Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RSN" redirects here. For "Wikipedia will be ready real soon now", see meta:Eventualism.
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Before posting a questions regarding the reliability of a source, please keep in mind that reliability is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you include:
  1. A link to the source in question. For example [ www.webpage.com ]
  2. The article in which it is being used. For example [[ article name ]]
  3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example <blockquote> text </blockquote>
  4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.
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 WikiProject
Shortcuts:
WP:RSN
WP:RS/N
WP:V/N

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.

Click here to start a new discussion thread



Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

Contents



[edit] WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth#World_Net_Daily_-_RS.3F As detailed there its come up again and again: [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Is it an RS or is it a conspiracy/hate site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Hipocrite, and with the others below: World Net Daily doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards expected of most journalistic entities. It is non-RS. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
To state that WND "doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards..." and "It is non-RS" with nothing additional offered to evidence the validity of those assertions relegates observations such as those to unsupported opinion. Assuming this noticeboard exercise to be something more substantive than vote-casting for your personal position, citing a specific instance(s) that might evidence the validity of an assertion of WND "fact-checking and accuracy unreliability" would be considerably more substantive and, perhaps, advance the assumed purpose of this discussion.
I have listed and commented upon every "controversial article" currently presented in the Wikipedia WND article and, IMHO, all, save for one, lend scant support for an assertion of chronic WND "unreliability" inre their demonstrable "fact-checking and accuracy" record. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The publishing of "controversial articles" isn't, as far as I know, a benchmark for determining whether a source meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source - so your vetting of that section of the World Net Daily article in search of justification for WND's "unreliable" reputation may have been in vain. Your basic concern is still warranted, however. Like you, I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion. If this is to be the "FINAL ANSWER", as the header of this discussion indicates, let's push for something engraved in stone - something that can be referenced with confidence in inevitable future discussions of this nature. But where, or whom do we push? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your forthrightness and, if I understand your position correctly, you are at least open to and are supportive of an examination and consideration of the/any factual basis upon which this "consensus" determination of WND "unreliability" under WP:RS guidelines is based. I believe (as I think you agree) that recurring episodes of RS/N vote-tallying offering little or no substantive support for the conflicting positions offers no opportunity for progress towards resolution of even a temporary nature. Perhaps, on that seeming point of agreement, I'll yield the floor for any further observations on that point by interested editors. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course, we can find fault with everyone from the NY Times (see Jayson Blair) to NBC (like exploding pickup trucks). If they are being used to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. If it's controversial, a second source would be preferable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The question was not "Are sources 100% faultless?", but "Does WND meet the required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight to be considered a reliable source?" Your two examples illustrate exactly why I would rely on content from NYT or Dateline NBC, and not from WND. Follow the links you provided and observe how heads rolled; editors, producers, even presidents were fired for the transgressions; lengthy apologies were issued; investigations were launched and new processes and procedures were implemented to prevent similar problems - because they do have standards. Show me a similar display of concern for journalist integrity from WND. Aside from quietly issuing a "correction" or disclaiming responsibility for opinions and commentary, I don't believe WND has ever shown the expected responsibility. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
In what instances, "exactly", did WND fail to demonstrate the "required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight" that you assert. Surely, if their record in that regard is so egregiously bereft of the "journalistic oversight" required by WP:RS, at least a few citable occurences should come to mind? What, exactly, are they? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they effectively fact-check even basic uncontroversial statements, certainly not when it gets in the way of their agenda. Things that you could take for granted in a more reliable source, like stating a person's occupation, affiliation, educational status, are questionable here. In most cases, if it's noteworthy enough to put in an article a statement should have a better source than WND. It's hard to say categorically that they're unreliable for all purposes, but for the most part if it appears only in WND or if WND contradicts reliable sources, I would discount the likelihood that WND has presented a fair account. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And yet we routinely use advocacy groups (Media Matters for example) or media outlets with a clear bias (Huffington Post) as sources. It is not an uncommon believe that much of the mainstream media has a bias/agenda of their own. As Blueboar said below, it's about context. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed multiple times... and each time we have stated the same thing: As a source for an assertion of fact, WND is not reliable. As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable. (Of course, this opens the secondary issue of whether discussing what WND says about a topic in the context of a specific article is appropriate or not. That is really a WP:UNDUE question, which needs to be asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What "final answer"? This final answer has been given over and over again. WND is not a reliable source, period, for anything other than reporting what it says about itself. Woogee (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Woogee, that is precisely the issue below. WND is being used a source for a column that they printed (ie, evidence that the author said it). Not a question of what the author said was true, but that they said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. World Net Daily seems to fail miserably against the policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe, by anyone's standards, that a reasonable and legitimate indicy of the reliability or reputability of any publication is the participation of noted journalists/commentators who choose to associate their name, professional reputation and standing within the journalism community with the publication in question. Just for the record, here's a few who contribute their work to WND...Roger Hedgecock, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Larry Elder and...yes, Bill Press. It somewhat strains credulity to suggest that individuals with established credentials such as these would associate their names and professional reputations with an enterprise that is widely regarded as "unreliable" within the established journalistic community. It is inconceiveable that the wholesale repudiation of WND as an RS under Wikipedia guidelines should or could even be considered. That is POV at its worst. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • If the political talking-heads that have associated themselves with the publication (Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Jerome Corsi, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Roger Hedgecock, Bill Press, Dennis Prager...) are an indication of reputability, or lack thereof -- thank you for strongly making my point. None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way, and the one or two contributors that do have journalist experience (i.e., Stossel) are contributing as commentators and not as journalists. WND does not claim any responsibility for the accuracy or content of its columnists contributions. Most of those columns, by the way, are syndicated and printed in any and all publications that pay for them, including WND - regardless of the reputations of those publications. As noted above, WND might be used as a source in a Wikipedia article for "opinion", but not for statements of fact. When factual information sourcing (on other than exercise equipment) is required, we should cite not Chuck Norris, but actual reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way...
They are columnists", if you prefer, by anyone's definition, and "columnists" are "journalists"...or do you now propose to edit Wikipedia in support of your assertion? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Oh, wait - I just checked, and while all of the above have Wikipedia articles, none of them are described as journalists, so no editing necessary. User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course not. It would be redundant to say they are a columnist and journalist. But if you look at the article about journalist's, you'll see " A columnist is a journalist who writes pieces that appear regularly in newspapers or magazines.". And in the article columnist you'll read "A columnist is a journalist who writes for publication in a series, creating copy that can sometimes be strongly opinionated". So I guess you DO have some editing to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I assume there's a point in there somewhere, but perhaps it's some nuanced attempt at hair-splitting that simply eludes me. You asserted that none of those "political commentators" (by anyone's definition, "columnists") "are not journalists". Wikipedia says you are mistaken...as probably do many other sources. Your error appears to be rather evident. Perhaps you might care to clarify? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"none of those political commentators are not journalists?" Does that mean they are? Never said it, and I'm not sure I even understand it. For my actual point, see below. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. An actual typo and a failed attempt to quote (you did note the quotes?) your text. I regret and apologize for the confusion it has subjected you to. Fixed --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted! Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Would that you might be as forthcoming with an actual response. Your assertion that the aforementioned "political commentators"/"columinists" are not "journalists" is, by definition, demonstrably false...and you need journey no farther than Wikipedia for the evidence. As your premise is false, so goes your assertion that those notable "political commentators"/"columnists" don't represent an association of credentialed and credible "journalists" with WND. You then stand by your flawed definition (to paraphrase your "opinion" below) and suggest dismissal of those established associations as irrelevant to a consideration of WND RS.
Nor does your unsupported OPINION that they are unwillingly associated with WND, victimized by the nature of their syndicatation arrangements, pass the smell test. My OPINION is that most, if not ALL, of those "journalists", particularly those who are "household names" in the medium, could opt out of WND publication in a New York minute. They are associated because they opt to be there.
...'journalist', regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard.
That's a straw man. Nobody here suggested it was a "requirement".
All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements.
Your opinion. I believe it to be HIGHLY indicative of WND's stature in the journalism community and, consequently, HIGHLY relevant to any re-consideration of WND/Wikipedia RS. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
An "actual response" to what? I stand by my comments; you've offered your opinions (I assume this is still JakeInJoisey?); and I've accepted your apology. Is there something new? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, you are missing the point. Look at the specific example below. If Jerome Corsi (or Chuck Norris) says something in WND, the question here isn't whether or not you don't find what they said to be true (or if you just don't like it), but whether or not it was said in WND. And WND is most certainly a reliable source for whether or not they printed something. This complaining about WP:UNDUE etc is not an issue for RSN. Go fight that battle at BLPN or on the articles talk page. And while you are so flippant in your dismissal of Chuck Norris, I could think of a number of topics he could be a very good source for besides exercise equipment. Probably more topics than either you or I. BTW, you have a stilted definition of what a journalist is. Opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. Journalists are not solely "reporters". Using the correct definition (not your myopic one), Ann Coulter (syndicated columnist and author of 7 best selling books) is a journalist. So is Jerome Corsi (author of 2 best sellers), Dennis Prager (syndicated columnist and best selling author), Bill Press (former TV reporter, author) and even Chuck Norris (author of a book on current events/issues) are all journalists.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have a stilted/myopic definition of journalist? Opinion writers are journalists? Chuck Norris is a journalist? Corsi is a journalist because he published 2 political agitprop books during presidential elections, and they sold? Come again? You'll excuse me if I stick to my myopic interpretation of what journalism is, thanks. From the link you provided: "Foremost in the minds of most practicing journalists is the issue of maintaining credibility, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility," and "...they are often expected to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good." Oh, I get it... I'm being punk'd. Good one, you got me! ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Laugh all you want.....on your way to edit the article about journalist, since that article says opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. I'm sure you'd want to correct it, wouldn't you? But hey, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Merriam Websters dictionary is though. They say a journalist is "a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience". Don't synidcated columnists and writers of best sellers not only aim for, but actually reach, a mass audience? And if they are writing for WND, they are writing for a news medium. Or wait, let's ask the US Government what a journalist is: "Some journalists also interpret the news or offer opinions to readers, viewers, or listeners. In this role, they are called commentators or columnists."[7]. Maybe you'd like some other references. Or maybe you'll just accept that a "journalist" doesn't mean "reporter" and move along. And don't hand me the ethics definition and expect me to be distracted by the smoke and mirrors. I have no doubt that you would call folks at Dateline NBC "journalists", despite the number of times that program has been caught doing unethical things. Or Dan Rather and the forged paperwork? Stephen Glass was caught serially fabricating and still managed to get work as a journalist again. The ideals of a profession aren't always the reality of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Neither of your cited sources contradict what I have said. Perhaps you should, as you suggest, move along - since "journalist", regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard. All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements. Using your standards, I, too, can find citations supporting the notion that The National Enquirer and The Onion are bastions of journalism because they cover current events, or that J. K. Rowling is a journalist because she penned a best-selling book. No, I'll stick to my interpretation of journalism, thanks. While you are correct that the ideals of a profession aren't always the reality; the actual issue at hand is the difference between sources that try to meet those ideals versus sources that flout those ideals. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So stick with your definition. It matters little to me if you want to base your views on an overly narrow and outdated point of view. Just remember that 15 years ago, nobody would have considered anyone publishing on solely on the internet to be a journalist, yet we have case law protecting them as journalists now. I'll progress with the times. Say hello to 1950 for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I intend to stick with the definition; your launches down unrelated tangents notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • WND has a reputation, and it is very much not for fact-checking and accuracy. I would say no, not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Lots of things have "reputations". But the question still remains (despite the prolific echoes inre WND as an RS) does the "reputation" stand up to scrutiny. Two years ago John Edwards was Clark Kent. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the question does not still remain, as it as been answered repeatedly to the point of ad nauseum. Dlabtot (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The "question" is...is there anything substantive, beyond mere opinion, within those "ad nauseum" repetitions of "answers" that might make a case for WND unreliability. Thus far, save for one instance 10 years ago, nothing else has been cited. Perhaps you might have a contribution in that regard? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Funny you should mention him. I remember that battle here when the Enquirer or Star (I forget which) broke the story about his affairs. They can't be trusted. They suck. They aren't reliable. They were right....and the first ones to cover the story. (No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need.)
  • There is no contradiction between not being a reliable source and being "right" on a particular story – a stopped (12-hour analog) clock is right twice a day, but is hardly reliable overall. Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability, but one or two successes doesn't make a source any more reliable than the stopped clock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't imply there was a contradiction. In fact I thought I was pretty clear when I said "No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need". I just pointed out a coincidence that happened. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this clear... the only reason to do a blanket across the board deletion of a source is when it is placed on the Wikipedia black list.... and we never put sources on the black list because of reliability/unreliability (the black list is for spam sites, links that pass on viruses, etc.). Every citation to a source... even the most unreliable source... needs to be examined and challenged seperately. This because the context of how it is used, and exactly what it is supporting is vital in determining whether it is reliable or not. The exact same source may be fully reliable in one article and completely unreliable in another... because the context is different. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source, since it is generally accepted that WND may be cited in cases of opinion specifically relating to WND, for example. Each instance of usage should be evaluated separately. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And thats what I did but I think people are upset that consensus will lead to minimal use of this source in only niche cases... its like TMZ or the Weekly World News. Sometimes good, often not. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Nobody is upset about that. The whole reason I got involved in this is the one we are talking about specifically, which should be left. They can reliably source what they've printed, so if you want to source what someone saind in their publication (as in the case of Mercer), they can be used. But you removed it a number of times. BTW, I never hear the mainstream media reference Weekly World News, I do often hear them reference TMZ. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So there IS consensus then except from Jake, but we don't have a filibuster here, so he's out. Its only reliable to say Jon Osterman said such and such on my own article, but not for anything else. So if Chuck Norris calls me a communist on WND, we will never use WND as a source for that. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • One should simply look who authored each specific publication in WND. For example, if it was published by Bill Gertz, the claim should be attributed to Bill Gertz. This is almost as good (or as bad) as any other publication by Bill Gertz. There is absolutely no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source. Doing so is disruptive.Biophys (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, there is consensus here that WND is fundamentally not suitable under WP:RS and you're spinning that. But who wants to completely remove it? For every one I nuked correctly yesterday I was leaving 1 or 2. But then you have situations like this nasty bit where it's publications are used as secondary sources in a BLP... it can't be used. It will come out as we find them per this consensus. Since I also read up on consensus, it doesn't ever have to be unanimous, so we're good. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • One that you removed is the one we are talking about and there is not a consensus that it should be removed. Even some who generally disapprove of WND conceed that they can be used as a source as so what they've printed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • We could care less about what they publish, anyone can register a site and churn out blog posts. But for example these two removals: [8][9] are fine even though they're events invoked by other sources. It doesn't make WND any more reliable.
  • You do know that they print a magazine too, don't you? That's a little more involved than just having a blog, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot has been said here relative to WND and its stature, or lack of, as a "reliable source" under Wikipedia guidelines. Unfortunately, as I've read these opinions, no one here has thus far addressed any specifics of just why WND is still to be treated as though it still wears the "scarlet letter" of "unreliable journalism". It's about time to lance that boil and take a look at some "facts" about this purported "consensus" on WND unreliability.

