Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 76

This section was archived by a "bot" before a significant number of opinions (compared to other requests posted on this page) were offered. Given all the controversy at the cold fusion pages, there are not enough opinions here, by far! CAN the article described below be used as a secondary source for various primary sources? V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:

1. "⁴He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
2. "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate ⁴He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Wikipedia editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:

3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Wikipedia's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the cold fusion talk page? It looks like it's about to be archived here. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think no. THIS is the place where the Question posed is most appropriate, to await an Answer. (oops, wasn't logged in) V (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a lull in the conversation, I will have a go at saying something. I have never edited (and scarcely looked at) CF articles. The article reads to me like a research paper. Its Introduction is by way of a review of the current state of the art (as is normal in research papers). In part Hagelstein analyses observations gleaned from other papers and so this lends a broad scope to his paper. The claims numbered 1 and 2 Ura Ursa quotes result from only four papers, one by Hagelstein himself. To me this provides rather a weak review of only speculative claims. In claim 2 “can be interpreted” seems to mean “it is possible for it to be interpreted” rather than “is to be interpreted”. The main conclusion of the paper, which is not by way of review, I take as being that any ⁴He does not seem to be coming from alpha particles produced by nuclear fusion: “Efforts to account for excess energy in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment based on models that involve energetic particles are unlikely to be successful in light of the upper limits discussed here”. So, the “new physical process” in claim 2, Hagelstein suggests, is not a process of cold fusion involving energetic particles.

I feel it would unbalanced to report the (secondary) two claims without reporting the (primary) conclusion and to report the latter would be premature. I do not know why the paper is labelled “review” and to me it does not matter either way. The thousand papers part is irrelevant. Hagelstein merely says he surveyed these papers to find which ones had observations enabling him to make his analysis and reach his conclusions.

In answer to question 3, I think the paper is a secondary source for the two claims but that things would need to be put in a clear context, particularly bearing in mind the paper’s conclusion. This makes the whole matter very abstruse and difficult to convey succinctly. So, as an editorial decision, I would not put any of this into the CF article. However, I would not a priori preclude the two claims quoted on grounds of WP:V, etc.

I hope this helps (though I fear it may not!). Thincat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I must confess that the copy of the article that I have been able to obtain is corrupted or something --can't open it on my local system. So I have not been able to determine if this Hagelstein paper contains references to an approximate replication of Arata's experiment (involving pressurized deuterium and not electrolysis) that was published in Physics Letters A last year --we've been waiting for a secondary source for that --or if it references certain SPAWAR "co-deposition" electrolysis experiments that were also published in Naturwissenschaften (we've been waiting for a secondary source for those, also!). V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Try but I think the answer is "no". Thincat (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I ran into a paywall...and my funds are tight right now. V (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone else here find out if this Hagelstein article references the RS primary publications that I mentioned three paragraphs above? Thanks! V (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that the "review" article under discussion here appears to mention a number of experiments that detected X-rays. This could be very important! If X-rays have indeed been detected, then despite the fact that they are not the desired gamma rays that hot-fusion physicists have claimed should be produced, they are still something more than ANY ordinary chemical reaction can produce. Nor can any ordinary electrochemical cell, running at just a few Volts, generate X-rays, either. Something really unusual would have to be happening in those experiments, if X-rays have been undeniably detected. V (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Charles Lavine:

Note to Community: This was brought here at my suggestion which I gave in a Third Opinion at Talk:Charles Lavine as a result of the dispute between Eyespy4you and Tnxman307. It would be of some considerable assistance to those users if the community could come to consensus on whether Patch.com in general and specific subpages on Patch.com such as, and in particular, [glencove.patch com] are reliable sources. (I'm refactoring this request and adding this note here so that Tnxman307's comments, above, are not taken to be a response to this request.) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Like all reliable sources there is a subjective element at work. I've looked over patch.com and the subpage. Patch.com says, "We’re a community-specific news and information platform dedicated to providing comprehensive and trusted local coverage for individual towns and communities." Notice the word platform, not organization. I feel the site would meet the same standard as we hold for blogs. I don't feel the site is inherently unreliable and I would consider it a good source for local news in the specific communities where a patch.com page exists, but I wouldn't take it beyond that. If what you're sourcing to this particular patch.com subpage takes place outside of Glen Cove then it would need to be stated as an opinion attributed to the writer and such a quote would need to make sense in the context of the article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to note that although the biographies on the Glen Cove subpage make mention of freelance writer for major news sources, I was unable to find the names on the about us associated with bylines at those news organizations or google books. This doesn't mean the biographies are false, just that what work they did may not be attributed to them or it may be offline only.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For this relatively new and still developing article about a Venezuelan film studio, several questions about reliability of sources have surfaced. (On other Venezuelan articles, there have been charges that some reliable sources are "opeds", so independent eyes would be helpful.)

First, to verify that these are reliable sources for this article

1. Ingham, James. "Venezuelan cinema, Chavez style." BBC News. 1 November 2007.
2. Padgett, Tim, and Kathie Klarreich. "Hugo Chavez, Movie Mogul." Time. 24 May 2007.
3. "Lights! Camera! Revolución! Newsweek. 24 October 2009. Also available at HighBeam Research, with byline Mac Margolis, November 2009.

   This source has some production facts and figures, dates, etc along with some gringo hyperbole about the typical traffic in Caracas, et al.

4. (in Spanish) "La Villa del Cine promete 12 películas para 2011". El Universal. 16 August 2010.

   More production facts and figures, in Spanish, from one of the two leading newspapers in Venezuela.

I have been unable to determine the reliability of these sources

1. Blaser, Alexandra and Ella Rothero. Venezuelan Cinema in Search of 'Our Language'. Raggaeton.co.uk.

   The website is Candela Live, at the bottom of the page is "Raggaeton.co.uk" (claiming "No. 1 magazine for urban Latin in the UK"), but that link goes nowhere, and I can find no page here describing fact checking or editorial oversight (and I do speak Spanish). The Contact us page is of no help.

   Added, in particular, this site is being used to source the claim in the lead that the institution is "autonomous"; the source does not say that, and every reliable source seems to say that is a state organization, and its website is a gov't website. I have tagged this (twice, I think), as original research, not in citation given, or verify credibility, but the tags were removed. Funding is run through something that includes the word "autonomous" as part of its name, but that is not the same as saying it is an "autonomous" institution, and reliable sources contradict that claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

   Subsequently reworded to conform to a new reliable source, but both of them fail to account for the relationship between these entities as explained by the Venezuelan govt itself (they are all interrelated and part of the Ministry of Popular Culture): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

   Márquez, Humberto. Petrodollars for local film industry. Inter Press Service. 12 January 2007.

2. "La Clase in its social and political context." Latin America Film. July 15, 2010.

   This is a wordpress website, the Contact us page is unhelpful, and although I speak Spanish, I can find nothing on that site about fact checking or editorial oversight.

3. Van der Zalm, Jeroen. "Villa de Cine: Venezuelan government as film producer." The Power of Culture. December 2007.

   This website gives us some information about their backing, but none of that info helps establish reliability. There is nothing about fact checking or editorial oversight or journalistic credentials, and all of the editor pages at the About Us page are dead links, which doesn't inspire confidence.

4. Allen, Jennifer. "Casino Funds New French Biennial; Film Studio Opens in Venezuela; Guernica Stays Put; Success for 'La Force'." Artforum International Magazine website.

   This site Contact page says it is the Artforum International Magazine, but I can find nothing other than the address-- no indications of editorial oversight, factchecking, staff, etc.

5. Vázquez, Mercedes. "Secuestro Express and La clase: politics of realism in contemporary Venezuelan filmmaking." Jump Cut. 52. 2010.

   This site's About us pages seems to indicate that they accept essays from contributors, with a clearly stated editorial bias, although it does at least have editors listed. The author is a graduate student in Hong Kong.

