Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Biography Published by Business Week magazine of a business owner.

• Source: Business Week magazine article here http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=11255770&privcapId=2263285&previousCapId=2263285&previousTitle=Sapias,%20Inc

• Article: James McGibney.

• Content: That, in addition to his other claimed educational degrees, McGibney also has an Associate's Degree from Chadwick University, along with a BS or BA degree.

There has been some disagreement on the talk page of the article as to whether or not Business Week magazine is a reliable source. This publication has been in business for nearly 100 years and is a billion dollar company in the business of reporting on business. It clearly meets the guidelines for reliable sources per Wikipedia policy here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). And it also meets the guidelines involving verifiability, that are found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick has indicated that the subject of the article has stated that the information is incorrect and is discussing this with business week. To me the source is of questionable reliablity as there is no author. I feel the information should be left out of the artiicle until we verify the credilibilty of the source. An earlier version of the article discussed how the university that this degree comes from is a diploma mill. That is enough to be a BLP problem. GB fan 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is businessweek.com, not the magazine - I don't believe the large volume of company and personnel profiles is published in the magazine. However, as a company information database published by Bloomberg Businessweek, it clearly counts as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards. Reliable sources can and do make mistakes... if there is a claim from the subject that this information is wrong, then I'd suggest agreeing a reasonable amount of time for the subject to communicate with Businessweek and potentially amend the database entry, and then see what happens. If no change is forthcoming after, say 1 month, then the info stands. Podiaebba (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, that's like saying that the source is Time.com and not the magazine Time. Business Week and Business Week.com are one and the same. And while reliable sources can make mistakes, there is ZERO indication that this was the case. Because of all the activity involving sock puppets trying to edit the article and remove the information I tend to think that this is just a lame whitewashing attempt and not a legitimate issue. Also, how do you know that it is a legitimate issue and not just the subject of the article trying to whitewash things from Wikipedia? It seems a useful way to game the system to me. Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not really disagreeing, apart from the fact that I think it matters a bit that Time.com publishes editorial content not in the magazine in much lower volume than businessweek.com seems to, and much of its online content has names attached (AFAIR) - it's not an ideal comparison. I also think the most likely thing is that the information is correct and the subject just finds it embarrassing; but we should give some opportunity for them to address a potential problem. Podiaebba (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lack of authorship does not mean the source is not RS. It only means the strength of the source is not as strong as one with author information. Many times these sources use un-credited staff writers and that alone is not a reasoning to exclude as non-RS. However...being accurate is our utmost responsibility no matter what. If an editor questions whether the source is actually accurate, that must be addressed as to ignore it is not within the spirit or letter of Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note. The website of an organization is not "one and the same" as a publication by the organization. Read WP:Identifying reliable sources there is often content on the websites of many organizations/publications that are not subject to editorial oversight and fact checking. Note that even in publications generally regarded as reliable sources there are peices by columnists, editorials, guest editorials, letters to the editor etc. these are not RS. The lack of an author increases the concern as having an author with some credentials and reputation would lend some credibility to the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this an OTRS issue or is User:Sphilbrick in contact with the subject of the article on his own? If this is an OTRS issue please provide the ticket number. Gamaliel (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an OTRS issue, ticket number 2013112810001642. GB fan 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GB fan is correct, it is an OTRS issue. In addition, Wikimedia legal counsel has been alerted. There's more to this than meets the eye.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the subject of the article is working fast & furious to whitewash embarrassing information. Sphilbrick let us please hear the details in the interests of openness and transparency so that we can be certain that no shenanigans is going on here undercover and behind the scenes. Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Dead Goldfish, OTRS refers to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team, a group of volunteers who work with living individuals who have concerns about the information about them on Wikipedia. A person has the right to dispute the information in their article and those volunteers work with them to address those concerns as best they can. They don't automatically do whatever the person asks and it may well turn out that the reference is returned to the article, but until this matter is concluded it must remain out. I've examined the ticket myself and I assure you that there is nothing inappropriate about this matter. Please be patient and do not use Wikipedia as a forum to make unsubstantiated allegations against other editors or the subject of the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As you know from past history, events done in secret are often times subject to abuse and misuse. Dead Goldfish (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but we must balance transparency with privacy in matters like these. The only thing secret are the private communications between volunteers and the affected parties, and these can be examined by other volunteers such as myself if there is any reason to suspect inappropriate actions have been taken. If, after this matter is resolved, you have a reason to believe that inappropriate actions have in fact been taken, the matter can be examined again by myself or another OTRS volunteer. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As an FYI to you, I contacted Harvard College directly and got an email response saying they've never heard of the guy. So it seems that he also has a fake degree from Harvard. Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down there. The source [1] says Harvard Business School not Harvard College and it only says "attended", not "graduated". If you asked the wrong question (or wrong institution...) that might explain that. Podiaebba (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point, so I contacted each of them, too, and they have not been able to confirm any participation by McGibney in any kind of MBA or Executive Education program. You can easily check yourself here: (http://www.hbs.edu/mba/registrar/general/Pages/general-verification.aspx). I have also received confirmation of his Chadwick "degree" from Chadwick University itself. I provided the information to OTRS. Anyone can duplicate the contacts that I did and you will see that, other than the Chadwick "degree", all the rest of McGibney's educational claims seem false. Dead Goldfish (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems to me is that the group thinks that Business Week magazine is a good source. Thus, the consensus is we keep it.Dead Goldfish (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone find out anything about this book so I can see if it's an RS?

N.D. Kodzoev. History of Ingush nation - all I'm finding is its use in our articles or copies of our articles. Thanks. I started looking as it was being used as a source for archaeological information, and I'm always happier when such sources are archaeologists. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's this book, I think. There doesn't seem to be an English translation. Kodzoev is referred to as a "famous Ingush historian" in this article from the journal, Manuscripta Orientalia. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I can add that the works by N.D. Kodzoev are both published and recited by others in a book printed on behalf of Russian Academy of Sciences. But, to judge from Google Scholar, he is likely to be a historian in general sense rather than an archaeologist. His other works in Russian, I found in the Web, are: "On so called 'custom' of bride kidnapping", "History of the judicial system of Ingushetia" and so on. Эйхер (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Central Independent Television

In 1988 someone who was a witness to an event gave first-hand video testimony to a programme made by Central Independent Television, a part of the UK's third terrestrial broadcast network. Is Central Independent Television a reliable source for this witness testimony? Is it necessary to point out that the testimony is available on Youtube and described in various books, including one republished by Simon & Schuster? Surely not. Surely this is a waste of RSN's time.

Oh, but the testimony was repeatedly rebroadcast between 1988 and 2003. And in 2003 the programme added three episodes, which caused controversy and were withdrawn. And the topic of the programme is the assassination of JFK, and the testimony could be taken as evidence that Jack Ruby wasn't acting alone (although equally, it could be taken as evidence of Ruby being a confused lone nutjob). As a result, Central Independent Television is, according to User:Gamaliel, not a reliable source for an interview of a witness. In a world where WP:RS means anything, I do not see how - and the assertion that the 2003 controversy (see The Men Who Killed Kennedy) renders the 1988 broadcasts unreliable for something as basic as what a witness told them on camera boggles the mind. Podiaebba (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is not the broadcast, but the testimony. The broadcast of first person testimony is still first person testimony. It's not fact-checked. Assuming I'm understanding the conflict here, I'm inclined to agree with User:Gamaliel on this one that the witness alone is not good enough of a source for this information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

the broadcast of first person testimony is still first person testimony. It's not fact-checked. - this is an unsupported assertion. We can certainly expect Central Independent Television to have done such fact-checking as would be required to establish, eg, that the person on camera is the person who was known to be present at the time, as demonstrated by many witnesses, employment records, yadda yadda. And since the testimony concerns a call received by the witness, no further fact-checking is going to be possible, unless the call was recorded. Now if you want to rephrase it to insist that claim is explicitly attributed to the witness instead of asserted as fact, well fine. Podiaebba (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you do. There's two issues, the unreliability of the source itself, and WP:PRIMARY issues regarding the testimony itself. On Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy we brought up the issue that this testimony was basically unexplored and unfactchecked, just parroted uncritically by unreliable conspiracy publications. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're just digging a deeper hole: you're demanding that testimony which is obviously something which can only with some effort be brought within the official view be widely explored by mainstream sources - yet you reject a UK terrestrial network, and a book republished by Simon & Schuster. Further, in referencing the testimony in Jack Ruby, I made no attempt to explore implications; it's just a straightforward factual claim from a credible witness, made on-camera to a mainstream UK network - so why are you insisting that the implications of it be explored? Feel free to do so if you want! Podiaebba (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the conflict closer, The Men Who Killed Kennedy has been thoroughly discredited, so no, this is absolutely not something we can use. Absolutely unreliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what - you're also asserting that a controversy about content produced 15 years later renders a mainstream UK channel an unreliable source for on-camera witness testimony repeatedly re-broadcast in the preceding 15 years? Please explain exactly how that works. Bearing in mind that nobody (AFAIK) asserted that anything broadcast in 2003 was faked, which is really the only way to begin to assert that the 1988 testimony can't be trusted. Podiaebba (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

