Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9 

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

Contents

Marquis' "Who's Who" as RS?

Resolved.

I have the following questions about the use of Marquis "Who's Who", and in particular, "Who's Who in America" (in case there is reason to distinguish between the different Who's Who publications):

  • Is it a reliable source?
  • Can it be used to establish notability? In general or under special circumstances?
  • Is there a way to verify whether a particular entry about a person is authentic or self-promoted?

These questions arised due to a discussion on a user's Talk page. While the noble goal of this publication is to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry, this article here claims the contrary. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I can get into the Marquis "Who's Who" it's likely not a reliable source.  :) But in all seriousness, I don't know. I recall getting a form to verify certain information about myself (like where I'm working, is my name spelled correctly and so forth). I don't recall anything in particular that I would characterize as "self-promoting" but then again I didn't really pay a whole lot of attention to the whole thing. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly, it’s a good, thought-provoking question. As someone who has consulted the Who’s Who in Economics, Who’s Who in Political Science, and Who’s Who in Asian Studies in the past, I would have thought those three sources would have been reliable for any claims made about the subject for the subject's own article (as they need to be confirmed by the subject before publication). In addition, if the editors made the independent decision (and that’s unclear) that these individuals merited recognition in their respective fields by listing their peer-reviewed publications, credentials, and personal details in the entries, then I would have thought that's a good step towards confirming notability (but you'd still need other independent sources).
However, your question is a little more problematic because it’s linked to notability of a subject in a more general compendium, isn’t it? In this instance, I would ask, “notable for what”? Does a general Who’s Who in America compendium determine the notability of the subject? If so, how? What are the criteria for inclusion in that particular Who’s Who? The linked article highlights some of the absurdities involved. Without any transparency behind that selection process, it’s difficult to determine if it is also a good source to meet the notability guidelines. J Readings (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Who's Who in America is clearly a reliable source by our rules (it is independantly published, it has editorial oversight, etc.) So the question is really whether being listed establishes notability. I have to wonder... can any one single source establish notability? I would say no. To my mind you need more than one. So, while a Who's Who entry could be one of several sources used to establish notability, it would not establish notability on its own. Besides, if someone is prominent enough to be listed in Who's Who, there should be other sources out there that can be used to establish the person's notibility in conjunction with the Who's Who entry. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It apparently has a very low bar to entry, so is not suitable to establish notability. Generally entrants submit their own biogs, so it should essentially be used much like a self-published source, i.e. it's OK for non-contentious basic facts about the subject. Tyrenius (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I do not think any Who's Who should be a valid way to help establish notability. However, despite all of this and other evidence to the contrary (or rather, lack of evidence in support of his position) presented in the latest AfD and the DRV, FeelFreeToBe continues to argue his point on my talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Which evidence? I see mainly opinions. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My own thinking about the matter was this: A single negative article (which is not even a piece of reliable information itself) about Who's Who cannot prove that Who's Who failed its stated mission to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry. It would be like claiming that the 9/11 Commission report failed its mission to provide the results of a straight investigation, based on a single debunking article. If the number of those articles increases, the situation somehow changes, but I think WP editors shouldn't have the authority to decide which side is right, since they have to maintain the neutral point of view. I found Who's Who volumes up to the present in a university library, which indicates to me that Who's Who is still a respected source of good reputation despite the debunking article. However, if there is serious concern, that readers might be misguided by the reference, it might be worth to cite the negative article about Who's Who as well, so that readers can make up their own mind without being too much impressed by the Who's Who citation. It all boils down to the fact that EVERY source can be discredited somehow. Corruption and/or false accusations can be found everywhere. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now what about notability? I know it's difficult, but just imagine a case, in which there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that you're unable to find a significant amount of other(reliable) sources. Maybe this is not a well-chosen example now, but let's imagine that you find a historic Who's Who entry from 1930 about a Jewish political activist, but all the books and newspapers citing him have been burned by the Nazis (except Who's Who of course). The only other information you find about him are his own books, preserved by his family and friends. Would this man be notable enough to get a (short) WP article? I would say yes, but where do you draw the line? Once again, I would say, it's not up to WP editors to decide. If there is some kind of reasonable explanation, why somebody has not been mentioned frequently by easily accessible sources despite his/her notability, lack of notability would be a weak argument, i.e. for deleting an article. Does my logic make any sense? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Free", I don't think you can justify a Who's Who entry as indicating anything more than:
  1. They the the person is notable.
  2. The person in question wants the information published (as the subject has editing approval.) "Editorial oversight" may exist in theory, but do we have any evidence it's practiced?
Accuracy is not established. My entry in Who's Who (which I mentioned in the deletion discussion about my article) is there, and happens to contain exactly what I sent them (edited for form). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your first point. About your second: According to the WP article Marquis Who's Who you also get an entry as a notable person if you decline to submit any information. How can you use your own case to prove lack of accuracy? Is the information in your entry accurate or not? Is there a significant amount of cases in which existing individuals purposely submitted wrong information? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Arthur, you ask if we have any evidence that editorial oversight is actually practiced... the same question can be asked of any publisher. As long as editorial oversight exists "in theory"... I think we have to accept the source as reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should differentiate between the current and historical editions of Who's Who. I'm fairly certain the editions relating to the periods before Marquis was established are reliable. Regarding the "current" editions, I would have to assume that anyone who gets included gets included on the basis of some establishment of notability elsewhere, so I'm inclined to think that it is sufficient to establish notability. It's probably also, generally, reliable. However, if there is a clear difference between it and other independent sources, I'd probably weigh in on the side of the independent sources. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a confusion between notability issues and reliability. Judging by the evidence, the Who's Who is probably worth very little in trying to establish notability, as several editors have pointed out. However, it is reliable source for information for article about an individual judged notable, in part because the subject is asked to correct/update the bio. In this way it is very similar to a bio published by an individual on his own website: useable in a article about him/herself, but for nothing else.
Reply to John Carter. There are different kinds of Who's Who published by different publishers. I think you may be thinking of the UK based versions which are a very different kettle of fish that the Marquis one. --Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. The volumes in question are entitled "Who Was Who", not "Who's Who". John Carter (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PublishAmerica publications

