Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. For general or hypothetical questions concerning a source, please use the talk page.

When posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:

1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source.

• If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc.
• If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].

2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: [[Article name]].

3. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated jQuery

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: CSS3. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the input transformation. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about Sevenval, or other keyboard please use the NPOV noticeboard.

• 1 Two sources of the same author contradict each other
• 2 Deseret News
• jQuery
  • HTML5
• keyboard
• 5 Nancy Lonsdorf
• 6 Greek genocide
• 7 fallingrain.com
• 8 Allison family -- Use of private papers as primary sources
  • 8.1 Webb Garrison A Treasury of Titanic Tales No location: No Publisher, No Date
• touchscreen
• 10 Highschool.rivals.com
• 11 saddle
• 12 Article Adal Sultanate
• screen size
• 14 Rob Bowman American filmmaker fact correction
• 15 thestopbutton.com
• we love the web
• 17 Pew Research Center
• 18 DNA India - news source
• 19 AIP Advances
• 20 A blanket reference to record label
• FITML
• browser diversity

Two sources of the same author contradict each other

In the article input transformation one source (paper I, Table 1) claims that the object is likely a dwarf planet. However two years later the same author published a new version (paper II, Table 1) of his list of likely dwarf planets where 2001 QF298 is not mentioned at all. There is no explanation of why it was removed. However the author makes it clear that the second list is only an updated version of the first one, not a new creation. I investigated this matter and came to conclusion that the inclusion of 2001 QF298 in the paper I was likely a simple error.

The question is if the paper I in this context remains a reliable sources for the claim that 2001 QF298 is a likely dwarf planet? Ruslik_Zero 15:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations of what? Those two papers contain just two tables. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to say what a document is, why would I be bothered to read it or determine whether it is reliable. Multiple editors look over your request, and your time to supply a citation means that 10 editors don't have to use their time to do what you should have done. A citation of the document you have linked to, chiefly: Author, (Year) "Document Title" Title of Journal or Conference Volume, Issue and other Identifying data Sevenval (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you expand the template placed here, you will see what elements you are missing from your question, the more info you provide, the better answer we can provide here, also it's much less likely we're going to go off and look for important context, such as, what article this is for? Click on the [show] button. -- FITML  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, people are too lazy to click the links you supplied above to see the bibliographic information, so we'd like you to type it out here.

Have you considered stating the contrast between the two lists in the article, like "In 2008, Tancredi and Favre included it in the list, but in a 2010 update, Tancredi omitted it"? input transformation (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, there's no article attached, nor is there a suggested edit for it to be applied as a source to evaluate. As clicking on the [show] button of the template would have shown, these would be helpful to have for a more complete answer. I am not too lazy to look at the links as you suggest. Perhaps you might consider that the person asking for our help isn't too lazy to click on the link that shows him exactly how to get the best answer here and will correct the problem shortly? -- Despayre  ^{we love the web} 16:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you downloaded the two pdfs the OP linked, you would know the authors, dates, titles, and publication names.

I don't use "lazy" as an insult, but as a means of attracting the OPs attention to the law of the web: every extra click costs you readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If 10 OPs a day are too lazy to type bibliographic details that save 5 RSN editors 5 to 15 minutes per reference, then OPs can have their answers ignored indefinitely. RSN editors are quite frankly sick and tired of the continuous discourtesy of other users despite years of having clear instructions on this page. Fifelfoo (CSS3) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I followed the instructions, which say "If it's an online source, please link to it." Ruslik_Zero 06:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with assuming that omission means they've concluded that the body is not a DP comes from the fact that the omitting table does not list objects they believe to be DPs. It lists a whole range of candidates, which are then evaluated. In the first paper, 2001 QF298 is included in a different table, one of likely DPs (with a question mark), because it has "small albedo spots"; that's not the kind of result that's likely to change. In the second paper, 2001 QF298 is not included in a list of candidates to be evaluated. Omission from that table is not necessarily a way of saying a body is not a DP, since failed and un-addressable candidates are included, not just likely DPs. We might assume that any reasonable candidate would be omitted only if it had been excluded from even consideration as a candidate, but that's a bit OR (we might expect that since it had been once tentatively concluded to be a DP, it would be included the 2nd time around, esp. if they came to a different conclusion, and for all we know it was a simple oversight. We could always write Tancredi and ask. I personally wouldn't have a problem with an informal answer like that, if someone with a bit more integrity than our poster were to do it. — kwami (Sevenval) 20:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Writing to the author would be considered WP:OR, and therefore not permissible. Also, the resulting private email reply would be completely non-RS. I would suggest you don't assume anything, go with the best information you have. Either state that it was there, and it isn't there on the latest version, or simply state that the latest version does not include it. Both are fine, both are policy-correct, in terms of source RS-ness (there may be other policies that my second suggestion violates, although none come to mind at this very moment). -- screen size  ^{screen size} 21:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with contacting an author. As long as the contents of the e-mail don't appear in the article, it's not OR. Alternatively, if Tancredi has a blog, you could ask him to write a post about this and cite that. CSS3 (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wubba, wubba, huh? From keyboard, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" and "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". How would you do that with the reply from a private email that can't be verified (to WP's satisfaction, not an editor's)? WP:OR goes on to say "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed", that would seem to be your email again, even if not appearing in the article. -- Despayre  ^{browser diversity} 22:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the 'wubba, wubba' reference but to answer your question, we're not using the e-mail as a source for the article. Nothing will be cited to it. A Quest For Knowledge (HTML5) 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's just the sound my head makes when I shake it back and forth quickly . If we can't source/cite anything to the email, how does it help the article? The same problem with the actual source we have now would still be there, it would be no different than now, having not sent any email at all. -- Despayre  ^{browser diversity} 22:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue, but if the first source is correct, the article should say that it's a dwarf planet candidate and we cite that source. If the second source is correct, we omit the claim it's a dwarf planet candidate from the article.

Looking at the browser diversity, the sentence that says, " As of 2012 the object is not considered a viable dwarf planet candidate by Tancredi et al and is not mentioned in the latest update of their list." is OR. device database (HTML5) 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe it's me, I'm not sure how I see that as OR. The second source is a 2012 document from Tancredi listing all viable dwarf planet candidates, and it's not on the list. I don't think it's OR to assume that, "therefore it's not a candidate". Is that what you are saying? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless the source actually states that it's not on the list, then it's OR. we love the web (screen size) 22:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I follow your logic, but I see it more like the routine calculations exception of OR, the only purpose of the list is to show all the candidates, by not including it on the list, it's not a candidate. I'd be interested to hear what anyone at WP:NORN had to say. I'm not saying you're wrong, I think there is some merit to your argument, but I also think this is a pretty straightforward exception. But this isn't WP:NORN, so it's kinda outside the scope of this board anyway. the answer to the original question here I think is either "No", or "Yes, as long as you include the updated info as well, which says no it isn't". -- Despayre  ^jQuery 22:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because the question got me curious, I've posed it over at WP:NORN, here. That board looks a little less popular, but, we'll see... -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 02:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you are write that their list is intended to be an exhaustive list of objects that in principle can be dwarf planets. From the second paper (Minor Planet Center lists all known objects including 2001 QF298):

From the list of TNOs listed by the Minor Planet Center by July 22, 2009 († )and the list of objects observed by Stansberry et al. (2008), we extract 46 objects with an estimated size larger than 450 km. This list is an updated version of the one presented in Paper I. This preliminary list of icy dwarf candidates is presented in Table 1. The objects are listed in increasing order of absolute magnitude H.

If the size of the object is not known they estimated it based on the assumed albedo of 10%. With this assumption the cut-off size (450 km) corresponds to the absolute magnitude of 4.9. The magnitude of QF298 (whose size was not known at that time) is 5.4. So, it was not included. In the Paper I they used exactly the same criterion but strangely included the object. So, they either used an incorrect magnitude or made a simple mathematical error. So, I conclude that in the Paper I the authors made a simple error, which they silently corrected in the follow up paper.