According to journalist Max Holland, the 1988 broadcast was entirely unreliable as well: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland3.htm. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's relevant (and should be used as a source in the article about the documentary). But your summary "entirely unreliable" is misleading: the issues appear to have been a failure to pursue leads, and in particular to interview two men accused of participation in the assassination, not that any specific testimony wasn't by who it was supposed to be, or any fakery like that. Podiaebba (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think both issues are relevant. If the testimony appears in a thoroughly unreliable and discredited source, there are issues to consider such as duplicitous editing that may render the testimony unreliable itself. And even primary source that is untainted in this manner should be vetted by reliable journalists or historians before we consider employing it in an article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Duplicitous editing? The Youtube extract allows anybody to judge for themselves the implausibility of that speculation. The only thing required here of Central Independent Television is confirming that the guy is Billy Grammer - and I don't see anyone suggesting they interviewed people who weren't who they were alleged to be. Podiaebba (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So even if we assume Central Television, which was censured by the British Parliament, nearly sued, and forced to air an entire broadcast retracting the claims of the first two episodes, was acting entirely above board when it comes to this specific element of the broadcast, we still have the issues of weighing and using primary sources appropriately as per WP:PRIMARY. Gamaliel (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if you want to avoid anybody using WP:PRIMARY as a "you're interpreting something that's not there" cudgel, we just put in a bloody transcript and avoid even the merest hint of paraphrasing. As for weight: the article is big and the claim is significant. Two lines does not seem excessive. Podiaebba (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

retracting the claims of the first two episodes - you are, once again, being misleading. Your statement implies that all the episodes' claims were retracted ("there never was a JFK! He's still alive!" ...?), rather than the ones (mainly) where they pointed the finger at three people as the alleged assassins. Podiaebba (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not being misleading, you're missing the point, which is that a source proven so thoroughly unreliable should not be trusted even for specific claims which have not, to our knowledge, been disputed. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you're being misleading by obscuring the actual problems with the source, which is most dramatically the failure to (properly) investigate the alibis of the three people accused. There is no claim of anything resembling fakery of the type that would call into question Grammer's interview. More generally, Holland's criticism is A consistent pattern is that people who were nowhere to be found in 1963-64, when the investigation of the assassination was at its height, suddenly surface from deserved obscurity with the most astounding stories. Frequently their reputations are doubtful at best and several are convicted felons. Allegations of criminal conspiracy are casually made without even the pretense of supplying any proof or corroboration; it is simply enough to level the accusation...[2]. Grammer doesn't fall under any of those headings. He was right there in 1963/4 (according to Groden, Grammer gave an affidavit to the Warren Commission); he was a police lieutenant and I'm not aware of him having a doubtful reputation; the story isn't particularly astounding given that other warning calls were documented by the Warren Commission and Ruby's motivation was never credibly established; and the sole allegation Grammer makes is the fairly obvious conclusion that Ruby wasn't acting spontaneously or alone. Podiaebba (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The actual problem is that this documentary was made by duplicitious bullshit artists and has been proven to be unreliable in the most fundamental way possible. Sometimes broken clocks tell the correct time, but it's not up to us to disprove that the clock is incorrect at any given moment of the day. For a source to be used in Wikipedia, it must be proven reliable. If Grammar's claim is credible and accurate, then another, more reliable secondary source should be used to cite it. If such a source does not exist, then Grammar's claim is not signficant enough to include. Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your source is not the channel, it's the person. The person is not a credible source for your claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And your evidence for that is what? The Warren Commission itself documents warning calls received to the Sheriff's Office and FBI - and whoever did that would surely call the Dallas PD too. The witness was the police dispatcher on duty at the time of the alleged call. Podiaebba (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The source for a statement made in a television interview is the person being interviewed, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. The witness is the primary source, and the television programme which got hold of the witness and decided to broadcast him, the secondary. Podiaebba (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No and no. The witness is the sole source for the statements. The TV programme reported that the statement was made, nothing more. You cannot make an unreliable source 'reliable' by association. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A TV programme is not a self-published blog - it involves editorial control. It helps establish, eg, that witness X is in fact X, and not somebody posting online claiming to be X who is in fact a New York dog. Podiaebba (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested that the person interviewed isn't who it is claimed to be? Anyway, it is beside the point. The person interviewed (whoever he is) is the sole source for statements he made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is all too abstract for me. Podiaebba, could you please provide an concrete example of a CIT source you intend to use and how you intend to use it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's this one (nearly the same but not quite). I would be willing to rewrite to attribute the statement explicitly in-text to the witness, and to edit the ref so that the primary ref is to Central Independent Television, and the secondary sources relying on it are more clearly secondary. Podiaebba (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I see multiple sources there. Podiaebba, rather than responding here, please review the instructions at the top of this page and list the source, article, and content at the top of this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else follows that recommendation... but fine, it might be helpful. Podiaebba (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

An aside on copyright

As an aside, it should be noted that the YouTube clip is almost certainly a copyright violation. Not only can it not be cited as a reference, it shouldn't even be linked on talk pages etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're familiar with fair use - so do you want to explain why this 1-minute extract from a 2-hour programme doesn't qualify? Podiaebba (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Because 'fair use' doesn't cover linking to copyright violations. Not remotely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Fair use" would apply to the youtube video, not the link. Obviously. Podiaebba (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating this. Material uploaded to YouTube etc in breach of copyright cannot be linked. Read Wikipedia:Video links, and if you still can't understand the policy, ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Material uploaded under "fair use" is not a breach of copyright. Wikipedia:Video links is being silly in its near-blanket exclusion of fair-use material, as if there is no way for editors to ever judge that a specific small extract from a large source does qualify. Podiaebba (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If the link is added to the article, I will remove it. It violates core policy on copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Video links is not even policy, never mind "core policy", so neither is it's "we can't tell if it's fair use" handwaviness. Fair use video is not a breach of copyright, and neither is linking to it. Podiaebba (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, did you invent the "fair use" claim on behalf of the Youtube conspiracy theorist? I just see a Youtube channel that copies other people's content. Wikipedia:Copyrights makes it pretty clear that we shouldn't be linking to it. bobrayner (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, Wikipedia:Copyrights is policy. But it seems equally unwilling to take the legal doctrine of fair use seriously, in terms of how the four factors are actually applied. I wouldn't put my life on this particular video qualifying in a court of law, but I'd put good money on it, as each of the four factors weighs strongly towards a fair use conclusion. Podiaebba (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't link to it (it is an outright copyright vio even if you want to call it fair use. But we can reference that program "under the table" to speak as long as we know the broadcaster, broadcast date, etc all the other factors needed for citing video. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I concede that WP policy seems to preclude linking due to excessive timidity, so we need argue no more. However, as I said above, IMO this video clearly meets all four of the factors for determining "fair use", and sticking the adjective "outright" in front of your assertion of copyright violation does nothing to alter that. Podiaebba (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There are four facets of fair use in US law: amount of work taken (small here), impact on commercial opportunity (very low), the nature of the work (a "documentary" (whether reliable or not), generally better than fictional works), and the use/transformation of the work. This last one is the sticking point, because its only there to support the uploader's desire to show a conspiracy, and that would likely fail being used for education, etc. For us, we would not allow that linkage due to that aspect. You can quote and cite the work, and we don't care if you use that video to make the transcript from which you can provide limited cited quotes, but we just can't include the URL for it. This might seem extreme, but WP does take a very hard-nosed approach to copyvios on external links, because under US law, that can be considered enabling and putting the Foundation at risk. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of the work is the dissemination of historical testimony not otherwise available. I fail to see how that doesn't provide a valid research/education use regardless of what conclusions may be drawn from the testimony by the uploader or anyone else. Well, whatever, it's academic. Podiaebba (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Restatement

• Source: Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy Grammer, interviewed for the first episode of Central Independent Television's The Men Who Killed Kennedy, "The Coup D'Etat" (1988); cited in James W. Douglass (2008), JFK and the Unspeakable, Orbis Books, p368; interview extract online here
• Article: Jack Ruby
• Content (current):

At 3am on Sunday, November 24, Ruby made an anonymous call to the Dallas Police, speaking to Lieutenant Billy Grammer. He warned Grammer that he knew of the plan to move Oswald from the basement and that if the plan went ahead "we are going to kill him". (Grammer, who knew Ruby, found the voice familiar at the time of the call, but only identified Ruby as the caller after the shooting).

• Content (possible alternative):

According to Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy Grammer, an anonymous call was received by Dallas PD at 3am on Sunday, November 24, with Grammer taking the call as police dispatcher on duty. According to Grammer, the caller warned that he knew of the plan to move Oswald from the basement and that if the plan went ahead "we are going to kill him". Grammer, who knew Ruby, said he found the voice familiar at the time of the call, and after the shooting realised the caller had been Ruby.

Podiaebba (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, still baffled. What is the source whose reliability we're discussing? The Youtube video? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The youtube video is just a helpful addition so you can see the testimony itself. The original source is Central's broadcast interview with Grammer - or Grammer, as interviewed by Central, or however you want to look at it. The Douglass book is given as a written source describing the interview. Podiaebba (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me you're talking about two separate sources: (1) the broadcast interview and (2) the Douglass book. As these are two separate sources they should have separate ref tags. That will go a long way toward clearing up the confusion (mine, at least). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the interview, the source isn't CIT, the source is the specific episode of The Man Who Killed Kennedy. (See WP:CITEVIDEO#Television programs as references). And although no one has actually stated this, I assume from the discussion above that the episode we're talking about was one of the ones that was withdrawn, correct? If so, I believe it is a reliable source but likely not a verifiable one. It's reliable because it's difficult to imagine a whole television interview being fabricated; if the guy said something on camera to an unreliable media outlet, he still said it. But remember that WP:RS is nothing but a slave to WP:V. Verifiability also trumps the WP:TRUTH. We can't expect our readers take us at our word that Grammer actually said those things. If you can't find a video that comforms with WP's copyright policies then there will be no way for readers to verify what Grammer said or didn't say. In that case you'll have to rely on other sources, such as the book. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Erm, OK. No, it was from the first episode, "The Coup D'Etat" (1988); the first two were criticised, but not, AFAIK, in relation to Grammer's testimony, and weren't withdrawn as such. AFAIK it was rebroadcast repeatedly; it's the 2003 episodes which are "withdrawn" and not to be shown again... I think. (It's a bit irritating to have to get into the detailed history of a documentary I've never seen, just to defend the usability of an on-camera interview it includes.) As to WP:V if we ignore the youtube extract - well it does exist for sale on DVD, albeit second-hand at a fairly hair-raising price [3]. More generally: does WP:V really make it impossible to cite TV programmes that aren't available for free online?? Books that aren't available online are cited all the time... Podiaebba (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that's reassuring that it's from one of the episodes that hasn't been withdrawn. In that case, the video will likely show up in library catalogs, correct? You should be able to confirm this at WorldCat or somewhere else. I'm no expert in these matters, but libraries solve the problem of out-of-print books. If you can find that the episode is generally available in library catalogs then I'm personally comfortable with it as a reliable and verifiable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that I look into the guidelines, I'm slightly off the mark. I don't think retracted episodes are citable at all since sources have to be not only reliable but published as well. As the publisher withdrew them I don't think they can be called "published" anymore. As for the non-withdrawn episodes, such as the one you wish to cite, only a single archived copy need exist. So, if you find only one copy in WorldCat then you're good to go in my view. Just remember to attribute, as you did. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. WorldCat has The first episode and a collection of the first six. Podiaebba (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Transcripts and recordings of what people said are generally good sources for what they said. But they are primary sources and should only be introduced when mentioned in secondary sources. Presenting it the way it is makes it appear to be a credible statement, which is misleading. A reliable secondary source would explain the unlikelihood of the account being genuine. TFD (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the recording is a primary source, and primary sources should be cited with care. That said, quoting Grammer directly is exactly that kind of careful use. It's no different from quoting passages from a book (the illustration in WP:PRIMARY). There is no requirement that a primary source must be mentioned in a secondary source to be used in this way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