Thanks for any feedback; I'd like a read on the sources before I begin improving the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not one iota of feedback from independent editors; at any rate, most of the marginal sources have now been replaced by reliable sources. However, I still don't know what "Jump Cut" is, and whether it is reliable; ditto for Art Forum International. Thanks :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been claimed that OrthodoxWiki "was found acceptable as a valid source" - apparently generically - "from the Reliable sources noticeboard". I have failed to find a record of any such decision in the archives here. I would be grateful for a confirmation or denial of the claim.

The reliability of this source had been questioned in the following passage, where the link is actually to an article described as needing help from an expert on the subject:

Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching^{[1][unreliable source?]} that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin.^{[citation needed]} This teaching, which is contrary to that of the Roman Catholic Church,^[2] appears^{[1][unreliable source?]} to have been confirmed by multiple councils,^{[clarification needed]} the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529.^{[1][unreliable source?]} Esoglou (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As its a wiki I would be supprisd it has passed RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, never reliable since it's an open-edit website. (From the mainpage: Welcome to OrthodoxWiki, a free-content encyclopedia and information center for Orthodox Christianity that anyone can edit.)Bali ultimate (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The only place it appears to be discussed is here [] and it is not found to be RS, in fact it seems to be declared non RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The contribution here is what indicated that the website was a valid source. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Soory I think you may have mis-read this. Its talking about offical church documnets and theologians whoi publish in peer-reviewed journals. I see no mention of this Wiiki.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I left a message on the sys ops talkpage User talk:Jschroe for Orthodox wiki. Because there is a significant amount of articles on Wikipedia that use Orthodox Wiki as a source. I used the site and removed the source conflict tags as the articles on Orthodox wiki have to be confirmed by the sysops on the site and there is no anonymous editing there. I thought that the site met the criteria from the discussion. After Esoglou was able to use random church websites as sources in the article I thought that meant that I could use the Orthodox wiki per what editor User:Wikiant stated and that no one else here but Andrew responded as to what I could do about Esoglou using random websites as sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are completely misreading the reply by Wikiant you linked. He states that church and diocese websites are a step above blogs, but that peer-reviewed texts by scholars are to be preferred. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are at least 500 or so articles here on Wikipedia that use Orthodox Wiki in them. in one way or another. What can now be done to correct this situation? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove them as you find them. You can also request a bot to scrape them from the system, but that would probably take a while.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Try doing the search with quotation marks around "orthodox wiki" and the result will be less than 40. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats very strange Saddhiyama because I ported the article New Martyr from Orthodox Wiki and used Orthodox wiki to source it, indicated that in the article and I notice that article (for one example) did not show up in your link of searches. Also I get a whole different set whenever I remove the space from between the word Orthodox and the word wiki before I do a search. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This list shows you where orthodoxwiki.org is used. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it appears to list 572 articles in total. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The link you provide doesn't mention this OrthodoxWiki website at all. Not that it would matter. It's an anyone can edit platform, so that's case closed.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I have already added several articles from Orthodox wiki to Wikipedia. There is actually a license issue that had to be addressed. This is the disclaimer that was created to confirm that Orthodox wiki allows use of its content here on Wikipedia. Like here in this article Saint Sophia Cathedral in Harbin As of May 9, 2010, this article uses content from Orthodox Wiki, which is licensed under the CC-By-SA and GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. The original article was at "St. Sophia Cathedral (Harbin, China)". LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW COULD YOU GUYS ONCE WE GET THIS SORTED OUT HELP WITH ESOGLOU STILL USING RANDOM WEBSITES IN THE ARTICLE TO SOURCE HIS CONTRIBUTIONS. PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE YOU GUYS WERE REALLY FAST TO RESPOND TO ESOGLOU POSTING FASTER AND MORE THOROUGH AND ALLOT MORE PEOPLE RESPONDED THAN MY EARLIER POST AND I COULD REALLY USE THE HELP. Esoglou has pepper the entire article with invalid in source tags to the sources I have provided. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not shout. can you give some exampples of sources you wish to challenge here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to get attention. I already link to the examples in my posting here before. That I provided before and only Andrew attempted to help. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get attention is no excuse, besdies which you were getting attention. Moreover I think you amay be mis-represting again (if you arte talking about the disusion I link to above. Its clear a few Edds joined in. Just no giving you the answer you wanted to hear.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are trying to guess at my intentions. I'm saying help on the article itself not just here on the noticeboard. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We're not horsetrading here about some other sources and other edits. Just giving (hopefully) unbiased advice. OrthodoxWiki is a very clear cut case. If there are other sources in other articles you'd like examined, open a new section (or sections) with a little context (i.e. "is such and such citation a reliable source for the following edit: tktktkt").Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Again I did that already. I will however provide three. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Esoglou added this one to a syllabus and not to any content. It has a form for hotel reservations...

• 1.Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but this opinion is now questioned, as is indicated by the title, "Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?", of a paper presented by Stuart Squires of the Catholic University of America at the 2009 meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you put this in a new section at the bottom of this page, I'd be happy to take a look at it. For now, it has no business in a section explaining why the anyone-can-edit "OrhtodoxWiki" is unreliable. There is no connection between these things.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am moving the content now. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 2.The Reverend Dr Theodore Stylianopoulos, pastor of St George Greek Orthodox Church, Keene, New Hampshire, United States, provides yet another indication of the diversity of Eastern Orthodox belief with regard to the nature of hell. "Many Orthodox saints and writers", Father Stylianopoulos says, "assume the general view of hell as a place of punishment, even by means of material instruments such as fire, whether of the soul after death or both soul and body after the resurrection". He adds that one Orthodox interpretation of hell, "based on certain Orthodox luminaries such as St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian", asserts that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment" LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please start new sections, these are not linked to this discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would hope for understanding as I have not been called to task until now for using Orthodox wiki and I am not alone in using it as a reliable source for articles here. When I first ported articles from Orthodox Wiki here to Wikipedia there was a discussion on this 3 years ago. Administrator User:Pastordavid and Administrator User:Mangojuice worked out the copyright issues and there was no mention of Orthodox Wiki not being a reliable source for articles here. It is not like I had not (at least I thought) addressed this with them then as I have no authority at Wikipedia and I am merely a volunteer. I wonder if one of you editors here could contact User:Mangojuice and see how he thinks this should be addressed. Just asking is all. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem confused between copyright and reliable sources. Wikipedia is filled with unreliable articles of its own, one of the reasons it doesn't particularly mind if other potentially unreliable articles are loaded in here as starting points if copyright is respected. But allowing for the use of anyone-can-edit websites like OrthodoxWiki or Wikipedia as reliable sources for article content is not allowed, ever. Would just make all the content less reliable than the low standards at present. So I understand your confusion. Do you understand that you shouldn't use any open-edit websites as reliable sources ever again? If so, we can box this up.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I think I am in the ballpark. However what about all of those other articles? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

They need taging (as (I have now done with some) stating that they need better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What about all those other articles? Any citation to "orthodoxwiki" can be removed on site as it's an unreliable source.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an open wiki; it fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou added this one to a syllabus and not to any content. It has a form for hotel reservations...

• 1.Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but this opinion is now questioned, as is indicated by the title, "Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?", of a paper presented by Stuart Squires of the Catholic University of America at the 2009 meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature

This does seem a bit iffy to me. Whilst we can verfiy the title of the papaer presented we cannot verfiy what the papaer says. Its more an undue then an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The citation is only to the title of the paper, showing that the question has been raised, no more. It doesn't show what position the presenter of the paper took on the question. Esoglou (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But withoout the context of the discusioon we canot say that it has been raised as anything more then a mild oibkect of theoretical argument. For all you (or I) k ow it was "if we ask the silly and totlay non-sensical question".Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "question" being raised may simply be provocative. For all we know, the first sentence of the paper says "Only the foolish and uneducated have ever described him as a semi-Pelagian." Titles don't cut it. Get the paper and read it and then (if it supports the edit) do so. Or find another source. We can't interpret syllabi, paper titles, etc... without reading them.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 2.The Reverend Dr Theodore Stylianopoulos, pastor of St George Greek Orthodox Church, Keene, New Hampshire, United States, provides yet another indication of the diversity of Eastern Orthodox belief with regard to the nature of hell. "Many Orthodox saints and writers", Father Stylianopoulos says, "assume the general view of hell as a place of punishment, even by means of material instruments such as fire, whether of the soul after death or both soul and body after the resurrection". He adds that one Orthodox interpretation of hell, "based on certain Orthodox luminaries such as St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian", asserts that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment" LoveMonkey (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is RS for the Fathers views. Which is how it seems to be being used. I also bleive that this was the kind of source discused last time. Why his views shouold be notable in another matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 3.Roman Catholic teaching holds that "by free will (the human person) is capable of directing himself toward his true good" [101] but not first without the will of God to do so.

