Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

I was wondering if The X-Files Lexicon would count as a reliable source LINK. Granted, it is a fan made site, but it is officially affiliated with the LAX-Files location guide, and notable members of The X-Files staff have been interviewed on the site, and Frank Spotnitz (an executive producer) has referenced it several times. I just want an OK before I add it anywhere.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to specify what information from the site you want to add. Interviews with crew *might* be reliable. But it all depends. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are the main bit, but they've started an episode guide I'd like to use. Here's an example page. Usually, for direct quotes they cite their information (and they tell who wrote what), and from what I can cross-reference, all of the information seems to be legitimate and true.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to pass reliable sources criteria. Here is the contact page: contact it apears to be run by two people, one who goes by "Red Scully" and I don't believe that is a real name. This looks like a very elaborate, self published site with no true editorial oversite to use in referencing facts on Wikipedia. As a self published source, probably a fan page, it's pretty much useless unless mentioned in another reliable source, and then only for illustrative purposes.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the interview, perhaps it might be broadline reliable for the interview. Other than that, I don't really think so, as it looks like a fan page, as stated above, ran by two people. TBrandley 02:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important point, HOW is it "Broadline" reliable for the interviews? The authors? The flood of fan pages suddenly posting all sorts of stuff based solely on it having been exclusively posted on their website could be a bit of a problem, but if there is some way this is allowed let us be clear on what the criteria are for it's use in this manner? While I don't see it, perhaps it can simply be pointed out how a fan page run by two people who have no notability, credentials or journalistic background known can be reliable for any use? How is it verifiable with no editorial oversite and how can it pass if self published?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, they are officially affiliated with one of the show's location guides, and executive producer Frank Spotnitz, among others, has mentioned the site and I believe has been interviewed on it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources on that? Like a blog or social media post that can be verified as belonging to an individual connected to the show? Siawase (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order for this to be considered an affiliation for Wikipedia standards for referencing, the website would need to be clearly established as an official affiliation of the copyright owner...not just the producer or an actor from the production. The website itself would need to be marked as "official" and copyright information required on the lower portion of the front page like this: Official Rocky Horror Fan Site would NOT make a statement like this fan page does, which states: "This fan site is not produced, endorsed or affiliated with Ten-Thirteen Productions or Twentieth Century Fox Television." So...no, this has no affiliation with the copyright owner and is not a reliable source for use--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the interviews are located on the producer or actors official sites, they would not need to be affiliated with the copyright owners of the X-Files to be considered a reliable source for the interview. Perhaps you can check their personal sites.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the interview subject verifies that the interview is rendered accurately, through say, a verified twitter account, or an interview in a reliable third-party source, then their words in the interview might be usable as a WP:PRIMARY source. It rarely happens, but it's not impossible. Siawase (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a verification through a twitter account mention may not be enough, but it may well be possible to OTRS verification through e-mail or just contacting the interview subjects if the primary source was reliable, but:

Shortcuts

• WP:PSTS
• WP:PRIMARY
• WP:SECONDARY
• WP:TERTIARY

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.^[3] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

There is actually a bit more so I include the short cuts to the different sections. Basicly a primary source has limited use, but still requires the same criteria of determing reliability. There is no doubt the source would be considered primary, but is also no doubt that it has no editorial oversite, official affilation to the copyright owner, or known fact checking. If the interviews are exclusive to this site then you may have to wait until they are published in a form usable on Wikipedia for referencing, but the site really has no value to wikipedia even as an external link because fan sites are excluded from such links in general. A bit of research may provide the same information in published interviews or just contact the fan site and see if they would release the interviews to be used on the producers official site in some form or on the official fan site.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This has veered way into hypothetical territory, so I'll just say if Gen. Quon has an answer to my original question I'd still very much like to hear it. Siawase (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Frank Spotnitz's production website, he has a link posted to the site Link, so it's affiliated with him. The Lexicon is also affiliated with the location guide The LAX-Files, which Spotnitz references to and was interviewed in. I realize now that the fan-made episode guide is no good, but I'd say the interviews should be OK, as the Lexicon has a relationship with Spotnitz (who was one of the executive producer for the final seasons) and is affiliated with the location book, which has quotes from a myriad of people involved and has been promoted by them too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think you might be overstating things a bit with "affiliated with." But to not get bogged down in hypotheticals again, I would suggest if you do find anything specific in one of the interviews that might be worth including, you bring that specific case back here for discussion. It's much more fruitful to discuss specific cases. Siawase (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title was changed to "Can Conservapedia be a reliable source about itself?" but another person has said that is inaccurate and I agree so I have reverted to the original "Secondary source quote". Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following was removed from the lead of Conservapedia by this edit by User:aprock with the comment 'content still sourced to open wiki, secondary sources quoting it does not make it any more reliable'

According to the site's operators, the site "strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts".

cited to: Jane, Emma (January 8, 2011). "A parallel online universe". The Australian. Retrieved January 9, 2011.

They have put in loads of policy quotes into Talk:Conservapedia#Self description to justify removing this quote. The quote appears in The Australian and comes from [39] on Conservapedia.

So what do people here think about that? Was it included properly or are we wrong to include a quote from an unreliable source talking about itself even if a secondary source quotes them? Do you agree with their 'You are clearly unaware of, disregarding and/or misusing WP:RS/QUOTE, WP:RSOPINION,WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:SELFPUB". Or would it in fact have been okay per WP:ABOUTSELF even if we didn't have the secondary source? Dmcq (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the quote was never published on Conservapedia, there would be no question using it (assuming that it keeps the NPOVness of the article in question). Just because the line was quoted in Conservapedia has no impact on the actual use of the quote on en.wiki. Even the non-quoted stuff in the text seems completely neutral. So its removal would appear to be wrong, and the cited policies don't apply here. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote would have to have been published somewhere to use it. I suspect it might help if there was a specific policy referenced which supported inclusion of the quote. If WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply, then it's not clear why we would include it. I've been looking for an reliable source for parallel content, like an interview with Schlafly, and have yet to find anything usable. aprock (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing the Australian's fact checking? Anyway the provenance of it is pretty clear from the history on Conservapedia. Aschafly is the founder of the site, and AddisonDM and Conservative are administrators. The site keeps tight control over its content and especially pages like the original for the quote! Exactly which part of ABOUTSELF would you say fails? That is part of WP:V. Dmcq (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that the quote appears on Conservapedia. Your claims about the state of the quality of particular pages on an open wiki are interesting, but not particularly relevant. It would be much better to quote Schlafly directly instead of presuming to quote him thorough an open wiki. In an interview [40] Schlafly states "The reason people are coming to us [Conservapedia] is we're concise, no gossip, and we have no liberal bias." Using direct quotations from interviews and published sources would seem to be a much better route in a case like this. aprock (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. For one, quoting the primary source (Conservapedia) would be fine to describe their approach, but its even better that the RS The Austrialian (as a secondary source) quotes it for us, as to "set" that line in stone. The Austrialian article does not appear to attempt to vilify or praise Conservapedia, just pointing out that it's not Wikipedia due to its origins. There is absolutely nothing wrong here with that quote. (Heck, we as the Wikipedia editors could say According to the site's operators, the site "strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts"., using the appropriate page on Conservapedia's help pages as a source, without violating any OR or POV issues, as explicitly allowed by ABOUTSELF. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian source is an editorial, and per WP:RSOPINION isn't reliable for anything but the author's views (It seems silly to me that we should include something like "In characterizing Conservapedia as even less reliable than Wikipedia, Ellen Jane sardonically quotes the site's operators statement that the site 'strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts'".)

It's not at all clear to me that any page on an open wiki can be used as a source for anything beyond the fact that the content exists on the open wiki. The most direct policy statement regarding this is from WP:SPS: For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. There are exceptions spelled out in WP:ABOUTSELF, but open wikis generally violate provisos 2 (as a single open wiki editor cannot in general speak for the community), 3 (claims about the wiki are not about the editor), and 4 (who is using the account to make the edits is unverifiable). Again, it seems that the preferred approach would be to quote the founder directly from a sourced interview. aprock (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You perhaps may have had a point if we sourced Conservapedia directly on that quote, though arguably it is a non-contentious fact about the site itself if you know why it was created; this is where the ABOUTSELF exceptions would be allowed. But we're saved from that. We have a secondary source (the Australian) that has written about it and cemented the statement, alongside other details of Conservapedia. We don't know care if the author of the Australian article got the "wrong" version when they took that quote off the website, it's still a valid quote about the website that falls in line with every other detail about the website (though there should be little doubt that fact was likely true). So anything about SPS and ABOUTSELF immediately go away as soon as we rely on the source quote from the Australian, as long as we're sufficiently assured of the paper's RS nature (which we are). --MASEM (t) 20:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, The Australian source is an editorial, and as such can only confer reliability to statements about the author's views. It cannot confer reliability to any of the facts presented, or sources used. To the extent that this content is non-contentious, it is precisely because similar content can be sourced directly to Schlafly in interviews. Those sourced interviews are the reliable sources that should be used and cited here, not pages on the open wiki or third party op-eds. aprock (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not said which part of WP:ABOUTSELF you dispute. Plus we are not discussing an opinion but whether the Australian checked the fact that the quote can be attributed to conservapedia. What the secondary source provides is the same sort of thing all secondary sources provide, the justification that it it is an interesting thing about Conservapedia to put in the article. Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not said which part of WP:ABOUTSELF you dispute: Oh good grief. See above: [41].