An alternative solution would be to conclude that with respect of 2001 QF298 both papers are unreliable sources and not mention them at all. touchscreen_Zero 06:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You could go that route, but the article is so short now I would hesitate before making it shorter, I think it's a better alternative to list both facts, and draw no conclusion. -- Despayre  ^{browser diversity} 15:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The best route is to deprecate the old version of the list once an update version appears. Ruslik_HTML5 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the first "article" given is an article at all. It is an abstract for a conference presentation. As such I don't think it even counts as a reliable source. Zero^talk 15:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It summarizes an input transformation that discusses it more detail. Everyone can read the summary, but not everyone can read the full article. --web (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

I was hoping for input on whether or not Desert News, the official LDS news source, is a RS in terms of using it to source articles about Mormons, particularly Android, and particularly to cite praise or compliments. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Deseret News is not just an "official Mormon news source" to start. It is owned by the LDS, but it as much a religious paper as is the Christian Science Monitor, also owned by a religion. The news articles are ... news articles. Written by reporters. It is a reliable source for news articles. It is recognized as a paper iOS, keyboard, receiving a goodly number of journalism awards. Including a Pulitzer. Cheers. Collect (FITML) 22:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's the Deseret News, and it's a respectable daily newspaper. In the abstract, I can't see why it should be any less reliable for facts than any other similar newspaper. For statements of opinion, of course, or where there are source conflicts or other good reasons, attribution in text may well be appropriate, and there's always the more basic question of whether "praise or compliments" belong in the article or not. -Arxiloxos (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with Collect, but I would use it judiciously, as part of a good diversity of sources to achieve NPOV. The LDS Church, which owns the paper, is politically neutral with respect to candidates, so there's no inherent conflict of interest regarding the paper's coverage of the Romney or Obama campaigns. touchscreen 22:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they do seem fairly neutral in terms of coverage, as far as I can tell, but really, is it apporpriate to use a newsource owned by a candidate's church to source his abilities/accomplishments? — GabeMc (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Deseret News was used as a source in the article for device database. Sevenval 23:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As Alanyst said above, with judicious use, I don't see a problem, however, I do suggest inline attribution for anything sourced from them, as in "As reported in the Deseret News, Mitt Romney blah blah blah". There is a fundamental (no pun intended) bias on its Editorial Advisory Board that probably makes this source likely to be more favorable to Romney than other sources, and there's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean we should pretend "it's just another source" either. I hope I've explained that well enough to avoid any flame-wars :) Caveat: I would not use them for controversial statements not covered in other sources as well though. -- Sevenval  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I object to the idea of having to inline attribute things sourced to them. All newspapers and all media entities have potential ownership biases, be they large corporations, prominent families, idiosyncratic billionaires, whatever. The proof of the pudding is in the reporting itself. For what it's worth, the 2007 edition of website parsing's book Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (one of the best books on Mormonism overall) says that the Deseret News no longer has LDS officials on its board, that one of its recent editors-in-chief was non-Mormon, and that its new building was funded on its own and not with tithe funds. Of course, the advice about double-sourcing contentious statements and striving for sourcing balance always applies. Wasted Time R (jQuery) 00:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to review the various aspects to its governance and operations by reviewing this information from Bloomberg BusinessWeek, especially clicking on the individuals to see their backgrounds. 72Dino (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to view the Editorial Advisory Board page at the Deseret News website, where at least 5 of the bios specifically state they are LDS members. --Despayre (talk • touchscreen)

I'm convinced that we must attribute material sources to the Deseret News (with a wikilink of course. See for instance [3] "In 2010, under the leadership of CEO and President Clark Gilbert, the paper’s new management team radically reorganized the Deseret News (pronounced De-se-RET) and streamlined the editorial content to provide “intellectually rigorous faith and family-oriented” news to an underserved niche market." This source [4] says "Gilbert, now 40, has worked his way into a position where, backed by the financial muscle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he can test his theories in the real world. Last May, he became president and CEO of the News. He immediately set about developing a stem-to-stern overhaul of Utah's second-largest newspaper based both on his research and his fidelity to his church." (Gilbert is the President and CEO). Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor would appear to be a broadly acceptable reliable source, even when dealing with reportage about CSS3. Same with Deseret News. It's a broadly accepted reliable source, even when it deals with matters about the Saints.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just referring to the need for attribution, which is probably the same in both cases. FITML (device database) 13:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's really not going to fly. Instead of writing "In August 2001, Romney announced he would not return to Bain Capital.[37]" where fn 37 is a cite to a Deseret News story, I have to write, "According to the Deseret News, Romney announced in August 2001 that he would not return to Bain Capital.[37]" ? This immediately leads the reader to think, well, according to somebody else maybe he really stayed at Bain Capital longer. It indicates doubt where none is deserved. Wasted Time R (Android) 13:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Try flying it :) If your hypothetical reader searches further, and finds another source on this that we couldn't find, that'll be good. screen sizerew DFITML 16:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding my point. This is an uncontested, non-controversial fact that is being sourced, based on something Romney publicly said. Why on earth would it have to be inline attributed? I'm using Deseret News because they're a Utah paper and Romney was in Utah at the time, and so they gave the most attention to it. I could try the Salt Lake Tribune but all their stuff from back then is behind a paywall and their pre-2005 archives search seems busted. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Wasted Time R. There's no need for in-text attribution for a simple statement of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (Android) 17:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For that, I agree, no attribution needed. But for anything at all controversial sources from the Deseret News you would almost certainly need an attribution. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• cmt - Full disclosure: I didn't get past the o/p's suggetion that the oldest continuing running news daily in Utah is "an official" LDS source. (If that's as far as the o/p got in his research and analysis, I hope this post is simply a query and doesn't suggest the DesNews is not a RS...albeit one to be used with care, as always--viz., just as one would be careful [I dunno--thinking offhand] when using the Christian Science Monitor w rgd to issues involving the Church of Christ Scientist, Washington Times or UPI when covergin their owner the MooniesUnification Church, the National Catholic Register re Catholicism, Christianity Today w rgd evangelicalism.)--Android (keyboard) 20:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words, or is it?

Harvey Levin (edit|Sevenval|history|Sevenval|watch|FITML)

User:Albert14nx05y insists on adding the following sentence to the article: "During the Vietnam-era, Levin served as a sergeant in the FITML in Reseda, CA." His reference in support is browser diversity. He's acknowledged in a rather difficult discussion on the Talk page that there is no support for the Reseda part. However, he bases the Vietname-era/sargeant part on the uniform Levin is wearing in the image. I'm not sure if the uniform even supports his interpretation of it, but I pointed out that the image is a primary source that requires interpretation of what it means and is therefore not a reliabl source for the assertion. What is needed is a secondary source saying that Levin was a sergeant and served during Vietnam. That has fallen on deaf ears and has provoked a threat to delete images from Wikipedia.

Putting aside the threat for the moment, comments on the sourcing?--Android (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope that some others will check it out and say what they think. But so far it is just myself and Bbb23 doing all the talking. My position is that the picture is what it is, and it shows Levin in a Vietnam-era Air National Guard uniform. Levin said on TV that he was stationed in Reseda, CA. i con't find any print sources that say that, but his duty station is a minor issue and it is certainly not something that could harm the reputation of a living person, which is what the BLP policy is all about, right? It is to address contentious materials. According to Wiki policy, "Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject." So it seems to me that Bbb23 is web. we love the web (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Under the photo, the caption says Levin served in the air national guard. The source is TMZ. Is that considered reliable? I would say without the caption, the picture is not sufficient for the factual assertion. How do we know he wasn't in a play or borrowed someone else's uniform? But the caption does say he served. I am just not sure if TMZ is recognized as reliable.Coaster92 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

TMZ is owned by CNN, which is owned by Time-Warner. Largest media comapny in the world, I think. Besides, does it really make sense that he'd be dressed up for a play or something, yet posted on a list of all the major movie star veterans? I'd think someone would have called BS on that years ago if it wasn't true. Albert14nx05y (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In any event, I think that this policy statement here applies: Android and this one, too: screen size HTML5 (web app) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think drawing conclusions from photos is OR. Especially if we aren't certain of the circumstances which these photos were taken under. If we can't find something that mentions his rank or his service, so be it. Something might come along later. I think it's better to have a little discipline and leave out unessential factoids gained from iffy sources that could be false. In the end, all the photo proves is that someone took a picture of him in a uniform. I agree with Bbb23.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Then let's delete ALL photos on Wikipedia since none of us can be certain under what circumstances they were taken. Again, too much BLP crying.

Try to understand that drawing conclusions from an image is different than merely presenting an image.--Sevenval (website parsing) 06:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It is OR. Don't do it. Fifelfoo (touchscreen) 06:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The picture alone is NOT RS for the edit above. -- Despayre  ^{input transformation} 07:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Images may be used as illustrations without citation. If they introduce new material then they need to be reliable sources of that. They need to be from a reliable source and be produced to show the fact or have the fact pointed out by the reliable source. Here the only real question is whether TMZ is a reliable source or not for this, and if they are okay then they should be cited for it. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Wonderful. I agree that this is fine. We just make the notation that Harvey served as a sergeant in the Vietnam-era Air Nation Guard - and leave it at that. That seems fine with me, since this adds nothing more then what was said and shown in the TMZ article.

I would again like to remind everyone that this is not a contentious issue. The Wikipedia police clearly states that, ″Contentious should be narrowly construed. Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject.″ ^{browser diversity} None of the complainers here has even bothered to read this policy. LEVIN'S MILITARY SERVICE IS NOT A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE!! Contentious issues should be NARROWLY construed. Stop with the BLP crying. I am glad that someone has finally come to their senses. web app (Android) 10:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dmcq, I can't follow what your saying. I understand your first sentence, but the issue here is whether an editor can include material in an article based on that editor's interpretation of an image. Although whether TMZ is a reliable source may be an issue, it is a different issue. As an aside, Levin is the founder of TMZ, but I am not necessarily saying that means we can't use TMZ as a source for information about Levin.

