Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 168

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170→Archive 175

About.com poll in comfort food article

Is this About.com page on comfort food reliable for the list of American and Canadian comfort foods in this section of the comfort food Wikipedia article? The author of that About.com page is indicated to be a "food service industry professional" (which could mean that she could be anything from a head chef at a four-star restaurant to a burger flipper at McDonald's), but the list of comfort foods is indicated to be derived from a poll that isn't specified or linked to. Nightscream (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No. I like some About.com stuff but this poll is inevitably far too limited for us to use. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Tend to disagree. Most of About.com content is not reliable, or just a random reposting of bot-generated material. This is content written and edited by their professional staff, and Peggy Trowbridge Filippone probably DOES meet, as lifestyle and cooking editor, the WP:N. Would probably be more comfortable, since she is interpreting reader feedback to determine what is a comfort food, if it were treated not as a statement of fact, but as WP:RS of OPINION, aka, sourced as opinion.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand that she simply looked at the replies she got on the forum (281 replies but not all of them about the writer's favorite food and not 281 different people), and added them up to get a result. So not opinion, but a tiny poll on a website that doesn't have a huge audience used to list 25 comfort foods. The numbers involved to get that 25 are really quite tiny. I really don't think we can use that. Even if it were her opinion I'd question whether it would be significant enough for the article. And of course it's 10 years old - food fashions change. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
a reputation for understanding food is not a reputation for understanding and conducting a valid poll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely understand your points on whether this is a "scientific" poll, and would be valid generally in other contexts, perhaps would be best not to refer to the article AS a poll, BUT.... also have to consider "what would an actual scientific poll look like" in this context, and whether the non-normalization or insufficient statistical sampling really matters - it is really a general survey or something that is a matter of taste or personal opinion. Were this presented as a man-on-the-street interview through which people across the country were asked, and a skilled WP:RS columnist fashioned an article on "comfort food", that would be acceptable. Again, you have to consider context.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Are these sources sufficient for making the claim suggested by this edit?

Does a reliable source reporting a story make them part of the story to the point we should specifically note their involvement? The Brendan Eich article, currently has the following text (emphasis added in bold):

In March 2012 it was publicized that in 2008 Eich had donated $1,000 to the campaign for California Proposition 8 with his employer identified as Mozilla Corporation.[11] This revelation was controversial in the tech sphere,[12] the gay press [13][14] and in social media, particularly Twitter.[15]

The 1st sentence is the subject (Eich made a political donation) and the 2nd sentence states that "This revelation was controversial" in the "tech sphere", the "gay press" and "social media". No one here is denying that A) the donation was made and B) that the donation was the subject of some controversy. However out of all the inline sources proffered none of them appear to make the claim that in particular, this controversy was of specific concern to the "tech sphere" or the "gay press". This source which is indeed from a "tech sphere" based (probably) reliable source makes due note that the donation caused a "shitstorm" on Twitter, but does not make, or even approach to make the claim that the this controversy was of any particular interest amongst the tech sphere. Similarly this and this source, both from the "gay press" report the donation, but these two sources don't even note any controversy whatsoever, much less note there was any ire from members of the "gay press".

Since none of the offered sources make note that this donation is the causing a controversy with members of the tech sphere abuzz or the gay media, I modified this text to simply read This revelation was controversial in social media, and in particular Twitter with an inline reference that directly supports this. Apparently another editor has a problem with this. My feeling is that just because a tech-oriented site and a gay-focused site report on the donation does not make them part of the story. Now if we were to have a RS reporting that the Gay Press Club (im just making this up btw) protested the donation, that would be a different story. But at the moment we don't have that. Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A nicely badly written series of claims which should better read:

In March 2012, his 2008 donation to the campaign for California Proposition 8 generated substantial controversy, especially in the gay press and in online social media. The donation records identified him as am employee of the Mozilla Corporation

rather than the current:

In March 2012 it was publicized that in 2008 Eich had donated $1,000 to the campaign for California Proposition 8 with his employer identified as Mozilla Corporation.[11] This revelation was controversial in the tech sphere,[12] the gay press [13][14] and in social media, particularly Twitter.[15]

As the amount is not of any significance in the discussions, and the word "revelation" implies that it was in some way a "secret" before. There is no actual definition of "tech sphere" and the mention of "Twitter" is not actually important here. So let's try the simple wording - I think no one contests the coverage in the "gay press" or would feel it needs a separate cite. Collect (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this however, superfluous? One would expect coverage of this issues for inclusion in the first place. Tiny Tim is really tall[123]. This was reported by TimMagazine.com. Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't quite understand your specific concern about reliable sources here. Although Collect's text seems reasonable to me, I can't tell whether it addresses your concern. It's worth noting that much of the pressure which led Eich to resign was internal, from within Mozilla, although reliable sources also cite opposition voiced on Twitter as well as a protest by OKCupid as factors ([1], [2]). MastCell Talk 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved, however my main problems were the sources were mischaracterized, and then editorial opinion was inserted into the article by establishing the origin of the sources (tech sphere and gay press) were somehow significant. They might be significant, but we would need another source to actually state this, no?

Unreliable self published sources used as reference in a succession dispute

The users MD.ET, MUFADALQN are using following sources for the article Mufaddal Saifuddin

  1. http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm
  1. http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/

The http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm is an exact duplication of the self published blog http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/ both of which are rather propoganda sources which work towards forwarding personal opinions on a heavily disputed and succession issue of Burhanuddin [3][4] Summichum (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Respected admins User:CallaneccSam Sailor Anup Mehra User:Ftutocdg, the current version of the above wiki article is based on citations from badremunir which is one of the claimants own publication and the other fatemidawat.com is another claimants own publication, you can imagine the dubious nature of above source as they have duplicated the above blog on their domain to get accepted on wikipedia hence I request all statements citing the highly biased references of badremuneer be removed and remove all the claims which dont have the citations to support the claim. Also note that this is a very serious controversy and media is closely following this case as billions of dollars worth property is at stake and both the claimants are using all means possible to get control over it. hence Wiki as a champion of neutrality should not allow biased claims from sources published by both the claimants. Persisting the article with stale claims shows poor quality of the article and I request the admins to do a cleanup operation and remove superfluous,dubious claims ref: WP:RS self published source Summichum (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Badre Muneer is independent publication of Dawoodi Bohra and not "another self published source of one of the claimants". This magazine has vide circulation all over the countries where Dawoodi Bohra lives and act as mouthpiece for Dawoodi Bohra;

Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community

BADRE MUNEER Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252

Follow them from wherever you are:

On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages [5] --Md iet (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

    • BADREMUNEER is a sloppy work and not even journalistic and is self published souvenir by Mufaddal Saifuddin group. I acquired some copies of it and it is sloppy piece of work full of advertisements everywhere like an ad souvenir. You can see their desperation that they have duplicated another sloppy blog into their own website domain as explained above to promote a person as a dai. Hence this is why the admins have disqualified its use as a reference Summichum (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation of Wikiversity articles as sources in articles.

See here: [6]. It appears that having instituted some sort of 'peer review' process, it is now being claimed that Wikiversity meets WP:RS and/or WP:MEDRS. Frankly, I see no reason to see this as remotely compatible with WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

For an indication of the validity of the 'peer review' see this example being cited: [7]. A high-school project taking the average weight of 19 teaspoons. As to the remainder of citations, since the articles are medically-related (with the corresponding need for higher standards), I have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note that all the articles so far linked from Wikiversity seem to have been written by the same person - User:Mikael Häggström. I shall inform him of this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

At best only "marginally reliable" clearly - I would demur on actually using any of them as a real cite. Collect (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd be surprised to see any content on Wikiversity that was near RS. Certainly the vast majority of it is garbage and there is no way that we can have any sort of blanket approval of the site as being reliable overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This is probably an aside, but the sources we describe as "reliable" are notionally reliable, and they often include garbage as well. The quality of Wikiversity content will depend, like the quality of everything else, on who wrote it. I do not however mean to suggest that any of it should be cited here. James500 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
'Who wrote it', in an open Wiki like Wikiversity, amounts to 'more or less anyone' - which is one reason we don't cite open Wikis as sources. As for the supposed 'peer review' process, see [8] - it clearly doesn't comply with what we would expect from a reputable peer-reviewed journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not dispute that. James500 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a useful list, we need to make it empty. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Lol. Immunosurgery cites [9] - in other words, an editor creates an article here, then creates one at Wikiversity years later and uses it as a source. All of the Wikiversity articles were created by Mikael Häggström (talk · contribs) and the two articles of ours I've checked were either created or heavily edited by him. Ah, Andy knows that, I've just seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Citation of Wikiversity articles as sources in medical articles. Also see [10]. Not good. COI? Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yup. And the 'Wikiversity:Peer review' article [11] which claims that "A major reason of having a work peer reviewed in Wikiversity is the possibility to summarize it in Wikipedia..." was written by Häggström too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) While I can applaud Mikael Häggström's enthusiasm, sympathize with his intentions, and appreciate the value of many of his efforts...Wikiversity just isn't the right venue for publishing the information in a way that Wikipedia can or should rely upon. As an editor, it is frustrating to have to acknowledge that the content in question here (dubious judgement about teaspoons aside) is likely correct, but has been 'published' in such a way that we cannot use it.
Given the way Wikiversity functions, there's no significant practical difference between 'publishing' in one's own 'journal' on Wikiversity and posting the same material on a personal website or blog. I get very twitchy about the tail wagging the dog when v:Wikiversity:Peer review#Usage as a reference in Wikipedia talks so explicitly about using Wikiversity publication as a way to gain access to Wikipedia's large audience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I see this discussion has basically asserted the Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Wikiversity#Using a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia, saying "Wikiversity content is generally not identified as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Therefore, usage of Wikiversity as a reference in Wikipedia is generally not advisable.". Yes, Wikiversity inclusion does not automatically mean it is a reliable source for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yet, I still think such inclusion is possible, as can be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
For self-published websites, we can look at the reputation of the author. For wikis, any other editor can change the pages to a biased version. There are simply no guarantees of quality. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a page history and it is possible to link to a particular revision. I am fairly certain that the ability of persons other than the original author to (harmfully) edit a page on a wiki is not the issue here. James500 (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Generally agree. The problem I see here is that the publisher, the editorial board, the principal (and often sole) author of every single paper, the person who solicits and considers the referees' comments, and even the fellow who registered the domain (wikiversityjournal.org) is all one man.
Also worth a glance is v:Wikiversity:Publishing in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. Lest we be unclear on the point, the stated purpose of this project is to create material to be cited in Wikipedia—which is a rather unusual scope for a journal. In practice, what we have is one person deciding which sources (primary, secondary, and tertiary) should be used, summarizing and synthesizing them along with some admixture of his own personal knowledge and opinions, and packaging it all together in such a way that Wikipedia might cite the resulting composite article and be insulated from considering the quality or reliability of the underlying sources. Unfortunately, the project's process – ultimately, the endorsement of Mikael – just isn't sufficiently robust and rigorous to justify that insulation.
The fact that he happens to be hosting his journal project on Wikiversity (or on any wiki) doesn't have to be a big deal—though it is additionally problematic that he has been linking to a 'live' version of each page in citations rather than to a nominally-approved static revision. (That said, I can also foresee some potential challenges with ensuring the perpetual validity of embedded figures....)
(Incidentally, the local page Wikipedia:Wikiversity here isn't an accepted editing {{guideline}}. It was written essentially entirely by Mikael Häggström and has received very little attention, so should not be considered in any way authoritative.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, only me and above user have edited the "Using a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia" section so far, and my optimism about the Wikiversity Journal is obviously a potential conflict of interest in editing the guidelines in this matter. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment-- this material is certainly better quality than we find on many articles. They are reviews rather than primary sources, which is good. They have inline citation to reliable scientific sources, and the material has been through a peer review. On the negative side, the journal is not currently MEDLINE indexed (this is apparently a work in progress). The best way to describe this is an open access journal ... and this in itself does not make it an unreliable source. On the whole, I would say that they are reliable sources, and this would be strengthened once it is listed in MEDLINE. When citing one's own publications, WP:CITESELF is worth a read if the editor in question has not already read it. Lesion 12:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I acknowledge that there are a huge number of problems with the Wikimedia community writing articles in one Wikimedia project and then using them to cite content presented in Wikipedia. In this case, however, there are no plans to scale up this project anytime soon and the Wikiversity project exists as a proof of concept. I feel that information from whatever source should be considered critically to judge its reliability. Undoubtedly without a respected peer review process no publication can have the respect of a medical journal. What is on Wikiversity does not have a respected peer review process, but I see no problem with people speculating as to whether it could be possible to develop one which meets standards equal to all others. Of course this is a wild idea.
I have no comment about the citation of anything published in this way on Wikipedia. It seems like a dubious prospect at this point due to lack of established and respected peer review, but since it is happening on a small scale for the sake of discussion, I think nothing is harmed by judging this on a case-by-case basis and that no serious burden is put on the Wikimedia community by exploring this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we'll have a better idea of how Wikiversity Journal will turn out once articles from other authors will turn up. I haven't announced the opening of the journal to any of my colleagues yet, because I want to arrange for doi codes first, because I believe such a standardized citation format is a major drive for researchers to submit articles. Next week, however, I'm going to present the project for my colleagues at Gävle Hospital and later, if all seems to go well, to doctors at other hospitals as well.
I think it is impossible to decide whether to forbid or accept the entire idea of using Wikiversity Journal articles in Wikipedia, just like with most scholarly journals out there. Therefore, I think the actual discussions should be centered at each Wikiversity Journal article talk page, or the talk pages of the Wikipedia articles where they are used as references, as clearly linked from each Wikiversity Journal article. Several issues are identical across the articles so far, such as the journal creator and article author being the same person, but consideration should also be taken to the context in which the information is presented in each Wikipedia article. After all, not 100% of peer reviewed work in Wikiversity will make it to the Wikiversity Journal, and in the same way I fully understand that not 100% of Wikiversity Journal articles will make it to (or remain in) Wikipedia after community discussions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thus, the worst thing that can happen, as I see it, is that some Wikiversity Journal articles will eventually get a shameful tag that says something like "This article was previously used as a reference in Wikipedia, but was removed." I think the fear of ending up like that will be a motivation for authors to put serious effort into Wikiversity article creation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Any discussion regarding the validity of citing Wikiversity material on Wikipedia must take place on Wikipedia - what goes on in Wikiversity Journal article talk pages is of no relevance here. And since this is clearly a contentious issue, I would request that, until the issue is resolved, no citations to Wikiversity articles be added to Wikipedia articles without prior discussion, either on this noticeboard, or, in the case of medically-related material, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I would also request that the 'Wikiversity:Peer review' page [12] which states "A major reason of having a work peer reviewed in Wikiversity is the possibility to summarize it in Wikipedia..." be edited to remove any implications that Wikipedia will accept Wikiversity-sourced material until such time as this matter is resolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I have now removed the cited statement at Wikiversity:Peer_review. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Wikiversity is the most appropriate target for having centralized discussions in Wikipedia about usage of Wikiversity articles as references. If there is a need of supervision of such usage, there could be a rule that the author must make an entry at Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity that links to each Wikipedia article with such usage. Thereby anyone who wants to keep track of it can simply add Wikipedia:Wikiversity to the watchlist. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not support using Wikiversity articles here: --LT910001 (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Articles present a clear COI of the community in general and also the authors.
    • Am not in favour of supporting this journal just because is slightly better than the worst example journal we can think of.
    • Journal is new, has an authorship of 1 and a readership limited to tens so the opportunity to catch errors is minimal.
    • Journal is used by any practitioners outside of the creator and/or direct contacts. If, for example, anatomy articles (my primary focus of editing) were published in this venue instead of a reputable journal, the utility would be laughable.
    • Without a track record this journal may be dominated by "power users" who pump out articles and then cite them here, or users who have been rejected from professional journals
    • At this point is it likely that all reviewers know the authors of the articles or have been contacted by them personally, which is not ideal.
    • This discussion needs to take place on Wikipedia as well, as we will be affected by any edits that cite the Wikiversity data.
    • I would, however, think that this is a good place for Wikipedia articles to be published and used for continuing professional development purposes if necessary.
    • There are also a lot of worst-case scenarios. How can we defend if article is released on the journal, and the author then uses the majority of the journal paper article in the Wikipedia article, citing the journal article? This is similar to the point raised above that we are essentially relying on a single person to synthesise and create data, and then citing that in the collaborative venue of Wikipedia.
    • This may be idealistic, but are any of the same ethical, legal and contractual obligations on researchers as with those that release data to actual journals, which (along with the funding institutions), have a degree of reputation to uphold?
    • In conclusion, am not usually pro-guidelines, but I think a moratorium for at least a year, or until the journal has some veneer of respectability, may be in order. --LT910001 (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Mikael Häggström, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Wikiversity is the most appropriate target for having centralized discussions in Wikipedia about usage of Wikiversity articles as references." There is no centralised place for all of the many Wikipedias, and the centralised place for this Wikipedia is here. Decisions about sources to be used on this Wikipedia cannot be made elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
To make it clear, I suggested Wikipedia:Wikiversity and not Wikiversity. Wikipedia:Wikiversity is the article in the Wikipedia namespace whose subject is Wikiversity. Surely there are Wikipedias in many languages, so with Wikipedia I mean English Wikipedia in this case, and there are no plans as far as I know to make any Wikiversity Journal in any other language, so I think we can practically keep English Wikipedia and Wikipedia as synonyms for now. Also, I totally agree that decisions about sources to be used on this Wikipedia cannot be made elsewhere. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussions regarding the reliability of sources, where they do not take place on article talk pages, are generally carried out on this noticeboard. I see no obvious reason why we should make an exception to this regarding Wikiversity material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
In any case, it seems necessary to add a note both here, at Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity, as well as any other closely related WikiProject (in this case WP:MED). As an example, I've now added the following "nomination": Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity#Using steroidogenesis article as reference. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"Nomination" of Wikiversity article to be used as reference

As discussed above, it seems appropriate to have a discussion in Wikipedia before any usage of a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia. I think such "nomination" can be done at Wikipedia Talk:Wikiversity and leaving a note here, as with this one: Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity#Using steroidogenesis article as reference. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No... the entire point of Wikiversity was to give people who wanted to do their own Original Research a venue to play in. Wikiversity is not considered a reliable source... and a "peer review" by anonymous editors is not worth anything. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussions regarding the reliability of sources, when not conducted on the relevant article talk page, should be conducted here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Definitely. I'm sure we've told Mikael that before. He doesn't seem to be listening. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought the issue of location itself deserved additional discussion, and I did leave a clear note here as well. In any case, discussions will not be started at Wikipedia Talk:Wikiversity in the future. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

There are some sources used in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill that I'm not sure are up standards for context. I'd like feedback from the larger community.