Here I am just requesting a more specific source. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find were the last source supports the last part. I would therefore say this is not supported by the source. I wouod also sugest discuse each source in a soperated catagory, it ight get confusing if some one reponds that a source is good.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

May I be permitted to observe that the last (unsourced) "but not first without the will of God to do so" was inserted by LoveMonkey. Esoglou (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Lovemonkey exaclty which part of the passage are you objecting to?Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 4.

1. The "citation" is to a schedule for a conference, not the paper itself. The paper itself would be an RS and likely supports the rather non-novel assertion. Find the paper or one like it and source to that.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So what type of a citation tag should be added to the passage to reflect this, as this is not my contribution. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed {cn}.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The citation is only to the title of the paper, showing that the question has been raised, no more. It doesn't show what position the presenter of the paper took on the question. Esoglou (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

2. "Father Ted" (i.e. Dr. Theodore Stylianopoulos) is a reliable source for such matters (Harvard Divinity PHD and has taught at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology ).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK as he is a theologian his opinions are notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK but those opinions go against the theologians I noted in works that those theologians created and presented to councils with other Christian factions. It also goes against what is officially posted by the SCOBA, OCA website that is not a parish website but the actual diocese website. As one priest personal opinion does not trump nor equal the whole churches. Please also note that Esoglou is using this person's opinion to make statements in the article that what they say indicates that the theologians representing the Orthodox church in the World Church Councils are not actually properly or correctly representing them. As this Editor Esoglou mentioned on the article talkpage that these theologians are not valid because Stylianopoulos mentions in his article that he is supported by church fathers and saints. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That does ot invlaidate him as a source. If tehre are issues of Un due then this is not the place for that argument. Same with NPOV. At the end of the day he si RS for his views.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree I pointed this out to the editor Esoglou and check his response. I will follow up with the noticeboard there. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

3. First, you didn't provide the first link ("101") That link is to Cathechism of the Catholic Church, hosted by the Vatican. The Vatican is generally a very good source on what the Catholic church professes to believe and teach. In this case, excellent. Quotes verbatim. The second section is miscited, either by you or in the article. Jacques Maritain is a very, very good source on Catholic philosophy, theology and practice. The link provided, however, is a brief discussion of some attempted "proofs" of God's existence (Ontological, etc..). Doesn't appear to be connected to the edit it supports. I suspect that there's something elsewhere in Maritain that supports this and that this is a ref error. At any rate, the source itself is reliable, it just appears there's a misatribution problem.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes to number 3 we are in agreement. I could not validate comment with the source. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, could you please look at the following issue:

• The sources are
  • http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2004/1057108.htm
  • http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-eight-stage-spiral-to-peace-in-the-mideast-1.179848
• Article: Spiral Dynamics
• Statement supported by the sources: "...the model has also been applied in politics."
• Statement and sources have been deleted, see diff.
• Talk page section: Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#Sources_from_ABC_Radio_and_Haaretz

Thanks, --Pevos (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources are OK, its the use made of them which is the issue. The first reports the claims of the originator of Spiral Dynamics, for a substantive claim one would expect reliable third party sources. The second simply reports that a group of people got together and talked about a possible use, it hardly supports a claim that it has been applied. --Snowded ^TALK 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the applications section, I inserted "Based on Spiral Dynamics, Don Beck worked with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela." Please check out if it is supported by the sources (same sources). --Pevos (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Almost same sources, for the first, I took this one: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1057108.htm) --Pevos (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded deleted it again, with the claim that it was no third party source. But IMHO the sources meet all criteria of WP:3PARTY. Snowded treats the sources as if they were self-published by Don Beck. --Pevos (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please READ my comments on the talk page. The sources are reliable, its what is in them that is the problem. The ABC one example is a transcript of an interview with Beck in which Beck makes various claims. There is no validation of those claims. If he has worked with Clinton, Blair and Mandela then surely its notable enough that there is a source (other than Beck) which reports it. I also note that you are making no effort to discuss this on the talk page --Snowded ^TALK 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here you can read it: Snowded wrote on the talk page: "Its a claim by Beck and that is all that is reported in the sources. You need a third party reliable source, at the moment it could just be self-promotion." Exactly that is what I am asking here on the noticeboard: I think I have provided third party reliable sources, and I ask for the opinions of several editors. --Pevos (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you again. You have a reliable source (the ABC transcript) which reports a claim about South Africa by Beck no more. For all we know that claim could be exaggeration or even untrue. To make a statement that the claim is true and substantial would need a reliable third party source. If the claim is true then surely there is one. The second source "haaretz.com" simply reports that people are going to get together to discuss the method, there is no report that they did or that it had any effect. Neither is there any material to indicate that those attending the event have any notability or infuence. The material in the sources (regardless of the status of those sources) simply does not support the material you have inserted which, to be honest, appears to be advocacy. --Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I copy a paragraph from Wikipedia:3PARTY#Why_third-party_sources_are_required:

"Arguably, an independent and reliable third-party is not always objective enough to evaluate a subject. There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In extreme cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.)"

Is this what you want to say? Do you consider it such an extreme case? And in this case you need consensus to remove the verified but false statement. --Pevos (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have no third party source of any type, you just have a transcript of primary source (Beck) making claims. --Snowded ^TALK 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree with Snowded if it were just the ABC interview and claims by the subject. But the Haaretz article explicitly states: "has a proven track record, after having applied the method successfully in South Africa. His 36 visits to that country between 1981 and 1988 greatly influenced the thinking of political leaders, key businessmen, religious leaders and the general public. Beck also served as an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "policy unit," as well as helped former U.S. president Bill Clinton on racism issues, the Chicago municipality in dealing with poor neighborhoods, and the World Bank on Afghanistan's future. Beck also has assisted boards of directors of aviation companies, large banks and government institutions." Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Haaretz site is just a news story picking up a press release or similar. Now given the nature of those claims, which are significant wouldn't you expect something in the odd text book, or in a researched article in a newspaper or similar? How many books have been written about the end of apartheid? The volume of material on Blair's policy unit is vast before we get onto Clinton. Per [[WP::NEWSORG]] "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis". In this case we clearly need more --Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Click through the Haaretz link and find: "Akiva Eldar is the chief political columnist and an editorial writer for Haaretz." So this is editorial opinion of that one man rather than a "news factoid". Hcobb (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did when I originally checked it out, its still a news story. Its not a column where facts have been verified etc. The story also only covers a meeting about a possible application, not an application. Its is dated 2006 and it is the only news story that appears on that site if you search on "Don Beck" or "Spiral Dynamics", again if this was notable in the Middle East one would expect more than one four year old story. We have to be very cautious about broad claims from consultants and "movements" like Spiral Dynamics as to fact and influence. As I said, if such substantial claims were notable they would be reported in literature and so far we have seen no evidence of that. --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, use with attribution, but it appears to be a solid WP:RS to support that text. Dlabtot (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it doesn't. Its a web based news service reporting on a workshop with no additional sources to back it up. It reports a claim, it does not validate the claim. WP:RSS says we have to look at each case on its merits if a newspaper report is used and in this case it is very very clear that such claims would have other sources if they were valid. There is also an important point of principle here. We can't let wikipedia become a promotional vehicle for any of a hundred management consultancy fads. Allowing a piece obviously drawn up from a press statement in a fairly obscure web site to corroborate a claim to have worked with major world leaders would be a very bad precedent.--Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions are not consistent with the facts as I see them as a neutral, uninvolved editor who has examined the sources, their context, and the way they are being used. Dlabtot (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The article "Wiki markup" refers this page as a source. It's a Help page from Wikipedia and we shouldn't call it 'reliable'. I think that it should be replaced for some external source (in fact, when we talk about a reliable source, "external" is redundant) . Thanks.” T_ęĻęŞ (_{PT @ L C G}) 08:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a source for most topics, but wikipedia is a perfectly reliable primary source for information about Wikipedia. self-reference is an exception to reliable sourcing rules in most cases: Joe the plumber's memoirs would not be considered a reliable source for most political issues, but they would be considered a reliable source for his own political activities. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the question here is about Wiki markup, which isn't Wikipedia, so it isn't being used as a source on itself. Secondly, Wikipedia is an open wiki and these are largely not acceptable. Thirdly, Joe's memoirs are a reliable source for what he says in his memoirs, but not necessarily for an historical account of his political activities, as not being independent. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you both. I'm agreed with what Kenilworth said. Wikipedia and any other wikis are not reliable sources. Therefore, primary sources can be used only when published on a reliable source (see).” T_ęĻęŞ (_{PT @ L C G}) 22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP is not a reliable source for the general topic of wiki markup, better to find other sources, and that should not be hard. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