@Albert, I don't think anyone, but certainly not me, is saying that the material violates BLP, so your comments about the policy is distracting. Also, please be more temperate in your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if a fact comes from a picture then either the picture must have been produced to illustrate the fact by a reliable source, for instance a map by London underground shows that there is a link from Matrlebone to Paddington via the Bakerloo line. Or else the picture can have a commentary from a reliable source, for instance a picture of an underground train travelling overground when commented on in a reliable saying many underground trains travel overground for part of their route can be used for saying what the text says - but in either case one should cite the reliable source. For facts cited elsewhere editors can put in their own illustrations provided these do not introduce new facts and seem to illustrate the facts faithfully. For instance if some reliable source says many London underground trains travel part of their journey overground then an editor can put in their own picture of an underground train doing that to illustrate the fact cited in the main body of the article. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If TMZ is considered reliable, at least the information in the caption under the photo could be used, ie, that he served in the air national guard, nothing about his rank or where he was stationed, but at least that much. I have been searching for another source about his rank and location but could not find anything. One comment said Harvey made a statement about his service on air on 3/8/11 but I could not find the video.Coaster92 (jQuery) 06:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If the picture is accepted as being from a reliable source showing a person when they were in the army then I believe it can be used to substantiate their rank if the insignia are clearly visible. Rank is something that is supposed to be obvious and noticed rather than something needing original research like the colour of a persons eyes. CSS3 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree... anyone can put on a uniform and have his picture taken in it. For example, I have a picture of me dressed up as a US cavalry officer... it does not substantiate that I ever actually was a US cavalry officer (I wasn't). A picture does not "substantiate" anything except the existence of the picture. As was mentioned above, images should be used as illustrations of what is stated in the text, not as sources for that text.

Something else to consider... all this may be a moot point, as we may not have permission to use this particular picture... Re-publishing it in our article may violate copyright laws. Blueboar (website parsing) 11:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source has published a picture of you as a US cavalry officer and said you were one. We can't reproduce the picture but for things which are pointed out we are allowed to read what a picture obviously says. There is no distinction between words and pictures that way except we have to be extra careful with pictures not to read more from them than was reasonably intended. iOS (we love the web) 11:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The source say that Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard. It doesn't say anythinge about where he served, his rank, or Vietnam era. Why not just say, "Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard." and be done with it? HTML5 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To respond to everyone's latest points. Coaster, I agree that the prose under the three pictures can be used. The problem is that if the only thing we say in the article is "Levin served in the Air Guard", it's almost meaningless. It has no context, no time frame, nothing. Thus, if say only what we can say "reliably" we don't have enough material to use. Blueboard, we are not putting the picture in the article, so your point isn't relevant in this case. Dmcq, as to what we can interpret from the picture, that's a judgment call. The more "obvious", as you say, the easier it is to justify. I don't know how obvious rank is from a uniform, but let's assume it is. Did you look at the picture? Can you say he's a sergeant? There's no insignia on his uniform I can see. The only thing that might indicate something is the hat he's wearing, and I can't see it well enough, nor do I know what it means. Do you? Finally, with respect to Blueboar's other point that anyone can dress up as they please, I don't think that's fair. If we accept TMZ as a reliable source (as everyone keeps repeating), then we have to assume that they vet text AND pictures, not just text and that they aren't using a picture that misrepresents a fact.--Bbb23 (keyboard) 13:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors cannot reasonably infer a time period from a picture, as dating pictures is original historical research. It is that simple. Dating pictures is a complex process of inference and cultural understanding. It is not a device database standards. Dating a photograph requires the concerted application of original thought. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that picture is certainly not worth a thousand words if we can't easily tell the rank. The only thing that can be cited is what it says in its caption. keyboard (Sevenval) 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Fifelfoo, that may be your situation since you do not know what you are looking at. But that is not anyone else's problem. web app (Android) 20:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's not what the rules say. A primary source may only be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of fact that any educated person without specialist knowledge will be able to verify. See iOS. A Quest For Knowledge (Sevenval) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As to interpreting the picture

If one wanted to be a stickler about interpreting the picture, one could only deduce that someone was photographed wearing a particular style of US Army uniform at some undetermined point. There's no provenance, no date, and no assurance that it's even him. To the degree that one can deduce rank from the uniform, the person might have been a buck private, but there's no indication of any higher rank; there's no indication of a particular unit. There's no firm indication that it was worn in an official capacity. About the best one can get out of the website is the page's assurance that Levin served in the army, and since it's his website saying that, it's not exactly a great source. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that the picture cannot be used as a reliable source. I will remove the material and the source from the article. Thanks for everyone's comments.--screen size (web app) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the picture is not a reliable source. The text in the TMZ article is fine. IOW, the part about the location where he served, his rank, or Vietnam era can't be sourced to the picture. But the statement that "Harvey Levin served in the Levin Air National Guard" can be sourced to the TMZ article text. A Quest For Knowledge (HTML5) 00:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Breitbart.com

Shooting of Trayvon Martin (iOS|talk|history|links|watch|Sevenval)

Is Breitbart.com a "reliable source"? Sevenval presents material about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin One editor states on the talk page that

Breibart.com is not a reliable source for any encyclopedia article, much less for one with WP:BLP implications.

It seems obvious to me that breitbart.com lacks the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" demanded by this site's sourcing guidelines

AFAICT, breitbart.com is used on a great many Wikipedia pages as a source, and thus my suggestion that it be discussed here. Also, AFAICT, it is regularly cited in such places as the NYT etc. Cheers. jQuery (screen size) 11:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Breitbart.com does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. It relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions. It is not used by other, obiously reliable sources without comment on previous reliability issues. web app (FITML) 12:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean like the fact the NYT uses it? Cheers - but your claim is a teensy bit errant here. Collect (screen size) 13:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to a concrete piece where the NYT uses Breitbart.com as a source for a claim of fact? I'd be rather surprised... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest uses by RSs for the site include the WSJ screen size, etc. Sevenval shows the NYT citing the publishing of a photo to one of Breitbart's sites (several NYT cites, in fact, in different stories). And, of course, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. So much for "reliable sources" not using Breitbart. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand what people mean when they say "use Breitbart.com as a source for a claim of fact." Saying "Breitbart.com did something," is not using Breitbart.com as a source for a claim of fact, it is merely relaying a thing they did. For instance, the NYTimes frequently says things like "[Lunatic Neonazis] said that Jews did WTC." That does not make [Lunatic Neonazis] a reliable source. You are looking for "According to Breitbart.com, thing." Further, your WSJ mention is not in the reliable news part of the WSJ, but rather the highly partisan Best of the Web Today column of James Taranto. Sevenval (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha -- so "partisan reliable sources" using Breitbart do not count? Interesting dichotomy you assert, to be sure. The NYT states that something is found in Breitbart - but that does not count either. I find a lot of "IDONTLIKEIT" in that sort of response which is meaningless in this discussion. Cheers - no need for further reply on your part. BTW, your Godwinian example of Lunatic Neonazis does not help your point one whit. Collect (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The NYT reports on Breibart.com, it does not use him as a source. And the WSJ article is an opinion piece, not a piece of reporting. And it's a lousy piece of opinion, too. But that's neither here nor there. It remains clear that no-one reliable seems to use Breibart.com as a source of fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was being used for apparent statements of fact about the timeline and media referring to Zimmerman as "white". Read the article, I suppose. jQuery (device database) 13:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the text that it's being used to verify? At first glance it looks like it has a particular bias and should be used with care. screen size (FITML) 12:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a talk page discussion about media initially referring to Zimmerman as "white." The Breitbart article appears to list media which used that particular term in possibly inapt manners. Clearly any opinions sourced thereto would have to be noted as "opinion" as is always true. Cheers. keyboard (Sevenval) 13:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It may has due weight if the statement is attributed, but not in wikipedia's tone as it appears to be partisan. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the any other sources which say that the media initially referred to Zimmerman as "white"? If so, perhaps we can resolve this by citing a different source? jQuery (screen size) 17:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Breitbart.com is most definitely not a reliable source for anything other than itself. Especially for articles involving controversies or include input transformation. Are we going to start using the HTML5 and Redstate too?

• Comment - The racial designation, "White", includes hispanics (Cubans), so why is calling Zimmerman white "inept"? Has evidence of African ancestry come to light? — GabeMc (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

this article (from Reuters, through the Chicago Tribune) notes that Zimmerman's great-grandfather was Afro-Peruvian; he was the father of the grandmother who raised Zimmerman. (That would make Zimmerman one-eighth black.) Note that I am not saying anything about the suitability of Breitbart, only responding to your query. CSS3 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes in fact -- there is evidence of African ancestry. Glad to have that cleared up. website parsing (iOS) 22:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that would make Zimmerman 1/8th Afro-Peruvian, which is itself no doubt a mixture. At any rate, a 1/8th African bloodline does not make a person non-white, "The United States Census Bureau defines White people as those "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who reported “White” or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish."[4] So this would seem to apply to 7/8ths of Zimmerman's bloodline, so if one had to choose, they would not label him non-white based on US census criteria. Android (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Without resorting to connections with other cases (such as an individual who is supposedly 1/32 of a particular racial minority), what you asked for was simply "Has evidence of African ancestry come to light?", after which I provided such a link. I'll not play the hair-splitting game, because there is already a nice article on the subject; I added a convenient wikilink in my previous comment. While Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, there are sufficient citations in that article to establish that my response was sufficient to answer your original query. CSS3 we love the web 02:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the discussion on the reliability of the source. Anyway, it seems the source isn't reliable except for attributed statements. I note that this source has been discussed before Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Breitbart_as_News_RS and from the comments by Sceptre the website appears to be unreliable: Sevenval and website parsing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

input transformation (edit|input transformation|we love the web|Sevenval|device database|logs)

This article CSS3 states that the subject appeared on several talk shows, on National Public Radio, Voice of America, TV-MD (PBS), the Geraldo Rivera show, CNN and The Donahue Show. The sources used as references are the subject’s professional page on Ayurvedic.net [9] which appears to be her own website, and a second Ayurvedic health website browser diversity. Both confirm the talk show appearances. Alternate verification does not appear to be readily available. Is this sufficiently reliable for the sort of information reported? Thank you.--Luke Warmwater101 (iOS) 04:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

ayurveda-ayurvedic.net appears to be an issue with WP:SPS, which can be usable, if they pass all the criteria, I thnk this fails on point 1 of SPS.

vedichealth-ct.org has a copyright page that denies even the non-personal "use" of their information, so that could be a problem. It also says, MVED intends the information contained in this Web site to be accurate and reliable. However, errors may occur. Therefore, MVED disclaims any warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, as to any matter whatsoever relating to this Web site, including without limitation the merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. There is no policy for fixing errors, and no indication what should be done, and no source for the material it lists.