  • In the lead, we have the statement: "Due to the months-long spill, along with adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and human health problems have continued through 2014."

I've bolded the part of that statement I have concerns with. The source for that is here: [13]. Since we have claims of ongoing human health issues, shouldn't this meet MEDRS standards? Is this source good enough? And shouldn't we have a source more recent if the statement applies to 2014?

  • The next sentence says: "In October 2013, Al Jazeera reported that the gulf ecosystem was "in crisis", citing a decline in seafood catches, as well as deformities and lesions found in fish." The source is here: [14]. Fishermen and seafood industry people are interviewed, but are these anecdotal reports enough to establish facts of marine biology and fishery science? Shouldn't SCIRS apply here? Geogene (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the copy and human health problems have continued through 2014. from the article. Gandydancer (talk)
I guess I'd be concerned that the article calls propylene glycol "a known animal carcinogen". The FDA has designated propylene glycol as "Generally Regarded as Safe" (GRAS), and states that no toxicity is observed when it comprises up to 5% of the diet by weight. Its not only widely used as a solublizing agent in drugs, its a permitted food additive. And his/her statement that propylene glycol bioaccumulates in the food chain is just plain incorrect. Not only is there no data supporting this, but as a small, hydrophilic compound it has exactly the opposite physical properties from those that are known to lead to bioaccumulation. Given these misstatements of fact, it is very unlikely I would trust the reporter's comments on any other chemical toxicity issue. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS is a guideline not a policy and it is intended to ensure that information about health is properly sourced. But I do not think that the guideline is broad enough to cover this article. We are allowed to say for example that people were injured in an earthquake without waiting for a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies of the health impact, which would never come. Of course even the most reliable sources may contain errors which should not be included. Unless there are sources that say human health problems stopped at some point, then there is no reason to exclude that information. TFD (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice the propylene glycol issue in the article (good catch), I was more concerned about the jump from correlation --> causation in the source. But Formerly 98 makes a good point below that it could simply be sourced to local residents as an opinion. There is a longitudinal health study coming down the pipeline that hopefully will illuminate these issues at some point in the future. I also found the explanation of MEDRS helpful. Geogene (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I think its a complicated issue. I have little difficulty believing that residents are still experiencing health issues, but I don't think the article is a reliable source for any of the details such as which health problems are plausibly related to the exposure. Given that it quotes individuals who state that their health issues are exposure-related, I think it can certainly be used as a source for a statement that "Residents state that they are still experiencing health problems that first arose in the weeks following the spill", or something along those lines. Anyway, don't mean to be overbearing, that's just my thought. Its a pity that its so difficult to find good sources for some things. Formerly 98 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have been working on the spill article for a long time and I appreciate the feedback from both Formerly 98 and TFD. Two new 2014 peer reviewed studies are out and I have replaced the Al Jezeera copy with that information. Hopefully this will settle the problem. Gandydancer (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It does. Thanks Gandydancer, Formerly 98, and TFD. Geogene (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Formerly 98 - could you please clarify who claimed that polypropylene glycol was bio-accumulating, and where you found this? I'm looking at what we have for bioaccumulation:
From the Nation investigation:
Then there’s Corexit, two types of which were used in the Gulf: Corexit 9527A and 9500. The first type contains 2-BTE (2-butoxyethanol), a toxic solvent that can injure red blood cells (hemolysis), the kidneys and the liver. The CDC has reported chronic and acute health hazards associated with it. Corexit 9500 contains propylene glycol, which can be toxic to people and is a known animal carcinogen. Both can bioaccumulate up the food chain. Toxipedia Consulting Services, a moderated wiki run by the Institute of Neurotoxicology and Neurological Disorders, has found “reports among Gulf residents and cleanup workers of breathing problems, coughing, headaches, memory loss, fatigue, rashes, and gastrointestinal problems [that] match the symptoms of blood toxicity, neurotoxicity, adverse effects on the nervous and respiratory system, and skin irritation associated with exposure to the chemicals found in Corexit.”
NOAA admits the dispersant can bio-accumulate.
BIOACCUMULATION POTENTIAL from Corexit safety sheet
Component substances have a potential to bioconcentrate.
From Plos One:
Our experiments indicate zooplankton are especially vulnerable to acute crude oil exposure, showing increased mortality and sublethal alterations of physiological activities (e.g., reduced egg production and delayed hatching). We also found that the chemical dispersant Corexit 9500A was highly toxic to coastal mesozooplankton communities, more toxic than oil alone. Bioaccumulation of certain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) was observed in natural mesozooplankton communities. petrarchan47tc 23:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Polypropylene glycol is not propylene glycol. And nobody said that nothing in Corexit bioaccumulates, nor did anyone claim that it is nontoxic. Please step away from your WP:ACTIVISM long enough to understand what was said. Geogene (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I addressed my question to someone else, and would like to avoid another confrontation with you where I am called names, as you did yesterday telling me to get a blog. Adding to the encyclopedia facts that are well-sourced is now the equivalent of "activism" to WP:SPAs. Audacity abounds.petrarchan47tc 00:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That was WP:SOAPBOXING, not a sincere question. Add by edit: this board is not the place for it. A good place would be a personal blog. Geogene (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This board is for discussing content, and my spell-check changing propylene (which clearly I was referring to) to Polypropylene should not have earned me a tongue-lashing. If one is interested in creating an informative article, they could take these great links and set about to add what is usable yet missing (with gratitude for my help not whatever the hell you're dishing out). petrarchan47tc 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take my leave and I hope that your question above is answered. Geogene (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

First let me say I apologize for misreading the article. It does say "polypropylene glycol" and not "propylene glycol".

But my statement essentially still stands. While the reporter states that PPG is carcinogenic, there are no studies that establish this according to EFSA and PAN.

Organic compounds that bioaccumulate do so because they are extremely water insoluble (and thus do not migrate out of fat tissues) and because they are resistant to metabolism. Chemically, these properties tend to be associated with chemicals whose structures contain a lot of halogen atoms and few or no oxygen or nitrogen atoms. Every 4th atom in polypropylene glycol is an oxygen atom. It is no more likely to bioaccumulate than a rock is to float. I listened to the entire video cited above, and nowhere in it does the EPA "admit" that PPG bioaccumulates. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Policy on using a Wikiversity article as a reference

At Wikiproject Medicine, AndyTheGrump has claimed that Wikipedia has specific policies which currently rule out using Wikiversity material as sources for article content, but I don't see such a policy. Both wp:citing sister projects and wp:Citing a wiki are just red links at this time. wp:Identifying reliable sources states that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications... are usually the most reliable sources", and peer-review is mandatory for articles in Wikiversity:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I suggest that we come to a consensus about what to write at Wikipedia:Wikiversity#Using a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia, and I suggest adding "A Wikiversity page cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia content without first having reached consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard or at the relevant WikiProject for each individual case". Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So far we have seen no evidence that the 'peer review' process used on Wikiversity has any validity whatsoever. Likewise, we have seen no evidence that this 'journal' has ever been accepted as a valid source by any credible outside party. Given that material on a wiki is by definition self-published, and given the complete lack of evidence that this journal has any 'reputation' at all, never mind one for accuracy, it seems to me self-evident that such material cannot be used on Wikipedia - even more so when one considers the fact that these are articles on medical topics, where reliable sourcing is absolutely critical. Before Wikipedia can even consider including such material, it will be necessary to prove that the journal has the necessary trustworthiness and status to merit citation - it would be entirely inappropriate to apply a lower standard to a journal just because it is from a sister project.
Incidentally, I note that yet again, Mikael Häggström has failed to indicate that it is his material on Wikiversity that he is pushing for inclusion as source material in Wikipedia - indeed he has already included such material, citing himself in what I consider an entirely inappropriate manner. I am currently in the process of removing such invalid citations as clearly contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Andy is pretty much right. If you really want to push it then maybe something like the Village Pump would be a better place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Mikael, this is nothing more than vanity publishing. This material cannot be used anywhere on enWP. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
So, as I understand, we do not establish any policy on this issue right now, but wait for evidence of being accepted as a valid source by credible outside parties, as well as having other authors publish in the journal first. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope. The policy already exists: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Wikiversity Journal has no reputation for anything. And until it does, policy says we can't cite it, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:USERGENERATED is a subsection of our reliable source guideline. It states, Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. @Mikael Häggström: this seems more in "not even close" territory than "borderline case." VQuakr (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
These guidelines do not clearly say that such content must always be removed, so my impression of this issue remains the same as above; This journal needs time to develop some evidence of reputation first. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Mikael, vanity journals are created by researchers who can't get their work published anywhere else. There are plenty of them out there and, unless they're causing a bother, they're ignored, both at enWP and in the wider research community. If you want to consign your work to oblivion, I can't think of a more efficient way of pulling that off. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Mikael, the policy says that such material should not be cited in the first place. That is all that needs to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It hardly needs saying, but since there is some pushback on the issue perhaps it does need saying—Andy is correct, and no page at Wikiversity is suitable for use as a reliable source at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. And I'm getting tired of these repeated attempts to get this through. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
100% not a reliable source. We should not be citing ourselves or that at all. Blethering Scot 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Pilgrims Would Be Shocked: The History of Thoroughbred Racing in New England

Should The Pilgrims Would Be Shocked: The History of Thoroughbred Racing in New England by Robert Temple be considered a reliable source? The book is self published by Temple, however self-published sources are considered reliable if written by an established expert on the subject matter. According to Amazon, Temple is a former a sports writer who covered horse racing for the "Boston Herald Traveler", worked in the publicity departments of various race track, and writes for "Horse Talk", a southeastern Massachusetts horse racing publication. Does this qualify him as an expert and is this book an appropriate source for articles related to thoroughbred racing in New England (i.e. Suffolk Downs, Narragansett Race Track, Walter E. O'Hara)? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the claim you would like to support using this work? Are there any third-party reviews of the work that could help establish the author's expertise? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to use it for facts about Narragansett Race Track, including the cost of construction, opening date, number of spectators, and amount of money taken in. While a can not find any reviews of this work, it has been used as a source by the Daily Racing Form [15]. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Working in PR does not make one an "expert" on much - though the racetracks' official histories published by the tracks may be used to a very limited extent. He has no claim to credentials as an historian in general, so SPS really does hit this one hard. He is likely reliable as a source for his journalism about races, but not much outside that sphere. Collect (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
What about his work for the Herald-Traveler? Isn't that "work in the relevant field has previously been published by [a] reliable third-party publication"? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say so! StudiesWorld (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic Contribution to Science, Mathematics and Technology: Towards Motivating the Muslim Child

  1. Boulanger, D. (2002). The Islamic Contribution to Science, Mathematics and Technology: Towards Motivating the Muslim Child, OISE Papers in STSE Education, 3, 53-68. (OISE = Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, STSE= Science technology society environment)
  2. Articles and uses:
    1. Natural History
      • His student Ibn al-Baitar wrote a pharmaceutical encyclopedia describing 1,400 plants, foods, and drugs, 300 of which were his own original discoveries. A Latin translation of his work was useful to European biologists and pharmacists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
    2. History of botany
      • His student Ibn al-Baitar (circa, 1188–1248) was an eminent Arab scientist. His Kitab al-Jami fi al-Adwiya al-Mufrada was a pharmacopoeia describing 1400 species, 300 discovered by himself. Translated into Latin in 1758 this was used in Europe until the early 19th century
    3. Traditional medicine
      • Islamic physicians and Muslim botanists such as al-Dinawari[+] and Ibn al-Baitar[*] significantly expanded on the earlier knowledge of materia medica.
    4. Timeline of biology and organic chemistry
      • c. 1225 — Ibn al-Baitar, al-Nabati's student, writes his Kitab al-Jami fi al-Adwiya al-Mufrada, a botanical and pharmaceutical encyclopedia describing 1,400 plants, foods, and drugs, 300 of which are his own original discoveries; a later Latin translation of his work is useful to European biologists and pharmacists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
    5. Herbalism
    6. Materia_medica‎
      • and Ibn al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the thirteenth century.
    7. History of biology‎
      • His student Ibn al-Baitar (d. 1248) wrote a pharmaceutical encyclopedia describing 1,400 plants, foods, and drugs, 300 of which were his own original discoveries. A Latin translation of his work was useful to European biologists and pharmacists in the 18th and 19th centuries
    8. History of herbalism‎
      • and Ibn al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the 13th century.
    9. Timeline of biology and organic chemistry‎
      • c. 1225 — Ibn al-Baitar, al-Nabati's student, writes his Kitab al-Jami fi al-Adwiya al-Mufrada, a botanical and pharmaceutical encyclopedia describing 1,400 plants, foods, and drugs, 300 of which are his own original discoveries; a later Latin translation of his work is useful to European biologists and pharmacists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
    10. Herbal‎
      • n the 12th century Ibn Al-'Awwam described 585 fungi (55 associated with fruit trees),[+] and Ibn Al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the 13th century[*]
    11. Medicinal plants‎
      • and Ibn al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the 13th century

[+] another ref [*] Boulanger

My reservations are as follows:

  • OISE Papers in STSE Education has an unclear status, is it peer reviewed? In any case it's an educational journal, not a history of science journal.
  • Boulanger is a graduate computer scientist and educationalist, not a historian of science.
  • The article is consistently cited without "Towards Motivating the Muslim Child" in the title
  • It is used to support " 300 of which are his own original discoveries" which is inherently unlikely (more likely they were not present in older materia medica we generally do not speak of someone having "discovered" a plant in this era).

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Who is the "he" in the several uses of "his student" above? I'd be curious to see the sources listed by this book, especially because your observations indicate to me this might only be scholarly by association.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The OP contains quotes from the linked articles, and the "he" is mentioned in the article. The absence of the "he" is distracting here, but it is not relevant to the point since the report mainly concerns Ibn al-Baitar, and the use of the source to support the quoted text. I have not looked at the source, but I agree with the suggestion in the OP that a document with that title clearly has an agenda that is not compatible with its use as a reliable source. I looked at the history of Materia medica (which is on this Jagged cleanup page), and it was a Jagged edit that added the text quoted above. That pretty well automatically disqualifies the statement and the source. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks John. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
I'll also go with a "no" as it being a RS. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec)
  • By the way, I have a heap of files on my computer from a couple of years ago when I tried to do an analysis of Jagged's edits. If you are ever wondering about something, you could try asking because it is a lot easier to search local files than search Wikipedia. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the history, there was a quite amusing sequel—several editors with a history-of-science interest tried to remove Jagged but could only get a voluntary withdrawal from the topic. However, after moving to gaming articles and apparently wreaking similar havoc there, the uproar from the gamers quickly led to an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That is amusing, currently my wiki-life is under threat by a smurf and Game of Thrones editor - I suppose that's a dangerous combination. I tried to look at some of Jagged's edits recently but I have lost 2 years over wiki-drama and they are very much more obscured now than then. I did find unattributed copies of his boosterism articles on another wiki. Also internal copying of bad material is quite common, which is very tricky. I was contemplating a serious systematic attack on his edits, but I doubt I'll have time for that for a while. If you would care to email me anything you think might be useful, I will archive it until such a day comes. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

Aol reliable?

This one: http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2011/02/09/we-dont-need-no-education-meet-the-millionaire-dropouts/

Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. What concerns did you have? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Just needed to check to see if this is reliable to use in TerraCycle. Bananasoldier (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Glottolog website as reliable source on Meroitic or Rilly's assessment of Meroitic

1- Source: http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/mero1237 2- Article: Meroitic language 3- Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meroitic_language&diff=601316645&oldid=597844831

Hi, it has come to my attention that one user kwami added the glottolog website opinion on Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. But glottolog is not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic. I tried to reverse the edit made by kwami but my edit was undone by kwami. When I tried to ask for proof and reference demonstrating the glottolog website is a reliable source on Meroitic, I was responsed with "sure it is" and "the rest of us disagree" without such proof and references ever demonstrated.