While all the above is true, there are occasions when commonsense overrules normal procedures. The article includes: 'In MediaWiki, this convention was replaced with the [[…]] notation, which Wikipedia calls "free links".[ref: Wikipedia:Free links]' and it seems pointless to look for a reliable source supporting such a light-weight statement, particularly when any external source would be less reliable than the Wikipedia help page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia jargon for something is seems rather unecyclopaedic unless there is an external source for that nomenclature. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we are not immune to our own standards--if something isn't covered in reliable sources, it is not notable enough for inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• So... is it a consensus? What should be done in this case?” T_ęĻęŞ (_{PT @ L C G}) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that some feel the source is reliable enough given the situation, and some don't, as a matter of policy. But I think the more important question is whether this particular point is notable. Wiki markup is not a help page for wikipedia and wikipedia is not a howto. Absent external sources, I would argue it's not (although that's an issue for another noticeboard). As an aside, I think we should be cautious in applying common sense over procedure in regard to information about WP--to not do so could create other problems elsewhere, where others would like to apply common sense over procedure for topics they know and love. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is filmbug.com, more specifically, the Dictionary, considered a reliable source? It is being used to source the addition of "Action drama" as a subgenre in the Action film article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The editorial oversight of this website is unclear. The authors or editors are not named, nor are the editorial policies stated. I don't see any indication that it meets WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that the content is user-generated, but, in the absence of any guidelines, how is one to determine value? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is not a reliable source. I can't see any academic oversight or peer verification, nor is it clear who is writing the article. BOVINEBOY2008 03:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this site. As the site seems to allow user generated information (http://www.filmbug.com/site/update-movies.php?id=2553 here), I'm not sure if it should be considered a valid source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, user generated content and definitions don't often play well together to meet the criteria.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok to use this PDF to cite the Turkish Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a traditional Sunni muslim. See page 28 (34) in this PDF - He is presently in the Cat and people have commented on the article talkpage that he is a sunni but this is the only source we can find so far, the statement appears to be completely uncontentious. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional" is meaningless in this context and shouldn't be used, really, ever as a modifier for the Muslim faith (since most everyone claims they're "traditional" even when they believe and do novel and new things. The Salafy's, for instance, are modern radicals. But i digress). At any rate, Erdogan is a Sunni. He leads a Sunni-based party (part of a long string of Sunni based parties inspired, if now different from, the Sunni Muslim brotherhood), he prays at mosques led by Sunni Imams, and he comes from a country where 80% of the people are Sunni. This shouldn't be challenged -- and it's such common knowledge that no one dwells on it. However, here are some sources that contextualizes him as a "sunni islamist." , .Bali ultimate (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, traditional is POV and shouldn't be added. Thanks you Bali for the sources, I will have a look at them. I will ask for opinions on the talkpage, I am thinking just to add somewhere in the text a simple he is a Sunni Muslim and the strongest cite and so able to keep him in the cat. Many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw the word traditional as meaningless as well and thought it was a way to end any radical Sunni rumors as well. Thanks for the help as well. --NortyNort (Holla) 07:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch DemocracyNow.org is being presented as a "reliable source" with an edit summary DN is a reliable source). Is democracynow.org a reliable source? Is a "video report" from that site a "reliable source"? Collect (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not in a blanket sense. It's an advocacy group, not a news outlet. The "video" source aint very good. If there was a print version where the sources for the claims could be examined it might be OK (if it looks like the research is solid i.e. if it said "based on publicly available tax records" they gave $100 million... maybe you mention it, with attribution. If it's on the order of "a little bird told me" then no). The more I think on this, the more i lean "no" though; that's a lot of money, there's a lot of people digging into this kind of stuff -- one would expect a non-partisan source to have something similar to this at this point if true. If the only source for such a claim is as partisan as Democracy Now, prolly not (and i suspect without watching the video that someone being interviewed is making that assertion -- not "Democracy Now." You might be able to walk back the cat if you figure out who that person is and how his/her research was done.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Democracy now is a very opinionated almost an activist source and I wouldn't add it unless I wanted to push their activist claims. which I don't. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Might someone remove DemocracyNow video from EL list if it is not RS? The other editor is already musing "censorship" <g>. Collect (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pacifica Radio is "the oldest public radio network in the United States" and a WP:NEWSORG, Democracy Now! is one of its programs. As the program is transmitted over radiowaves, it must meet the requirements for reliability or whatever set by the Federal Communications Commission. They cannot "take the first" and lie like Fox News – a cable and satellite news channel. (The issue here may not be about WP:RS but about WP:EL.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The FCC? The FCC licenses and allows all those Morning Zoo programs too. There are no "reliability" police at the FCC. The show is certainly a prominent one, but one with a very clear and self-declared point of view. At any rate, this is the reliable sources noticeboard.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying the FCC will not let you say fuck on air, but they will let you lie like Fox? Let's put this another way. Do you think the FCC would allow Kavkaz Center – a terrorist news service – to broadcast on air? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The program is one that is heavily editorial in nature and slanted (like Fox). Whether one "lies" and the other always tells the "truth" is up to you. But Democracy Now has a very strong point of view and political agenda, and in that they and Fox have something in common. As for the FCC. No, in the US you can't say fuck on the radio, and you can't have an advocacy station for militant groups (i.e. Kavkaz). But you are allowed to have politically slanted programming and sometimes (gasp!) that politically slanted programming skews its coverage to favor its point of view. You do know that Rush Limbaugh, Beck et al are on the radio in the US too, don't you?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the reliable sources noticeboard. Democracy Now! may be a partisan news source (it is not an advocacy group), but it is still a reliable source based on the usual criteria of editorial oversight and fact checking etc. It has received journalism awards, and editors in the past have clearly stated that it is a reliable source. In any case, note that External Links do not actually need to meet the RS criteria. And that there is a transcript of the interview in question. Which turns out to be an interview with Charles Lewis (journalist) about this article published in the The New Yorker. This is also a reliable source, and the article should probably be used as a source for information in the articles. Whether the Democracy Now interview meets the criteria for External Links is another matter, unrelated to its status as a reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker article is certainly a reliable source for that piece of information (Democracy Now is about as reliable as Glen Beck or O'Reilly however, but who cares. Got a better sources.) As for External links arcana, i have no opinion (well, my opinion is that there should be no external links at all, but i don't make policy).Bali ultimate (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. Why is this even being asked? Is there some argument based on WP:Identifying reliable sources as to why it would not be? What is that argument? Dlabtot (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is being used for a "video report" on an article in an RS which is already in the list of references. Thus it adds no actual content other than the "video report." DemocracyNow is not the source of the article. Where a source adds nothing, but is used solely for introducing a "video report" I suggest that the cite is unnecessary (the solid printed material is already in the article) but is primarily a link to an outside locus which is , for this purpose, not RS. Collect (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What I asked is if there was some argument based on WP:Identifying reliable sources as to why it would not be a reliable source. It is clear from your response that there is not. Please stop forum-shopping this noticeboard in your content disputes. Dlabtot (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I like how you start off with the premise that Democracy Now! was at one time not a reliable source? If so, when was this, or did you simply invent this era in your head? Moreover, thanks for not letting me know you were bringing an issue that involved me to the board here - then again it is clear that you and Off2riorob (who comically chimes in above as a supposed disinterested party just passing through) have adopted some conspiratorial view that articles are "under siege" in an "organized manner" leaving you "frightened" see conversation ---> here. Nevertheless, Democracy Now! clearly meets the definition of a reliable source, per Wikipedia's guidelines, which is what the purpose of this page is for. Your real contention should be whether this particular video report merits inclusion in the article as an EL, which should have been taken to the articles TP, rather than you and Off2riorob merely picking up your shield to protect and "repair" the "Koch articles" (as you state). But you’re also being disingenuous by pretending that your concern was simply with Democracy Now! as you also removed (at the same time) an 28 minute NPR audio report by Jane Mayer - seen here and cover story article from The New Yorker - seen here from the EL's (the article ironically that the DN video referred to).   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) The issue is using a video report as a reliable source. Clearly opinions of DemocracyNow must be clearly cited as opinions. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited does not appear to be the case when it is just linked as "multimedia" and not marked as "opinion." The essay on Video Links states: However, such links must abide by various guidelines. Linking to such sites is often discouraged due to misuse. Note also that I retained all links to print media - and deleted links to audio and vudeo matter, trying to be consistent with "best practice" for WP:BLPs. As for "forum shopping" as charged by one person - that bit is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. It is an interview, in video and and transcript form, with Charles_Lewis_(journalist), Executive Editor of the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. Why are you falsely labeling it as 'the opinion of DemocracyNow'? Dlabtot (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it does not appear that the issue using a video report as a reliable source. It does not appear that this has been used or proposed as a source in the article, but rather than as an external link, a very different matter. If the video and transcript were being used as a source, Charles Lewis' comments in the interview would need to be attributed to him (not Democracy Now, of course). As a reliable source, Democracy Now can be trusted as a host for the interview; and since the video is hosted at Democracy Now's website there is also no issue about copyright (which is the "misuse" problem that so often applies with videos). All in all, I am not sure what the problem is. Why is there any need to subsection the External Links anyway? --Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Slp on this. Democracy Now can be trusted (i.e. "reliable) to be truthfully carrying an interview with "Charles Lewis" if they say so. The question of whether Charles Lewis' opinions/comments/etc... are relevant to a given article is an editorial matter. But has very little to do with the overall reliability of Democracy Now (in a wikipedia sense). At any rate, the appropriateness of an external link, I don't think can fairly be determined here. (Though if i understand Slp i think i agree with them; seems superfluous if it isn't needed to support article information).Bali ultimate (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I found this review on fok.nl using Google News Search: . I'm hoping it can be used in Thunderdome (music festival) as a source regarding the CDs, perhaps as a source in a new section about praise and criticism.