First, it was referenced in a book by James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, reprinted by Touchstone Books (an imprint of Simon & Schuster, one of the four largest English-language publishers) and recommended by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, Gaeton Fonzi and Daniel Ellsberg [4]. Second, no-one has adduced one iota of evidence that the account is not genuine or accurate, whereas I've several times (in discussion above) made various points why the account is credible, fitting with other evidence and not contradicting any. I can repeat those points if need be, but the most basic point of evidence is that anonymous warning calls to Sheriff and FBI were documented by the Warren Commission [5], and a call to the Dallas PD in the same vein at the same time is rather likely. So when the dispatcher on duty at the time of the documented calls says he received such a call too, that shouldn't raise any eyebrows. The only "huh?" is the dispatcher's identification of Ruby as the caller, on which we have to take the word of a Dallas PD Lieutenant with no reason I can see to make this up. (There's also a rumour that the dispatcher signed an affidavit documenting the call in 1963/4; apparently this is in Robert Groden's book High Treason, a bestseller in 1990.) Podiaebba (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: The Men Who Killed Kennedy isn't the first public source for the dispatcher's claim. Henry Hurt, a journalist, interviewed him in 1984 [6]. Podiaebba (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Restatement2

• Source: Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy Grammer. Grammer was interviewed in May 1984 by Henry Hurt, with results published in Hurt's Reasonable doubt: an investigation into the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1986, p409-10 and p518; Grammer was again interviewed in 1988 on camera for an interview broadcast in the first episode of Central Independent Television's The Men Who Killed Kennedy, "The Coup D'Etat" (1988). Grammer's interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy is cited in James W. Douglass (2008), JFK and the Unspeakable, Orbis Books, p368
• Article: Jack Ruby
• Content (proposed):

According to Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy Grammer, an anonymous call was received by Dallas PD at 3am on Sunday, November 24, with Grammer taking the call as police dispatcher on duty. According to Grammer, the caller warned that he knew of the plan to move Oswald from the basement and that if the plan went ahead "we are going to kill him". Grammer, who knew Ruby, said he found the voice familiar at the time of the call, and after the shooting realised the caller had been Ruby.

Based on discussion above and additional source, restating again for clarity. Podiaebba (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A person can't be a source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying - re Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a media source should be "the source". However, in practical terms, Grammer is the primary witness source, and specifying all 3 of the secondary media sources mentioned adds clarification (particularly as one impuned source provides on-camera interview, and one good source relies on that interview). How would you suggest rewriting the Source statement? Podiaebba (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's a way you can restate this to suddenly make this a useful source for your claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The claim is that Billy Grammer said something. The claim is on-camera and repeatedly broadcast on US and UK television, and documented in several books, including one interview done prior to that claim by someone else (there are also various other books after the TV interview which refer to it, which I haven't bothered to mention). It takes the most extraordinary effort to claim that we cannot reliably source what Grammer said - or else just a blunt and unexplained assertion. Podiaebba (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't use primary sources in this manner, otherwise anyone could claim anything and it could make it into the encyclopedia unvetted and unverified. The secondary sources which do independently discuss this claim are thoroughly unreliable, one is a documentary which became the laughing stock of the UK and is inexplicably and uncritically cited by a few books, the other is a book which is based around the claims of a literal mental patient that he was in the assassination squad. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is entirely unreasonable. You are applying the "some random person came forward with a tall tale of conspiracy" skepticism to the very specific and limited claim of a Dallas PD police officer on duty at the relevant time. This is a highly respectable primary source, who was interviewed by a journalist (Henry Hunt) and on-camera for a documentary. That Hunt has a chapter in his book where he gave credence to the claims of a person others think a loon has no bearing on Hunt's journalistic credentials as regards finding an interviewing a Dallas PD officer, or overcome the fact that his book was published by a mainstream publisher. Equally, the documentary's reaching of questionable conclusions has no bearing on the validity of the on-camera statement of the police officer, corroborating Hunt's interpretation of his interview with him, or overcome the fact the interview was repeatedly broadcast in US and UK without anyone objecting to it. (The programme was re-edited to remove questionable claims broadcast in 1988; Grammer's interview stayed in, and was repeatedly rebroadcast.) If we apply these same hyper-skeptical "you can't even mention that" standards to the Warren Report, which has made all manner of claims disproven later, then very little can be said about these events at all. Podiaebba (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable, it's Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and you can't use unreliable ones because no one can find a specific objection to the small part you want to use. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

But you're defining "reliable sources" in a manner that suits you. A Dallas PD officer speaking about on-duty experience would normally be considered a good source unless proven otherwise; so it only needs his claims reported in mainstream media. Oh, but because you don't like what he said, suddenly publication in mainstream media isn't good enough - errors and controversies (alleged errors, not necessarily proven to be errors...) make the media sources unreliable per se. And secondary sources covering the claim are considered "uncritical" if they repeat the claim (you're substituting your judgement there for judgement of an author and publisher, which you're not supposed to do because no-one cares what WP editors think). Perhaps you could explain exactly what part of WP:IRS justifies this approach. It helps, I know, to ignore the principle that sources are not reliable or not in a binary manner, but reliable for some things in some contexts and not others. Podiaebba (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A police officer is not automatically a reliable source, and there are already previous examples, such as Roger Craig, of Dallas Police officers making up false claims regarding the Kennedy assassination. And even if it were, it would still be an unvetted primary source, which we simply do not use in this manner. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he said and everything to do with the fact that this primary source has been unexamined, unverified, and unvetted by reliable secondary sources. Your time would be better spent trying to find reliable sources than to try to fabricate imaginary motivations for people who disagree with you on matters of Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A police officer is a reliable source until proven otherwise; Craig was proven otherwise. I did go off and find an entirely independent secondary source - a book written by a former Reader's Digest journalist and published by a mainstream publisher. You simply dismissed that without bothering to provide sourcing for your factual concerns about an unrelated matter in that book or explaining where WP:RS says that errors in a reliable source make it unreliable for any information. You might also explain WTF you mean with your constant references to "vetting" i.e. explain how Grammer could be "vetted" and by whom - "vetting" is a term which appears in WP:RS only in reference to academic publications. The standard term vetting doesn't seem to apply - no-one is offering to employ Grammer, and the only transferative meaning would be checking that Grammer is who he says he is, and there is no evidence that either of his interviewers made the SNAFU of interviewing an imposter (and if they had, one would think someone would have noticed by now). Podiaebba (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you explain where in WP:RS it says that a claim by a police officer automatically makes it into a Wikipedia article and does not have to be corroborated or verified in any way whatsoever. Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You know very well (a) I never said anything like that (A police officer is a reliable source until proven otherwise above was intended in the general sense, not the Wikipedia sense, as is crystal clear from my previous comments and the context of the entire tediously lengthy discussion). (b) it's irrelevant as there is no general requirement for claims to be corroborated or verified [whatever that actually means for a person testifying an identification of an anonymous caller in an unrecorded phone call...], only reported by reliable secondary sources. Mainstream media, like Hunt's book, are considered such. Now how about addressing my question instead of trying to distract from the actual issue, which is how you can assert that a book from a mainstream publisher, written by a journalist, is not a reliable source, against the usual WP standards? Podiaebba (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A book from a mainstream publisher by a journalist is generally a reliable source. When a journalist whose experience is limited to local Virginia papers and Readers Digest writes a book based on the claims of a mental patient who said he was part of an assassination hit squad, I would say that disqualifies it as being a reliable source. Sources and claims aren't automatically accepted as usable for Wikipedia articles until disproven by others. The onus is upon the editor who wishes to use them to demonstrate that they are reliable. Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that disqualifies it as being a reliable source - well firstly you've (again - starting to detect a trend...) misrepresented the source. The book is not "based on the claims of a mental patient", this is just one chapter in the book - and furthermore, being a mental patient is not in and of itself conclusive proof of anything. I don't know the details, but it's perfectly conceivable that the patient was telling the truth. Not every mental patient is delusional, and not everything that a delusional mental patient says is untrue. You haven't provided any sources to prove he wasn't telling the truth, never mind proving that it was unreasonable of Hunt to give him the time of day, never mind proving that it was so unreasonable of Hunt to give him the time of day that it renders everything else Hunt writes in the book unreliable - not just one bad decision, but a decision so bad and so obviously bad that he is not to be trusted to tell you that water is wet. Now the onus is not on me to disprove your claim that WP:RS does not apply to this case - it lies on you to prove it, and you've done nothing to further that case but offer your unsupported opinion. Considering that politico.com based an article on the book in 2011 [7] (just in 30 seconds Googling), you've got some work to do, and you've made no attempt to do it. Podiaebba (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not read the book, but if I have misrepresented it, so has Professor Augustus Burns, whose review in the peer-reviewed Illinois Historical Journal [8] states that the aforementioned mental patient (whose name I will omit due to the fact that I'm unsure whether or not he is alive, but Hurt writes that he is "a multiple felon, an ex-convict, a raging alcoholic, a diagnosed psychotic and schizophrenic") is the "rock" upon which "Hurt builds his case". The review is rather scathing: "Hurt offers naught but old theories and boundless speculation. The work is little more than one unsubstantiated possibility balanced on another...The most puzzling mystery to this reviewer, however, is not suggested by the author, but by his work: How did he get this book published as nonfiction?" I don't think I've ever read anything so blunt and harsh in an academic book review. Gamaliel (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the book either. I have, however, read Burns review, now you've drawn my attention to it, and have to again note your selectivity. No-one can come away from reading that review thinking "oh yes, this guy totally takes this topic as a legitimate subject of historical research, and just has a beef with this particular attempt at it". The review begins with "Have you heard the latest news about President Kennedy? Investigative journalist Henry Hurt asserts for the zillionth time that the slain President was the victim of a diabolical conspiracy." This sets the tone. Some random snippets: "Hurt repeats all the familiar conspiracy cliches: The Warren Commission was negligent, stupid, and probably manipulated." ... "There is more, of course. Oswald did not necessarily kill Officer J. D. Tippit; Jack Ruby was a pawn of organized crime who died of cancer while withholding the truth that he was party to the great conspiracy; the single bullet theory is utter nonsense; " ... etc. Burns (the author of the review) also faults Hunt for entertaining contradictory possibilities (eg Oswald being a CIA agent or KGB operative or a Castro agent) without making up his mind. But nothing he actually writes in the review indicates that Hunt is mistaken about facts. Instead, he savages Hunt for the conclusions Hunt draws from them. In short, the review is an excellent basis for saying that Hunt is not a reliable source for the claim that Clay Shaw had a sexual relationship with David Ferrie (the speculative example, liberally hedged with conditionals by Hunt, which Burns gives). It is not a basis for saying that Hunt's interview with police officer Billy Grammer is unreliable as to the fact of Grammer's claims. Podiaebba (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