PublishAmerica is basically a disguised vanity press with little to no editorial control. Yet, books published by them have been used as sources or "further reading" entries; sometimes pretty extensively (For example, Voynich manuscript, a Featured Article, uses a book from PublishAmerica as a source for some claims). Since PublishAmerica has no editorial control, shouldn't all PublishAmerica publications be considered, by default, dubious as far as WP:RS is considered, in topics unrelated to PublishAmerica? As I see it, this is definitely the case. And secondly, how do we tackle this mess, anyway?

(The site was again brought to my attention a few days back, apparently someone at PublishAmerica message board wanted to use Wikipedia as a marketing device. That, however, is another matter. I was just surprised to find that PublishAmerica books are actually used as a source in many articles!) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Over usage of internet sources

On the article on the nation of Colombia, there is an "internet references" section.

See: Colombia#Internet

Every citation is on a website and none of the books in the "further reading" section are used as sources.

Is this standard procedure? If so, is there some reason internet sources should actually be preferred over non-internet sources? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The only unusual thing about it is they bothered to section off internet references at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sad to say this is very common. But no, there is no reason to favor internet over print, or print over internet when it comes to sources. We should use what ever sources are the most reliable for our topic... in whatever format they may take. Blueboar (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Traffic (band) - need help

Is this an unreliable source? It appears to be a fansite, yet it has a wealth of information about its subject that could easily be used to improve the article. I don't want to make the same mistakes as I did with Family (band), as I may try to get Traffic (band) to GA status.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Respond either here or on my talk page if you feel you can help... thanks.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks self published to me. I would use verifiable sources first. --neonwhite user page talk 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability question about a Geocite website moved to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Reliability_question_about_a_Geocite_website

This issue is being moved to the Sri Lanka Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation The forum which deals with this issue and other issues related to Sri Lanka in particular the Sri Lankan Civil War. There is 1 edit restriction and how sources are to be taken particurly in the Sri Lankan context is better.The edit war has come down after the project was started.Please put your comments there.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Is an e-mail a reliable source? Discussion. I say nope, but just in case...

Odd that there's apparently no mention on WP:RS, but I saw it as common sense. Unless people are willing to hand out their e-mail addresses and passwords to all editors, there's no real way to verify. It would be a WP:SPS and any expert who writes an e-mail should be expert enough to point to reliable sources rather than opinion. WLU (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In a word... No. Information cited to a personal email would also be Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Iran_Air_Flight_655 - Is Sajed.ir a reliable source?

Someone tried to insert an image from sajed.ir in this article: Iran_Air_Flight_655

See: Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655#Sajed.ir_as_a_reliable_source.3F

Is the photo of a girl from a reliable source? I doubt it, but who knows. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Already asked above. Relata refero (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.throng.com.au/

This source has been used in the Home and Away article. I've tried to work out if it's reliable or not but im not sure. I guess it's a third party source but theres 2 questions im not sure about.. would you deem it to be reliable and because it's a online community is it classed as self published??

The specific article also concerns me . http://www.throng.com.au/home-and-away/mark-furze-ric-dalby-leaving-home-and-away As it contains little information about the subject and no claims on how this information came to light.

What do you think? thanks Printer222 (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not reliable... fan forum websites are not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat

An editor deleted material from Prem Rawat referenced from the Los Angeles Times saying it was "extremely poorly sourced".[1] The Times article in question is a report on an announcement by the subject's organization, and apparently just quotes their information. Are mainstream, award-winning newspapers like the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times reliable source for the purposes of a biography of a living person? I asked user:Jossi, but he hasn't been able to give an answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, that is not cool. I have answered your question quite explicitly. I am saying that an LA Times article can be a reliable source. It is not an absolute, as there is no such a thing. This is consistent with advice I have given in this very pages to other editors. Maybe is about time you refresh your understanding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and WP:V: (my highlight)
Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.
Context is important, as well as editorial judgment for the suitability of the material: the fact that something was published in the LA Times, does not mean that we have to use it. It means that we look at the material and decide if it is usable, how to use it, how to summarize such article, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The LAT is a mainstream newspaper that has received the 2nd highest number of Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper (after the NYT). Specifically, under what circumstances would the LAT or NYT be unacceptable sources for the Prem Rawat article? Let's pin this down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Oh, many circumstances. Is the material encyclopedic? Does the material adds value to the article? Does the way the source is used complies with WP:NPOV#Undue; is the material corroborated in other sources or it contradicts other sources? Again: there is no such a thing as an absolute as it pertains to the reliability of a source regardless if it is the New York Times, a local San Diego newspaper, or schloarly book , when we have to take into account the context in which the source is used, how it is intended to be used, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether the material is encyclopedic is totally unrelated to whether the source is unreliable. I've address that issue below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
From the top of WP:RSN: Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. -- Hopefully we will get some feedback here from neutral, uninvolved editors, other than the editor that posed the initial question, and the editor mentioned by Will Beback (talk · contribs) in that initial comment. Feedback from some neutral third parties in this matter would be greatly appreciated, so if anyone is knowledgeable about WP:RS/WP:V, and the reputability of the Los Angeles Times, your input here would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The LA Times and the New York Times are reliable sources, as the policy says of mainstream news organizations. There might be circumstances in a BLP where, for legal reasons, we would have to remove certain sources, but it would be a rare event for high-quality news sources to be removed, and would only happen if there had been a complaint and OFFICE involvement. There might also be circumstances in which a newspaper article was incomplete compared to a specialist source, in which case editors might agree that they prefer the specialist source. But the news source would still be considered reliable if someone wanted to use it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There are several circumstances under which that isn't true. If its an opinion piece, if its a single piece unconfirmed by or possibly acting in contradiction to scholarly sources.... SV, I've told you this before, over-reliance on papers when academics are working in a sector is not encyclopaedic and doesn't have support in policy as written. Relata refero (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), for providing your input. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, why do yo think we have a statement in WP:V that says: The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context? If we take the discussion to mere absolutes, yes, the NYT is a RS. But we still need to apply editorial judgment about suitability, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're mixing up two issues, Jossi. One is whether or not specific sources are considered reliable and material sourced from there to be verifiable. The other is whether that material is appropriate to include in a BLP, and if so how it should be written. We need to pin down the first issue before we can go to the second. I can certainly imagine circumstances where material pronted in the L.A. Times would not be appropriate- for example if it were printed in gossip column and labelled a rumor, or if it were an issue where the paper's integrity had been called into question by other significant sources. However without some specific reason to discount their reliability I think our presumption should be that they are suitable sources for biographies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we do always need to judge appropriateness, but for the most part, high-quality mainstream newspapers will be appropriate. One example of inappropriateness might be where a newspaper seeks to explain a complex historical situation, and we have a specialist source who explains it better. If there's consensus on that point, we might want to choose the specialist source. But that's really the only circumstance in which a good newspaper might be left out, and then it's not so much being excluded as superseded. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's functionally irrelevant, as jossi only has to stop using the word "reliable" to kill this thread (and I suppose one other editor can stop claiming BLP violations), but the dispute would still be mostly the same. That is, is the information relevant and/or significant to Prem Rawat. You've done away with the BLP issue, but as jossi says (and what retains in this the status of a content dispute), "that something was published in the LA Times, does not mean that we have to use it." Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The question goes beyond the content of any one edit. The LAT has published dozens of articles on the subject or his activities, as has the NYT. Rather than fighting over them every time we want to use them as a source, which is what some editors seem to prefer, I'd rather see if we can establish under what circumstances they are reliable. I think the answer should be: "under all circumstance except ..." with a list of exceptions. The reliability of a source is not directly related to whether or not material sourced to it should be included in an article. It's appropriate to debate that on a case by case basis. But the verifiability/reliability of the LAT and NYT should be assumed in almost all cases. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Will and SlimVirgin, NYTimes and LATimes are, by default, reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the answer should be: "under all circumstance except ..." with a list of exceptions. Except (as the arbitration committee ruled) [2]: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such. Medicine, for example, "is an applied science, and clearly medical articles should rely on sources appropriate for a scientific article".[3] Even the NYT or the LAT quite often get it wrong when it comes to medicine, or at least, fail to get it completely right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Those are good points. However since this is a biography which doesn't concern either medicine or science I don't think that those exceptions will come up. As SlimVirgin suggests, where better sources (such as scholarly sources on scholarly topics) are available they may supercede newspapers. I can see that being the case in theological issues, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Newspapers are prone to error and POV, as are all sources, but also represent a significant view which should be included. In my opinion it's a good source. Anynobody 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The LA Times and The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (Dr. J. Gordon Melton editor) are in conflict. The LA Times says Rawat purchased it, Dr. Melton says "Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". So who do you believe? WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" and that is why the LA Times article is, in this case, the less reliable source. If this material is important enough to go in the article, and I don't believe it is, it should be right, BLP Policy is clear - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. The Los Angles Times is in no uncertain terms a reliable source. Brimba (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
But when the LA Times is contradicted by an Encyclopedia edited by a renowned religious scholar, what do you choose.? As WP:VER "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" .Momento (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not report both? "The Los Angeles Times writes that abc, although according to the Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults, xyz." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at another section on this page, but ended up putting in my 2 cents here. Having said that I fail to see the relevance of "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". How that would apply to this subject matter? The question is strait forward; is the Los Angles Times, per policy, a reliable source? The answer is extremely clear, and that answer is Yes.
Beyond that I happen to notice that you are stating that there is a contradiction, “Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". Who are Premies? Who organized that purchase, who decided that particular house, who handled the transaction, so forth and so on? You may have nothing more than two views of that same event descried in slightly different terms. I do not know enough about the subject to say. What I can tell you is that the LA Times is a reliable source. Other issues are to be sorted out somewhere else, not here. Brimba (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What brought me to this page was in essence this question here: Having said that I fail to see the relevance of "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". How that would apply to this subject matter? Insisting upon academic sources for non-academic subjects. That a particular academic source touches upon the subject, does not invalidate the greater body of non-academic sources that cover the same subject. Brimba (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Religious scholars, such as Melton are not specialized in property transfers but in describing beliefs and practices of a religious group, so in this case I think the Los Angeles Times is more reliable. Andries (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Both sources are without fail reliable sources, the cult book as well as the LA Times. List that one says this, one says that, to indicate the disconnect, and readers can click on the links in the refs to make their own decision unless further sourcing comes up. As said above, the LA Times is functionally going to be almost always a reliable source, and pinning it on context isn't valid, nor to question if the content is encyclopediac. It's about Rawat, it's in a de facto reliable source, and the information is not something which would or could be considered as contentious under any established neutral consensus here. I'd go so far as to say anyone challenging a fine source like the LA or NY Times should at all times have the burden on them to demonstrate why it should not be used, and to gain acceptance for that view. Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that that was precisely what Jossi was doing here, though, trying to demonstrate why it should not be used. In any case, I think that statement's far too strong. Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not try to demonstrate that it should not be used, Relata. All I said is that there is no absolute when assessing the reliability of a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected, though all I wished to do was point out that even if you did, you had gone about it in the way that Lawrence recommends. Relata refero (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For a different take on this, German Wikipedia (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Q) has for some time now explicitly favoured academic sources over journalistic sources; the use of the latter is, according to current policy, only permissible where no scholarly sources are available. In addition, the journalistic source in question must be held to have been solidly researched. The idea has merit, since an encyclopedia should be compiled according to scientific criteria. We are not trying to produce a press review. In the field of New Religious Movements especially, a number of academics have seen it necessary to point out that many newspaper accounts, even those in quality newspapers, have been factually incorrect, polemical, or biased. Jayen466 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the German Wikipedia's approach, for this reason -- academia and journalism are completely different fields, doing different things with different methods. Newspapers and magazines focus on reporting of facts and first-person accounts, as well as real-time analysis (ie what's going on right now.) Scholars focus on historical overview, complicated cause and effect relationships, deeper connections and themes between events and people, and the particular intellectual tools of their field (psychology, economics, etc.) It's a false dichotomy to say we must choose between them, or that one is superior. Scholarly articles often cite journalistic sources for most of the basic facts they build on. Msalt (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The focus of academic and journalistic works is indeed different. However, where scholarly reports and newspaper accounts contradict each other, I believe it is good practice to give precedence to the scholarly account. Where scholars quote press sources, these can of course be quoted as well. For topics not (yet) covered by scholars (popular music etc. being a prime example), journalistic accounts tend to be the only ones available. There is a natural time delay in the publication of academic treatments. They take longer to research than a newspaper article. But once they are available, they bring the benefit of this greater research effort and become preferred sources. A scholar's evaluation of journalistic sources is of greater value than a Wikipedian's interpretation of the same sources; it's just another aspect of the WP:OR principle. Jayen466 12:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As jossi has noted, this depends on context. Scholarly articles often make statements that are not the focus of the study, and in the Prem Rawat article, these are often used as "trump cards" inappropriately. In other words, say sociologist X writes an article testing the hypothesis that members of the radical left in the 1960s came from upper middle class backgrounds. In the introduction to the article, she may recite some facts about the demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Her findings about the class background of demonstrators would obviously be more reliable than a newspaper account the week of the convention. But the newspaper may well be a better source about the facts and eyewitness accounts of those demonstrations. Or perhaps she looks at different accounts and adds perspective. My point is, you can't assume her account is better than the newspaper's if there is a difference. You would have to read both and make a judgment. If there is a dispute, Wikipedia should usually give both sides of it. Msalt (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the subject is neither science, nor medicine, nor history, WP:V makes clear not only that major national newspapers are reliable sources, but that that there is no policy basis for claiming that academic publications are any more reliable. This matter simply doesn't involve a scientific theory and Arbcom rulings about sources for scientific theories have no relevance. The community explicitly rejected a proposed WP:SPOV guideline which would have preferred scientific points of view over others, WP:NPOV has been interpreted to prohibit such a prefetence. An editor is not entitled to remove content which is reliably sourced per policy based on an editor's own personal opinion - there has to be a policy basis. Also, suggest going to WP:PUMP to float a proposal if one wishes to revise WP:V and WP:RS to make them more like the German Wikipedia if this is desired (and good luck getting it accepted!). We have to deal with policy as it is here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"...there is no policy basis for claiming that academic publications are any more reliable." WP:V specifically says "in areas where they are available..". By definition, when we have a choice to make, that is an area where they are available. Hence your claim fails. Relata refero (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe you are correct. When WP:V says "areas", it means academic fields, areas of expertise. Academic sources can disagree with reliable journalism on many points outside of their fields, and where the academics makes statements that are not the product of their discipline, they are not in their "areas". For example, in the example at hand, the dispute is over a real estate transaction. The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America has no expertise in real estate. Furthermore, it is not really an academic source in the sense discussed here -- it is a tertiary source summarizing lots of sources quickly, and hence does not have the direct authority that a secondary study of the subject would. Ironically, it's a bit more like journalism that way. Msalt (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
How is that a contradiction to what I've said? Relata refero (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You said "By definition, when we have a choice to make, that is an area where they are available." In other words, you seem to be saying that any time a scholarly source and a journalistic source address the same point, the former "wins." I'm saying that scholarly articles often make points not "in their areas" of expertise, such as mentioning certain facts or disputes in passing, or in footnotes, or just ranging afield. Where they range beyond the author's special field of expertise, I'm saying that they are outside their area and have no special claim of being a superior source.
In the example at hand, we are discussing whether the Los Angeles Times' description of a public real estate transaction should be trumped by the description of that same transaction in a scholarly article (actually, an encyclopedia entry). But the real estate transaction has nothing to do with the journal's field of expertise, while the LA Times has a real estate section and dedicated real estate reporters, and is relying on the public record in its reporting. This is an excellent example of a case where a scholarly article and a newspaper article may disagree, and in my opinion the policy does NOT call for automatic deference to the scholarly article. As Jossi said, it depends on the context. Msalt (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. Was the LA Times report written in its real estate section? If not, why would it be more reliable than an ecyclopaedia entry? You're setting up a false choice here. If an anthropologist happened to mention in a footnote some aspect of, say, stock market theory that was contradicted by the Wall Street Journal, nobody here would claim that the anthropologist was a reliable source, academic at all. But this situation is nowhere near that: when both sources are reliable, we have a choice, and policy indicates which way we should usually go. Relata refero (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This situation is very like the one you describe, except that encyclopedias as tertiary sources have less favor in policy. To show the absurdity of this debate, the LA Times article is actually quoting Prem Rawat's own spokesman for most of its points! Yet 3 editors who happen to be current devotees of Prem Rawat are arguing that a two page LA Times article entirely on the subject of this purchase can't be used because a passing mention in an encyclopedia -- I'm not sure it's even a full sentence -- is phrased differently. Tens of thousands of words have been spilled, so I may be fuzzy here, but I believe that they will not even accept that the LA Times could be mentioned also as a conflicting view. Msalt (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC
I certainly think that in this case - and I frankly can't see why it should make a difference regardless of POV whether it was bought for him or by him - both sources should be used. That doesn't come from the fact that the LA Times necessarily should be quoted even when a (signed) encyclopaedia article contradicts it; but from the fact that if two reliable sources disagree, and there are only two accessible, we should err on the side of caution. But that's not about reliability per se, except that both sources meet the basic level. Relata refero (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say, including the silliness of the underlying argument. I'm afraid there are lots of hyper-picky arguments on Prem Rawat Talk, which has the effect of driving off uninvolved editors (whether that is deliberate or not.)