I don't speak Dutch, but from what I can tell it appears to be user submitted, but that user seems to be a current member of Party Animals (musical group) (see ). Also, I don't know if any member of the site can post reviews, or if the members can pretend to be whoever they want.

Is "This CD is full of history and indispensable in the collection of real hardcore fan!" an accurate translation of the last sentence? Jiiimbooh (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just on the Dutch, yes it says "This CD is one and all [totally] history and indispensable in the collection of the real hardcore fan!" Not sure about the rest of your question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! "Full of history" sounds better to me though. I'll write something along the lines of "Ben Martijn wrote that the CD 'is full of history and indispensable ...'" (unless that is incorrect). Jiiimbooh (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT He is listed under crew, so he's not just a regular user. I think it could be used then, but I'll see if someone else comments. No one from The Netherlands here? I don't feel confident about quoting it if someone doesn't confirm if the translation of the last sentence is correct (see above). Jiiimbooh (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'll use it as a reliable source as long it's a comment from the member of the band Secret ^account 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it can only be used as an example of an opinion. Jiiimbooh (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Can this website be considered a reliable source for the purpose of ranking countries by quality of life? To me it appears that it shouldn't, as it is a self-published website. I also believe it is on Wikipedia's spamlist. Athenean (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not. Looie496 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looie, why wouldn't it be considered? We use rottentomatoes.com scoring in many movie articles and from reading over the site their country ranking is based on their interpretation of data from external and internal sources. The site is the site of a published magazine, albeit inherently biased. How does this source differ considerably from Mercer?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What article and edit(s) are we talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I assumed it was the article Developed country based on this diff from Athenean's contribs.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This diff looks like the content edit in question. I don't see an issue with it in this context, but if the section is undue weight for the publication without adding much that's a debate for the article talk to form consensus on.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

seems fine to me. The assertion that internationalliving.com is a 'self-published website' is a blatant falsehood. Dlabtot (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to clarify this; if not, please point me to the correct forum. I read an article in a newspaper, which I wanted to cite in Wikipedia. In order to give an easily checkable reference, I checked the newspaper's web site, where I found that this article had appeared one day prior to the print publication, under a different title. Which would be the correct citation in Wikipedia -- the date and title under which the article appeared in print, and in which I read the material I wished to cite; or the date and title online, easily checkable by other editors? Would it be permissible to cite the printed date and title, with the associated URL, or would this just confuse matters? RolandR (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you doing both within one reference tag since you have seen both, as something like, "'details of printed article', previously published online as, 'details of online article'". David Underdown (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite the one you actually saw and relied upon to produce the article content, if you used both, cite them either together or separately under both titles and dates. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Happens all the time. I usually timestamp with the date of the web publication, and add (printed edition: <different date>) - see the refs in Haus_des_Meeres. The Austrian newspapers cited there may have 3,4,5 ... web versions of the same text, so it pays to search for the most detailed, unabridged version. East of Borschov 11:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the specific instance which led to this query, the headlines were different, although the text was identical. In the print edition, the headline focussed on a possibly contentious statement in the article, which was what I was putting in the article. The online version, which I actually referenced, had a more neutral headline. The headline appears in full in the references section. I was concerned that if I used the print headline, while giving a courtesy link to the online article (or if I omitted a URL altogether) then I might be accused of distorting sources and misquoting. Are there any guidelines for such an instance? RolandR (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You relied on the online article, cite the online article :) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, actually I relied on the printed article, which was the one I read. When entering this, I checked against the online version and noted the different title and date. RolandR (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a complicated issue; this often happens with news agency articles, where the headlines differ radically depending on which source prints it. In general, you should cite the version you used, and in the citation make it clear that the web version had a different publication date and headline. That's one of the disadvantages of citation templates (assuming you were planning to use one): even though they come in dozens of varieties, each with dozens of variables and options, they still have little flexibility to encompass complicated citing. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was indeed trying to use a citation template. The article was the one cited in this edit to Michel Houellebecq. The article I read in the Guardian, on 8 September, had the headline "Houellebecq fights off claims of plagiarism in new novel"; the same article online is dated 7 September, with the headline "Michel Houellebecq novel ruffles literary world again". I'm still not sure what would be the correct way to cite this, and would appreciate it if someone could either show me, or amend the citation that I actually gave. RolandR (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Forget using the citation template. Try this instead: <ref>Davies, Lizzy (8 September 2010). "Houellebecq fights off claims of plagiarism in new novel". ''[[The Guardian]]'', Main section, p. 16. Published online (7 September 2010) as [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/07/michel-houllebecq-novel-plagiarism-accusation "Michel Houellebecq novel ruffles literary world again"]. Retrieved 15 September 2010.</ref> Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Myself, I add any extra detail after the citation template: {{citation blah blah blah}} The online version had title "X" with the exact same text.</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 September 2010

