Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38

There is a long discussion about this here. The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings.

The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however."^[1][2][3] This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.

What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?

The diffs start here, and we jaust for a while before settling on the current version, which is when I come to seek clarification. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliability does not care if a source is Primary or Secondary. Both types of sources can be reliable and both types can be unreliable. Before answering your question... this sounds very like someone is playing "gottcha" with quotes to make a point... consider this: does this quote really need to be discussed in the article at all. Is it crucial to the article to mention it? (in other words... would it harm the article to simply ignore the entire issue?) If the answer is that it does need to be mentioned, then you are correct in saying that it is best to mention what both sources say without saying which is correct. See WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I mentioned, it would be simpler to not actually include the faulty citation in the first place, then the discrepancy would not need to be cited, either. It wastes space. The other editor insisted that the quote remain in its entirety. I'm not gonna argue with him. If he wants the quote, the inconsistency needs to be pointed out. Anyway, he wasn't happy with that either and now I have made a 3RR report. This is a matter of respecting community guidelines and basic values of courtesy and correct processes of argumentation, in my view. After linking to this section here he just stopped discussing things on the talk page and went for the revert war approach. Let's see what others think about his conduct and attitude.--Asdfg12345 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is now a pending request for comments on this issue. Please see the talk page for details. Thank you.Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is disagreement over the verifiability of the sourcing for this BLP, comments welcome on the talk page. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-09t17:56z

I thought it would be more helpful to post this issue here rather than ask others to blog through reading a long discussion leading up to coming here. On the article Pauley Perrette, I added a statement made by Perrette on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson about the places she had lived "Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Los Angeles". It was already sourced reliably (through an online cite) that she was "born in New Orleans and raised all over the southern United States."

The other editor removed the more specific listing of states saying the source was not reliable or verifiable. An extensive discussion ensued where I (think) I established that an interview on Late Late Show met the requirements under reliability and that the show wasn't a passing "ephemeral show" as the other editor described it, that it is a long-running show on a major U.S. television broadcast network (CBS) and also pointed out that facts from her official CBS biography are included and not challenged. I did a lot of searching, since at one time, the Late Late Show had a clip of the actual interview posted on the show webpage, they then had released many episodes for viewing on its YouTube channel and used to be available for public viewing in conjunction with the CBS library. I've finally discovered where the actual tapes are now archived, which is at the Paley Media Center. Just for clarity here, this is my assessment of the issue and the points which are met with this source:

Per WP:V, the episode and/or a reliable transcript of it must be available for verification, but it does not mean that any source must be available on demand at a moment's notice online to be verifiable. WP:BURDEN says clearly "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The burden of proof is met with the source given, which is the exact episode specifications I gave, which said "here is the episode number and date, here is the show, here is where one can go to view the episode in order to verify it." Just as if it was written in a book that was published and available at some given book store, although the book itself is not available right now for someone to click a link and read it. I've given more than is required to allow for verification, including an opportunity for someone to click a link and listen to the same words, just as a point of information, not asserting that the clip that was available on Youtube is considered a reliable source. I gave a link to it so the editor who was questioning the source could hear it right away. The existing citation also meets the requirements for WP:V. WP:RS#Overview specifically says "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party [CBS Television Network Corporation in this case] and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." So:

• A) The source is a video material recorded for Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, a long running television talk and interview show broadcast by one of the four major broadcast television networks in the United States.
• B) The episode in question was in fact broadcast on CBS and has been rebroadcast. The date, episode number and other production specifications were cited for the episode in question.
• C) An archived copy of the episode exists. At one time it was posted on the actual CBS website for the show and was available for viewing at the CBS library. Now it is archived at the Paley Media Center and available for user viewing along with the next appearance of the article subject .
• D) Although that actual site does not have the episode posted for online viewing, just to allow the editor questioning the source to immediately verify the words themselves as they were spoken, I offered a link for her to hear it [.
• E) It meets WP:BURDEN, a section in WP:V, in that the source is cited clearly and precisely to allow a reader to find the episode in question to verify it. I've met those requirements.

At this point, I can see no valid policy or guideline based reason why this is not an allowable source. Is the content necessary? Maybe not, but there's not much out there to make the article interesting. The issue at point here actually has wider application because it does blanketly challenge broadcast television interviews as sources if this isn't permitted. Thanks for your thoughts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem accepting the interview from Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson as a source with regard to the states Perrette has lived in. I assume in good faith that the YouTube video, which I have watched, is an actual excerpt from the episode even though I have not seen an "official" broadcast of the episode. Perrette should be considered a reliable source as to the issue of what states she has lived in unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Her list of the states where she lived appears to be provided as a true statement rather than a joke, and there is nothing controversial about that statement. Nor does it appear to be a self-serving statement (one which she would have reason to make out of bias or self-promotion). So unless some evidence turns up, say, claiming that Perrette never lived in North Carolina, I would leave the statement cited to this Late Late Show episode in place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I tend to agree. It is congruent with the other statement that she grew up all over the south, and her childhood (and her father working for Bell Telephone) is something she has talked and joked about on other talk appearances ("well, he said that's who he worked for, his shirt was blue and had a little bell insignia..."). Other points in the article support the inclusion of Los Angeles and New York as residences. I'll support it as something I personally heard her say when I watched the original broadcast, acknowledging that "I know, I heard it myself" isn't a reliable source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

An anon IP is questioning all of the refs I have used for this article and has twice tagged it with a 'Notability" tag. I believe it meets all notability criterias. Could someone please take a look??--Beehold (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

She's certainly notable but you could do with a few better sources. Just be careful with WP:BLP--Insider201283 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Beehold removed the material below from this noticeboard. I wonder why? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise anyone had replied. I thought no-one had noticed my post and so shortened it and moved it to the bottom. Really sorry, cos just noticed your comments. Thought any info would be at bottom - not after each ref! Sorry! Your info is much appreciated.--Beehold (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As the anon listing the concerns with the sourcing, the tag is for notability. i.e. Meet the coverage directly in detail about the subject. I'm not suggesting the sources are universally unreliable and indeed some of the sources may be fine as primary sources for uncontroversial facts. Indeed in my listing I more of less say that when I state "...although it maybe useful as a source for the article...". I'm not sure if there is an understanding that not every source which is reliable for verifiability is useful for meeting the general notability guideline. I also seem to be making little headway in explaining that tagging of article in such a way is as much a call for improvement as anything else. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Anon IP may believe they "have a point," but a film producer with credits including Vampire's Kiss, starring Nicholas Cage, and a future film starring Julia Roberts, as referenced to the New York Times, surely qualifies as 'notable' in most people's opinion. I have already suggested that, if this IP feels so strongly about the situation, that they should PROD/nominate the article for AFD to allow for further discussion. The IP has done neither, merely retagging the article instead. A 'notability' tag is not "a call for improvement as anything else," as they are trying to claim, it is a allegation that the subject of the article is not notable. A totally different meaning. And that is why i came here, to this page, to try and clarify the situation.--Beehold (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I give up this is my last post on the subject. There is a difference between sources which are considered reliable for meeting verifiablity and those required for the general notablity guideline I haven't said all the sources are unreliable. I have stated that I belive the person is probably notable, I don't seem to be able to get across the difference between an article not currently meeting the required standard, which we improve or tag for improvement such as this, and ones which can't possibly meet the rules which we list for deletion. Nor do I seem able to get across why the particular tag exists and is widely used rather than just people listing stuff for deletion. Perhaps someone here will have more luck. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How reliable is compassdirect.org for news? Can it be trusted on articles about living people? Cheers.VR _talk 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like an advocacy website/organization than a news source. See for example, their tagline, "News from the frontlines of persecution" or their self-description: "Compass Direct is a Christian news service dedicated to providing exclusive news, penetrating reports, moving interviews and insightful analyses of situations and events facing Christians persecuted for their faith."

Ironically, the first link when searching for Compass Direct on Google News is another unreliable source, WND (see discussion below). No mainstream news source seems to have written about or cited Compass Direct as far as I can see. In short, there is no indication that it has a reputation for trustworthiness, and it should not be used on wikipedia especially in a BLP. Abecedare (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks.VR _talk 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. What is the article in question. The source seems to be connected with the Christian missionary movement, and may have some unique reports from parts of the world such as Africa where the conventional media is spread rather thin. There may be a point of view, but their style seems closer to Amnesty International than WorldNet Daily. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 18 articles that use it either for reference or external link. Many news sources give a "unique" perspective. The question is of reliability.VR _talk 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked around, and their reports have been cited by the BBC and the Washington Post for information on troubles happening around the world. That suggests a reputation for good news coverage. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to have a POV. In fact, most sources have a POV of one sort of another. What matters is the source's reputation for accuracy and fact checking. A source with a good reputation for fact checking should be considered reliable, a source with a poor reputation should not. Having a point of view, even a distinct bias, does not necessarily equate to unreliability.