Let's recall the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline stating "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.". There's no doubt in my mind that the glottolog website can't be considered a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic as it is referenced by no other source beside User:Kwamikagami and Wikipedia.

I read some academic works on Meroitic and none of them mention the glottolog website. I did a google book search on glottolog and didn't see any works using glottolog as content source at all in general, much less about Meroitic and Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. In fact, I never heard of glottolog before kwami created a wikipedia article about it on the 17 of Mars 2014 and proceed to link (almost plugging) the glottolog website in many Wikipedia articles.

My main contentious is that the glottolog website is not used as a reference on Meroitic or Rily's assesment of Meroitic by any source beside kwami and now Wikipedia. So the glottolog's website point of view on Meroitic shouldn't be added to the Wikipedia page. It's not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Rily's assessment of Meroitic. Thank you for reading me. DrLewisphd (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad by Lesley Hazleton

Hi,

Looking at Islam-related articles I see a plethora of original research and polemic opinions and lack of neutral views. I ran into this book by Lesley Hazleton and was wondering if I could use it in the articles related to early Islamic history. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, depends on the claim I guess, but regarding most for which I'd imagine it'd be used, it's probably not reliable. It's a popular biography by a non-expert in a field with a good number of experts. It does not seem to have any scholarly reviews either, which could otherwise be used to establish it as reputable. I'd imagine though that most of her claims could be sourced to some other reliable source, because it does seem like a honest attempt at a popular biography from a capable author. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into my queryUser:Atethnekos. Just wanted to let you know that I was able to find a review of this book by a professor here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link User:Kazemita1; I didn't see that one in my search. Berkey is an obvious expert, so this review is very useful for seeing the reception of the book. The review is definitely mixed. The negative aspect is that he says she used a "considerable, and sometimes unsettling, degree of imaginative license" in order to fill in details which are not in the pre-modern sources, which suggests that the book does not reach the level of serious scholarship. He does say though that "most readers will still appreciate and benefit from the portrait of the Muslim prophet provided in this book" which suggests that the book is generally reliable. I'm not sure what to think. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
"This book makes stuff up" is a pretty clear indication that it's not reliable, however interesting it may be for a casual reader. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

General question about (eg) court documents

A new editor is considering the use of, for example, court documents as references in an article. These documents, not restricted to those from a court, but 'official' papers, are to be used as references in an article. They are what one might term "Official Papers."

I am unsure whether these documents form primary sources or reliable sources, or, indeed, whether their status would vary from article to article. I am aware that some may be of the calibre of Witness Statements, which, by their very nature, are flawed except to show the contents of the witness statement. Others may be the formal submission of evidence.

Please would experienced editors look at this class of reference in its broadest sense or point me at the right place to look if the discussion has been held and documented previously?

I am inviting the new editor to come here to join in with any discussion. Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Court documents in general are considered WP:PRIMARY. I would be very reluctant to cite a witness statement or evidence submission. If the contents haven't been reported in reliable, secondary sources then you're likely to be running into a problem of WP:UNDUE weight (and if they are reported, you don't need to cite the primary sources). That said, the more specific you are with your request, the better advice you'll get here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. This is what I suspected (both the answer and the 'please be specific' issue). That is why I have invited the new editor to participate. I have only the most general idea of what he wishes to use as references, and I don;t want him to run headlong into a brick wall. Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. This topic is in reference to a murder case and the court case surrounding it; the material for which court documents would be referenced would discuss the presence or absence of certain points in the court case. The topic discusses the media's skewed interpretation of these points, and thus the most useful sources are the primary material which discusses this or the trade nonfiction book which is the topic of concern. In this case, would it be preferable to cite the book as a secondary source reiterating the information in the case or the documents from the court case itself, which are mentioned but not cited by page number in the book? Or is it instead necessary to omit any objective information of this sort and rely only on the media's responses in the book, of which there is an almost cyclical pattern of sources which attempt to refute the book and then sources which attempt to refute those refutations because they inaccurately present the content of the book? DevinDarkness (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article is not the place to make original arguments about a court case. A book that is considered to be a reliable source otherwise can be cited but should not be given undue weight if it disagrees with other reliable sources. If it can be considered a fringe or thoroughly discredited view it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. The article should repeat the arguments of reliable sources. If most sources we generally regard as reliable don't think much of the book's arguments, then you'd need a very, very good argument to ignore them. We generally wouldn't consider the legal interpretation of primary documents from a single anonymous Wikipedia editor, or an interpretation considered an unpopular fringe view, to be given primary weight in an article. And if no one's going to mention what article this is for, then nobody's going to get any more specific opinion here. How are other editor's supposed to judge your claim that all other media are wrong and non-objective, and this unnamed book has the real scoop? Name the book, article, or theory or you are wasting people's time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Particularly with court documents, you must be extremely careful. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is always best to use secondary sources. It's very easy to get into original research or (particularly) synthesis with court docs. If you're trying to use court docs to compare with media statements, you're getting into synthesis. You must find secondary sources that do comparisons and draw conclusions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If reliable secondary sources are disagreeing with each other about the meaning of the court documents, no sensible reader would, or should, pay any heed to the analysis of a Wikipedia editor, so any such analysis should not appear in an article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail

I'd like feedback on any prior debate regarding dismissal or not of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper into the bin of tabloid journalism - Can this be considered a reliable source? Some of my fellow editors and I are in disagreement with others on the pages for Cara Delevingne and for Michelle Rodriguez, where some have noted information now bubbling out from a variety of sources about the nature of their relationship. The UK's Telegraph has been cited as reliable, whilst the Daily Mail has not. To me, clearly, the "Red top" UK tabloids are not reliable. But what of the DM, in a full-blown article (not just their celebrity gossip columns)? This is a fluid situation. Every day, it seems, more ink is spilled on this story, and because of the notoriety of the two women involved, more and more media sources are picking it up. Thank you. Jax MN (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you look through the archives for the extensive discussions that have already taken place regarding the Daily Mail. Its reliability has certainly been disputed by many, and there is a widespread view that it should not be used as the sole source regarding controversial matters. Frankly though, I suspect that this discussion might be better directed to WP:BLPN - even if reliable sources assert that individuals are in a relationship, it is often questionable whether such details belong in an article. Few people are notable for such relationships, and we have an obligation to respect their privacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
For general use other than really contentious claims about living persons, where its reliability has been questioned especially for "lurid details" about people, it meets WP:RS. It is a strong source for UK news in general, especially politics and sports. It is, in truth, more accurate than the "Red Tops." One should note that the bar on "tabloid journalism" refers to a "style" and not the format of the publication, and specifically is aimed at "sensational supermarket publications" more than at major newspapers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. As the Americans say, I stepped in that one. Moments after my last post I did find that extensive discussion in the archive, and was reading it when you responded. Your own comments there were helpful. I was interested to read that some of the ire that some editors have about the "DM" may be due more to its nationalist or centrist or conservative perspective, where these same persons give more left-leaning UK papers, like the Guardian or similarly sensationalizing (but reliable) papers a pass. Jax MN (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to what Collect claims, the bar on 'tabloid journalism' very much includes major newspapers - in the UK, the Sun and Daily Mirror are archetypal tabloids - and regardless of Collect's personal opinion, there is no general consensus that the Daily Mail should be treated as a reliable source, as archived discussions make clear. And no, it isn't just about its political stance - it has a deserved reputation for concocting 'science' stories for example out of thin air. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail "a strong source for UK news in general" ? I don't think so, not for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia anyway, where I think it's more appropriate to treat it as a rather weak source to be avoided or replaced. There will usually be better sources available, and if there aren't, the content probably doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue invariable is, "would we repeat a claim that appeared only in the Daily Mail?" I certainly wouldn't. And if we expect corroboration from some other source, then we can use that other source in the DM's place. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The English tabloids meet rs. The issue though is whether something covered in one tabloid meets WP:WEIGHT, although the same thing applies to any news source. If only one source mentions something then chances are it lacks significance for inclusion, at least for articles about well known subjects. Columns in news sources are not reliable for facts, merely for the opinions expressed. The best approach is to use the best sources available, which in the U.K. would be the quality papers.
The Guardian is not "left-leaning", and no one has suggested that the reliability of English newspapers is a function of their editorial policy.
TFD (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue with a straight face that the Daily Mail has such a reputation. Its medical and scientific coverage is justly notorious for its sensationalism and inaccuracy. Its "straight news" is likewise untrustworthy, as exemplified by the Amanda Knox fiasco in which the Mail published a false story complete with fabricated "color", an entirely fictitious description of Knox's reaction to the "verdict", and faked quotes ([16], [17]). At the time, I thought we'd agreed on this noticeboard that it would extraordinarily foolish to treat such an outlet as a reliable source, but here we are again. I suppose if one is committed to the idea that celebrity gossip is encyclopedic material, then the Mail's celebrity gossip is no worse than that of various other tabloids, but... MastCell Talk 18:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Four Deuces: To rebut this, I simply refer you to look at WP's own heavily-cited listing regarding the leftist POV of the Guardian.
While reliability is a separate assessment vis-a-vis one's acceptance of a paper's opinions, where it DOES come in to play is that some papers will give less weight or simply ignore points of view that disagree with the paper's political view. The most glaring example is whether one agrees or disagrees with the highly politicized concept of "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming", i.e: that mankind is causing dreadful harm to our climate. It is a fact that some left-leaning papers will no longer print a contrary view on this subject. The Los Angeles Times is the example that first comes to mind, and there may be UK papers that have also taken this stance. I think this makes them less reliable, and shows bias; I for one desire to read contrary opinions, and because "the Deniers" are a large group and not just a handful of nutters, I would suggest that the responsible thing to do for a paper is to at least address and summarize their views, majority or minority, and to allow dissenting opinion. PLEASE NOTE: This is not an attempt to troll the legions of partisans on both sides of this issue, merely an example among many of how newspapers manipulate public view based on their agenda. Jax MN (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Your comments about climate change have no relevance to the reliability of the Daily Mail (the ostensible subject of this thread, remember?). They look more like standard-issue flamebait, and thus best ignored. Do you have anything substantive to say? MastCell Talk 20:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is a relevance. A publication that flouts the overwhelming scientific views is essentially establishing that they are willing to throw out facts and fact checking to present the story and views they want to present; hence, they may be site that carries opinions, but for Wikipedia purposes as something that we would rely on to do our fact checking, the topic establishes that their credentials as a fact checker are not something they value and not something that we should either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In short -- any publication which does not exactly follow the TRUTH is now declared to be unusable? Sorry -- there is room enough for disagreements not to be treated in that manner, and Wikipedia, of all places, should be first to accept that if all sources which do not have the TRUTH are unusable, there is a slight chance that we shall toss out the baby with the bathwater. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The Press Complaints Commission publishes statistics on breaches of the UK-wide Editors' Code of Practice. From 2011-2013, the Daily Mail was the worst offender in the entire UK by far—it had more beaches of the code (47) than the next three newspapers combined (The Sun-19; The Daily Telegraph-17; Evening Standard-10) ([18]). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Um -- The Guardian was sanctioned much more recently by the PCC (10-2103) -- the DM was sanctioned in 12-2011. Over the entire period, each had precisely one "adjudication upheld" result from the PCC which rather implies that (within an order of magnitude) they have similar rates of "adjudication upheld" results. Clearly your mileage varies. When using statistics, one well ought to count the cases which the PCC found problematic. One is not all that far from One. Collect (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
All complaints listed are those ruled by the PCC to be confirmed breaches of the Code. Whether a complaint is adjudicated as "Upheld", and whether it is adjudicated as "Sufficient remedial action", says absolutely nothing about the substance of the complaint. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, no, NOT the Mail again. Please, OP, look through all the archives of this page then if you're still stuck, ask again. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
to jump on the bandwagon, there is clearly NO consensus that the Daily Mail is a generally reliable source, in fact if anything the general consensus is the opposite, that it for anything other than sports it is generally a questionable source at best and that where it may be basically reliable, there are going to be other MORE reliable sources that should be used instead .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree very strongly with TRPoD -- it is difficult to imagine a situation in which it would be both possible and necessary to cite the Daily Mail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It could be used as a reference for its own claims about its editorial positions, as it is used here, Daily Mail. That doesn't make it necessarily relevant anywhere else or redeem its reputation for shoddy fact-checking and misleading failures to inform, of course.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation is accepted I can't see what's wrong with accepting Daily Mail (gossip stories excluded). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
For the umpteenth and final time, the objections to the Mail are NOT about its politics. They are not about the BBC, Guardian or Huffington Post either. (WP:OTHERSTUFF). It's about fact-checking and the gossip to news ratio. See that last time i spent time trying to determine how far it can be reasonably used in sports or cultural coverage. And yet here we are again as if none of the previous discussions ever happened. As far as the query goes here: who's dating whom is gossip and we don't cover it unless or until it becomes news. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: In the past some editors have called it the "Daily Fail" and "Daily Heil" and have suggested that its political orientation be "extreme right wing." The fact is that the paper - like almost every newspaper which prints "celebrity news" - has been sued in the past for defamation, but that most of the PCC complaints are such stuff as (specific example) DM asserting that a great deal of waste from the UK ends up in foreign landfills, but did not properly state that the practice is illegal. For most routine matters of fact, it is just as reliable as any newspaper -- they all are fallible, but when one removes "celebrity" stuff, they all tend to be in the same field. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In its decision for Jones v Daily Mail concerning waste ending up in foreign landfills, the PCC ruled that the Daily Mail's breach of the Accuracy clause occurred because the Daily Mail misreported a statistic from the [Environment Agency]. The decision cites nothing about the newspaper not properly stating that the practice is illegal. [19] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
... it was wrong to draw a connection between illegal exports of separated waste and the 12m tonnes of “green list” recycling – from both household and commercial/industrial sources – that was lawfully exported for reprocessing seems to be from the report. Then Furthermore, the Commission noted his position that the total annual amount of recycling collected from UK households is just 10.7 million tonnes. That is, they did not properly differentiate between illegal and legal export of waste, and overstated waste by over 10%. And I suggest that differentiation was what I stated the problem had been -- I did not also add the 10% error as well. Then the conclusion: However, the Commission noted that the “around 12 million tonnes” figure referred to all “green list” recyclables exported from the UK annually, and there were no specific figures available to support the newspaper’s assertion, as fact, that 12 million of tonnes of waste sorted for the purposes of recycling sorted by UK families is being dumped in foreign landfill. While the Commission accepted that the Environment Agency recognises illegal waste exports as a problem requiring investigation and prosecution, it had not provided figures relating to household waste alone or, indeed, showing the final destinations of exported recyclables (which both parties had acknowledged could not possibly be traced). Allof which looks very much like the DM was given the 12 figure from someone, and told it was the export total, and their chief sin was not making the legalistic dichotomy between legal and illegal exports. sorry -- that is not egregious IMHO. Collect (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC) .
It says exactly how the Daily Mail breached the Accuracy clause: Because its "assertion about the amount of domestic recycling ending up in landfill abroad was inaccurate and misleading" because "there were no specific figures available to support the newspaper’s assertion, as fact, that 12 million of tonnes of waste sorted for the purposes of recycling sorted by UK families is being dumped in foreign landfill" because "it had not provided figures relating to household waste alone or, indeed, showing the final destinations of exported recyclables (which both parties had acknowledged could not possibly be traced)." It was given the export total, but then reported the export total as if it only consisted of sorted household recyclables and as if all of the export total went to foreign landfills. The distinctions between "all exported recyclables" and "only household exported recyclables", and between "all exported recyclables" and "only exported recyclables that go to foreign landfills" are not examples of just a "legalistic dichotomy", but are distinctions in material reality. Whether or not, e.g., an aluminium can is processed at a recycling factory is a material distinction. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There has never been a consensus the daily mail should not be used in fact it was shot down the last time was brought up to be banned. Should be used for non controversial issues. Fact checking is an issue at the BBC & others we consider reliable. Its editor judgement pure & simple. Blethering Scot 18:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that when the BBC gets it wrong, it's usually a mistake. In as much as the Mail even cares whether a story on immigration is right or not, it actually prefers a lie that serves its agenda. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The comparison with The Guardian is particularly relevant. The Guardian has a pronounced liberal bias, but has a decent reputation for accuracy especially in science. No part of the Daily Mail can be endorsed as likely to be reliable. Its political coverage is biased and sensationalised, often inaccurate and sometimes completely fabricated, its health and medicine coverage is a byword for sensationalism and sweeping inaccuracy, there's even a parody Twitter account with a Daily Mail "cancer list" every week. This is reflected in its wooden spoon status with the PCC. And, as newspaper markets shrink, it is getting worse, almost becoming a parody of itself. It is particularly known for printing tittilating pictures of underage female children of celebrities (google "all grown up" for context), while fulminating against a largely imaginary army of paedophiles (and LGBT people) preying on children. Nothing in the Mail can be taken at face value, and it should only be used as a source if there is an independent corroborating source (in which case it's arguably redundant). It's pretty much The Drudge Report, but English. Oh, in case it's not obvious? I find it excellent for lining the guinea-pig cages, far and away the best use of its sole redeeming quality, its absorbency. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sustainable Life Media, Inc.

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/articles/terracycles-tom-szaky-green-entrepreneurship

Hi! Is this online source reliable as a news source? Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, also, are Earth911.com and treehugger.com reliable? Thanks. Bananasoldier (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Um -- do you really think a site selling stuff or services is RS for claims about much? Earth911 specifically has an "advertorial department" which ruins it as a source. Treehugger.com is more problematic - it says it has news, but is mainly a blog produced by people who do not appear to be professional journalists at all, other than its food and fashion editor. Its Managing Editor has been an architect, developer, inventor and prefab promoter. None of which seems to grant him an expectation of expertise other than in "promotion." Sorry. Collect (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Short answer is no. --Precision123 (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

I see the North Borneo dispute and Sultanate of Sulu articles use this source. Seems like a self published website when I see the website page icon on my browser. Any opinion about this website? Should we remove it from the article? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

LA Weekly?

http://www.laweekly.com/squidink/2012/11/02/its-a-wrap-terracycle-and-mars-co-produce-plan-to-stop-flow-of-candy-packaging-into-landfills

Reliability check for this one, please. Thanks! :) Bananasoldier (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a blog. It reads much like a press release. What is it being cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Please see WP:NEWSBLOG. The source and author are reliable. Emily Dwass is a notable food journalist who writes for the LA Weekly and other publications, such as the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Bananasoldier (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Office of Management and Budget

Is the Office of Management and Budget a reliable source on it's own analysis of federal budget proposals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&oldid=603620005&diff=prev

Hcobb (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The link is to a clearly partisan editorial, and is not a statistical analysis from OMB usable as such, nor is it a report created by the OMB.
Clues are: House Republicans today released a budget resolution for fiscal year (FY) 2015 that would harm the economy, seniors, the middle class, and those most in need, while not using any savings from ending inefficient tax breaks to help reduce the nation’s deficits. The proposal stands in stark contrast to the President’s FY 2015 Budget, which would accelerate economic growth and expand opportunity for all Americans, while continuing to improve the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook.
Which rather implies the author is directly supportive of the President in a partisan issue, which is not surprising as the article is not a report from the OMB but an editorial piece by its Director, who is a political appointee. No more useful for "facts" than a speech by Boehner, or Ross Perot. But citable as her "opinion" cited as opinion. Collect (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The cited material said, "The OMB found that Ryan's 2014 budget proposal would increase taxes on middle class families by an average of $2000, while cutting taxes for the richest Americans." So, it was properly cited as an opinion from the OMB and it should not have been reverted. Furthermore, the opinion that Ryan's budget would squeeze the middle class further and give the wealthy yet another tax break that they don't need is hardly controversial. It's the cornerstone of his entire platform. CFredkin's revert with the edit summary "political press release from WH is not reliable either" has jumped the shark...along with the rest of the Republicans. Facts are not funny things. The source and original quote added by Hcobb is perfectly acceptable and was attributed properly in the first place; it is neither controversial nor unusual. There is an underlying reality here, and others are welcome to join it. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not a report of the OMB is s only the opinion of the person writing it -- who is a political appointee and not a civil servant. As such it ought to be attributed to the person who wrote the piece. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It's reliable if expressed as partisan opinion, as the OMB has been a mouthpiece for administrations going back to Nixon. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, this archiving thing is getting annoying. This continues (and hopefully concludes) part one and part two. I'm going to quote the latter some; essentially, I was addressing two topics, one is clearly more or less finished [1], the other isn't.

Newcomers I have made a concerted argument against the verifiability policy as presently applied, and it's been answered by silence. This may be because this is an inappropriate venue for such arguments; but nobody's pointed me towards a more appropriate one. Is it simply unacceptable for newcomers to be told reasons for Wikipedia's policies at all?
I participated for a decade in a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to Usenet policies that lots of people had issues with, and already within a year I'd spearheaded this, meant to provide newcomers a one-stop shop for our side. Nor was I exceptional there, at that time. I'm unimpressed by what I'm seeing as a newbie here; I'm getting some pointers, especially but not only from WhispertoMe (apologies if there's a spelling mistake - I don't know how to get to the archived discussion), but only to Wikipedia policies and methods, not to Wikipedia explanations, let alone places to argue.
The most I've been able to come up with as a result of this discussion is that Wikipedia verifiability (at least) is a set of rules for a game, and you win the game by writing Wikipedia-verifiable articles. When I started posting to news.groups I was already in my late 20s, and the reward for playing that game was the creation of newsgroups. This game has far more complex rules, information about which is far harder to find, for less of a prize, and I'm a lot older now. I learned from my news.groups experience not to take oaths, but if the response to this post is as I expect, I doubt I'll be throwing much effort into Wikipedia in the future.
Third, if you make a user account, then people can follow what you're doing on Wikipedia. Just now, for example, I clicked on your IP address link to see if I can find the specific argument you're having (since you didn't link to it) and couldn't find anything since your IP must have changed since your argument. --GRuban (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
3) I've always put off becoming a registered Wikipedian because I didn't want to take the time to read the rules, which I estimated would be about 40-200 hours. Now for the first time I've spent a significant amount of that time, and this is basically my last attempt to postpone my decision never to become a registered Wikipedian; I'm really unhappy with a fair amount of what I found in that reading.
As for links? You participated in that discussion ("my uncle Al" - so hey, is javabeans still our uncle Al?). Anyway, I found it: here. But the argument there is mostly pretty diffuse. Its core is something I didn't write in one sentence - The existing verifiability policy makes significant areas of interest excessively hard to document on Wikipedia, because it rules out whole classes of communication that are primary ways those areas are documented.[1] - and something I did - It's also an engine of hostility between Wikipedia and communities. Which is what made me think of news.groups, whose policies were often accused of being such engines, and where a bunch of us spent a lot of time dealing with such accusations.
[1] As witness the plagiarism.
3) Yes, are a lot of rules (and what's more, they keep changing, from discussions like this one, in fact!), but you're no less bound by them by editing from an IP than from a user account. There are no disadvantages of registration, only advantages. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I figure - obviously counterfactually, but I don't care - that registration is more or less an agreement to support the policies. So I've previously put it off, and now don't want to. What I'm trying to do is find out whether anyone here, or elsewhere in Wikipedia, thinks the person who wrote State income tax#History or Half of Asia, for a Thousand Years is worth giving the kind of elementary attention to newbies that could change my mind on this. (Much of the length complained about in the second discussion's first post was requests for pointers, e.g. to *how I could find out* why DramaWiki is blacklisted. Most went unanswered; GRuban at least pointed me to some documents, though mostly ones I'd already read.)

And if the rules change from discussions like this one, I'm not seeing how. I haven't been told what's inadequate in my arguments (except that they're long); instead they get refuted by appeal to the very policies I'm arguing against. So I'm not saying that my arguments are good enough to change policies, but am saying that I don't see a mechanism here that gets policies changed.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com

[1] I continue to think verifiability policy is essentially insane, but it's quite clear by now that my arguments are not going to be addressed, and my requests for justifications for the policy are not going to be answered, except to the limited extent already provided by GRuban. But a couple of detail notes:

Rosenbaum would probably be fine specifically because he is a former film critic and author of several books, as per WP:SPS which I linked to above. If you want to nominate some of the KDrama articles for deletion for lack of notability, feel free to follow those link too. Except, of course, you'd need a user account. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Presumably this relies on this sentence: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I note that the following sentence reads: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." So where GRuban sees Rosenbaum's critical work as still OK thanks to his established bona fides, I see the specious claim that his views, if worth "reporting", will be stated by someone else. Hence citing his actual blog, as opposed to third parties mentioning it, is "discouraged", as I wrote and GRuban apparently objects to. Evidently, and this is part of what I consider insane, critical ideas are in fact judged by the same standards as scientific ones.

2) In general, if it's a blog written by a reliable author (one who's written a reliable source before on the topic), then it's a reliable source, and if it's written by an unpublished amateur then it's not. I strongly doubt that Korean television dramas are only covered by amateurs, and never in professionally published books, newspapers, or magazines. They may only be covered by amateurs in English, and you may not be able to read the Korean, but that's no more an excuse than saying that we should allow you to write an article on high-energy physics based on some guy's blog because you can't read the math used in real high-energy physics texts.

Does "amateurs" refer to Dramabeans writers as unpaid (which is factually untrue, as I've already mentioned) or as uneducated? If the latter, I note that Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper, neither of whom were educated in film criticism or in film, are widely cited in English Wikipedia. Just to pick critics active in Chicago when I lived there. (Huh. Neither was Jonathan Rosenbaum, nor Pauline Kael.) Oh, but wait, they were paid. Oh, but wait, so's Dramabeans. Oh, but wait, Dramabeans is self-published, and we're back in circularity!

Your most obvious way out is to point out the role of the editor; editors hired those film critics, while javabeans hired herself. So I assume much of Charles Dickens's non-fiction work, which appeared in various magazines he edited, is just as untouchable as Dramabeans? And again as to William Morris: we should rely on his works published in third-party publications, not on News from Nowhere, to get at his real views, right? because he was the latter's only editor. [2] Oh, and again: the one thing a Wikipedian on William Blake must not do is consult the original editions, because those were self-published, right?

javabeans and girlfriday are editors to the other writers at Dramabeans. So are those writers OK to cite, just not the two who run the site?

[2] Sigh. Morris was editor and publisher of Commonweal, where the serial version of News from Nowhere began appearing in January 1890, until May of that year, when David Nicoll replaced him as editor but not as publisher. Morris and Nicoll disagreed considerably, and it isn't at all obvious to me that Nicoll would have edited News in any meaningful way while it continued, until October. It appeared, revised, in book form May 1891. Sources: pp. 580ff in William Morris: A Life for Our Time by Fiona MacCarthy, 1995, and relevant entries in A Bibliography of William Morris by Eugene LeMire, 2006. Does this mean that if News is cited as representing Morris's views, it should only be to the May-October 1890 issues of Commonweal, and not to the book version or the first part of the serial?

128.95.223.129 (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a lot to try and digest, what are you getting at? What source are you seeking comment on from this noticeboard? Are you asking about Dramabeans? If you know of reliable sources about Dramabeans, that would be very useful. There are many reasons blogs are avoided as sources here. One is that relying on self-published sources makes it almost impossible to assess due and undue weight. There are a ton of opinions out there, and without these guidelines it becomes almost impossible to determine which ones are significant and which ones are not. As for Chuck D, I'm pretty sure all of Dickens' work has since been republished with vast amounts of commentary, making the comparison moot, but regardless, I doubt there is much direct citing of Dickens non-fiction outside of historical contexts where it can be given appropriate context, or as a WP:PRIMARY source about Dickens. Grayfell (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting at two things.
One: Dramabeans: On-Topic Dramabeans's reliability as a source, especially as regards founder javabeans and #2 girlfriday. Footnote [1] above concerns this. I previously cited what I knew about Dramabeans; none of it is what y'all consider "reliable". This discussion started after I cited javabeans at Dramabeans in a K-drama Wikipedia article, and the relevant sentences were then deleted because of self-published sources.
So OK; thanks for the suggestion; now to look for "reliable sources" about Dramabeans, primarily online since it's a website started in 2007. Not much at The New York Times or other journalistic sites; scholar.google.com turns up mostly writing in Vietnamese, plus some master's theses (oops; by the way, these consistently describe Dramabeans primarily as a "fan" site, which is, um, unreliable evidence against my claims).
But at www.google.com the search 'Dramabeans -site:dramabeans.com/' puts a possibility at the bottom of the first page of results. Asia Pacific Arts is an edited online magazine published by several bits of USC. It's a student publication; USC owns one of the two significant collections of K-drama on VHS known to Worldcat. Betty Bong, who's published a lot of articles there, interviewed javabeans and girlfriday of Dramabeans as The Gurus of Korean Drama. Later Google results are less helpful: a blogger on CNN's "Geek Out" quotes both javabeans and girlfriday as sources re K-dramas; someone at Dramafever, the main streaming site for K-dramas, calls them "experts" and "queens of the K-drama blogosphere"; Dramafever is called out, slightly earlier, for issuing a DMCA takedown notice to Dramabeans over the still photos their recaps use - the blog post in question certainly isn't reliable, even by my standards let alone Wikipedia's, but gets at stuff I deal with below.
As to "due weight". Thanks for using that term; now I know what y'all call what I've been trying to talk about. See, my actual concern isn't with Dramabeans's reliability at all. Of course someone is reliable as to their own critical opinions, even if self-published. Verifiability is simply the stick I've been hit with, and I've been using 19th-century writers mainly to illustrate its lunacies. Throughout this discussion I have not been defending Dramabeans as a factual source for news and gossip about K-dramas, although they offer a lot of that, and that's the main purpose for which European-language Wikipedias cite Dramabeans. What I've been defending is the due weight of their viewpoints on K-drama; I've produced evidence for this, to which the above minimally adds. My pessimism about this discussion is partly because this evidence hasn't been disputed or disparaged, but ignored.
Two: Newbies: Partly Off-Topic Nobody's told me a more apposite place, so I'm also talking here about Wikipedia's care and feeding of newbies. The stuff above footnote [1] above is related to that; a majority of it is quotes from the previous round, now archived. There are two prongs to this:
General I claim verifiability policy operates as a source of discord with newbies in general, in particular in popular culture areas that may not come to the attention of the sorts of publications Wikipedia considers reliable. I give an example, Wikipedia's persistent and copious plagiarism of DramaWiki, to which Wikipedia blacklists links even at archive.org. I claim the plagiarism is probably driven by people's desire to document for English Wikipedia things that verifiable sources in English don't cover. It has resulted in hostility towards Wikipedia documented on DramaWiki's home page. (Note also that the best resources in English about K-dramas are Dramabeans and DramaWiki: English Wikipedia is two for two in telling K-drama fans "No!" And although English and Korean Wikipedias each have uses for the K-drama researcher, this is really rather like a kid declaring the unreliability of his tutor.) This is also where the blog post cited above is relevant.
Hey, what do you know? Wikipedia policy hasn't changed, but a Wikipedia essay agrees with me! See in WP:RSUW "Depending on the topic at hand, certain sources otherwise seen as unreliable may be highly appropriate. ... Articles on popular culture sometimes rely on less academic sources for their information."
Specific I claim that I'm personally experiencing Wikipedia's care and feeding of newbies as inadequate, over the weeks I've been dealing with this, and in contrast to the care and feeding of newbies I used to do in a Usenet newsgroup usually understood as exceptionally newbie-hostile. See, for example, the ignoring of my evidence; the fact that it's taken a month for "my uncle Al" to turn into "due and undue weight"; and my now thrice-stated, unanswered, request for information on how to find out why Wikipedia blacklists links to DramaWiki. I acknowledge that WhisperToMe, in the first round, gave me as much help as someone solely concerned with complying with verifiability policy could have asked, and that GRuban has given a little in both rounds.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
128.95.223.129 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree Wikipedia has a newbie problem. There isn't a clear-cut consensus on how to deal with it, but many people have noticed it and commented on it. Part of the issue is that Wikipedia is much more purpose-oriented than Usenet. Usenet is about discussion, Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. I had the habit of wikilinking to every policy that I mention (WP:WEIGHT, WP:SPS, etc.) but I've been trying to avoid that lately, because I was afraid it came off as condescending. It's not an easy problem, and we're all doing the best we can, y'know? (WP:ASSUME) Pop-culture subjects are often areas of contention (WP:Pokémon test is an infamous example) and compromises that come out of that often leave everybody frustrated. I think 'due weight' and WP:VERIFIABILITY are the policies at hand. DramaWiki might be a great resource for people interested in the subject, but it looks like it has different goals and guidelines than Wikipedia, and by design it's going to contain a level of detail that doesn't belong here. There's a mess of WP:COPYVIO issues at hand, too, which makes it so complicated that there's no easy resolution. Adding wikis as sources is a nightmare that I don't think any experienced editor is eager to revisit.
As for your question, go here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and search for "d-addicts" to find the discussions that lead to DramaWiki being blacklisted. It sounds like you've already got this, but one additional point is that Wikipedia sources do not need to be English (WP:NOENG). Korean-language sources can be used to build articles, but for obvious reasons English language sources are preferred. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
DramaWiki Thanks much for answering my question. DramaWiki was indeed, as one error message hinted, blacklisted (in November 2008, both in English Wikipedia and in Wikimedia) for "spamming", but this turns out to mean that it was for being externally linked in too many articles; the complainants themselves attested that the links were placed by lots of individuals. None of the examples given were inappropriate if one assumes DramaWiki an appropriate external link, and ironically your "level of detail" remark points to a reason it is one. If more English Wikipedia K-drama articles were like Dae Jang Geum (if not as long as that special case), heavy on text, light on data, the world would be a better place. Unable to link to DramaWiki, many K-drama articles instead point to Hancinema, which also has its own English Wikipedia stub, and which (like English Wikipedia) I've consistently found inferior to DramaWiki for information. Biased much?
As for copyright violation, um. If English Wikipedia could link to DramaWiki it would be much easier to find plagiarism from DramaWiki. Flipside, DramaWiki has not in my experience linked to illegal downloading sites, and is heavily supported by the legal near-monopoly streaming site Dramafever. It is, of course, a sub-site of D-Addicts, which is itself an illegal downloading site. I have in the past seen Hancinema linking to illegal download sites, but something seems to have changed, and it now ostentatiously boasts legality and its own ties to Dramafever.
GRuban made a convincing case against using DramaWiki, *as* a wiki, as a source. My concern is primarily with the blacklist, which is of course off-topic here.
Dramabeans You started out by focusing on the most on-topic bit of my complaint, but you haven't actually addressed my evidence either. Is this because you take for granted that I can see it isn't good enough, or because I've only offered one piece in this particular segment of the discussion?
Verifiability I didn't expect I was saying anything new, but it still isn't getting answered. Don't y'all *document* FAQs, somewhere in the insanely voluminous Wikipedia documentation? "Verifiability policy helps turn Wikipedia into a snotty ivory tower." "BTDT. See WP:NIT#Ver." How hard is that?
Thank you for informatively replying to me. But I'm still not seeing a route to either changing, or becoming reconciled to, the policies I object to.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
66.212.78.59 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Calling fellow editors "snotty", even obliquely, is not helpful. Wikipedia:FAQ index and Help:Contents might be what you want. Typically, you would be presented with links like this after creating an account. You might also find WP:TV and WP:KDRAMA specifically useful.
It sounds like the issue with DramaWiki should be dealt with elsewhere. I would not use HanCinema as a WP:SECONDARY source in an article.
One very rough rule-of-thumb about self published sources is to determine if it has an article, or could have one. Looking through the sources, I don't think Dramabeans has been covered enough for an article. There's the student paper you mentioned, and a CNN blog post, but that's all I could find. I would say the same thing about Hancinema, actually. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt insulted by my wording. In these three linked threads, I've repeatedly reified Wikipedia when referring precisely *not* to individuals but to things that I think systemically result from policies. (E.g. no individual intended that plagiarism would result from blacklisting DramaWiki, but it sure seems to have, so I blame "Wikipedia".) Admittedly "snotty" is shorter than "engine of hostility", which is what I called verifiability policy last time, and shorter still compared to more detailed exposition. Anyway, since you don't cite the rest of my claimed evidence re Dramabeans, I'm concluding that you did *not* read the previous iterations. So to repeat: 1) Blurb usage. 2) Individuals encountered. 3) Lecturer.
To expand: 1) YA Entertainment has issued probably the majority of all Region 1 K-drama DVDs marketed in North America. (Their total is 87. I know of 14 from Tai Seng, their only independent competitor. Each major Korean network has also sold some Region 1 discs more or less on its own; I have little info about these, but they sure don't seem to be numerous.) I've seen nearly all the resulting YA packaging. I claim that Dramabeans is the most-quoted source of blurbage for them. Note that this isn't just because Dramabeans is routinely complimentary (which they aren't); it's because instead of saying "Best drama ever!" (a fairly typical blog remark about a particular drama), Dramabeans writers say things like "Superb plotting, with appealing leads" as lead-ins to (not blurbed) "wasted on a thoroughly unoriginal story." I've repeatedly offered to go actually compile the numbers. I suppose the fact that nobody's taken me up on it is because it's irrelevant, but considering that YA discs are probably *the* most common way anglophones first encounter K-dramas (though streaming video certainly outweighs DVD for viewing over all), I'm not seeing why.
2) Last fall, I called an office on the campus from which I write, to volunteer for a research study. The long conversation that resulted didn't get me into the study, but I did mention that I was watching a Korean drama, and it turned out the person interviewing me was Korean-American. She said she no longer had time, being in grad school, to keep up with dramas, and mostly just read the recaps on Dramabeans. A couple of months ago, I was at Scarecrow Video looking at their K-drama section, and a white woman came by, reminiscing about K-dramas she'd seen. She mentioned that she no longer really watched them much, for lack of time, and instead read Dramabeans recaps, and enthused about a recent Dramabeans "meetup" in Seattle.
3) A week or two ago, I attended a lecture on K-dramas given at the Seattle Asian Art Museum. The lecturer was Bonnie Tilland, who's ABD at the University of Washington in anthropology; her dissertation seems to be about how Korean women interpret K-dramas and interpret their lives through K-dramas; she's defending it this summer. She taught a class on K-dramas last fall, which I'm sorry I hadn't heard about. The audience was mostly white, and obviously there as museum members rather than as K-drama fans, so she kept the talk pretty introductory. She said she'd been asked by the museum to recommend a book on her subject, and apologised that she couldn't offer a physical one (that the museum could sell...), but the e-book she suggested is the (self-published) Why Do Dramas Do That? by javabeans and girlfriday.
In other words, in my experience as an anglophone viewer of K-dramas, not only in the K-drama blogosphere but in lived life, Dramabeans is pretty prominent. Whether or not any of these is what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. I do note that I tried to refute your search (which sounds like the same search I mentioned above) by putting "Dramabeans" into Hangul and searching for that, but got nothing from it; the Korean press is not going to support me either.
By the way, DramaWiki gets nowhere near this level of attention from any of these sources.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
128.208.76.107 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Does a blurb on a DVD validate the use of a blog as a reliable source for a review? That's an interesting question, but lacking any other info on the site's editorial process, I would say no. There's still no oversight or independant validation of the expertise of the reviewers.
The personal examples you give are not really anything we can work with. Nobody else has any possible way of knowing what you're saying is true. I'm sure you're tired of hearing this, but it's not verifiable. Hostile, snotty, infuriating, call it what you want: verifiability is a critical part of Wikipedia, and you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone otherwise at a reliable sources noticeboard! Nobody has taken you up on your offer to count blurbs, because Wikipedia has a policy against original research (WP:OR). Personal conversations are both original research and unverifiable. Grayfell (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I note that you omitted reference to Ms. Tilland; I don't know whether that's because you consider a lecture given (on that occasion, not its sole one) to about a hundred people "personal", or because you assume someone whose name I gave and whose e-mail address is publicly available an unreachable source. Or maybe it's just the idiocy I've been decrying, that Ms. Tilland will magically turn reliable if and when she's a professor, but until then remains among the rest of us unwashed unreliables. Or maybe it's just that since you still haven't looked at the previous iteration, you don't know that I there copiously documented Ms. Tilland's bona fides. But whatever. I'm not just concerned about specific sources...

The main issue is that I've been asking, for about a month now, for either discussion of the policies you're citing, a pointer to a more appropriate place for such discussion, or a pointer to existing written explanations of why they have to be the way they are. None has been offered, nor have I found the latter on my own, and the conclusion I came to early, that Wikipedia's verifiability policy is nothing but a very strange game whose rewards don't measure up to its challenges, remains, against all my expectations, unrefuted. I know that my standards of evidence are both vastly looser and vastly tighter than Wikipedia's, and don't know why I should adapt.

So I'm done. I'm not feeling childish enough to go and wipe out all the work I've done on Wikipedia to date, to the extent I can find it, but here's a list of the main items in case someone else wants to protect the encyclopaedia from my flawed understanding of how it should be written:

Judiciary Act of 1793

State income tax#History

Korean drama#History

Note that while the first, essentially a synopsis of a non-fiction work, and the last, based on a raft of "unreliable" sources, are easily challenged, you'll have to get more creative when it comes to the income tax section. I'd suggest lack of interest as the obvious reason to delete it, if one's wanted; it's been around long enough that if it'd had significant readership, it ought not remain essentially all my work.

At any rate, nobody need fear any more of my writing here.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com

66.212.73.202 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did look up Tilland, and yes, I did read the previous threads, although it was such a wall of text I might easily have missed something. In the interest of brevity, I'll summarize my understanding of your argument: You're saying we should treat Dramabeans as a reliable source because of your personal recollection that a grad student once recommended the pseudonymous authors' self-published book for further reading in the Q&A portion of a lecture you attended. In my opinion, the answer is no. As for your other contributions, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POINT. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Stack Overflow a reliable source for an algorithm?

Over a period of years, various algorithms to determine whether a year in the Gregorian calendar is a leap year have been added to Leap year and repeatedly disputed my many editors. User Kriceslo claims that an algorithm the editor wrote is from a reliable source because the editor had previously posted it to Stack Overflow. I contend that while Stack Overflow may offer useful suggestions to programmers with the expertise to evaluate which posts are correct and which are erroneous, for Wikipedia purposes it is user-generated content, self-published, and the authors are not demonstrably experts in their respective fields (which means, for Wikipedia purposes, having published in reliable, non-self-published, sources in the relevant field). I think in this case, because of the frequent disputes, the source be obviously reliable to nearly any reader who comes along.

The talk page discussion is at Talk:Leap year#Demand reliable algorithm source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: Thanks Jc3s5h, however, I dispute the above position on three major bases: First, the supposed "algorithm" is not computer code at all and has been so overwhelmingly simplified into plain text that it only differs from the textual description of leap year determination (posted in the Gregorian calendar section) by virtue of not being in grammatically correct sentence form. Second, I content Stack Overflow is, in fact, a demonstrably expert source by way of its own massive success in the programming community. I have received advice numerous times from not only book authors, but also the actual architects of a computer language. A post such as mine--which has received a high rating from other users--would simply not receive such a rating if it were in any way faulty. Bad posts do exist on Stack Overflow, however they do not survive the rating system. Third, I have cited 'obviously reliable' sources (currently on the talk page) which only require the most simple of critical analyses to show that my posted 'algorithm' is the same used by the National Institute of Standards and Time and by the open-sourced Linux operating system kernel. In fact, the 'algorithm' really isn't mine at all, as it is found all over the Internet in similar and exact form. In closing, I believe it important for Wikipedia to provide and defend a computer leap year algorithm as it is a very commonly encountered programming problem. Many novices and experts turn to Wikipedia (due to its search rankings) and implement the algorithm for leap year. This is attested to by numerous "leap year" web posts from programmers who cite Wikipedia. Thank you. Kriceslo (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Stack Overflow is user-generated content. The user rankings are not equivalent to peer review (these are likely not experts who have reviewed the solution, but users who find the solution useful). Thus, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source. You might want to considered citing NTP instead. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the NTP source is appropriate for two reasons:
  1. It contains the statement "We deal in a 4 year cycle starting at March 1, 1900". It requires expertise to figure out if the algorithm applies before that date.
  2. It requires expertise to translate the algorithm into pseudo code, which ought to be independent of any particular programming language. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, how about this:

For civil use (as opposed to ecclesiastical use), leap years are calculated as follows:

Every year that is exactly divisible by 4 is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; these centurial years are leap years only if they are exactly divisible by 400. [1]

  1. ^ Seidelmann, P. Kenneth, ed. (2006). Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac. University Science Books. p. 580. ISBN 978-1891389450.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's equivalent to what it says in the "Gregorian calendar" section, which also has similar sources. The problem is that there has been a constant stream of changes and challenges, despite what it says in the "Gregorian calendar" section, so I don't think that citation will stop further problems. Non-experts (and sometimes experts) have a hard time translating requirements from English to source code (or even pseudo code). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to nail down a source for a "definitive algorithm" is probably unnecessary. What needs to be sourced (and is already sourced) is the definition of the Gregorian leap year. The translation from this to pseudo-code is not hard, and the version currently displayed is correct, transparent, and reasonably efficient. (I agree with Jc3s5h that the algorithm section needs a bit more documentation.) It wouldn't hurt to reference actual code, but the version displayed in the article need not be identical, as the source would likely be tied to a specific programming language and might require additional explanation or interpretation. I do not regard Jc3s5h's complaint as a problem: yes, the article is often edited by well-meaning but misguided editors; but it is always corrected in relatively short order. This is no different from countless WP articles, and as we all know, even a sterling source will not forestall this. If Jc3s5h is primarily concerned about the authority of the correction, it would suffice to add an HTML comment to the algorithm indicating that it is the result of consensus on the talk page and that suggested changes should be discussed there first. -- Elphion (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • As mentioned above, Stack Overflow is user-generated content, not subject to formal peer review (upvoting doesn't count), so it's not a reliable source for this algorithm (which I may nevertheless swipe myself next time I need to check leap years).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-professional YouTube videos as sources, when linked to from professional websites

I'm interested in using this YouTube video [20] of a local singing competition, to state that Scotty McCreery's parents had him take sixth months of piano, before letting him learn guitar (discussed in the introductory remarks from around 0:42 to 0:52). I'm not sure who took the video - it could have just been someone in the audience or it could have been someone involved with the event. This seems to be the only place that the video is available online, so it might be fair to assume that it was taken by the same person that uploaded it. However, I'm not sure what to make of the characters in the top left corner.

The information presented in this video is clearly accurate, since McCreery himself appears in the video. However, since it was simply uploaded onto a personal account, by someone who doesn't seem have any established credibility, I'm not sure that the video would be acceptable as a reference under normal circumstances. However, there's one thing that makes me think that it might be okay - the video was linked to from the town government's official website [21] (Second paragraph - "Here he is on the stage of the Clayton Center").

What's the typical policy on using these types of videos, and how is the video's reliability effected (if at all) by it being linked to by an official website? --Jpcase (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The policy is that such videos are not "secondary reliable sources", and a "town website" is unlikely to meet the RS criteria for any claims not specific to the town government -- we do not use them for history etc. in articles. Collect (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. So this couldn't be used as a primary source either? --Jpcase (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If the fact is significant, it will be covered in a reliable secondary source. If it's not covered in a reliable secondary source then it's a trivium. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

RT news and Crimean status referendum, 2014

There is a dispute at Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy, whether many citations of RT news (a source biased in favor of Russian government) can be removed from the article without explaining each particular instance removal. For example, one of the statements that some editors are trying to remove completely, is this:

A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries were registered to monitor the referendum,[1][2][3]

  1. ^ Crimean ‘referendum at gunpoint’ is a myth – intl observers — RT News
  2. ^ "135 observers from 23 countries are registered in the Crimea". News from Armenia. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  3. ^ "Over 130 Observers from 23 Countries to Monitor Crimea Referendum". CrimeaInform. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.

— Petr Matas 20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you refer to RT as biased in favour of the Russian Government? Would you say that the BBC is in favour of the British Government? How about CNN as in favour of the American Government? Look at all these sources and identify which impartially reported on the US - Iraq war and the claim of weapons of mass destruction. If you are claiming that RT's reports regarding the Crimean crisis are non-factual then provide evidence. In particular look at the activity of Volunteer Marek on the Crimea pages - removes anything which puts some balance in the article.

— equilibrado 7 April 2014

Every medium has its opinion, including CNN and BBC, and biased articles appear everywhere from time to time. It seems to me that facts reported by RT can be trusted, but their evaulations can't. But that does not really matter here. The question is, whether RT can be declared universally unreliable and your answer to that is obvious. — Petr Matas 04:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There are controversial facts and there are non-controversial facts. For controversial facts RT is most certainty not a reliable source:[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. It could be used for non-controversial facts (indeed on the Crimean Referendum where RT was used to cite non-controversial facts I left it alone). The thing is, if a fact really is non-controversial, then 99 times out of a 100 one can find a more solid, really reliable source. And replace.

Additionally, there's really no reason to try and include more than at most two citations to any piece of text. You know, don't do cite-padding like this "blah blah blah [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]". That just looks bad and betrays a certain kind of desperate attempt to push some POV. Hence if there's already solid, reliable sources used to cite something, an additional source such as RT is simply not necessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that more than two refs can be excessive but it may be appropriate to have RT as one of them. My personal rule, not particularly for wikipedia, is that if a 'Western' source and RT agree then something is likely to be true, for everything controversial I have to choose between them. We should bear in mind that Russian sources were highlighting the involvement of Pravy Sektor for some weeks before 'Weestern' Sources really picked up on this. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if RT says something and others neither agree nor oppose, then we shoud write "RT says...," as their report may be unreliable, but it is surely notable: There are zillions of people who believe it. — Petr Matas 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything controversial in the statement being removed that isn't backed up by the claim. Your not saying there was your saying he said there was. Would strongly object to anyone removing content without a valid reason provided each time. Editors shouldn't have to second guess why you feel something requires removal. Your reasons may be totally invalid. Plus more than three refs being provided as inline is def excessive, would prefer two but three max. However see no reason why can't that source be one of them. Plus we shouldn't not be using that source at all, the points they make are one sided of course and need to be used in context but that does not make the source unreliable. The Crimean side should be as equally represented in the article as others. It's all about context and I'm not seeing common sense applied here. Blethering Scot 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't see anything controversial in the statement about observers, then you're not paying attention to what the content is about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am paying attention, but your blindsided by a pov to remove it without any justification on the actual content, in fact wanted to be able to remove any mark of it without giving justification. Im sorry but the Russian, Crimea viewpoint is equally required in the article, there is nothing questionable in the statement or the source. Were not saying there was were saying this notable individual in the crisis made this notable statement. You can equally balance that out neutrally with the viewpoint of actual observers, real or western. As someone totally disinterested in the article I'm very concerned with some of your actions, which fly in the face of neutrality and also the clear edit warring involved. This is a reliable source for certain information and in this case it is not controversial at all.Blethering Scot 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It is controversial. See below. And above. And the talk page. And you seem to misunderstand the concept of "neutrality". It most certainly does not require that we present fringe views as facts, or use controversial and non-reliable sources to present these views. That's not "balance". In fact, that's exactly POV. If the statement is uncontroversial then it should be trivial to find other, actually reliable, sources to support it. No? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Marek the editor below me is telling you it isn't controversial.Blethering Scot 22:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The content being taken from RT - that "a Crimean official stated that international observers had arrived" - is not particularly controversial, as the official's statement is notable, but neither endorsed nor refuted by being recorded in the article. -Darouet (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's controversial - first the "Crimean official": anyone can claim he is a "Crimean official". Second - is "international" Political international or a mixture of accidental people coming from many countries?Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The most recent edition of Private Eye, arguably the best investigative journalism periodical in the UK, described RT as "Putin's propaganda channel". I don't think it can be considered to be a reliable source for anything concerning Russia or something the Russian government has a strong opinion on. Number 57 20:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Private Eye, is hardly a pillar of journalism and certainly not something I would look to to decide what & what isn't a reliable source. Context is key here and that source very much backs the statement. Im not saying should be used for everything but it backs the crimea view that there was observers, you then neutrally say that the west did not agree if thats the case using other sources.Blethering Scot 21:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's the biggest selling news magazine in the UK. If you're serious about it being "hardly a pillar of journalism" (I sincerely hope not given that you consider yourself to have enough of a grounding in media that you feel able to comment on RT), then I suggest you start by reading about Paul Foot. Number 57 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Biggest selling does not mean its a pillar of journalism (It Isn't), nor should we be taking advice on reliability of a statement from a source from it. If we took a reliability of a source from our sales were in more trouble than i thought.Blethering Scot 22:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If we were talking about newspapers then I'd fully agree, as they rely heavily on celebrity scandal and scantily clad ladies for their circulation figures. However, news magazines are a different kettle of fish entirely. Number 57 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Im not disagreeing with the overall point, just the comparison to Private Eye. The source is only reliable for certain things and a statement such as the one above is one such thing, its not for us to say he's lying or wrong its for us to say the notable figure said this about this notable event and use context to balance out the claim. We cant only put the non Russian viewpoint in the article. Its our job to put in context not deny it happened or was said, which is by default censorship.Blethering Scot 22:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would any newspaper misreport on a statement made by person X, if the newspaper is biased in favor of X? — Petr Matas 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not the issue. You keep insisting on missing the point which makes the discussion very difficult. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Revolution 2014

The same issues are coming up at Ukrainian Revolution with references from RT removed without consideration of context. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As explained right above, there is in fact "consideration of content".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not ploughing through it in hope of finding what you refer to because I don't edit that page. You certainly haven't 'consideration of context' thus far on the Ukrainian Revolution 2014 page. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking from outside altogether I agree with Sceptic. Blethering Scot 18:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
"Consideration of content" is explained above. If it's simple fact and sourced to something else, then remove because it's not needed. If it's controversial remove because it's not a reliable source. If it's a simple fact and not sourced to something else, keep it for now, though we should find a better source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
A better source is not required, there is nothing controversial in the statement. I would strongly object to removal of that source without very good justification, although double ref listing would be fine but unnecessary.Blethering Scot 21:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the statement is controversial because the nature of these "observers" is controversial. See above. The fact that there is argument about whether to put scare quotes on the word "observers" - as several sources do - itself shows that there is indeed controversy. The justification for removal is simply that a source which has been widely described as a "propaganda tool" (and similar) and which fails the criteria for WP:RS is ... not RS. "A very good justification" would be needed to USE the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't controversial at all, there is not one fact there that is. He is a notable figure making a statement about a notable event as another editor has told you above and on talk page. Its our job to balance that out with context not to dismiss altogether. It does not fail as an RS in this case whatsoever and you clearly don't want to hear that, so go ahead and continue edit warring without justification to do so, you've been warned more than once and clearly don't want to hear it. You most certainly do need a good justification to remove it and there is no reason why to sources cant match the claim if you so wish.Blethering Scot 22:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I've explained it several times by now and I'm getting a bit tired and irritated with people not listening. But let me try explaining it one more time.
You're confusing the aspect of whether a particular statement is true or not, with whether it is controversial or not. It's not the same thing. A statement can be true, and it can be controversial at the same time.
Suppose I went to the article on Evolution and inserted the statement "John Smith, who holds a PhD in Biology, [an "expert", of sorts, definitely being portrayed as an "expert" in this instance] has said that "evolution is just a theory"". And sourced it to some Creationist website [let's call it CT.com]. Now. It may be exactly true that this fellah John Smith does have a PhD in Biology (there's some creationists who do), and that in fact he did say this thing. So the statement as inserted into the article is in fact true. That DOES NOT in any way make the statement "non-controversial". And it does not make that insertion/edit NPOV. In fact, that would be the essence of POV-pushing, especially when sourced to a non-reliable source. It's the same thing here.
Like I keep repeating, the main issue in regard to the sentence being discussed is actually not whether RT is a reliable source, although it's not. It's how to present any of the information about "so-and-so said this-and-that", in regard to these "observers". Funnily enough, the people arguing for inclusion here don't wish to discuss that but instead keep yelling "the statement is true, he did say that, hence it's not controversial!" and "RT is a reliable source for statements which are actually true!" (???) "therefore we MUST include it!". We must not do anything. Especially when it violates Wikipedia WP:PILLAR policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Such statement is probably true, is non-controversial, and is relevant, but is not notable, because John Smith is just one of thousands of scientists with PhD in biology. For "Mikhail Malyshev said..." it is almost the same, except for that it is notable, because Mikhail Malyshev is the Crimean election spokesman. If you feel that some important information for balancing is missing, then add it yourself, but it is not acceptable to remove one viewpoint from the article only because the other viewpoint is missing. — Petr Matas 06:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
[37] OSCE observers weren't allowed so the "observers" were present.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Russians say the US/EU news are biased, the US/EU say the Russian news are biased. Who's correct? Its essentially like the Cold War: both sides introduce a slant to support their case. And frankly I myself have noted many instances of uniform media bias in US/EU media. The point is: its not up to us to decide which country can or can not publish sources for use on Wikipedia.

The concept that "media not directly owned by the government must be neutral" is a massive non sequitur. Even if we were to assume there was no way for governments and corporations to carrot-and-stick media outlets (which is silly), its still in the interest of the media conglomerates to support their own country/block of countries. Its in the interest of the EU to bring (as much as possible of) Ukraine into its sphere. Its ultimately in the interest of EU media corporations to support that endeavor. There's really no room for that sort of naïveté regarding either side. None of them are really THIRDPARTY.

Imo the best thing to do is to simply attribute both sides. That is to say: "Russian government or media media sources say" and "EU/US government or media sources state", etc. -- Director (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The best thing is to attribute both sides using context, only representing one side of the story is non neutral.Blethering Scot 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankfurt School conspiracy theory "extremest sources"

A new user, Bakaso, has come to the Talk:Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page and is asking that the sources be qualified as coming from Jewish Marxist scholars, extremist sources, and identifying the Southern Poverty Law Center as an extremist source. They believe that the conspiracy theory itself is a conspiracy theory by neo-Marxists to cover up their Frankfurt School roots. They believe that the entire article is opinion, and therefore falls under the WP:YESPOV opinion as facts. I disagree but would like some input as to if we should qualify the religion, ideology, and name of the sources within the text.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The new user should not be considered a reliable source all by themselves. We repeat what is found in reliable sources, which don't currently ascribe to Bakaso's theories. No reliable source here. We shouldn't add user-generated labels not found in sources, or give weird weight to a person's religion not found in sources, based on the strong feelings of an editor who does not provide any indication of acceptance by any reliable sources. We do have reliable sources calling this line of thought a "conspiracy theory" and strongly and non-vaguely place it as unworthy of serious consideration as a way to describe this subject. The article should not give undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories and should actively describe them as reliable sources do.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for pronunciation of a composer's name

There is an ongoing dispute over the pronunciation of Aram Khachaturian's name in English.

At least four sources use "AH-rahm KAH-chah-TOOR-yahn" as the pronunciation of his name:

Are these sources reliable? At least two of them (Well-tempered & Grolier) are academic.

Question: Is the pronunciation used by these sources notable/significant/relevant enough to be included in the article alongside the (apparently more common) pronunciation used by generic dictionaries? --Երևանցի talk 01:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Srsly? Opinions differ, there is no one single answer. I always go with the BBC, obviously. Include both: X or Y (speaking as an admin who can name a favorite piece of Khachaturian, where most people would say "Aram who?" - and no, it's not the Adagio from Spartacus and Phrygia, though that was a prominent theme of my youth). Guy (Help!) 22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is hardly a matter of opinion -- transcriptions are meant to be descriptive (i.e. they should transcribe the way(s) a word's commonly pronounced). It's obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about pronunciation of English that that's not only a prescriptive transcription, but it's also one that violates the phonological 'rules' of the language. — lfdder 01:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

US Weekly

Is US Weekly reliable? I only saw one discussion about it in the archives Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 112#US Weekly and People magazine - one person said that they "wouldn't count on" it, while the other person said that it would depend on the context. I'm wanting to use this article [42] to say that Scotty McCreery's first job was at a car shop (and possibly say one or two other things about him.) Would that be alright? --Jpcase (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, that article looks like a mass of trivial information. We shouldn't add "Favourite color, favorite tree"-type material as its not especially encyclopedic. I can't see a single piece of information in those twenty-five questions that should be in anyone's Wikipedia page. For this kind of stuff it doesn't make a difference if US Weekly is a reliable source or not for the material; this is all food preferences and sports team preferences as self-reported by the subject. As a rough guideline, if it's somehow important to the subject, you should be able to find mentions of it in more than one place. US Weekly may be a reliable source for whether he uses plastic straws or once had a different haircut (actual answers) but please don't add stuff like this.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with you and wasn't planning on adding any of that kind of information. The only thing that I really wanted to cite this article for was McCreery's first job - something that seems fairly significant and worth mentioning on Wikipedia. I was thinking about maybe saying something about how he played soccer for a year also. But the main thing was his first job. --Jpcase (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you're making a good faith effort, so I'll just add this thought. I think you should consider bios like Elvis Presley and others, which try to include small life details only if they are significant to why the subject is notable (as shown by being taken seriously in reliable sources, not in trivia sections). I'm sure this subject's first job was significant to them, but things like playing soccer and unrelated part-time jobs sometimes make an otherwise good article look like a resume or a collection of random facts. The items may be true, but they don't always make an article better. It's usually better to have the more serious stuff alone, then mixed in with super-light stuff that happens to most people in the world, like prefering a certain sport or working a job in high school. Just a thought. Again, if the only place it shows up is deeply buried in US Weekly, it's probably going to distract from the subject's actual achievements or notability.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Are government sources RS with regard to issues about government?

Are government sources considered reliable sources regarding issues of government over their own country? At issue is whether the Russian government is a reliable source about whether Crimea and Stevastapol are considered federal subjects of Russia. Specific edit in question is here. Source in question is http://kremlin.ru/news/20605. See Talk:Russia#Number_of_federal_subjects for context. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is somewhat dependent on the specific situation, but in general, I'd say a government source is generally good information concerning that government's position on the issue discussed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In this specific situation, the information in the source is not about their own country. It's a primary source from a government responsible for military occupation of a foreign country. There are no secondary sources that support the claim being made by the occupying government, because there's an international dispute. USchick (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
How does that refute that it's that government's position as to the issue? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, as long as it is clearly stated within the article that it is the government's claim or position, and if there are other positions that are not WP:FRINGE that are sourced be given appropriate weight. Rmosler | ● 05:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing the word "including" to "counting" might alleviate the slant, somewhat. Howunusual (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Jens Stoltenberg

Hi, I and @Yambaram: are in conflict against users @Huldra: and @Bjerrebæk: who thinks that our edit here is fringed. The edit have more then enough sources which indicate that the former PM of Norway said an anti-semitic remark. The sources include: The Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, FrontPage Magazine and JNS.org. According to our reliable sources policy we as Wikipedians rely on "newspapers, magazines, books, and media", to make a balanced and neutral article, and the above sources fit that bill perfectly. However, the two (and one neutral) users believe that the sources are extremist and far right. My questions is, if they are extremist and fringed why do are they not blacklisted and if they are considered to be an RS (if they do), why is the sourced material being removed over fringe and POV allegations if the material is sourced from a reliable source and not a personal blog? Or the policy to what is, and what is not considered to be a reliable source have changed over one article? I seen The Jerusalem Post being used more then on one article relating to Israeli leaders, therefore makes it an RS. Or now while JPost is an RS to Israeli-Palestinian articles it is not an RS for Norway related articles? If so, I don't see a paragraph in reliable sources policy which indicate that source should only be in native language or express the view of only (in this case) Norwegians, by using Norge language newspapers? It does said that "it is preferred" but its not mandatory. Now, to get the full picture, we have this discussion on one of the users talkpage here, on the article's talkpage here and two notice boards here and here. I hope that this confusion will soon be solved, because as of now as a new editor (in POV field), I think that I am being falsely accused of reverting removal of sourced content.--Mishae (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as the reliability of a source depends on the context. The White House Press Secretary is not a reliable source for what company makes the best chocolate chip cookie, NASA is not the most reliable source for Russian folk tales. Also see WP:NEWSORG where it says Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Also look at WP:BIASED as even if a source is generally reliable, it may be reporting an opinion that is fringe or could be given WP:UNDUE weight compared to the bulk of other reliable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
So in your opinion JPost is not an RS? Then why it is used as an RS for example at Ariel Sharon? Now, I know that NASA is not a reliable source for Russian folktales, I am not dumb. Have you read the edit that I provided? I also would like to know if by introducing criticism section in the current article, will it still be considered to be an undue weight? If so, how. As far as biased goes the claim is cited by JPost, FrontPage Magazine, Arutz Sheva and JNS.org. Four sources are enough to make it notable to include, don't you think? If not, how many sources do anyone need to provide so that a supposedly fringe idea be included? Like the above editors even removed not only content but also undue weight and POV templates, which according to our policies should remain till the issue is solved.--Mishae (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources are considered reliable on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the claim. You are attempting to repeat the claims found in editorial opinion pieces about the meaning of a politician not saying or doing something. It seems irresponsible and undue to repeat in full quotation that an editorial writer called him personally anti-semitic because of things his government didn't do. I see no evidence that other reliable sources are treating these admitted opinion pieces as anything other than isolated and not especially notable opinions. The opinion pieces are not reliable sources by themselves for whether they are significant opinions, especially for something as BLP-harmful as accusations of personal anti-semitism on no provided evidence.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Kind off get the point. How do you verify what is opinion and what is not if the sources are newspapers and magazines, which considered to be a reliable source under our policies? Like, this is not a white supremacist website that I got it of. As far as opinion pieces goes, the rule states that as long as its not self published, its O.K.. Like, it's not blogs or tweets that are present, its newspapers like JPost, JNS, ADL, and others which also have a page on Wikipedia... I don't see them mentioning anywhere that its a blog or opinion corner, except for JPost.--Mishae (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No, no, no. You say, ...the rule states that as long as its not self published, its O.K. This is not what is meant by our policies at all. Some of the sources you mention would be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE, lacking reputations for reliability and fact-checking, and you would need to make a convincing case that they could be used specifically for a deeply contentious claim about a living person. I think you are highly unlikely to convince many editors that these sources represent a mainstream and neutral view on whether someone is an anti-semite, especially as the issue seems to be what wasn't said by the subject at an event. Saying that a failure to verbally denounce a pro-Palestinian rally as being anti-Semitic is somehow actual proof that someone is personally anti-Semitic is the view of a tiny minority. If you can't find consensus that it is not being given WP:UNDUE weight or that it's free of WP:BLP concerns, it probably won't end up in the article the way you've suggested. That might be as it should be. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. You would need much more clearly reliable sources to assert what you were adding is a widely significant interpretation of this BLP.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, an editorial opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post calling someone an anti-Semite for saying they support Palestine should probably not be given undue inclusion in a WP:BLP without evidence that reliable sources consider the opinion somehow extraordinary and significant, when considered in a WP:NPOV way. It is reliable for the fact that someone somewhere holds an opinion, but not for it's own importance and significance as an opinion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Will adding a criticism section and that opinion pieces is considered to be O.K. to include in a BLP? Like for example, Vladimir Putin article have that section. Or is there a difference between VP article section a possibly this one? If so, explain what the difference will be? I already proposed criticism section to be included in the article on its talkpage. Currently await consensus reply. but its almost a week and nothing.--Mishae (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss everything here. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I use this public interest group as a source?

I made this edit at the Trans-Pacific Partnership page and it was removed apparently because the source isn't the New York Times, CNN and so forth. Can I use this article by the Republic Report since it's based on and provides links to documents and mainstream press reports?--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If it bases content on the mainstream press, cite that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Great Book of Bulldogs Part 1

1. "The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier" by Zwettler, M Publisher=epubli GmbH, isbn=9783844239225 http://books.google.ca/books?id=hz9WeFoj1pIC No page numbers that I can see in the Google view. A search for Leavitt Bulldog will lead to both the Olde English Bulldogge and Leavitt Bulldog section.

2. Leavitt Bulldog

3.

It is one of several breeds developed in order to overcome the genetic problems in the English Bulldog breed

The source makes statements along these lines under the Olde English Bulldogge section, but not within the Leavitt Bulldog section. The Leavitt Bulldog section states he renamed his original breed to avoid association with "other alternative breeders" using the same name for their dogs. I think my larger question is how valid is the source in the first place? It doesn't seem to be self-published, but it is only available as an ebook and by a German publisher I have no information on aside from their website. The grammatical errors make it obvious that the writer was not a native English-speaker who had no editorial support and/or used translation software that didn't do such a good job. I have identified a couple of factual errors within the two sections of the book referenced as well.Ss 051 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Mitanni

Source :Mitannian (Armenian) origin

Article : Aleppo

Content : Parshatatar, king of the Hurrian Armenian kingdom of Mitanni

Case : this claim and source was discussed in the Talk:Mitanni#Regarding Petrie source in Historical Context, it was refused and the Mitanni page doesn't mention mitanni as an Armenian country, is that source reliable and enough to support the claim that Mitanni is an Armenian state , does the source mention this as a fact and does it mention specifically that mitanni is Armenian?? and if it does, is it consistence with academic consensus about mitanni ?? Thanks --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The issue as I see it is that Aleppo had a sentence that started "Parshatatar, king of the Hurrian Armenian kingdom of Mitanni," and was sourced to a book by Leonard William King which IMHO is not a reliable source for this claim that Mitanni was an Armenian kingdom. There has been a problem with an IP hopper recently over this so I suggested RNS not as a solution to an IP hopper but just as a check. This is a contentious area (I mean articles relating to Armenia) and we would need very good sources starting with a similar statement at Mitanni saying it was an Armenian kingdom. Note also that Parshatatar doesn't claim it was Armenian. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

historynet.com

Are the online magazines at historynet.com considered WP reliable sources. If this is not the right place, where can I find out? Hmains (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the way how it is written here [43] probably not. The source in Wikipedia indicates that he was born in 1923, yet on History net it says 1922. I personally wouldn't trust it, looks more like Kids Discover to me.--Mishae (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If you mean THESE magazines — I wouldn't hesitate to use those. Bear in mind that the key thing is to get things right, not whether the source itself has the cache of the New York Times or the Times of London or Time magazine... Carrite (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

hnkcnews.com

I've been seeing efforts by various IPs and a seemingly connected user to add references or external links to http://www.hnkcnews.com (e.g. [44] [45] [46] search). Is this considered acceptable for references/external links? If not, can someone do the needful? Thank you, –xenotalk 15:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Nothing on their site about editorial staff, and the handful of stories are all sourced to other news agencies with the author stripped out. It looks like a news aggregation site. This is not something we should be using in Wikipedia for anything, including an external link. If it's truly multiple IP/accounts, probably a candidate for the blacklist. Ravensfire (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please verify this source and comment on the related article talk pages

Hmm... The writer's name is Hasan Celal Güzel. There is an article about him in wikipedia. Maybe it might be helpful. Yours faithfully. Lamedumal (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Claiming "hidden agenda" as a fact

Source: http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/thailand-on-the-brink/2/

Nominated source #1: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/thai-crisis-splits-families-as-bunker-mentality-deters-stability.html

Nominated source #2: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/world/asia/thailand-unrest-analysis-marshall/

Article: 2013-14 Thai political crisis

Content:

a hidden agenda: the royal succession

I am having trouble dealing with one of the page I am editing. I am not sure I am heading to the right direction anymore in the talk page so I would like to seek some opinion here.

In short, the claim is that the leader of the ongoing protest in Thailand is having a hidden agenda for (or against? they did not tell) the royal succession. The writer put it in in the form of factual statement and claiming that the specified source, among other sources, is a reliable source for this fact. When I opened the discussion, they nominated more sources as I specified and tell that those sources are reliable sources to support the claim.

My argument against this is those are opinion and conjecture and does not directly support the content, hence not the reliable source for the content. They are only reliable source for their opinion.

They also claim the news author cannot provide concrete evidence for that claim because of Thailand's lese majesty law, and I would object that incomplete information is incomplete no matter what the reason is.

Any opinion support or against my argument are welcome. Thank you. --Biglobster (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinions from experienced editors please, Elton Mayo article

On the Elton Mayo article a recent discussion has taken place regarding a 2004 edit, here: [49] which appears quite correct, based on a number of reliable sources, that Elton Mayo was indeed a psychologist.

In fact, specifically the reliable sources say an Australian born psychologist. I cited these sources below as examples. But there are many more. However the other editor again deleted them, see here: [50] and so here we are.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541 http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767 Australian Cultural History (1988) edited by Samuel Louis Goldberg, Francis Barrymore Smith (page 95)

A brief discussion has ensued on the Talk:Elton Mayo page, however it has got nowhere, and rather than even get close to edit warring on this issue (I have not reverted again), I'm posting it here instead to get a wider perspective from some independent editors. The other editor has instead added the terms "researcher" and "organization theorist"? without any reliable sources as far as I can tell?

Hopefully some experienced editors can take a look please, and decide on whether the placement of this "Elton Mayo (Australian born) psychologist" statement in the article lead is justified based on the reliable sources provided? I'll accept whatever outcome is decided on this RS issue. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Two sources indicate the Mayo earned a BA in philosophy and psychology at Adelaide. One source is Cullen, David O'Donald. A new way of statecraft: The career of Elton Mayo and the development of the social sciences in America, 1920-1940. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; 1992; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. The other source is Richard C. S. Trahair, Elton Mayo: The humanist temper. Transaction Publishers, US. 2005. The Trahir book indicates that Mayo was awarded an MA about 16 years after he was awarded the BA. His mentor at Adelaide did the paperwork to award the MA in view of research Mayo conducted in a Philadelphia textile plant, and after Mayo obtained a job at the Harvard Business School. Cullen noted that when people who did not know Mayo personally called him Doctor Mayo, Mayo expediently did not correct them. At HBS Mayo was a professor of industrial research, not psychology.
I write this note to take nothing away from Mayo. His research was influential. I write this note in the interest of accuracy in our encyclopedia. Just because the Britannica is wrong, does mean Wikipedia has to be wrong. I also note the Britannica hedges by calling Mayo "a leader in industrial sociology" although he was not a sociologist.
I am reminded of the old article in Nature (Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901.) that indicates that the accuracy of Wikipedia compares well with that of Britannica. I think we can do better than Britannica. And when Britannica is wrong, we don't have to repeat its errors. Iss246 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541 https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Elton_Mayo http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Elton-Mayo/158890 http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767 http://www.nndb.com/people/043/000119683/bibliography/ http://persona.rin.ru/eng/view/f/0/36377/Elton-Mayo--George-Elton-Mayo-

Above are 7 reliable sources stating Mayo was a psychologist. There are many more reliable sources which state the same thing. Have you got any reliable source(s) please iss246, actually stating that Mayo was NOT a psychologist. I am trying to assume good faith here.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as i remember, we mentioned Elton Mayo as a "psychologist" in industrial and organizational psychology lecture at university. But i am going to check the notes. Maybe it helps. Lamedumal (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Lamedumal. I also thought it was pretty standard knowledge in psychology training.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have checked my notes. There are no labels such as "psychologist", "researcher", "organization theorist" etc. The only thing about Mayo is that his "light experiments" that explored the effects of lighting on worker productivity. Lamedumal (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Contributing the psychology does not mean being a psychologist or, in other words, does not make one a psychologist. Lamedumal (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree Lamedumal, I think your point is that a lot of people might study psych 101 at uni, for instance, but that does not make them a licensed Psychologist. But my question posted here on the reliable sources noticeboard, relates to policy only and I am seeking input from experienced editors regarding Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. My specific question is this:
If the 7 reliable sources provided above, all clearly state that Elton Mayo was a psychologist at some point in his career, my understanding at least, of Wikipedia policy, is to go with what those 7 published, reliable sources state. Especially if no other published reliable sources actually state that Mayo was not a psychologist? It is a reliable source question I posted here, to try and resolve a minor dispute in a civil way, rather than edit war?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. ln addition, he could be a psychologist and at the same time an organization theorist. For instance, Sigmund Freud was a psychologist but at the same time, he was also a neurologist, physician. Lamedumal (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Lamedumal, that makes sense.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Idolator (2)

I opened a discussion recently regarding the reliability of this website; no consensus was reached, actually. This website I'm mentioning is called Idolator (can be found here) and is published by Spin Media (to which I have mixed considerations, as they publish some decidedly reputable works and sites, such as Spin, AbsolutePunk and PopMatters however they are also the publishers of Under the Gun Review and other Kardashian websites which are considered unreliable). Relatively to the writers—95% of the articles used in my article Trouble (Natalia Kills album) are written by their associate editor Sam Lansky which also works for Time and MTV while he has also written for New York magazine and The Atlantic. Two of the sources used in my article are from that website as well but written by Mike Wass (who I believe only works at Idolator however I have no problem with his writing style). Idolator is used in a lot of GAs however people tend to remove those sources when trying to make them FAs.

Well, the problem with my article is that it addresses an album which was not recognized by the general music press (I'm talking about websites like MTV, Rolling Stone, etc.); it also had a weak commercial performance. Basically, the only reputable sources that address the album are (aside from Idolator) AllMusic (review), Digital Spy (vaguely, just an interview with Natalia Kills), Billboard (vague coverage as well) and The New Zealand Herald (review as well). In January, I promoted the article to GA-class and my goal is to have it go FA-class, however I would not be able to further promote its class without the Idolator sources as they would remove a lot of valuable information from the article. Thank you for reading and please comment. ( @WikiRedactor, XXSNUGGUMSXX, Tomica, STATicVapor, HĐ, and JennKR: Could you guys please comment here? Thanks :) ) prism△ 17:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Footnoting

Hi, this question is about how to use reliable sources, rather than about any particular source. Must a sentence in a Wikipedia article be fully supported by each of the footnotes at the end? Or is it enough that the combination of footnotes at the end supports the sentence (e.g. the first footnote supports the first phrase, the second footnote supports the second phrase, et cetera)? I am pretty sure what the answer is, but another editor (Lightbreather) seems to have a different view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of variables go into the answer, if I understand WP:CITE and WP:OR. The reliability of the sources (except maybe for one) isn't the question. It's how they're used. The sources, article, and content are in this discussion. [51] Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Those are big policies. Can you quote a sentence or two that you'd like to rely upon in the present case? WP:Cite seems to contradict your position quite directly: "Bundling [of footnotes at the end of a sentence] is also useful if the sources each support a different portion of the preceding text...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
For one, I made a bold edit that I can live with. [52] I think it's a pretty good paraphrase of what you wrote, and the cited source (one of the original four) supports it.
As for WP:BUNDLING, it says, "when there are multiple sources for a given sentence, and each source applies to the entire sentence...." That's where the sentence under discussion had synthesis issues, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH would lean towards the first interpretation, but if you break the phrases into sentences, that issue goes away. Making a conclusion not supported by a source is WP:OR. Providing the evidence and having the user come to that conclusion on their own is not. If at least one source supports the entire thing, then there is no WP:SYNTH - at that point sources that do not support the whole thing may be used to buttress the individual points that they do support, but the "conclusion" or linking must be supported separately by at least one.. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you, then we agree. It makes for clunky reading, but with controversial stuff, rather than try to write one sentence that says, "Advocates say..." it's better to have two or three sentences that say, "Smith says," and "Jones says," etc. Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a workable compromise in place now, we'll see if it holds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
A small but important point: splitting things into individual sentences does not always guarantee that something is not violating WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH (although it might help avoid it). The paragraph, article, etc still has to avoid advancing a position not found in sources. An article shouldn't state things as It is illegal to steal candy in Maryland.(Sourced) Mr Green was seen with candy on Sunday.(Sourced) The police are looking for candy-thieves.(Sourced) or something like Mr Green's goldfish died.(Sourced) Mr Green said "I am very happy." (Sourced statement not about his goldfish.) It's about whether an original idea not advanced in the individual sources (Mr Green steals candy, hates goldfish) is being insinuated rather than whether the ideas are separated by periods, semi-colons, or the word "and". As Gaijin says, any "conclusion" advanced must be supported by a source; this is still true when the conclusion is strongly and clearly insinuated with juxtaposed sentences. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that every juxtaposition of sourced individual sentences are WP:OR, just that some are.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Generally I would never use separate cites for different parts of a sentence. The best approach is to read rs and summarize what they say. The worst approach is to write an article then seek sources to support it. If one uses the first appraoch, the issue is not likely to come up. TFD (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

These RfCs are largely WP:RS and WP:V related...

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

LOOKING FOR PHILLIP TAYLOR - Medellin _ US

Looking for email address or phone number for ‘Phillip Taylor': Serviced US Embassy as Vice Counsel in Medellin Colombia in 1970"s moved to DC after leaving Medellin Colombia, his sister Kathy was living in New York city in the middle of the 1976’s-1979’s etc.

Elizabeth

Sorry, Elizabeth, this isn't the board for that. We're here to discuss the sources of our articles. You could try the Wikipedia:Reference desk (though frankly I can't guarantee they'd be able to help you either; we're an encyclopedia, not a research firm). --GRuban (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Corexit (Rico-Martinez et. al., and synergistic toxicity of oil and dispersants)

We have a disagreement over at Talk:Corexit on the use of sources that we feel warrants outside opinions. We already have article content on a study by Rico-Martinez et. al. that asserts that adding Corexit makes oil 52 times more toxic than the oil was alone. This result has been criticized in various places by scientific community due to perceived methodological shortcomings (some of the rebuttals are written by scientists with a potential COI). Two of us would like to add this additional information to put Rico-Martinez into context. The use of these sources is opposed by others on the grounds that use of multiple sources in showing that would be WP:SYNTH, picking one idea from one place, another idea, and adding them together to create a third conclusion not found in any source. I don't think that's the case. I think Rico-Martinez is somewhat disputable and that Corexit didn't necessarily create synergistic toxicity.

The sources we'd like to use are:

(I believe this might be secondary, because it's a rebuttal of one paper by another group one step removed) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113000705

(I believe this is secondary because it's a review of the existing literature on the topic) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2501/full

Media coverage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095400.htm

Media coverage: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-oil-dispersants-marine-life.html

I'm hoping someone will better flesh out the opposing view. Geogene (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand all the issues here. But my first thought is that the purpose of the secondary reference rule is to show some degree of mainstream acceptance of an idea. Since this is a hotly controversial subject, neither side can be considered "fringe". So it seems unsportsmanlike to take a legalistic position on the secondary source rule to keep out opposing POVs. Nor does it serve the interests of our readers.
In any case, I'd avoid any general statements about trans-species toxicity on the basis of the Rico-martinez paper. Its behind a paywall, but the study seems restricted to rotifer egg hatching. Is the population of rotifers known to be hatch-limited? Or is it usually limited by predation or competition for food? Can one draw any conclusions from the paper other than that the dispersants "might" affect rotifer populations without engaging in OR? The EPA says that the combination of Corexit-oil is not more toxic than oil alone in the species they looked at. Large interspecies differences in toxicty are commonplace. In fact, there are large interspecies differences in toxicity of pesticides to different rotifer species, as demonstrated by "Effects of an Insect Growth Regulator on Plankton and Gambusia Affinis", Aquatic Toxicology, 4 (1983), 247-269. Strictly speaking, the direct conclusions of the Rico-Martinez paper cannot be used to show toxicity to any species not tested, even other rotifer species.
Since all are living in a glass house, it seems to me that compromise is in order.Formerly 98 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents, as I'm the other at Talk:Corexit trying to include criticism of the Rico-Martinez study.

There are four sources in discussion:

1) Rico-Martínez et al., toxicology study (cited in Wiki article)[53]
2) Coelho et al., commentary article[54]
3) Bejarano et al., review article (proposed for inclusion, with stated conflict of interest)[55]
Secondary coverage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095400.htm
4) Hodson et al., toxicology study (proposed for inclusion)[56]
Secondary coverage: http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/queens-research-suggests-chemicals-used-break-down-oil-spills-are-not-harmful-predicted

1) A toxicology study by Rico-Martínez et al.[57] claiming that Corexit made oil 52x more toxic to rotifers (which GA Tech's media center turned into just 52x more toxic[58]) was widely publicized in 2013. It is cited in oil dispersants and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the lead paragraph of the latter. The study by Rico-Martínez was published in Environmental Pollution journal.

2) In that same journal, a commentary by Coelho, Clark, and Aurand[59] was published later in 2013 that criticized the study. From the abstract of this commentary:

"The 2013 Rico-Martínez et al. publication utilized laboratory testing approaches that severely limit our ability to reliably extrapolate such results to meaningful real-world assessments....Further, they drew real-world conclusions from static exposure tests without reporting actual exposure concentrations."

It was pointed out that Coelho, Clark, and Aurand work for HDR Ecosystem Management, a consulting firm that has worked for BP, Chevron, ExxonMobile, NOAA, EPA, the UN, and more, suggesting possible conflict of interest of Coelho. Furthermore, I agree that to use it to criticize Rico-Martínez et al. could be WP:SYNTH, as they don't obviously criticize Rico-Martínez; they just say their data isn't very useful, and they identify that Rico-Martínez et al. didn't report exposure concentrations. I'm sharing this as context.

3) A review article was written by Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho (same Clark and Coelho as 2). Again, there is conflict of interest, as Bejarano is another environmental consultant and adjunct faculty at the University of New Hampshire.

"Many believe that dispersants make oil more toxic, when in reality existing data generally do not support these claims."

In their paper, they reviewed a lot of studies which compared toxicity of Corexit-dispersed oil to toxicity of just oil:[60]

"The present review of the toxicity of oil ... that had been chemically dispersed with Corexit 9527 or Corexit 9500 (CEWAF), and oil physically or mechanically dispersed (water accommodated fraction [WAF]), reveals large discrepancies between studies reporting measured versus nominal aqueous exposure concentrations (329 WAF-CEWAF paired-data for individual species from 36 independent studies..."

"Most studies with reported measured concentrations (78% of paired-data) had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values greater than or equal to measured WAF values (lower or equal toxicity). .... By contrast, 93% of paired-data reporting nominal concentrations or loading rates had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values between 1.2 and greater than 1000-fold smaller (greater toxicity) than WAF values"

This is an important finding. Re-writing this in a simpler way for the Wikipedia article, I would like to include:

In the review of Bejarano et al., of studies that reported nominal concentrations, 93% found Corexit and oil together had synergistic toxicity; whereas of studies that reported measured concentrations, only 22% found Corexit and oil together had synergistic toxicity.

I do agree it would be WP:SYNTH to use this review to criticize Rico-Martínez directly. However, without synthesis, it makes a strong claim about synergistic toxicity between Corexit and oil - that it's probably an artifact of poor methodology. I think something like the italicized should be included in the article, along with acknowledgement of possible conflict of interest.

4) Finally, a recent study without any obvious conflict of interest, written by Canadian scientists at Queen's University.

"The chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 may not be as harmful to fish as first thought, says new research from Queen’s professor Peter Hodson and his team of researchers."

"The toxicity of dispersed oil could be attributed entirely to the effects of oil, and not to synergistic interactions between dispersant toxicity and oil toxicity," says Dr. Hodson.[61]

Use of this article was downplayed on two fronts: 1) Dr. Hodson says "could be", and 2) the university page only says "dispersant" and not "Corexit". First, I think it's clear the "could be" means "was" (i.e. they did attribute it). Use of "could be" in this way is common in scientific dialect. Second, I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to identify the "chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill" as Corexit. At this point, it's pretty clear.

In case there's any doubt about the "could be", Dr. Hodson's meaning can be verified from his own article: "Contrary to Rico-Martínez et al. [6], neither experiment in the present study was consistent with synergistic toxicity of oil and dispersant in dispersed oil mixtures. Rather, the dispersant in the mixture increased the exposure of embryos to hydrocarbons, without changing or contributing to their toxicity." [62]

I think a reasonable addition is Canadian scientists at Queen's University found that Corexit increased exposure concentration of oil, but did not increase its toxicity.

Kjhuston (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


For what its worth, I think the level of uncertainty here is pretty high, and the debate may reflect a greater interest in the particulars on the part of the editors than the average reader. My suggestion would be: "It is unclear whether the toxicity of Corexit-petroleum mixtures is greater than that of petroleum alone" followed by a few footnotes supporting each side of the debate. Ecosystems are way too complicated to be understood in terms of experiments performed in aquaria. The risk that the mixture is overall worse for the environment is credible, but unproven. At least that's how I see it. Its an important issue, but nobody really knows the answer at this point. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, fwiw, I have a response from someone working on this issue, but who is too busy to take part in Wikipedia, so I'm copying here: "Essentially the treated crude is a new animal from a chemical standpoint. One of the initial observations I made when quickly reviewing the data showed the concentration factor may be closer to -10X instead of +52X, but that is for chemical concentration versus toxicity to the biomass. Again, the problem of understanding that concentration versus toxicity is created by comparing two dissimilar characteristics.
The problem of comparisons between chemical concentration and toxicity is based on a lack of understanding of what toxicity is all about. The perfect example is the toxicity testing required by the EPA for a chemical dispersant to be listed on the NCP Approved Vendor/Product list. It uses a baseline for invertebrate and vertebrate species of small shrimp and minnows. This allows an apples to apples comparison of relative toxicity levels, but does not indicate toxicity levels that would affect humans or more complex vertebrates in the water column like large predatory fish. At lower levels of the food chain where less complex animals are affected more readily by changes in environment from anthropogenic inputs, the affect of chemicals of all sorts tend to create similar levels of toxicity with respect to concentration in the habitat of choice for those organisms." More to come, as I have asked others to weigh in. petrarchan47tc 18:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources should rarely be used. Secondary sources are needed to establish their WP:WEIGHT. The review study by Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho seems fine. Conflict of interest is a problem that the publication is supposed to determine. If they think contributors are likely to falsify information for financial benefit, they are unlikely to publish them. And if they have any sort of review process they are likely to catch it before publication. And the Queen's study is a primary source. TFD (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the Queen's study is a primary source, and its press release is not a meaningful secondary source. I do question whether a run through the science news cycle [63] and repeating of the primary source's claim by news articles is proof of validity over another study. The process seems fairly arbitrary, except that more extraordinary claims are likely to attract more news attention faster. I think the Rico-Martínez study is given undue weight by its placement in the lead paragraph of Corexit, but I'm more interested in inclusion of opposing POV in the large Corexit toxicity section that has amassed. Speaking of which, I don't understand why what's supposed to be an informative NPOV section on toxicity has a paragraph in isolation:
"During a Senate hearing on the use of dispersants, Senator Lisa Murkowski asked EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson whether Corexit use should be banned, stating she didn't want dispersants to be 'the Agent Orange of this oil spill'."
It doesn't seem to have much information content to me, unless we're talking about fears of toxicity rather than toxicity itself. Kjhuston (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
PS Sorry, I got off-topic on that last bit. Forgot we're in reliable sources. Kjhuston (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One of the folks over at the Fringe NB said the article might should have a look at it from the NPOV board, because it was kind of weird. But as far as how we can use sources, and since we're talking about Rico-Martinez, we have:

"In 2012, a study found that Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic than oil alone,[5][6][7] and that the dispersant's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bio-available to plankton.[8] The Georgia Institute of Technology found that "Mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to ecosystems" and made the gulf oil spill worse.[9]"

This is how Rico-Martinez is presented in the article's lead. (We mention it twice, actually, in consecutive sentences.) My mention of plankton was a major compromise that went through a number of bold:revert cycles. There were accusations of greenwashing and sugar-coating just to get to this point. But it's still misleading as we have it, don't you think? Geogene (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] :::We generally don't second guess why so many reliable sources cover a particular study, we simply try to reflect this coverage in our articles. The study is mentioned by Susan D. Shaw here. Again on the Australian 60 Minutes' coverage of Corexit here, and as has been expressed, in many news articles. In general, the idea of increased toxicity by the combination of oil and Corexit has been discussed by scientists from EPA's Hugh Kaufman to Wilma Subra, to Riki Ott. This finding is not fringe by any stretch. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Geogene, it is preferred to stick with the wording as summarized by RS, and they all state the same thing, which is what was added to the article originally. When it was changed it became too technical for general readers to understand and did not make the results of the study more clear. The body is a better place to add details of the study, which was that plankton was used in the tests. The change deviated from the title and subtitle of the study [later edit: and by this, I meant review - my mistake], and from what RS said about the study, in such a way that 'whitewashing' seemed the only motive. It came on the heels of a months' worth of similar POV editing to BP oil spill articles which has been very disruptive. The study is in the Lede because it truly is the most widely cited Corexit study to date, as there is notoriously little research on the dispersant and dispersed oil. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you name the title and "subtitle" of the study? Preferably with a link? Geogene (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The secondary review of the study to is titled Gulf of Mexico Clean-Up Makes 2010 Spill 52-Times More Toxic with the subtitle Study shows mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to Gulf’s ecosystems.
Your change was to In 2012, a study found that Corexit's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bioavailable to planktonic animals, increasing their toxicity to plankton by up to 52 times. The longstanding version read "In 2012, a study found that Corexit increases the toxicity of oil by 52 times.", so as to stay as close to the source material as possible, understandable to laypersons, and to keep it concise for the Lede. petrarchan47tc 01:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
That's the title of Georgia Tech's press release, which is unfortunately the reason we now have a sentence in the Wiki article:
The Georgia Institute of Technology found that "Mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to ecosystems" and made the gulf oil spill worse.
Do we really want to say Georgia Tech found that adding Corexit to oil made the oil spill worse, and they figured this out based on a single experiment in a lab? Forget all those oceanographers out in the field, studying the effect of dispersed oil on the marine ecosystem. Forget all the complexity and uncertainty involved in assessing effects on the marine environment. Georgia Tech decided adding dispersant made the oil spill worse. We can shut down all the research now - our environmental policy questions are solved. I don't think we want that.
The study is titled "Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera)" [64].
But anyway, we may want to discuss a bigger question (not on this noticeboard), which is whether we want the Corexit article to be a hodgepodge of toxicity studies, claims and counter-claims, or if we want the more general conclusion that it is difficult to assess the damage of dispersing oil to marine environments, particularly in deep water, studies are ongoing, and that some have claimed the EPA didn't have sufficient information to decide whether dispersing oil had a net benefit over not dispersing. Kjhuston (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Both. WP articles are generally a bit of hodgepodge, as the encyclopedia is meant to chronicle information. But the claim that a "general conclusion is difficult to assess" has RS backing it up, so it should be included as well. The issue of WP:WEIGHT is an important to look at as you learn the ropes of building a neutral article based on WP's guidelines. To argue that Georgia Tech got it wrong, besides being WP:OR, is quite fruitless given the rules here. petrarchan47tc 07:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I haven't followed this as closely as some. But there was an EPA study that reached the opposite conclusion. Are we then arguing that "The EPA got it Wrong"? What was the basis for concluding that the EPA is wrong and "Georgia Tech" (I doubt the entire university was involved in this study) is right? Thanks!Formerly 98 (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The EPA may not be the most reliable source when it comes to BP oil spill science. They also lied during the 911 tragedy telling workers there was nothing harmful in the air during cleanup. They've done a similar thing during the gulf crisis, although I'm not arguing we shouldn't include their findings, but an awareness of the facts is imperative. Here is one example, and I left a list here.
For instance, whistleblower and current employee of the EPA, Hugh Kaufman: MSNBC video of interview "Some of the toxicologists who have experience and education, were trying to get [EPA] management to pay attention to the data that EPA had and has had for decades, but to no avail. 'There was a political decision made to let BP take the lead as opposed to the government being proactive'. He alleges that his agency (he was one of the founders) has known all along how toxic Corexit is, and that the EPA lied about it. He also says that the EPA has known that the toxicity is increased when oil and Corexit are combined. petrarchan47tc 19:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The "52 times study" (Rico-Martinez) is in effect arguing that the EPA's toxicity studies are "wrong" in the sense that they underestimated the combined effect of oil + Corexit on small organisms, using rotifers as a model animal. From what I gather, by breaking the oil into smaller droplets, you get more surface area, there more exposure of oil to planktonic organisms. Rotifers were the model animal but I think what they're really getting at is "plankton", and some of the better media coverage emphasizes that, the article tends to de-emphasize that we're talking about plankton and emphasizes vague "damaged ecosystems" and "made the oil spill worse". Note that I may have misused the term "synergistic toxicity" at the top and this may be causing some confusion. Geogene (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Compromise OK, as my last comment on this, I'd going to say that it seems pretty clear that 1) there is a lot of controversy regarding the overall beneficial vs. negative effect of applying dispersants, and 2) this controversy exists because aquariums are woefully inadequate models for actual ecosystems. (WP:OR doesn't mean we have to assasinate our brains SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. Good essay here WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not just any synthesis Therefore the article should reflect the uncertainty among experts on the larger point of whether the use of dispersants is overall harmful or helpful. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So as with any article, we include all relevant opinions, findings and sides. We have studies on both sides and they will continue to be offered to the reader. We came here to see whether the Coelho opinion was RS, and it passes. We can't however use that piece to throw out the study, which has been attempted. Now the argument at the talk page is that since we just don't know yet whether dispersants hurt or helped, we should only say that and not offer the reader a look at the various findings to date. I believe this line of reasoning goes beyond "what is RS"? and verges heavily into agenda territory. petrarchan47tc 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to retract my statement about not saying anymore about this and suggest that you carefully review WP:GF. I think it would be good to consider the idea that when people continue to try to deal with you in a constructive manner after you insult them and question their motives, its not because they find you less frustrating than you find them, but because they are behaving more graciously. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you didn't choose to comment on the more substantive issues related to this noticeboard, like the addition of Hugh Kaufman's comments above showing your fallacious assumption that the EPA is automatically reliable. I find it strange that anyone would bring an essay (promoting the allowance of some SYNTH) to a noticeboard meant to focus on guidelines. Before commenting on my behaviour, you apparently did not do much of an investigation into those you call gracious. This comment from Geogene on my talk page sounds to be written by a 12 year old, and was based on lack of understanding of WP guidelines: This is POV wording you added here [65]. Ott claims that Corexit use continued, it is not an objective fact that it did. Your tendentious editing is detrimental to these articles. If you want to write propaganda, get a blog. The SPA's first edit to WP a few weeks back, was to remove the Rico-Martinez study because it was "misleading". Then we visit this noticeboard twice, and both times it is revealed that the study has sufficient RS for inclusion, but the argument immediately switches to seemingly find another way of removing the study. In other words, it is difficult for a thinking person to see this as respectful towards WP and the time editors have spent at noticeboards assuming GF... ie, assuming that the reason we are here is to figure out and abide by the guidelines. petrarchan47tc 22:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Um, certainly it's understandable if this generates no further comment, but if anyone's willing to comment or has a suggestion for another forum, we have a disagreement over two possible sentences in which we might refer to Rico-Martinez in the Lead:

"One study has shown that the addition of Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic, and that the dispersant's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more harmful to plankton."

or

"One study has shown that the addition of Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic to plankton."

I prefer the latter, but previous "compromise" versions of the first had a "because" instead of the "and", to establish that this is only one study and it applies to plankton (though the model organisms were rotifers). That keeps getting changed to the first version above, with the "and", which is a statement with different meaning, for reasons I don't understand, but the edit summary in the last change told me to "stay closer to wording in secondary sources". So it's still a source disagreement. I think that it goes against higher principles than the primary/secondary RS guidelines to use them to include using misleading statements. I thought this had been settled but I think we put it aside to focus on other questions. Geogene (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what is important in these cases is to accurately report 1) what the authors demonstrated, and 2) what they concluded, without conflating the two. If the authors hypothesized that the toxicity increase would be general due to increased bioavailability of the oil, I think it would be fine to state something like "The study demonstrated that the toxicity of oil to some plankton species is increased 52 fold in the presence of dispersant. The authors argued that this increase was due to an increase in the bioavailability of the oil, and that similar effects may be seen in other species." But my understanding is that they only demonstrated the former. It shouldn't be written up as if they proved their theory, all they have proved is that it is more toxic to rotifers in an aquarium.
Making broad claims about greater environmental destruction based on this paper would be very closely analogous to claiming toxicity in humans based on studies done in cell culture, which MEDRS does not permit for the very good reason that this sort of extrapolation is fraught with hazard.Formerly 98 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This appears to be a terribly convoluted discussion over a relatively straightforward issue, which is the widely reported study indicating that Corexit makes spilled oil more toxic. It has been reliably reported in secondary sources. If there is criticism that has been reliably reported in secondary sources (not including college press releases, for instance) then that belongs there too. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I examined the so-called "media coverage" cited at the top of this section. One http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095400.htm is the "featured research" column of a trade website, and requires interpretation and original research to become comprehensible. The other http://phys.org/news/2013-12-oil-dispersants-marine-life.html is a rewrite of this press release http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/queens-research-suggests-chemicals-used-break-down-oil-spills-are-not-harmful-predicted which would not count as a reliable independent secondary source. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I have 2 secondary references that show that grapes are toxic to dogs. Should we add a sentence to the lede of the grapes article along the line of "The consumption of as few as a dozen grapes is sometimes lethal within hours"? Toxicity is species specific. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be grossly WP:UNDUE? I don't see the relevancy to this discussion, but please set me straight on what I'm missing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm just trying to illustrate that showing enhanced toxicity in rotifers is not sufficient to establish greater toxicity in general. If Corexit plus oil is more toxic to plankton than either oil or Corexit taken separately, that's worth noting. One can even say that the authors concluded that the increase in toxicity might be generalizable to other species. But they certainly haven't shown that, any more than the toxicity of grapes to dogs tells us anything about the toxicity of grapes to cats or people.
Besides, isn't the goal of adding dispersant to enhance the rate of biodegradation of the oil, and thus reduce the length of time the ecosystem is exposed? One could reasonably increase toxicity as measured in a 24 hour experiment, but reduce the negative effect on the environment because the toxicity was increased but so was the rate of clearance.
What seems clear is that there is a lot of controversy and little certainty about the issues here. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-published source

This is obviously a self-published source. So why is it reliable? 69.183.117.146 (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A good question - the same source seems to be cited in multiple articles. [66] I'll look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, we once had an article on the poll - which was deleted at AfD [67]. If there has been a discussion regarding the suitability of the poll website as a source, I've not been able to find it. I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks to see if anyone knows more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

William Muir on "Life of Mahomet"

I was surprised to see a 19th century historian's book approved in RSN as a reliable source here. I am checking to see if this was a mistake or not as it is currently being used in this article. Kindly, please advise.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Not a reliable source. It's badly out of date, and that in an area where we have massive amounts of good modern scholarship available. May possibly be used as a primary source to illustrate a significant opinion back in Victorian times, but certainly not as a source for facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Is this a reliable source? It's being used to source the assertion that a school "is a full k-12 school, including a high school level, and cooperates with other schools for college admissions". 71.139.142.132 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Collect (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168&oldid=1249260030"