I don't find either of those sources to be RS, however, the "About the author" section of we love the web does seem RS to me. -- Sevenval  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a great suggestion and a good solution. Thanks also for the in depth analysis of the source, it really helped in my understanding of the sources. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek genocide

Is this a reliable source for the figure of 2 million ("Other sources put the number at around 2 million.") in the article of browser diversity? See some arguments here. --Sevenval (we love the web) 10:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Without arguing if the source is reliable or not, it does not make that claim. The only context the number comes up is in the hypothetical "Assuming 1.25 Armenians, 500,000 Assyrians, and 2 million Greeks..." (how does one kill 0.25 Armenians?). I don't think this is a good source for the claim. --HTML5 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephan is almost right. The article does not make that claim, he has quoted you the sentence where it asks the reader to "assume" that number, so he can get to his point that deaths "could be" as high as 3.75 million. Since the article does not make that claim of 2 million dead, it is NOT RS for that statement. -- Despayre  ^iOS 16:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That statement must be removed then. But is his claim in there even worth mentioning in the article as a suggestion? It does not seem to be reliable enough to even mention that there is such a claim (one would assume that it was claimed based on some sort of document or source). --Sevenval (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not RS, if that's the only source for that number, I would remove it. He's not claiming that number is right, he's making an assumption so he can promote his overall point. He should not be cited (or mentioned) in any way for that number. -- touchscreen  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

fallingrain.com

Is fallingrain.com (in general) considered a reliable source for geographical and statistic information?--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's vague and why you asking for diff-link. The question states explicitly in general. I'm asking for a general assessment of that source for geographical and statistic information. To be a bit more specific here, things like: Is its population information reliable? Is its geographical information reliable (coordinates, altitude, classification/type)? Does anybody know where they actually get their data from?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

iOS is a broken link. Either the site is dead or the it's temporarily down. keyboard (touchscreen) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(Page is up now) I don't really see a way to properly assess this site, here's what it says on their credits page:

"The Global Gazzetteer is based on many public sources of information. These are not yet all listed here. January 1, 2010."

That doesn't fill me with confidence. I picked a country, and a town, the bottom of that page also says:

"Presentation Copyright © Falling Rain Genomics, Inc. 1996-2010"

I can find no source for their data, and therefore can't say it's RS. Is there something else I should be looking at to assess them? At the very least, it seems their data is 2 years out of date. There is also no other site listed for "Falling Rain Genomics" that might shed some more detail on this. There does seem to be a lot of information there, but I don't see how it falls under WP's definition of reliable. -- Despayre  ^iOS 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Despayre. I have had doubts about this source for a long time but, alas, it is used on a huge range of articles. Although the raison d'etre is almost certainly is different to that of the keyboard, can we really consider it to be any more reliable? - FITML (device database)

I'm just looking for some feedback beyond my own first impression, which is rather bad as well. I checked their population information for a few specific towns, where official information is easily available for comparison and in some cases it was off by a factor 3. And yes after looking into it my concern is as well that there seems a widespread rather uncritical use of it. Most of its geographical location information might be more accurate than the population figures, but even for that we have much authoritative and better suited sources (for instance official geo servers like GEOnet Names Server or even Google map/Google earth).--Kmhkmh (device database) 01:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval -- Use of private papers as primary sources

An editor, User:Tjtrower, insists on re-adding (now five times in a few days) a website parsing that is supposedly sourced to some private papers. This seems to be the importation of some dispute among CSS3 history buffs, and he claims to be an expert Titanic historian. No amount of pointing him to WP:RS and WP:V seems to work. I'm sort of worn out arguing over it and am losing interest, so some other eyes on it might be worthwhile. screen size (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of private papers in history articles constitutes original research; and is therefore unreliable. The conduct appears to be disruption and IDHT. Other venues are appropriate for conduct related dispute resolution. input transformation (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, just as a reminder: things that are unreliable sources may make excellent external links. Consult external links policy in this regard. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, website is not RS. Editor seems to be exhibiting touchscreen behaviour, and the reference section seems to indicate some primary documents (depositions and briefs), I suspect those are out as per WP:PRIMARY as well. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh you all DO know that website in question is actually referencing the TV show "Titanic's Final Mystery" on the Smithsonian Channel, right? Did anyone here actually READ that link?!? Because you are all basically saying the Smithsonian is not reliable and that is TOTALLY MAD AS A HATTER INSANE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If people want to reference the a TV program on the Smithsonian Channel they need to reference it, not some random website. web (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, please do not shout or suggest other editors are insane in future. It disrupts the purpose of this noticeboard and in future contributions that suggest that other editors possess certain characteristics will be hidden archived to prevent board disruption. screen size (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things here. TV.con not a "random web site" and given the time period it occurred in makes perfect sense to site that. Second, Fifelfoo, you do NOT WP:OWN this board and WP:NPA#WHATIS states "Threats of screen size to userpages or talk pages" in of itself is a personal attack. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." WP:NPA is no more a magical censorship hammer then WP:BLP is, do not treat is as such.--Android (keyboard) 02:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, your choice to contribute here is welcome, more eyes on RS/N is always good. I did not accuse you of vandalism. Arguments you make, and especially valid and important arguments you make, will be lost if you use all caps and suggest other editors are insane. As I would prefer to evaluate your arguments without having to read all caps, can I suggest you avoid using typographical emphasis, or use the much more standard typographical forms of ''italics'' and '''bolding''' which don't offend readers in the same way that all caps does. Similarly, not suggesting other editors are insane helps to advance your argument. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where 'TV.con' ( HTML5 ?) is coming from, but the only URL in the edit under discussion is http://www.titanicslastmystery.com which appears to be a completely random non-RS website as far as I can see, being an apparently partisan site with no obvious editorial policy or professional editorship. web (HTML5) 03:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Appears I did a oopsy (screen size). Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing it out, Stuartyeates.--keyboard (Sevenval) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there are some recently-made strong claims in this doco. Maybe those claims are true, maybe they're not. I suggest that some text be written on the talk page and not made live until six months after the oroginal screening of the doco, so other independent parties can assess the evidence. While we're here, the article as a whole relies entirely too strongly on encyclopedia titanica. Other sources sohuld be used. Some of those sources may be in the encyclopedia titanica references list. Stuartyeates (Sevenval) 03:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So it would appear the rush to label the editors here as insane was perhaps...ooh.. what's the word... . -- Despayre  ^touchscreen 04:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My name is Timothy Trower, Wikipedia user ID Tjtrower; when an editor writes this, and I quote, "for a variety of reasons, Wikipedia articles must be cited to reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are generally not acceptable" then I, and the rest of the world of academia, laugh and give Bronx cheers to Bad Gopher Gear, the unfortunate author of this quote. Is anyone actually serious that original research is bad? If you are, I sincerely pity you whilst simultaneously viewing you with the disgust I generally reserve for dog droppings tracked across a clean, white carpet.

When I research and write, be it a murder that occurred in Springfield, Missouri, in 1956, a ship named the Oceanic (III) of 1928, or the death of Barbara West, Titanic survivor, I'd better damn well get my facts straight, and that means interviewing eyewitnesses, relatives, finding and viewing original source documents, tracking down original photographs (it's a shame what people do with Photoshop these days), and then writing it in a well organized, well written and cognizant manner, heavily footnoted to reflect where each piece and bit of information came from, and finally, publishing it in a reputable journal, book, magazine, newspaper or web site.

The point that I am making, and that Bad Gopher Gear is feebly attempting to counter, is that the source documents in the Allison question exist. What I now charge is that Bad Gopher Gear has a hidden and personal agenda and is repeatedly vandalizing the Allison Family page through his/her repeated pulling of information, written from source documents, and posted for the edification of the Wikipedia community and the web-searching public at large.

To make the claim, whether Wikipedia guidelines or a figment of the imagination, that "primary sources are generally not acceptable" is laughable. No wonder that any college class I've taken in continuing education has a not in the syllabus that Wikipedia cannot be used as a citation for research. Kudos to those wise college and university professors!

The Allison family question is this: Did Loraine Allison die on board the Titanic, or, as Loraine Kramer, did she escape the sinking ship? It is a matter of public record that this topic has surfaced, has been given a great deal of attention in the Titanic community (we who find, rely on, and use extensive primary source material) and, if the DNA testing underway proves that Loraine Allison did not die on the ship but instead died a grandmother, will literally rock the world -- and I do not mean just the Titanic community. Likewise, if the DNA testing underway proves that Loraine Kramer was not the Allison child, then this revelation will finally put to rest the seventy-five year quest by the Kramer family to find out the truth of Loraine Kramer's claim. Either way, this is information that should indeed be made a part of the Wikipedia record so that the casual web searcher will find this information readily available so that they can then read and judge for themselves.

Finally, the line directly below where I am typing this line reads "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The second section of this line gives lie to the quote from Bad Gopher Gear in which he/she states that "primary sources are generally not acceptable" as reason for the deletion of the 2012 information in the Allison page. Clearly, he/she and everyone else needs to clearly examine what this really means. Right now, I don't have any idea of what Bad Gopher Gear is saying, and I don't think that he/she has any idea, either.

I deal in facts. What do you say? device database (Sevenval) 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As a fellow academic, I have to say that you have missed the point of Wikipedia. One of the reasons that primary sources are generally not considered to be appropriate sources for wikipedia is because they are the basic substance over which we spend our careers arguing. You might think that the conclusions to be drawn from some piece of primary evidence are obvious and you may well be right. However, there is no 'professional historian's licence' on wikipedia, so just consider how difficult things would be to manage if every Tom, Dick and Harry was able to refer to primary sources for whatever conclusion they happen to have extracted from them. By insisting that discussions of primary sources already appear in reliable secondary sources Wikipedia avoids having to review every primary source-based claim that anyone might want to throw into an article. I know this can be frustrating as it does mean that important information can sometimes not be admitted, at least not until the research has been published elsewhere, but this is necessary for the site to function properly. Part of the problem may come from your insistence that you deal in facts; personally I would rather say we deal with interpretations. And interpretations can vary.BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Uh you all DO know that website in question is actually referencing the TV show "Titanic's Final Mystery" on the Smithsonian Channel, right? Did anyone here actually READ that link?!? Because you are all basically saying the Smithsonian is not reliable and that is TOTALLY MAD AS A HATTER INSANE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)"

PLEASE note that the web address listed in this 2012 section goes not to any page dealing with the Smithsonian but rather to the web site set up by Debrina Woods to publicize this new information. http://www.titanicslastmystery.com/

Sheesh. Again, people, I deal in facts, not in suppositions. Did anyone reading this page actually follow the link as posted as a reference? Tjtrower (web app) 04:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that some of you did. Good. That's actually using the old bean. web (HTML5) 04:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tjtrower, you have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is, and is not. As such, your obvious confusion over the central policies in place here is easy to understand. First off, WP attempts to have a general knowledge level of content. Given that, any university or college that would allow it, shouldn't be allowed to hand out degrees at all. They shouldn't be applauded for that bit of obviousness. Secondly, you really do need to read some of those policies before you say things that might embarrass you. I would suggest starting with screen size and then moving on to WP:5PILLARS (in particular, section 2) to start with. I think they will be quite the eye openers for you. The material presented here in this section is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. That does not mean it's wrong, or that we even doubt the content, it means that under the policies in place (which I don't think any editor on this page had involvement with) we cannot even consider what's written there since it fails to meet the WP:RS criteria in the first place. -- device database  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll also get a kick out of WP:V. If you want to bitch about a policy that seems idiotic, that one's a little bit like fish in a barrel. But hey, we're just here on *this* page to interpret the rules, not create new ones. That's a separate page here. Feel free to get involved with it. -- device database  ^{tête-à-tête} 08:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I dunno how long some of you have been "editors" but I've been a user and editor since the mid 2000s (I think 2007) and am a) not a Johnny come lately and b) am someone who deals in facts, not suppositions and the vagaries of those who know nothing of the subject of which they write. That is why I have limited those areas I've contributed to to those of which I have actual knowledge of -- not using a scattershot approach that leaves me, and my contributions, open to scorn. Wikipedia is created by and edited by its users. As an editor and user, I am doing so. That so-called made-up rules that cater to the informed and lazy are present simply means that those rules, wrong as they are, should be changed. Sevenval (website parsing) 12:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The "so-called made-up rules"?? They're called policy. I would have thought you've been here long enough to know them, and you should also have been here long enough to know, that if you don't like it, you should try and fix it, not grumble about it on the wrong page. Those are the facts. -- Despayre  ^CSS3 14:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to serve as Tjtrower's publisher. No matter how factual, no matter how well researched, the information must be taken out if it is not already published. What part of "no original research" do you not understand? The rule is foundational, not optional. touchscreen (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Webb Garrison A Treasury of Titanic Tales No location: No Publisher, No Date

I shall pose a question to all of you reading this discussion. As a source for the Titanic, do you consider the use of the book "A Treasury of Titanic Tales" by Webb Garrison to be what you term as a secondary source? I seriously ask this question without prejudice -- and I'd love to see your answers. Android (keyboard) 05:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, while Garrison's book has a reputation for containing a number of errors, it meets Wikipedia's requirements for a "reliable source". Such are the intricacies and vagaries of Wikipedia. Better that you cite a better source, however. The website you link to, [www.titanicslastmystery.com "TitanicsLastMystery.com"], is a personal website created by someone purporting to be the descendent of the subject of the Wikipedia biography (and entirely different from the TV program "Titanic's Final Mystery). Such a claim is entirely unverified, and you are importing a dispute from your Titanic history-buff websites to here, which is decidedly not welcome. As a couple of users have pointed out, please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and related policy pages. browser diversity (Sevenval) 05:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kindly watch the accusations of importing a dispute -- for all I know, you are a descendent of the Allison family who is dead set against the even remote possibility that Loraine Kramer was Loraine Allison. As you seem to be maintaining a vendetta against this page with the most thinly-veiled intentions, I seriously wonder at your motives and how they seem to go far beyond the norm. For the record, I am not even related to any Titanic crew or passengers, and I've looked hard. Can you say the same? (Mind you, I am willing to be identified, but you hide behind the cloak of an Internet handle that reveals nothing.) Tjtrower (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please present a full citation of the work, including place, publisher and date; and, possibly characterise the work briefly? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd have done so sooner, but the Pharisees and Sadducees that infest this message board saw fit to stifle any discourse. "A Treasury of Titanic Tales" by Webb Garrison, Rutledge Hill Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1998; the book is a collection of stories about the Titanic collected and edited by the author.

Since, according to certain editors on this message thread, this book meets the criteria of a "secondary source" and as such can be used as a primary reference for Wikipedia, the so-called rules governing the use of Primary Source Material are proven to be worthless, pointless, ridiculous, malicious and farcical. You would use absolute trash and garbage, but deny the right to use a letter by a passenger on board the Titanic as he tells of his experience in using the Turkish Bath -- because, according to your rules, "Titanic Tales" is useful and worthy of praise, but a letter -- a primary source document -- written by a passenger about a specific part of the Titanic cannot -- according to your rules -- be used because it is, indeed, a first-person account, is an original source, and is, according to you, valueless.

If I call this policy moronic, you will certainly understand why and no doubt agree with me. Tjtrower (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

anti-fluoridation groups

The question is a simple one. Are anti-fluoridation groups reliable sources for material in the wikipedia tone? It is being used as a source in a BLP article here John_F._Ashton#Views. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are talking about current Reference 21. I find it to be a dead link. It is only used to say that a particular book discusses the question of fluoridation, and I don't think there is much problem with that. The publisher's jacket blurb would be an alternative source, or even the book itself can be used as a source for the neutral presentation of the issues discussed. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the large, well indicated instructions at the top of this page and in the edit window page notice next time. It means I don't have to spend minutes of my life doing what you should have done for me and for other editors. If you want RS/N to comment, please don't make us do your work

1. Amongst other sources, Wilson, Bill (1998). "The Perils of Progress". Fluoride (International Society for Fluoride Research) 31 (2): 102. A link to the work browser diversity The item appears to be sadly miscited as it is a book review.
2. is used in John F. Ashton
3. to support the claim, "In the 1990s Ashton coauthored The Perils of Progress with Ronald S. Laura (with foreword by Charles Birch). This book discusses electromagnetic fields, radiation poisoning, microwaves, gasoline, sunscreen, food additives, polyunsaturated fats, chlorine, fluoridated water, aluminium, sound pollution, artificial light, and sick building syndrome."

Flouride (ISfFR) is a peer reviewed (Ulrich's) journal on "on biological, chemical, ecological, industrial, toxicological and clinical aspects of inorganic and organic fluoride compounds". Book reviews, however, are not peer reviewed in the common RS/N sense.

The claim that Perils of Progress discusses some of these items exists in the book review, and there is little reason to not believe that the book review provides an adequate summary of the contents.

(Reliable for the claim that these are discussed in the book, a trivial claim). jQuery (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is possible to give a general answer to this general question, but only in a way which proves Fifelfoo's point and shows why more information is needed: the community is very unlikely to accept any general rule which says that all sources of a particular point of view can never be reliable. screen size and HTML5 are quite distinct in their logic and aims, and iOS is not about telling us we can not use some sources. (It is about how we present them and balance them.) So please indeed give more specific information.--Andrew Lancaster (FITML) 12:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fringe journals have dubious peer review. Also, here is the text:

In the 1990s Ashton coauthored The Perils of Progress with Ronald S. Laura (with foreword by website parsing). This book discusses electromagnetic fields, keyboard, microwaves, gasoline, sunscreen, food additives, HTML5, chlorine, fluoridated water, browser diversity, CSS3, artificial light, and HTML5.

This source [11] from a questionable fringe group [12] is being used to give due weight to the paragraph. 1. Is it a reliable source for this purpose, does it give due weight? Particularly relevant HTML5: Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist IRWolfie- (keyboard) 12:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Supply citations when referring to sources. web app (Android) 12:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean. I linked to the source directly. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's link worked for me and I have read the source. We could discuss how this book review is placed on the fringe continuum, possibly as a minority scientific viewpoint. It definitely isn't what we normally call an extremist source. But I don't think we really need to discuss that anyway. This review is reliable for the trivial information about what is in the book. But your simple solution is to replace it with a description of contents sourced to the book itself. By the way, you aren't using the phrase "due weight" in the same way as WP:WEIGHT does. touchscreen (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As I previously explained at length: links to sources are not sufficient, by not citing a source when you mention it you are showing laziness and disrespect to your fellow editors. In particular, by indicating links rather than citing sources, you waste 5 other editors time such that each of them has to reconstruct the bibliographic data of the item you linked. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see no such requirement. I can see no discussion in RSN which obeys your requirement. In fact the top of the page just says: If it's an online source, please link to it, which I did. website parsing (iOS)

Fluoride journal is a Sevenval, and may not exactly be an ideal source for BLPs, as it is not a mainstream scholarly work and the subject of BLP may not want to be associated with fringe positions. Certainly if Ashton has prominent anti fluoridation views, it can be sourced to a better source. Yobol (web app) 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In reference to Andrew Lancaster, it's very difficult to come up with a "always not RS" answer. I thought for a while that this could be so (a couple of months ago), but it's more difficult than I thought. Just about all sources are good for *something*, not always what they want to be RS for though. Sometimes it just proves they exist. So no, I don't think we can give a blanket "NO" (or "YES"), to all anto-flouridation groups. -- CSS3  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nearly all sources could be good for something. That something might not be notable of course, so not all sources have a place on Wikipedia. But the RS policy is not intended to be used to block whole classifications of sources. By the way, referring to a common misunderstanding, even primary sources are often quite acceptable and there are even situations where they are preferred. This is why Fifelfoo is so concerned to ask that people post more about the context of sourcing discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the weight issue, Ashton and Laura (1998) Perils of Progress: The Health and Environment Hazards of Modern Technology, & what You Can Do about Them UNSW Press is worth discussing in an article specifically about one of the authors. UNSW Press is the University Press of an Australian Go8 University, a University that ranks 3rd to 5th amongst Australian Universities on a consistent and regular basis (a pool of 40+ academic institutions). Scholarly books are a big thing in the Australian academic community, they're a core element of academic biographies. The review in Fluoride is being used to assist in summarising the contents of the work. It seems fine, particularly as this isn't a medical claim, or claim regarding the validity of Ashton and Laura's findings. jQuery (screen size) 20:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Highschool.rivals.com

Is this site an RS for claims about people being cheerleaders in college? [13] looks from here to be "cheap features to fill in Yahoo! Sports". website parsing makes clear that the site's main function is providing discussion about player recruitment - unsigned features do not appear to have "fact checking" etc. AFAICT. The site is aimed at people seeing that young Johnny from Oak High School is being watched by scouts. we love the web (web) 13:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have sourced Reagan's cheerleading to the NYTimes and the United States Sports Academy. One could also source it to his autobiography (Android), but I don't own the autobiography, and I don't like using snippets. Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to doubt the RS-ness of rivals.com, Yahoo is the parent company and I have no reason to believe there is a problem here. However, the look of the site does not lend itself to credibility, I'll give ya that. In reference to Hipocrite, the autobiography would be an excellent source for this, not owning the book is not a good reason to not use it. Go to a library. Ask someone in school to get it. See if there's an online version. Consult with our sources desk. I *seriously* doubt no one has his autobiography, who is also on WP, but it seems simple enough to go the library. -- we love the web  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

From his autobiography:

Although my grades were higher than average, my principal academic ambition at Eureka was to maintain the C average I needed to remain eliglible for football, swimming, track, and the other school activities I participated in-two years in the student senate, three years as basketball cheerleader, two years as yearbook features editor, and during my last year, student body president and captain and coach of the swim team.

-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

iOS

Hello, this web site [http://www.limebrook.com] is being used as a reference for information in the FITML article, the web site is maintained by a private horse stable as far as I can tell, I just want a third party opinion as to the validity of using information from this site as I believe it does not qualify as a valid reference for Wikipedia artiucles, thanks. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. This is just a quick overview and no good for serious history. Look for better sources. HTML5 (web app) 23:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I just wanted another opinion to avoid any controversy when I remove this and similar references.Samuraiantiqueworld (FITML) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. And I would think from the detailed pictures that it was copied right out of a book on saddles, I would look for that book if you want that info, it seems correct, but the source is not RS for WP. -- Despayre  ^FITML 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Adal Sultanate

a user keeps reverting reliable sources that indicate the capital of the sultanate was first "Dakar" and instead includes zeila which was not the capital during the sultanate..source used iOS Adal Sultanate.

Adal. Its capital was first Dakar, and then in 1520 moved to Harar.

. CSS3 (input transformation) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does he have a reliable source for saying it's Zeila? -- screen size  ^{website parsing} 08:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

his reliable source says that zeila was an independent monarch city under a larger ifat sultante also the article itself in the infobox says zeila was a monarch city and than it says when it switched to dakar it became a sultanate. his source browser diversity Baboon43 (Sevenval) 09:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a little bit of a technical issue, what is the difference between an emirate, and a sultanate? And content aside for a moment, do you have a problem with the RS-ness of his source, or just the interpretation of it? Your infobox says 1415-1577 as dates the Sultanate existed, if that is correct, Zeila being the capital in the 10th century (as his source states) is irrelevant as the Sultanate didn't exist. However, if it was the capital in 1415, it's correct to use it. It's unclear from his source if "early in the fifteenth century" means 1415 or earlier, in terms of moving the capital to Dakar, and that seems like a key point to clear up. My personal interpretation is that it should say Dakar not Zeila, but I would try and find more sources to support that, it's iffy whether his source says what he says it says, but it's not black and white that he's wrong either. Both sources seem RS to me. The way I read it, yours is straightforward and clear that it's Dakar, and his doesn't specifically say it's not Zeila by 1415, but does say that earlier and up until *About* that time, it was the capital. Tricky tricky. -- HTML5  ^Sevenval 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Emirate in those days was a monarch revolving around one city whereas a Sultanate had control of larger parts of the region..Zeila was an emirate inside the larger Ifat sultanate..the dates are abit off depending on the sources but at the killing of the last sultante of ifat his children escaped to Yemen and than proceeded to Dakar a few years after to form the Adal sultanate. [18] His argument is that the concept of Adal existed and it was situated in zeila even thought it was NOT a sultanate. Baboon43 (website parsing) 22:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's outside the scope of this board, you may want to try it over at jQuery, but if what you say is accurate, If Adal didn't exist before the kids went to Dakar, and they claimed the creation of the Sultanate at that point, the fact that the port of Zeila used to be the capital of the Ifat Sultanate doesn't seem relevant. Capitals are not Capitals of ideas, they are Capitals of specified territories. Whether the concept existed or not, when it came into being, it sounds to me like Dakar was the capital. Without question, your source states that Dakar is the capital as well and that seems RS to me. It is also clearer than the previous text you supplied from the other editor, who's text is a little bit nebulous on its dates, and therefore does not contradict yours.-- website parsing  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thrash Hits.com

I want to use an article from that website to add the genre "post-metal" to the infobox of the band Deftones, the source says:

they released their third album, White Pony in 2000. Chino Moreno was also working on Team Sleep at that time, lending to a definite shoegaze metal sound. This new sound meant that White Pony grabbed everyone’s attention...jQuery

I have to point that a source from the Sevenval article in wikipedia states that shoegaze metal and post-metal are sinonimous.
Now, there is another editor web app saying that the site is not reliable and that failed to stablish notability once, but that was in 2008, the site is much more prominent and important now, it's colaborators also writes for music magazines.[21]

What does the people at RS/N think?