That said... it is true that many unreliable sources will allow their POV or bias to dictate which facts they report and how they spin those facts... but what makes them unreliable isn't the fact that they have a bias, its the fact that by doing this they earn themselves a poor reputation. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Books is also showing a number of decent nonfiction books citing Compass Direct. My take is, if it's good enough for the BBC, the Washington Post, and several books, all citing it for statements of fact, it's good enough for the Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not correct about google books. Google books is as good as google: both contain reliable and non-reliable sources. BBC is a different matter, it is a widely acknowleged reliable source.

My question is then the following. It is no doubt alright to quote Compass Direct, when its quoted in reliable sources like the BBC. But if a source is quoted a few times in reliable sources, does that it give it blanket reliability? I.e. can we quote compass when its not quoted by any other reliable source, and no other reliable source covers the story but compass?VR _talk 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is whether it's treated by other sources as a reliable source. Is it being cited by other sources for reporting news or for making news? For instance, it would be appropriate to quote even Rense.com if we cite the BBC referring to it in an article on conspiracy theories, because it's being used as a primary source in an article partially about Rense.com. But in that case the BBC wouldn't be citing them as fact, and wouldn't count towards reputation of the source. On the other hand, the BBC, the Washington Post, and some of those books were earnestly citing Compass Direct for information on what was happening in remote areas of the world, and that counts for reputation. As far as Google Books, there are good books and poor books, and it depends on the individual book. A quick glance showed some reputable-looking books citing Compass, we can dig into those if the BBC and the Post aren't reputation enough. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I dug into BBC and WP's citations of CDN and the lesson is "Beware of Google News hits" when you cannot read the article itself! Despite appearances (, ") Compass Direct News has never been used as a source by BBC or Washington Post. Let me explain:

• The Washington Post hit ("A Chinese Facade") is a letter to the editor.
• All the BBC hits are to BBC Monitoring which monitors local media reports to show what news they are reporting and how, i.e., not articles under BBC's direct editorial control. In particular:
  • "Uzbekistan clamps down on religious freedoms" is translated report by Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta
  • "ROMANIA: Protestant radios facing closure" is a report by Adventist World Radio newsletter 'AWRecorder'
  • "Hindu militants attack jailed Christian in south India - Pakistan agency" is a report by Associated Press of Pakistan
  • "Jordan's Lower House commends church council's reply to US news report" is a report by official Jordanian news agency Petra and the relevant quote is, "The Lower House of Parliament applauded a statement issued by Leaders of the Council of Churches in Amman in response to an article published earlier this month by the US Compass Direct News (CDN) alleging that the Jordanian authorities expelled Christian expatriates. 'The CDN article includes wrong items and distorts the fact and above all offends Islamic-Christian relations in Jordan,' said a statement issued by the House of Deputies on Thursday."

The above information is from Lexis-Nexis. Note that Lexis-Nexis itself does not archive CDN; in fact no major US or World publication indexed in that database has ever directly cited CDN as a news source or reported on its activities, with one exception: A January 26, 2000 article in Washington Times headlined "Saudi Arabia tops group's list of worst Christian persecutors" reports about a list released by CDN (Quote: A "world watch list" released by a watchdog religious persecution group named Saudi Arabia as last year's "worst persecutor of Christians.").
My conlcusion is that CDN does not seem to be reliable independent source, although as a "watchdog religious persecution group" its views may be notable if they are cited by other reliable sources as listed above. Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed one (because it's in Arabic and didn't show up in the Lexis search): This report is by BBC (and not BBC Monitoring), but according to Google's translation it is an item about a report released by CDN and subsequent events, rather than a news story relying on CDN's reporting. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's see what we have here. We have a couple of foreign newspapers quoting it for on-the-ground reports in neighboring countries. We have an article in the Washington Times which does describe Compass as a watchdog group, but they also seem to trust them for their watchlist. I'm taking your word for the article content; no flat-rate Nexis here. We also have an Arabic BBC article which may be "about" the CDN report, but it does seem to credit it with first breaking a story about foreign residence permits not being renewed. On another hand we have the official news agency disputing either the facts or the tone of the CDN report.

From only those two articles it's difficult to tell what the root of the Jordanian matter was, but from subsequent reports in CBN.com (also quoting CDN), the California Chronicle, and the AFP, it appears that while Jordan has no problem with domestic and foreign Orthodox and Catholic groups, proselytizing is frowned upon and this has led to conflict with Evangelical Protestant groups, and even official annoucements say that people were deported for carrying out missionary activities. None of this conflicts with the original report from CDN which goes into quite a bit of detail on the matter.

If that's only a small number of sources, we can go to the books. Other than some obvious specialty Christian publishing, Google Books does show some titles citing Compass for fact. Religious Freedom in the World, Radical Islam's Rules, Freedom in the World from Freedom House, and China by Human Rights Watch were in the first few results.

So I would say that Compass is definitely viable as an RS. It may have a point of view but that's why we don't base our articles on a single source. i.e. if we had an article on those Jordanian deportations, we could very well use it for factual reporting on the matter, but we would use other sources to settle whether or not missionary work is legal under Jordanian law.

Now as for BLP, WP:BLP has some caveats about being unbiased that go beyond RS, for example negative information about a person may need to be backed up by other sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. Another user and I encountered a conflict when it came to citing sources on band pages. Many band pages (and articles relating to them such as of band members, albums, and singles) such as System of a Down, Korn, Children of Bodom and until recently, Disturbed cite fansites. Wikipedia doesn't allow fansites to be cited, because they aren't reliable, since anybody can make one. Although this is true, many of the articles wouldn't have much context, or even exist if fansites weren't cited. I admit that I have two band fansites, but did not intend to use Wikipedia to self promote it (I had no decrease in traffic after the links were taken off). The official site(s) often delete information after a while, and sometimes it isn't on the Archive. Should fansites be continued to be cited against policy, or should the info just be taken down in its entirety, or should the articles just have the cites replaced with ^{[citation needed]} until the information is deleted/another source is found? Thanks for your time, ^TheWeak_Willed 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that band fansites are very often wrong. That being said, there are bands who, well, aren't as communicative as they should be.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is simple... if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. This includes bands and other "pop" topics. Wikipedia is not a place to promote bands. In fact, if the only sources that exist are unreliable fan sites, the band probably isn't notable enough for inclusion. Perhaps it will rate an article at some point in the future, but not now. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the bands in question certainly are notable, but their official sites rarely provide information about the bands history. For example http://disturbed1.com and http://korn.com barely have any history about the band, and don't even mention previous members. Sites like http://kornspace.com have the complete history of the band. While other sites such as http://last.fm may have the entire biography, it is usually what the record label sends out and doesn't take into account interviews with band members and things said by band members at live shows (ex the drummer shouting "I hate playing this song live" or whatever.^TheWeak_Willed 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain, as the main contributor to the article Simple Plan, and there are things, such as the absence of the bassist from the last two shows of last year's tour, that the band never released information on (though certainly it was known to the fans, announcements were made from the stage, I took a picture of them as a four piece, that kind of thing). I'd welcome a solution as well, but it may well be that such bands are not going to have GA's for articles. Or else, relatively short articles!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. And even on the Simple Plan page, there is a link to a fansite, and without that fansite, there is no source for the band Reset. Another thing when it comes to fansites, the people that edit the article often, will know which info is right and what is wrong. The user that removed the links I was posting told me that he KNEW that the info was correct, it was just that a credible source wasn't sourced. ^TheWeak_Willed 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What if a fansite builds up a reputation such that's its often cited by the media? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible for a fansite to rise to the level of being a reliable source. If you could show that most of the media was treating a fansite as a source of reliable, credible, and well-checked information, it would meet WP:RS. It's the reputation for fact checking and the financial and editorial independence from the subject that's crucial. You won't find many fan-sites that ever get there, and I'm not aware of any that are there.—Kww(talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are the US Navy primary source documents of log book, action reports, war diary, and cruise reports considered reliable for Wikipedia use?

The four documents are standard US Navy documents and were created aboard ship by the ship's staff and signed by the ship's commanding officer. These documents are a record of ship activity without personal opinions. They are in a neutral point of view of who, what, where and when. The questions of why and how are not involved.