My selectivity? I am not the one who wants to selectively pluck factoids out of piles of manure and claim they are reliable diamonds. It appears nothing will sway you from your course of accepting these terrible sources, not a censure from the British parliament, not nationwide ridicule, not a savaging by a professional historian in an peer-reviewed journal, so it seems there is little point in continuing this exchange. Note that the policy is reliable sources, not reliable factoids. If the sources themselves are unreliable, we shouldn't be using them at all. Doesn't it concern you that all the sources you've been able to find on this Grammer claim are so embarrassingly unreliable? Doesn't it give you pause to think that maybe this claim is just as unsound as others these unreliable sources have made? Perhaps Grammer's claim is accurate, but given that it's been ignored by actual, reliable sources, that tells me that it's too insignificant and unreliable to include here. Perhaps this is an unjust oversight, but it's not the role of Wikipedia to correct the mistakes of historians and the media. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being selective - that would imply that I've read all these books and decided to pick one thing. Rather, I came across one factual claim (in online reading prompted by the 50th anniversary) which drew my attention, which turned out to be documented in mainstream-published books and made on-camera. What is telling is that whenever I try to get into specifics of why these sources have been criticised, you retreat into generalities, and then assert that instead of what it says at the top of the page about source reliability being relative to statements, that instead sources are reliable or not in toto. I expect you will now find some other way to repeat this process, because that's all you've got, unless you intend to make a real fist of the "significance" issue by pretending that no historical detail which isn't reported every time a guy's name is mentioned 50 years later is permissible. As to inclusion of this claim in "reliable" sources - presumably by that you mean sources that support the Lone Gunman theory. Because that theory's just so obviously true, and therefore any evidence or argument that contradicts it is by definition untrue and unreliable, and that's not at all assuming your conclusion, no. Podiaebba (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Again you demonstrate the futility of attempting to discuss this with you. Since you're unable to seriously engage with the clear evidence demonstrating the unreliability of your two sources in particular, you conjure up an imaginary motivation for me that's made up out of whole cloth, just like the bulk of the 'evidence' in the two sources you want us to use in the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess that's an admission of defeat: instead of addressing my points, you complain about my supposedly impugning your motivation, whilst in passing reasserting the position I have challenged without acknowledging or responding to my criticisms of it. My comment does not address your motivation at all, it is about the manner in which you defend your position. I cannot divine your motivation and am uninterested in it. Podiaebba (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I've never seen anyone backpedal so quickly. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It requires a far lower level of literacy than you clearly possess to misconstrue my statement as badly as your comment indicates you have. If you have simply given up trying to address my arguments, then I guess this conversation is over. Podiaebba (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks, and stop the barrage of excuses for unreliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think the above was a personal attack, you may be underqualified to be engaging in discussion on an online encyclopedia. As to barrage of excuses for unreliable sources - I've repeatedly asked for an explanation of how WP policy addresses the invalidation of the presumption that mainstream media sources are deemed reliable, without any response. I've also repeatedly pointed out that reliability is contextual, not absolute: the question of reliability is specific to the reporting of the very limited claim made at the beginning of this section. In previous discussions, mainstream media sources which deliberately and knowingly published false information were still judged reliable, on the basis that policy doesn't do anything to explain how the presumption of reliability of mainstream media sources can be overturned. Podiaebba (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think your remark wasn't a personal attack, you may be under-qualified to be engaging in discussion on an online encyclopedia where civility is considered one of its fundamental principles. Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A personal attack would be "you're too stupid to have understood what I've written". My comment was the opposite: that you had clearly demonstrated that you are literate enough to have understood what I had written, making your "backpedal" remark suggest you had given up on having a rational argument and were merely trying to distract from the issues with irrelevancies. Podiaebba (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your obvious attack and your weak attempts at backpedaling from what was an obvious attack to any literate individual have already distracted from the issues you are trying to raise. Lashing out at other editors is not the best way to convince them that you have a rational argument to present. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's see, we're currently up to (i) falsely accusing me of "backpedalling" from questioning your motivation (you know I did not, and the comment you claimed was "backpedalling" explicitly rejected the idea that I had) and (ii) latching onto bobrayner's erroneous claim that I made a personal attack, which I'm quite sure you're equally aware is wrong. You've comprehensively given up on even pretending to address the substantive issues and are left with mere distraction tactics. What will be point (iii), I wonder? Podiaebba (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: per the instructions at the top of this page, the issue is the reliability of the sources available for the content being sourced from them. The issue is not the absolute, proven reliability of the sources for everything they've ever said (a standard which very few sources meet). Podiaebba (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Restatement2 is getting there. The proposed text should should be tweaked to say that Grammer was recalling events that were two decades old, and that Grammer's testimony did not come out in the 1960s or '70s, that he did not appear before the Warren Commission, that he did not tell them about the phone call. Marrs says Grammer did not actually answer the phone around 2:00–3:00 am (Becker says 2:30, Savage says "around two", Douglass says 3:00) but Grammer was requested by name by the caller, so the call was handed to Grammer by the first (unnamed) policeman. (Savage says Grammer was Communications Officer on duty.) Also, Grammer recognized at the time that his boss would have to know about this call so he co-wrote a report for Chief Curry, but did not tell Curry the voice might have been that of Ruby; instead he said the caller was anonymous. The proposed text should say that Grammer found the voice not familiar enough to put a name to the caller at the time. I think it would be interesting to know whether Curry read the report before Ruby killed Oswald, and what, if anything, Curry did about it. It would also be interesting to get some kind of explanation why Grammer chose to stay silent for 20+ years. Was he warned against saying anything, or simply scared of what might happen? Or did he fabricate the Ruby stuff in the '80s? Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are interesting points (sourcing for them would be good). On the question of when Grammer said what: I've seen it said that Groden's book High Treason claims Grammer signed an affidavit in 1963/4 as part of the investigations of the time, but was nonetheless not called by the Warren Commission. As to why he went public in the 80s, rather than the 70s when the HSCA was active - fair question, though the HSCA investigation was cut short, and he also might not have wanted to go public before retiring. Could you suggest a rewriting of the content? NB A serious treatment of this topic would require a separate article specifically on Ruby's shooting of Oswald, which at the moment totally overwhelms Ruby's article. Podiaebba (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Playboy Wiki

Wikilister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA who has added hundreds of links to Playboy Wiki. It is a fan site and wiki created by fans. Just on those two counts we would usually not allow its use here. The editor claims it is okay with Playboy. We need to get this settled because this wiki has content that I suspect would normally be behind Playboy's paywall, IOW we're linking to copyrighted content, possibly without Playboy's consent. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor has been notified: User_talk:Wikilister#RS.2FN_discussion_about_Playboy_Wiki. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to fail on three counts: firstly, it's not an official site by any definition; secondly, it's a wiki; thirdly, it seems, as you said, that the site has material that would normally be behind a paywall. Maybe the site is offering sneak previews with the tacit blessing of playboy.com, but playboy can't have it both ways. Wikilister alleges that the site has the blessing of playboy, so it seems sneaky sort of marketing. Notwithstanding, I don't see how the identity of the individual who runs or administers the site is of any great relevance to how/if we link to it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am the editor in question here. The questions here seem to be (1) whether the Playboy Wiki is authorized by Playboy, i.e. an "official" site, and (2) whether the content there is sufficiently useful and reliable.

(1) Regarding "authorization by Playboy", I have previously directed attention to the © notice in the sidebar of every page of the Playboy Wiki, and to the Whois registration info that is linked under "Credits" at the bottom of its home page: http://www.playboywiki.com I suppose that just anyone could add an unauthorized © notice, but I don't know how anyone could fake the fact that Playboy Enterprises International renews the domain registration of the Playboy Wiki every year. Still, here is some more evidence for you:

(A) Links for the Playboy Wiki in Playboy's paysite, the Cyber Club: http://cyber.playboy.com/members/extras/new/index.html

If you happen to have been a Cyber Club member, you can check that link yourself. The new Playboy Plus site is supplanting the Cyber Club, but you can still get in via a link on the Playboy Wiki's homepage. For non-members, here are a pair of screenshots of that page: http://www.playboywiki.com/file/view/CyberClub-Extras-A.jpg / http://www.playboywiki.com/file/view/CyberClub-Extras-B.jpg

Such links are scattered throughout the Cyber Club. Here is another example on a Playmate's page (this one is "safe for work"): http://cyber.playboy.com/members/playmates/jukebox/1993/03

There you are encouraged to "Check out Kimberly's entry" at the Playboy Wiki. Again, here are a pair of screenshots for non-members: http://www.playboywiki.com/file/view/CyberClub-Wikilink-A.jpg / http://www.playboywiki.com/file/view/CyberClub-Wikilink-B.jpg

The search engine for the Cyber Club has been disabled, since they want you to go to Playboy Plus instead, and I don't have a screenshot to "prove" it, but other sometime Cyber Club members could attest to the fact that its Search page included a note to the effect that, "If you're having trouble finding a model here, try the Playboy Wiki" — and there was a link there too.

(B) The roots of the PB Wiki: I have previously cited the fact that while the Playboy Wiki was created by and is maintained by "fans", it was established by Playboy administrators on their behalf. Here is the top of the list showing the earliest members: http://www.playboywiki.com/wiki/members?orderBy=date_created&orderDir=asc

"Organizer and Creator" pb_paul (aka Paul Thomas) was the "Director - Online Community and Social Platforms" at Playboy Enterprises, Inc. He has since moved on. The second listed Organizer, Playboy_Official, was originally the chief administrator of the Playboy Forums, but that account now belongs to Daniel Richard, the current "Playboy.com Product Manager - Playboy Plus Entertainment" - yes, the person in charge of the Playboy.com site, links to which are being replaced by Playboy Wiki links. Smith5000 was the last Cyber Club employee, who helped re-establish the PB Wiki with the new Playboy Plus team. Herm45 and FireballTarget are two of the original "amateurs" who started the wiki, were later made "Organizers", and are still active with it. They are just two of the currently active editors though.

If you need to see Playboy administrator pb_paul actually establishing the wiki, here he is establishing the home page, Feb 5, 2009 10:06 am: http://www.playboywiki.com/page/history/home?o=300

And here you see that it actually was he who put that Playboy.com © notice in the sidebar the day before, when he had got final clearance from Playboy's legal team: http://www.playboywiki.com/page/history/space.menu?o=400

(C) Current evidence on the Playboy Forum site: (First a warning - the Forums currently are prone to ad banners that I personally find sometimes lewd. I hope there won't be one that offends you.)