Were this "given" to be substantive, surely the rationale for its application would be evident. But where to look for that "rationale". How about the "Controversial Stories" section in the Wikipedia WND article itself? Would that not be THE legitimate source to support an allegation of WND "unreliability"?

Let's take a look at those purported "Controversies"....at ALL of them...

9/11 attacks - Controversial "commentary" published by a contributing author subsequently described by WND Editor-in-chief, Joseph Farah, as "tasteless and ill-advised" suggesting it should not have been published without "...a little more thought and reflection." Is there a current Wikipedia RS media entity that hasn't experienced a journalistic faux pas of this nature? Can we at least stipulate that "commentaries" by guest-writers have little bearing on a purported news entity's reliability as a factual source?

Valerie Plame Leak - On November 5, 2005, WND factually reports (undisputed & cited by Media Matters) the comments of Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely referencing his recollections of conversations pertaining to Valerie Plame's CIA work and then, on November 8, factually reports (undisputed & cited by Media Matters) that Vallely, on further reflection, has amended his recollections.

Now, one might reasonably take Vallely to task for his changing recollections, but how, exactly, does this somehow translate into "unreliable" reportage by World Net Daily?

Middle East reporting - This one is a beauty. WND hires a bureau chief in Jerusalem who is criticized by "ConWebWatch, a website critical of conservative new media" as being allegedly pro-Israeli. Continuing in Wikipedia, "When Eden Natan-Zada shot and killed four people on a bus in northern Israel on August 4, 2005, he was beaten to death afterwards by a crowd that witnessed the shooting. Klein wrote an article for WND claiming that Zada was "murdered" by a "mob of Palestinians" after the shooting, although he also mentioned that police called the shooting a "Jewish terror attack."

Leaving aside the notion that Zada actually WAS "murdered" (certainly by any western sense of jurisprudence) and that Klein also reported the description of the Natan-Zada attack as a "Jewish terror attack", this story is indicative of WND "unreliability"...how?

Litvinenko and terrorism conspiracy - Looks like there's some needed editing in the WND article on this one...which states...

On December 3, 2006 a WND article said that: "Reports that KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko converted to Islam before his mysterious poisoning with radioactive polonium 210 is raising suspicions that he may have been involved in a plot to smuggle the deadly substance to terrorist groups."[32] According to an article in The Times, apparently mentioning the WND article, the evidence for these suspicions was "gossip from his Muslim next-door neighbour."

"...apparently mentioning the WND article"? Does this Wikipedia editor have difficulty reading? Here's what The Times commentary ACTUALLY mentioned...

"The evidence? Gossip from his Muslim next-door neighbour. If it’s good enough for the Sunday Express..."

Now, did WND actually carry a story based on the Sunday Express reportage? Of course, and the source of that story was acknowledged. Despite the fact that the Wikipedia WND article misrepresents a "commentary" as a news "article" from The Times and whatever the motivation behind the investigation, WND's report that "Scotland Yard detectives are now trying to discover if Litvinenko had any secret links with Islamic extremist terror groups, the London Sunday Express is reporting" is factually accurate. How does this translate into WND "unreliability" as a source?

Anglo-Saxon identity - A commentary...I'll say no more

North American Union "conspiracy theories" - So WND takes an editorial position that sees merit in the views of one of its writers and author of a book on the subject, Jerome Corsi, that has been "disputed in the mainstream media". Apparently the "mainstream media" found the theory worthy of "dispute"...and that has bearing on WND's reliability as a reporter of fact...how?

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Perhaps someone can discover some WND factual error within this entry but I'm darned if I can. About the closest item to anything of relevance to WND RS might be the last item...

"On August 2, 2009, WorldNetDaily published an article claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained and produced by Orly Taitz, a leading citizenship conspiracy theorist."

But is that what WND said, or did the Wikipedia editor take some shameful liberties with his paraphrase? Here's the WND actual text on the subject...from a story whose very title, "Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?" suggests something entirely different than the manufactured and bogus paraphrase noted above...

"California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication."

"Purports to be" hardly equates to "...claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained." What absolute bunk!

Now, let me skip to the last one quickly before addressing the "Libel "Lawsuit"...

Health care reform and Nazi concentration camps - Even if Corsi might arguably be guilty of over-the-top metaphorizing, is there an RS mainstream media entity immune from offerings of this type of rhetoric from its contributing reporters? Please.

Libel lawsuit - In the entire Wikipedia section on "Controversial Articles", this is the sole entry on WND that might legitimately have some bearing on WND RS. In 2008, in an out of court settlement, WND acknowledged that the publication of 2 stories, one on Sep 18th and another on Sep 20th, 2000, made assertions of fact damaging to plaintiff based upon "no verified information". Did they blow it on that one? Without question. Does a single case of lousy reporting, 10 years after the fact, still warrant the Wikipedia RS "reputation" that so many here want to continue to treat as a given? Is the record of CBS News over the last 10 years any better?

I should think not, and, for the sake of the reputation of this Wikipedia medium, "Good Faith" Wikipedia editors need to do a serious re-consideration of this "sacred cow" of WND "unreliability". It is POV motivated and sustained, and warrants abandonment here...pronto. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the "unreliable" reputation of WND is accurate, and not POV motivated, and really has nothing to do with the list of "controversial articles" listed above. But I would like to add my voice to Jake's in pushing for a more substantitive, clear-cut description of WND's standing as a citable or uncitable source under various circumstances. This is an issue that will continue to be raised here, and it would be useful to be able to point to some sort of reasoning other than majority opinion. My own personal experiences with WND as a source validate for me the widespread consensus about WND's unreliability, but we need more than that here. So where do we turn? Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"? Are there media watchdog groups that have conducted evaluations of WND? Has Jimbo pronounced from on high his opinion of WND? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the "unreliable" reputation of WND is accurate, and not POV motivated, and really has nothing to do with the list of "controversial articles" listed above.
Perhaps WND may have been legitimately perceived as "unreliable" at some point in its history, but one can't examine shadows of perceptions. Looking through prior recurrences of WND RS/N discussions (by no means exhaustive but including those you directed me to earlier on the Swift Boat Vet article talk page), I see no supporting evidence offered, save for the "libel lawsuit" a decade ago, that should preclude a re-consideration of the current validity of that "reputation".
A remark made earlier by User:Beyond My Ken is salient in that regard and, I'd submit, bears repeating here...(emphasis mine)
Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability...
In a decade of "fact reporting", a single, documented and substantiated error in fact-reporting 10 years ago should be "long haul" enough to warrant an RS re-consideration, would you not agree?
Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?
I appreciate your referencing this entry. I simply overlooked it...perhaps because of its rather odd location within the WorldNetDaily - Reach section. This probably warrants correction.
As to the cite itself...an examination of those currently incorporated cites/sources purporting to lend support to the legitimacy of an "unreliable and false" WND characterization suggests that the entry may be quite problematic.
Here's the current article text...with links and my comments following...
WND has been criticized as unreliable, "false" and "far-right."
One can, of course, stipulate that while RS for "far-right" WND characterizations may be plentiful (albeit, perhaps, arguable), WND's political or ideological inclinations should have no bearing in making a determination of their standing, or any media entity's standing, as a reputable "fact-checker" under WP:RS.
However, as to...
  • ...unreliable,...?
It is not without reason that quotation marks were omitted by the editor in the WND article text. It is nowhere to be found in either of the sources cited by the Wiki editor. And as to those sources themselves?...
Source 1: "This time, the focus turns on the accusers", The Seattle Times, August 20, 2008, Opinion, John Young
This appears to be little more than a run-of-the-mill, anti-rightwing (and WND/John Corsi/Joseph Farah) screed. Perhaps you may see some relevance to a determination of WND RS in something I may have overlooked there, but I certainly can't. That being said, a short excerpt from a 2007 Texas Monthly offering on Mr. Young's political inclinations might be illuminating...
IN OLDEN DAYS, John Young would have been horsewhipped or shot in the back for the stuff he writes two or three times a week in the Waco Tribune-Herald....You don't razz right-wingers in what Young has labeled Bush-by-God country not if you value your kneecaps...Young is the rarest of a vanishing breed of Texans: the unapologetically liberal newspaperman. Since 1984 he has edited the Trib's left-of-center opinion page.
Source 2: "CBSNews.com article contains language nearly identical to WorldNetDaily article, including falsehood" Media Matters, October 15, 2007, Research, J.M.
And the purported "falsehood", also utilized by CBS News, and cited in the WND article evidencing WND "unreliability"?...
"Media Matters, a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock..."
...and goes on to explain...
In fact, as noted on its website, Media Matters "is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"; it is not affiliated with any party or candidate.
That "pro-Democrat" and "Democrat Party affiliated" are decidedly different declarations of "fact" has apparently escaped "Media Matters"...but, even assuming the criticism to be valid, could it be more petty? And what does this say relative to Media Matter's own standing as a reputable RS? (but that's another discussion already underway elsewhere)
  • ..."false",
This is somewhat of a vague descriptive (WND is..."false"? What the heck does that mean?) and, being rather vague, I suppose one might assume that the word implies some sense of deficiency in their fact-checking reliability? You tell me. Perhaps the source can shed some light...
Source 3: "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs "lied" when he said President Obama's birth certificate is posted on the Internet."The St. Petersburg Times, Undated, Politi-fact.com, WorldNetDaily's File: Recent statements involving WorldNetDaily, Unattributed Author
Ahhhh....the alleged WND assertion is "False" on the Politi-fact.com "Truth-o-meter". Perhaps there's some "there" there, but unfortunately there's no link (that I can find) to the purported "Human Events" ad containing the purported WND assertion which would provide both source and context for examination.
All in all, little "there" there that might be relevant to a determination of WND RS.
(on edit)
In your prior comment you stated...
This is an issue that will continue to be raised here, and it would be useful to be able to point to some sort of reasoning other than majority opinion. My own personal experiences with WND as a source validate for me the widespread consensus about WND's unreliability, but we need more than that here. So where do we turn?
A thought occured to me that FactCheck.org observations related to WND might stimulate the process and present opportunities for advancing the discussion. A search of their website for "World Net Daily" returns 17 hits. One caveat though if I might. I've only checked the first return and, if it's representative of the remaining 16, FactCheck's observations are, by no means, gospel or definitive on matters related to indicies of WND RS. Also, in the opinion of many, to include myself, FactCheck.org tilts decidedly left. Nevertheless, their observations might be worth taking a look at as substantive cites of WND "unreliability" aren't exactly pouring in here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
To quote you, "...WND's political or ideological inclinations should have no bearing in making a determination of their standing, or any media entity's standing, as a reputable "fact-checker" under WP:RS." But then you go on to disparage and impune various sources with characterizations such as "tilts decidedly left", "unapologetically liberal", "pro-Democrat media", ... you really can't have it both ways, Jake. World Net Daily "tilts" to the right to the point of nearly toppling over, but that isn't an affirmation of unreliability. Facts will always be facts, regardless of the sources in which they are found - but that isn't the question here, and we shouldn't frame this issue in such a strawman manner. We're trying to determine the basis for the consensus that World Net Daily does not meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source for statements of fact. We've both reviewed some of the many past discussions, and while I see the consensus as obviously against WND (and you question whether consensus exists), we both agree that solid, citeable precedent is lacking. So I'll repeat my question from above: Where do we turn to resolve this? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, either I failed miserably to state my position or you are reading into this something I've neither asserted nor believe. But first, I need to address your reference to (and a rather unsporting bit of rhetoric I might also suggest) "unapologetically liberal" and "pro-Democrat media" in quotes as somehow evidencing a desire on my part to "disparage and impune" various sources. As you should well know, A. those were not my words and B. they were offered as illustrative of and in support of...1. My contention that Young's commentary presented no pertinent "facts" relevant to WND RS and was simply "unapologetically liberal" (Texas Monthly 2007) screed masked in commentary and 2. My contention that Media Matters' purported CBS/WND "'pro-democrat' falsehood" was petty at best and specious at worst. Let's play fair here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Did you fail miserably to state your position? Then perhaps you could restate it more clearly, without the (3, not 2) "tilting" characterizations I pointed out? (Strawman alert: I never said those were your words, just that you chose to insert those characterizations. What "illuminating" did you intend by them if not to somehow impune the sources?) Sorry, but I fail to see how pointing out a source's leanings supports a contention that an article contains no facts; or that your opinion that a fact-checking organization "tilts" one way or another is relevant to their value in this discussion. Indeed, let's play fair - and honestly. By the by, what is your opinion on the best venue for the resolution (or at least clarification) of this issue? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Did you fail miserably to state your position? Then perhaps you could restate it more clearly, without the (3, not 2) "tilting" characterizations I pointed out?
That's certainly my intent (but I should hardly be expected to be unresponsive in addressing several allegations you've made...to include your continuing misrepresentation of my "tilts decidedly left"). For the sake of brevity and conciseness, one step at a time.
The quotes were provided within the context of a response to YOUR query: Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?. Now, as I took the time to examine that purported sourcing (which your comment certainly invited) and deemed them to be either irrelevant screed or a specious allegation or an ultimately unexaminable source, one might think that a response to my observations (agreeing, disagreeing, something?) might be expected? Nope. Instead you present an exercise in word/phrase parsing and rhetorical gamesmanship, ignoring both the context in which the quotes were contained and the assessment I offered. If it's word/phrase gamesmanship to be, then let's go back to square one and re-roll.
In light of your query...
Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?
Do you now support any or all of the 3 cited sources as being relevant to an RS consideration of WND "reliability"? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You hopped over square one and went straight to my rhetorical questions (each of which I had already researched and found lacking in answers to my actual question). So, let's go back to the actual square one query: "So where do we turn?" Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
(We can discuss your justifications for the insertion of statements like "Also, in the opinion of many, to include myself, FactCheck.org tilts decidedly left", some other time - the statements, like the justifications for making them, aren't in any way relevant to the issue at hand.) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Specific case: WND & Mercer

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilana_Mercer&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at the fight here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilana_Mercer#WND_disallowed BLP or WND? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Has anyone looked at what is being sourced in the example just given? They are sourcing the subjects own words in a column she wrote for WND. How on earth is WND NOT a reliable source for what they printed in their own publication? As a source for what the subject (Mercer) wrote, they are a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If we have to source a statement that she said X on WND to WND, and it hasn't been discussed in other sources, then it probably fails WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Both points are exactly right... In this case it IS RS... but mentioning it is probably UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Why does it sound like we're discussing if what she said was true or correct? That's not the issue. She wrote a column for them. They printed it. They are a reliable source for what they printed (and what she wrote for them). THAT is the issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
But that Guy said it fails UNDUE so it needs to come out anyway.
No... we said it probably fails UNDUE... if you want a definitive answer on that, go ask at WP:NPOVN or at WP:BLPN. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Also isn't that a deflection from the fact that everyone agrees they need to be purged as sources otherwise?
  • The question was, are they a reliable source. For sourcing what they've printed (and what those that write for them said), it is a reliable source. The weight question should be seperate and on the BLPN, not here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, so we can source them for their own odd opinions if they printed it and that fits other rules, but for sourcing anything else, they have to go immediately. I think I get it now.
  • First, please start signing your responses. I'm getting tired of the edit conflicts. Second, this isn't resolved. It's been what? An hour? Let some other people weight in. Don't be in such a hurry about it. Lastly, no, it wasn't said that they can't be a RS for anything else. The whole fallacy of this was trying to get people to say that they never are a RS. It depends on what they are being used to source. BTW, your bias against them is pretty evident. If you want to appear to be doing this out of some neutrality concern or sheer concern for reliablity, you might want to try a different approach.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No, this discussion has not run an hour. It has run months, if not years, and the decision has never changed. Niteshift, WND will never be allowed for any use other than to source what they say about themselves. Ever. Woogee (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • First, that is exactly what they are being used for in this case, a source about what was said in their own publication. Second, this editor is now running around to numerous articles, removing WND sources on sight and using this discussion as his justification for doing it. He's not even listening to what is being said here. And a blanket rejection is not realistic. Take John Stossel for example, a regular contributor to WND. The man has earned his reliable source "bones". Just because he chooses to publish a piece in WND instead of at Huffington Post doesn't mean that piece must be rejected out of hand. Stossel has an established reputation and the venue doesn't automatically change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's take John Stossel for example. He is not a regular contributor to WND. He is a regular syndicated opinion writer who distributes his pieces (and the rights to post his name) to any outlet that meets his fees, whether that is WND or the highschool newspaper down the street. He didn't choose to publish in WND, and not in HuffPo — quite the contrary — WND chose to publish his pieces, and HuffPo chose not to. Let's keep this factual, please. Just because WND has paid for the right to be one of many outlets to publish copies of Stossel's stuff doesn't make WND a credible source for factual information, although it apparently works on some folks to improve its facade. If you want to cite content from Stossel, you'd probably be more successful to cite a copy of it from a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, you couldn't have missed the point more. Done trying to explain it to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll hold you to that. (And I got your point, worry not. I was simply correcting a gross misstatement of yours.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, you missed the point, that's why you think there was a misstatement. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Specific case: Fluoride in the water/global control crazy conspiracy theories

"WND Exclusive Fluoride: Miracle drug or toxic-waste killer? Safety debate over public water treatments heats up with release of shocking new studies"[10]

How does this affect their status as RS for the rest of the world? For example at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=349044154

Unlike the previous situation ... In this case, WND is not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Specific case: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth; John Kerry and BLP violations in WND

Is this a BLP violation then if WND is an illegal source? Jon Osterman (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not a reliable source in that case, and stop calling it a law, it's a policy. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The last time I will waste my time on WND

Examples of WND acting unreliably

  • http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214 - "A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic." They added text to this after it became embarassing. How much of the rest of their investigations don't actually "include inspecting the actual document?"
I would suggest, Hipocrite, that you carefully re-read the story that you cite as supporting your assertion. In fact, it does quite the opposite. The document WND is referring to is the document obtained, and supported as authentic, by FactCheck.org. WND's "investigation" into its "authenticity" is echoing FactCheck.org's finding.
I might also suggest that the very same WND story you've cited offers a bounty of credible and unbiased fact-reporting that WND critics might find to be quite praiseworthy and remarkable. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? They said they did an investigation, which proved Obama's birth certificate was not a forgery. When that investigation became embarassing to them, they retracted it, stating that their investigation did not "include inspecting the actual document." This is what you consider the behavior of an insitution with a reputation for reliability and fact checking? Stop digging. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
On Aug 21, FactCheck reported that they had "...now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." WND's "investigation", reported on Aug 23...and based upon what could only have been an examination of the FactCheck proffered "image" of the document by WND's "forgery experts" (unmentioned in the original story), "...supported FactCheck's claim of authenticity." Subsequent to that initial report (parenthetically and quite openly appended to the story), WND qualified its initial report in order to stipulate and clarify that the examination was of an image, not the original document itself and that, because of that actuality, could not establish the same degree of "authenticity" or "proof" that a physical examination of the document might render.
You are free to read into that some nefarious motivation to renege on their original assessment, but I'd submit that it was, in fact, not a retraction of their original assessment at all but simply an attempt to "qualify" (as a common and most acceptable custom among even the most reputable sources) its original reportage of its own "investigation" relative to that of FactCheck.org's actual, "hands-on" examination. In fact, and also included in the parenthetical, was the following...
The experts told WND merely that many of the forgery claims made against the image were inconclusive or falsified, leaving them no evidence that would cast doubt on the image's authenticity.
Now, you tell me who's "digging" Hipocrite.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=4347 "The original news release by WorldNetDaily.com of September 18, 2000, and the article by Hays and Thompson of September 20, 2000, contained statements attributed to named sources, which statements cast Clark Jones in a light which, if untrue, defamed him by asserting that the named persons said that he had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a 'subject' of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a 'dope dealer,' and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. These statements were repeated in the subsequently written articles and funds solicitations posted on WorldNetDaily.com's website. Clark Jones emphatically denied the truth of these statements, denied any criminal activity and called upon the publisher and authors to retract them. Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been discovered that provides any verification that the statements written were true. Factual discovery in the litigation and response from Freedom of Information Act requests to law enforcement agencies confirm Clark Jones' assertion that his name has never been on law enforcement computers, that he has not been the subject of any criminal investigation nor has he interfered with any investigation as stated in the articles. Discovery has also revealed that the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context."

More on request, of course, but those two would appear to be disqualifing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ozfootball.net

I know this is a broad question, but would ozfootball.net be considered to be a reliable source? It does identify some "notable" contributors on one page,[11] but it mostly looks like a fan created site. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally not: "In all this time OzFootball has been by the fans, for the fans. ... OzFootball is not an official site of any club, organisation or company, we speak for nobody but ourselves, and you. If you wish to submit a match report or have something you feel would make a positive contribution to the site we would welcome your input." Doesn't just look fan created, says it's fan created.--GRuban (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Worldnetdaily, again

It looks like people are asking about WorldNetDaily again. I think we understand it's a pretty politicized source. It's right-wing, pro-Evangelical, and pro-Israel, and most of the analysis and commentary in WND speaks towards those positions. However, like any other news outlet, it conducts interviews, looks through primary sources, and prints editorials.

I'd like to propose that for some sources, while the analysis may be too politicized, basic facts should not be a problem, especially facts that come straight from primary sources. A new editor ( though one who found RS on his third edit ) has been doing a linksearch and pulling out cites to WND all over the place. While some of these were situations where better sources were available that superceded WND, on others its difficult to see how WND could be unreliable in the given context.

One example would be the article on Jarbidge, Nevada, where an EL to The Jarbidge Shovel Brigade was removed. This is a fairly matter-of-fact account of a protest where people were clearing a path that had been blocked by the Forest Service over a land-use issue. While the EL should be worked into a real cite, and there might be other sources than WND available, this is the sort of thing I'd expect WND to be reliable for and shouldn't be removed.

Another example would be the article on Ilana Mercer, where her own columns on WND were removed as a source. Her columns are a reliable primary source on her own views. Here I actually agree with the removal, but not for the reasons given. The quotes were taken out of context, most of them minor points from like nine paragraphs down in essays about other topics. But the unreliability was in WP, not WND.

There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source. Some editors have expressed concerns about political bias, but several editors agreed in the previous debate that there's no reason for complete removal of all links to WND. The practice has always been that we do treat WND as a niche source, similar to TMZ for entertainment news. Sometimes WND will be the one that has detailed information on the Tea Party movement or a land-use dispute out West, just as sometimes TMZ has the detailed information on Hollywood. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we understand it's a pretty politicized source. It's right-wing, pro-Evangelical, and pro-Israel, and most of the analysis and commentary in WND speaks towards those positions. All of that is totally irrelevant. WND is not a reliable source because it has a poor reputation for accuracy. Perceived bias has nothing to do with it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source." Incorrect. Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content. As noted above, accuracy and oversight, and not political leanings, are the reasons for this consensus. Use of citations to WND to support "opinion of WND" content, or to support "opinions expressed only in WND" are gray areas to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such evaluations, however, are very likely to additionally consider WP:UNDUE; WP:FRINGE, WP:VALID, etc. (Why is this in a separate section from the above current WND discussion?) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the source for the claim that it has a poor reputation for accuracy?
I think we also have to distinguish between the magazine and the book publisher. They are two different entities, and newspapers in general generally work under quite different timetables and time pressures than do publishers, with corresponding differences on capabilities that relate to reliability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of the criticism of WND that comes up every so often comes up because of perceived bias. People see Creationism or a hawkish stance on the Middle East and question its editorial policies. That may be a valid criticism of an analysis piece; when analysis becomes politicized enough, it becomes rhetoric.
Most of the criticism in our article on WND centers around a bombastic tone in some articles. There's only a couple of incidents reported in that article that show potential slipups in fact-checking. One was reporting of the likely-bogus Obama birth certificate. That alone shouldnt disqualify WND; CBS had some trouble a while back with some fake memos about Bush in the National Guard. The other incident revolved around allegations made about a car dealer who was involved in the Gore campaign, which resulted in a lawsuit and a retraction. That appears to be more serious, but should that cause us to ban WND as a source from all articles?
There was no consensus to only allow WND for opinions. There may have been a suggestion that WND should be cited with attribution, but that's not the same thing. Facts can be attributed as well as opinions. And yes, there's a reason for starting a new section, as the previous one looks like a chatroom, and is hevily weighted with people who arrived here from talk pages. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, and in no way meaning to question your good faith, I don't believe your characterizations of the discussions are consistent with the facts. Dlabtot (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content". No, this depends on the author of the specific publication and verification against other sources.Biophys (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've re-read the several dozen instances of the reliability of WND being raised on this notice board, and the consensus was against WND as a reliable source for factual content. WND is the "publication", by the way - not the contributions printed in it. Specific authors weren't usually mentioned in the discussions. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For the millionth time - the website lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The publisher lacks an implicit reputation for accuracy and fact checking. While individual books from the publisher might be reliable sources, and individual articles on the website might be reliable sources, being on the website or by the publisher are evidence against any measure of reliability. WND is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussion is now beyond TLDR, but it appears some examples given that were supposed to show WND as unreliable actually don't. For example this article about water fluoridation, despite the racy title of Fluoride: Miracle drug or toxic-waste killer?[12] simply discusses some anti-flouride referendums in different cities. There's a certain tone and impression it conveys; it could use some criticism of the anti-fluoride positions, but there is no requirement for a source to be unbiased. If we were writing an article on, say, an anti-fluoride group, there shouldn't be any problem with using an article like this for basic facts about the group's position. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The article you point to asserts the following as a fact: "From Pennsylvania to Nebraska and from Europe to New Zealand, there is growing and fierce opposition to plans to fluoridate public drinking water, fueled by a battery of shocking new studies that seriously question a practice routine among U.S. municipalities for nearly the last 50 years.". I would encourage editors to read the article, examine other sources, and then make their own determination as to whether that 'fact' was adequately 'checked for accuracy'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Chef, you also raise an interesting point, however, and the wording you chose prompts me to ask for your further opinion based on your hypothetical scenario: would you see any problem with using the WND article if the anti-flouride group was also "left-leaning" and heavily liberal-sponsored? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] GULAG statistics

We have discussion abou GULAG statistics. In my opinion based on eyewitnesses accounts, works about reliability of soviet statistcs in general there was no properly head count and bacause the number of victims is an estimation and there is no reliable source even in closed russian archives.98.166.128.202 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What is the proposed source that you are questioning, what is the information it is being used to cite, and what article is involved? --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Quite likely so. You better ask the people who actually recover the names of the dead, one name after another. Back in 1926 the village were my grandmother grew up was herded into cattle trails, taken to the Arctic circle and dumped in the tundra. Few men survived the first winter, women fared a bit better. Guess what? None of them were part of any statistic. It just "didn't happen". NVO (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Fansite Question

When adding content to Neighbours's fictional character articles there is a website that holds quite a bit of information. Fansites are not encouraged, but this website Perfectblen.net has been running for years now, along the way it has managed to get exclusives from producers, interviews with many cast members, exclusive video content and so on. Is it okay to cite it as a source, for information on casting and character development from exclusive interviews carried out by the website? Obviously it won't be used to cite any other information that is available elsewhere, or is not an exclusive peice on their behalf. Isn't it the primary source if it's the one who has the exclusive interview?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 00:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hazy on what the boundaries of a "fansite" are. To some editors a fansite is a personal website run by a fan, which would be unreliable, while other editors might consider any news outlet intended for fans as a fansite. It seems to me that if the site is important enough that it gets interviews and exclusive content, it's a lot more than just somebody's personal site. You may want to see if the site is run by a media company, that will help with justifying that the site is "published". Also see if news media and other reliable sources quote the site you want to use, that helps. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Squash sites

Hi there. (Gosh, this page is awfully busy and somewhat heated!)

I'm trying to review, and help improve, the article Nicol David with a view to promoting it to 'Good article' status.

I am concerned with some of the sources, which are websites about squash; I'm told that they are reliable and 'trusted' within the world of squash, but I'd like some feedback on whether other people think that they are appropriate reliable sources.

Some examples are;

The context and nature of the sourcing can be seen within the article,

I appreciate any feedback. Best, Chzz ► 04:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] REVIVED 'Underminingdemocracy.org a reliable source or not?'

Note: apologies that it was necessary to revive this, but the editor who disputed it said that one person certifying the source's reliability is not enough. More views would be welcome. Asdfg12345 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So please share ideas on whether the source is reliable, taking into account the authors (Link and Kurlantzick) and the publisher (Freedom House). I am sorry to bother the noticeboard again. I already started an RfC on the individual disputing the source's reliability. He has been doing this for years. Thank you. --Asdfg12345 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that here's media coverage underminingdemocracy.org has received. The authors' of the report on China published an op-ed in WSJ. --Asdfg12345 06:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that the source comes from a political website that lacks scholarly review, and a search on google scholar showed no results. Furthermore there is an undue emphasis disproportionate weight and being place on the source, with like 15+ citations on the respective article.--PCPP (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say it would be fine to cite it with attribution, but not for bald statements of fact. Dlabtot (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] ChapatiMystery.com

ChapatiMystery is a group blog founded several years ago and maintained by Manan Ahmed, a recent Ph.D in History from Chicago, now teaching at the Freie Universität Berlin. The blog is mostly concerned with South Asian history, culture and politics, and has a fairly decent reputation (especially for its coverage of Pakistan). It has plenty of hits at Google, and is not unknown to either Google Books or Google Scholar. Given tbis background, what is the status of the following two "guest posts", by authors commenting on threads at the site discussing their work:

In particular,

  • Is it credible that these posts are by Dalrymple and Doniger respectively?
  • If so - i.e. if there is no reasonable doubt regarding authenticity - can these posts be cited under the rules of WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB for materials pertaining to their own work? In other words, can these posts be considered statements "on the record", so to speak?
  • Are they good enough for the WP:SPS rules but not good enough for the WP:BLPSPS rules?

And, should this be followed up anyway on the WP:BLPN board for the BLP articles? The point being, since they are in a sense "defending" their own work, these posts can hardly be considered derogatory, so BLP issues aren't likely once credibility is established. rudra (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rudrasharman "forgot" to mention how he is using Doniger's alleged post. He is using to say that Doniger is "on record" (Rudrasharman's words) as responding to Witzel's critique, which was contained an an email, thus strengthening the stauts of Witzel's email "critique". The whole idea is to circumvent WP:RS. Doniger's enemies haven't been able to dig up any reliable criticism of Doniger's forty years of Sanskrit translation which is harsh enough to help them draft a reputation-damaging biographical article on Doniger. Rudrasharman has deleted text from the article which was sourced to academic journals, including the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, when it didn't suit his vision of Doniger.[15] The text that his side "needs" for the article is contained in blogs and emails. His side thinks that those sources are more reliable than academic journals. There is a plethora of reliable material available. It just doesn't suit Rudrasharman's agenda. Thus there is no need for the article to resort to the use of a weblog as a source. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the troll's diversion. Nothing has been "forgotten". The Witzel critique referred to is WP:RS by the WP:SPS rules - we could start a separate thread on such a no-brainer, but there's no real need. rudra (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


In which article is the source being used?
What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
Where is the relevant talk page discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the material here. Discussion here, starting with Rurasharman's comment at 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — goethean ॐ 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The article, in this case, is Wendy Doniger (a BLP). Here is the diff where the reference was introduced (there were some tweaks and then eventually the ref was removed.) It is supporting the assertion that the BLP subject has responded to a critique of some of her work by a world-class expert in the field. This section in the talk page has relevant materials. This section may also be relevant, as may some other threads, such as this one. Please ask if more clarification is needed. rudra (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
For completeness, I should mention that I was thinking of adding the Dalrymple reference to the page for one his books, The Last Mughal. Common to the two cases is the issue of authenticity, which depends, in exactly the same way for both, on the credibility of the ChapatiMystery site. rudra (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The listserv is definitely not RS, and it's also not a self-published source. Likewise the post by Doniger on chapatimystery.com. Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Whether the listserv is RS is not an issue. The issue would be WP:SPS applied to posts on this list by notable scholars, such as Michael Witzel. This mailing list is very well-known: it is the premier Indological mailing list on the internet, nearly 20 years old. Its membership is a veritable who's who of indological scholars, and its archives are mirrored on other sites. A Google search for the word "indology" returns the site as the very first hit (and has done so for a long time now, for obvious reasons). It doesn't get any more mainstream and established than that. As such, therefore, posts to this mailing list by indological scholars on subjects in their own fields eminently qualify under WP:SPS.
But all that was a digression. This thread is about the Dalrymple and Doniger posts to the ChapatiMystery site. Which of the WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB criteria are being questioned? The only one that I think could be open to question is #4: that there is reasonable doubt as to the authenticity. I'd appreciate further feedback on this from the regulars here. rudra (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Using twitter as a source for BLP info

There has been a slow edit war over many months regarding the birthdate of Jack O'Connell. As the date was a matter of contention I removed it and posted a note on the talk page that a birthdate should only be included if a reliable source was also included for verifiability. Today an editor has added a birthdate based on a twitter message. I just want to double check to make sure the twitter reference meets sourcing and WP:V policies. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not. 94.196.105.19 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That's my thought as well, but wanted to make sure. I've removed the contentious info. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Only if you can prove the Twitter account belongs to the subject of the biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes imo you don't need proof this twitter is being used on Peaches Geldof to cite her correct name as she was fed up that people kept adding additional names. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
So in the Paula Yates article, Contact Music is cited as saying that her "full name is PEACHES HONEYBLOSSOM MICHELLE CHARLOTTE ANGEL VANESSA GELDOF", and the article says she "resents her bizarre string of names", and on her own article, her own assertion that she does not even have "a bizarre string of names" is taken as more authoritative? I think this actually highlights what's wrong about using twitter feeds in this manner. Dlabtot (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like an argument against using self-published sources in certain circumstances, but not an argument against using Twitter as a self-published source. The question is whether Twitter is acceptable as a WP:SPS under WP:V, not whether it's always okay to use a sps. -- Vary | (Talk) 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:SPS says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." -- to me that doesn't sound anything at all like a celebrity's twitter feed. Also, WP:SELFPUB says the material should not be "unduly self-serving". Dlabtot (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Dlabtot, those are both things to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to use a self-published source. Obviously the average celebrity wouldn't often qualify as an expert under the first passage you quote, in which case we shouldn't be using their blog or website, either. But we're talking primarily about the sub-section below, where the second passage you quote is found: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. If there's a concern that material is unduly self-serving - say a claim that a celebrity gave half their income to charity last year - then we would need to look to a third party source for verification. But neither of these statements support disallowing twitter feeds altogether. Have you had any luck finding those multiple discussions where consensus was established that Twitter is not an acceptable source of self-published material? -- Vary | (Talk) 02:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've had luck, I pointed you to the earlier discussions, and you've already expressed your disagreement with me about them. There's no need to be disagreeable about it as well. Dlabtot (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No, you didn't. You linked to the archive search, which I had already used to check for the discussions where the 'long standing consensus' you mentioned was established and hadn't found them. I didn't 'disagree' because it's not a matter of opinion - I was either able to find the discussions you referenced or I wasn't. I wasn't, which is why I asked for a direct link to them. -- Vary | (Talk) 13:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I am entirely comfortable with the idea that you believe that you "didn't 'disagree' because it's not a matter of opinion". Dlabtot (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless we have a specific rule against using Twitter, it can be reliable for someone's birthdate per WP:SPS if the twitter account is the official one by the person. But you have to make sure that it's their real account and not a fan (or enemy for that matter). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, twitter is never a reliable source for any content, personally I usually remove it on sight, but there are occasions where I would allow it to sit there in an unconfirmed link to support a small uncontroversial comment that we could well also cite to another citation. Twitter should not be added as an only claim for a birthdate. Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why. Unless we have a specific rule against using Twitter, it can be reliable per WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not a rule; it's a long-standing consensus. Do a search of the archives and you'll see. If you want to overturn that consensus, you'll have to make a persuasive argument that convinces a preponderance of editors. Dlabtot (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Granted, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that WP:V can be overturned by editorial consensus. Unless you can point me to a specific Wikipedia rule, I see no reason why WP:SPS should be overturned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Gee it's like you didn't even read my comment. This has absolutely nothing to do with overturning any rule. Dlabtot (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:SPS, we can use self-published sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. A self-published source is fine in many cases, like for sourcing certain biographical information about the subject and for the subject's opinions on a given matter. If the account is verified then it's just as good a source as the subject's blog or website. -- Vary | (Talk) 04:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The current consensus, per many, many prior discussions, is that twitter feeds do not qualify as self published sources. Since the publisher is twitter.com, it seems a reasonable position. If you wish to challenge the current consensus, you will have to make some sort of argument as to why it is wrong. So far you have failed to do so. Personally, I don't actually agree with the current consensus, so I would be interested to hear your argument. If you have one. Dlabtot (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I really would suggest that you read the multitude of prior discussions on this topic. Pretending that there is a blank slate is unproductive. Dlabtot (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"Since the publisher is twitter.com" I don't care for that argument at all. If person's official web site is their Facebook account, does that rule it out because technically speaking, it's hosted by Facebook.com. Come to think of it, I would bet that a lot of official websites are hosted by an outside IT company. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
 I tried this search and the first archived discussion I found was this one. Which discussion would you point to for your categorical statement (of consensus) that "twitter feeds do not qualify as self published sources"? rudra (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do link to these discussions, Dlabtot; if you're using them in your argument it's your job to provide them, not ours, and saying 'per consensus' without showing us where that consensus was formed is unproductive. It looks like the upshot of the past discussion Rudra linked was that Twitter is as useful as any other self-published source. Really not that extraordinary a claim. Archived sections I found here, here and here might also be informative; all seem to come to the same conclusion. I think this 'Twitter is never a RS per consensus' meme may not have any basis in reality. But even if it did, WP:V is policy and any consensus to change or make exceptions to it needs to happen on WP:VP/P and nowhere else. -- Vary | (Talk) 14:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not making any argument. As I said, I don't really agree with the current consensus, so I certainly feel no need to defend it. Here is the link to past discussions: [16]. Dlabtot (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You are claiming that Twitter is not usable under WP:SPS based on past discussions, so yes, you're making an argument. You may not agree with the consensus you believe exists, but if you aren't willing to provide evidence that it does exist you shouldn't use it to support a position, even one you don't agree with. I've used the search function you linked to and have not found any discussions which support the claim that there is an existing consensus against using Twitter as a self-published source, which is why I'm asking you for help. Could you please link to them directly so we can discuss their contents? Right now the only discussions I've seen seem to find that Twitter is as useful as any other self-published source. So far as I'm concerned, that is the current consensus. Can anyone find a past discussion that reached a different conclusion? -- Vary | (Talk) 15:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The link given by Dlabtot is exactly the same as the one I gave (the search I tried): the result of searching the WP:RSN archives for the word "twitter". Thus, the first hit is this very thread, and the second is the one I suggested was actually contradicting the claimed consensus. rudra (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion,[17] (which seems to be the most recent) I see Jayjg saying they're reliable per WP:SPS. Siawase says they're unreliable and makes a good argument about WP:WEIGHT. Squidfryerchef cites WP:SPS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says tweets should be treated the same as blogs which I read as WP:SPS. Wikidemon says they're self-published but should only be used as a last resort, for uncontroversial information. WN30MON agrees with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Johnuniq says they're unreliable. Off2riorob says they're unreliable. I don't see the consensus that they're unreliable. Assuming the birthdate isn't controversial, I think that using an official Tweeter account is fine. It's not ideal, but WP:SPS allows it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my view is that they can be used as a WP:SPS, so long as it it 100% certain that this is the account of the individual in question. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Especially for a date of birth if a self published source is all we have and it is not reported elsewhere that is very poor verifiability, the subject is according to herself 20 years old, worthless really, we have a twitter post from the subject at Tinsel Korey here and there is a dispute about one year difference, there doesn't appear to be a citation of any value for the other date, the twitter date is of such little value as to be not worth adding, according to the subject of this article they say they are 20...not very good is it, the idea that we even need to add weakly cited content is wrong or that such content has much value and must be presented to the general pubic. I have to say though that I do like the way subjects are attempting to communicate to us through twitter. In this case of Korey we have moved to the date she is claiming and added citation required tags, the citation required tags can sit there until a reliable independent source is found and the wheels won't drop off. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Per WP:V, a self-published source is perfectly acceptable for basic biographical information. Putting a citation needed tag on information as basic as a birthdate because the only source you have is the subject him/herself is just silly - though not as silly as removing it all together. Is your argument that Twitter in particular is not acceptable under wp:sps, or that the policy itself is wrong? -- Vary | (Talk) 20:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am just using my common sense it the situations I have mentioned, in one of them the twitter link is left in as harmless, in the other the date of birth in the film industry is controversial and actors and such like have been known to want to portray themselves younger, shock horror, we have no reason if a date of birth is disputed to accept what a subject simply tells us on twitter. The silly thing is the idea that the exact birthday of a semi notable celebrity or subject cited to their (unconfirmed/confirmed) own twitter page is a fantastic piece of weakly cited content that the world is desperately in need of. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That's just an argument for being careful. If there's a controversy about someone's birth date, don't use an WP:SPS. But unless you aware of a controversy about a particular actor's birth date, I think it's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)Again, this is an argument against using self-published sources in certain circumstances, not against using Twitter as a self-published source. In the case cited in the OP there is no legitimate reason to doubt the truth of the subject's statement about his month and day of birth (the year is citable to a third-party source). The full DOB allows us to use the automatically updating age template in his infobox. It's certainly not an undue weight issue - dates of birth are often included in the infobox in this way. There's simply no reason to exclude this information. -- Vary | (Talk) 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

TLDR, but twitter can be reliable under SPS the same as a website or self published book. Extra care should be taken because of all the accounts created by normal people with the name of celebrities. A good reliable source that confirms whose twitter account it is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly – there are several cases where someone has claimed to be Some Celebrity and then posted stuff which was plausible but not necessarily acurate. There is generally no way to know that a twitter account is what it claims to be, although a link from a very reliable source may suffice (but did the reliable source really check the twitter account? how?). Another critical issue is that twitter posts generally show little sign of care or concern for long-term reliability: someone might say they were born on April 1, 1992 but that statement may very well be a joke, or wishful thinking. In particular, if there is a controversy about when someone was born, it is not satisfactory to resolve the issue from a "by the way" twitter post. A self-published website where there is clear intent to post biographical information does not have to be evaluated in the same way, although if some controversy about a date is raised by reliable sources, it is hardly appropriate to claim that a SPS conclusively proves that the birth date is accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously the statement being used as a source needs to be evaluated individually, but that's always true. In the case being discussed here the account in question is linked from an official website, and the subject was using his most readily available way of self-publishing, his twitter account, to clarify is exact age, having apparently been reported in the media as being 'about twenty.' There's no reason to consider that unreliable. Every source needs to be evaluated by the criteria laid out in WP:SELFPUBLISH, but there is simply no reason to consider an entire self-publishing method unreliable just because some people use it carelessly. And incidentally, if you have reason to doubt that a reliable source has checked that a twitter account belongs to who it claims to belong to before publishing it as genuine, they probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source. -- Vary | (Talk) 13:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That is if you accept the premise that using the Twitter service is a "self-publishing method". Dlabtot (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Well said Johnuniq. Dlabtot (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Twitter has Verified Account's you know where major celebs like Obama Barack and Stephen Fry are verified(top right on there page). It's only those I'd be using as a SPS. Everything else I'd ignore as fan stuff. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Johnuniq's post contains a lot of speculation and very little facts. If there's a controversy about this particular actor's birth date, then point me to some WP:RS that say such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford, Harvard University Presses v. Greenwood Publishing

Should we consider books published by prestigious university presses like the Harvard University Press to be more reliable than those published by the private academic press, like Greenwood Publishing, Routledge, etc.? This dispute has arisen at Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#Center-left/center-right/center The conflict is whether the Democratic Party is an ideological party. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources disagree, we report the disagreement, as per WP:NPOV. Dlabtot (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, remember that we consider the reputation for fact checking and accuracy of "the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer)", as well as the publisher of the work, to meet WP:V. . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally for the publishing houses you cited here (Harvard University Press, Routledge, Greenwood) there is no doubt that they are of a comparable quality as all of them are up to the same scholarly standard. Harvard University Press might be more prestigious, but not more reliable. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Dlabtot. Specifically for the question of whether the US Democratic Party is really liberal, that is a notable point of debate (just ask Ralph Nader and John McCain), and worth a bit of text saying there are two sides to the question. --GRuban (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Source balance at Gun laws in the United States (by state)

I am curious about third opinions regarding the question as to whether the ratio of 3rd Party sourcing relative to advocacy sourcing matters at Wikipeida. See Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Article_sourcing.2C_red_flag for more detail, but I am wondering if the aggregate ratio of all the sources matters. In this case I see that the advocacy sourcing exceeds the third party sourcing and I wonder if that is a "red flag". I would appreciate hearing the opinion of some neutral editors about this question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Here is part of the issue. The article contains a table for each of the 50 states. Each one of those tables of course needs the nformation to be sourced. Part of Saltybotr et al's complain is that primary sources are being used.Normally, I'd agree, that is an issue. But I believe this is an exception. In this case, the primary links that they are complaining about are links straight to the a states official website, to the statute in question. No interptation. No opinions. Just "here is the law". What possible better source could you ask for? In this case, a primary source would be prefereble to a third party one. Why would a reporter writing a story where he interprets what the law says be a better source than the actual law itself. The example I used is saying that the Farmville Gazette would be a better source for the content of the State of the Union speech than the White House website would be. The state website would be the least biased, most accurate source available. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The core policy is WP:V which says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Presently the article is sourced 11% to third party sources and 89% non-third party sources. My question here is whether a ratio of 1:10 for third party to non-third party is out of line with the intent of the "third party" requirement of WP:V. What is the point of mentioning "third party" in WP:V if 1:10 is an acceptable ratio? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Interpreting laws is not easy. For example, when a court finds that a statute is unconstitutional, the statute remains on the books; it just can't be enforced. So a state legislature's official site for statutes may be misleading. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Our policies are quite clear that primary sources may be used, with caution. See WP:PRIMARY. "the "third party" requirement of WP:V" does not exist. Dlabtot (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, our policies are clear that primary sources are problematic, and secondary sources are preferred. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Which in no way contradicts my comment. Dlabtot (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg says "secondary sources are preferred", yet WP:V says "third party". That article has only about 1/10th of the sourcing being third party. How does that comport with "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."? I still don't know what to do with that sentence in WP:V. Is this an exception to that WP:V policy described in that sentence? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the vast majority of our articles should be based on third party sources... but we do have a few exceptions to that rule... Probably the best known exception are articles on works of fiction. I see a strong parallel here with the "plot summary" exemption for fiction. In most of our fiction articles, the plot summary makes up the bulk of the article. And thus the bulk of the article ends up cited to the work itself and not some "third-party" source. The reason we allow this is because we recognize that for purely descriptive statements about the plot of a work of fiction, the most reliable source is the work itself. In fact, that is so obvious that most of the time we don't actually bother to cite the work... we simply assume the citation.
I think the same can be said for a purely descriptive statement as to the language contained in a statute. For this the most reliable source is the statute itself. Now, if we wrote a separate article on each State's gun law, this would not be a problem. What makes this appear improper is that this article tries to cover all 50 states at one time. Thus we end up having 50 separate purely descriptive statements about each State's statute.
To go back to the fiction analogy... imagine a fiction anthology volume that contained 50 short stories... you could write 50 articles on each story, each with a plot summary ... or you could have one article on the entire anthology... with 50 sub-sections, each outlining a different plot summary.
Of course, just like an article on a work of fiction, you have to be careful. If a statement goes beyond pure description and ventures into analysis or interpretation... then you do need an independent "third-party" secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No, regarding works of fiction, we don't have "exceptions to that rule", but rather have many articles not in compliance with the rule, which is significantly different. Articles should comply with the rule, regardless of whether or not other articles do so. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not the number of the sources, but how prominently they're placed. For example, you would use the secondary sources for general statements, and the primary sources for specifics. In something like a table of details by state, you would expect to see a high number of primary sources. I would prefer that secondary sources be worked into that table as well ( because they can weigh in on how the laws are applied ), but the primary sources should stay. There was also a question about advocacy groups and whether it was appropriate to have more cites to pro-gun groups. That may be appropriate; the pro-gun sources would be expected to discuss more details of the law, because those publications are intended for people who actually own guns and have to stay legal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, when I look, the Brady Campaign spends a lot of effort discussing details of gun law too. And this may be unrelated, but the most used pro-gun advocacy source at that article is USAcarry.com, which when you check Whois you see that domain is owned by a parent company that also owns the domain of a handgun holster manufacturing company. Presumably with an interest in encouraging more people to carry handguns who would buy their product. So, the advocacy source intention might not simply "people having to stay legal" but it also could be advocacy efforts by commercial vendors promoting their product. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] External links deleted repeatedly by a single user

Hello,

I have a desire to contribute to the content of a particular page, but a single individual (who appears to have originated the page) shows a long history of undoing contributions of others, and has deleted one of my contributions repeatedly. I really don't want to start a battle with this person - in fact, I'm not going to name them or the page here, specifically to avoid a conflict.

This party is using the excuse that the link is to IMDb.com and therefore not valid, but I am not reporting gossip, I am attempting to identify an individual in the film industry who had a hand in the promotion of a specific film (I assure you, he's a real person, he just doesn't have a Wikipedia page).

Is it better to bracket an individual's name and allow it to show up in red text (anticipating that a Wikipedia page will eventually be created), leave the name plain text, or try for a third time to enter the link? This last option seems like it would prompt a negative response from the person who hovers over the page.

Your advice?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factinator (talk • contribs) 15:53, March 18, 2010

First, if you add ~~~~ after your posts, they'll turn into your user name and date, making it easier for others. Now out of the three choices you've given, I'd recommend the red link if you think the person is individually notable enough to get an article, and no link otherwise. But, is this about this edit? If so ... er ... is it really important? I'm no movie expert, but to me, telling someone to double the advertising budget on a movie doesn't seem to be that notable. I imagine for any given big budget movie there are four people who think the advertising budget should be doubled, and three who think it's too big already... --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Access to developer information that is behind a "pre-order" door

For Sam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse (an upcoming video game series), there are a number of developers (we have no doubts to their identities) providing encyclopedic information on the tech and design of the game on their own forums (again, helping to assure of the validity of the developers) but that require the reader to have paid for a pre-order of the game to view that site. It is unknown at this time whether that forum will become public upon the game's release.

Can this be used as a reliable source at this time? Obviously if the forum becomes public, that's less of an issue. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Paid sites such as Jstor are perfectly fine, so the fact that one has to pay for access shouldnt disqualify the source. The question is rather whether it is a reliable sourcebe a hurdle - provided that it otherwise meets all criteria of a reliable source. From what you say it looks like a primary source, so I would be somewhat. In the end, why not just wait until the game is actually released on April 10. I assume by then some secondary sources will have written and reviewed the game. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Secondary sources to expand reception isn't going to be a question upon release (they will happen, the series has more than enough popularity), and likely there will be some development information that will be published through third-party sources. But, information on the paid forum , while primary, is of additional development information that presently, and may not, end up in these additional sources. That's the stuff of most concern (the rest of the sourcing will come naturally on release). --MASEM (t) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm if it's not know if the forum will be made public (have you tried asking?) and this could be intended to be the pre-order bonus kind of thing that once the game is released no one who didn't pre-order it will have access unless the publishers later change their mind then surely that's a problem. Unlike with say Jstor where you can argue anyone with enough money can gain access, there is only a limited pool of people who have access and no way for anyone new to gain access after the game is out. Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ellen Frank as a source in the Tobin tax article

There is this discussion about quotes from the economist Ellen Frank used in the article Tobin tax.

One editor presented this Wikipedia guideline with this quote: "Questionable sources are ... websites and publications expressing views that are...promotional in nature"

On the other hand I presented this Wikipedia policy with this quote: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions..."

Ellen Frank's article appears in a magazine which promotes the Tobin tax in a sidebar to her article, and gives the contacts to get involved in the promotion of the Tobin tax. But Frank was not involved in setting up those sidebars and contacts.

Can she still be used as a source -- as long as it is clearly stated that we are reporting on her opinion (as opposed to "facts")?

Or are we prevented from quoting her at all (due to concerns about "promotion")?

Note: The question is about this article [1] in the magazine called New Internationalist.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the New Internationalist is at all reliable? It can generally be assumed that an article represents the opinion of the author, but, even in mainstream publications, that opinion can be altered beyond recognition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, NI is a reliable source by our standards... it certainly seems to meet all our criteria on reliability. Is there reason to call it unreliable?
I don't think you need to worry about the "promotional" part... a sidebar that discusses a particular tax policy in a favorable way is not what we mean by "promotional".
As for it being used in support of an attributed statement of the author's opinion... it clearly is reliable (however, please note that reliability is not the only issue when it comes to opinions... be sure to read WP:UNDUE) Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Halifax Initiative in the Tobin tax article

In the talk page for the article on Tobin tax, there is this discussion about an article by Robin Round (probably a psuedonym). At the bottom of the article, it is noted that she acts on behalf of the Halifax Initiative and heads their campaign to try to establish a Tobin tax.

The Halifax Initiative is a coalition of huge organizations which represents a huge number of people in society. On of its members, the Canadian Labour Congress, has 3 million members. As Wikipedia editors, it is our job to document what happens in society. See Wikipedia:Notability.

One editor presented this Wikipedia guideline with this quote: "Questionable sources are ... websites and publications expressing views that are...promotional in nature"

On the other hand I presented this Wikipedia policy with this quote: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions..."

Can she still be used as a source as long as it is clearly stated that we are reporting on her opinion (as opposed to "facts")?

Or are we prevented from quoting her at all (due to concerns about "promotion")?

Note: The question is about this article in the magazine called New Internationalist.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the rule about promotion is intended to govern organisations seeking to increase their sales or membership, rather than seeking to influence policy.Martinlc (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the New Internationalist is at all reliable? (If the "author" is a pseudonym, then we probably can't use this article, but we could use publications of the Halifax Initiative, if we have reliable sources that that group really is as stated.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said above... I think the more appropriate question is "is there any reason not to consider NI as reliable?" Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
At this UN link is solid evidence that “Robin Round” is not a pseudonym: She appeared with that name at the UN conference entitled “Geneva 200 Forum,” June 22-30, 2000. It was held at the same time and in the same vicinity as the United Nations General Assembly held its 24th Special Session entitled "The World Summit for Social Development and Beyond: Achieving Social Development for All in a Globalizing World" (WSSD+5), from 26-30 June 2000 in Geneva. The UN Non-Government Liason Service (NGLS) Roundup, no. 57, September 2000, records Robin Round at that event at this UN link (Navigate to THE GENEVA 2000 FORUM, Progressive Taxation and Globalization, Paragraph 6.) - Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Even if it was a pseudonym, it does not disqualify. I had a question some months ago about a news column in a 1950 newspaper by a columnist named "Frank Observer". It was deemed acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Frank Observer?... isn't that old Neutral Observer's boy... I used to date his sister, Impartial. Nice family the Observers. :>) Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Phobia

Just so that this will be archived here and searchable by the keyword "phobia", hereby I am notifying you that I started a list of bad and good sources (<Link to list removed as inappropriate>) which can/cannot be used in various articles about specific phobias (see List of phobias), so that a wikipedian can be quickly cured when struggling with, e.g., prostitute phobia :-). - Altenmann >t 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to this... we have made it clear on numerous occasions that there is no such thing as a source that is always "bad" or always "good". Instead we have sources that are generally reliable, or generally unreliable... but in both cases context must be considered. Even the worst source can be considered reliable in a specific situation (for a specific statement, in a specific article), and even the best source can be unreliable in a specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur with blueboar. While there is nothing wrong with maintaining a list of your own opinions regarding the reliability of particular sources in your own userspace, attempting to enshrine it as something more than that is inappropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Blueboar and Dlabtot are correct that reliability is not a binary "on/off" model. Editorial judgment is required to determine if a particular source is reliable for a particular claim. OTOH, it doesn't hurt to keep a list of potential sources to simplify your life. The editors of the video game articles keep such a list and I do as well. But reliability must still be determined on a case-by-case basis. That said, I didn't actually look at your list too closely. Oh, another thing to keep in mind is that medical articles have a stricter definition of reliability than non-medical articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "editorial judgment" sounds like handwaving, as if a potential problem were solved, when more often it has just begun. Yes, "editorial judgment" is some combination of familiarity with the subject matter and common sense, but what if someone insists on the letter of the law, so to speak, and simply refuses to accept that what is only technically "reliably sourced" is actually aberrational? This is a little more than the "verifiability versus truth" chestnut. Typically, the issue is not verification or truth - yes, so-and-so indeed said/wrote such-and-such wherever - but credibility: the information content is plainly wrong, or the person is not an expert in the relevant field for such an opinion to be notable, etc. This is simply a loophole in the existing set of policies and guidelines, and one that "good faith" does not plug. rudra (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Determining reliability of a source can be a tricky business and there is no 'one size fits all' rule. As for WP:TE, I'm not aware of a solution. I've been involved with such a problem for 4 months now and despite being brought to the attention of the admins, ArbCom and Jimbo, next to nothing has been done to resolve it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Computer chess forums as sources

This edit uses three web forums as sources, and was thus speedily reverted. Although the general policy is to not allow web forums, I believe these three sources were appropriate:

  1. The CCRL fact is sourced from the CCRL forum (a direct response from the testers involved).
  2. The CEGT fact is sourced from the CEGT forum (again, a direct response from the testers involved).
  3. The CCT fact is sourced from the CCT tournament director, Peter Skinner, who uses the TalkChess.com forum to coordinate and organize the tournament entries and advertise tournament policy.

These are not random web fora, but very specific fora which have the weight of scientific journals for the topics of computer chess testing and research. For the purposes of this edit, I can think of no more reliable sources. --IanOsgood (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no conceivable justification under our policies and guidelines for considering these to be reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Could you expand on this or direct me to somewhere that explains why these can't be treated as primary sources? (In the esoteric little community of computer chess testing, there aren't many other sources available. Especially on a topic that is close to being a blacklisting.) Also, doesn't WP:SELFPUB apply to the above sources? --IanOsgood (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The burden is actually not upon anyone to explain why they are not RS (proving a negative); rather the burden is upon those who want these to be considered RS to come up with some justification under WP:V and WP:RS to explain why they are. Nothing you've said above even approaches the neighborhood of doing that. To give a concrete example, if they were cited in already established reliable sources, such as Chess Life, that would be a point in their favor. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I guess there are certain things that Wikipedia just can't talk about until they are "digested" by the wider world. The primary/secondary source distinction made by Wikipedia was also new to me. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree weith Dlabtot... I don't see anything that would tell me that these are any different from any other niche forums. I would need something more to call them reliable.
Ian, I think you hit the nail on the head in describing computer chess testing and research as an "esoteric little community" ... have you considered that the topic may be too specialized for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to discuss in any depth. Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If these organizations (CCRL, CEGT and CCT) are otherwise (i.e. independently) notable, then WP:SELFPUB would make statements by their officials on "official" sites like these "reliably sourced" with respect to themselves. The problems here are that notability is not established, and even if it were, it would still be off-topic: none of these purported statements about testing policy pertain to the subject of the article (Rybka). The only relevant point that you need to document here is the general suspicion that IPPOLITE et al are clones or ripoffs of Rybka, for which the forums cited are definitely not reliable sources. rudra (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's the funny thing. The fact that these organizations are not accepting an engine is itself evidence that it is considered a clone. But how to source an absence of data? I accept that I must wait until some other agency publishes this before it can be mentioned on WP; it is WP:OR otherwise. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, it would be great if a third party (e.g. an article somewhere else) cited these facts as evidence :-) (That's what you need, in a nutshell). rudra (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Notability is a loaded word which really means notable enough to have its own article on WP. But what you need is a secondary source that introduces those particular organizations with regard to Rybka or at least computer chess engines in the large, then you might be able to cite the organziations as primary sources for statements about themselves. Forum posts would have to be by representatives of the organziation. But the article is already out on a limb by that point; the article is about a chess engine called Rybka, but the details are about a program called IPPOLIT, and it's unclear if there's a relationship between those two. I would say leave it out, unless you are writing an article about IPPOLIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Re-opening of old case

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_40#Question

The original question did not mention that the Alaya Rahm case was treated by several other reputable sources apart from the BBC TV documentary Secret Swami. These are

I think this significantly changes matters, because neither the BBC nor Danish Radio and Daily Telegraph retracted the Alaya Rahm/Sam Young case.

Andries (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Here's the earlier archive discussion link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_40#Question
  • You seemed to have missed all the details from the earlier discussion. If you read the earlier archive carefully you will see that I have mentioned that Alaya Rahm case was covered in Seduced documentary, Daily Telegraph along with BBC.
  • The fact that BBC nor Daily Telegraph did not retract the statement does not change matters. In most cases unless there is a Class Action Lawsuit you may not hear any retractions or apology. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I also strongly disagree with the statement made here
"The trial was set for April 28, 2006. In the following trial's thorough investigation it was found that Alaya Rahm and his family members had praised Sathya Sai Baba in number of recorded retreats and conferences during the years '1995 - 1999' contradicting Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse claims"
The Rahm family were totally immersed in the Sathya Sai Baba movement and of course they keep up appearances until they have made up their mind. I have been in a similar situation and I had the same behavior. Andries (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Your WP:COI is playing a big part here. Inspite of this case being discussed for a week and conclusions being made by very respected outside wikipedia you still seem to disregard all the conclusions and have reopened this archived case to favor pushing your personal agenda in to this BLP article.
  • The Earlier conclusions by User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark and User:Jehochman must be upholded. As per their conclusion since this is a BLP article, to prevent any BLP violation, if the BBC is used then the secondary source Daily Pioneer covering 'Alaya Rahm' case should be mentioned in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You omitted giving important information the first time. Andries (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that one minor source (The Pioneer) is able to discrete three major reliable sources (Daily Telegraph, BBC, and [Danish Radio]])is highly unusual. Andries (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Did we remove BBC mentioning the Alaya Rahm case from the article? No. Its still there. Its a definite BLP violation as repeatedly mentioned by all these outside wikipedians if the 'Alaya Rahm Case' is not mentioned.
  • We must include Secondary Source 'Daily Pioneer' covering the Alaya Rahm trial as mentioned by User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark and User:Jehochman. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If the problem is BLP then let us treat it at the BLP noticeboard. Andries (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The wikipedians who discussed earlier all agreed to User:Priyanath proposal. When we have clear discussion and agreement by several neutral highly respected wikipedians there is no need to go from forum to forum. The Earlier conclusions by User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark and User:Jehochman must be upholded. Do you know how many BLP articles are facing lawsuits in wikipedia just because a few people try to push their personal agendas and violate BLP policies? That's exactly the case here. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
BLP has to do with the weight of sources. That is a different thing than having one reliable source that denies certain accusations. There is a long list however that makes allegations of sexual misconduct by SSB. The assessment of the weight of sources should not be done here and is different from assessing whether a single source denying accusations is reliable. Andries (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The 'Alaya Rahm allegations' are already mentioned in the article. These allegations were circulated between 2000 - 2005. But in 2006 When Alaya Rahm took his allegation case to Superior Court nothing was found. He self dismissed his case. This also has to be in the article to prevent BLP violations. We have the secondary source Daily Pioneer covering this case as well as the Superior Court website public records for Alaya Rahm case (Primary Source) for the Secondary Source. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Paper advocating using themselves as a Wikipedia source = Entire paper not considered reliable?

I recently encountered this article and in the comments section, someone mentioned that said paper had advocated that readers use their site as a source for the Maui County Department of Liquor Control. Turns out....they were right. Now this poses a question; i'm currently gathering offline materials for the Mokuʻula article, and they have a great article that I can use to help corroborate offline sources. But because of this article and accusations that their reporters aren't quite up to snuff in fact checking, is this automatic grounds to dismiss the paper as a legitimate source? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It certainly indicates that we should approach that paper with caution... but I think you may be missing the bigger picture... if you have high quality offline sources, there is no need to corroborate them with the iffy online source. Just cite the offline ones. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but why is the fact a newspaper is noticing that we have a poor article on a subject they cover better a sign that they aren't reliable? Wikipedia:Press coverage is full of newspaper articles mentioning things wrong with Wikipedia articles for years, and we generally rush to fix them. But when they actually suggest it, that's suddenly a red flag? Maui Time Weekly is an alternative newspaper, which isn't quite the New York Times, but surely noticing we exist, and that we write articles from newspapers like theirs, doesn't suddenly make them any less reliable. --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] On-line class notes and OR statements

Are on-line instructor class notes reliable sources for Wikipedia articles?

These two sources are being claimed as RS for the article Biographical criticism by editor Smatprt (talk):

[18]

[19]

The first is an undated and unsigned sheet of notes apparently from an unamed West Texas State University class.

The second is from a 1998 University of Mississippi class on Critical Approaches to Literature.

As this diff shows, I removed them from the article (which is a stub) and they were replaced by Smatprt (talk), who told me to seek an opinion.

In that same article he insists on using this ref to support the statement, "In the opening decades of the 21st century it appears to be undergoing a significant renaissance in Walt Whitman studies," even though nowhere in the cited source can I find that statement or anything like it, which appears to me to be an original comment on the paper. I removed the cites and tagged the statement, and the original editor deleted the sentence: [20], but this same editor Smatprt (talk) restored the material and refs: [21]

Another question I’d like to ask is this: is seeking an opinion on what I consider non-RS refs necessary for each individual case like this? I have a history with this editor, who is adept at using Wikipedia guidelines against other editors and whom I have caught using marginal or even outright bogus refs, and I’d like to avoid what I foresee is going to be a tedious waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those sources are RS, and I agree with you about the renaissance comment. Dlabtot (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The two sources are marginal at best, and should be avoided in this case. Also, the "significant renaissance" statement appears to be obvious OR, but you might want to confirm at the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
In addressing this, I'd like to raise a related issue with this board. As Tom mentions, we have a long-running history. Part of this involves Tom adding fact tags to non-controversial items like this. He does not like the concept of Biological Criticism being brought up as part of another article so is demanding a fact tag for the definition of the term here at this article. It's a common term in lit criticism and the subject is discussed by the educational system on a regular basis. Why does it even need a fact tag in this article when anyone can just look it up in an online dictionary [[22]] (See section 2 on Criticism, paragraphs one and four. This link is sourced to The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2004, Columbia University Press). So why is this term controversial? Smatprt (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is saying the term is controversial, just that your refs are. As to why it needs a reliable source, study WP:RS. If the school of criticism is "discussed by the educational system on a regular basis", whatever that means (and I don't recall the term from any of my lit classes, but my memory is not perfect), it should be simple enough to supply a reliable, verifiable source. The ref you have substituted is not sufficient, because it does not support the definition statement. You seem to think that any casual mention of a topic will suffice for an RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Not Generally speaking, on-line instructor class notes, are way down the list of sources that ought to be used. If it is in class notes, normally, the subject, if it is notable, will be covered in a textbook or two or three. Any specific fact that is too new for textbook recitation should be able to be found in academic literature. If not so found, it is doubtful that it belongs in an encyclopedia. There is a big difference between on-line class materials specifically provided by a known professor with acknowledged expertise, and a student's regurgitation of what they thought they heard in a class. If a document is undated an unsigned and does not appear on the website by the professor, then it is not a reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That's very helpful. I found a textbook with the ref and it appears that Bejnar found some as well. I'm still not sure why a fact tag was placed on the term "biographical criticism" in the first place, but these additional refs should end the matter. I am still concerned about the overuse of fact tags and wonder if any uninvolved editors here have some advice as to how to determine if unreasonable source requests are being used as a form of harassment? Smatprt (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] World Vision as an RS

World Vision is one of the world's largest humanitarian organisations and charities. Would the World Vision website be acceptable as an WP:RS for information about a program with one of their largest corporate donors? In particular I'm wanting to use this page where it states "For more than a decade, Network 21’s humanitarian arm Network of Caring has been a partner with World Vision in touching the fragile lives of some of our world’s neediest children and families." and this page about the program in support of the claim in the Network TwentyOne article that "Network of Caring was founded ... as the charitable arm of Network TwentyOne" and including information on NOC in the article.

Network 21's corporate web site (a usable source under WP:SPS) also states that NOC is a part of Network 21. This page says "Network of Caring has been kind of a behind-the-scenes charity of Network 21" and this this page says "Network of Caring, an organization founded by Network TwentyOne". Inclusion of the material is being challenged on the basis that there is no independent RS confirmation that NOC is connected to Network 21, but simply has the same founders (Jim & Nancy Dornan). In support of this assertion is the fact Network 21 isn't explictily mentioned in this manner on the NOC website[23] though in the "about us" page[24] the CSO is quoted as saying about working with NOC - "Without a doubt, Jim and Nancy Dornan and the Network 21 family are people who want to make a difference" and this page is also referring directly to Network 21. The related trade organisation IBOAI on their official website also states "...when they realize success they share it, as Network 21 does with its global good-works effort, Network of Caring" [25].

It's my contention that official reports of World Vision suffice as WP:RS WP:V independent confirmation of the Network 21-NOC connection. Failing agreement on that, if the NOC website confirmed the connection (I've written to them and suggested it should!) would that be sufficient?--Insider201283 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Jewish Chronicle

There is a dispute on Baruch Marzel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) concerning whether the Jewish Chronicle, of all things, is a reliable source. As one can see in the article history and talk page, some editors are taking the view that a passage regarding Marzel's use of the phrase "dilute the Jewish race" is not untrue -- overlooking the fact that it is nonetheless verifiable. The edit in question is here and the source for it is linked here. I would have thought this one is obvious: the JC is a reliable source and the information in question is verifiable -- particularly with additional sources for that passage available elsewhere: [26], [27]. Any thoughts? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If it were the only source, I would go with the quote, but there are two other reliable newspapers that seem to be clearly reporting on the same event, and one even gives the text of the letter, without the phrase. I tend to agree with the others on the talk page, it looks like the Chronicle reporter rephrased Marzel's words. Especially since removing the quote doesn't really change the meaning of our coverage of the event in our article, I'd leave it out. The other sources you cite don't use it as a direct quote, and, frankly, one is The Sun (newspaper) ... not the most respected of newspapers ... and the other is specifically reporting about the article from The Sun. --GRuban (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me see if I get this straight: are you saying that the JC is not a reliable source that can be used to verify the quote in question? It sounds like you think the information is simply not true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem Letter / Viewpoints

I'm wondering if Jerusalem Letter / Viewpoints can be considered a reliable source. It's a newsletter put out by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), an Israeli think-tank based in Jerusalem (not to be confused with the much larger American non-profit Jewish Council for Public Affairs).

The specific article in question is this one by Amnon Lord, which is being cited in the biography of Nahum Shahaf for information on his work history. The page carries a footnote that says: "The opinions expressed by the authors of Viewpoints do not necessarily reflect those of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs." My thinking is that this source should be treated like any other opinion editorial, but WP:RS states: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." Likewise, WP:BLP states: "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article."

So then, should this source be cited for statements of fact, cited as a statement of the author's opinion in-text (odd as it might be to state someone's opinion on what another person's work history is), or not used at all? ← George talk 23:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Spamhaus

I am considering writing a brief article about a man who the Swiss media report to be a major e-mail spammer ([28]) and who is the subject of a Spamhaus ROKSO entry ([29]). Is this database, notably the information apparently written by Spamhaus itself ([30]) considered a reliable source for BLP purposes, i.e., do they have a reputation for fact-checking, or should it be disregarded as a self-published source? Sandstein 06:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Times column RS?

There has been some debate regarding this piece in the Washington Times. Specifically the issue revolves around using the information in the first paragraph A thousand architects and engineers want to know. The petition signatories are listed here along with full names, and license numbers in most cases. Unomi (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard"
Languages