Log Book - covers a every important aspect of ship activity

War Diary - is an abbreviated version of the log book

Action Reports - records the detail of a ship's combat operation

Cruise Reports - a chronological listing of the ship's movements

In the Battleship Texas wiki article, the aforementioned documents are needed to correct errors in secondary sources that are cited in the article. I have posted excerpts of the documents in the Commons area with the needed information to make the corrections. The needed information are times, dates, geographical location of the ship, names of objects and names of people. The action reports are the most used documents and the full documents are posted on an internet site of mine at http://users.hal-pc.org/~cfmoore/. Further information as to my extensive knowledge of the ship can be found on another webiste of mine at http://www.bb35library.usstexasbb35.com/

Use of the ship's primary source documents above does not constitute original research. This was the consensus of a discussion in the No original research notice board. Based on the that consensus, one of the two article primary editors (TomStar81) will allow me to use the documents as a source if there is a consensus that the documents are reliable.

I posted the reliability question to the article's discussion section but TomStar81 said I should post the question here.IronShip (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Those websites certianly look a labour of love. In general I personally wouldn't have too much trouble with cautious use of these documents, however I'd be happier if there were for example more obvious links back to catalogue entries for the original records at NARA (if possible, I'm reasonably familiar with the level of detail and so on in the catalogue at The National Archives (UK), I haven't really looked at much on teh US side though). This would allow anyone who realy wanted too to verify the authenticity of the documents you present more easily. Some indications of other reliable suorces citing your websites would also help build confidence in how you've handled the documents. Where there are discrepancies between the secondary and primary sources, it may be worth opinting these out in the article, eg something like "while Smith says the ship was off someplace on this day, the log gives its position as otherplace". This would particualrly be true if the log is itself cited as a source by the secondary sources concerned as this may imply the secondary source had good reason to disregard the primary sources you have. David Underdown (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources such as these are generally reliable, but I can see that they would have limitations. I would suggest you use in text attribution such as "According to the ships Log Book, the ship ran out of coffee on the third day of the deployment and had to towed back into port<cite to log book>." Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/n0000000.htm has links to several sections of my site when the site was on a previous server. The links though were not update when I moved the site but the same information is at the present domain name. GWPDA posted to it's site several documents that I provided to them with myself cited as the providing source, Charles (or Chuck) Moore. The needed corrections for the years 1918, 1944 and 1945 have two sources. None of the secondary source errors cite primary BB35 documents as the source for the secondary source fact. IronShip (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the US National Archives and Records Administration does not have an online catalogue for these records. I also scanned and placed the complete 130 page War Diary for 1944 on the BB35Library. I also the have thee complete 1945 War Diary but it has not yet been scanned. IronShip (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I would like to query the removal of a link to a scanned in version of book III of Ockham's Summa Logicae (Sum of Logic. Two editors have now deleted it on the grounds that the text is on a 'personal website'. However, given that the text is a primary source, simply a scanned-in version, why should it matter that the website is 'personal'? It is certainly verifiable, as you can look at the original 13th century text in any reference library and see that the online text matches the other. There is no other version of book III on the net, and it seems a shame to delete.

Also, if we are going to remove links because it is a 'personal website', why not remove all the other links? For example, why not also remove the links to here which is books I and II of the same work?

Why not remove the link to Paul Vincent Spade's translation of the first book , since that is his personal website? Why not remove Ed Buckner's translation of sections of Book II, given that appears also to be a personal website? If we follow the 'personal website' logic, 90% of links to medieval philosophy and logic will disappear. Peter Damian (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If I am interpreting the edit history at Sum of Logic properly, the link (Book III Part I now at MyWikiBiz) is not being used as a source at all, but only as an additional resource for an interested reader to look up the Latin text of the third book. Right ?

If so, this is not really an issue of a reliable vs unreliable source, but rather an issue of whether the external link is ok. In my view the link is acceptable, though it belongs in the External links section rather than the See also section (see WP:LAYOUT for what goes where). Secondly it may be possible to import the text from mywikibiz site to Latin wikisource, which is our sister project and already has a partial copy of the book - but you'll need to confirm this with someone who understands GFDL/CC-BY-SA licensing issues better than I do. Abecedare (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is quite correct. The link is not being used to support any claim made in the article, but rather for the interested reader (who is able to read Latin). Peter Damian (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to comment, I have a similar situation where I have a very popular blog post that gets about 10-15 page views (from natural search) per day. It is (as far as I know) the only free site on the Internet that assembles the publicly disclosed customer churn rates of various companies across many industries, all with cited documentation. I briefly asked on the Wikipedia article talk page if it would be okay to include a link as an External link. Nobody objected, so I added it to the article. I was receiving about an additional 15 click-throughs per day from Wikipedia -- obviously Wikipedia readers were craving additional information. Then the link was deleted, because the blog and its author aren't famous enough (or other reasons). I have since found that a reliable published source has even cited my blog post in print. Still, no dice. So, I shopped the content over at Wikisource, but they too rejected it. Then I went to Wikibooks, and while they were more open to the idea, still buried it in caveats that put me to flight. Click for more details. -- Thekohser 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser your walking a very fine line by participating on an RS thread about one of your companies domains. I ask that you withdraw from any further discussion if not remove your posting all together.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage you to point me to the guideline or policy that supports your warning, and then to take this matter to a formal request for community discussion. It may help you to see that nobody agrees with you. I have not promoted my company's domain in this discussion. I have offered evidence regarding an unincorporated blog that I run for leisure. Seriously, keep pushing on this point, and I will enjoy watching the community's response to you. I couldn't ask for a critic more beneficial to me than you, Promethean. Oh, and, by the way... it's "you're". -- Thekohser 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be mindful of your civility restriction: "You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack." Your last comment arguably intrudes upon that restriction (as does this). -->David Shankbone 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Shankbone speaks the truth. In all of my new article creation, and article improvement efforts since being provisionally unblocked, I had forgotten the letter of the restrictions on me. I should have seen all of these attacks for what they are -- attempts to goad me into "failing" the terms of my unblock. Thank you, David. Sincerely. (I'll have to restrict all of my retaliatory feuding, quarreling, and personal attacks to outside websites.) -- Thekohser 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

After Peter Damien restored the link, I started a discussion at Talk:Sum of Logic#MyWikiBiz link. Why isn't this discussion first taking place there instead of here? As to the blog link, I removed it per the discussion you started on my talk page#Churn rate resource (which also should have taken place on the article talk page), and while I debated the use of "non notable" to describe the blog and its author, I used it because I would have in any other instance. Kohs seem to have no noted authority on this subject, and while it may be pointed out that I don't either, I do have expertise in researching external links and reliable sources, and this page or blog doesn't meet either one. And to be plain, fame doesn't translate, even in the place you're famous for...chances are good those links from Wikipedia came from editors checking up on Thekohser's edits. I have no animosity toward or history with this editor or MyWikiBiz, and TheKohser has shown no animosity in his discussions with me, so I hope that my comments are taken to be about the edits in question, not aimed at editors or an attempt to bait. Flowanda | Talk 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz was recently discussed on the talk page of WP:EL and found to not meet the rules for external links. Based upon the discussion there, I can't imagine how it would meet WP:RS either, for situations where that would be relevant, which it is not in this case. And, as an aside, 10-15 views a day is a far cry from being a "very popular blog post", not that alleged popularity has anything to do with meeting WP:RS or WP:EL anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In the George Trenholm biography, an editor inserted his fringe theory that the fictitious character Rhett Butler in the novel Gone with the Wind is modeled after George Trenholm.

I tagged, challenged and removed the fringe theory almost one year ago. There are simply no reliable sources on this subject, other than the self-published book by the creator of this theory. Just recently, another editor believed the theory should be included in the biography, and inserted:

It is claimed that novelist Margaret Mitchell patterned her fictional character, Rhett Butler, on the life of Trenholm

The references given are:

• The publisher of the fringe theory
• Confederate Charleston by Robert N. Rosen…page 151..”There are those who believe that Margaret Mitchell based her fictional hero, Rhett Butler, on Trenholm”
• Ashley Hall, SC by Iieana Strauch…page 10…”Trenholm was a man of charm and is rumored to be the man after whom Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind as modeled”

This has lead to an edit war, as the references given are not solid enough to be included in an historical figure biography. The references are repeating hearsay/rumors and do not go into explanation on the matter. The 3O who is trying to assist is on the fence, but cited WP:UNDO and the claim/rumor should be dropped if no WP:RS could be cited.