... whether the Australian checked the fact ... It's an op-ed. Fact checking isn't relevant here. It can only be used as a source for the views of Ellen Jane. That's it. aprock (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant that there's probably an interview that can be sourced that is better to use to state the purpose of Conservapedia's founding that doesn't otherwise rely on wiki text. But just because it happens to be an editorial doesn't make it unreliable. The author appears to be a regular writer for the work. The work is under editorial control. This doesn't mean 100% accuracy all the time, but at the same time, for journalistic integrity, we should assume that when they say "Site X says "Y"", they aren't purposely lying - otherwise, they'd be prone to libel/slander. That's why we label things as reliable sources that we have good reason to expect what they say to be true, even if it is part of an opinion or editorial piece. So using the Australian quote is absolutely in no violation of any policy. But I still agree on the point that we at en.wiki can likely get a better statement of Conservapedia's intent. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But just because it happens to be an editorial doesn't make it unreliable. On the contrary, from WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact... A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." aprock (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a controversial fact - I even just searched on that quote in google and its right there on Conservapedia's page on itself. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a controversial fact... no one said it was controversial. It does however have to be cited to a reliable source. An open wiki is not a reliable source, even about itself. aprock (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the complaints about WP:ABOUTSELF is basically as far as I can see a denial that there is such a thing as consensus or that it has any meaning. Would that be correct? You do not believe that for instance WP:5P can speak for the community as a whole under consensus? As for Conservapedia you discount the history as meaningless so the fact that the statement has been there for years and the pages has been edited by the founder and that there is very strong editorial control all count for nothing? ABOUTSELF sys 'there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity', are you really saying what you are employing is common sense and that there is a reasonable doubt that it is an accurate statement about them? I am having a very hard time assuming good faith about what you say. Dmcq (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned WP:5P. In fact, if you review Wikipedia, you'll see that the article is explicit about the shifting nature of policies under an open wiki model: "Even these rules are stored in wiki form, and Wikipedia editors as a community write and revise the website's policies and guidelines." What we are dealing with in Conservapedia is a known unreliable source, which is also an open wiki. The idea that we should take it's content at face value, even content about itself, is preposterous. To the extent that claims are made about the vision of Conservapedia, they should be directly sourced to Andy Schlafly (as opposed to presumptively indirectly) since: (1) it is clear who is making the statement (2) It is clear that it is what he says about Conservapedia (3) that the project vision is not one which comes from community consensus, but from Schlafly himself. Given that there are sources for explicit Schlafly quotes here which generally mirror the current content, it seems especially odd to insist on using the unreliable open wiki as the source. aprock (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title you've changed this section to is not the issue that you are raising. As long as the quote is filtered throug the RS of the Australian, we presume that at the time they citing the information, it was what Conservapedia said.

Again, you are absolutely correct that we would be much better off gaining the perspective of what Conservapedia's goal is from an interview with Schlafly, the founder, himself. But the removal of the Australian quote on the basis of SPS claims is just wrong. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[42] aprock (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thgat is talking about opinion. The bit in the Australian that was being used is not an opinion of the author. Such material refers to the title of the section 'statements of opinion'. I really wish you would stop misusing your references like that. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is talking about sources, not views from the source, and is explicit about sourcing facts to op-eds. Opinion pieces can be used to source view, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". In this case the Author in question is Ellen Jane. aprock (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not her opinion that is quoted at Conservapedia. All that Ellen Jane is saying in her reliable source article is what Conservapedia says about itself, which is all we are saying here. Ellen Jane, nor Wikipedia is stating it as fact, all that Wikipedia and Ellen Jane are saying is what Conservapedia says about itself.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an opinion piece by Jaybe and it says "I asked Lord Rodney about the rioters and he said they were rats. I think he is stuck up" The bit "I think he is stuck up" is opinion and we'd say "Jaybe thought Lord Rodney was a snob". However for the other bit we'd just say "Lord Rodney said the rioters were rats", we don't say "Jaybe is of the opinion that Lord Rodney thinks rioters are rats". In fact that would be wrong - we don't know Jaybe thinks that about Lord Rodney though it is probably true. The bit about reporting things as the sources opinion is about when they are their opinion. Dmcq (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However for the other bit we'd just say "Lord Rodney said the rioters were rats": No, we wouldn't include it. Facts sourced only to opinion pieces are not worthy of inclusion. aprock (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Schlafly would be okay for Conservapedia about it as he has such tight control, but Jimbo for instance would not be a good source about Wikipedia. A version of Wikipedia chosen by a secondary source would be better I believe. I also think the title has been changed very wrongly. We're not talking about Conservapedia being a reliable source. What we were using was WP:ABOUTSELF which is directly after WP:SPS and qualifies its applicability. As to Wikipedia I believe it would be reasonable for third party to use it as what people here think about Wikipedia. The shifting nature of policies has no bearing on anything any more than saying something about a person is invalid because it only described them up to a certain age. The citation has a date on it and in fact the stuff is still valid in this case but we are not obliged to change things immediately the world changes. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note Aprock above says that we can't directly use things reported as facts in an opinion piece in a reliable source by a journalist. Aprock says we must attribute them as the journalists opinion. Thus when they say 'Lord Rodney said rioters are rats' we have got to say something like The journalist Jaybe said that Lord Rodney said rioters are rats. Do people agree with that? Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current guideline may be found at WP:NEWSORG, which essentially says opinion pieces are rarely reliable for statements of facts. So the guideline is tolerant of using opinion pieces to support facts in rare cases, and I think it should be a little more tolerant. A writer who is published by a reliable source, especially on the editorial page rather than the op-ed page, isn't just some letter-writer; the writer has a certain amount of credibility. In some cases, the writer has a reputation for reliability in his/her own right, apart from the publisher. One would expect a good writer to marshal relevant facts in support of his/her opinion, and often the writer can be trusted to convey those facts accurately. Of course, it would be better to source those facts to a non-opinion piece if possible, but that may not be practical if it involves interviews by the writer. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what that guidance is about is wherei n my example if journalist Jaybe says in an opinion piece in a newspaper 'Lord Rodney said "Rioters are rats". He is a snob'. The 'he is a snob' has to be taken as opinion of the writer Jaybe rather than a fact even though it is written as a fact. The other thing that looks like a fact though is a straight reported fact of a reliable source. That section WP:NEWSORG says "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact", the section is primarily talking about anything which might be the authors opinion even though presented as fact. Quoting somebody else with quote marks is not opinion, the most opinion that can enter there is if the quote has been selected in a misrepresentative way. As to the Conservapedia quote in the opinion piece in The Australian one can look at the actual source in Conservapedia and its provenance and I don't believe anyone has denied that the quote correctly represents the source intent. Dmcq (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. Why can we not simply cite Conservapedia for its own statement about itself? We have no absolute ban against primary sources for such purposes. Reliability is always relative to what is being sourced, and in some cases primary sources can be just what we need. It seems to me that to argue about a weak secondary source when we know the primary source is taking the policies the wrong way and creating a false dilemma. If the primary source itself is considered misleading (for example if it is self serving) we can always attribute it. I think most readers will be suitably cautioned by wording such as "X describes itself as..." so why not just do something like that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given some of the reviews of Conservapedia, the claim that it, "strives to keep its articles…true to the facts" may in fact be an extraordinary claim; which would mean that an non-involved, preferably secondary source would be required regarding the factuality of Conservapedia. I'd suggest library and archival science reviews as the starting point—I'd suggest them as a better way to begin authoring an article on the subject rather than searching newspapers. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the diff that is cited at the beginning of this discussion, the text removed by Aprock contains one misleading phrase and one unnecessary risk. The misleading phrase is "the site's operators" (unless we are able to show that these words were said by the site's operators). The risk, as with any wiki, is that the text we're quoting may change (although only admins can edit the page in question, and this text has been stable for a long time).