I do think that, on a policy level which is interesting, that a good newspaper article -- especially one like this that is focused on the subject -- will in many cases have more detail and sometimes accuracy than a passing mention in an encyclopedia (especially), which necessarily has to drastically summarize. Again, context and the specifics are very important. I see some people (not you) trying to argue that a scholarly article or even an encyclopedia automatically trumps journalism, and that's the part I am uncomfortable with. Msalt (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata refero and Jayen. When there are peer reviewed scholarly sources they are preferable to newspapers as per WP:VER "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available", particularly in a BLP where high quality sources are necessary. Since there are many academic articles on Rawat, they should be our preferred sources. The fact that academic sources do not report on Rawat's real estate is not a lack of scholarship but rather an experienced understanding that "real estate" is irrelevant to his notability.Momento (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"Peer-reviewed scholarly sources" are best for facts in their fields of expertise, and when we have more than one source for a fact we should use the best available. But the existence of that source doens't mean that other reliable sources cease to be usable for other facts. For example, if we had one scholarly artcle on the influence of Mick Jagger on American music, it wouldn't mean that all other lesser sources couldn't be used for other aspects of his life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; that is, in fact, not too far removed from the above-cited principle that journalistic sources should only be used where no scholarly sources are available. Jayen466 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Help settling a dispute