Discussion here: Talk:George_Trenholm

Jim (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this should be treated as info about Gone with the Wibnd rather than Trenholm, as a literary theory. In that context the theory may be sufficiently notable and well-soruced for inclusion.Martinlc (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your imput. Could you please note your opinion on the talk page to help with the edit war? Jim (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an argument on the left and right-wing politics whether a book British politics today (ISBN 9780719065095) is a reliable source for defining "left-wing" and "right-wing". Source for the definition is an appendix of the book in which the authors describe how are the terms usually used by political scientists. One of the two authors, Dennis Kavanagh, is a Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool and the book was published by the Manchester University Press. Is this a reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly a reliable source for a statement as to how Kavanaugh defines those terms... but... I don't think it is reliable source for a universal definition. Other reliable sources define the terms in other ways. Those other definitions need to be discussed as well. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that all definitions should be presented on equal basis? As I understand the WP:V and WP:RS, this should be one of the most reliable sources on this topic. -- Vision Thing -- 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and No... (see WP:NPOV and especially the Undue Weight section of that policy). Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a good source because the book is not about the political spectrum, the appendix on the political spectrum is not sourced, no academics rely on or cite this appendix and it has not been peer-reviewed. Furthermore since the appendix was written for students of contemporary UK politics to explain terms used in the textbook, there is no reason to believe that the authors intend the definition to apply to other countries or time periods. It is far better to use an article or book that specifically addresses the political spectrum or at least the Left or the Right. Also, since there are several models for the political spectrum, no one model should be presented as the "correct" one. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends what it's being used for. Of course this book is an RS, the only issue is that there's tens of thousands of RS's that talk about the political spectrum, and if this is a new or unique view we have to avoid undue weight.

The text under debate is Political scientists usually associate the Right with tradition, individualism, liberty and free enterprise., which is a basic sketch you might put in the lead paragaph and which is perfectly appropriate to source from an appendix in a college textbook on politics.

On the other hand, an opposing group of editors is trying to push a POV-laden multiparagraph section that starts off with "The conflict between the Right and science ...". To me, that's something that we have to watch for undue weight on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I do not normally edit here at reliable sources, but I missed the discussion about examiner.com and I would like to have the opportunity to contribute. The archived discussion is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#examiner.com_.3D_paid_blogging.2C_no_editorial_oversight

Below are some comments that I have prepared on criticisms from the archive. However, the most pertinent point is this: the examiner.com company uses Internet technology to harness the efforts of hundreds of writers, just like Wikipedia, and has credibility issues, just like Wikipedia. I think it is a big mistake to throw out examiner.com on the basis of the criticism I have read thus far without also criticizing Wikipedia identically.

The quality and qualifications of examiner.com writers is all over the map, just like Wikipedia's. Quality contributions bubble to the top here, and so do they at examiner.com. I am not suggesting that the entire site should be accepted unquestioningly, but it seems very much an overreaction to condemn the entire site based on a few ill-conceived perceptions and a couple of bad apples. It always strikes me as unjust when such happens to Wikipedia, and I think the same justice should apply when deciding the fate of examiner.com.

My specific comments on the archive criticism:

• examiner.com masquerades as a newspaper - examiner.com is owned by a publishing company, but I can't find any evidence of any deceptive statements or practices.

• examiner.com consists of "blog pages" - Perhaps we need a definition of "blog pages", because the same could be said about virtually any newspaper website: Thomas L. Friedman--NYTimes.

• examiner.com writers "passed a very brief initial test" - First, I would like to see where Wikipedia specifies the hiring process of individual news sources or publishing houses in its hierarchy of verifiability. That is an editorial policy decision and outside of (or perhaps assumed by) the purview of Wikipedia’s reliability determinations. For example, what are the criteria to be hired at the Idaho Statesman? Further, the "very brief initial test" consists of submission of writing samples that prove writing skill and subject area knowledge, and are evaluated by professional editors…much the same way I imagine the process to be at the Idaho Statesman. Examiner.com conducts background checks before hiring. Finally, the examiner.com hiring and editorial process differs in no way that I can see from that of Huffington Post (except for the background check), another author “blog site” that appears not to have the credibility questions that examiner.com has here.

• No editorial oversight - Each major section has at least one professional editor. Editorial guidelines are provided to authors. Monthly editorial guidance is provided. Editors provide scheduled conference calls several times a week for authors. Most editors use newsgroups to post editorial guidance and provide feedback, example from an editor here: http://groups.google.com/group/newspolitics/msg/536b8571b1521737?hl=en. Huffington Post provides none of this supervision and services to its writers.

• Articles are published that do not receive editorial oversight - I am sure this is true, however I do not know if it is also true at the Idaho Statesman. I will point out the numerous scandals at national papers and magazines were stories were published with completely ficticious facts. All examiner.com pages have a "report" button at the top, where any story can be flagged by anybody for examination by an editor. I have been told that examiner.com editors take these flags very seriously.

• "Examiner FAQs from examiner.com, showing that they recruit locals based upon certain topic areas a bit vague on the details and written to promote themselves, but it's clear these are not employees of any newspaper (and if you pop over to a list of them, you'll see a huge mass of them on specific little topics just in a local area)" - I don't understand how this is a disqualification. What qualifies the local newspaper restaurant reviews over someone else in the community who is either more qualified or a better writer? The view that the first is more qualified by working for a newspaper is quite a strange requirement coming from a Wikipedia editor.

• "Bloggers wanted for Examiner (Fort Worth metro)" info from Craigslist "writing gigs" post -- note "Pay is up to you and your ability to self-promote your material and increase page views" - I know for a fact that many perhaps all reporters perform marketing activities to get their own page views up, and newspapers have entire marketing campaigns that do the same. Further, many examiner.com writers are also reporters at newspapers. They use their marketing expertise to drive traffic to their real employers, who don't care as long as pageviews go up.

• ""Writer Admits She Spun Crazy-Ass Nonsense For Examiner.com -- And Didn't Get Caught Until Lawyers' Letters Showed Up" sfweekly.com with examples of just how the process works in practice... no editorial oversight whatsoever, no reliability, and basically spamming links" - Et tu, Wikipedia. It happens here all the time, someone posting nonsense and then publishing some big mainstream story about how long it took for someone to catch it. What childish BS. We eventually catch the vandals, but they are hard to catch because they are good writers who are trying to stay hidden. I suspect that few examiner.com writers are in this category. Assume good faith.

• Credibility of examiner.com writers - Many examiner.com writers are published authors and have extensive expertise in the fields they cover. There are many, but a couple of quick examples:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner

http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner

In addition, there are more than a few examiner.com writers who are also current or former writers for Huffington Post.

• "The "new" Examiner.com is a user-generated site, as DreamGuy says, and its writers' dependence on page views for income makes Wikipedia a potential target for abuse" - I agree with this criticism wholeheartedly and it goes the opposite direction as well. A Wikipedia author could get a job at examiner.com then write his or her own references. This type of abuse should be watched for closely. By the way, the exact same criticism is true of Huffington Post.

That’s it for now. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.Jarhed (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Et tu, Wikipedia. It happens here all the time" - which is why Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia follows encyclopedia standards, are you actually asserting that Wikipedia has no reliability *whatsoever*?Jarhed (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No I am saying that per Wikipedia guidelines and policies (specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability) Wikipedia should not be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Specifically Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia states "Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources.". Guest9999 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but I don't see how you get from "someone posting nonsense and then publishing some big mainstream story about how long it took for someone to catch it" to "which is why Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia." It seems that you are asserting that since Wikipedia references are not allowed on Wikipedia, then it follows that examiner.com is therefore not allowed. I don't understand your logic. Could you please elaborate?Jarhed (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If the argument is "I think it is a big mistake to throw out examiner.com on the basis of the criticism I have read thus far without also criticizing Wikipedia identically." then you have no argument. We do criticize Wikipedia equally, and Wikipedia content (either here or other language editions or on sites mirroring our content) explicitly is NOT allowed a reliable source. And, considering whereas Wikipedia at least has the opportunity for others to check end edit the work and examiner.com does not, uif there were a hierarchy of unreliable sources, examiner.com is less reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I am not arguing anything, I am asking all interested editors to reopen discussion on a source because I believe that I have new information. Examiner.com has a professional staff that provides editorial oversight. Considering the volume, I doubt that every single post is edited, but professional guidelines are certainly provided and adhered to. In addition, every single examiner.com has a "report" button that allows anyone to alert section editors to objectionable content. In addition to readers, examiner.com authors have a vested interest in the reliability of their medium, making the site essentially self-policing, in much the same way Wikipedia is. And remember, many examiner.com writers are professionals. This self-policing is in addition to the editorial staff.

