Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129

Hi I was just reading on a site and a book about Gawain and I just felt it might be necessary to add them, now the preview would be both of these

Specifically, the WP article on Arnie Zimmerman states,

He has been called "one of the most significant contemporary artists working in ceramics today".

based upon a press release by the Rhode Island School of Design Museum of Art exhibiting his work. I looked for corroborating sources but didn't find any, but it isn't my area of expertise. The source seems somewhat promotional to me, but I don't have a strong opinion so brought it here. Ward20 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "has been called", you should name the source in-line. But it seems to be the wrong way to approach this. The best way is to get a good book about "contemporary artists working in ceramics today" and see what they say about his significance. TFD (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Press releases are not ideal sources and should be noted when used. Furthermore I take it the press release is promotional, and that is also important. If it is the only source you can find we should indicate that the source is a promotional press release. But actually if the promo material says he has been called this, there must be (or should be) a mainstream media source somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The press release from The RISD Museum of Art is the source of the partial quote:

The RISD Museum of Art presents Inner City, an epic narrative of urban growth, decay, change, and life itself, realized in clay by one of the most significant contemporary artists working in ceramics today—Arnie Zimmerman (American, b. 1954).

I've never edited this article nor am I familiar with literature about his work. While casually reading the article I noticed the source seemed to be marginal and wondered how to improve it. I agree with TFD above about the best way to deal with it and initially spent about a hour looking for such a source but I failed. Again, this isn't my thing so a better source may exist, I don't know. Another way is to attribute the source as a promotional press release but I'm not sure this meets WP:RS conventions. The third way I see is to tag it with a "better source needed" notation. A fourth way is to remove the material as not having a reliable source. I'm looking for opinions or suggestions about which way to go. Ward20 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Press releases are dignified forms of advertisement, and are promotional in nature; they are not to be considered reliable sources for a claim such as this about anybody, living or dead. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I really like that "dignified forms of advertisement". They are also a serious problem because some newspapers reprint them as though they were stories, and they end up being cited in articles as stories. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that press releases like this are primarily promotional in nature and prone to hyperbole. I wouldn't consider it worth using at all, especially for a puffed-up sentence like the one the OP quoted. Agree with Dougweller about press releases being a serious sourcing problem, especially when they are published by (otherwise reliable) journalistic outlets as "stories" without any significant contribution or, for that matter, afterthought, by the journalist writing the "story". It's really a cheap and lazy way to fill page space on a slow news day. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Press releases are self-published, and unless you have a reason to believe that the BLP wrote and published it (or indirectly did, e.g., a press release by a company introducing a new employee), then it's not useable at all for information about a BLP.

And if the subject did write it, then you treat it just like you would have treated the same words appearing on the subject's website: it would be "reliable" but perhaps not WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Joan Gerber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is tributes.com a reliable source for saying Gerber died? I'm uncomfortable with sites like this, particularly for citing deaths. I looked at the about us page, and it didn't make me any more comfortable. The WP article is essentially almost devoid of references. There's an external link to another dubious source that also says she died. Their about page doesn't reassure me, either. Do two not-very-reliable sources make one reliable source? :-)

It appears there's very little secondary coverage of Gerber, despite her rather prolific career, so I've been unable to find your usual obituary in a mainstream newspaper.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the tributes.com will do. It seems that the page is simply a feed from the US social security index. It is probably her, but this is to all intents and purposes a public record with all the dangers of that, and so per BLP:PRIMARY should not be used. --Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable assessment to me, too. It gets somewhat more confusing because tributes.com doesn't say what index it is using, the official paid index, or one of the unofficial indexes. At least one of those unofficial indexes doesn't appear to corroborate the death date given by tributes.com.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this from Legacy.com through its affiliate LA Times: JOANELLEN GERBER Jul 29, 1935 Aug 22, 2011 Last residence: 90046 (Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA). The search is through the SSDI records. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's coming from the same source, though. The US publicly releases this death database to stop fraud etc and then it gets picked up by various sources including these companies. But the problem is that we have no clear idea that Joanellen Gerber is the Joan Gerber of the article. I did a bit of a search around and there are lots of Joan Gerbers in the US (including one who is/was in prison as a Madam!!).Slp1 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The birth date matches the birth date in our article. The problem is that the birth date in our article is also not reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point Bbb23. It is a tough call with all these primary sources etc. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

not related to the reliability of the tributes.com site, but there are just a whole buttload of other voice actor articles of similarly scant reliable sourcing, if anyone is looking for a massive clean up project. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I didn't have such a project in mind when I got involved in this case. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering about this edit to Bryan Alvarez. I keep the article on my watchlist because it is frequently vandalized. A claim was added that his wife cheated on him, she is now pregnant, and they are going to name the baby Jamal after his father. I removed it as unsourced the first time. It was added back with a subscription-only article as a reference. I removed it, as I was concerned about the BLP content, but it was re-added with a note that I was being cheap and should just subscribe to the site. Is the sourcing sufficient for this claim? The free content on the website is used regularly for sourcing in professional wrestling articles, but I have never seen the subscriber-only content used as a reference, let alone for a claim like this. I might be completely wrong here, so I thought I'd see what people had to say. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the "journalists" are the "editors" this looks like SPS to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Material like that should definitely not be added to a BLP without rock-solid sourcing. I would say not only to remove it, but notify admins to block the editor if they keep it up and lock down the article if IPs keep trying to add it. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap, I agree with Cla68 - As far as I can tell, this claim is literally absent from the entire (subscription free) internet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and trying to cite a potentially libelous BLP claim to a source you know most people have no access to is almost trolling. Demanding that other editors pay a subscription fee before they can challenge you is even closer. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've watchlisted the article and am happy to protect/block as required. --Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It was readded so I've now semi-protected the article. Slp1 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to cite a recent BBC documentary on "Bloody Friday" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kxsxn as a source but another editor has said it can't be used because the BBC have not as yet made it publically available online in a permanent manner. What's the policy in this regard?--feline1 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Hot Stop 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be online,(this should be carved in stone) as long as a copy exists somewhere in a library, you can use it. The BBC has a habit of releasing many of their popular documentary series on the video market, has this one appeared in the shops yet? Roger (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is an ongoing discussion about the claim that the medieval madrasa of Al-Karaouine is the "the oldest continuously operating university" in the world. To support this view, two sources are forwarded which are in my view unreliable and should not be used in Wikipedia to make this claim:

This source has been brought up in a thread above An editor wish's to use it to source some very contentious claims about Indian state sponsored terrorism. The webpage the content comes from is cited is here This webpage says "RAW allegedly executed a hijacking of an Indian Airliner to Lahore in 1971 which was attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement." which is pure conspiracy theory stuff. I do not see how a source which cites conspiracy theory's like this can be reliable for such contentious edits. I would like some neutral opinions on the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The website has been discussed multiple times at this board. Here are the three most recent . The conclusion seems to be that sometimes it is reliable (and significant) and sometimes not. They reprint things mostly, so it depends on the provenance of the material. --Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I do not see how it can be good for such contentious edits when the same page being used spouts a conspiracy theory. Here are three academic sources which say it was an act by two young men who founded their own branch of the JKLF. International Air Law and Icao p190 Eleven International Publishing Indian Pakistan and the Secret Jihad: The Covert War in Kashmir, 1947-2004 p113 Taylor & Francis Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts p233 University of Pennsylvania Press. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So far, you have given no credible argument to discredit the content in the said source apart from your personal opinion on something being a conspiracy theory. Your opinion of an air hijacking incident is irrelevant, the vast majority of the content from that source is related to the India and state terrorism article and there is nothing to prove that it is unreliable. Mar4d (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that they spout conspiracy theory's you mean? Or the fact that they hoover up information form all over the place? It is nowhere near a reliable source for stating the India conducts state sponsored terrorism. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"RAW allegedly executed a hijacking of an Indian Airliner to Lahore in 1971 which was attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement" - Where is the conspiracy theory? The source is saying "allegedly". You are misquoting and taking one statement out of context to render an entire source as non-reliable That is not a valid argument. Also, it should be up to the readers to decide, not you, of what they want to believe. Also, why are you discussing this statement when it is not even part of the content dispute? The content under discussion is related to activities in Pakistan, of which so far you have not proven anything as non-credible. Mar4d (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that they plagiarize content from all over is obviously not a worry to you? I shall await a response to my question below. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note for outsiders The content disputed by Darkness Shines is the start of this section. This content can also be found in this Daily Times article: ‘RAW very active against Pakistan’. As I said previously, the newspaper article attributes these statements to Globalsecurity.org, describing it as a Washington-based "authoritative US security and intelligence information group". I suggest we follow the same approach used in the newspaper article; that is, all statements sourced to Globalsecurity should be attributed in the article. So for example, something along the lines of "According to Globalsecurity.org, a US-based security and intelligence information group, India has been alleged of such and such." The readers should have the freedom of what they want to make out of it. Thoughts? Mar4d (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to correct an obvious error from your own words, Duncan was married to June Pressley, daughter of "Charlie" NOT Elvis!! We were neighbours in 1966/68 in West Ruislip and enjoyed both their talents, June had her own group.

Godfrey Owen, BURLINGTON ON

Um... the article says June is Elvis's cousin... not his daughter. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A user is claiming at Olympic Games that they were preceded by the Tailteann Games, which date back to 1600 BC . The source used for this rather exceptional claim is this , a social and cultural history of Ireland for the period 1922-1985. Am I the only one who thinks that the source is not sufficient for such an exceptional claim? Athenean (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That reference is probably not an OK source for this edit to the article on the Tailteann Games (as it does not cover the period in question), and is clearly not an appropriate reference to support a claim that these games in Ireland inspired the ancient Greek Olympics as was made in this edit. There are a huge number of good quality histories of ancient Greece and the Olympics, so if this is true it can be expected that they'd cover the connection. More generally, a history of Irish society and culture between 1922 and 1985 is obviously not a good source of information on the classical era of Greek history or prehistoric Ireland. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

After studying lots of sources about this, I'd suggest most modern, scholarly, reliable, peer-reviewed sources claim they were founded in the 1800s, not the 1600s BCE. Most make the suggestion that they predate the Olympics so I suggest Wikipedia reflects this view, not those of certain Hellenic-biased editors without any sources.George B. Kirsch; Othello Harris; Claire Elaine Nolte (30 April 2000). Encyclopedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 238–. ISBN 978-0-313-29911-7. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Claudia B. Manley (1 June 2001). Competitive Track and Field for Girls. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-0-8239-3408-9. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Kristin Wolden Nitz; Andy King (1 October 2003). Play-By-Play Track. Lerner Publications. pp. 7–. ISBN 978-0-8225-3936-0. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Tim Delaney; Tim Madigan (28 May 2009). Sports: Why People Love Them!. University Press of America. pp. 31–. ISBN 978-0-7618-4489-1. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Roger Robinson (1 October 2003). Running in Literature: A Guide for Scholars, Readers, Runners, Joggers and Dreamers. Breakaway Books. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-891369-41-4. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Tim Delaney; Tim Madigan (30 April 2009). The Sociology of Sports: An Introduction. McFarland. pp. 42–. ISBN 978-0-7864-4169-3. Retrieved 12 August 2012.William H. Freeman (21 January 2011). Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Science in a Changing Society. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. pp. 80–. ISBN 978-0-7637-8157-6. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Peter Matthews (22 March 2012). Historical Dictionary of Track and Field. Scarecrow Press. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-0-8108-6781-9. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Martin Connors; Diane L. Dupuis; Brad Morgan (1992). The Olympics factbook: a spectator's guide to the winter and summer games. Visible Ink. ISBN 978-0-8103-9417-9. Retrieved 12 August 2012.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

None of these are adequate sources. Competitive Track and Field for Girls? Sports: Why People Love Them!? Running in Literature: A Guide for Scholars, Readers, Runners, Joggers and Dreamers?? Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Science in a Changing Society??? You must be joking. This smacks of desperation. And please learn how to present sources on talkpages, and keep the ethnic baiting to yourself, or I will report you. Athenean (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the more important sources such as the Encylcopedia Americana, Encylopedia of Ethnicity and Sports in the United States, The Sociology of Sports, Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Science in a Changing Society, Foras feasa ar Eirinn ... The history of Ireland, The Chronology of World History. Here's some more from the Tailteann Games page.Geoffrey Keating (1866). Foras feasa ar Eirinn ... The history of Ireland, tr. and annotated by J. O'Mahony. pp. 301–. Retrieved 1 July 2012.Terence Brown (1985). Ireland: a social and cultural history, 1922-1985, p. 82. Fontana Press. ISBN 978-0-00-686082-2. Retrieved 11 August 2012.H. E. L. Mellersh; Neville Williams (1 April 1999). Chronology of world history, p. 15. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-155-7. Retrieved 1 August 2012.Grolier Incorporated (2000). The encyclopedia Americana, pp. 892 & 905. Grolier. ISBN 978-0-7172-0133-4. Retrieved 1 August 2012.. Apologies if my suggestion of Hellenic bias appeared as ethnic baiting. I did not intend it to be. Without presenting any source for your entirely made-up and exceptional claim that the Olympic games predate the Tailteann, I am simply trying to explain your unreasoned attempts to delete factual information. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, none of these are in-depth scholarly sources into the history of sports or the Olympics. They either trivial or shallow generalist sources. Are you just doing a Google Books search of "Tailteann Games" btw? Bombarding this page with inadequate sources is not going to help you here. It's a question of quality, not quantity. Do you realize how exceptional is the claim you are making is? I am not the one making claims here. I do not need to provide sources, the burden of proof is on you. I should not have to present sources to disprove your claim. And you still haven't answered my simple question: Even if the TGs were held in 10,000 BC, what does it have to do with the Olympic Games? Please stop evading that question. Athenean (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those obviously aren't appropriate sources to support such claims. There are lots of high quality histories of the Olympics and dedicated histories of prehistoric Ireland, and they're the appropriate sources for this kind of material. Please also stop the personal attacks, or you will be blocked. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is so obvious, I had not even noticed it sorry. The answer is that the Tailteann games was a big sporting event. The Olympics is a big sporting event. The origin of big sporting events obviously has lots to do with the Olympics. What isn't obvious is why you are ignoring the high quality histories of the Olympics and dedicated histories of prehistoric Ireland I have mentioned. Please stop evading that question. You are claiming that I am making an exceptional claim, which I am not. Most sources reflect my claim and you haven't got one to disprove it.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"They are both big sporting events"? Seriously? That's the best you can come up with? None of your sources are "high quality histories of the Olympics and dedicated histories of prehistoric Ireland", like both Nick-D and I keep telling you. And none of them connect the Tailteann Games to Olympic Games. You are also starting to repeat yourself, not sure if there is much more to discuss here. Athenean (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have answered all your questions and you are still not providing any sources for your POV-pushing. Most of mine connect the Tailteann Games to the Olympic Games by saying the Tailteann predates the Olympics. I am not going to waste my time providing more sources, or ripping out all the text you haven't bothered reading. Try searching Google books for "Tailteann and Olympics", which is what I did and you'll find tonnes more. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember, this a featured article and for this kind of article it needs exceptionally good sources to make exceptional claims, and any controversial material should be discussed in advance. I share Athenean's reservation about the impossibly precise and early date, about 2000 years actually before the first men on the Irish isle became literate...This is in all likelihood a legend, a product of the modern invention of tradition. In fact, the article Tailteann Games itself calls it a legend, so why don't you start there first trying to build up consensus for your views?

And considering for the sake of the argument its old age turns out true, I still wonder what a reference to these completely unrelated event has to do in the lead to the Olympic Games? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A perennial issue in Sonny Liston is Liston's year of birth. It has been in doubt for years, as it was never officially recorded. At one point he gave his birth year as 1932, but that has never been confirmed. The article currently says "circa 1932," though in the past he gave his birth year as preceding that. The 1940 Census gives his age as 10, indicating a birth year of 1930 or 1929. Can that be used? See the current talk page discussion. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, as this is interpretation of a primary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The census form says plainly that Liston was 10 years old. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Which Liston? How are you confirming that this Liston is your Liston? That's interpretation, and that's OR. If you want to become an original publisher of genealogical research then go elsewhere, this is an encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The article lists the name of his mother and father, and so does the census listing. There's really no doubt about that nor any interpretation required. However, I'm not sure if it's OR, which is why I listed it here. I've posted a link to the census page in the relevant talk page discussion. I have your opinion, and I'd appreciate other points of view. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"There's really no doubt about that nor any interpretation required." If you keep arguing it, you obviously don't "have" it. It is OR, because the interpretation of census results to produce meaningful outcomes is a non-trivial interpretation. See historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "arguing it." I'm hoping to get more than one person to respond. One reply is inconclusive, especially since your reasoning is weak. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is no genuine dispute that this is the same person (e.g. the address and parents' names are verified), then I don't see a genuine as opposed to a purely theoretical reason not to add the sentence that the census lists his date of birth as X. (Note that that is not the same thing as saying that his date of birth was X, as it's possible for a census to be wrong, though it's probably unlikely in this context.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply on this, as that gets to my concern here. According to the article, his parents were named Tobe and Helen. The address in 1940 is in a county adjacent to the one in which he was born, and the parents are "Tobbie" and "Helen." So I guess my question is whether this crosses over into OR. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Errors in the census are not uncommon, based on my own experience in looking at Census records for relatives. The census should not be treated as gospel. The article acknowledges uncertainty regarding his birthdate; I think it would be worthwhile to mention in a footnote that the 1940 Census record shows a person of this name with these named parents as having been 10 years old in 1940. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had a footnote in mind. I've seen census date reflected in other articles in footnotes, but can't recall which ones. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no argument weaker than other stuff exists. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Rusk documents

First of all, I'm a new user in english wikipedia, I am not experienced user, however, I need some help. Second, sorry my broken english. I'm not a navtive english speaker.

Japanese users (including Japanese "administrator" in english wikipedia) keep pushing Japanes POV on Korea-Japan dispute material. They keep deleting all cited material.

August 26, 1954 Another US State Department report seriously questioned their previous view of Liancourt Rocks (including rusk document) was based on legal and historical understading. Even this report mentioned about how wrong "rusk document" was.

This is important document to Korea-Japan territorial dispute. But Japanese Wikipedia users blanking its entire section. There reason are

• "no trust worthy"section blanking from Japan IP,
• "not related to the topic, not all sources reliable; personal opinons, etc"section blanking from Japanese admin

Excuse me, Citing from 1954 US state department document is unreliable? US state department was personal opinons? (How about rusk document? document itself is entirely based upon personal opinon, no history and legal basis) not related to the topic ? It is hard to me because Japanese administrator deleting it. As a newbie of english wikipedia, it is too risky move against to Japanese administrator's completely biased editing. I need some help here.

Summary : Pro Japanese Qwyrxian administrator involved on Korea/Japan disputed page. He/She keep deleting entire cited material. He/She claim is does not meets WP:RS because it is opinion.

These sources are completely meet WP:RS.

Check these sources.

• http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20081015000099&cpv=0

• http://www.prkorea.com/english/e_truth/e_truth50_2.htm

--Ejwcun (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. I know nothing about this subject. However, based on this statement in the wiki page you link to

The Rusk documents (Rusk-Yang correspondence) are the official diplomatic correspondence sent by Dean Rusk, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, to Yang You Chan (양유찬, 梁裕燦), the South Korean ambassador to the U.S at the August 10, 1951.

NO. The documents are not personal opinions. The position of the United States government in 1954 is a matter of historical record. The other editor can add information if he/she wants, though. You may wind up with "The Americans took the position that x, while Japan thought y and the opinion of the Koreans was z."

Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Primary—OR. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not interpreting diplomatic cables. Nor are online newspapers adequate sources for the interpretation of political history. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a number of references and external links to the web site of a magazine, "Herb Companion". Each of these links to a short article with the author's name and the date with a sentence or two at the end about the author. Like most popular press articles, few include references. At the bottom of every page is a large advertisement for subscriptions to the magazine. Much of the site is promotion and advertising for products and literature sold on the site. Should we consider this a reliable source? Jojalozzo 03:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In which article[s] for what specific claims? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the link for "a number of references and external links". Some of these are citations and some are just external links. Jojalozzo 14:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see replies about such impolite references in the archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what impolite references you are referring to. I don't consider any of the references in the list to be impolite. They may be misguided but I don't see anything insulting or inconsiderate in them. And, as I said, some of them are simply external links, not references at all. Thanks. Jojalozzo 15:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any "impolite"ness. The page of links provided was just what was needed, I thought. Andrew Dalby 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps actually meeting the requirements stated at the top of this page, at the top of every RS/N edit window, and contained in the template above? Source, Article, Claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I screwed up here. I thought you were talking about the references I listed on the LinkSearch page but you meant my reference to the LinkSearch page. My apologies not only for inconsiderately posting here without reading all the instructions but for being dense about it, too. Here's what I think you are asking for:

1. http://www.herbcompanion.com/Health/PATENT-medicines.aspx?page=3 is linked from Hamlin's Wizard Oil to support

   First produced in 1861 in Chicago[1] by former magician John Austen Hamlin and his brother Lysander B. Hamlin, it was primarily sold and used as a liniment for rheumatic pain and sore muscles, but was advertised as a treatment for pneumonia, cancer, diphtheria, earache, toothache, headache and hydrophobia

   and

   It was made of 50%-70% alcohol containing camphor, ammonia, chloroform, sassafras, cloves, and turpentine, and was said to be usable both internally and topically.

2. http://www.herbcompanion.com/Herb-Profiles/SWEET-DANI.aspx is linked from List of basil cultivars to support

   A vigorous, large-leaved green basil with a strong, fresh lemon scent.

3. http://www.herbcompanion.com/Herb-Profiles/SWEET-DANI.aspx is linked from Sweet Dani basil to support

   Sweet Dani basil is a hybrid sweet basil cultivar developed at Purdue University by James E. Simon and Mario Morales.

4. http://www.herbcompanion.com/Projects/Tussie-mussie.aspx#ixzz21KRpO3UM is linked from Language of flowers to support

   “Tussie-mussie” is a quaint, endearing term from the early 1400s for small, round bouquets of herbs and flowers with ­symbolic meanings.

5. http://www.herbcompanion.com/UnCategorized/Mystery-in-the-Garden.aspx?page=4 is linked from Cadfael to support

   There are differing pronunciations of the name Cadfael; Ellis Peters intended the "f" to be pronounced as an English "v", and suggests it be pronounced CAD-vel

   and

   The name is commonly mispronounced /ˈkædfaɪl/ CAD-file in English, and Peters once remarked that she should have included a guide for this and other names in the series that have uncommon pronunciations.

6. http://www.herbcompanion.com/gardening/herb-to-know-mountain-mint.aspx is linked from Pycnanthemum as an external link to an article on mountain mint.
7. http://www.herbcompanion.com/growing/ancient-herbs-modern-uses-myrrh.aspx is linked from Myrrh as an external link to an article on myrhh.
8. http://www.herbcompanion.com/health/JOINT-RELIEF.aspx?page=2 is linked from Boswellia serrata to support

   In Ayurvedic medicine Indian frankincense (Boswellia serrata) has been used for hundreds of years for treating arthritis.

9. http://www.herbcompanion.com/health/JOINT-RELIEF.aspx?page=2 is linked from Frankincense to support

   In Indian culture, it is suggested that burning frankincense daily in the house brings good health.

10. http://www.herbcompanion.com/herbal-living/in-memoriam-thomas-debaggio.aspx is linked from Thomas DeBaggio in support of the date and place of his death

    Died February 21, 2011 Annandale, Virginia

    and

    With Susan Beisinger he co-authored Basil: A Herb Lover's Guide. His work has been featured in the magazine The Herb Companion.

11. http://www.herbcompanion.com/herbs-in-the-kitchen/in-the-news-angostura-bitters-shortage.aspx is linked from Angostura bitters to support

    Angostura bitters are extremely concentrated and, though 44.7% alcohol by volume, are not normally drunk pure, but used in small amounts as flavouring.

    and

    There was a shortage of Angostura bitters in 2009

    .

Jojalozzo 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this is very answerable, and will probably get you a very definitive answer that you can rely upon in future when this potential source's reliability comes up! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. I hope my effort is answered in kind. Jojalozzo 16:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The site does have an editor although granted that does not establish fact checking. In one current article, Herbal alternatives to antibiotics, the author cites his sources in the article itself (not at the end) and the article is taken from his published book. Another article about essential oils is written by a woman who breeds essential oils for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. Fair to say, she might be considered an expert in this field and even her blog might be considered a reliable source if subject to editorial control. Of course, this is an article, not a blog, and there is an editorial presence so the article might be a reliable source depending upon what it is used for. Perhaps, the context rule of WP:RS should be applied so that each article would be considered individually: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."Coaster92 (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We can't treat the site as RS. There might be grounds for citing it among external links, but (for me) the advertising pop-up marks it as unprofessional, possibly unsafe, and I would never link to it. Andrew Dalby 09:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

3. Content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Source.

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

2. Article. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

3. Content. The Names section of the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts

• WP:PSTSWP:PSTS
• WP:PRIMARYWP:PRIMARY
• WP:SECONDARYWP:SECONDARY
• WP:TERTIARYWP:TERTIARY

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

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.^[6] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

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

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

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

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

More information Examples and additional info: ...

An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner. Examples and additional info: The easier it is to find your source, and the edit that it is trying to support, the more likely you are to get a response from other editors. The "Better way" examples provided will often get you more results here. It is very useful to include a direct link to a website-specific page, and text: Basic way: "Is oprah.com a reliable source for saying beef from Texas is no good?" Better way: Is the third paragraph of [http://oprah.com/chewytexasbeef this link] to the Oprah.com website a reliable source for this edit [insert diff here], that says beef from Texas is too chewy? RSN editors respond faster when you provide a full, linked citation to your source: Basic way: Is the book "Early Childhood Education Journal" a reliable source for the Kindergarten article? Better way: Is the journal article, Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): pages 58--60 doi:10.1007/BF01628031 a reliable source for the assertion that attending Kindergarten makes kids IQ's go up 200 points, as claimed by this edit [insert diff here]?" We like a wiki link to the affected article[s] you're talking about: Basic way: Some editors have been using bad sources about regional Australian towns. Better way: I'd like an opinion on these sources used about [[Newcastle, Australia]] and [[Wollongong]]'s populations, I've listed the sources in question below. Are there any relevant talk page discussions that could be helpful on this issue? Basic Way: See talk page for our discussion about this Better Way: This issue is discussed at: [[talk:Texas Chewy Beef#Oprah should know!]] and [[talk:Texas Chewy Beef#Oprah is a vegetarian!]]

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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