This ties in with the previous bit, in case anyone wants more proof of pb_paul's credentials, since he's not around for cross-examination. Here are the threads he started at the Playboy Forum, then part of the Cyber Club: http://www.playboyfanforum.com/search.php (Sorry, there isn't a stable direct link. You have to enter PB_Paul (case sensitive) in the box for "User Name".)

Those forums are not currently linked directly to the Cyber Club's successor, Playboy Plus. But they are the same forums with all the old posts, and are maintained by the above mentioned Playboy.com Product Manager, who posts there as "PBDan". Check out the links at the top of any Forums page - there's "JOIN PLAYBOY PLUS!" / "What's New" / "Articles" / "Forum" / "Playboy Wiki" / "Playmate Personal Pages Archive"

Hmmm.... I wonder where that "Playboy Wiki" link goes, and why it would be there on the official Playboy Fan Forum site run by a manager of Playboy Plus?

(2) Regarding the usefulness and reliability of the Playboy Wiki: It was indeed created and is maintained by "fans", but this should be understood in the older, honorable sense of "amateur" before it came to connote "unprofessional". Most of us have encountered people in paid positions who don't know a fraction of what some old friend with years of familiarity knows about the so-called "professional's" supposed area of expertise. It is such a group of select "amateurs" for whom the Playboy Wiki was established by administrators of the Cyber Club. The ones invited to work on the PB Wiki weeks before it was opened to the public, were longtime members of the Playboy Forums who had started a thread with posts that listed every appearance of a given model anywhere on Playboy's online sites. That is what convinced administrator PB_Paul to trust this group with the Wiki project.

(A) How useful and reliable has it been? After about 18 months, it was complete enough that the PB Wiki's records helped administrators recover lots of content lost in a botched update of the Playboy Girls Network. On this Forums thread http://www.playboyfanforum.com/showthread.php?34425-Updated-Playboy-Girls-Network-Templates/page11 there are 10 pages of people reporting what's missing, and then in posts 102 & 109 begin references to the PB Wiki and specific help in recovering the lost content. Cyber Club users found it useful enough that within two years the Wiki had more daily traffic (about 5,000 unique visitors) than the Forums. It became even more popular during the transition from Cyber Club to Playboy Plus, helping users navigate PB+ and helping the new PB+ staff get their bearings. PB+ even quoted PB Wiki notes in their entry on one of the earliest Playmates. The PB Wiki and its editors continue to be useful for Playboy Plus staff to check their work, especially as the Wiki expands coverage comparing Cyber Club and Playboy Plus content. PBDan says they check it, so you can ask him.

(B) More pertinent for Wikipedia users is whether they are better served with Playboy Wiki links than with the older Playboy.com links. You can judge that for yourself. Check any Playmate with a PB Wiki external link. Compare what you see there with what you see if you click the "Playboy.com Previews" link down in the lower right of the PB Wiki page. That "Previews" link is all that you would get with the old Playboy.com link, assuming that link wasn't broken. The Playboy.com link typically presents a handful of pictures and says "go join the paysite". The Playboy Wiki links certainly don't discourage anyone from joining Playboy's paysites, but there is far more information available to non-members. They can see exactly what content there is—or is not—for any given Playmate on ALL the Playboy sites, as well as links to a sister wiki that details appearances in print Special Editions, and usually IMDb links as well. It would seem that Wikipedia would favor links that provide more info that is not directly in Wikipedia's pages and links that provide such info without simply demanding that a visitor sign up and pay money. It would seem that Playboy Wiki links fit that description.

(C) A final note regarding "reliability" and "recognized authority". Please note that the Playboy Wiki does NOT try to provide the kind of biographical info that Wikipedia pages provide. Its focus is on detailing what pictures, video, and other content (like online chat transcripts) are available for any Playboy model on any Playboy site online. Playboy administrators recognized the competence of the team of "amateurs" that they allowed to do this under the Playboy banner. And that was when Playboy still had staff who were themselves longtime knowledgeable fans. For documenting what Playboy has and where it is—and that is what the PB Wiki mainly claims to do—there is no better site than the Playboy Wiki. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, I defy them to prove it. If you know the stuff yourself and you are familiar with PB Wiki, you will know that it's good. If you don't know the material well enough to judge for yourself whether the PB Wiki should stand as a "recognized authority", then whom would you recognize? The Playboy staff that spent more than a decade with the Cyber Club? They are the ones who opened an empty storefront for the Playboy Wiki team, hung the Playboy sign on the door, and handed over the keys. And they watched it, more or less approvingly, over the next two years. Or would you prefer to recognize the authority of the new company to whom Playboy has since outsourced its online presence? They too rely on the Playboy Wiki, and one of their officers presides as one of the Organizers of the Wiki. He leaves the actual editing though to the amateurs because he knows they know their stuff. Or at least, he hasn't heard that they don't. If you know they don't, then you should tell him. Wikilister (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A simple question, if the "Playboy Wiki does NOT try to provide the kind of biographical info that Wikipedia pages provide", why should it be cited or linked in Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, short answer. Because it supplements the info on Wikipedia's Lists of Playmates. What would be the point of a link that tries to duplicate the Wikipedia info? Also, a Playboy Wiki link is "a link to an official page of the article's subject" as specifically excepted in the case of "external links to avoid": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO No one has questioned the propriety of "official" links to "Playboy.com". The Playboy Wiki links incorporate those. They provide more comprehensive info by replacing one official link with another. Wikilister (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

""Fansites", ...even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites" (WP:ELOFFICIAL). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you make no distinction between a "fansite" started by people who just want to say "Boy we like Playboy!" and a site initiated by Playboy itself with the intent (and actual result) of enabling qualified amateurs to build something that paid staff had long considered doing, but for which they did not have sufficient time and budget? It's easy to dismiss "fansite". This is a bit more than that. Wikilister (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this is the wrong venue for this discussion. The links in question are not being used to source any article content, instead they being used in the External Links section. External links are not required to meet Wikipedia's definition of reliability. The appropriate guideline is WP:EL and the appropriate noticeboard is WP:ELN. Second, external links to open Wikis are allowed. You'll note that virtually every article on Star Wars, Star Trek and Doctor Who has an external link to Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha and TARDIS Data Core (respectively) (yes, I like sci-fi). Third, I don't really know much about copyright discussions, but there are a number of links at the top of this page for where copyright issues can be discussed. I suggest starting a discussion at one of the copyright noticeboards where other editors more knowledgeable about copyright issues can help you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely with your first point, but on the second: WP:ELNO does allow open wikis "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" (and several of the sci-fi wikis qualify), but WP:BLPEL (which would be the applicable policy for many of the Playboy links) is stricter in excluding such sites. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point regarding Main Pages dedicated to particular Playmates. Perhaps Playboy Wiki, Playboy.com, IMDb, and certain other external links frequently found in such pages should be removed. Those pages are primarily biographical and WP:BLPEL standards should certainly apply. But I take issue with your emphasis on WP:BLPEL for the Lists of Playmates for a given year. There are short "biographical" notes for each Playmate, but the main purpose of the Playmate List pages is to show which Playmates were featured in a given year. The emphasis is not on the Playmates individually, but on them collectively. It is no longer "biography" of individuals, but a list of, for lack of a better term, Playboy's "product" for that year. Hence the propriety of the longstanding though often broken Playboy.com external links for each Playmate listed there. The subject of the page is Playboy at least as much as it is Playmates, so Playboy should be entitled to the WP:ELNO exception regarding external links. And I hope I have exhaustively established that Playboy Wiki links are perfectly appropriate substitutions for the long-unquestioned Playboy.com links. Wikilister (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Lists of short biographies are still biographies, and the pages being linked to in most cases are individual not collective. And you've established no such thing, given that even if we accept that Playboy is the subject these links still don't qualify as "official". Please note also that the canvassing you've been doing is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the next logical step (assuming this hasn't already been done) is to determine whether or not these external links are copyright violations. If so, end of discussion: they should be removed. If not, then I suggest opening a discussion at WP:ELN while inviting members of the appropriate Wiki Projects to participate in the discussion. In this particular case, I would think that means WP:WikiProject Pornography. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What is missing in (1) (A) (B) (C) above, so that you still have questions about copyright? Wikilister (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. Copyright issues are beyond the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In any case, if Playboy considered that site a copyright violator, Playboy would say so and do something about it: that's when we would delete our links to it. Andrew Dalby 16:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Playboy owns the Playboy Wiki's address, has a direct line to its "Organizers", and can pull the plug any time they want. A Playboy official is and always has been an "Organizer". Wikilister (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with the external links in question, and will now go state the same thing the the more appropriate venue named below. Azx2 18:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As Nikkimaria and Quest For Knowledge have suggested, a discussion has been opened in a more appropriate venue WP:ELN#Playboy_Wiki_as_an_external_link_in_Playmate_Lists. Wikilister (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour

Can this book which is published by the PAF a reliable source for claims on the outcome of combat missions undertaken by the PAF during the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict? It is currently being used to support this edit, however neutral academic sources such as Ganguly, Sumit (2002). Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947. Columbia University Press. pp. 67–68 & Pradeep P. Barua (2005). The State at War in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 222–223 state that the operation was a complete flop, and given the IAF was dropping bombs on Pakistani targets a few hours after the preemptive attack the source is also obviously wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The first book is written by the Pakistan Air Force, making it an official government publication? Or it was written by an individual general/major/private/whatever in the PAF, and published by a commercial entity? Who is the publisher, in other words?

  If the publisher was a vanity press or similar, then it would not count. But if the publisher was somebody respectable like Random House (or the equivalent in Pakistan), then it does count as a Reliable Source -- though of course the text should point out that the author of the stuff *was* in fact the PAF, or a member thereof, or whatever, so that we do not mislead the readership.

  The case where the book is an official government document, published by the Pakistani Air Force (or similar), seems to be a special case to me. Usually, when an individual or a corporation publishes information about themself, then WP:ABOUTSELF applies, we don't accept controversial self-promotional stuff. However, when the publisher is a government, do we count them as automatically being a reliable source? The language used when a government writes about themselves is *different* and is called propaganda by enemies and inconvenient truths by allies. Regardless of whether academic RS's disagree with what the Pakistani govt publishes about themselves, and their military, it seems like the fact that the PAF claims success belongs in wikipedia, despite this being WP:ABOUTSELF in some sense.

  Can anyone else comment, that will help tip this conversation in the right direction? When some government publication says X, and then some non-allied govt say NOT_X, plus some professors say NOT_X, should we describe the conflicting reliable sources (pointing out the COI problems so the readers get the full story), or can we omit the use of X entirely? Imagine that "France...England" is under discussion instead of "India...Pakistan" if it helps.

  Anyways, shooting from the hip, my first reaction is to say, put the quote in, as long as somebody can verify that page 451 says that... but if possible, verify that the wing-commander and/or pilot allegedly being quoted has not published a denial. If either of them *did* issue such a denial, publically (or if the opposing govt did so in their place... or if some academic specifically denies the event), put that Reliably-Sourced-denial in the very next sentence. Should no such denial be known to exist, just write a generic sentence which neutrally says "Except for this book published by the Pakistani military, other sources have described the efficacy of the Pakistani bombing raids as $quote[1] and $quote[2] and $quote[3]". HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets make this more simple....I say to my self... If other reliable published sources do not include the information that I have found in one book/website etc..., then that information may be —by definition—not important enough to include. Just need to do a little researcher....do other reliable sources find the info relevant enough to mention in there publications? If there are 2 side to the argument (both having merit) ....then the sources should be indicated (identified) in the statements in my opinion...thus our readers can see and judge for themselves the merits of each statement as they read the sources if this is possible (should do our best to make it so). -- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The first diff shows a malformed quote, with the appended sentence "However no neutral or non Pakistani sources exist which can corroborate this happeing" [sic] clearly meant to be outside of the quote, sourced to the defencejournal.com ref which follows, and not sourced to the PAF book. Regarding reliability, this book written by the Shaheen Foundation (a trust of the Pakistan Air Force) in 1988 is going to favor the PAF a good deal—just look at its peacock title. The interview with Flt Lt Harish Sinhji is given by Pakistani sources, but Sinhji eventually escaped captivity to return to India. He should have been able to corroborate the interview, to confirm or deny what he told the Pakistani captors. The 1988 book is cited by other writers from all viewpoints who apparently use it for operational details available nowhere else. In general, the story about PAF accuracy in bombing Sirsa is certainly possible, but this accuracy should not be presented as typical of PAF operations that night or it will overbalance the article in favor of the PAF. The story should be summarized and not quoted so that larger context can be brought to bear. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the comments here. If you review the discussion below, the original source is a WP:SPS. Even if the exception for a noted expert applies, per WP:SPS this book should not be used to source a quotation of an individual who is not the author. The original editor who has been edit warring this quote into the article has again reverted on the basis that this WP:SPS is quoted in another article citing the original book as the source. I have reverted him on the basis that policy is clear that a WP:SPS shouldn't be used to quote an individual who is not the author and simply because another article by the same author quotes it, is not sufficient reason to shoe horn the quote in. Comments are invited as to whether my interpretation of policy is indeed correct. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Criticism of Jainism

I would like to know whether these three sources are reliable when talking about Criticism of Jainism.

• "Women in Jainism". Rise-of-womanhood.org. Retrieved 2011-09-28.
• "Women in Jainism". BBC Religions. 2009-09-10. Retrieved 2011-09-27.
• "Women Impure During their Menstrual Cycle?". Anekant Education Foundation. Retrieved 2011-09-27.

--Rahul (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The first definitely isn't. The BBC source is on the limits of reliability because it is such a short overview. The Anekant essay is reliable for one view of what Jainism believes but it shouldn't be presented as the only view. These Criticism of religion articles are a pain in the neck. They should all go, really. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be right. I have nominated this article for deletion, if you like, you can participate. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Jainism --Rahul (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you read about WP:DONTLIKE yet? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

When asked about reliability of sources, that's what I try to concentrate on. I have a long-standing view of all the Criticism of (religion) articles, which is that they are WP:POVFORKs. That goes for Criticism of anything articles, but there is also a major problem with the diversity of what "criticising" a religion actually is. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Not essentially true. A lot of criticism that are either non-refuted, or impossible to refute. It means that it's a criticism.. Now if someone legend criticize like.. "bible lacks so much science, it claims earth is only 6000 years old and sticks to adam+eve" then we must recognize it, since it's imposible to refute, neither it's unreliable information. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I see that you have created several problematic articles, and we will have to examine everything you have been doing. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly if you can't handle or backup your own point, but ready to make unnecessary compliments and getting off topic, just don't start. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

TellyChakkar.com

The website www.tellychakkar.com is a website on Indian television entertainment. Its reliability has been questioned at times in various AfDs and edit wars. The site is used in more than 350 article on en.wiki. It also has a editorial team. My experience of having seen it's various articles and used them here calls it a WP:RS. But due to constant questioning by other editors i thought it better to bring it here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

from the About us "Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. ... The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips and much more. TellyChakkar, an Indiantelevision.com initiative was launched in 2005. Since its inception TellyChakkar has enjoyed a special place in the hearts of television and Bollywood fans across the globe and has recently launched print editions as well. This light-hearted, easy-read, entertaining and naughty website focuses on the ultimate TV and 70mm fan as well as the entertainment industry. "

They promote their "spicy gossip" and "executing promotional campaigns", but not their pledge to accuracy and fact checking.

It does not appear that they have a reputation for such either, (based on the redlink status of TellyChakkar.com, they dont have any reputation at all) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a television entertainment website. Why will they write about microbiological inventions? And redlinks don't mean non-notability. We don't have to tell that. Also, the website presents New Talent Awards [9] to TV actors. Prof. Shoma Munshi, (Division Head -- Social Sciences, and Professor of Anthropology at the American University of Kuwait.)[10] calls the Tellychakkar.com and its co-website IndianTelevision.com "mines of information and handy tools for anyone researching, or simply reading about television industry in India." (Ref: Prime Time Soap Operas on Indian Television, ISBN 1136516190, Routledge, 2012.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

re "Its a television entertainment website. Why will they write about microbiological inventions? " I dont expect a television / entertainment website to write about microbiology. But I do expect any sources that we deem reliable place as their primary concerns fact checking and accuracy and not promotion of clients or spreading gossip both of which are pretty much antithetical to being reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think they don't report facts? You mean they say X plays a certain role in a TV show when actually Y is doing that? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Because of the reasons I stated above - their "About Us" page highlights their promotional aspects and their spicy gossip and not their accuracy and fact checking. And the fact that no third party sources have commented upon their accuracy and fact checking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they are modest about what that. No garlands for us. have you found many many things in the website that aren't useful for us? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

we dont grant sites reliable status based soley on the fact that they might be shy about the fact that they fact check but are not shy about the fact that they will promote your content and spread gossip. thats just silly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Munshi's mention is a point in its favour, but I don't see it as enough for us to rule this as RS. You could say the same about IMDB and we don't regard that as reliable. We specifically rule out gossip, and this site is focused mainly on gossip,, as it says itself. Perhaps we can use it as a supplementary source, or even as the main source for completely uncontroversial factual information, but that would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "completely uncontroversial factual information"? Can you give some examples of where you would use it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that a particular actor has appeared in a specific role in a specific program broadcast on a given date? DES ^(talk) 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So, can the article 2013 - Vivacious Vamps of the Year be used to source that a certain actor played a certain role? Can Birthday greetings to Sidharth, Sambhavna, Aasiya and Prachee be used to source the birthdates of these people? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also, the website does segregate their articles in various sections like News, Lifestyle, Behind the lens, Features, Gossip, Interviews, Releases, Star Gazing. Of which Gossip and Star Gazing are of no use to us but rest all are useful. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Itsmejudith, User:DESiegel and User:Dharmadhyaksha: the site could be used as a source for uncontroversial factual information (a particular actor has appeared in a specific role in a specific program), but it cannot be acceptable as a tool for further spreading of gossip. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Could we decide such that certain sections are good for us? The ones i mentioned above? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Knock knock! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The non controversial fact that someone is in a particular show or film is almost always going to be verifiable through a more reliable source and we dont dive to the worst source possible. The issue was brought here because of an AfD to establish notability of an actor. Given the sites self stated "about us" to be promotional, the site surely should not be valid source for that use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Links to the AfD mentioned by User:TheRedPenOfDoom + problematic articles by TellyChakkar deleted from the article by the same editor:
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen
• "Anushka Sen to play young Parvati in Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev". TellyChakkar.com. Retrieved 10 December 2013.
• "Jyoti Gauba and Anushka Sen in Mahadev". TellyChakkar.com. 27 August 2012. Retrieved 10 December 2013.
• --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Editorial control in specialized playground source play-scapes.com?

Source: http://www.play-scapes.com/correspondent_post/peter-pearces-curved-space-diamond-structure/ Article (well draft): Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Curved Space Diamond Structure Content:

Frequently referred to as “The Soap Bubble Castle”, the installation at the Hakone Open Air Museum in Japan, originally installed in 1978, has been refurbished and is still being enjoyed and explored by children today.

The source seems to be independent and to support the text it is cited for, what I can't tell is if it has any editorial review process, or is simply a glorified and specialized blog. There is a link which allows anyone to apply to be a "correspondent" but I can't tell if any review is done before a person is approved, or if any review is done of content before it is posted. Advice please. DES ^(talk) 20:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The about/contact section of the site makes it clear that it's an enthusiast blog by someone with a very different day job. Sorry. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am reviewing the draft, I am not its creator. I am curious, what link did you use to find the "about/contact section" of the site? I looked for such a thing and didn't find it. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's at http://www.play-scapes.com/about-contact/ - the link only appears when you move the mouse over the name "Paige Johnson", underneath the logo.

I agree with Itsmejudith. It's probably a pretty reliable source in the normal sense but not, unfortunately, a RS in the Wikipedia sense. At least that does mean you could use it to find facts which you could then confirm elsewhere with Wikipedia RS, if you see what I mean. Barnabypage (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, had I spotted that link I would never have come here. FYI I do understand the implicatiosn of WP:RS and how sources can be used here on Wikipedia, and how notability can be established (the issue here). I am an experienced editor, an occasional AfC reviewer, and an admin. It looks like an interesting site, but not usable as a reveiw of a creative work to establish notability here, unfortunately. Thanks again. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Astrodatabank reliable?

In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.

The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.

Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Wikipedia. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability.

