions it, and using that as justification for adding completely non-notable critical material into a scientist's BLP. There is no way that Jaworowski's association with LaRouche is significant enough for LaRouche to be mentioned in his bio. It's a BLP violation first, and questionable sourcing, second. ATren (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some input on this? The BLP issue can be tucked away until it reaches BLP/N :) The question here is: Is the reference considered a WP:RS or is it classified as a WP:SPS? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wondered why an insurance company would have much to say about climate change, but looking through their site Munich Re seem to be saying 'manmade climate change is real and you need insurance to cover it'. That and the fact that they are not a peer reviewed journal means I would be suspicious of anything they publish that might encourage a person to buy more insurance. I think they have a definite aim in publishing what they do, it is stated on their site repeatedly, and they may be unlikely to publish anything critical of their viewpoint. So as to whether they are a reliable source, I would say yes but for matters to do with reinsurrance, not with anything else, especially something like climate change where they have a clear interest in publishing material benificial to their viewpoint, and where the lack of peer review makes presenting such views as fact problematic. I can find evidence of Munich Re being a reliable reinsurer, but little to suggest they are a respected scientific body or that they check their facts with regard to material they publish that deals with matters outside of their expertise. Without editorial oversight or peer review Mr. Rahmstorfs essay has the same stature as a blog, which wouldn't be enough to hang any claims on a BLP. Weakopedia (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are that pedantic, it's not "Mr. Rahmstorf, but Professor Rahmstorf, Ph.D., who is an acknowledged expert on climate change. And it's not self-published, but published by a third party. Moreover, the question is not if this is reliable on climate change, but if it sufficiently supports the (obviously true) statement that Jaworowski has published several papers 21st Century Science and Technology, a non-refereed magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic! Which part, checking out a source on RS/N or bothering to offer an opinion when no-one else had. You may not like that opinion, but that is no excuse for a lack of civility. Have a nice day. Weakopedia (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You wondered why an insurance company would care about climate change - then you partially answered the question yourself, but I thought I'd elaborate. The insurance industry pays for a substantial proportion of all hurricane damage. Of course, they collect premiums to cover the losses, but they need to ensure that the premiums are sufficient to cover the losses in the aggregate. Within in the insurance industry, there are specialty companies called reinsurance companies, of which Munich Re is the worlds largest. If you look at all insurance losses, reinsurers pay a small proportion. However, if you look at all hurricane losses, reinsurers pay the bulk of them. Finally, and most importantly, if hurricane losses increase due to climate change, reinsurers will pick up almost all of the billions of increased costs, so reinsurers as a group are intensely interested in climate change in general, and how it impacts insurance losses in particular. Because of their vested interest, it is fair to be cautious of material they publish themselves; however, one hopes that the research of respected scientists they publish would be acceptable, recognizing that they may not go out of their way to find, or publish research inconsistent with their goals. (As one can say about virtually any industry, including the publishing industry.)--SPhilbrick T 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that reliable or not, an insurance companys publication by a climatologist about the publishing practices of anyone else is stretching the bounds of notability. This is probably the wrong board, as the questions seems not 'is this a reliable representation of someones views' but 'are this persons views as published in this source notable on this subject'. Weakopedia (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This would be the follow up question on BLP/N. For now the question asked is whether the reference in question is or isn't a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the two are inextricably linked, as your question is not is the reference a reliable source but is this reference a reliable source for this particular information. But to your general question I would suggest the answer is no. This is a reinsurance company, they have no reputation for strict editorial oversight on materials they publish outside their field. The words they print from this particular scientist may, in this case, represent what he said. But can we be sure? If it was a respected publishing house we would say yes. If it were a news service we would say yes. But someone writing without any apparent oversight or peer review or anything to keep them in check is just the same as someone writing a blog on the internet, which also wouldn't be a reliable source. Or another way to look at it, this is like the bits of a news site where the site don't take responsibility for the views contained within, where they let their reporters 'have their say' but it is clear that they are given more latitude than when they do official news reports. Statements in such publications may represent the views or the person who wrote them, but without oversight those views may be wildly inaccurate.

So the general answer, I believe, is no. Industry published material without oversight is not a reliable source. That doesn't make the information useless, if used to support reliable sources that assert the same thing, but it wouldn't be enough to use to establish notability on it's own. Look at it from the other side - if a company put out the message that 'global warming is false and you need our product to help you with that' and that company decided to go into publishing and printed some materials supportive of their cause, would you consider that a reliable source, whoevers name was at the top of the publication? Weakopedia (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This "they have no reputation for strict editorial oversight on materials they publish outside their field" i would question strongly. First of all, this is their field - they do research within the topic area[70] - and they are quoted as a reliable source amongst others by OECD [71], the EU[72], WMO [73], US EPA [74]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That an industry making money off climate change would do 'research' on it is unsurprising. They remain an insurance company. And most of the links on those searches deal directly with their insurance aspect. Weakopedia (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be too focused on money here. Newspapers make money from publishing news, that doesn't make their news suspect. (ie. "X makes money from Y, therefore X is unreliable on Y" is a logical fallacy) Your "most of the" is uninteresting - since they are cited for quite a bit more - and that is what we are interested in here. Their geoscience department is cited as a reliable source for information by the agencies quoted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So what if an oil company published a journal, would you consider it reliable? By your logic above, it would be. ATren (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes ATren, if the same circumstances was applied to an oil company, then i would. Did you think otherwise? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think it unreasonable to question the money aspect. A news service may make money from news, but it's aim (you would hope) would be to give balanced coverage of all news. If anything it would be inclined to sensationalise all news, not just one aspect. It may be that specific agencies are affected by, for example, specific advertisers - paper X may be less receptive to the idea of AGW if they have as a major sponsor or advertiser an oil company. That makes the individual paper a non-RS, but doesn't change that news media, in general, make money from all news. The news service has an aim, the university has an aim, they are both general. The insurance company has an aim, it is to promote insurance. In this case, X makes money from Y, so they publish things about Z that cause you to want Y.

Wikipedia does not necessarily have the same standard for describing a source as reliable in this case as the OECD etc. had for mentioning Munich Re in those cases - to help decide that, and aid uninvolved editors who may be interested to comment, could you list a couple of specific references from the lists your search terms generated that show what you mean. The general search terms give a lot of 'person x, who used to work in Munich' and 'here is Munich Res figure on how much insurance we'll need in 2012', so having a few specific examples would be helpful. Weakopedia (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RS that references Wikipedia

There is a disagreement about the appropriateness of this reference http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/reviews/an-ethical-diet-the-joy-of-being-vegan-469964.html as a RS at List of vegans. The problem is that it partially references the Wikipedia list, by explicitly mentioning some of the names on the list:

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has a veritable roll-call of celebrity vegans. Woody Harrelson, the actor, is a vegan, as are his fellow Hollywood stars Joaquin Phoenix and Alicia Silverstone.

The singer Bryan Adams refuses to eat milk or cheese or any other animal product, as do k d lang and Moby.

How to have a big dingdoo is a mystery to all but a few

Heather Small, the lead singer of M People, and Benjamin Zephaniah, the poet, follow the vegan philosophy.

The athlete, Carl Lewis, who won nine Olympic gold medals, is a vegan.

The insertion of Uri Geller's name in the vegan list is believed to be a joke by a mischievous contributor.

Clearly this section of the article can't be used as a source for the Vegan list, but does referencing Wikipedia at all rule it out as a reliable source for everything else in the article?

For instance, it goes into some depth about Donald Watson's (founder of the vegan society) veganism: The vegan movement was started by a woodwork teacher, Donald Watson, in 1944 because of a desire to improve animal welfare.Watson grew up on a farm in South Yorkshire in the 1920s and became concerned for animal welfare when his Uncle George slaughtered one of the farm's pigs. He recalled in an interview aged 92 (three years before his death): "I decided that farms - and uncles - had to be reassessed: the idyllic scene was nothing more than death row, where every creature's days were numbered by the point at which it was no longer of service to human beings." Watson became a vegetarian and later a vegan, a word he invented.

Later in the article it discusses Heather Mills: Heather Mills-McCartney, the wife of Paul McCartney, himself a vegan, is the latest celebrity convert to the cause. The former model announced her conversion last August, saying that vegetarianism not only benefited health but also made a huge difference to the planet. She added: "I could never go back to eating meat or fish and I'm moving towards being vegan. When I crack an egg now, I think: 'Could that have been a baby?'"

It gives explicit details of Woody Harrelson's diet: Harrelson, 44, the bartender on Cheers!,has not eaten meat for 15 years. Not only is he vegan, but he also eats a 90 per cent raw diet. At opening night parties, he grazes on vegan canapes and regularly fasts, taking up to a week off from solid food. During one fast he lost 15lb. He has declared dairy to be one of the great evils of the world.

These more detailed accounts clearly haven't come from the Wikipedia list, so can you advise on whether it is acceptable as a reliable source in the cases beyond the names it draws from the Wikipedia list. It seems pretty clear cut which information comes from Wikipedia, so I guess the issue is whether citing Wikipedia in any capacity at all invalidates it as a source. Betty Logan (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You may need to look beyond the list article. The source may have gained it's information from the Wikipedia articles on the individual subjects. I am wary of any source that cites Wikipedia. That said... the mention of Wikipedia in the source in question does seem to be more of a passing comment than a reference or citation. I think you could use it if you can be sure that the specific information you are citing did not originate on Wikipedia. The key here is that we want to avoid a "circular reference". Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct; we can't really rely on a source that in turn relies on Wikipedia. For that matter, any individuals on the list who are not explicitly described as "vegan" in reliable sources independent of Wikipedia should be immediately removed, per WP:BLP and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk)

Signage okay? Help set consensus.

I've got an article that cites a sign. Specifically, one of those large signs that are commonly found around landmarks "This building was erected in...blah blah blah." What most people would say is "Find another source that says the same thing," but what makes this case special is that the sign is an English language sign at a landmark in the People's Republic of China, and states a fact (that it appears on the Provincial Historic Building Register) that we're having difficulty verifying any other way, in any language. My opinion is that a sign such as this should be considered a self-published source, and admissible as per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..."

Can I get a consensus here, one way or the other? ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you link to a photo?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I can upload one, yes, but I'm trying to get a consensus on whether a sign can be cited as a source, so if you could weigh in on that, it would be helpful. As you can see by the entry below mine, I'm not the only one with the issue. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, I reckon, and while a linked photo would be nice it's not essential (just as links to other sources are not). Barnabypage (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also think that a sign duly posted by an organization is a self-published source. I'm going to lay out why, because I plan to cite this discussion later if challenged.