There's a dispute going on at the Flyleaf on the bands genre. These links that I have list them as Christian rock:

  • "Flyleaf are a tattooed, loud, deceptively Christian rock band"[4]
  • "Like jumbo shrimp or civil war, "Christian rock band" can seem like an oxymoron. After all, rock and roll has always been the devil's music, and Jesus surely wouldn't approve of the sex-and-drugs lifestyle. So why is the Christian band Flyleaf playing on this year's Family Values Tour with Korn, Deftones, Stone Sour and Bury Your Dead? Did some booking agent make a terrible mistake?"[5]
  • "Christian Rock"[6]

But some editors refuse to acknowledge them saying they are all not valid. Please help settle this!Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I would consider the VH1 and Newsday articles to be reliable sources, but they are ambiguous in a way. A rock band could consist of Christians, and thus be called a "Christian rock band", without playing the genre of music known as Christian rock. One obvious example is U2. I'm not certain that the VH1 and Newsday articles are specifically saying that Flyleaf plays Christian rock as opposed to being a rock band who are Christian. The Wal-Mart citation does identify the band's genre as "Christian rock" but that is in a catalog rather than a proper article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

References for Sengoku-jidaigeki

I'd like to utilise the following links, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], as sources for the various sections in Jidaigeki. Do any or all pass Wikipedia:Reliability? And I found this site. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The LiveJournal link isn't going to qualify as reliable because it's basically a blog. And the Pasthound link isn't going to qualify because it's just a search engine result. The others may qualify; I looked at them but I couldn't be sure. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources and do they conflict with NPOV?