Thank you. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should always primarily cite the printed version if you have access to it. You should also include the page number. The web version is always secondary to what is printed. Sometimes, when citing the NYT archive, I pick up the page number from the web, but it feels a bit like cheating. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, since the text is identical in both versions, and the only difference is the date and title, then this does not much matter. But there is a problem in citing the printed text alone, since if the online version is significantly different I could be open to (understandable) charges of misquoting or worse from anyone without access to the printed version, but who checked online. In fact, some publications (The Guardian certainly, and probably others) will correct significant mistakes in the web version, which could then be considered more authoritative than the printed version, in which a correction will not appear until some time after the original publication. And there are many publications which I could check online, but to whose printed version I have no access. RolandR (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that printed citations are better because there are persistent, web versions will disappear. As for the differences, we should have something similar to the laysummary field in the {{Cite journal}} template for on-line versions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this http://ethnicelebs.com/ciara a strong enough claim to add African American category to the Ciara BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an open forum to me. So, no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not as the site states: "The information you find here on EthniCelebs.com is not guranteed to be 100% correct, but the site does strive to be as factual as possible. EthniCelebs.com is an entertainment news commentary database that simply lists what it believes are the ethnicities of celebrities. The information is provided for entertainment only. In no way does it intend that users should rely upon ANY of the ethnicities provided for any purposes whatsoever." Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Right thanks for commenting, it is quite similar to a stable wiki with a fair number of contributors which are reliable for externals, appears to have been stable for quite some time, anyway, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously not reliable; open wiki, and disavows the accuracy of its contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't all open wikis do that? (we do that) No open wiki will claim its content is guaranteed to be correct and we assert here that open wikis are good for external links? Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL links normally to be avoided, nu 12. # Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. - This article at this open wiki is stable and has been for a couple of years and it has a substantial number of editors and all I want to use it for is to put the person in a cat African American, imo according to this guideline it is stable enough to assert such a simple thing. Here is a picture of the subject in question with her parents. - Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the guideline for external links. That something just meets the requirement to be added as an external link to a relevant article, doesn't mean that we can use it as a reliable source for sensitive information like someone's ethnicity. The standards for such info in a WP:BLP are much higher. Fram (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for external links, BLP or not that applies, cats are imo on a similar level, if we support stable open wikis as external links then it is a quite similar position to use one for a pretty indisputable category. So can I add it like this as an external link? Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What would be the rationale for adding an open wiki as an external link? And even if one could use it, how would that affect ethnicity categories? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO number 12 allow for the use of open wikis as external links. I was considering a back door approach, if the cat can not be added through support of the open wiki then I was looking at the issue from another angle. I have been bouncing some ideas around after a request from an IP to add this and I appreciate the feedback and comments. As the issue has moved away from reliable sources this is really the wrong location to continue, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use a source as support for a category, then you use it as a reliable source, not an external link. If it doesn't meet the requirements for reliable sources, then it can't be used to support the inclusion of a category. Fram (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is clear , the point was, that although a cite may not be reliable enough for a WP:RS and therefore it is not reliable enough to support content in the article and therefore if there is not content in the article that supports the cat we can not add the cat but it is close to being a reliable stable enough open wiki to add it as an external link, using the open wiki exception nu 12. As an additional point, it is not a big issue, it is part of a discussion related to the fact that there are thousands of thousands of uncited ethnicity claims all over the wikipedia and afro american cats are added at random without any cite or content at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing or seriously sourcing all unsourced claims of ethnicity from Wikipedia would improve our biographical articles massively. On the other hand, I don't believe that your source really is an acceptable wiki: no one can tell what the history of a page is, you can't change a page, you can only submit biographies and comment on pages. That's not what I consider a wiki with "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", since there is no way of judging this. I would support removing all links to this sire from Wikipedia, as we should never use such a source for any claims. Their page on Prince William of Wales lists as Race or Ethnicity: "English, Scottish, German, Irish, French, Hungarian, Armenian, Dutch, Danish, Welsh, Russian, Lithuanian, Bohemian, Swiss, Swedish, Belgian". "Belgian" is neither a race or an ethnicity, and I don't see anywhere in his family tree a Belgian branch anyway. Never mind that a vast number of pages give "wikipedia.org" as the only source for their claims. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As posted below, the ones the cite wikipedia org would not need to be used as those details are already cited in our articles. This discussion is less about this one particular open wiki but more about the thousands and thousands of unsupported ethnicity claims that proliferate across this wikipedia. As in, this open wiki would be a little bit better than absolutely nothing that perhaps one hundred thousand uncited claims of ethnicity that are like a rash across this wkipedia right now, this is the actual problem. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Diff

I sourced a section of the article Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences.

The sentence I sourced "The great theological division of East and West, as is believed and taught by the Eastern Orthodox, can be seen to have culminated." I sourced with an entire section with the Orthodox theologian Archbishop Chrysostomos section from his book Orthodox and Roman Catholic Relations from the Fourth Crusade to the Hesychastic Controversy (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2001), pp. 199‒232 However editor Esoglou when an added a request to the sourcing asking for a page number to a section of a book that already has the page number at the top of the document in its link to the source. How does someone report editors for wiki- hounding and what can be done about the misuse of sourcing tags? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I might be blind but I can see no page numbers. I just see a link to a PDF. Also it is good practice to actualy include a page number when using a source (unless of ourse its a one page source). Including a range of pages whilst not out of order can make verfication harder. Also the fact you source an entire section rather then a specific passage does raise questions of whether the source supports the staetment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It was one sentence. As I indicated. The entire source is the actual subject of that one sentence. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I don't think you can source in that way. A source has to explicitly say something, but this appears to be interprative.It talks about teh debate but seems to in no way say it was a culmination of these debates.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note how on the sources I provided to the statements in the article the Esoglou put not only ^{[page needed]} but also ^{[failed verification]}. Esoglou has done this repeatedly even when I show that the sources almost say verbatim what I have sourced. Esoglou then tries to argue over the meaning of words on the talkpage and by forcing verbatim statements makes the articles people quotes and or copyright infringement. Esoglou did this spat last night. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also been unable (on a quick scan) to verfiy your claim. So it seems to me the tags are valid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, I'm guessing that this is part of a wider NPOV dispute. Without looking into that, the cites don't seem to have page numbers and they ought to. The claim is specific, so if it is in the source it is likely to have been said within a single page. It does not look like an overview of the whole source or a range of pages. So the tags are appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Provide the page numbers used. (i.e. pps. 38-53 or whatever). Tag seems appropriate. If they are provided already and the other editor misunderstood, discuss it on the talk page. If you want to get into behavioral stuff, try here WP:AN/I. But I warn you -- i think you're likely to convince people you're at least half of the problem, and perhaps more than half.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The PDF, source's name is "Orthodox and Roman Catholic Relations from the Fourth Crusade to the Hesychastic Controversy (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2001), pp. 199‒232". The sentence states the division between East and West theologically culminated in the controversy. The very top of the PDF lists the page number that it reprints i.e. pg 199-232. I am sorry you both missed that. I will add the entire name of the PDF as can be seen that it contains the page numbers in the source of the source that is named after the page numbers so that people can see the page number without opening the PDF. Since that appears to maybe be the issue, even though the source is itself as a whole some 34 pages in all and an overview of the conflict. I also have copied a good bit of it and added it to the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more dubious it seems. The edit desired is "The great theological division of East and West, as is believed and taught by the Eastern Orthodox, can be seen to have culminated into a direct theological conflict between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic church known as the Hesychasm controversy or the Palamite controversy." Leaving aside the tortured language, such a specific claim almost surely would be supported by a specific page in the pdf (particularly the odd aside as is believed and taught tktktk. The simple sense of this passage is that the 'great theological division between Catholics and eastern orthodox is the Hesycahsm controversy. Does the PDF make this assertion? If so, what page? At any rate, requesting page numbers is a reasonable thing to do.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We did not miss the page numbers at the top of the source (well I did'nt) the point is that I have been unable to find a statemtn in the source explictiyl supporting your text. If there is such a statement then give us the page number. If there is no such explicite statemtn then the source does not support the text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is unfortunate as I graciously apologize to anyone here I have offended this is 1,ooo years of cultural war and from my perspective the side I represent has been greatly misunderstood and distorted. Again I am sorry for angering anyone and I appreciate any input positive or negative you have provided. I can not resolve this conflict nor do I seek to per se nor am I asking anyone else here to. I am just asking for a fair representation of the source(s) I have read and understand and I have provided. I do not care if people agree with me I only care to as much as possible add the sources and their perspective as best as possible to the related articles here in Wikipedia. I do not have this level of contention on all of the article I work on, only the controversial ones. As User:Jimbo himself has gotten involved a time or two (see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism for example). Having this kind of conflict on long standing conflicts is noting surprising but it is unfortunate that people do become confrontational and then make things impossible for both sides to have their say. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bunk. What page number? Can't name one, then don't complain about the tags. And take your 1,000 year-old cultural war somewhere else.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a passage from the article.