Well, this text is worth quoting: it really does encapsulate Conservapedia. (I don't think Fifelfoo's point changes this, because what we are talking about is a self-description, and, as such, exactly what anyone would expect.) So what do we do? In our text we use Andrew Lancaster's phraseology ("Conservapedia describes itself as..."'). In our footnote we cite a version of the Conservapedia page history that includes these words (primary source but not controversial), and we add a citation to "The Australian" (reliable secondary source), because that'll be handy when Conservapedia goes the way of all flesh. Andrew Dalby 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could make it closer to what the The Australian said I suppose which is "Conservapedia writes trustworthily in its entry on itself" but that was obviously said sarcastically. A quick look at the history will confirm that Andrew Schafly contributes to the page, that the page was originally written by and is dominated by administrators and really is it at all likely that the page Conservapedia on the Conservapedia site does not reflect the site operators when that has been in for a few years and the site is so heavily controlled? What WP:ABOUTSELF requires is "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", is there any reasonable doubt or are people just indulging in wikilawyering? As to it being an exceptional claim, yes the Australian is a bit sarcastic about it and that's why we don't state it as fact. but as their opinion. When Muhammed Ali said "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" we don't go around the place saying he dis not actually go around floating like a butterfly and he actually used gloves instead of stinging. We attribute it to him and it is a major item in the lead not something to have suppressed as an exceptional claim. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew asked, "Why can we not simply cite Conservapedia for its own statement about itself?" I agree, using this format.... "According to X, they do Y.(cite1)" If there is a reliable source of sufficient weight, this could be followed by "However, others criticize X saying X instead does Z.(cite2)" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Looking deeper, I have revised my opinion. I now believe that the statement that[reply]

"(Conservapedia) strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts"

is an unduly self-serving and exceptional claim. Therefore, it does not qualify for the exception to the rule on self-published sources talking about themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF sub-paragraph #1. I also think that the dearth of reliable secondary sources calls into question the notability of Conservapedia in the first place, and even if others think it is notable enough to have an article here the site still has a very high percentage of articles that would have to comply with our policies regarding WP:FRINGE. Therefore its own unduly self-serving claim about being "true to the facts" is particularly unacceptable under our policies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it unduly self serving? It has "According to the site's operators," before that bit so it is attributed to Conservapedia rather than expressed as a WIkipedia opinion. They don't work to our standards but to their own religious nutter standards and that is described very well in the following paragraph. That is a straightforward statement in a description of themselves, a self serving one would be one from their Conservapedia:About page "Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here." which is more of a sales talk. Personally with a suitable attribution to them and keeping it to a one liner like that and with the various descriptions of what they actually do have in their articles I can't see why even that sales pitch in the about page is so hard for people to stomach. I think some people on Wikipedia must have trouble coping with other people having different opinions and keeping that clear in their minds. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia rather than have people trying to clean it of anything which they don't agree with. Do you actually feel comfortable about describing that a person has an opinion and distinguishing it from the opinions of other people? Do you think it is somehow wrong to describe someone else's opinion if you think it is wrong? Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a determined contributor named Causeandedit who removes tags, doesn't follow rules, bombards articles with bogus references. I'm at 1RR so I can not revert anymore.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a unproper tag you placed on a page that was already accepted and approved by the WikiProject Articles for creation. For some reason, it seems you have a personal vendetta against the pages I built (and are still working on). But for you to grossly misrepresent that I "don't follow rules", "bombards articles with bogus references" is completley false and uncalled for and is a personal attack. "Please do no bite the newcomers". I've never had any problems on Wikipedia until the last few days, and one person admitted he was wrong and apologized.Causeandedit (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion has anything to do with this noticeboard, please demonstrate it by linking to examples or something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most "reliable sources" at the Wikipedia "article" Hoopla Worldwide are bogus promotional links to blogs, online bookstores, dubious websites and such. The same problem with a related article Jonathan Hay (publicist).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Tomwsulcer this is cleary becoming a personal attack on my work without anything constructive on your part. There are 69 reference links on the Hoopla Worldwide page which granted are too many (and something I'm learning to do), but you call it as "bogus" or "promotional". On the Jonathan Hay (publicist) page, that is being worked on and assited by two other wikipedia users and fixing the article as we speak. It would have been helpful, especially with all your wikipedia expereince instead of jumping all over an article that I was working on with the "in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" tag, you would have tried to "help", not "tear down".Causeandedit (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable references include bookstores, blogs, dubious websites, etc. Remove them. Most of the so-called "references" seem dubious to my eyes. Further, remove any information which is supposedly based on these "references". This is how I am trying to help you -- to help you understand Wikipedia's rules. It is not a personal attack. Please see WP:RS for further information about sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at the article and its sources and agree that as it exists at present it lacks good sources for the most basic of information. Martinlc (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all,
1. Source. Map at [43]
2. Article. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

While the official name of the territory was Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia[2][3] (German: Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien; Serbo-Croatian: Teritorij Vojnog Komandanta u Srbiji, Територија војног команданта у Србији), sources refer to it using a wide variety of terms. Serbia, (Srbija, Србија)

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it is an undergraduate textbook and not representative of the scholarship of occupations in Europe in WWII. (Paul W Werth (No date), History 464: EUROPE SINCE 1914 at page "Europe under Nazi Occupation" http://faculty.unlv.edu/pwerth/464.html). Go find a scholarly source. Also the source doesn't support the claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use Tomasevich instead. He extensively uses Serbia (100 times) to refer to that territory.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Antidiskriminator's suggestion, given that Stanford publishes Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-0857-6. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought a undergraduate textbook was a very good reliable source. However if there are more authoritative sources written specifically on the subject that say something different then you just have to argue out if there is an actual mistake or if there is some other reason for the difference, it may come down to documenting a controversy - I don't know what the other sources are like or how they differ or why. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate textbooks fail to reflect the scholarly discourse and simplify for pedagogical purposes major facts into "just so" tales aimed at undergraduates. They are not held to the fact-checking standards in scholarly presses, distort the current historiographical understandings in order to serve pedagogical purposes, and are targeted at the requirements of teaching and not the requirements of disciplinary fact. Undergraduate textbooks aren't acceptable sources in history. (Though some major monographs are suitable for use in undergraduate courses, this differs from textbooks.) In this case the undergraduate textbook is a poorly compiled course reader which hasn't even received the minimal oversight that a textbook press provides. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the map I fail to see how it directly corroborates the statement. Territories can comprise areas. Dmcq (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The is an ongoing NPOV:N

but are these ok

http://www.dlpublications-lart.co.uk/2011/12/misha-bs-f64-continues-to-get-fans.html

http://www.imediamonkey.com/2012/07/16/review-misha-b-home-run-single/

YouTube in context.

(And possibly any other citation on the page)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supply the wikipedia page and the specific claim these will be used to support. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was a bit silly of me.

The Page is Misha B

Quantity wise the article is very well sourced, with Circa 100 citations (I have bundled them, but another editor, who helps keep me in check, does not like bundling. I dont know if you can give an opinion on bundling? )

Article F64 and Why Hello World

Citation: http://www.dlpublications-lart.co.uk/2011/12/misha-bs-f64-continues-to-get-fans.html

About the Source: (Welcome to L'ART Magazine. We are an Oxford based publication of the arts, bringing you news and features on talented individuals. DL Publications is a brand name we have created. After studying English, Journalism, Magazine Journalism and Feature Writing at University, as sisters we thrived on the thought of starting our own media company.)

• A brand name created by unnamed sisters/Journalism(?) students at an unknown date. No editors/contributors listed. Only contact details are a gmail email address. There's no evidence at all this is an reliable expert source. The piece about Misha B seems gushing and ..well, just gushing. There are plenty of sources with a better repute. Why use this one at all? Have I missed something? Sionk (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope you have not missed something, apart from the authors being journalism graduates, you have investigated deeper and most probably correct....Zoebuggie☺whispers 08:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Removed from article all citations and content from this source....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Debut single iMediamonkey praised the song: "Home Run is a promising offer and is one that is not lacking in personality, attitude and style...

Citation: iMediamonkey http://www.imediamonkey.com/?s=misha+B (link had changed)

Source: Just discovered this is actually amedia website my fellow editor believed it to be a blog

• Your 'fellow editor' does not necessarily believe what people say about themselves on the web. imedia monkey say they started as a blog in 2009 and subsequently became a "trusted media news provider". Granted they list a named editorial team and a small number of reporters, which helps their credibility (in my view). I'd also be interested to here another opinion. Sionk (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again I agree, the page rank is pretty low etc, I think as I am new, I maybe a little gullible....Zoebuggie☺whispers 08:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Removed all citations and content from this source

Unless Anyone objects I consider the above two questions closed....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________

Q. For admin. I have split the article in two, the top half is mostly resolved, but the question/s below are still open. Should the lower halve move to the bottom of the part of the page?

Some Youtube refs to give me an idea when they are acceptable, as the main other editor deletes them out of hand

1. Youtube as an reference of a song being discussed

Article: F64 and Why Hello World A couple of weeks after the X-factor series finished, Misha performed a live freestyle F64 for SB.TV on the December 24: directed by Jamal Edwards, 2011, ...