Defining Movement and Shwebomin

The Shwebomin claimed to be a pretender of Burmese Throne. I have never heard of his existence before. His name is never mentioned in official genealogy nor in any Burmese history book. The source cited is an interview on a talk show, "Defining Movement". I have never heard of that show before. Could it be a good source for BLP? SWH^{® talk} 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No. We need to have reliable sources, independent of him, about his origin and the claim he makes in order to create an article about him. It's a matter of notability also: if someone has reacted publicly to his claim, in reliable sources that we can cite, that might help to make him notable; if there's no such reaction, it suggests he isn't. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. Yes, I believe neutrality would be impossibly difficult to obtain if all information is based on interviews and his official site. I guess we should delete it until someone, a historian or researcher reacts in RS. 03:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of the interview is not in question, the questions are (1) for what information can the interview be reliably cited, and (2) does an interview, together with other sources, constitute coverage of an individual? The answer to the first is at WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source and WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, and the answer to the second is yes. --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

SORCER - experienced eyes, please

While I appreciate the rules for posting items here the matter is beyond one reference/source. The article has a welter of scientific papers, most of which are certainly primary sources. Some of the references may be sufficient to establish the notability of the item.

Attempts at discussion with proponents of SORCER are failing, probably because of the mismatch of the culture of Wikipedia with the culture of the world of Academe.

I propose to give no further information here in case my view biases the thoughts of editors whose eyes are needed on the article. I am trying this noticeboard since it is specialist in nature, though migrating to an RFC may be needed if experienced editors cannot reach a consensus.

Please visit the article, form a view, and, ideally, seek to establish consensus on its talk page. Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This one is difficult, quite a challenge, not at all simple to assess. Which of you are up to the task? Fiddle Faddle 11:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Orangemike: - i dont know what his expertise on computing systems is, but he is very good at cutting through promotional crap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, thank you. There is careful work to do with this article assuming sufficient WP:RS sourcing is able to be distilled from the multiplicity of references given. My take is to assess and ideally prove verifiable notability above all else, hence this noticeboard for sources. Fiddle Faddle 14:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Two specific references have been given at Talk:SORCER#SORCER_third_party_review_and_analyses. Please visit that section and inspect the references, considering whether they are WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 08:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Wide Screen

Hi I found a really useful source Vonderau, Patrick (2010). "UNDERSTANDING ORLOVA: YOUTUBE PRODUCERS, HOT FOR WORDS, AND SOME PITFALLS OF PRODUCTION STUDIES". Wide Screen. Retrieved 2013-12-14. for the page Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity). Is it reliable?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Malmesbury.com and their expertise on analyzing death statistics

http://www.malmesbury.com/malmesbury-history/961-hannah-twynnoy.html categorizes the death of Hannah Twynnoy as "unusual". I can find no reliable sources that make that characterization, not even the indirect source used in the article, http://www.athelstanmuseum.org.uk/people_hannah_twynnoy.html. Can a community directory be considered a reliable source for categorizing deaths as "unusual" pursuant to them being included in List of unusual deaths?—Kww(talk) 02:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The community site has a vested interest in hyping potential tourist attractions in the town. Their position as a neutral third party in describing their offerings places them as a questionable source at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they'd use the word "unusual" just to somehow make it a tourist attraction. Doesn't make a lot of sense. The girl died in 1703. A major newspaper says of her, "historians believe was probably the first person in Britain to be killed by a tiger." [11] So it is usual, being the first. Dream Focus 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Highlighting things as "unique" and "unusual" and "one of a kind" are EXACTLY what tourism boards and PR firms do to draw visitors. Show me one campaign "Visit Delradia, its just like everywhere else! There's nothing here you haven't seen before!'" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If the Telegraph and/or BBC call it an unusual death too, I'm happy to go along with it. Even if tigers were later to become a routine cause of death in England, the first case would still be worth highlighting. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"First" is not a synonym for "unusual", so the BBC article wouldn't qualify for inclusion at List of unusual deaths. The question here is not about the BBC article, the question here is whether malmesbury.com can be treated as a reliable source for purposes of declaring a death unusual.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The title of the piece is "BBC reveals Britain's most unusual epitaphs" so I think it's reasonable for a list of unusual deaths. I'm more wary of the Mamlesbury.com source. bobrayner (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not good logic: if someone was killed while doing something mundane and someone wrote a witty epitaph, the unusual epitaph would not make the death itself unusual.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)There is quite a significant distinction between an epitaph and a death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with that point, of course; but the article seems more focused on the nature of her death. A poem on a headstone is hardly unusual. bobrayner (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It would still be improper to jump from the fact that they titled the article "Unusual Epitaphs" but because they are talking about the death in the article they actually meant "unusual deaths". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 17 December 2013 List of unusual deaths?&mda(UTC)

1 tiger in 300 years would seem "unusual" by any reasonable standard. I'm not aware that the tourist board installed the headstone. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

only if you limit your tiger deaths to england. the article is not "Unusual deaths in England". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I limit it to England? Or at least, to "Places where tigers are not endemic". Tiger attacks in India are obviously not unusual, but that's like claiming that a death by frostbite in Namibia can't be "unusual" because it's a common cause of death in Greenland. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This argument is precisely why we only care about what reliable sources have deemed to be unusual deaths, not what individual editors believe, and why the discussion on this noticeboard should be about whether the Malmesbury Tourist Board should be considered a reliable source in the context of mortality statistics.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Any "expertise in analyzing death statistics" surely has nothing whatever to do with whether or nor a source is WP:RS, although a full discussion of this belongs not here at all but at List of unusual deaths. What's the next entry going to be over there ... death by concussion from repeated and unexpected moving of goalposts? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS / WP:V / WP:NPOV are goalposts that have not been moved. Does the source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Does the source have a suitable background to be making the claims they are making? Are we presenting their claims in the same context that they were originally presented and not using their words in other contexts to support positions in our article that they were not actually making in the context in which they wrote them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What has this to do with "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out in the policies - "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.", and

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: 1) the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) 2) the creator of the work (for example, the writer) 3) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability."

When determining whether something is a reliable source for calling a death unusual, we look for some sort of expertise related to the subject of the article. An "expertise in analyzing death statistics" would be a basis for indicating appropriate sourcing for determining an "unusual death" - "expertise in tourism promotion" would not be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at the recent RfD seemed to be that a WP:RS source was sufficient, not one with "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is about determining what makes a reliable source as per policy. and per WP:RS, Malmesbury.com fails both Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP#Scholarship and Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all RS are reliable for all claims. A tourist website is obviously not reliable for claims of uniqueness or unusualness of occurrences in that region. Many tourist websites claim "This forest is the most beautiful forest in the world" or "This waterfall is the tallest waterfall in the world* _{that was discovered by an Irish pub owner}". Thus, not reliable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Then your section heading here is very misleading. Or are you now saying that we can't use the BBC or The Daily Telegraph as sources for the article, as they do not have "expertise in analyzing death statistics"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Business Week

Different reliable news sources have a section on their website listing information about people. Are they considered reliable? Do they fact check all the information? [12] Dream Focus 16:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to say, because reliability isn't boolean, and it depends on what you're using the source for.

Bearing in mind Bloomberg's editorial control and their jealously-guarded reputation for data-driven services, I would be happy using that profile of Grady Hall for basic uncontroversial content, but it does seem slightly promotional so be careful not to let the promotional tone seep into article-space. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Who has written the article? That's what more important, even if the article is from CNN. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Several websites as reliable sources for information on cryptocurrency

The article is Dogecoin.
The sources being used are the following:

• A Heavy.com article: Dogecoin: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know.
• A Daily Dot article: With its own cryptocurrency, Doge has officially conquered 2013
• A CoinDesk article: Patent Nonsense, Coinbase Futures, and Who’s a Good Doggie? You Are!
• A Geekosystem article: Dogecoin, A Cryptocurrency For Doges, Is Now A Thing
• A Slashgear article: Dogecoin digital currency takes on Bitcoin with a bit of meme flair
• A Digital Trends article: Wow. Dogecoin is the most Internet thing to happen, ever.
• A geek.com article: Dogecoin: Not a viable alternative to Bitcoin, but possibly the best invention on the internet

Other than links to non-reliable source cryptocurrency related websites (coin exchanges and whatnot, not news sites), these are the only sources for the article. Are any of these sources reliable enough to base an article on? The subject of the article has not received significant coverage in any mainstream news source, other than a mention in a list of cryptocurrencies in a column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they're notable, as we're talking about million dollar operations here with sizable staffing levels and huge level of daily traffic, certainly far outstripping many small town newspapers for instance. A number of them such as Slashgear and Digital Trends I'd count as quite mainstream too. Mathmo ^Talk 09:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably better to get input from someone who isn't already involved in the deletion discussion, unless the same arguments there are supposed to spill over here. Breadblade (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice: Please see this subsequent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dogecoin. Several users have raised concerns that the nominator (who also started this discussion) also has a potential conflict of interest with Dogecoin. [citation needed] 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice: This discussion has also been linked to on 4chan; see here. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice: The allegations of COIN have been dubious at best, beyond calling the nominator a troll and linking to his activity on reddit and SomethingAwful Breadblade (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to add six more sources to the boat of links. By this time, it's starting to catch on in other countries, so some of these are going to be in different languages, and may require translation.

• A Verge article (this is likely the biggest one to report on it to-date): Bitcoin is so 2013: Dogecoin is the new cryptocurrency on the block
• A Complex Tech article (I don't know much about this one): Move Over Bitcoin: Dogecoin is Here
• A Qore article (Note that it's Spanish, and I don't know much about this one either.): Dogecoin podria desplazar a Bitcoin
• An Adrenaline.com.br (operated by Universo Online, Brazil's largest Internet provider): Wow, such profit: Depois da Bitcoin, surge a Dogecoin como nova "cripto-moeda"
• An Adevărul article (Major Romanian news source): Dogecoin: o nouă criptomonedă a luat naştere pe Reddit şi Tumblr Wow, such profit: Depois da Bitcoin, surge a Dogecoin como nova "cripto-moeda"
• Finally, we have a Russian source by Slon.ru (this one, I also don't know much about): Dogecoin: первая криптовалюта, основанная на меме

Just adding to the workload, guys! [citation needed] 12:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Is College Football Data Warehouse a reliable source?