"At the same time, the theological issues which it brought to the forefront both helped to define and distinguish the peculiar traditions of the Orthodox East and to form the course of future dialogue with the Roman Catholic West. In this latter sense, it was the incisive formulation, by the Hesychasts, of the spiritual “psychology” and theological essence of the Orthodox Faith which doomed subsequent attempts at Church union, if simply because this formulation brought to bear on such efforts the profound chasm, with regard to Church polity, on the one hand, and spiritual life, on the other, that had developed between the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West during the age of the emergence of the Papal monarchy and Western Scholasticism."

Bunk or not (this is from the first page) how might I rework the sentence to reflect the above statement from the article page into the controversy article? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This does not support the text you wish to include.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 225 “The Hesychastic Controversy, in essence, gave theological expression to the Orthodox resistance to Papal supremacy.” Page 226 “In many ways, then, the Hesychastic Controversy brought Orthodox soteriology into direct conflict with the rise of Papal monarchy.” Seem to be the only pages that really draw any such conclusion, and this does not support your text. So it would be fair to write in the article. "The Hesychasm controversy or the Palamite controversy." theological division of East and West can be seen to have resulted in a direct theological conflict between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the rise of Papal authority”Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Bunk. What page number? Can't name one, then don't complain about the tags. And take your 1,000 year-old cultural war somewhere else.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)"

Why are you involved in this supposed impartial discussion and making comments like that? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Frustration I suspect. The tags are valid. And if you have non RS probloms take them to the appropriate place.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have told no one to take whatever subject they are working on and leave the project. I have not ever told anyone as a contributor to leave wikipedia. Let alone done such a thing on a noticeboard where people turn for help to improve their articles. I will make the changes you have suggested as I did just yesterday and again I appreciate peoples time. However there is now no way that the tone in this discussion and the one I had here yesterday can been seen as impartial. Why are you allow to vent your frustration but I am not? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, frustration. You just don't seem to hear the advice you're given. This noticeboard is not the place to bring 1,000 year-old cultural wars. It's a place to get a straight answer on sourcing standards. You've gotten that. If you have broader content issues/disagreements, try arbcom, the drama boards (AN and AN/I), RFCs, etc... The divisions between the RCs and the Orthodox are not exactly a specialty of mine, but i know enough to know that they're complex, have evolved over centuries and within particular cultural contexts, and are resistant to binary explanation (since, after all, there are a number of issues on which theologians on both sides disagree amongst themselves.) For what it's worth, steven's summation up above seems an accurate and neutral reflection of the content of the cite.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would sugest you take it to the users talk page. But I will say one thing i think is relevant to this discusion. You have attmepted to 'prove' your point by referance to something that has nothing to to with the source itslef (1.00 years of history) as if this negates Wikipedias policies (I may have mis-read what your intention was).Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was good enough to apologize to Bali. I have not edited any articles with you-Bali. I do not know you and you do not know me. I was just yesterday posted on my talkpage that I need to stop showing my frustration at Esoglou. I have not asked to deny any historical perspective and leave Wikipedia. Nor after the fact have I continued commenting after I showed an unacceptable bias. Wikipedia is definitely broken. It is a failure. If you gentlemen where in my shoes and had done this for the years I have done and then ask for help and get treated like this. It could not be seen as anything but hostility. Unbias and NPOV is a respect for both sides not telling people to leave Wikipedia and or leave entire side of episode in history's perspective off of Wikipedia. That what the noticeboard told me.. Why am I wasting my time? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"I would sugest you take it to the users talk page."

I think I am entitle here to my opinion. My opinion of the conduct of the editors on this board with the exception of Andrew so far is that you don't like being challenged. Well User talk:Slatersteven go look at the article talkpage. There is already four archives of talk since esoglou started editing the article. Those 4 archives have brought me here. Wikipedia doesn't work. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbias and NPOV is a respect for both sides not telling people to leave Wikipedia and or leave entire side of episode in history's perspective off of Wikipedia. That what the noticeboard told me. No one here has told you to leave wikipedia or leave entire side of episode(sic) in history's perspective off of Wikipedia. What you're being told is to stop bringing your content disagreement here (this noticeboard). This noticeboard is to explain what a reliable source is and how to use it. You've gotten a clear answer. As for your other disputes, you've been told where to take them (though of course there's no guarantee that you will be personally satisfied with responses, here or elsewhere).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali you telling me to take the subject and leave wikipedia is right here. If there is a conflict with reliable sourcing don't pass the buck. Those tags by Esoglou are a sourcing conflict I came here to resolve that I came here for help. Also you have shown your bias and I am more than positive that your personal "frustration" will and has already clouded your judgment and I (from my wikipedia experience) can expect you to continue to do this just like Esoglou does. No matter how valid the source or sources or how real the history. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me be emphatic: Take your broad content disagreement to one of the appropriate forums. This noticeboard is not the appropriate place. That is the meaning of take your 1,000 year-old cultural war somewhere else. Multiple editors have explained that the correct answer to the question "Is a tag requesting a page number from a citation appropriate? is "Yes." Bali ultimate (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And let me be emphatic you called my apology bunk. That is beyond the pale. I obviously made a mistake to even try. I apologized and you attacked me you don't even know me. What is this person doing on this noticeboard? Why is this person here? Why is this personal allowed to talk to people like this? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked whether it was necessary to provide page numbers. Two people have patiently explained to you that it is necessary. I agree with them. It's just possible that you will get an uninvolved respondent with a different view, but I doubt that you will now. So what you need to do is to absorb the advice you have been given and go and apply it. Or if you still disagree perhaps you would like to step away from the issue for a bit and go and edit other articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologized to Bali. Bali then insulted me. He called my apology bunk. You are now trying to blame me for his behavior. No one asked you. Follow your own advice. Why you would attempt to justify bad behavior and argue for it? How is me asking for advice AND THEN AGREEING and then apologizing for any potential bad feelings equivalent to treating someone's apology with hostility? Why did you do that? What did I do to you? I have followed the advice I got from the board here. I came here for help. Now look at the behavior of people here. This type of behavior is proof Wikipedia does not work. People like you are at fault. Who are you attempting to criticize me for apologizing and then not addressing the person who insulting me and my apology? Why did you even comment? Why have you not addressed what Bali did? Why are you defending him? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali insulted your edit not you (it’s a subtle difference but an important one (that I happen to disagree with)), As to many of your other points. This is not the place to discuses them. If you think you are being ignored or treated unfairly (or uncivilly) then the place to raise it is ANI. If you believe that there are POV issues then the place to raise it is the NPOV board. If you are not getting the answers there you want to see then taking it to another board is forum shopping, and that is against the rules.Slatersteven (talk)