Citation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UlWJxY_49Y |title=SB.TV F64 Source: (SB.TV is a new, innovative and exciting ‘Music and Lifestyle’ media platform specialising in UK Grime and Rap music)

2. Youtube showing of something physical/in junction with other sources

Article: Public image For instance, on Home Run she wears extravagant monogrammed eyelashes which spelled out Misha B and Home Run....

Cit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaOw35GBPQw | (plus http://pappzd.com/2012/03/misha-b-eyelashes-holly-silius)

Source:The singers Official Video Site

3. Youtube Interview with subject (actually what is the policy around citing from interviews from any source)

Article: Early life Before Misha B defeated her stage fright at 18

Cit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUZurHnFChE&list=UUCeXvzNSI3drukdd0gNyC_Q&feature=plcp (also http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/x-factor-2011-misha-b-prays-before-going-on-stage/ )

Source: A video interview by Gaydar Radio a leading LGBT media organisation

4. Youtube showing a style of performance .

Article: Musical style and influences and Jay-Z and Kanye West’s No Church in the Wild

Cit: http://sbtv.co.uk/2012/07/misha-b-covers-jay-z-and-kanye-track/

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the 'main other editor' is me, I removed the Youtube sources because they (a) were generally Misha B talking about herself, therefore not an independent secondary source (b) in some cases, simply examples of Misha B singing/performing. Interpretation by you is WP:OR, as far as I understand (c) in most cases they were part of groups of 6+ sources citing single words. Why not just use the secondary sources, where they exist? Sionk (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested to here opinions here. Apart from interviews I have used the music you videos as supportive media illustrations to secondary sources, as primary sources I believe they are reliable. I have done no separate interpretation. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." I am relatively new here, so still trying to grasp what is acceptable and what is not. Interviews are an area I am not sure about and would like some direction. I have used multiple citations, sometimes to cover different parts of a sentence or because to many she is a controversial person or statement possibly contentious or to preserve against link rot or the citations support each other, plus I admit I am a little obsessive....Zoebuggie☺whispers 08:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think I put more citations up as I got over defensive, as new contributor, seeing and not fully understanding why things got removed. However, as long as the remaining sources are of good quality the is no harm in having multiple sources for the reasons in my passage above....Zoebuggie☺whispers 13:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(While "www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/sp_ss_scv_stemma-bandiera-sigillo_en.html#Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano" is a direct link to the heading, it does not display in Wikipedia.)

For my part, I don't see this heading (which is not a statement) as a reliable source for either claim. I see the contrasting claims as further proof of their lack of firm foundation. The Italian version of the same source says nothing of the "coat of arms" (stemma) of the Holy See: it speaks of the "coat of arms" of Vatican City, but mentions only an "emblem" (emblema) of the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict between the Italian and the English version of the page renders this source doubtful, even though it's official. The fact that on the English page the textual description of the coat of arms is not in correct heraldic English suggests that the page has not been professionally translated.

Your right-hand illustration here can hardly be called a coat of arms, since it lacks the central feature of any usual coat of arms -- the shield or escutcheon. What we see on the left can be called a "coat of arms", although a full achievement normally consists of more than just a shield: see the arms of the two popes, illustrated on those same Web pages, for examples.

I'd suggest looking for an alternative source. Andrew Dalby 11:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the source produces trivial and directly conflicting interpretations like this, it is hardly a reliable source, as original research is required to produce a claim of fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in DR on Commons: «It is clearly an emblem not a coat of arms, is obviously a small translation mistake». For me the question is closed. Moreover, I really don't see the point of it: what is the question? We have now correct images and correct nouns for them. --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know if it is a true coat of arms in that way, just because it is refered to as such. Really, the claim should have a stronger source so here is what I am finding: "The Next Pope" By Anura Gurugé and "The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism" By Richard P. McBrien.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger that the Vatican itself? Mhmm, please... ;) The description of the images is not heraldic, why it should be? Indeed it is not mandatory that it is.

It's funny that my image goes around in so many books (I have found several in the book shops)... --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your image. That is another thing. You are listed on the page as the author, source and copyright holder who relesed the image into the public domain. (the last part is due to the license chosen) That is innaccurate. As the artist you never held the copyright to the derivative work because faithful renditions of public domain images cannot be copyrighted. You are the author of the svg file. The vatican and an unkown artist are the true attribution as even public domain images retain all attribution rights. One can never claim to own attribution of the originating design. You should be sharing authorship in some form and you are not the source. The source is where you obtained the image for use to make the file. That should be a book reference or a website and is always a good idea to link directly to that page if possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also since you were not the originating artist and borrowed another svg to make the key emblem used in the red shield image...you would need to share attribution with user:Hautala (as the originating uploader/author and Open Clip Art Library listed as the originating site the image comes from, as well as the Vatican and artist. I am a little concerned with the number of versions of this image...since one is a featured image but there are slight differences. At any point the two files above need a great deal of work.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I got it! I see the light!! :D

The question of Esoglou was: «Have the Holy See a coat of arms or only an emblem?» (My! Someone need to know to get to the point!). Now I understand. My answer is: I don't know. But as far as I can see, if it has a coat it is not used in any part of the Vatican web site. When we have prove of a coat of arms, we can do it. So... --F l a n k e r (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe several editors have expressed direct concern with the Vatican Website's strength as a reliable source in this instance, or at the very least added referencing is needed. It isn't that the red shield coat of arms is not legit, but if you are maintaining it is the official one used for any reason, without a reference to how and when it is used, it is just extrapolation. Clearly the vatican webiste shows both emblems. All other sources seem to point to the keys without the shield but what does it hurt to keep looking. So far, no other source shows the shield and the Vatican site doesn't appear to distinguish the two..and for what its worth the one without the shield is on top. And, shouldn't the image on the right be combined with the images on the left like the vatican page for the use on the left if it uses the vatican site as reference?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that neither image is actually referenced at their commons page to allow verification of the images themselves and should have some reference added to show the public domain images are an accurate depiction from the sources in order to use them on Wikipedia. Having the images referenced properly to meet MOS and image use policy to begin with is a good start.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answers, but I know a little about heraldry and can point out a few things to look for:

• In modern times, heraldry is regulated by the sovereign power for each state (or in many countries, ignored by the sovereign power). Since the Pope is a sovereign, the Pope can defy the conventions of heraldry if he wants to.
• Conventionally, a coat of arms is described in words; this description is a blazon. There is one exact blazon, but each artist is allowed to interpret the blazon and all the various interpretations are valid armorial achievements
• Conventionally, the main element of a coat of arms is the shield. Usually the blazon does not specify the shape of the shield, in which case the shape is at the discretion of the artist, within certain conventions. For example, shields for men usually resemble actual combat shields, while shields for clergymen are usually oval. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In view, among other things, of the remarks made here, I have made bold to revise the article so as to present neutrally three different views, giving sources for each. Perhaps more numerous valid sources could be added. Esoglou (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings us back to what I already told: when we have a prove that the Holy See uses a coat of arms instead of an emblem, we can draw it. --F l a n k e r (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it uses the coat of arms or not, the Holy See does have one, as stated in the pre- and post-1929 heraldic sources cited in the article on the subject, which is where you should discuss your doubt. What is discussed here is the source on whose Italian version you base your argument that the Holy See has an emblem but perhaps no coat of arms, while Bellae artes bases on the same source in the other languages in which the Holy See Press Office issued it his argument that the Holy See does have a coat of arms and that this coat of arms is identical with that of Vatican City. The consensus here is that this source cannot be considered a reliable source for those contrary conclusions. Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Esoglou, maybe you have your personal version of the Vatican laws, but the 1929 and 2000 versions of the Foundamental Law don't mention at all Holy See's symbols (coat of arms, emblems, logos, whatever!) (see: Leggi_Vaticane.pdf). So, for the millionth time, want we to stick to what is shown on the official websites of the Vatican? (see: http://www.vaticanstate.va and http://www.vatican.va). --F l a n k e r (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then go find even older sources. This may well be one of those times as discussed in another thread about age of sources where an older source may help clear this up. And no, we do not stick to just what is shown on the Vatican website.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican State law establishing the state's coat of arms, not the Holy See's, has not been cited here by anyone but Flanker. What has been discussed here is the interpretation Flanker is imposing on Holy See Press Office documentation on the Holy See's website, and the contradictory interpretation that Bellae artes is imposing on the same documentation. That documentation, it is agreed here by all but Flanker, is not a reliable source either for Flanker's interpretation or for that of Bellae artes. And, as Amadscientist has hinted, there are authoritative heraldic sources that disagree with both interpretations. Esoglou (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a content dispute and should be discussed on the talkpage of the article. If the dispute is between two editors I suggest requesting a third opinion as the reasonable next step and suggest an uninvolved editor close this as a simple content dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are wrong: I see that the Vatican web site has a coat of arms as official symbol, and that the Holy See has got an emblem as official symbol (if it is used on a web site, it is accordingly official). Not more, not less: never, I say never, in this discussion I staded more. Moreover, also the State's secretary uses the only the emblem (you can find an example here: Da Segreteria di Stato.jpg).

As you can see I alwais show the source of my arguments. But you instead, have you a shred of evidence that there ever was a coat of arms of the Holy See?

If yes: good, let's draw it! I'll draw it, if you want.

If not: then stop accusing me of unilateral behavior and go find it (if it ever existed). --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian version of the link Esoglou supplied is quite straight forward: it states that there is both an Emblema della Santa Sede and a Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano. These are shown immediately underneath, the emblem without the shield and the Stemma with the red shield. This is also noted in the Italian Wiki article, Stemma del Vaticano. here is a description: Lo stemma araldico è l’emblema dello Stato della Città del Vaticano. È di colore rosso e all’interno compaiono i due simboli della Chiesa Cattolica (The heraldic coat of arms is the emblem of the Vatican State. It is red and within it appears the two symbols of the Catholic Church.) This article clearly separates the Holy See from the Vatican State, the symbol is of the Holy See and the shield is of the Vatican State: L’emblema della Santa Sede Apostolica e quello dello Stato della città del Vaticano non coincidono (the emblem of the Holy Apostolic See and that of the Vatican State don't coincide). The coat of arms is for the political entity, while the religious entity uses the emblem without the shield (l’emblema della Santa Sede però non è inserito in uno scudo). -- spin^control 05:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorspin's citation of the website Araldica Civica "on the coats of arms of the communes, provinces and regions of Italy" is already given, with similar information, at the section of the article Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City devoted to the "emblem only" view of the coat of arms of the Holy See.

The "identical with that of Vatican City State" view (based on a contradictory interpretation of the same documentation of the Holy See Press Office) is also given in the same article, together with a statement in another Italian website, that of Giorgio Aldrighetti.

What seems to be the best-documented section of the same article also gives the evidence of authoritative scholarly works on papal heraldry that state not only that the Holy See has had a coat of arms but that it now has a coat of arms with the gold key in bend. Flanker can find there more than "a shred of evidence that there ever was a coat of arms of the Holy See".

Here, on the other hand, the question is neither the Araldica Civica nor the Aldrighetti website, nor the scholarly works of papal heraldry, but a particular documentation (in four languages) on which two contradictory statements were claimed to be based. Discussion of other websites and books should certainly, as Amadscientist said, be carried on not here, but at the talk page of the article as a content dispute. Esoglou (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh men, we are stick on the same point again! The Vatican site (Holy See official web site, I remember) is not contradictory, there is only a marginal mistake: it names an emblem "coat of arms". Period. You can find the same error in the image name: santa-sede_stemma.gif... see? Stemma, i.e. coat of arms.

I think we can divide the problem in two parts: present day and historical. For the present day I think that the sources are clear:

• 
  Symbol of the Vatican City
• 
  Symbol of the Holy See

For the historical symbols I don't know, maybe something different. Maybe they have Santa on the symbol!

So, for the millionth time, where's the evidence of a coat of arms? And no, please, don't link a Wikipedia article, we need a book or an historical representation, or... a Vatican official web site. --F l a n k e r (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click on this link for the answer, and then discuss your ideas on the talk page associated with that information about books (plural) and other sources indicated in the answer. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're having a dispute over at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia regarding the use of what is clearly a WP:RS to support a disputed name for the territory as used in the article.

1. Source.

• Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4.
• the whole book, specifically [44]

2. Article. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

3. Content. The Names section of the article.

Issue. When Tomasevich introduces this occupied territory for the first time in the book (on p. 64), he uses the term 'Serbia proper' (per the Google Books link). Throughout the rest of the 700 page+ book he uses the terms 'Serbia', Occupied Serbia' and a couple of others to refer to this same territory. The dispute is over whether the whole book (or the first use of the term 'Serbia' on its own ie after 'Serbia proper') can be used as a citation for the use of the name 'Serbia' to refer to the territory. My point about this is that if I wrote Australian Rules Football in a book, it would be standard practice to use the term 'football', not 'Australian Rules Football' from then on. Of course that would cause confusion with football, wouldn't it? But is it only the term he first uses, or can any any other term he subsequently uses also be sourced from Tomasevich. Maybe every version he uses should be listed with specific page citations? Advice appreciated, I may be too close to this issue and straying into WP:OR. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 64 and 514 of the text you cite indicate how the author is using the term "Serbia proper." In particular page 64 tells you how you should read "Occupied Serbia." Other uses of Serbia may or may not be referring to Occupied Serbia in the text—given that Serbia as a concept exceeds the German occupation's structuring of what "Serbia" was. This must be read in context, particularly in the context of the difference between German occupational definitions versus personally or collectively held feelings of the construction of the Serbian nation. For instance, on page 64 when referring to the German occupation of Serbia it is obvious that the term "Serbia" as used here refers specifically to "occupied Serbia" or "Serbia proper." It needs to be read in context. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Some content I added has been vehemently removed twice (diff, diff, talk) from the green coffee article on the basis of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. The content cites the Hypertension Research journal, and read:

The Japanese Society of Hypertension published studies in 2002 and 2005, demonstrating that green coffee bean extract has an antihypertensive effect in rats^[4] and humans.^[5]

Some more information on the journal:

• its listing at Nature.com
• some articles from the journal, via Google Scholar

I am attempting to expand the content of the stub green coffee article in a neutral and verifiable manner but am not an expert, and would appreciate a community read on the reliability of this journal. Regards. --Ds13 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question... I know the talk on this page isn't binding, but if there is not negative consensus WRT a source (Hypertension Research journal, in this case)... does it seem reasonable to proceed to acknowledge content (shown above) from that journal in an article? --Ds13 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How do we deal with books like this that are brought up in talk page discussions like this one? The book is published by Bluff Place Publishing. Is that a legitimate publisher that would confer reliability upon that book? Or do we require independent sources to speak about the book in order to treat it as such? The only sources I can find that mention it through a cursory Google search are gossip sites and what appear to be user-generated material like this. I'm inclined to treat it as unreliable gossip, but I'm not sure what the basis would be for this. How do we respond to this? And if it's not RS, should that talk page message be removed for the same reason? Nightscream (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take this to the BLP Notice Board on how to handle the book within the guidelines of the BLP policy. There is a list of publishers that deal with self published (paid to publish) books that wikipedia has banned or blocked from being used but I lost the link to it. The talk page message should be removed as inflammitory.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list wasn't too hard to find. Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Side comment: Amadscientist... Just so you know, that is NOT a list of publishers that are "banned or blocked from being used". Wikipedia allows self-published sources in some situations... however, we also recognize that there are situations where using one would be inappropriate. See WP:SPS for more on those limitations.) Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some info from Open ISBN. At a glance it seems to be a legitimate publishing company, however it may be a self publishing company from the results during a google search.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what OpenISBN claims to do, but that link shows only this one book coming from Bluff Place Publishing (the others happen to have "bluff" etc. as keywords). Which, if the information is complete, would hint strongly at self-publishing. Andrew Dalby 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to promote this book by linking directly to the links in that books section on Open ISBN but it details more information to research it. to be clear I believe this is a self published book and soesn't pass reliable sources...but i don't have the facts to make a determination. It has been published in paper back and is not a e-book, so perhaps it maight be something to help find further information about the publisher. I made it clear the inclusion of material should be discussed at the BLP notice board as we are simply trying to determine the relibaility of a the publication...which I still doubt but can't find on the black list of pay-to-publish companies.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True self-publishers -- people who publish their own stuff -- can never be fully listed. Anyone in a free country is free to do it. Our lists are merely of businesses that do it for you. Ordinary self-publishers wouldn't make it on to our list.

Unless we find that "Bluff Place Publishing" has published some other books as well, there's a very strong likelihood of self-publishing. Andrew Dalby 08:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Book Description' section at the Amazon link reeks of self-publishing - multiple grammatical mistakes, shift from third to first person, etc etc. The "View inside this book" shows similar issues:

* "He also worked the Protective Service Detail for the white house"

* "...to see if there were carried out properly"

* "This is a mere partial list of the accomplishments he has achieved during his long and highly revered career to say the least".

* "...I have had plenty of opportunities to behold these celebrity's penises while they were exposed to me..."