I tried updating the coaching record of Mike Yeager, using the source that had already been cited in the article: [13], but Epicgenius kept reverting the update. When I pointed out to him what the source said, his reply was, "I will try not to laugh as I look at the data table and see that the math does not add up at all." The WP article on College Football Data Warehouse says "The website has been cited as a source by The New York Sun, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, The State, and The Lawrentian. It has also been widely cited in historical college football books, and in scholarly journals such as the Journal of Sports Economics, the Utah Law Review, the Tulsa Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review, and Sports Law." Is College Football Data Warehouse a reliable source or a laughable one whose math does not add up at all? 70.134.229.223 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but the average of the two numbers 0.000 and 1.000 is not 0.7. That is what the cited source says, so I think that the math may be wrong. Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL! It says no such thing. It says his record is 1-12, for a winning percentage of 0.07692. Do the arithmetic: 1/13=0.07692. (Hint: It's a percentage, not an average.) BTW, you might be interested in reading this. 70.134.229.223 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The record checks out in a couple of places. Carthage went 0–3 while Yeager was coach in 2012 and 1–9 in 2013. Overall, that's one win and 12 losses, or a winning percentage as the IP calculated. Since College Football Data Warehouse is the standard source used in infoboxes, I don't see a need to corroborate against another source. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, that is an insult to my so called genius. Anyway, I apologise and will ask another editor to revert the change, since I am using a mobile device and ll have difficulty making the edit. Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Series Now

Is seriesnow.com considered reliable? It looks like IMDB, which I know has been judged to be unreliable. There doesn't seem to be any info at the website as to who owns it, who edits, or anything else to be used as a guide as to quality. Is used at Ricardo Chávez, and about 64 other articles [14]. — Brianhe (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of general blogs reporting specific scientific info without references

Source : Guardian.co.uk blog http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.comment

Article: Carl Lewis

Content:

but recognized by some experts as a combination of drugs used as masking agents for anabolic steroids

I am disputing with another editor (User_talk:BearMan998) the use of a blog-like comment on the Guardian.co.uk to assess the truth of certain claims related to the field of medicine. First of all the guardian blog vaguely reports that

...tested positive for the same combination of drugs, which some experts believe can mask more serious drugs such as anabolic steroids

and that significantly differs from what is reported in the wikipedia article as in one case there is a supposition ("believe", "can") and in the other a proper assertion ("recognized", "used as"). Second and most important, the author of the blog in the Guardian reports quite a vague statement on the use of stimulants as masking agents. He doesn't cite who the experts are or any related work, or a case study that can lead to a verifiable scientific source. That said I can't find any evidence or hint among scientific publications or dissertations about such claims. Stimulants and masking agents are two distinct categories in doping medicine and it seems to me there is nowhere consensus or knowledge that certain stimulants or a combination of them can result into the effects of a masking agent for steroids. I asked the other editor if he can corroborate with other reliable sources what is claimed in the Guardian blog but didn't give me any hint. He asked me to provide a source that counterclaims that in the context of the Lewis Guardian blog, which seems to me not a sensible request as nobody in the world of science would in any case bother to disprove something that is not proven. He is willing to accept the statement of the blog, whose author has not a reputation in the field of medicine I guess, as a reliable source of scientific consensus/awareness over the relationship between stimulants and masking agents. To my experience vague statements like "someone believes that..." are unacceptable sources of truth and are not worth mention in an encyclopedia. Moreover in the field of science even blank suppositions without any specific motivation are worthless. Since the statement in the Guardian sounds like an isolated rumor rather than an objective verifiable fact I feel it shouldn't be reported on any page in the Wikipedia to support a certain thesis. What is your take? JJCasual 23:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to chime in, the cited source is not a blog as claimed above, but a sports article written in the The Guardian. As seen on Talk Page, in my discussions with JJCasual, I noted that the article never states that all stimulants are masking agents, it instead states that the particular combination of chemicals found in Lewis has potential to mask more serious drugs. From that statement, JJ is making the blanket conclusion that the author of the article was stating that all stimulants are masking agents, which the article never states. And from the argument I saw, it was mainly a combination of taking that incorrect conclusion and combining it with links on stimulants with nothing to do with the Lewis case which I found faulty and appeared to be WP:SYN more than anything else. Additionally, I stated that if JJ can find a source that refutes the author's statement in the article, that it can be freely added as a counterpoint. BearMan998 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you read the link above the Guardian page reports "athletics.comment". So we could classify it more like a mere "comment" rather than a blog or article or whatever we like. In any case, being a blog or not doesn't change its reputation as source of such specific scientific info. The same statement of "combination" is ambiguous in the article. Because "combination" is used to say that those 3 specific stimulants where also found together in his teammates. The "which" that follows is unclear if it is related to the "drugs" alone or to the "combination of drugs". Just to show one more time how vague things are here, the author, a few days later, made the same claim, without referring to the "combination" in another article:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

That said I also dispute the assertion that the particular combination has got that potential because I can't find any evidence or hint anywhere else out of the Guardian. To my view if someone is the only one merely reporting that "some expert believe an apple + a pear + a banana combined may result into a vegetable" doesn't mean this must be considered reliable and worth an encyclopedia until we have found a source that explains "No they do not combine to a vegetable". Disproving unproven truths is not the methodology adopted in science and it is never the starting point of a research. Here the problem is that we can't find proof or a background or a link for that Guardian remark in scientific literature. Something that is not discussed in scientific literature is something that has no consensus. JJCasual 09:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

At first I was going to be of the opinion that the source was fine for the claim, but then I dug a little deeper, and I'm curious to where the writer of that article/comment/blog/whatever got the idea. He certainly didn't come up with it himself (or shouldn't have, anyway). When I look at the literature (yes, there is such a thing for the subject of doping in sports) there is literally no shortage of articles about the use of these specific drugs amongst athletes, alongside discussion of the use of anabolic steroids, alongside the use of masking agents. And never, ever, did I see any scientific publication mention the use of Pseudophedrin etc. as masking agents. So I'm curious as to whether this is a significant opinion, or something the reporter made up, or something one doctor told him. It's always possible there are more obvious reliable sources for this claim and I just didn't find them, but it's hard to track down when a reporter uses such annoyingly weasely statements as "some believe". Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Since you are a PhD student in biology I presume you review/write scientific publications (as I did when I was a PhD) and you are aware such statements ("some believe") have little to no value in a scientific context. I am glad anyway you are a guy from such field, so that can help us with a take from within that specific scientific ground. Presumably you also have a better access to journals and conferences databases so that you can search deeper than me and come out with something better than a mere "someone believes that it can...". I would dispute also about the overall quality (and neutrality as it has subtle hints USOC covered up while the sentence of the Denver federal court dismissed such claims) of the Guardian article as it lacks so much important information about the Carl Lewis stimulant case that it results really in a poor read. But that's not the main concern. Would you then help us in assessing the truth around the stimulant/masking agent remark in the Guardian? And would the opinion of a single doctor notable anyway? As far as I know isolated opinions (which are not followed by proofs, case studies, experiments or serious motivation or background), whether they came from a scientist or not, are still poor sources to do a certain claim. Would you agree? Thanks JJCasual (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG applies. This source should in principle be reliable for sports news. It is of course not reliable at all for any medical claims. This is why we have the guideline WP:MEDRS. Even the very best sports journalist isn't an expert on medicine. Please ensure that all medical claims are backed by a source that meets MEDRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. That should also be the policy to follow for claims in other scientific fields like physics, electronics, geology etc. It is crystal clear that the Guardian articles do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Since at the moment it is very hard to find any reliable source nowhere near to back their claim, this is indisputably not worth mention in an encyclopedia. JJCasual (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database

Is Internet Broadway Database a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks good for information as to when a show ran, in which theatre, etc., also for signed reviews. Take care with anything that might be controversial. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

List of new religious movement and cult researchers - inclusion criteria

According to agreed upon inclusion criteria to the list,

Inclusion in this list assumes having both the requisite training as well as actually conducting at least one research study on cults and/or new religious movements (using accepted methodological standards common in the research community), published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book.

As it stands, a few inclusions do not fit the criteria:

• Steven Hassan - a self-published and self-described "cult expert" has had none of his work published in a peer-reviewed journal or book. Furthermore he lacks the requisite training, being a Mental health counselor

• Flo Conway has an undergraduate degree, with a possible Masters degree in an unknown discipline. She, along with Jim Siegelman (undergraduate degree in Philosophy) wrote a book called "Snapping", a non-peer reviewed publication.

In both cases, the inclusion criteria is not met. Proponents for the inclusion of these individuals argue that since they have been mentioned in peer-reviewed works by third parties, that they should be included - however the article is about maintaining a list of researchers, and not individuals mentioned in peer-reviewed publications. Zambelo (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

The lead of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan contained the following line:

"One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan built a bridge between the East and the West by showing how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other."

The following two "sources" were given for this line:

• Study-guide

"One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan is considered through his efforts built a bridge between East and West by having shown the philosophical systems of each tradition to be comprehensible within the terms of the other."

• Dillip Kumar Behura (2010), The Great Indian Philosopher: Dr. Radhakrishnan mirror

"One of India􀂶s most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan is considerd through his efforts to have built a bridge between the East and the West by showing that the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other."

Unfortunately, those two sources are almost exact copies of the Wikipedia-article. The Wikipedia-lead got changed to this specific text in 2007;

"One of the foremost scholars of comparative religion and philosophy in his day, he built a bridge between Eastern and Western thought showing each to be comprehensible in the terms of the other. "

Behura's article is from 2010; the Study Guide is from 2012. So, these sources are not WP:RS, IMO. This has been discussed at Talk:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan#Lead (continued). Comments are welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable circular sources (and I say that even while maintaining that the wikipedia sentence is fine and reliably sourceable using sources such as these))

Another indication that we should be very wary using these govt of Orissa publications as sources on wkipedia. See earlier comments and discussion here, here and at Talk:Jayadeva. Also pinging @Dougweller, RegentsPark, and Sitush: who have been active at that last page and perhaps should be aware of this additional evidence of source "quality". Abecedare (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we replace sources then? Whatever is written, seems pretty common to me, and that page of Radhakrishnan has multiple issues right now. I will check it soon. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Cram101 should never be used as a source. I'll start a new thread on it. Orissa goverment publications are also dubious and need to be carefully used. I've seen them used to make factual assertions that certain historical events have been proven when that is simply a pov and contradicted by other scholarly sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Cram101

This was mentioned above but I want to start a separate thread on this. Cram101 is a publisher of e-text study guides, and should not be used as a source although it is used at the moment in several articles.[15]. This review by an academic of the study guide for his textbook points out that they are written by computer. In this case it failed to pick up vital points, defined (in a textbook on economics) 'monopoly' as a board game, and to avoid copyright violations picked up definitions from a number of websites, including Wikipedia. Another quote from the review, "here's how "attitude" is defined: "In heraldry, an attitude is the position in which an animal, fictional beast, mythical creature, human or human-like being is emblazoned as a charge, supporter or crest." Other sites call it a scam. Ripoff Report says[16] "You can look at any book on the site and cross-reference the Chapter 1 "notes" with Wikipedia. It's clear that some script just pulls keywords and then links the corresponding Wikipedia article. " Kill on sight. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)