Bali should not be insulting any wikipedia editors. Other editors should not be critical of my behavior and then turn around and attempt to justify Balis. As for ANI. Why not. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No one (as far as I can see) is defending Bal. What you are being told is that this is the RSN board so all we should (and ew don't allways) discuse here is sources. We all sometimes forget that but there is no point in continuing to ignore it when told that you are no longer operarting within the confines of the board.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is criticizing Bali for the insult. But you and Itsmejudith are pointing out my behavior and giving me plenty of advice and how wrong I am. Also your giving me bad advice. Bali's conduct does not fall under AN/I. It would be an Rfc and before you direct people to boards that will get them in trouble for posting to the wrong board you should consider that. As posting this to AN/I and getting it wrong would not bode well for my case correct Slatersteven. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What on earth do you want at this point? So far, we've found in this thread that you misrepresented a source in the course of answering your original question (is a request for a page number in a citation appropriate? you asked. Four of us have answered yes.) I called your response to this advice (the odd apology for causing "offense" when no one said they were offended, the reference to other's anger when no one showed any signs of anger, the irrelevant to this noticeboard but indicative of your attitude reference to a cultural war you're fighting, the veiled and absurd reference to the editors here being involved in a conflict with you or suppressing points of view -- i.e. Having this kind of conflict on long standing conflicts is noting surprising but it is unfortunate that people do become confrontational and then make things impossible for both sides to have their say.) bunk. It was and is bunk.I won't apologize for my characterization of your comment. And all of this is irrelevant to this noticeboard.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is your wrong for what you did and should be smart enough to apologize if you misspoke. Can you not see that? Or are you going to ask me to reflect again for you? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have repopsnded ono youe talk page as this now has nothing to do with RS but is a dispute between users.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone experienced comment on their thoughts of http://www.musicianguide.com/ as a reliable source. We are currently using it in John Berry (singer) but another editors has disputed it as unreliable (based on it being question of them in a previous GA review of another article here). Can we get an assessment please --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. So according to a press release, "Net Industries LLC publishes educational websites and is the creator of JRank, a free site search engine. ...Net Industries' online properties include... http://www.MusicianGuide.com..." http://www.netindustries.us/ is their official website but it doesn't even list musicianguide. It doesn't say anything about their fact checking, sourcing, or reliability. And if you go to the actual musicianguide site, they have text that says "Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information." but anyone can make a claim about their site. I'm sort of neutral on this, but I think I'm tending towards it not being reliable.

Is there really no other place you can go for that text? In looking at the John Berry article, it seems that line about brain surgery was copied verbatim from musicianguide, which is a copyvio issue and should be removed. But the line is about an interview done on Billboard; couldn't you just use the original Billboard article? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I don't see anything about their authorship or editorial policy on the site, not even an FAQ. This may just be a personal site. In light of this I'd say when in doubt, leave it out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, MusicianGuide is being used to source something in Billboard Magazine. Much better to go the original source, and (trumpet fanfare) here it is. --Slp1 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers all. There was a general idea to use the site as a source for the whole article, hence asking, but thanks for finding that direct link :D --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have recently gotten into a debate with User:1archie99 about the inclusion of this reference to the Jackie Evancho article. This reference is being applied to the America's Got Talent section and the sentence, "One judge, Howie Mandel, had her sing a random voice exercise on the next evening's live show as proof that it was her voice that was heard.". I have tried to direct the user to the reliable sources guideline to show that forum posts are not counted as reliable sources because of their lack of verifiability and reliability. But the user have asked me to prove that the guideline directly states that that reference cannot be used. Instead, I am taking this here to have more experienced users weigh in. You can see my discussion with the user here. Silverseren^C 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, forums are not reliable sources, neither is youtube. If the editor is trying to make the point that the voice is real I suggest this good article from the LA Times . If this is to show that the described incident happened on the show no source may be required unless the action is in dispute. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I already put that source in myself a couple of days ago. Well, I hope your response helps explain things to him. I suppose i'll go take the forum reference out of the article then. Silverseren^C 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, no problem. In reference to sourcing events in TV shows tvguide.com has episode summaries for future use, but they are sparse . There may be other sites with more detail. Just FYI.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently, 1archie99 is not satisfied with just "one person" responding to this discussion I opened, per this edit he made, re-adding in the forum reference. Can some other editors please explain to him how a forum thread is not a reliable source? Silverseren^C 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• The document given at jackievanchos.org is not an RS as the forum post is SELF. Correct video citation would require locating an authorative copy where the judge makes that statement. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am currently at 3RR, so either someone else will have to remove the forum link or i'll have to do it a day from now. (It would be a huge sign of good faith and responsibleness if 1archie99 did it himself...) Silverseren^C 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• What looks like a regular anonymous user at a forum where anyone can post is not reliable. The video doesn't prove anything other than that the judge said that she didn't lipsync, and it's probably a copyright violation. The program itself (with episode number or broadcast date) could perhaps be cited if an official video isn't online. Jiiimbooh (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Where I said no other source required I was implying the material can self source if it's something like a plot summary or televised event.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not originally put the disputed citation into the article; just thought it was worthwhile to leave it in because it actually showed via video the actual portion of the broadcast that my edit described. Because the purists only took to the discussion, not even the editor that originally put the cite in the article spoke up; only a description, not the actual event remains as a citation. Readers will have to take it on faith that the remaining cite is a true depiction. I wanted to leave all doubt behind what actully occurred. Because only the fanactics spoke that is not happening. I will now consider the matter closed.1archie99 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• It was added back in again by another user whose username clearly broadcasts a COI issue. I'm still at 3RR, so can someone else please help with this? Silverseren^C 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on the article Lady of Quality (a book written in 1972 by Georgette Heyer; it's set in the early 19th century). In 2009, there was an academic conference on Heyer's work . One of the presentations, by the organizer of the conference, contains information that may be useful for this article, but I don't know whether it is considered a reliable source. The author sent me her slides, with a note that she has not written this up or submitted to any journals, so it has not been peer-reviewed or officially published. The author is a university professor who teaches English literature. She has been previously published, but her focus has previously been Shakespeare and Renaissance literature (several centuries before Heyer). I've got this article at FAC and want to make sure that the source is considered sound before I incorporate any of the information. Thanks for any opinions. Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think so. The conference organizers would have to pass her, and also a presenter certainly puts her reputation on the line by getting up in front of peers. Write a very detailed reference note, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) She was the conference organizer (or at least the main contact), which made me a little more unsure. Thanks for the comment. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree it should be used, especially in the absence of other sources. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel comfortable answering this question without knowing what sort of information is involved. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The information likely would be considered reliable if it had been published, but since it hasn't been, how would any reasonable editor "check your work" that is supported by this information? This seems to defeat the entire reason for our policies requiring information to be backed up by reliable sources, and instead we'd be asking readers to rely on you. Nothing personal of course, I mean you in the royal sense. — e. ripley\^talk 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are sourcing to slides that are sent to you, and not published then they can not be used as a reliable source. Because they are not publicaly availiable. We do not allow sourcing to private correspondence. If they are puplished, but not peer reviewed, then they should be treated as a self puplished source. Taemyr (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Standards for conference presentations vary tremendously across fields. In my discipline we accept all contributions that are minimally on-topic, with no peer review. Note also there are people who organize sessions so they have a platform to present their pet views. I'm not saying that's going on here, but we have to be careful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is literary criticism, and the particular focus is a subject I have not seen covered in other sources (although, to be fair, there has been minimal work in serious criticism for this author/genre). To my knowledge, this was the first-ever conference devoted to this author's work; I don't know what the standards for inclusion were, nor am I very familiar with the overall standards for this type of conference.. The presentation was presented in public, but the author has yet to write it up as a formal paper. I am unsure whether the presentation itself counts as publication; if not, then I agree that this is an SPS and I don't think the author is an expert in this field. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Which does make a lot of difference. As Short Brigade Harvester Boris has indicated, a lot of conferences more or less let anyone present anything at all relevant to the conference, and they may all get published eventually, so even if published I'd argue that only a presentation by someone who was a known expert in the field could possible be called a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be published, therefore it is not verifiable, therefore it can't qualify as a reliable source. If it were published in some form we would use the standard criteria involving the publisher's reputation and so on, per WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, if it's not actually published, there's no way for anyone to check it. If the presenter does end up self-publishing it in some form, it would probably fall into the realm of self-published sources we can potentially use (and if it gets published in a journal, so much the better).--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Slides by themselves don't matter. What matters here is that the results of research have been a) Not peer reviewed b) Not published. Unpublished => Not RS. Wait until they publish the results of their research. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If the organizer of the the only conference on the author, and an Eng. Lit. prof, is not an expert, per Karanacs, they are going to have difficulty finding "peers" to review her work! Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)