This article describes an organisation in language which I don't consider conforms to NPOV. Edits by another user, perhaps misconceived but which at least aim to introduce neutral language, are regularly reverted as "vandalism" by an editor who defends the description of the organisation as a "racist hate group". He asserts that he is accurately reproducing what the sources [12][13][14] say, and that WP considers the source websites as reliable (although I can find no mention of them in any WP policy or guideline document). Yet the sites belong to interest groups with agendas which do not predispose them to neutral descriptions of the organisation. They produce unsourced and sometimes vague claims out of thin air without references to back them up, and I have reliable academic sources which contradict the websites on some specific points.

I don't consider that an encyclopaedic article can be written in this way or style. But even if I write up my own sources in neutral language, this will not address the bias already in the article, deriving from claims on the websites which are difficult to confirm or deny. The other editor obviously doesn't intend to address them, either. Is he correct that Wikipedia considers the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Centre to be reliable? And if so, is this a proper way to use them? Or, as I think, do non-neutral descriptions in even "reliable" sources have to be reported in neutral language? Gnostrat (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League's views should probably be used with caution and attributed as an opinion of that org. I would consider Southern Poverty Law Center more reliable as it has a legal background. I dont see a problem with the articles POV but more with the lack of claims to notability. --neonwhite user page talk 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The ADL and SPLC are the premier organisations in this area. However, wherever possible, such opinions should be attributed. I note, however, that other references, including scholarly ones, describe it as "Odinist", "esoteric neo-nazi", "white anti-semitic and racist", etc. It might be more appropriate to put the scholarly description of such groups, especially "esoteric, paganist neo-nazi" more prominently than that of various advocacy organisations. Relata refero (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks : ) I'll take all that into consideration. Gnostrat (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How old is too old?

Regarding the middle power article, is a single source citing info from the mid to late 90s a good enough to include a country on the list of "middle powers"? I opted to delete Russia from the list, since Russia has gone through some massive changes over the past 20 years, hitting an absolute low point at around the time this article was published. The info on that source citing Russia as a middle power is dated as 1997. It doesn't at all reflect current day reality, and I could find no recent articles that consider Russia a middle power today. Here's the source [15]99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just looked over the source and found that it doesn't even directly support the notion of Russia being a middle power, and actually contradicts it. I explained myself on the talk page of the article if anyone is curious. So do I have a case for deleting Russia from the list? What do you people think? My attempt to remove it has been reverted twice.99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, this source does not at any point explicitly label Russia as a middle power. It's a very interesting article and could be a good source for expanding the article. It also has a very brief summary of the emergence of the concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Currently, on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article (possibly to be renamed "Controversies over the September 11, 2001 attacks" or something) there is a discussion over Thomas Eager's statements made in The Utah News (and a couple other papers in the USA). In the article, he explains the methodology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "the 'reverse scientific method'" and a number of other statements which are cited in the article.

However, a number of editors have moved to exclude this material on the basis that:

  1. Empirical studies made by Eager have been claimed by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to contain errors.
  2. He has been accused of participating in a cover-up by Jim Hoffman (a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement).
  3. The empirical claims he made about the collapse are "clearly" wrong, and it is common sense to exclude his opinion as an expert on that basis.
  4. He is speaking outside his field of expertise, and is not a credible source.

None of these statements have been sourced to anything beyond primary sources, so far. With that said, is it acceptable to use Eager's statements in the article? --Haemo (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribute statements directly to Eager wherever they aren't echoed by independent reliable sources, and attribute any relevant responses to his criticisms. When would we (the non-POV pushers) ever remove criticism from an article because the target says it's wrong? And if Eagar has been covered by several newspapers, then maybe he's notable, and the solution to this would be more obvious if there were an article on him. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Knol as a RS?

Interestingly, the CSM reported today[16] that Salon blogger Farhad Manjoo believes[17] that the Google Knol project will serve as source material for Wikipedia. This raises the question: Does (will) Knol meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we have Wikipedia:Verifiability so we don't need to rely on what bloggers say. Knol is no different from any other self-published blog, or website that lacks editorial oversight: it is not presumed to be a reliable source except for non-controversial information about the writer. - Jehochman Talk 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're probably wrong, or at least on the wrong side of consensus. There's a discussion on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The mailing list is informative but does not govern policy. The mailing list includes malcontents, banned users and others whose opinion would not be persuasive on Wikipedia, and the sometimes toxic atmosphere there has led to very low participation. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Guy, just because you don't participate doesn't mean its worthless, OK? A lot of major policy is still first heard there. In this case, I'm quoting the participants in a thread started by DGerard, and there wasn't a banned user in sight. If you don't pay attention half the time, don't blame the rest of us. Relata refero (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, the Mailing list gets to challenge WP:SPS without on-wiki discussion and consensus? And we listen to that challenge and not WP:SPS? --Thinboy00 @009, i.e. 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Knol probably will be a reliable source for Wikipedia, because it names its article's authors by real name and lists their credentials, plus their sources, both primary and secondary. It doesn't get much better than that. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
How would that be any different from our posting our names here? We share our sources too. It's editorial oversight and peer-review that makes the difference. --Adoniscik (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna say that Knol will probably be a good source for sources. Users can go there, find cites, get the material from the cited source, and add it to our content. But as far as sourcing to Knol itself, I'd say that a dangerous stance, cause then NNDB, which touts itself as being reliable I believe would also be a source. MBisanz talk 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mbisanz. Secondly, check out this example. It has been written by the Director of Insomnia and Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine. To me that is a very reliable source. Again it would depend on the author.Bless sins (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability question - a band