I doubt any of these would have survived editorial oversight. --GenericBob (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely looks self-pub. But, even if it isn't, the material would be extremely unlikely to survive BLPN. We normally require evidence of a living person's self-identification in order to discuss their sexuality in an article. Formerip (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, our policy on sexual orientation of living persons asks for identity, so an "eye-witness" report of JCVD having sex with men would not suffice even were the source a reliable one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only categorization requires self-identification (WP:BLPCAT.) For the prose in BLP articles on individuals who aren't publicly self-identified LGB, it normally takes a multitude of highly reliable sources to include LGB material.([45][46][47]) This book isn't even in the neighbourhood of being enough. Siawase (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mick fleetwood is 70 years old. He was born 1942. I checked. His official. Website and several. Others

This is incoherent. Please review the instructions at the top of this page, and in the template contained above. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are sources for both 1942[48][49] and 1947[50]. In 2007 there was a brief discussion of this on the talk page and the participating editors decided to go with 1947, mainly on the strength of that being the year mentioned in his autobiography Fleetwood: my life and adventures in Fleetwood Mac (here is a snippet from Google Books showing that sentence). Mick's official website is a bit hard to penetrate and I didn't find a birthday; maybe someone else can. In any event, I think this would need to be discussed on the talk page before anything is changed.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike article, there is a disagreement if a quote of a child can be used to support two statements. The first statement is: "They saw an injured man laying on the street" (in the context: the two were driving). The second statement is: "Mutashar said to "take him to [a] hospital"" (where "him" refers to the person lying on the street). The argument in the talk is that the source is not good because it is a child making it. I do not believe the age makes a difference, and as a primary source, it should be handled as any other primary sources. Thus, I am seeking a third party opinion on matter. Belorn (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazeera is a reliable source and I don't see any problem including the quote if it's attributed (we would also attribute quotes from adult witnesses). Randy2063 seems to be arguing based purely and solely on his personal beliefs, and that's not how WP works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, I don't think attribution is called for - I misinterpreted your question slightly. If it were a comment about others' activities during the incident - say, if the witness had said they saw the American troops do such and such a thing - attribution would be necessary, but this is not the case here. Unless we have a reliable source which suggests the van was there for another reason. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I am going to let it rest a bit, let more people add their opinion if they want, and also collect my thought. But based on that, the chain of events as being described in the article looks to be as good one can get based on reliable sources. The flow of the text could be improved, but most details of the event looks to be there. Belorn (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the discussion above is mixing different issues, such:

• a) Is the Al Jazeera English (AJE) reporting of the incident (in general) reliable.
• b) Is the witness observation of the child reliable (not the report on it) and can it be taken literally
• c) Should the observation of the child be mentioned explicitly or just indirectly in a summary of reporting/witnesses.

The answer to a) is yes, AJE is fairly reliable (as far as the reliability of major news organization goes) and note that AJE significantly differs from the (original) Al Jazeera Arabic. So if you research sources on their reporting and reliability make sure you distinguish those two.

As far as b) is concerned I don't quite see what makes the child's statement/description unreliable in this specific case. In general in some context child's observations may need to viewed with more care, because they may not fully understand a particular situation and hence misread it and are more impressionable than adults. However in this specific case everything looks straightforward and I don't see any convincing reason that might taint the child's description.

As far as c) is concerned, that's more a question of editorial discretion rather than reliability. There is certainly no reason, why the child's description needs to be included explicitly, but on the other hand I don't see right know why doing so would be a policy/guideline violation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some adults, like some children, are not good witnesses. That's a problem for people who use primary sources. Nothing to do with Wikipedia here -- one good reason why we are chary of using primary sources.

I'd say al-Jazeera is a reliable source, but, like all other sources, may have a point of view on controversial issues (e.g. this conflict). This means, not that we eliminate such sources, but that we take care to use inline attribution, balancing citations, etc.

If al-Jazeera quotes a child, on a matter on which al-Jazeera decided the quote deserved to be used, and if we consider the event and the particular viewpoint represented by this quote notable, we have no reason not to use the material. As Kmkmh says, it's not a matter of reliability in Wikipedia terms, but it is up to us editorially to make it clear this was a child's report relayed by a source with a viewpoint. Andrew Dalby 08:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the input. quotes looks to be tricky to use, so I am thankful for all the help here. The article editing has calmed down, but I think a rewrite of all primary source comments surrounding the van attack could be placed directly below the flow of event, so to add inline attribution to each of them without breaking the flow. Belorn (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently edited the Mara Bar-Serapion article to include the following info:

Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt.[1] William Cureton published the first complete English translation of this work in 1855.[2]

[1] Perry, Samuel Gideon F. (1867). An ancient Syriac document, purporting to be the record of the second Synod of Ephesus. Oxford University Press. pp. v–vi.

[2] Cureton, William (1855). Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara Bar Serapion. Rivingstons. pp. 70–76.

This edit was quickly reverted (diff) by another user with the note, "VERY interesting info. Yet, I tried to confirm it in recent sources, post 1950 but could not. These sources are too old to be WP:RS. Do you have more recent sources?" Unfortunately I too noticed that more recent reliable sources (at least those freely available on the Web) seem to show little interest in the 19th century history of the manuscript containing the Mara bar Serapion text.

Now I agree that this user would have a point if the argument being referenced involved the interpretation of the manuscript's text within the broader context of ancient Near Eastern literature and culture because historical and social sciences have advanced greatly over the past 150 years. However, as the statements being supported by the references involve specific facts, such as Tattam's discovery of the manuscript in a specific year at a specific place, it seems to me that these references should still qualify as WP:RS despite their age. Is this a correct way of looking at the situation? Thanks in advance for your feedback. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very interesting info. If you get recent sources, no problem. But if the door is opened (even if just a crack) to Model T era scholarship, or before, there is no end to the ensuing nightmares. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that modern scholarship should generally be considered more reliable than older scholarship, but I don't think we can go the next step and completely toss out "Model T era" scholarship as being unreliable... after all, some of those Model Ts still run ... in some topic areas there are works written in that era that are considered classics in the field, and even the authority on their topic.

As to the specific case... is someone actually questioning the accuracy of the stated fact (that Tattam obtained the manuscript in question during an 1842 visit to the St. Mary Deipara monastery in Egypt.)? If not, I don't see a real reason to object to the source. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of older book references is sometimes contested...but generaly only when there is an actual contemporary source being shown. Just because a book is old does not mean it is innacurate. Some publications have yet to updated in any real form such as some of the publications of Giacomo Boni for his work at the turn of the century in the Roman Forum. While there have been some newer speculation, so far no one has proposed he was drasticly innaccurate. I would say it depends on the same criteria as any other relaible source and if there is newer information, then we should at least check it out be sure it doesn't override earlier research.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of the oppsite, where information has been changed is Platner's Topography of Ancient Rome, however there is an updated version from another author I believe and not all of Platner's work was tossed out. In fact it was the major basis for newer work.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always just attribute and contexualize the claims so that the readers are instantly aware of the age of the scholarship they are viewing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone's feedback. To respond to The Red Pen of Doom, that option would be a good one in many similar circumstances, especially when discussing the history of scholarly interpretations and theories. But in this case, contextualizing the source could appear to introduce a degree of uncertainty into a statement that is otherwise a straightforward recitation of basic facts. For example, consider an edit such as: "In 1867, Samuel Gideon F. Perry wrote that Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt." If there were any indication that these facts were in dispute among the sources, I would do something like that to indicate who stated what, but I've found no indication of variant claims among the sources discussing the history of this manuscript that I've encountered (albeit all 19th century so far). Moreover, I've already clearly indicated the year in which the works from which the citations are derived were published in the accompanying references, so readers can readily obtain that information.

Here's a proposal. If other agree, I'll revert the reversion which deleted my edit, but I'll also add a note on the article's Talk page requesting a more up-to-date reference. Someone who is more familiar with the relevant literature would probably have access to a recent catalog of manuscripts in the British Library or some other such source which contains the relevant info.

(As an aside, does Wikipedia have a maintenance tag along the lines of {{More recent citation needed|date}}? That could be useful in certain circumstances.) --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, enough said. I will self-revert, but add where the info came from - pre Model T. The talk page gets archived, so mentioning it there is no use. But I do question this info and do NOT believe it - if it had been the case, someone would have written about it. I specifically disagree with BlueBoar's statement. But then Wikipedia is full of unreliable nonsense - one more sentence will not hurt that much. This discussion confirms my decision to be less active on Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this discussion has led you to that conclusion? If you feel you have worth and value as an editor, being here and continuing to edit would only serve as an example to follow by others with less experiance. Consider the value you have to influence Wikipedia for the better History2007.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my friend, too late for that, and it has been a long time coming... Pick any sequence of articles on Wikiproject computing and you will see what a sad, sad shape they are in. And no one is even working on them and COI is getting added by the day. While I do trust geographic information in Wikipedia (e.g. anything about Chicago) with over 90% confidence, I do not trust anything I would read about biology, where I am not an expert. Who knows where it came from... The scientific encyclopedia has failed. Period. But that is another discussion.... History2007 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History2007, I would like to begin by sincerely apologizing if my role in this discussion only served to stir up negativity towards Wikipedia. Regarding the Talk page, yes comments there are archived, but the comment I posted there earlier today is the first one ever posted on that page, so any new comment requesting a more recent reliable source will probably stick around a long time before it winds up in the archives. It's only on articles that receive heavy traffic (and heavy editing) that comments don't last long on the main Talk page. At the very least, it can't hurt and could certainly help improve the article, so I'll add a comment there shortly. Also, I won't further edit your latest revision to the page unless I can locate a RS published less than ~50 years ago.

Thank-you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it was not your fault. It is the general "smile and tolerate junk" attitude that has existed for a few years now. The attitude is that it will eventually all get fixed. But I see no signs of progress on the serious articles. Progress is made on basic items such as rivers and mountains, but those are generally done now. The high technology items are getting outdated by the minute... By November banner ads will appear asking for money - will there ever be banner ads asking for quality? Do not bet on it... History2007 (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the specific issue that was raised. Without commenting either way on History2007's point just above, in this specific case we aren't talking about junk. The first source cited probably knew the facts very well and, as far as that's concerned, would be reliable. The second source cited is the primary source for the statement in the text.

The reasons why Wikipedia prefers modern sources, in this specific case, are as follows (I'd say).

1. In the case of sentence 1 and note 1, a more recent source (if one is available) will help the reader better because it will include up-to-date opinions of the manuscript, its date, why it was where it was, why Tattam was able to take it away, etc. 21st century perspectives on all these things will differ from those in the cited source. With reasonable luck, touch wood, the hypothetical latest source should also state the raw fact "Tattam got it from that place at that date" correctly.
2. In the case of sentence 2 and note 2, a secondary source, e.g. the introduction to a later edition of the manuscript, will not only tell us those publication details (the spelling should be "Rivingtons", by the way), but will say how useful or useless Cureton's edition is now thought to be, where it stands in current scholarship, whether he had a POV, etc.

So we should aim to find modern sources for our footnotes if we can. Now, the early edition cited (note 2) definitely belongs in the article, but not in the footnotes. It belongs in a list of editions and translations of the text, and it is extremely useful to the reader because it links to a full text, available free. Exactly what some people are hoping for in a Wikipedia article like this. The other item cited might be hard to replace by any modern source, because it gives a long list of the stuff Tattam hoiked out of the monastery. It's possible no later source does that. So, in a perfect Wikipedia, we would retain this citation, for the useful context it offers, and add a later source to it.

I just noticed this. The second item cited is not "Oxford University Press". It's "privately printed" and the "printers to the University" happened to offer the best quote. I don't suppose there were any other printers in Oxford who could print Syriac, and Stephen Austin of Hertford maybe put in a higher bid. In other words, it's self-publication. But that's irrelevant to us now, it will certainly have been cited in later scholarship. Andrew Dalby 10:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Age is a concern. I recently discovered the 1911 New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia being cited as evidence for archaeology (with no indication how old it was). I frequently find 19th century books reprinted in this century given a date in this century, which is I guess another issue but people need to look out for it as Google books shows you latest publication dates, not actual dates. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, context is everything... when examining how reliable any source is, we must examine it in the context of how it is being used in a given Wikipedia article.... The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia is an excellent and extremely reliable source for verifying some things (such as a statement about what Catholic Church doctrine and beliefs were at the turn of the 20th century) but is not reliable for other things (such as a statement about archaeology). There is no such thing as a completely unreliable source... the age of a source will certainly limit the situations where a source is reliable, but we can not simply say "anything written before 1950 (or some other arbitrary date) is by definition unreliable". Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your comment above that some Model T's still run, the next time you take your Model T on the freeway, let me know. I will come and have a laugh. But seriously, this type of lax attitude is exactly how quality degradation happens in all kinds of industries. Quality comes from diligence, not a happy go lucky attitude. But enough said on the Model T... Feel free to drive it on your own time... History2007 (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...If context is everything, I see no reason why the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia for a statement about archaeology wouldn't be reliable. You do realise that the many sites in Rome required permits and permissions from the church and that many times the church would be directly involved. Take the exact example I gave above about the archaeology of the Comitium. The church was using the Curia Julia as a tomb and the structure itself, a church. If the encyclopedia has information from the church in regards to the archeology of a structure during the transiton from church to public state building , then their documentation would be as reliable as the states documentation and the archaeologist. It would have to be used only to confirm and verify claims in regards to such information that directly pertain to the church and I wouldn't use their mentions for things not related to the church itself, such as them just commenting outside projects etc.. The Catholic archives and publications from that period as a resource are one of the largest depositories of information in the world from that period and older. I don't know if it is that easy to dismiss for aercheology, only because some of the most important digs in Ancient Roman history took place in Rome....and about 100 years ago. To understand the original projects, we need sources that can confirm the information from that period. I don't know...I may have used this source. LOL! That may have actually been me Doug! =)--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug is 120% right. See Jonathan L. Reed, "Archaeological contributions to the study of Jesus and the Gospels" in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton Univ Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6. The game has changed as much as the iPads in use in 1911 have changed. And by the way how many 1911 publications refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls? None. How many 1911 publications refer to WWII? None... How many 1911 publications refer to the Second Vatican Council? ... None. I think you know what I mean... History2007 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't make the point 120 percent right. We don't exclude sources based on the criticism of others and controversies on faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it does. Doctrine has changed since 1911, say Lumen Gentium.... And discoveies have been made. So let us say he is 140% right. History2007 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea that the further away one is from an event the more reliable he account or interpretation of it! I believe people thinking more recent things are in some way more reliable is more an indication about the thinking of the people assessing reliability than any truth, people agree more with people who think the same as them. However thinking the same as people now is not the way to understand something in the past. I would apply a depreciation for recent work to compensate for that effect an only say something recent was better if it was obviously very much better. Dmcq (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you guys why I do not trust these 1870 or 1920 sources with no modern scholarship to confirm them. There are several reasons, but one is that for the life of me I do not know if they are not hoaxes. I have often wished I had been part of the group that managed to pull the prank that Henri Cartan did. It was just brilliant and a great laugh. They were laughing at the French Academy for years - and the Academy was frantically searching for Bourbaki. The Wiki article on it is not detailed enough, but there were huge laughs and all kinds of games. It only came out because Dieudonné acted like John Lennon. If they had just stopped, Bourbaki would have existed. But that is another story. Yet, unless things are verified by multiple scholars in a modern setting, you never know... You never know. So I just do not bet on some 100 year old statement. Not that it matters much here, but one can never be sure unless the rigors of modern scholarship have been applied to a topic. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. In fact I am not limiting my information from that period. There were indeed some other excavations in the 1960s but they just confirmed information I believe and offered no new theories. One thing that was indeed brought up by another editor in this regards to the reference and others (even modern references) is the percieved innaccurate information pertaining to a single ancient alter known as the Vulcanal which became confused with the suggestum beside the Rostra in front of the Curia Julia probably two different structures, but I have yet to confirm what modern archaeology says about this, but am researching through a new project at the university of UCLA. The old information may have been confused due to a published work in the 1920s that was the catalyst for this belief. But, while one editor has given some reference to another theory, some are just as old. It can be difficult and time consuming and references difficult to obtain, but...don't give up and keep going!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the idea that Bourbaki was some sort of prank or hoax? That's just a weird interpretation, it was just a name for a collective identity to write some agreed basic texts. Rigors of modern scholarship do not compensate for not being of the time nor does it give extra insight. That's like saying that someone who only studies secondary sources has a better grasp. All you get from that point of view is a bias in favour of people who are close to you in their way of thinking rather than in favour of the facts. A person nowadays studying Dickens has no guarantee of being closer to a 'correct' account than someone of the time whatever about their rigorous scholarship, they are just more likely to get money from a funding agency with their work because they have phrased it more in their terms. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely asian-defence.net is not a RS for anything and especially not this claim:

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

Many other countries have also shown an interest in purchasing the JF-17 Thunder.[6]

So replace with CN? Hcobb (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's clearly not a reliable source. I'd suggest removing this entirely from the article unless a reliable source can be found. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a "primary source" which ought to be avoided - and use reliable secondary sources in vast preference? It looks like Paul Ryan is having all his "controversial votes" "explained " in his BLP with conceivably POV intent. IMO. inless an outside source refers to his positions, it is not our proper functiom to do such research. Collect (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives is a neutral, highly reliable source. No one is doing any original "research" - the votes shown on the clerk's website are patently obvious. No one is "explaining" any of Ryan's votes with this source. They're simply providing a source showing that he voted in a particular way.

As an aside, if you're going ask for a second opinion here, it would be a courtesy to let the folks at the Paul Ryan talk page know about it. Mesconsing (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliable as a primary source although secondary sources are preferred especially for contentious material. If this source is being used to support controversial votes, but not controversial votes, then some WP:OR may be going on and this might also be a WP:NPOV issue. WP:BLP/N may be a better venue for dispute resolution since multiple issues may be involved. However, there doesn't seem be any discussion on the talk page. Dispute desolution should begin at the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with A Quest For Knowledge that this belongs at Talk:Paul Ryan, but, having already posted there, I'll add my thoughts here. Collect is confusing two different questions: (1) How did Ryan vote on a particular bill? (2) Given that the article cannot and should not report every single vote Ryan has cast in his Congressional career, is his vote on this particular bill worth including? The Clerk's page is silent on the second point. That's where editors use their editorial judgment, including but not limited to seeing how often a particular bill is discussed in other sources. If the decision is to include a particular vote, though, then the Clerk's page is generally the best source. If there were two confusingly similar bills (such as when John Kerry voted in favor of one bill appropriating $87 billion and then voted against a different bill appropriating the same amount), we might well supplement the Clerk's office citation with another source elaborating on the point. JamesMLane t c 21:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a lot of context to go on and the exact reference and usage. In general I would say that using a government primary source to cherry pick just one part of a voting record is original research and would need a secondary source to make the actual claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "selection" of particular issues, and the use of single votes to describe his poisition oon issues where many votes may occur in the normal course of legislative activity I find the issue. A Congressman may well have a number of votes on any given issue which can be intrepeted with great disparity - and the idea is that we should let secondary reliable sources weight such votes. IIRC, some issues in the past (like NAFTA) had repreesntatives voting on both sides of the issue! In the case at ahnd, the votes are, indeed, "cherry-picked" and do not cover the gamut of legislative activity of the living person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think James already addressed this issue by pointing out that the decision to include a vote has nothing do with the Clerk's page. Since these votes are a matter of public record, the Clerk's page is used to confirm their truth. For this purpose, it is the best possible source. But nobody here is scanning through these public records in order to cherry pick votes. Instead, we're looking at the bills that our secondary sources mention as being significant, then using the Clerk's page as confirmation of his vote. Any reasonable article is necessarily going to limit its coverage to significant votes, as there are too many votes over the course of all these years for us to list them all, and really, that would be redundant since the Clerk's page does. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, James did address this issue...by saying we should discuss this at the talkpage of the article or BLP/N as this is not the venue for content or use of the primary source. It is clearly the consensus of editors that the site is a primary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who added one (out of four?) of sources being discussed here, I'd just like to mention how and why the Clerk's page was chosen as a source. I noticed that someone added a sentence on Ryan's vote on something (I don't even remember what), without a source. As it seemed an important issue, I decided to look for a source for the statement, rather than deleting it. Googling took me to the Clerk's roll call page for the vote. It seemed like the best possible source to demonstrate how Ryan voted, so I used it. I suspect that the other instances of using the Clerks' roll call tally as a source also happened in such a haphazard way. I mention this because of the concern raised that somehow the Clerk was systematically used as a source for some kinds of votes, but not for others.

As to the use of single votes to represent Ryan's positions, I really don't see that happening. Typically a paragraph will begin with a statement about Ryan's position, then mention votes that illustrate that position. Take for example, the Social, environmental, and science issues section. The part on reproductive rights begins with "Ryan describes himself as "as pro-life as a person gets," then goes on to list a number of his votes on the issue. Similarly, the paragraph on gun owners' rights begins "Ryan has "championed the rights of gun owners," then goes on to list his votes on that issue. So I don't think that single votes are being used to describe Ryan's positions, but instead many single votes are used to illustrate his positions. -- Mesconsing (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using this source for anything BUT to show that Ryan voted yay or nay on any H.R. is original research. Secondary sources are needed for interpretation of his positions. So unless this source were used solely as a reference material, it really doesn't belong in any article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, that's all it was used for. Read the article and look at the citations before you jump into something you apparently aren't familiar with. -- Mesconsing (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your 5th grade vernacular, I'm referring to the text above where you talk about "illustrating" someone's position. It is not our business to illustrate someone's position using this source. That is for the sources. If an omnibus bill has provision A,B,C and a candidate votes in favor, we as editors can't say they voted for A, or B, or C.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the page for the TV series Arrow, user (SchrutedIt08) is consistently deleting information sourced from GreenArrowTV.com, an offshoot from the KSiteTV.com website, dismissing it as an "unreliable source." Author Craig Byrne is a professional writer who wrote several TV show companion books, and if the news originally came from that site and was linked as such from the sources that ARE linked to, shouldn't it be the source credited and be considered reliable enough? 108.219.213.206 (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

www.greenarrowtv.com is basicly a fan site and states clearly in the disclaimer "Green Arrow, Arrow and related elements are © 2012 DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television, and associated entities. This is not an official site and is not authorized by the copyright holders."--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this site, reliable and academic site ? and can i cite it ?--Espiral (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to start by telling us on what page, and for what information, you want to cite it.

At my quick glance it appears serious but not peer-reviewed, and the editor also serious but not a published, peer-reviewed expert in the field. Therefore probably you shouldn't, but some of these pages may be useful under external links. Andrew Dalby 17:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in this article, it says : "the population of Orumiyeh is predominantly Azeri (over 90%), but with Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian minorities." can we cite this article to say over 90% of population of orumiyeh is Azeri ? --Espiral (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not (others, please comment!) When I last looked into this kind of question, no official ethnic figures were included in the Iranian census, so the source would just have to be an estimate by somebody or other. We would need (as you know) a reliable academic source for such an estimate. I don't think this site qualifies. Andrew Dalby 11:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the answer in the archives - do we allow documents stored on sources such as Google or constantcontact.com to be used as references? See DotConnectAfrica. They aren't obvious when you first look, eg ""Open Letter to US Department of Commerce National Telecommunication Information Administration (NTIA) making a preliminary case for the .africa gTLD". ICANN." is one.[51]. Then there are others on reputable organisations, but can we use [52] for anything? Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the applicable policy here? These sources look like primary ones, and should only be used with caution, and they really need a "reliable secondary source for that interpretation."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to tell of these documentns have been alterd?

That to me is a major problem. How do we know these are authentic if they aren't on an official website? Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those is on google docs. The others are just PDFs that open for viewing in browser. Speaking generally, you can use PDFs. As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to use a google docs sheet as well, just give an accessdate. Websites are subject to change in the same manner. Ryan Vesey 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google docs have been traditionally treated as self published works.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the following manuscript [53], which has not yet passed peer-review, be considered a reliable source for the claim being made here [54]? They use a sample of size 9+15 individuals to draw conclusions about an entire population. Thanks in advance, Athenean (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is peer review a criteria for such primary sourcing? If the document is shown to have been a published work by a notable academic and is posted on the university website, if you feel that peer review is an essential part of using the reference for facts, then use it for now, as opinion and attribute the author and site the work in the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for scholarship (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) states:

• Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.
• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars.
• Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
• Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.^[7]

So, for Athenean, while it has not yet passed peer review it may be excluded (edited for clarity) if not fully vetted yet and if it is a work in progress. But Doug Weller brings up the main point, and that is whether we can trust documents placed on open source platforms and I believe the answer is generally no. However, a google document has been used as an official document on pages where the document is directly linked to the actual organization represented in this ever changing document as part of their group function to creat the document. Huge circle. but the specific document was found by contributing editors to be worthy as a primary source in this case. In cases where vetted documentation is being used it must come from the site that has the vetting, such as the university itself, that links to the author and then links to a PDF version (usually) santioned by the author and university.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, per Amadscientist. Google Documents is just another publishing format, like nailing broadsides to a church door, or singing a traditional song, or printing a monograph, or tweeting a twit. The medium is not central to reliability. The editorial control exercised over a particular publication is what we look for. Generally Google Documents are self-authored and self-published, generally. Where editorial control adequate to the claims being made by the document exists over a Google Documents document, then that document would be reliable. I too have concerns regarding the ability for such a document to be changed, but this is no different to any other media except in the speed with which such a change could be made. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source: [59]

Article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jayvlog89 (Jamie's World)

In 2010 Jamie's World won a Stony Award for best internet video from High Times Magazine.

The site is blocked where I live so I have no idea what the source says. Though I highly doubt it is reliable, can anyone read the source and tell me what it says so I can review the article when it's up for AfC? FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is precisely supported by the site. You can read more about the source at High Times. It's certainly a reliable source for what it says, although whether that indicates notability is less clear. We also have an article on the Stony Awards. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles do we have on Youtube channels? How notable is the channel and in this instance, what is the basis for this not being considered a fringe reference. Wouldn't notablitiy for inclusion be more along the lines of, say a magazine or site that directly relates to video production or internet media for such notablitiy? I am not making any decisions here, just inquiring for future reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen http://blogs.marketwatch.com cited on a number of pages. Would this be a good candidate for a large scale cleanup? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. First of all, does File:NOAAsourcebutnotofficialsunclimate 3b.gif justify he text used to describe it, which doesn't appeared to be in is source, http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html Specifically, neither seems to allow a categorical statement that no non-sunspot warming happened before 1980 - but we say that the trend was definitely until 1980, a date nowhere sourced.

Secondly, can Roy Spencer be used to describe the mainstrea views, and how they differ from the fringe - an apparently very convenient description that makes the fringe sound more equivalent. sources are his book The Great Global Warming Blunder and the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101