Perhaps what I am suggesting is that editors at ‘reliable sources’ are losing sight of the changes that are occurring in the newspaper publishing industry. It is in flux, and innovative publishers are seeking out new business models. Examiner.com may be a bust, or it may be on the vanguard of a new business model for journalism. None of us knows, and I think that Wikipedia editors, especially Wikipedia editors, should be more deliberative and proactive about such potential sources, rather than simply throwing them out because they don’t fit in an existing reliability category. It just seems so curmudgeonly for a site that itself is such an innovator.Jarhed (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, You seem to be arguing that wikipedia shares many of flaws of examiner.com. We all agree and consider neither of them to be reliable sources in general. Can you make a positive argument as to why you think examiner.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ? Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that examiner.com is not reliable in general but I believe it can be easily demonstrated that it meets reliability requirements in specific. I would understand if Wikipedia disallowed examiner.com as a source because of the overhead of checking the reliability of a particular article, but really, that seems to go against ‘reliable sources’ practice. Isn’t an article’s talk page the proper place to dispute a reference? How do ‘reliable sources’ editors justify taking those decisions away from individual editors?Jarhed (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, you say that "it can be easily demonstrated that it meets reliability requirements in specific" instances. Can you do so for any particular case that is currently of interest and under dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is easy. I have followed many reference disputes on talk pages. I am not an expert on this particular subject matter, but just picking at random, this article and author appear authoritative on the specific subject of the article:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m6d25-Student-strip-search-unjustified-says-US-Supreme-Court

At the very least, if someone disputes the reliability of this author or article, it is worthy of discussion.Jarhed (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 (page does not exist) on that link. DreamGuy (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Tried three times, as soon as I posted that it started working again. Let me take a look. DreamGuy (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK: No indication that the source is an expert in any way or considered authoritative per our standards, and certainly any article here about this particle topic would find far, far better sources. It's just a well known news story rewording/summarized by some blogger. And while reloading I got another 404 error and then a "page not published yet - wait 15 minutes" error, which seems odd for an article on something that is already old news. DreamGuy (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which standards you are talking about, would you mind providing a pointer?Jarhed (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is a blog. Per WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

At best, Examiner.com can only be used as a self-published source and only if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the same field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. On the whole, The Examiner is not a WP:RS but it's possible that there might be specific articles by specific authors that can be used as SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:V, blogs hosted by newspapers may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. "Hosted by newspapers" may be a hoary requirement, since I see very little difference between the qualifications between the average print reporter and the average writer at Huffington Post, or much of a difference between their editorial oversight. Further, there are print newspapers that have moved their entire operations to websites, for example, http://www.indenvertimes.com/. It seems to me that the distinction between print and online news sources is being blurred and will need to be examined more thoroughly, although the issue may not yet be ripe for Wikipedia.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think that it would be fair to say that Huffington Post is usually a questionable source, especially for facts, and that if better sources are available, they should be used instead. What I also think would be fair is that examiner.com be considered of similiar reliability, based on similiar qualities of the average authors and editorial oversight.Jarhed (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blogs as sources might be of interest, although it isn't a policy or guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com isn't a newspaper. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither is Huffington Post.Jarhed (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The last few times the Huffington Post came up, opinions were mixed, but the majority of editors did not view it as a reliable source for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The writers at examiner.com clearly are not professionals and their blogs are not anything close to subject to the newspaper's full editorial control... the newspapers owned by the same parent company doesn't even enter into it and there is no editorial control to speak of. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "clearly are not professionals" because I have gone to some effort to show that is not the case. Also, maybe we should come to some agreement about what "full editorial control" means. Finally, I don't understand how you can assert that "being owned by the same parent company doesn't even enter into it." Examiner.com is owned by a company that publishes newspapers. Do you have any evidence that they are not attempting to establish a bonafide online operation? Jarhed (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not even attempt to show that the bloggers there are professional writers, you just pointed out three examples (out of thousands of bloggers on the site) that you claim are pros... and those three clearly aren't professionals either. On top of that, being a professional writer doesn't indicate reliability for the topics they are writing on, and there's no evidence that there's any attempt to ensure that they are true experts on the topics... and lots of contrary evidence. As far as evidence that they aren't attempting to establish bonafied online expert system, this has already been covered above, and you already replied to those posts. You seem to just ignore anything you don't want to admit. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jarhed, arguments like examiner.com is not any worse than wikipedia (as you said in your earlier posts) or huffingtonpost.com (as you are arguing now) are not the way to establish that a source is reliable. To judge reliability we need to show that examiner.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I searched for analysis of its accuracy and the only somewhat relevant link I found is this article which gives qualified praise to its pro-am model. Do you know of any other or more detailed analysis ?
Secondly, at RSN we rarely (if ever) pronounce a source to be always or never reliable and it would be a mistake to do so in this instance; for example, examiner.com can perhaps be used as a source for its contributors' biographical articles on wikipedia, just like any SPS.
Thirdly, we should always endeavor to use the best available source and not the source that just-about-clears some imaginary "reliability bar". In general (as I said before) examiner.com will be very down on the totem pole of reliable sources (for all the reasons listed above, including in your original post) and whether it can be used at all will depend upon the wikipedia article, availability of alternate sources, author and form of the examiner.com article, and the statement that is to be cited. If you have an actual (rather than hypothetical) dispute on the use of the website in a particular wikipedia article, please feel free to bring it up here, now or later. Cheer. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your substantive reply. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but at present examiner.com cannot be added as a reference on Wikipedia. I believe that it would be fair and consistent if the ban were lifted and the source could be added as a reference and discussed on article talk pages in the same manner as Huffington Post. I see no reason why this should not be done.Jarhed (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any "newspaper" that would promote a guy who thinks the LCROSS moon mission will mean war with aliens and doesn't put a parody tag or something on the page should really not even be close to a reliable source. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You just can't see the truth due to "Cognitive disonance". :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This one's even better.. The author manages to cross 9/11 conspiracy theories with aliens from another dimension. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point. Wikipedia has articles on all of those subjects. Are you saying that impeaches the credibility of Wikipedia? Examiner.com is obviously trying to draw readers. That is not a goal for Wikipedia, but it is for any commercial enterprise. It is a business model, and I don't see how their business model is relevant in a discussion of their reliability.Jarhed (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure of your point." The point is that they publish obvious nonsense.

"Wikipedia has articles on all of those subjects." Perhaps, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to advocate fringe theories. Articles on alien abduction, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. should contain thorough debunking per WP:NPOV.

"It is a business model, and I don't see how their business model is relevant in a discussion of their reliability." Nobody said anything about its business model except you. If you don't think their business model is relevant, why do you keep bringing it up?

Do you have anything else you would like us to consider that you haven't mentioned already? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why you keep going back to comparing that site to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia, precisely for that reason. Examiner just looks like a portal for people to publish their thoughts with very little (if any) fact checking or editorial oversight. This is no different than opening up a blog at blogspot Corpx (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is I who doesn't understand why "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia" is relevant to examiner.com being a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia. It makes sense to compare examiner.com to Wikipedia in many instances, for example, Wikipedia has many editors who are authorities in their specialties. What is missing from Wikipedia is personal accountability and editorial oversite, which examiner.com has. Blogspot does not require employment applications or background checks; examiner.com does. It would be easy for examiner.com to assemble a group of writers that are far more qualified in their niches than any average newspaper reporter. I don't think it is either fair or beneficial to Wikipedia to ban examiner.com outright. Sources such as it and Huffington Post should have a position in the hierarchy of citation reliability that is somewhere higher than zero.Jarhed (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at this in some detail now, I consider examiner.com an unreliable source in most instances, and it should be used with caution only in exceptional circumstances when a positive argument for the reliability of a particular article can be made. Note also, that its FAQ says:

Our most successful Examiners spend time marketing their content to their social and business networks using tools like Twitter, Digg, Email lists, message boards, and good old-fashioned word-of-mouth. If all of this sounds new, Examiner.com provides the resources you need to learn and use these tools to master online marketing.

and we should be wary of wikipedia being used to spam examiner.com links. Note that the website is linked from over 1000 wikipedia pages including several BLPs, and each of these mainspace link needs to be reexamined. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to see who inserted these links? I'd imagine that there's a lot of COI involved with the insertion of these links Corpx (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that; perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam would be able to help. Currently we don't have any evidence that there is a concerted effort to spam wikipedia with examiner.com links, and we need to AGF while keeping our eyes open. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of those cites might be innocent mistakes. What's the best way of notifying the community to not use The Examiner? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the possiblity for abuse and I don't want that either. I just would like to see that goal accomplished without an outright ban. Would it be helpful to see if examiner.com would instruct its writers that Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for advertising?Jarhed (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, no writer at examiner.com would care about a normal citation being added to a normal Wikipedia article, and I think that concern is way overblown. The income from that link would be miniscule. Any abuse comming from examiner.com would be an attempt to generate lots of hits, and would be an obvious ploy.Jarhed (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the issue of spam links is not unique to examiner.com. Any newspaper reporter has a vested interest in increasing hits on his blog and articles. How is that potential for abuse different from this?Jarhed (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the issue, as I see it: Examiner.com is obviously working to drive hits to its member pages, which are advertising supported. It would appear (judging from some of the pages pointed out above) that if you can write and have a hook they think would drive hits, you'll be accepted to write for them. This means you get a mix of professionals who are serious about it, wanna-be pros who can string sentences together, and whackadoos. I could write them and say that I wanted to do something on leading-edge science topics, they'd probably say 'okay!' and give me a page. I could then wander off and write a treatise on how it's possible to break the speed of light through oral application of caffeine-added sugar syrup to a ferret on a miniature treadmill, and, if we considered examiner.com as a reliable source, it could conceivably be citeable on caffeine, ferret and speed of light. This is why we don't allow blogs except in certain cases, and why any links from examiner.com must be examined very closely before they're okayed. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand all of that and I agree 100%. What I don't agree with is the total ban. I don't think it is fair or beneficial to Wikipedia.Jarhed (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The website of Kołobrzeg says that a Slavic settlement existed there since the 5th and 6th century. Scholary sources say that Slavic settlement in the area took place in the 7th century (Piskorski et al 1999, Harck et al 2001) and that the actual settlement near modern Kołobrzeg was built in the 9th century (Harck et al 2001, Schich et al 2007). The cited scholars are historians who are experts for both the region and the respective time period. The dates published by them are not a revolutionary new theory, but based on long known archaeological findings. In the 5th and 6th centuries, when the website claims a Slavic settlement at modern Kołobrzeg, the area was part of the Dębczyn culture, which is also long established (source eg RGA).

Schould the website be treated as a reliable source and its position be included in the article as if there were diverging views on the origin of the town, or should the website be treated as an unreliable source and thus be excluded? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Either there are sources which support the website (in which case the source should be cited), or there aren't, in which case the website's statement is not worthy of inclusion.Martinlc (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion of previous discussions was that as long as the city website is directly attributed ("according to the town's website...") and is not contradicted by scholarly sources then inclusion is ok. BTW, there was a mistake in how the town website info was presented and correcting it eliminates any kind of "contradiction" with other sources. Still, the town website has additional information and should be kept.radek (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Before any further comments on this topic are made, it should be noted that this is (at least) the FOURTH time that Skapperod has brought this to question to this board. In each of the THREE previous times, editors disagreed with Skapperod, and the general gist was that town websites can be treated as reliable, though self-published, sources, as long as this is properly attributed (as in "the town's website states that...") - please see here , here , and here .

I think it's not going to be taken as a violation of AGF here if I ask Skapperod to read policy on forum shopping. In particular: This also includes bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession (e.g. the village pump, RFC, admin board, deletion discussions, etc.) because the debate on the first forum did not yield the result you wanted, bringing up the same issue at the same forum multiple times

Forum shopping falls under the category of "Inappropriate canvassing" and according to "Responding to disruptive canvassing"; The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, and to block the user(s) only if they continue, to prevent them from posting further notices.. I think since this is the FOURTH time that this is being done makes that last part applicable. Hence, Skapperod, will you please stop trying to restart the same debate again and again until you get the "right" answer?radek (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame Polish language books are mostly unavailable in GBooks. However, even snippets can be informative, and a brief search suggests that there are quite a few Polish scholarly sources discussing settlements near Kołobrzeg that existed in 6th and 7th centuries. Here are some examples:

• Tadeusz Gasztold, Hieronim Kroczyński, Hieronim Rybicki, Kołobrzeg: zarys dziejów, Wydaw. Poznańskie, 1979, ISBN 832100072X
  • p.8: "Kołobrzeg należał — obok Wolina, Szczecina, Kamienia, Wołgoszczy, Gdańska i Trusa - do najstarszych miast na Pomorzu. Na miejscu ukształtowania się grodu kołobrzeskiego istniały dwie wcześniejsze osady, o których niewiele jednak możemy powiedzieć. Pierwsza z nich, pochodząca z VI — — VII wieku, znajdowała się w północnej części Wyspy Solnej i prawdopodobnie związana była ze znajdującymi się tam źródłami solanki. Druga, datowana na wiek VIII lub..."
• Lech Leciejewicz, Miasto zachodniosłowiańskie w XI-XII wieku: społeczeństwo, kultura, Polska Akademia Nauk. Oddział we Wrocławiu, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1991, ISBN 8304037564
  • p.160: "Kołobrzeg sięga swymi początkami VII/VIII w. "
• Gerard Labuda, Władysław Filipowiak, Helena Chłopocka, Maciej Czarnecki, Tadeusz Białecki, Zygmunt Silski, Dzieje Szczecina, Państwowe Wydawn. Nauk., 1994, ISBN 8301043423
  • p.524 : "przy ujściu Parsęty w Kołobrzegu, gdzie w pobliżu najpewniej już od VI — VII eksploatowano miejscowe solanki"
• Gerard Labuda, Marian Biskup, Ars historica: prace z dziejów powszechnych i Polski, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 1976
  • p.303: "Rzecz ciekawa, że osiedle o najstarszej metryce, zapewne już z VI wieku, położone było własnie obok źródeł słonych na tzw. Wyspie Solnej w Kołobrzegu"
• Władysław Łosiński, Poczatki wezesnośredniowiecznego osadnictwa grodowego w dorzeczu dolnej Parsety, VII-X/XI w, Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawn. Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1972
  • p.91: [Okdrycia areologiczne datują] "...początki osadnictwa na Wyspie Solnej mniej więcej na przełom VI/VII w."

I hope this is enough to put an end to the allegations that Kołobrzeg's city website contradicts academic literature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the question is not existence of a settlement, but existence of a Slavic settlement. I don't read Polish - do your sources specify the ethnicity of the settlements in question? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it is the existence of a settlement that is under question - since if one was there at the time it almost certainly would've been Slavic. But here's a source which explicitly mentions that the settlement was Slavic (already provided at ):

"under its Slavic name: Kolobrzeg, which literally means: "the bent bank. ... Slavic tribes which moved to the Occident starting in the sixth century" - The Slavs, Francis Conte, Marie-Pascale Bos, pg 24 (not a Polish source, either English or French as far as I can tell)radek (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly as in the previous cases, there is no problem if we use clear attribution of sources - reporting "X says Y" is verifiable and sourced It is the difference between reporting verifiable information (as WP:V instructs we should) and synthesis of selected sources to draw original conclusions and judgments (as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH forbid). I hope this fundamental distinction is now crystal-clear. Knepflerle (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Crystal clear attribution of sources is always good, but there's also the question of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT -- If the promotional town website is the only place making that claim (and I leave it tot he people fighting that out to determine that), it's not particularly notable. Expert sources always trump marketing/promotional ones. If there are conflicting claims, consider the sources and go with the encyclopedic ones. A town website (in general here, any town) does not have a reputation as being an expert on history and thus is not a reliable source for this topic.

I can understand the frustration people have with someone forum shopping, but I can also understand the frustration of an editor having some people try to tell him a clearly bad source should be treated as a good one.

From the sources cited above, it looks like experts say 6th century while the site says 5th and 6th. Just go with 6th, as that's what's been documented reliably. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected that inside covers of books ought to tell the truth at least, but in the case of Roland Perry, the inside covers of his books and his publisher says that he won the UK Cricket Society book of the year in 2006. I presume that it was a typo and meant The Cricket Society, but a look at the website shows that someone else won the award and a google search shows that Perry's book was not in the shortlist. Do inside covers of books tell upfront lies about the CV of the author?? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not generally, considering what's written there is under scrutiny by a lot of people. I'd say it was a typo (can't find any "UK Cricket Society"). The society's website should be given precedence here IMO. Aditya ^α _ß 11:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the "Uk Cricket Society" doesn't seem to exist and "The Cricket Society" says that Perry wasn't even nominated, whereas his inside cover says he won YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen book blurbs outright lie (at least for books from reputable publishers), but they often use selective quotes and information to boost the book and author, just like elided reviewer quotes in movie posters. So it may be best to treat them as POV SPS, and not rely on them for information that is dubious, as in this case. Abecedare (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of author's blurbs lie, and many stretch the truth to the point where it's essentially a lie. Lots of "presented for the first time" when the books they cite clearly precede them with the same info, "finally solved" (when it's clearly just wild guesswork and sometimes not even enough to solve anything even if what it claims turns out to be true) and 'nominated for ____ (some prestigious award)" (when that award doesn't even have nominations as such). All promotional material from the author or publisher -- book blurbs, cover copy, press releases, etc. -- needs to be treated as self-published POV material. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The second RfC on sourcing for Eurovision articles has now being running for several weeks. In order to help gauge the spread of opinion and draw conclusions from this discussion a straw poll has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Straw poll. Rationales are still encouraged in the main discussion area above the poll, and participants can add appropriate new sources or options to the poll as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting issue came up in the MLM article. Several of the papers I found that are scholarly and/or peer reviewed use self published websites to back up their claims. Here are two just as samples.

Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic uses MLM Watch website. "Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher".

Sandbek, Terry "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology

Four issues come to mind.

If a self published website is used in a scholarly or peer reviewed source as reference in support of statements and/or conclusions is it a reliable source in its own right that can be used directly?

If the reference source has been put on the author's own website can it be used directly since it was referenced in a scholarly or peer reviewed source? Must it be in its original form if this allowable?

If an author is used in many scholarly or peer reviewed source and at least one uses his self published website in addition to what scholarly or peer reviewed material he has produced is the site now a reliable source?

Finally, on URLs in general if a scholarly or peer reviewed source use a url of a page that has updated since the paper wed published is the reference used a reliable source? Or do we have to use internet archive and hope that the version the scholarly or peer reviewed paper source used is there?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: a closely related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#When does an person become enough of an expert that we can used his self-published material?. Jakew (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know but I thought the issue was large enough that it's more general implications should be looked at. As more and more journals start going toward web based multimedia versions of themselves this is could start becoming more and more of a problem and I thought that we should at least start thinking about some guidelines regarding such sources though some of this may have to be thrashed out over at Wikipedia:PRIMARY.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To deal with the marginally easier one first, if an author provides a copy of a peer-reviewed paper on their own website, we are into the territory of WP:Convenience links. The actual peer-reviewed journal may not be free to access, whereas the copy provided by the author could be, so ideally a link would be provided to both, so that those without access to the peer-reviewed publication can at least see the contents of the paper, those who also have access to the journal (or whatever) can further verify taht the convenience copy is a true copy (editors also need to bear in mind WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I suppose this also has a bearing on the question of linking to archived versions, I think in the sort of instance described here it probably would be best to link to the closest available archive to when the peer-reviewed paper cited it, and if this is not available, comment to this this effect in the citation and say that the contents of the website may have changed.

On the wider issue, depending on the size of the community of experts, I'd think a site would need a higher density of references in peer-reviewed sources for us to say taht those who publish it are recgonsied as experts by that community. It may also be worth looking at things like Intute, if the website concerned is recommended in such a directory, taht might be sufficient for us to condlude it was sufficiently relaible for us to rely on it as a source. David Underdown (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

David, Bruce isn't talking about using a peer-reviewed paper convenience link, he wants to use to a self-published, non-peer reviewed PDF as a source based on the fact the PDF has been mentioned in one peer-reviewed source and the website mentioned in a handful of others. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I did misunderstand the question slightly there, sorry. I think the second point I do address, it is possible taht a source could become regarded as reliable if "sufficient" peer-reviewed (or otherwise relaible) sources obviously regard it as reliable. (though to be clear, based on the discussion here and on the talkpage, it seems unlikely that this point has been reached in the case of the specific example cited over on the talk-page). David Underdown (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider is misrepresenting my position. I want to use items that have already been favorably referenced in peer reviewed articles that are on the author's personal websites. Even though I had already stated Cruz was peer reviewed Insider claimed it wasn't and then I showed beyond a doubt is was peer reviewed. The statistics used in Cruz that came from Taylor have been independently backed up for particular MLMs in at least one court case (BERR vs Amway) and through Newsweek (where only 0.1 percent of MonaVie distributes make over $100 a week)--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, how did I misrepresent your position? You've just said exactly what I said. You want to reference a self-published source, claiming it's allowable because it's been referenced by a handful of other people of various levels of quality. The point remains that SPS are to be avoided. The criteria isn't that someone has been cited, it's that they themselves have been published by reliable, verifiable, 3rd parties. As I have pointed out ad nauseum we have a multitude of other sources to use. Indeed, in at least one of the places you have insisted on including these SPS as references, the article already has quality references to support the point. One has to fairly ask why you are so obsessed with getting such references into the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider, you are misrepresent your position the SAME way you misrepresented Cruz (incorrectly claim non-peer status when he was as I original stated peer) and now Berkowitz (who I noted was through Inter press service--“largest and most credible of all ‘alternatives’ in the world of news agencies” (Boyd-Barrett, Oliver and Rantanen, Terhi; eds. (1998) The Globalization of News. London: Sage Publication)). I should mention that Sage Publication is the EXACT SAME PUBLISHER as for Grayson, Kent (1996), “Examining the Embedded Markets of Network Marketing Organizations,” Networks in Marketing (Dawn Iacobucci, ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 325 - 341 one of the references Insider201283 provided.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really something that we can make sweeping determinations on. A lot depends on the specific sources and the context of the reference... a source could be referenced by multiple journals, but in a negative context, in which case all those references really are an argument for the source being unreliable. This has to be determined on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember my first question was "If a self published website is used in a scholarly or peer reviewed source as reference in support of statements and/or conclusions is it a reliable source in its own right that can be used directly?" I did that exactly because I realized that reference can used and then countered or just used as a passing example.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Our article on him indicates that he is primarily an economist, affiliated with Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Although the article is a stub, it does not show the relevance of Iranistics to him either. And indeed, Clawson's publications deal mainly with policy and security, this is probably why his notions in the Greater Iran in particular look explicitly biased and out of his scope. A good example is: Iran today is just a rump of what it once was. At its height, Iranian rulers controlled Iraq, Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, much of Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Many Iranians today consider these areas part of a greater Iranian sphere of influence. Quite an overbold statement for economist and Near East politics expert. Actually Clawson is cited six times in the Greater Iran, including one-sided and highly disputable excerpt, which further exposes his stance and one-sided approach to historical issues: At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Azerbaijan, Armenia, much of Georgia, and Afghanistan were Iranian, but by the end of the century, all this territory had been lost as a result of European military action. This sounds odd even for a history hobbyist and I believe the further usage of Clawson in historical issues will corrupt the neutrality and proper weight. Brandt 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm breaking this, and several more RS/N posts to come, out of a more generic discussion elsewhere on RS/N. Two editors are wishing to use www.pyramidshemealert.org as a source on the Multi-level marketing article. At present, this specifically includes the article Why the FTC Lets MLM Run Wild in America". as a source for "many pyramid schemes try to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses". The argument against allowing it as a source is three fold -

(1)Self-published works should be avoided where possible. It is a self-published article on POV website, and the author is not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" as per WP:RS. The author has had no work at all published by reliable third-party publications.

(2)There are non-controversial references available for the fact it is being used to support. One of these (ftc.gov) is already used in the article. Inclusion of the link smacks of POV link spamming.

(3)The article doesn't even disscuss the fact as stated.

The arguement for allowing it is that

(1)the author *is* "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". This is based on the fact the self-published works and/or personal website of the author have been cited (not published) in a small number of ostensibly reliable sources.

More details on that discussion can be found here. 3rd party input appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Same as the MLM site, below. Looks like a (fairly crappy) private website with alarmist writing, probably legitimate concerns, and a beg for donations on the side. No notability nor stature; they are a PAC type organization and not a respected source of accurate information. Sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Similar to the above, two editors are wishing to use the website mlm-thetruth.com as a source for the Multi-level_marketing article. Specifically -

• TOP TEN Things I Learned from Ten Years' Research on Network Marketing or MLM and
• Shocking MLM stats

The first reference is being used to support the assertion "many pyramid schemes try to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses". The brief arguments for and against it's inclusion are much the same as for pyramid scheme alert, above as well as the poor scholarly quality of the article itself.

The second source is being used to support the claim "There are even claims that the success rate for breaking even or even making money are far worse than other types of businesses" and "Based on available data from the companies themselves, the loss rate for recruiting MLM’s is approximately 99.9%; i.e., 99.9% of participants lose money after subtracting all expenses, including purchases from the company."

The brief arguments for and against it's inclusion are much the same as for pyramid scheme alert, above. In addition arguments against are the poor scholarly quality of the article itself, many of which have been addressed by others.--Insider201283 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

bump for this and the above requests. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a crappy source to me - who publishes this? Have they any standing at all? It appears to be a private website, well intentioned but not notable or reliable for WP's purposes. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your opinion on the one above, pyramidschemealert.org, also appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Originally posted as "Discrepancy between secondary source and primary source," above. Only one person responded and his view was disregarded by the other editor in this dispute. I would like to kindly request that more people carefully look at this. Most helpful would be those who provide an opinion showing that they have looked into the details (diffs, etc.) and evaluated the issue referring to some wikipedia policy, and explaining how the issue fits that particular policy.

There is a long discussion about this here. The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record apparently does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings.

The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however."^[1][2][3] This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.

What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source appears to have actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?

The diffs start here, and we joust for a while before settling on the current version, which is when I come to seek clarification. Thanks.

PS: To Simonm223: if you find the above characterisation of the issue lacking, please supplement it below, rather than dismissing it again. Since you did not explain what was wrong with it, I've just gone ahead using the same characterisation. I'm not sure what else to do. I expect you'll be proactive in supplementing anything I have left out this time.--Asdfg12345 16:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Asdfg12345 is trying to push a pro-FLG POV by modifying quotes. There is presently an RfC on this issue. Please review history for real details.Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What? One way I suggested resolving the conflict between primary/secondary sources was to paraphrase part of the quote, not to modify the quote. You can't modify quotes for goodness sake. You rejected that approach out of hand, anyway, so now we are talking about keeping the quote in tact. Given that, the issue now is how the discrepancy between the secondary and original source is best to be represented. This is a technical matter; there ought to be precedents for it. That's what we're getting peoples' opinions on.--Asdfg12345 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, as the editor who responded, earlier... let me expand on my comments.

The New York Times is considered a very reliable source.

The website of Falun Gong is a reliable source for Falun Gong's beliefs and teachings.

In other words... we have a classic case of "he said, she said" between two sources that in this instance should be considered equally reliable. According to WP:NPOV, when two equally reliable sources disagree, we should present what both sources say, giving them equal weight. So, something along the lines of "Craig Smith in the NYT quotes Li Hongzhi as saying 'X'. The Falun Gong website quotes him as saying 'Y'", without inserting our own judgement as to which quote is "correct", is the right approach here. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not looking too closely, but maybe he said it somewhere other than in that speech? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I consider this post sufficiently remote from editing FG articles, thus I comment - I vowed to stay away. In addition to agreeing with Blueboar above, I would perhaps suggest there could have a temporal dimension. I do not consider Clearwisdom a reliable source at all, except for the position of FG at the point in time when the information is consulted. The Epoch Times may be marginally better, but I cannot be sure. During my time editing FG articles, I seem to recall there having been quite a lot of discussion (can't remember exactly what aspect) about Falun Gong having revised text after it had been put out. In other words, what is posted on Clearwisdom today may reflect what FG believes today, but may not represent the views they held at the point in time when the NYT cited Li Hongzhi or his representative. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There has never been any discussion about Clearwisdom or Falundafa.org revising text by Li Hongzhi. I remember the case OhConfucius is talking about. Some Clearwisdom editor had removed a chapter from some news article that described Falun Gong in negative terms. I e-mailed them about that, the guy who replied hadn't realised it (the editors are working independently of each other), and he said that they definitely do not support this kind of behaviour. One big reason is that there's no management, so these kinds of things have occurred. Nowadays they're being talked about more and more, and I know the general consensus is that Falun Gong practitioners should aim at truthful, accurate reporting and adherence to Western journalistic standards. Still, translators have always been very careful when they deal with Li Hongzhi's speeches. Words or chapters are definitely not removed afterwards. There's no reliable source that has ever claimed such things taking place. You can compare the English version of the lecture with any other language, and you will see that the content matches. These translations have been made independently of each other by local practitioners. If something has been released on the website, there's no way to fix every version of it that is spreading out there. Your conspiracy theories are extremely implausible, and moreover, as long as all of this is wild speculation, I don't know why we're even discussing it seriously. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no "conspiracy theory", I was merely speaking of my recollection. I know it's there, and the incident described by Olaf is not the one I was referring to. However, I guess I had better shut up because I have no inclination to waste my time on Falun Gong, or arguing further against a propaganda machine which is a match for the People's Republic of China. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this in the negative... it is certainly possible that FG "edited" Li Honzhi's comments after the fact. It is equally possible that the NYT article misquoted him. But that simply means both sources are potentially equally unreliable, and leads us back to presenting the two sources equally, without passing judgement as to which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that one could reasonably expect that Li Hongzhi would demand a retraction, or possibly even sue for libel if the NY times misquoted him as saying racist things. He has never taken any such action.Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Li Hongzhi has never sued anyone, even though some people have beyond any doubt misquoted him. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm, we can not take the lack of a demand for retraction as evidence that the NYT accurately quoted him (some people don't go about demanding a retraction when they are misquoted). Nor could we take a demand for retraction as evidence that they did misquote him (some demands for retraction are unwarrented, and simply issued to save face). About the only "evidence" that could be conclusive here would be an audio tape of the lecture, demonstrating that he did or did not utter the words attributed to him. Barring that, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the NYT says he said X while the FG website says he said Y. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article cites no reliable sources about anything! Needs eyes, and citations.Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to gather some opinions regarding Xinhua News. It's a well known Chinese news agency which is used in many articles in Wikipedia. However, I've read recently that it has been described by RSF as the world's biggest propaganda agency. The way I see it, it means it shouldn't be used at all on WP since any facts coming from it is most likely distorted in favor of the PRC (and against China's main enemies). I'd be interested to know what you think about it - do you think the source can be used at all? or should it be systematically removed from articles? Laurent (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Every source has a point of view. It's possible that in some articles about the PRC Xinhua could be considered a primary rather than a secondary source, but in no way should we be running around removing it from articles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

From observation of Xinhua over the years, I'll be a little more negative than Squidfryerchef on this one. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole on some topics: Green Dam or Tibet for example. On international topics, it derives its news from international wire services, and it is better to reference the original wire service than Xinhua. There's no need to go on a campaign purging Xinhua from Wikipedia, but it is best avoided: when it is the primary reporter, it's too biased to be used, and when it's a secondary reporter, there's no reason to use it.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this with regard to wire services. Our own article on Xinhua says they maintain over a hundred news bureaus all around the world, and a staff nearly eight times the size of Reuters. They also have a reputation for analysis especially in the internal publications they produce for Chinese VIPs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinhua is a reliable source. Just be careful if your using them for something that the PRC would want slanted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinhua is reliable, as long as one keeps in mind that it does have a pro-PRC bias. So for articles where the PRC would have a vested interest (say Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, related articles) in it, IMO material drawn from Xinhua needs to be clearly noted as being from there. Xinhua actually can give a useful perspective on what the PRC's leaders feel about a topic. Ngchen (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from propagating the PRC point of view it is completely unreliable for political, international politics, social issues etc. It will never be allowed at FAC, for example. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it any less reliable than other government-funded media, and who is blocking it from featured articles? I wouldn't expect them to be candid on the question of Tibet, but I would only expect the official opinion on Northern Ireland from the BBC or of Guantanamo from the Voice of America, and cite them as primary sources. For uncontroversial information within China, or about international relations in area where China isn't rooting for either side, there is no reason to avoid Xinhua. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is not government propaganda, unlike Xinhua YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But if no one can think of a reason why Xinhua should be slanting things, why avoid it? Everything is biased, neutrality requires multiple points of view. Here is a well known scholar and journalist's blog praising their Israel-Palestinian coverage, for instance. State run media have the virtue of having obvious and therefore more easily neutralizable bias. When the question of state run media has come up before, I think most thought that eliminating them would lead to less neutrality than using them, always with the appropriate grain (or ton) of salt or course.John Z (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)