I am not saing any specific names yet, because I suppose it could influence the response, so just keep on this NEUTRAL facts here please: There is an 8 track, 51:05 minutes long record by a band. It was their first record, only 1000 copies were made and so it is rare now. I made a research in the internet and I found out that the large majority of sources and the RELIABLE SOURCES (professional websites) cite it as their first, debut ALBUM and include it in the discography of the band. But the BAND MEMBERS ignore or disown this record in some ways or call it a DEMO and generally do not see it as their first album on their homepage, and in their interviews and so it is also on their today's label's homepage. Also the third album after the first release (the disputed one) has number 3 in its name what indicates that the band does not see it as their first album. Are the reliable proffesional cources OR the band members' stetements and attitude the reliable and verifiable sources for Wikipedia? Which Wikipedia's rules could be cited as a reason?--Lykantrop (Talk) 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would use the professional sources and ignore the opinion of the band, you can disown an album but you can't change history, it was still released, therefore it was the first album. As a precedent Ocean Colour Scene also disown their first album and usually refer to their second album as their first but it still appears on the article. A good way to deal with this is to simply explain the controversy in the artist and album articles. --neonwhite user page talk 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
But there are several users who defend the band's statements. I REALLY need some rules that make it clear....--Lykantrop (Talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a reliable second party source it should be given more weight than a self published primary source. If the artists opinions are self published then the rule would be that self published material should not be used in an article about itself if is contentious. If they are published by a second party source then it is likely they are presented as an opinion only which can't really be used as a verifiable fact. Maybe you could provide the sources here. --neonwhite user page talk 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The band's statements (assuming they made them in reliable sources) are reliable for the opinion of the band. The industry statements are reliable for the opinion of the industry. Both opinions should be discussed in a neutral tone, per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for information. I solved the problem with a very nice compromise. The problem was with in public pretty infamous band Slipknot. Their first album Mate.Feed:Kill.Repeat. is listed in the discography now with a note of band's attitude: Slipknot discography. If somebody vandalized it, see for last version by me. I think it is ok now.--Lykantrop (Talk) 10:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

National Terriers Club LLC?

We've got a discussion going on at Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier. There's an entire section that cites only this page for its sourcing. Aside from this section (here) having a very unencyclopedic tone, I'm questioning the reliability of the source. The page is rather inflammatory and comes off as a fringe essay - it blames "The Corporate Media's agenda" and how "For the media it is soley about profit." The group that runs the page, the National Terriers Club LLC, seems dubious. It only yields 26 google hits (113 without the LLC) and no news articles for either. What do you guys think? Should this article be using this source? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Well the only part of the page that is cited is this part from the very bottom of that page.
"Fighting dogs were bred for their gameness and/or ability to win. Most fighting dogs would take a hold of their opponent and rely on their gameness and/or their conditioning/stamina to win. A very small percentage of American Pit Bull Terrier's possessed the ability to kill another fighting dog, and it was very rare for a dog to be killed while fighting. American Pit Bull Terrier's would fight other dogs within inches of people (their handlers) and they would even be picked up by their handlers during the heat of battle. If any of these dogs showed any aggression towards either handler, the dog would automatically be declared the loser and the fight would be ended immediately. This led to a very stable breed of dogs that simply and rarely would even consider biting a person for any reason at all. The American Pit Bull Terrier is not the type of dog that just "snaps", they are thoughtful decendants of fighting dogs whom under any situation have the calm, cool, and thoughtfulness of a dog sitting on a couch."


They even cited the sources on their page of where they gathered the information from. If you look they cited the SDJ "Sporting Dog Journal" , AGDT "American Game Dog Times", and Your Friend & Mine magazines. These magazines were well known for reporting dog fights, having cover to cover accounts of dog fights, articals about dogfighting, and interviews with dogfighters in each issue. Link to those magazines
Those who are historians or are doing research on dog fighting, or the history of the American Pit Bull Terrier often purchase those magazines for information, data, statistics, etc.
They also paraphrased Don Mayfield.
Being that the only information posted on Wikipedia is what I have written above, and that information seems to have been thoughtfully gathered, studied, and then put on the National Terriers Club LLC website, I dont see what the problem would be. Working terriers (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Go take a look again: the article is referenced at the end of the first five paragraphs in the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That is clearly a mistake, and the references to the National Terriers Club LLC website concerning information thats not even on the National Terrers Club website should be removed. However, this is not about a reference mistake, you have called into question the reliability of the specific infomation mentioned above cited directly from the National Terriers Club LLC website. Right?
If this is about a citation mistake made on a Wikipedia artical, then that issue doesn't belong on this page. Working terriers (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit - "I also contacted the owner of the NTC and he said he will make some changes to the NTC's APBT page" - I believe the page is even more invalid as a reliable source, not to mention a COI. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Management and Ownership of registries talk to many people. Infact, anyone can call or e-mail just about any registry and ask to speak to the owner/s of them. Its called customer service. Working terriers (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Livejournal