Wikt:publish: from the Latin publicare (to make public, show or tell to the people, make known, declare)

intransitive: To issue a medium (e.g. publication).
transitive: To issue something (usually printed work) for sale and distribution.
transitive: To announce to the public.

A sign is a medium. It is printed. It announces something to the public (if posted in a public place). Clearly, according to the above definition, a sign is a published source. Further, Wikipedia's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly). ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that a sign "clearly" is published: When we speak of something being published, we usually mean that more than one copy existed. A written statement, even when displayed in a public location, is not published in the same sense that a magazine or newspaper is. We would not accept a hand-written note, "Please open door slowly", as a "published" statement, even if thousands of people saw the note. Similarly, we do not usually consider displaying original artworks in a museum as "publication" of the artworks. These may be known to the public (your third definition is irrelevant to Wikipdia's use of the term), but they are neither properly "issued" (sent away from the person who made it) nor made available for "distribution" (you cannot distribute a unique object).

However, while rejecting your reasoning, I believe that this particular use is reasonable and acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of "published" is not supported by the great majority of dictionaries. And the information is what is distributed. If you google "publish a sign" there are three hits on the first page that use the word "publish" to refer to disseminating information via a sign. If you google "published a sign" there are two more, and one in particular clearly is talking about a single sign. Aside from this actual use of language, what I'm saying fits the definitions I've given. Princeton defines "publish" as "To put into print." Regardless of how you "usually" (your word) use language, signs fit the definitions of publishing as given here and in other dictionaries. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 21:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Noraft, can you explain how a sign meets your definitions? Specifically, how is a unique object in a permanently fixed location "issued for sale and distribution"? Is this a special concept of the distribution of a printed work that involves non-distribution of the printed work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points above (in both posts). I think in instances where a sign has been produced for the deliberate act of imparting (educational) information (as oppose to street signs etc...) it has the potential to be used as a source. Technically only one copy of a website exists, but it is seen by hundreds of people. In the same way, an interpretation board does the same job (its just a little more static). In that sense, it strikes me as verifiable and no different to using other offline sources. Establishing reliability is important (as with any source), so it should be produced by a reputable company. I would not for instance accept a typed, laminated sheet of paper stuck to a museum piece with no indication as to who produced it (even in a museum). However, a professionally produced interpretation board (these can cost upwards of £1k in England), appropriately branded and ideally stating sources, strikes me as just a reliable as if that museum had produced a book.

It could be argued that a picture would support this as a reference, but we don't require scans of books to assure their accuracy and there is the risk of breaching copyright. It could also be argued that a board would have been sourced from a book or other source, and that should be used instead. I disagree - we're here to produce a record of what information is 'out there', and I don't think wikipedians should have to become full blown historians! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tamilnet (http://www.tamilnet.com)

I was under the impression that this was already agreed on, but some editors disagree, so I'm brining this up again here.

Tamilnet is a website that reports almost exclusively about Sri Lanka and the former Sri Lankan Civil War. It is/was used by many international media organizations as a source for Tamil Tiger perspective of the Sri Lankan Civil War, but always with the "pro-rebel" qualifier (see BBC: "The head of the Tiger's political wing, SP Thamilselvan, told the pro-rebel website Tamilnet", Reuters: "pro-rebel website www.tamilnet.com quoted Tiger military spokesman Rasiah Ilanthiraiyan as saying...", and there are countless other such examples).

WP:SLR is a WikiProject that was established to sort out disagreements related to Sri Lankan issues. The consensus achieved there was that everything cited from Tamilnet should be explicitly attributed as "pro-rebel Tamilnet reported..." (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources)

The question has now come up though, with editor Obi2canibe saying we can use Tamilnet without attribution for "non-controversial" citations. My opinion, given that Tamilnet is questionable source per Wikipedia guidelines, is if a website is known to have publish falsehoods before, it cannot be relied upon as a diect source on Wikipedia. It also opens the door to have the website cited for disputed content which some editors will dub as "non-controversial". I also have not come accross any guidelines on Wikipedia that say questionable sources can be used to cite "non-controversial" topics. (we had a couple of discussion here and here, but couldn't come to an agreement).

This isn't an obscure topic with Tamilnet been the only available source. In fact, the article that caused the disageement has at least one other citation from reliable news organizations that cite the same facts that Tamilnet is used for [75].

I believe User:Blueboar summed it up the best in one of the discussion Obi linked to

"I am going to try to explain this one last time... I don't contest that Tamilnet is biased, or even blaitantly partisan. But being biased or partisan does not automatically exclude a source from being considered reliable. Reliability, as used in Wikipedia, does not equate to "respected" or even "factual"... it is an offshoot of "verifiable". Tamilnet really falls under the heading of "questionable source"... reliable for statements of opinion but not for statements of fact. As long as you give it proper attribution (ie you say: "According to Tamilnet...") it can be considered a reliable source for quoting the statements and opinions of Tamilnet and those it represents."

Since, with every discussion related to Sri Lanka, we see the same old editors with preconceived biases participating (myself included...), outside opinion will be very welcome.

(Note: I will notify User:Obi2canibe and WP:SLR of this discussion.) --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is: Tamilnet is an WP:RS that has to be used with the qualification "pro-rebel". This is not just so because we agreed on it, but because it is the way reliable sources, such as BBC, do it.

But since this is the RS noticeboard, I would like to add some background information. Back in January 2007, classification of sources was the first major task that we tackled at WP:SLR, and it was crucial to our success. Before, there had been endless discussions about whether certain sources were RS or not, and the way to cut through that Gordian knot was a compromise: We divided sources into three classes: RS, QS, and unreliable. Originally, it was understood that QS were not as reliable as RS. Tamilnet was just one of the QS; there never was an agreement to classify it as RS. It became RS through an interesting twist of Wikipedia history: The tripartite compromise had worked well for most of 2007, but by autumn of that year, some editors, ignoring our compromise, started deleting QS with the simple argument that they weren't RS. That argument was strong, since it had support from well-respected editors outside of the Sri Lanka conflict. Since much of our content was from QS from both sides, it was threatening to turn into an avalanche of edit wars. To preserve the peace, and to conform with the rest of Wikipedia, I changed QS to become a subclass of RS.[76] This has worked well since, and I ask my fellow editors at RS/N to forgive us this trouble that arose from our specific history. — Sebastian 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider Tamilnet biased and unreliable. Several articles regarding tamil eelam are almost exclusively backed with tamilnet citations. The entire bias is nicely seen in the referendum lemma. Claims a pro seperate Tamil state in northern lanka of almost 100% and only guessing on the participation figures. Unencyclopedic at best. Chartinael (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of bias are entirely irrelevant, which is why bias is not mentioned in the relevant guideline. "Unencyclopedic" is another word that is meaningless in this context. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not an accusation of bias, it is a fact -- have you read the statements above? Tamilnet has been a QS for its bias (Pro-Rebel) reasons. Did you read why it ended up a subcat of RS? I suggest you do. I am not saying to delete passages backed by tn - no way. However, if a more reliable source can be found (that itself does not draw on tn for that matter) it should be given priority. Simple as that. Also, to calculate participation figures on the basis on guess-work is unencyclopedic. Chartinael (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you are new to Wikipedia or maybe not :) but RS does not get into bias as explianed by Dlabtot, CNN has liberal bias according to Conservatives, Fox has Conservative bias according to Liberals. So if you use bias you will exclude all sources. Better attribute and move on Kanatonian (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am not. Bias is fully fine - however, the bias needs to be noted and it has been noted with TN. That is one of the reasons why it was a QS before becoming subcatted as RS with pro-rebel bias. The sum of all POV bias ends up being halfways objective. Only one POV is subjective and hence not desireable. To consider Tn an objective source is just plain wrong. QS when seen as a source of false information ist only one aspect of a QS, those are the sources which should not be used as they support there POV with objectively false information (plain lies). QS as seen as a biased source is fine as they support there POV with only one side of information, ideally not directly lying - just twisting the truth (halftruths), that is why they ought to be admissable as reliable with a such and such bias. Is it really that difficult to understand? Chartinael (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I for one agree with the attribution requirement and use it wherever it is necessary and will be of importance for the readers to know where the information came from. Other times, just to avoid the controversy, I avoid using it if a reliable alternate source cane be found for similar information. At the end editors have to use common sense. For example Tamilnet has an extensively researched and referenced etymology section which is quiet academic to say the least. Very few people will find fault with using that information. Just look at the etymology of Lanka. Kanatonian (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that editors should judge each article TamilNet individually. Rigidly applying rules for the whole site would mean that we'd never be able to cite its vast, easily accessible news archive on Wikipedia. It has been suggested they "make things up". Would they make up non-controversial facts? It has also been suggested that TamilNet should not be used where other sources are available. But what if the other sources are biased, such as the rabidly pro-government Daily News? Should we cite a neutral article from a Qualified Source or a biased article from a Reliable Source for a non-controversial fact? Editors should be given the freedom to use their own judgment and some common sense.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When sources disagree, we report the disagreement. That is precisely why questions of 'bias' are irrelevant to determining whether a source is 'reliable' in the WP:RS meaning. The related policy is WP:NPOV. Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about sources disagreeing. Tamilnet is well documented ~~to carry false news reports~~ to be pro-LTTE. However these news reports are often our only source of information on the anti-government Tamil POV. So we're sometimes required to mention what they report. That is why, as Sebastian pointed out, every time we use Tamilnet we should explicitly attribute them. Other than that, like I said, how do we judge what's "non-controversial". An item that's non controversial to one editor may be totally controversial to another. Also, citing a website called "brazenly pro-Tigers" for any material would not be the best idea.

My opinion is that we should abide by the agreement achieved at SLR; Tamilnet can be used as a reliable source for both their point of view, and the opinion of the Tamil Tigers, but must always be attributed. They however cannot be used to cite anything else. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, two sources, to different POV bring both. If only one source, mark it as pro rebel in the tn case and pro whatever in the other. Just don't act as if the sources are neutral, when we know they aren't. Chartinael (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Tamilnet is well documented to carry false news reports." - if that is so, please provide that documentation here. Simply making the assertion carries no weight. Dlabtot (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

They aren't called pro-LTTE by every major media organization for fun (I provided links above), or called "the unofficial mouthpiece of the Tigers in English" for any other reason. Their news reports are blatantly biased, and cannot be used alone to support statements on Wikipedai unless it is their own opinion, in which case I have no problem with them been used with attribution. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating your assertion without offering evidence makes it less persuasive, not more so. Please provide the alleged documentation of "false news reports". Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

~~Focusing on one point of what I said while completely ignoring everything else I said clearly shows your POV~~ (I take this back so we're only focusing on Tamilnet here). I'd suggest you see Tamilnet for proof, but since the counter citations are pro-goverment websites, that isn't the best proof. Apart from that, I don't of any neutral report that critiques their accuracy, so ignore that part of what I said as it isn't important (I crossed it out, replaced with the text in italics). Point is, they're called "pro-rebel" by every major news organization out there. If you want to know why, email the BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP or whoever you chose. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge your inability to provide even a single source in support of your assertion "Tamilnet is well documented to carry false news reports.", which therefore can reasonably be dismissed as either hyperbole or simply overheated rhetoric. Dlabtot (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. Now that you've established that, do you have anything to say regarding everything else discussed here? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, I'm afraid we may have been drawn into a knee-jerk argument that has overtaken the more fundamental agreement. I'm of the mind that tamilnet is a reliable source, undeniably pro-LTTE, that can be cited as such, with attribution. Perhaps you disagree, perhaps not. Dlabtot (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Tamilnet is pro LTTE, and as such can be used with attribution. I have no problems with that.

Do you have any opinion on the use of Tamilnet without attribution for "non-controversial" facts, as Obi puts it. Personally, I think that's against questionable sources policy, and I don't think we should leave the door open to possible future disagreements on what's controversial and what's not. I think if a source is as unquestionably biased as Tamilnet, it should always be used with attribution on Wikipedia.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no opinion without looking at the specifics of what the allegedly non-controversial facts are and what specific citations are being used in what article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. It's not about can x fact be used in y article. It's can we use Tamilnet as a source in some articles, existing and hypothetical, without attribution. If you have no opinion, that's fine. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When stating controversal facts it is necessay to attribute but when you are stating mere facts of life why bother ? Kanatonian (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course! In my statement above, I took that for granted, since I'm sure Snowolfd4 would not insist on tagging a Tamilnet reference for a harmless etymological statement as "pro-rebel" - as long as it isn't about a place name, where it may have political ramifications. Likewise, when Asian Tribune, a QS from the other camp, was used as a reference in Anula of Sri Lanka, nobody demanded the "anti-rebel" attribution. As you said above, "At the end editors have to use common sense", and in my experience, WP:SLR members have (at least at the end) always done that. — Sebastian 01:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not reliable. Look what happened when Taprobanus's articles went to FAC. They all got vetoed. The reason the BBC etc attribute everything is because they are involved primary sources in the same manner as attributing an al-Qaeda website or a Chinese govt spokesman saying that the Dalai Lama is a cheat or terrorist, or attributing one politician saying their opponent is involved in fraud. It's because these are primary sources and aren't reliable except to say that it is an involved party's propaganda, and there's no way that anything more than 5% of any article should be a primary-source soapbox; and if their soapbox is notable, BBC would have quoted them anyway. While joke sources can always pass at low level due a majority of ethnic supporters, and nobody uninvolved caring (as well as other random home-made websites on all manner of topics), they never pass at WP:FAC, because even if 100 Tamil Tiger supporters go to FAC and say that TamilNet/Nation/Canadian is reliable, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs will rely on the one source-inspector any day. As for "common sense", Sebastian's idea of common sense is to simply ignore the policies and do whatever he feels like rather than making Wikipedia high quality. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You certainly have to be commended for the many FA you contributed to. But please appreciate that Wikipedia's quality is not just defined by its most glamorous articles, but also by how well we deal with problem areas. Coping with the strains and wounds of a civil war is not easy, and mediating between fiercely opposing camps can also be a worthwhile contribution to the project. — Sebastian 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

{ec} I just noticed that you insist on attacking others here. Personal attacks are never right, and there is no need for them here. I ask you to cease and desist. — Sebastian 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing about FA count, or classy articles, good prose etc, nor is it a personal attack. I'm simply pointing out that Taprobanus's FAC wasn't allowed to pass because Tamil Net was in it, and in any case if criticising an article/submitted information is a personal attack then maybe you should ban everyone at FAC then. I'm simply pointing out that a serious quality control mechanism has disapproved of Tamil Tiger websites, something that you do approve of. I'm not interested in your disingenuous behaviour YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind editors that the purpose of this noticeboard is to garner input from uninvolved editors on questions of sourcing. The continuation of disputes, and especially, remarks about other editors, are highly unproductive. Dlabtot (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! I apologize for contributing to this escalation by ramping up the language. — Sebastian 02:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian, I just wanted to add, that removing an acceptable statement and calling this removed part a personal attack when an uninvolved third party would not see it as such is not in line with any mediating effort. Btw. Even the etymological parts are questinionable, I am sorry. I just haven't gotten around to them. This stuff is all based on politics, not on linguistics. Whose got the older language, whose got the first inscription, who has been their longest. Tamils and Sinhalese have nicely rewritten their histories and base it on mythological facts as to both claim ownership of the island instead of finding and writing a history that lets them both have equal claim and a nice federate republic. Silly. And sad. The country could have been prosperous - if it hadn't been involved in a civil war. Now that the LTTE is done for, they start these referenda to still want a separate state - work for a federation .... that's the reasonable way, but don't expect all tamils wanting to live in the north and don't expect to get 50+% of the coastline for less than 20% population. That will not work. Also there will be always Tamils that will not want to live in the north. So instead of working for a peaceful island in the aftermath of the war, we see another wave of separatist efforts arise. It makes me want to knock some sense into these people. So TN should have the attribution pro-separatist. Chartinael (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Chartinael please read WP:SOAP and then stick to the discussion in here, also User:YellowMonkey can you really point to the link that substantiates your statement, I'm simply pointing out that Taprobanus's FAC wasn't allowed to pass because Tamil Net was in it, if you cant then I expect you to retract it. Is that you who objected to it or some one else ? Anyway what I want to point out, that there is broad agreement that attribution is needed when using Tamilnet across Wikipedia. So we are not discussing that here, what we are discussing here is can we use Tamilnet without attribution when the facts in question are not controversial or political. Can we stick to it ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people/archive1; Yes you backed down after Ealdgyth, who is the head source reviewer, questioned it. Articles where Ealdgyth is unhappy with the sources, don't pass. And another person questioned it, none of them being me, as there's no need for me to butt in when sources of TN level never get let through FAC. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me, but I don’t see substantiation to your statement I'm simply pointing out that Taprobanus's FAC wasn't allowed to pass because Tamil Net was in it, Want you say that it is a strecth to make the conclusion that you made about the source and the FAC. No one, including you who has a long history of interaction with me said categorically that Tamilnet is why it failed because the article did not have Tamilnet at that time of failure. There were other issues with the article for not being promoted as FAC and none of the outstanding issues was about Tamilnet as a source. Thank for pointing this out Kanatonian (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This was Sandy's closing comment Closing note, with four editors now asking for a copyedit, work may proceed better off-FAC, so I'm going to close the nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC. There was no outstanding issues with sources. Kanatonian (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the point is why your article failed the FA process. It is that the use of Tamilnet as a source was questioned by neutral editors, who's opinion is that Tamilnet shouldn't be used as a source. Also, as far as I know, nowhere in Wiki policy does it say a questionable source can be used without attribution for non-controversial citations. Given the opinion of neutral editors regarding Tamilnet, and that Tamilnet is clearly a questionable source, I think it's clear that other than it's own opinion (which requires attribution), Tamilnet should not be used to cite any material on Wikipedia.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what User:YellowMonkey may have meant although he wrote something completely different, but another neutral editor says Reviewing the discussion, I'm afraid we may have been drawn into a knee-jerk argument that has overtaken the more fundamental agreement. I'm of the mind that tamilnet is a reliable source, undeniably pro-LTTE, that can be cited as such, with attribution. Perhaps you disagree, perhaps not Kanatonian (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As the editor above you says "Given the opinion of neutral editors regarding Tamilnet, and that Tamilnet is clearly a questionable source, I think it's clear that other than it's own opinion (which requires attribution), Tamilnet should not be used to cite any material on Wikipedia." --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor above is yourself Snowolf! As far I can see only one neutral editor (Dlabtot) has taken part in this discussion and they certainly haven't come to the conclusion you attribute to them. All the other commentators are the same old faces, some of whom clearly have several axes to grind when it comes to TamilNet. They have ignored the original question posed about "non-controversial" facts and simply resurrected old arguments.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know it was me. I was trying to point out that Kanatonian was ignoring what I said above.

I know it's long, but try reading what's been said above before commenting. Neutral editors at the featured article process were opposed to using Tamilnet citations for, as you call it, "non-controversial" facts.

Also, Tamilnet is clearly a questionable source, as defined by Wikipedia, and no where in Wiki policy does it say "questionable sources can be used to cite non-controversial facts". --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they were opposed to using TamilNet on a Featured Article because FA have higher standards than ordinary articles. They also questioned the reliability of UTHR and the Island, both of whom have been labeled Reliable by WP:SLR. TamilNet is a WP:RS. It has only been labeled a Qualified Source (not questionable) by WP:SLR. Just because there is no policy "questionable sources can be used to cite non-controversial facts" doesn't give you the right create a policy of your own. There are many things Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on. That doesn't mean they are all wrong.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Policies that apply to Featured articles are the same as those that apply to every other article on Wikipedia. If Tamilnet is not suitable for featured articles, it's not suitable for regular articles. If you have problems with any other sources create a new discussion about them. This is about Tamilnet and Tamilnet ONLY. Don't try to dilute the discussion.

Are you disputing that Tamilnet is a questionable source, as defined here? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm disputing that Tamilnet is a questionable source. I thought we'd established at the beginning of this discussion that TamilNet is WP:RS (as per Sebastian's first comment). It can't be both Reliable and Questionable at the same time. Even if it had been been categorised as Questionable, this says that it shouldn't be used cite contentious claims. But we're not here to discuss contentious claims. We're here to discuss non-controversial facts, for which there are no Wikipedia guidelines.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A fact which is truly non-controversial doesn't even need a citation. Which is why the question and answer is meaningless when posed as a hypothetical. I'd really like to see an example of an alleged non-controversial fact cited to tamilnet. And by the way, the whole 'QS' thing is not part of our policies and guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, neutral editors both at the WP:FA process and at previous discussion have said Tamilnet should not be used as a source on it own, and that if it's used, it should be explicitly attributed. If you dispute that, you can take it up with them.

Given that no one here, except Dlabtot, has offered their opinion here here, the only neutral opinion's we have are

(1)Tamilnet should not be used on it's own to cite things[77][78]

(2)If it is used, it should have explicite attribution

The "it can be used to cite non-controversial facts" is your opinion only, and unless you can gain a concensus amongst neutral editors that support that, it has no valid standing. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion. This discussion is going nowhere. Time to end it.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. With no change to the existing consensus, that Tamilnet always needs attribution.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus here.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 09:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, the exisiting consensus was that Tamilnet always needed to be attributed. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult talking to people who use tamilnet as sources as they are as POV as the source they use. Chartinael (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Film festival listings for undistributed films.

1. A link to the sources in question: 2009 Bare Bones Film Festival 2009 Queens Int'l Film Festival

2. The article in which it is being used.Chinese room Version: [79]

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

The 2009 feature film The Chinese Room (IMDb) concerns fictional workers in a Chinese Room-like office. An actual Chinese Room, with an inhabitant passing messages in and out, is visualized by the main character while the thought experiment is described.

4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. Talkpage: [80] [81] [82] Prior RSN discussion: [83] Mediation: [84]

This concerns an ongoing dispute about whether to mention the film The Chinese Room (film) in the article Chinese Room.

I have argued that Wikipedia content must be verifiable to reliable sources. The sources in question are the schedules of two film festivals where the film were shown. These schedules were published in advance of the showing of the film and are essentially advertisements for the film and the film festival. As such it is hard for me to see how they could qualify as independent reliable sources.

Independent sources would be newspaper or magazine reviews, news reports, etc. -- not advertisements or schedule listings, imho. If such sources did exist it probably would be entirely appropriate to create a The Chinese Room (film) article and to mention the film in the article about the thought experiment.

Are these film festival listings reliable sources in this context? Dlabtot (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A related question concerns whether the film could be considered a primary source about itself. That question is, when is a film 'published'? When the director says it is finished? When it has its "world premiere"? (Would it be necessary for that world premiere to be reported in reliable sources?) Or when it gets a distribution deal? IOW, are undistributed films 'published'? To my mind, a film that has not found a distributor is much like a manuscript that has not found a publisher. Dlabtot (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine an unreleased film or one which was effectively impossible to get hold of - for example, a film which was released a hundred years ago, and of which just one print now exists, in private hands - would fail WP:VERIFY. Obviously there would be no problems referring to other, reliable sources describing such films.

To leave the angels dancing on the head of their pin unmolested for a moment, and to get back to the original point...

In the case in question, well, I can't make up my mind. As you say they are effectively advertisements for the screening; on the other hand, their creators have no plausible incentive to make up a movie that doesn't exist or to grotesquely misrepresent it. I'd be inclined to stretch the rules a bit and admit them as sources for some very basic facts, if it's important that the film be mentioned in the article.

You could look for other sources too. Something like the director's own blog - if one exists - would surely be an acceptable source for non-contentious issues such as the plot of the film, per WP:SELFPUB. There is an official Website for the film (www.thechineseroom.com) but it gives very little detail.

Also, although this is not quite a response to what you asked, let me add that I would be very cautious about using those programmes as sources for the fact that the film was shown at the festivals. Film festivals are notorious for last-minute programme changes, cancellations etc. Barnabypage (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB states: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". This is an article about the Chinese Room thought experiment, not an article about The Chinese Room (film). Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially implies not only. Barnabypage (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's one of those cases where you have to consider how our various policies and guidelines work together. Self-published sources can be ok in articles about themselves, but for there to be such an article, there must exist independent reliable sources to establish notability. Otherwise we'd be full of unremarkable, unnotable material simply because it was self-published. But when talking about an article about a different subject, the question of undue weight arises when mentioning a topic not notable in itself. If a subject is notable enough to have its own article, mentioning it in another article is not as problematic in terms of WP:UNDUE. Here we have a subject - a film - that pretty clearly is not notable enough for an article. So the idea of using itself as a source for a mention in some other article becomes extremely problematic. Not necessarily disallowed, but the burden is definitely on those who want to use such a source to justify its use. Dlabtot (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

D1abtot - per my last comment here, the use of self-published sources is not restricted to articles on those sources.

You're right that there is a caution against undue weight. The brief mention proposed on the Chinese room article doesn't seem to me to constitute undue weight. It hardly dominates the article, it won't confuse any reader who wants to learn about the philosophical concept - and it may even prompt more contributions of examples where the Chinese Room idea has been manifested beyond academic circles.

On notability - the guidelines on notability are very clear that notability in the Wikipedian sense relates to whether an article should exist (WP:NNC, not to whether something should be mentioned in an article on another topic. (For example, the parents of famous people are usually not notable in themselves; yet it would be ludicrous to forbid mention of them in the articles relating to the famous individuals.)

It is also well-established that notability and reliability are not the same thing. See endless discussions passim. Barnabypage (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point at this edit and the replies following it. Is there any reason to think that Blueboar's opinion is significantly off the mark?

"unreleased": Commercially available at the film's homepage and Amazon. I own a copy, and since the film is released under a CC 3.0 by-nc license, I'll gladly make copies available to anyone interested. Paradoctor (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

well, if it is on Amazon, it's being distributed, although not in the sense I meant, so that part of the discussion is a bit off-topic, I guess. Sorry I brought it up, although I do think it is an interesting question. (Although I did get a chuckle out of "This product is manufactured on demand when ordered from Amazon.com.") Dlabtot (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC) And, sure, after all this talk, I'd be interested in viewing the film. Dlabtot (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful if someone could try addressing the actual question here, which is: Are these film festival listings reliable sources in this context? Dlabtot (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are primary sources and reliable for the facts that a film festival was promoted and that such a film was scheduled to be in it. They can't be used to demonstrate notability, but can be used for basic facts about the film. The question is then whether a brief mention about the film belongs in an article about the philosophical concept. It would help if a secondary source showed that the film was important to the topic, but is by no means required. I could go either way; the paragraph is a bit of a tangent in the article but there's no compelling reason to remove it. I would suggest that the mention of the film be turned into a hatnote that redirects to Queens International Film Festival, or a link referencing the film be added to an External Links section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not an article about a film festival. The references aren't being cited for "the facts that a film festival was promoted and that such a film was scheduled to be in it". Dlabtot (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What would be a reliable source for a meme?

I am currently discussing the possibility of recreating the Zalgo article with proper information and references with Acroterion, however since Zalgo is an Internet meme this seems to call into question what exactly can be classified as a reliable source of information. I personally have gleaned most of my information for the article (whose rough draft is available at User:FrankenSteinDr/sandbox) from http://knowyourmeme.com/meme/zalgo and the sister articles on ED and UrbanDictionary, as well as a direct link to its first appearance on forums.somethingawful.com.

What would be a proper source for this article?FrankenSteinDr (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not ED or UrbanDictionary. ED is a wiki, and doesn't even have a pretense of fact checking. UrbanDictionary is wiki-like, and anyone can edit it. I doubt if knowyourmeme.com is reliable, their about page says it is "powered by the hard-working members of our community." I'm familiar with the Zalgo meme, but I would say that it's not notable yet. This is a pretty good listing of the notable internet memes. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 18:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If there aren't proper sources, there should not be an article, because there is nothing (verifiable) to be said about the subject. Doomed permastubs are not really desirable.

But why not add it to List of internet memes? You could include a sentence or two about this one, and about any others that occur to you. Sourcing standards are less stringent for undisputed/unchallenged facts in a larger article than for demonstrating notability of entire subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the link. FrankenSteinDr (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to knowyourmeme.com, this came up once before.[85] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A question about reference texts, reliability and WP:NPOV

Our policy on original research WP:NOR currently describes the policy regarding reference texts, or tertiary sources, as follows:

Our policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself.

Our policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV includes the following language in relation to establishing the difference between majority, minority and fringe views:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The NPOV policy establishes the notion that tertiary sources are specifically useful in determining mainstream POVs. To some extent the NOR policy reflects this in it's first sentence by emphasizing how helpful these sources can be "in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources". However I'm not entirely sure that the relationship between these policies is all that clear. And I have a specific question about reliability and tertiary sources because I lack this clarity.

At Genesis creation narrative the following sentence in the lead was sourced to a reference text because it was disputed on the talk page: "The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook." Here's the reference in full:

Leeming, David A. (2004). "Biblical creation". The Oxford companion to world mythology (online ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2010-05-05. - "To the extent that this myth was influenced by Mesopotamian concepts, it can be said that it purposely establishes a monotheistic creation as opposed to the Babylonian polytheistic one."

Now another editor showed up and changed this sentence and its source with the edit summary - "putting in mainstream scholarly view". The reference added instead is 40 years old - Yehezkiel Kaufmann The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (1960) University of Chicago Press. On the talk page this editor claims that Leeming, regardless of the fact that Oxford University Press contracted him to author a reference work for them, is not an expert on the Hebrew Bible, and that therefore he should not be used for this claim. Arguments about Leeming's credentials notwithstanding (he's a well published scholar of comparative myth btw) my perspective was that the author shouldn't matter here as much as the publishing house and the type of publication. I personally believe that an up to date reference text by Oxford is much more likely to summarize accurately the mainstream POV on something like this than a non-reference text, especially one published 40 years ago. I'm I crazy for thinking so? What's the deal here regarding reliability and the appropriate reading of the above quoted policies? Is one of these texts more reliable than the other in this particular type of circumstance. Thank you kindly for your responses.Griswaldo (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Leeming is certainly a reliable source. If there are other reliable sources with differing views, then they need to be mentioned as well (per NPOV). Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Other, non-reference works, by well respected scholars in Biblical studies have been shown to support the phrasing, as I assume should be expected if Oxford is willing to put in a reference work. The other editor accepts those scholars, but insists that Leeming's view is "not significant." I understand that of course this means a compromise source is possible, which I have no objection to in this case. That said I wanted to try to clear the air in general on this issue regarding reference sources, because it seems to me that they are given special privilege in WP:NPOV ... not in terms of controversial and more detailed material of course, but in terms of very general mainstream statements. I guess I'd like to be more sure of myself when this comes up again. Thank you.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a question for WP:NPOVN. Dlabtot (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

^ See Wikipedia:Credentials and its talk page.
^ Hamas Military buildup in the Gaza Strip, IICC 8 April 2008 @pg. 34
^ Hamas Military buildup in the Gaza Strip, IICC 8 April 2008 @pg. 35

[1] See Wikipedia:Credentials and its talk page.

[2] Hamas Military buildup in the Gaza Strip, IICC 8 April 2008 @pg. 34

[3] Hamas Military buildup in the Gaza Strip, IICC 8 April 2008 @pg. 35

[1]

[2]

[3]