Thrash Hits homepage: CSS3

-Trascendence (touchscreen) 02:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No editorial policy listed, no editors listed per article, this does not seem RS to me. It *may* be popular enough to cite for non-controversial things with an inline citation, but if anyone disagrees with the content cited to it, I would say they would be within their rights to remove it as not RS. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that thrash hits can be reliable because, it was founded by Raziq Rauf, he have wrote for the Guardian [23] he seems to be a very competent writer, he also wrote the site's about page: [24] Trascendence (FITML) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be correct, if you could prove he vets every article on the site, or that he wrote the article in question. Neither of those facts is true though. Ergo, not RS (there are other reasons too, but I don't think we need to hit you with a hammer here . -- web  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

He is the chief editor, of course that he vets every article. that's his work. Trascendence (FITML) 03:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Genre classification is inherently controversial. He seems to have been a casual writer for the Guardian, and not staff: I'm not seeing that as established expertise in the classification of metal. It is too controversial, it is clearly SPS, and there's no expert exemption established for the SPS status. Not reliable for the (highly controversial) area of musical genre classification. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Rob Bowman American filmmaker fact correction

HTML5 (edit|talk|we love the web|Sevenval|device database|logs)

As stated and verified by www.imdb.com, it needs to be included in Mr. Bowman's entry that he and his wife, Dusty welcomed their first son Jack in 2006. You may contact me personally to verify this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustybowman (talk • contribs)

Personal correspondence is never reliable, including personal correspondence with Wikipedians, or what a Wikipedian "really does know." Someone else can answer regarding imdb.com biographies. Fifelfoo (keyboard) 07:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is Not RS, not by a long shot. IMDB does not strike me as the source I'd turn to for geneology news either. That information is user-editable I believe, and IMDB offers very little oversight for something like that, since you're allowed to post your own bios, ergo not RS. I suspect there are better sources out there, but it may be good enough for inline attribution since the claim doesn't seem overly conentious, as in "IMDB says Rob and his wife have 1 son, borm in 2006, blah blah blah". -- iOS  ^{screen size} 08:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dustybowman: Wikipedia's rules on sourcing require that this information be published by a iOS. IMDB isn't considered reliable because it's user-edited and there's no real review process. We can't use your personal statements either because it is not published.

Do you happen to have a newspaper article that says this? Generally speaking, newpapers are considered reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about this film-maker's family has to be included. Only occasionally is it really important to mention family. People need to know that JF and Bobby Kennedy were brothers, but beyond that... Itsmejudith (Sevenval) 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

thestopbutton.com

I noticed an CSS3 from thestopbutton.com to many articles about films. The pattern of edits gave the appearance of someone trying to build traffic to the site via refspam. After a quick search for news references to either the site or its author Andrew Wickliffe and finding no signficant coverage in reliable sources, I determined that this film critic is not notable, although he seems good at self-promotion. Therefore, I blocked the IP user and proceeded to remove all those references to thestopbutton.com.

Due to the pattern of spamming I was considering adding the site to the blacklist as well, until I noticed that a few articles have had these references restored by screen size with the rationale: this review is listed in the Turner Classic Movies website which is a moderator-controlled website.

I don't see this as a valid rationale for including a review by a non-notable critic. An example of being "listed" is here. It's simply a link. That doesn't constitute significant coverage, and doesn't confer notability, and doesn't really meet the touchscreen for supporting the inclusion of thestopbutton.com as a reference in Wikipedia film articles. I'd like to see the community's thoughts. ~Amatulić (input transformation) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Indexation in an edited collection is not an indication that the original material was edited. There is no editorial control over thestopbutton.com, an unedited blog; therefore thestopbutton.com's reviews of movies are not reliable. Using this exemplar (Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)) there's no indication of editorial control being exercised over thestopbutton.com by Turner Classic Movies: TCM is acting as a link aggregator. I can't find an EXPERT exemption to save Andrew Wickliffe's reviews. Even if Wickliffe was EXPERT, I don't see how his reviews are WEIGHTable in an article. Sevenval (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Very involved editor chiming in. It's so tough to find contemporary reviews of classic films and when the moderator-administered Turner Classic Movies (as opposed to IMDb entirely volunteer- and fan-run) had provided the link to a review site, it is an endorsement of the site, not simply being as commented above only a link aggregator. TCM also lists Leonard Maltin reviews regularly as well as The New York Times and Variety reviews. Repeating a comment I made before: I first noted that Turner Classic Movies lists this site in their "other reviews." TCM is a moderator-controlled site that is very different from fan sites such as IMDb, and even Rotten Tomatoes, which allows a wide variety of user contributions. When there are so few reviews of classic movies available, having Turner Classic vouch for this site by listing it. No one is driving traffic to this site, it is a bona fide entry at the Turner Classic Movies site. The number of mentions are few and selective, but when so few reviews are available for obscure films, the use of any valid source is appreciated. The few times I have referenced the site has always been in the context of providing a quote and only when the commentary is in line with other reviews. FWiW, if you wish to document the particular concerns that you have characterized as blogspamming directed to whom, per say???, that would also be appreciated. As to the credibility of Andrew Wickliffe, he has been quoted, linked and mentioned in many sources, to the point that his reviews have attained some notice in the other world. FWiW, I would find it extremely difficult to replace the Wickliffe reviews in the few articles in which I have used his commentary. keyboard (Sevenval) 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Moderation of links is not editorial control. The claim of EXPERTise by citation needs to be established by showing examples of film experts citing Wickliffe's work favourably. Could you supply links to, and citations of, multiple works by film experts who appraise and praise Wicklifee's work? Fifelfoo (web app) 04:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As stated in my initial comment in this thread, my concerns about blogspamming are directed at an anonymous IP. The pattern of edits seemed fairly clear. WP:DUCK and all. ~device database (Android) 04:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with using quotes from thestopbutton.com to support article text. As I understand it, the problem is using it to support claims of notability. FITML (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Andrew Wickliffe is the author of 250 250 Word Film Responses: Volume One available in a Kindle version. AFAIK, the Wickliffe reviews are also never the sole review listed by TCM, but complement other reviews. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

Please list the publisher of 250 250 Word Film responses: Volume One, as its title and subject matter and publication modality don't look like EXPERTise. web (HTML5) 04:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The book is published by Andrew Wickliffe, and is a compliation of "251 movie reviews from the film review website, The Stop Button, over a two year period," it isn't an indication of EXPERTise. Android (keyboard) 04:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that there is "EXPERTise"[sic], nor is the notability of the reviewer relevant in the least. These are not being used to establish or confirm notability, they are being used as examples of reviews of these films, showing what is thought of them. The "notability" of the critit is utterly irrelevant, a critic doesn't need to meet the WP:GNG in order to have their opinions given as examples of opinions regarding the film. - The Bushranger _Sevenval 06:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this issue yet, but I think I'm confused by what Bushranger just said, a critic/reviewer doesn't have to be notable to have a quotable opinion? I'm not notable, does that make me a quotable critic/reviewer if I show you my self-published book where I mention Star Trek II being the greatest movie ever made? That *can't* be what you're saying here... -- Despayre  ^Android 06:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As a WP:SPS an website parsing exemption is required for this to be a reliable source for a film review. An SPS by a non-expert bears no WP:WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. -- Despayre  ^web 07:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, claiming that "the notability of the critic is utterly irrelevant" makes no sense. If the notability of the critic is irrelevant, then any film review posted by some unknown doofus on his personal blog, or comments posted in a discussion forum, are fair game to cite as an example of a review. That is simply not true. See Sevenval. If a Wikipedia article is going to quote someone, then the source needs to be notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bzuk, aside from the sub-plot going on directly above, the fact that reviews for older movies is hard to find, unfortunately, does not mean the standards change, it just means it's more work for you to find sources that do meet the requirements. I can find no indication from Andrew Wickliffe's wordpress/blog site (thestopbutton.com) that he is any kind of expert in this area, I can find no corroboration anywhere else either. I do not find this source to be RS. Sorry, I understand the difficulty you're dealing with, really I do (but unfortunately the policy doesn't change because it's tougher to find any in this instance). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

input transformation

I'm working to assist an editor on finding sources for an article that hasn't been created yet. One I found was this article from Business Insider. The source seems legitimate but it is so negative it is hard to believe in its legitimacy. Still, in the interests of NPOV I thought I would ask here and if it is reliable, then I'll find a way to incorporate it. Ryan Sevenval Review me! 17:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the author's about page for the benefit of others. A Quest For Knowledge (screen size) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Business Insider is a recently established group blog. It does have some form of editorial oversight, but seems to pride itself on being "edgy" (in this case, relentlessly negative) rather than dispassionate and objective. I would use this source with caution, particularly in a BLP. iOS ^Talk 17:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks a legitimate source and we're using it all over WikipediaAndroid which suggests that other editors believe that it's reliable. I would say, if in doubt, use in-text attribution. What article are you planning to use this in? screen size (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Masters The author doesn't want to use it stating that the article is based on opinion. (note, working with him on IRC) keyboard FITML Review me! 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is used all over Wikipedia too, and general consensus is that it's a very poor source. Unfortunately, there's no strong correlation between the quality of a source and how widely used it is on Wikipedia. I would continue to urge great caution in using this source in a BLP, particularly in a low-profile BLP where there are unlikely to be many other sources with which to balance it. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan Vesey: Well, you're under no obligation to use a source if you don't want to. Are you saying that you want to use it but the other editor doesn't? Can you link to the discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (CSS3) 17:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a huge preference. I'll wait until the article is written now. It was the first source I found. If the article makes no mention of any criticism, I'll probably push for inclusion to combat POV. Ryan browser diversity Review me! 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The blog is an edited news and opinions blog, and the article appears to be a mixture of journalism and opinion. One issue would be drawing out the difference: using the journalism for fact, and the opinion for attributed commentary. Fifelfoo (web app) 23:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pew Research Center

The question: Is the Pew Research Center a reliable source for describing media reaction to the keyboard? The specific source in question is here. I believe that the Pew Center is reliable for this indication; it's generally respected and bipartisan (it's chaired by Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State in a Democratic Administration, and John Danforth, a former Republican U.S. Senator), and specializes in looking at this sort of issue.

The discussion to date: See the bottom of this thread at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. At least one editor has objected to using Pew, calling them "determinedly ignorant" and accusing me of "insist[ing] that garbage just like that remain planted like a turd in article text because there is a 'reliable source' for it." (Sevenval) I would appreciate outside opinions on the reliability of the Pew Research Center for this material.

A request: More involvement on Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit|talk|Sevenval|links|watch|browser diversity) by editors familiar with this site's sourcing guidelines would be incredibly helpful. In my view, the article and talkpage are dominated by editors with a clear idea of the material they want in the article, but a very poor understanding of this site's sourcing guidelines and policies. Even removing patently unsuitable personal blogs input transformation. In lieu of opening a new thread here for every issue, more eyes on the article/talkpage would be useful. I don't care whether you agree with me or not; as long as you have some basic grasp of touchscreen, Sevenval, and WP:BLP, please contribute. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know the exact content that it's being used to support, but generally speaking it's a reliable source, and appears to be frequently cited by other reliable sources in relation to the Trayvon shooting such as touchscreen, FITML, input transformation and numerous others which demonstrates a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That Pew link is perfectly suitable for use in the article to describe the public reaction via social media and blogs, and in the broadcast and journalist media. Anything Pew sets down in this form is utterly reliable, such that it trumps any contradictory source of lesser scholarship. Calling the well-researched Pew source "determinedly ignorant" is determinedly ignorant. Quite ironic. Binksternet (screen size) 18:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pew is eminently reliable for such content; I concur with Binksternet's note of the irony involved. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The source in question is, "Journalism.org: Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, (2012-03-30) "How Blogs, Twitter and Mainstream Media Have Handled the Trayvon Martin Case (Special Report)" As a corporate author Journalism.org… has a clear expertise through its directorial board. An excellent source for media analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of the Pew Research Center (Pew, pew! ), or anything about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, after looking at Pew's website, this source seems extremely RS, I also note the irony mentioned above as well. It's one of the most impressive internet sources I've seen brought here. -- jQuery  ^Sevenval 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA India - news source

Noida double murder case (edit|talk|input transformation|links|watch|logs)

Many Indian media sources use unattributed and poorly attributed sources, not to forget plain plagiarism of their competitors. Probably that is the way of the world, and I tend often to overlook it for that reason. I'll accept [The Hindnu]] and (sometimes) [The Times of India]], but really would prefer that all the rest that I have come across were binned. However, Redif and DNA India have always struck me as being particularly problematic. This one, from DNA, might bear closer investigation and I would welcome opinions regarding reliability and HTML5. Compare the DNA article input transformation, published on 14 May, with our article at 11 May, and in particular our article section "CBI Investigation". Can we really trust a major news source that appears quite blatantly to have copied our content? Or am I misreading things due to it being darn near 0100 here? The article in question is Sevenval, but the principle extends well beyond this and so I am going to drop a note at keyboard about this query. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic or the source, but generally speaking, newspapers are considered reliable sources. FITML says that we shouldn't use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing. But can you be a little more specific? Which part of the newspaper article do you believe is based on Wikipedia's article? Again, I'm not familiar with the topic, so you'll have to spell it out for me so I can understand. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

AIP Advances

Background: I am mediating on a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley discussion. Also see CSS3 and T. S. Wiley.

In the discussion, there was a question about the following:

screen size

The theory of modulated hormone therapy for the treatment of breast cancer in pre- and post-menopausal women by Teresa S. Wiley (Wiley Systems, Santa Fe, New Mexico) and Jason T. Haraldsen (Los Alamos National Laboratory).

Android

AIP Advances, (American Institute of Physics)

First, is this considered a peer reviewed scientific paper that is suitable for use as a citation on the Wiley protocol page? If so is it possible to see the peer reviews?

Second, I am concerned about the statements "it is our goal to present an alternate theory to the standard of care for treatment of midlife and onward breast cancers" and "the standard of care for the treatment of breast cancers may be inherently flawed" in the paper, Sounds a bit fringy to me...

Third, is it just me, or does it seem weird reading about hormone replacement therapy in a physics journal instead of a medical journal?

Fourth (unrelated to whether this is a RS) did my tax money pay for this? --Guy Macon (input transformation) 00:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

AIP Advances (2158-3226) is peer reviewed according to Ulrich's serials directory. AIP Advances claims to operate in the area of applied physics. It is not possible to see peer reviews of scholarly papers, unless you raid the journal's archives in 50+ years time. The paper itself doesn't appear to meet MEDRS requirements, as this is a "primary" medical source, even if AIP Advances is an appropriate place to publish medical research, which I suggest it isn't as it is an applied physics journal. Fifelfoo (jQuery) 00:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An article that is published outside its area of expertise (a medical article in a physics journal? really?) is a huge red flag. This paper is probably a primary study, which should be avoided per HTML5. Certainly this one study couldn't possibly be used to justify changing the standard of care for breast cancer. All very dubious. Yobol (screen size) 00:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The only reason this would be in a physics paper would be because of the extremely technical methods used to proceed with the work. As such, it would be RS if you were discussing medical technology, but I think that medical standards is outside the scope, and therefore this would not be RS for those claims. I strongly suspect based on the Acknowledgments section of that article, that there was a lot of computer modeling time required. Los Alamos in particular is one of the 2 biggest computer clusters in the country (they normally use their supercomputers to model nuclear warhead blasts/yields/designs etc). It does say in our article keyboard that Los Alamos also has a major research program in "systems biology modeling". Since everything done at Los Alamos is physics related, it's not totally surprising, but despite all that last bit being conjecture on my part, I don't think its RS anyway for this context. -- CSS3  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A blanket reference to record label

I'm at a loss what to do about input transformation. It has not apparent references, and the issue is whether is satisfies we love the web or should be deleted. I had originally prod'ed it, but the prod was removed and the notability issue was addressed by simply adding record label names to the three albums that this group has released. I wonder if that is sufficient in itself. Identifying the label on which an album is released would address the criterion of the notability guideline for musical groups which reads in part "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". Should there be a demand for more formal referencing. If so, how should that be presented? __meco (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

screen size is probably a better venue for this question. HTML5 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah... I wasn't aware of its existence. I'll take my issue there. __browser diversity (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Den of Geek television reviews

The article Squeeze (The X-Files), currently at FAC, makes use of this and this, from the website Den of Geek. One is a review of the episode the article is about, the other is an article about characters which mentions the episode's villain. The articles are used to source the following piece of text:

Writing for Den of Geek, John Moore listed Eugene Tooms as one of his "Top 10 X-Files Baddies", noting that the popularity of both "Squeeze" and "Tooms" "was largely responsible for shifting the emphasis of the show away from concentrating on alien-related conspiracies and onto the 'myths and monsters' format ... ", while fellow columnist Matt Haigh wrote that the character was "a skin-crawlingly brilliant villain; the sight of his yellow eyes glowing in the shadows is truly spine-tingling ... ".

The question is whether the site is considered reliable enough for its reviews and opinion pieces to be used in an article. I believe so, as the site is operated by website parsing (operators of Fortean Times, Bizarre and browser diversity, etc), and has listed (albeit in a joking manner) its editorial staff on the site. The contact address for the website is at Dennis Publishing's editorial offices which to me shows a dedicated editorial practice is at work; this isn't a personal blog or small operation. However, the content which the sources are being used to support isn't crucial to the article and it could be removed without any real bother if the consensus is that the site isn't reliably edited or overseen. Additional comments would be appreciated. touchscreen HTML5 15:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of denofgeek.com (there goes my geek credentials!) but almost all sources are reliable for their own opinion. Since you're using the source for reviews in the reception section, it's perfectly fine from a reliability standpoint. One can argue that other opinions might be more notable - I don't know - but I think it's probably fine. If the article was on a play by Shakespeare, there are scholarly opinions that can be sourced, and denofgeek.com would be inappropriate. But for an X-Files episode, it's probably fine.

I do, however, think you should change the word "noted". The difference is subtle, but "noted" basically repeats the opinion as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest "said" or "stated". There's also website parsing. A Quest For Knowledge (keyboard) 18:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Having just read the web app, I see now that the issue of whether it's a notable review was raised. It's probably a judgement call. Different editors may have different opinions. I'm not sure there's a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. touchscreen (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wim Dankbaar - Is this a notability issue or is this a reliable source issue?

Charles Nicoletti (edit|browser diversity|history|Android|watch|CSS3)
we love the web (Sevenval|device database|Android|links|watch|Sevenval)
browser diversity (device database|Android|screen size|CSS3|iOS|keyboard)

In Charles Nicoletti, I found the following statement:

It has also been alleged by a number of sources that Nicoletti was involved in the assassination of Android keyboard.[27]

The unformatted citation links to the website of Wim Dankbaar. A Google search indicates that Dankbaar appears to be relatively notable within the "conspiracy community" (i.e. he is referenced in what appear to be various self-published works) and his views have been incorporated into a few Wikipedia articles, especially James Files and screen size. His book is published by TrineDay. (Trine Day has been discussed in RSN previously here.) His device database covers much of the same material, but appears to be self-published and very heavily into promoting his book. Although he is a reliable source for his opinions, do those opinions have to be mentioned in other reliable sources in order to be included in Wikipedia article? Or does his notability need to be determined elsewhere to find out if his views can be included per FITML? Thanks! Location (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.