When is livejournal acceptable as a source of material? In the case of Russian presidential election, 2008, someone posted two pictures of "alleged fraud" [18][19] which are sourced to a livejournal in Russian. I found this to be highly suspicious, considering there were no official reports in the media or by any of the election monitoring groups about election fraud. This sort of thing would have been widely reported after all the pre-election speculation by western media. I removed the pictures on the grounds that they're not reliably sourced and don't actually add anything useful to the article (and in fact contradict all of the sourced, reliable information in the election fairness section), but I have a feeling this is an edit war waiting to happen. Sbw01f (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a case where a personal site like Livejournal would be a reliable source--except perhaps as a primary source in the rare case that a Livejournal entry itself were the subject of an article about a notable event (for example, Anna Svidersky's Myspace page is linked in the Anna Svidersky article because the page itself figures prominently in the story of her murder). But that's hardly the case here. I'll add the article to my watchlist in case anyone is looking to start an edit war.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have expanded upon my point on the article's talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

blogcritic.org

seems self-evident to me that blogcritic.org constitutes an agglomeration of blogs, thus, as blogs, they fail as reliable sources. an editor is referencing a blog on blogcritic as a RS, claiming that blogcritic is 'an online magazine' (which is how they bill themselves, conveniently). i don't see any evidence that blogcritic has any reputation for fact checking and reliability. am i right or wrong that this is not a reliable source? from the blogcritic 'about' page: "Bloggers publish their stories at Blogcritics.org because of the immense value and benefits that are offered." Anastrophe (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

According to their own website, they'll let just about anyone with a blog write for them, so of course they can't be considered reliable. See also our article about Blogcritics; apparently, they've won several awards and have become a popular site, but are ultimately a collection of obscure, self-published web authors.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
as i expected. thanks for the confirmation. Anastrophe (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft open letter used as reference

Resolved.

.

A edit war on the OOXML Standardization page has been going on over the use of a open letter on a Microsoft website. The letter describes Microsofts opinions about IBM's actions. IMHO the page is a self published source that has claims about a 3rd party. As such I do not believe the page is usable as a reference to prove "IBM's "global campaign" in opposition to the Office Open XML standardization process". Here is a link to a previous version since the section gets deleted and added quite a bit. Here is a link to the Microsoft page that is used as a reference. Kilz (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about this particular reference started here and (after a page split) is now here. My position is
Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Balance is not an issue here, but if the source is a reliable source according the WP:VER and WP:SPS. Neither is where the discussion started. It has always been my opinion that self published source discussing a 3rd party is unusable. IMHO the arguments that a bad reference should be used to support a section based on it are faulty. The section should be removed if a creditable source isnt found.Kilz (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, and just to clarify. Am I correct in saying that Microsofts pages can be used as secondary sources to show what their opinions and actions are as secondary sources. But that primary sources should come from what has been said in independent media. Kilz (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. The microsoft pages would be a primary source for what microsoft says. The independent media would be a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
But the reply by Itsmejudith says that the article relies on statements by software houses, of which Microsoft is one. That the article should rely on independent media. To me that says the articles main statements need to be backed up by independent media. If not anyone could start a company, make statements, regardless if they are true or not and we would then take them as reliable and truth.
Also by what you are both saying, Microsoft cant be used as a reference to describe the actions or thoughts of anyone else. Only its own actions and thoughts. Those thoughts should probably be clearly labeled as opinions and not be made to look like facts. What about unfounded accusations about a third party? Should we allow libel as a reliable reference? Kilz (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The confusion probably comes from the definitions of the terms "primary source" and "secondary source". See WP:V for some pointers. The original distinction was made by historians. If a historian goes to an archive and finds very old documents, then those are "primary sources". If the historian instead uses books written by other historians, those are "secondary sources". Wikipedia is mainly written from secondary sources. So when we say that Microsoft's statements are a primary source, that does not mean that they are the best source for writing a Wikipedia article, in fact it means the opposite. A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. It helped clear up some misconceptions of terms I had, but reinforced what I believed was the correct use of the references. Kilz (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

www.Biography.com

Is this a reliable source? Thank you.

Wanderer57 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... It is the website of The Biography Channel, which belongs to the A&E Television Networks, [20]. Depending on the context, it may be a useful source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Jossi. Since it is a "maybe", will you please look at the specific case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_Hilton&diff=prev&oldid=197148665
(As background information, I should mention I think there are also other issues involved here aside from the reliability of the source. I reverted the edit shown in the above diff. There is discussion at Talk:Paris Hilton#Re reverted edit in lead.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless the $300m fortune is disputed, I do not see why it would not be usable. I am sure that there must be other sources about the Hilton's fortune. Best would be to discuss in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

USA Today

I'm curious whether people think this USA Today article is a reliable source regarding a controversial article in a medical journal. (This issue arose at the Wikipedia article titled "fetus.")Ferrylodge (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem with this article? Can you provide more details? From the looks of it, the journalist is just reporting on the controversy in a mainstream newspaper. Do other newspapers contradict any of the facts or quotes presented in the USA Today article? J Readings (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to mention the USA Today article in a footnote. The accuracy of the news article is undisputed, as far as I know. Here's the diff.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought that if you attributed the "bias" to specific anti-abortion activists mentioned in the article (i.e., name them), while maintaining NPOV in the wording, then the USA Today article would serve as a reliable source. After all, it's a nationwide mainstream US newspaper. Everything is about context. J Readings (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for visiting the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The stuff I put in the footnote simply said, "The authors of the study published in JAMA have been accused of bias." I guess you're saying that it would be better to specifically say who is accusing. How about if I say the following? "The journal's editor said she wishes two of the authors had disclosed their affiliations, but the editor says it would not have influenced her decision to publish the report." Would that be better?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead