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

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

Page numbers

I'm having a conversation with an editor who is trying to bring an article to GA status. He or she admits to removing references from the article if they don't have page numbers. I would contend that, since books generally have an index in which the reader can run down a pageless references, removing a ref from a reliable source simply because it does not have a page number is not improving an article but harming it. The editor points to WP:V#Burden of evidence as his justification. It does indeed say that references should have page numbers where appropriate, but my feeling is that a good, legitimate partial ref is better than no ref at all. Could I get some opinions on this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why providing page numbers should be a problom. Ple explain why page numbers arnt availible.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a question for whomever put the ref in, and is rather beside the point, which is that working on an article as found is it legitimate to remove a reference simply because it doesn't include page numbers? Obviously, if one has access to the source, one should look up the ref and add the page number, and if one knows who added the ref, they can be asked to provide the numbers, but if those options fail, and the reference remains without page numbers, is it a good idea to remove the ref, because it is not complete to the ideal extent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we have an example of such as source? Also I would argue that if its a GAn then it would realy have to obey the rules on sourceing. I would say (as I have now looked at the edit in question) that Yes it is resonable to remove poor sourcing from a GAN. The fact it does not have page numbers (and looks a bit confused, it seems to be refering to two sources so may be synthatsis) I would say that without a page number (or I should say page numbers) are needed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, if an article has a reference which says, for instance, "Dumbroski, Albert. Cucumbers of Northern Australia Cambridge: Notlob Press, 1976.", which tells us where the information cited came from, it improves the article to remove the reference because it doesn't indicate any page numbers, despite the fact that the article now presents to the reader no source for the information? That seems counter-intuitive to me, and goes against the general principle that we don't remove material because it is badly formatted. Since the vast majority of references on Wikipedia that could have page numbers do not have them, you would seem to be advocating denuding the project of a considerable amount of its refs. I don't see that as a productive interpretation of policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He's not suggesting that the article use poor sourcing. He's trying to improve the sourcing. What he's saying is that it would be more of an improvement to find the page, or ask for a page number, rather than removing the source. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where the source is a book, I would say it generally is okay to remove material that is sourced without page numbers, because this material is not properly verifiable. There might be an issue where the result is to make nonsense of the article, but since the editor is aiming for GA this doesn't seem like it applies here. So I think they are behaving properly. --FormerIP (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use the template, or find the page number in the index? It seems like it would be more productive than deleting information, or leaving an unsourced statement in the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(after reading the last comment) If they are removing the reference but not the information is supports then no, this would not be improving the article. They should remove both or neither. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Or just add the template or find the page number themselves, leaving us with a more comprehensive article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My argument would be the opposite - if such a reference is removed, it is then impossible for me to find the book and determine which pages should be included, and then to update the reference. We assume that the editor adding the reference has verified that the source does indeed back the statement, even without page numbers - unless the information is questioned, that should be sufficient. Now, including no reference? Different story. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But the editor is trying for GA. An article that cites books without page numbers shouldn't pass GA, so the editor has a few choices. Either find the page numbers, find alternative sourcing or remove the relevant material. If they are removing the cites but not the material then not only are they not improving the article, but it also probably won't pass GA anyway because it will be insufficiently sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One should only meet a GA standard by improving an article, not by removing stuff that's useful, informative and legitimate but doesn't happen to meet GA standards. If an article has legit refs without page numbers, and the page numbers can't be found, then the article just can't be brought to GA status at that time. (There's nothing wrong with that, most of our articles will never be GAs, including many that are fine, useful articles.) Removing deficient refs isn't fixing the article, it's simply hiding the warts so no one will see them.

Our goal should be to have our articles be as useful as possible to the reader. To the extent that bringing articles to GA status helps to achieve that goal, it's a good thing, but if making an article a GA starts to actually decrease the usefullness of the article by removing stuff that's deficient but still of value, then the intermediate goal of reaching GA has started to get in the way of the ultimate goal, and that's a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The source being there very likely means someone put the effort in to do research on the topic, and it is a shame to waste their effort and lose useful information out of sheer laziness (i.e. "I don't feel like making the effort to find the page number"). This is exactly what the template is for. They should request a page number, or find it themselves. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is plain disruptive nonsense. By this logic, references to online versions of IEEE Spectrum or Die Presse must be removed because they (unlike the New York Times archive) don't provide page numbers of their hardcopy versions. Books from Project Gutenberg and archive org (example: long text with no page numbers or same text) are also banned until the editor... well of course the editor will not storm the LOC, neither invent fake page numbers. That GA rules do not mention any page numbers is, of course, none of your business. You just delete references, delete referenced content and enjoy the sunshine. East of Borschov 20:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not right at all, East of, because guidance only recommends page numbers for sources that have pages. If your source is HTML then the page numbers requirement does not apply. We don't need to argue about the logic though, because it's just a matter of policy (WP:Page numbers).

I think the long and short of this is that any editor, provided they are not being tendentious, pointy etc, is entitled to remove any material that doesn't conform to policy if they want to. The editor is right to point to BoE. Any editor is also entitled to begin preparing any article for GA at any time, as far as I can see. --FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And before deleting it and throwing away another editor's contributions, they could say and wait for a few days at least. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I fail to understand why someone would remove perfectly good citations just because they don't have page numbers. Even if the book/journal physically has page numbers, since, as pointed out, many sources don't. If available, it obviously would be a good idea and helpful to include page numbers, and we should. But not to the point of removing them if they don't. I agree with Beyond My Ken that removing citations just because they don't have page numbers (when they are available) actually harms the article. BTW, where is the link to a policy that says pages number are required? — Becksguy (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Page numbers --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note. The question is whether the editor is allowed to remove this material, not whether that is the best thing to do. The material technically fails to meet policy requirements, so removing it is allowed. It may be a minor defect compared to, say, not being sourced at all, but the main thing is that anyone who cares enough can find the page number and restore the material. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is totally disruptive to remove these references just because they lack page numbers. Make page numbers a criterion to pass GA if need be, add the page numbers if you know them or replace the reference with one where you have page numbers, but certainly don't nuke them out of the article. Readers are presumably smart enough to use indexes and tables of contents if they bother to go to a library to pick the book up. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So go to the appropriate forum and make the case for changing the policy. An editor can't be blamed for following policy. --FormerIP (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that's not "following policy". WP:Page numbers which is a guideline, not a policy, explicitly states "Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books, but they are not required for a reference to the source as a whole, for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If any of those exceptions applies in this case then fine, but it doesn't look like that is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Page numbers might not be policy, but Wikipedia:Verifiability certainly is, and that says "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". O Fenian (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And that "where appropriate" is a clear indication that page numbers are not a "deal breaker" in regard to citations. Also. while it is true that any editor can remove something from an article that goes against policy, that is not the case with a citation without page numbers, which is deficient from what policy describes as the ideal but does not transgress policy. Such a removal is, sorry to repeat myself, harmful to the article and to the reader because it removes information that is valuable even if it isn't everything it ought to be. We should never be making articles less useful to readers simply to honor some mechanical interpretation of policy: we are human, we have brains, and we're supposed to use them to make reasoned judgements, that's what IAR is all about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And where a source is being misused but can't be checked because there's no page number? If there's no page number, the reference should be removed (unless there's a tag I don't know). 'Where appropriate' refers to the majority of cases where referring to the book as a whole isn't what is being done. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It refers to books which aren't indexed, which are a minority when it comes to reference works. If you need to draw attention to missing pages in the ref, just use {{page needed}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you really trying to suggest that WP:Page numbers doesn't apply to books that have an index, Headbomb? You can use {{page needed}} if you want or you can remove the material. There doesn't appear to be a rule to say which is preferable. The tag is really only a notice for other editors saying that material is deficient and may be removed. But the editor here is preparing for a GA reveiw, so we shouldn't expect them to be leaving things for other editors to fix. --FormerIP (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If an editor insists on removing references simply because they believe that references without page numbers will prevent a quick GA, that editor is performing disruptive editing that is harming the article, and the editor should be asked to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's tendentious editing. I'm just saying that books, indexed or not, should have page numbers in most cases, and I'd expect that in a GA article as FormerIP says, we shouldn't be leaving that for someone else, and it is policy to have them. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you exmplain how you think it is tendentious, though. The editor does not appear to be skewing the article. They appear to be engaging in a review process and responding to things raised by the reviewer. In this context, what is wrong with removing poorly-sourced material? --FormerIP (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think if someone is going around just removing citations that don't have page numbers on sight, that's a problem. If, however, they're removing incomplete citations in the course of actively improving an article, for instance by replacing them with new, properly cited sources or reworking the material based on what can actually be verified, that's just common sense.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute seems to have arisen becuase an editor inserted a phrase into the text of the article during the GA review, but the nominator felt it wasn't clear what the phrase inserted meant and removed it on the basis that there was no page number (this is totally understandable, because the insufficiently sourced addition could have meant a GA failure). The nominator also seems to be willing to try to find the page number themselves and re-insert. How are they doing anything wrong?--FormerIP (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, it doesn't appear to me that they are doing anything wrong.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't that specific incident that sparked my question, but the editor's statement that "i am in the middle of removing/replacing all those [refs] that do not give page numbers". Replacing deficient refs is, of course, a good thing, but to my inquiry as to whether they were removing refs simply on the basis of not having page numbers, the response was "Yes i will remove a ref 'simply because they don't have page numbers?". It was this response that provoked my question, and it is this behavior that it appears consensus is saying is not good editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes I think that is okay in itself, provided there is nothing tendentious or pointy about the edit and providing it doesn't make nonsense of the article. We are allowed to remove any material that isn't properly sourced according to our guidelines - otherwise, what is the point of the guidelines? --FormerIP (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the guidelines is to aid us in improving the encyclopedia. Removing "proper" but formally deficient references is not improving the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not so clear. Including a reference that doesn't actually verify gives a false impression to the reader that the material (and citation) are valid. However, a book citation, without a page number, cannot really be verified. Without a page number, there's no straightforward way of checking to see that the source backs up the claim. If a page number cannot be produced, then the footnote will eventually have to go. I'd give editors a little while to produce one, but if they can't, then removing it is best. An unverifiable footnote is worse than none at all; the latter, at least, gives an obvious indication of a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, an unverifiable or incompleted verified footnote is the best posssible indication of a problem, because it is obviously incomplete or marked as unverified. An absence of a footnote gives no indication whatsoever whether there is a problem, or what the problem is. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

a book citation, without a page number, cannot really be verified. Without a page number, there's no straightforward way of checking to see that the source backs up the claim. Oh my goodness, that's wny non-fiction books generally have an index, and even without an index, any decent researcher can, with the expenditure of a small amount of effort, find a specific reference within a specific book - I do it all the time! The idea that a reference which is legitimate and proper but which is merely formally deficient can be removed is just utterly silly. You've got a source, you just don't have all the information about the source we'd like and prefer to have. That doesn't make it harmful and removable, that makes it in need of being fixed - just as we don't remove sentences because they're badly written or spelled, we fix them. When you've got the editor who added the source on the line (so to speak) and ask them to provide page numbers, if they refuse or can't do it, there might be sufficient reason to be suspicious of the ref (but there's always AGF to consider), but when upgrading an article and refs from some time ago need to be fixed and perhaps the editor isn't active, removal of the ref has got to be considered detrimental to the article, and not an improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Beyond My Ken on this one. Fixing is the better way. Removing suspicious sources is good, but simply lacking a page number seems a pretty poor practice. The chances of removing a decent source are pretty high. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indices are often incomplete, and it's not at all an easy thing to find a specific reference in a book of several hundred pages. Such a citation fails WP:V, which states "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this is an issue for this board? Which source are we being asked to comment on the reliability of? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources without page numbers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources (presumably) have page numbers. It's the citations that don't. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken. When encountered by important information, backed by a high quality source that is only lacking a page number, I think it would be better to use the template, and wait a couple of days before throwing away an editor's time spent researching and writing the content. Or they could find the page number themselves. It's a shame to throw away good work, rather than improving it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers are a nice to have. They may be required for FA, but are not required for GA, per WP:WIAGA. The entire idea of removing non-paginated references is wrongheaded--tag them or fix them yourself, if you want to see things perfected. The rest of us are happy to live in the real world. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The rest of us are happy to live in the real world. Precisely! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers are required for WP:V, which means it's required for all articles, regardless of whether they are FAs, GAs, or simply stubs. Complying with WP:V is also a specific requirement of WP:WIAGA. The "real world" doesn't have WP:V; Wikipedia does. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again -- nobody is saying that we shouldn't have page numbers. Why does this straw man keep getting repeated ad nauseum? What people are saying is that if a citation doesn't have page numbers, then we should add them or ask someone else to with the template, rather than deleting the citation and wasting somebody's valuable research time. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but sooner or later a page number has to be provided. How long does a tagged citation like that stay in an article - a week? a month? a year? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That essay is basically irrelevant; if material is not properly cited after a reasonable amount of time, then one can reasonably assume that the material is not true or not verifiable and remove it. Editors can disagree over whether or not that "reasonable amount of time" is a week or a month, but anything tagged and unfixed for a year can, without question, be removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are other reasons for suspicion that's a different matter, but where is the policy which says this assumption can be made only based on a missing page number? There are in fact policies which say it can not be made. OTOH the policies you are cite are concerning missing citations. Just to remind what we are talking about here are missing page numbers, not missing citations. Inconvenience or imperfection of verification are explicitly described as things which we may not simply decide to equate to lack of verification. We've all been in situations where we'd like to delete something based on assumptions, maybe because we don't have time to think it through, but we should not work like that and it is incorrect to say that such actions are sanctioned by policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear at this point what exactly you are saying, or how it's relevant to the comments here. Please review my comments above for further clarification. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course I was responding to you saying that your words ("if material is not properly cited after a reasonable amount of time, then one can reasonably assume that the material is not true or not verifiable and remove it") have nothing to do with the WP:DEADLINE policy. I think that is the definition of setting a WP:DEADLINE? How can you say that it is not? In WP, sourcing convenience and sourcing perfection are simply not demanded with anywhere near the same priority you are giving them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE is not policy, it's a non-binding personal essay. WP:V is policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I take you now admit that citing deadline was not just a sign of not reading what was being written. That's progress. On the other hand WP:V does not say that a missing page number on its own is the same as a missing source, which is a position you could have been read as taking in your terse replies. Below however you have now stated that you understand this question to be about cases where an editor literally refuses to answer questions. That could of course be different in some cases, and it obviously makes my remarks relevant. Also please see my answer to Blue Boar below which I think clarifies what I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the argument by DGG, I'm changing my argument. Absent Google Books, or an on-line database with page numbers, or walking into a library and checking, having dead tree citations without page numbers are red flags, and they run the risk of being citations that do not support the content. It's possible that the only on-line verification is an abstract, which essentially says the book exists and covers a general area, but does not verify the actual content. If there is any reason to doubt the citation, then follow WP:V and add the page numbers, or if the citation cannot be verified, then delete if appropriate on a case by case basis. However, I don't think we should delete citations just because they don't have page numbers, if there is no other reason to doubt them. As mentioned above, real world constraints are such than not all citations can be checked on any realistic basis. — Becksguy (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The way to judge an edit is simply whether it improves an article, surely? Wikipedia does not demand perfection (WP:IMPERFECT), and it has no WP:DEADLINE, so WP:PRESERVE (also known as WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:IMPROVE make up the basic edit policy. It is therefore hard to imagine any situation where deleting a source because of a missing page number is anything other than a tendentious violation of the basic slogans of the project such as WP:BURO. Making an article worse is by definition bad editing. Arguing that this bad is excusable because of urgency or convenience is not appropriate to WP. And anyway in practice in most cases finding the page number and putting it in yourself will take hardly any more time than deleting material. And if an editor does not have the time or possibility to add a missing page number, the correct thing to do is to leave it and hope someone else will later, just as with anything you see that looks like it can be improved but which you can't do yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Frequently in my experience, i've found that the absence of a page number for a citation from a book whose title seems plausibly relavant is a red flag. The absence of a page number requires someone to read the whole book until they come to the relevant info. Often the info that's purported to be there is not, in fact, there (again, in my experience). The problem may well be that the info is not there. Have no idea about his present dispute, but if an editor has added a citation to a book and when challenged "which page/pages" the answer is "I dunno" you might have a problem. It's hard to judge whether an edit has improved an article or not absent a page number, because it makes it harder to determine if the information is accurately presented. All this said, I agree with Becksguy that we should't delete cites "just because" there aren't page numbers. But in contentious areas, the burden of providing the page number should be on the editor introducing the source.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have time to look up the source, and you do not know the source, and you suspect it, you can tag it. That is a basic WP policy. But also try extending the logic to similar situations: imagine anyone who suspects that something in an article might be wrong in some way, but does not know for sure, can just delete it. Wikipedia could not function if that was allowed, and that is why this is one of the most basic principles of Wikipedia policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew -- You make an edit in an article sourced to a 500 page book. I ask you "What's the page number, i'm going to the library to check." You answer: "I don't know the page number, read the whole book yourself and let me know when you've found what i assert is in there." If we were to have such an exchange, i would have extreme doubts. I think most people would.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that you can not be expected to check everything in Wikipedia easily. Sometimes you'll find it easy and sometimes you won't. But there are other people also working on Wikipedia, and there is no deadline nor requirement for perfection, so you do not need to demand this, and you can't practice a policy of deleting what you personally as one individual find inconvenient to check at some particular time. Once again I ask you to consider what would happen if everyone would practice such a policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. Editor x inserts info and a book citation, with no page number. Editor y asks editor x what page number (since, by his edit editor x is in fact asserting that he's just read the relevant information and has access to the book). Editor X refuses to answer. At this point, it is not contingent on editor Y to read an entire book hunting for information that may well not be there. I've had a number of exchanges just like the one i've described in wikipedia, and have found that when i did seek out the source that editor x was lying. Their refusal to provide a page number is a strong piece of information that they've either made something up or assumed something was present, rather than verified it was present. Providing a page number for alleged information is a pretty low bar (basic scholarship), and if someone can't provide one when challenged, alarm bells should ring.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I really do understand because this kind of problem happens all the time and of course the problem is real. We've all felt the frustration. Wikipedia works despite that, even if not perfectly. It certainly won't work if everyone starts systematically breaking the basic policies. If you really have a good reason to believe material is fraudulent in a particular case then that would be a judgement call, but otherwise the normal rule for cases you can not currently improve are, unless there is something special, assume good faith, WP:PRESERVE, accept things will sometimes be WP:IMPERFECT and that there is no WP:DEADLINE. It would be hard to find a subject for discussion where you could fit more policies in one sentence! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate is exactly right here, and I've been in that exact situation: an editor is challenged to provide a citation for a claim, so he gives a book name. When challenged for a page number, he is unable or unwilling to provide one. That is a very strong indication that there is something fishy about the claim in the first place, typically that the book does not actually back up the claim either in part or in whole. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine cases where a quote looks suspicious, but if the only reason it looks suspicious is a missing page number this is no reason for deletion. An imperfect citation is not no citation, and WP Policy makes it clear that we leave imperfection, not delete it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment does not appear to be relevant to the comment that it is theoretically responding to. Please review my previous comment for further clarification. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and I certainly did read what you wrote. In your example you are saying not answering requests for a page number "is a very strong indication that there is something fishy about the claim in the first place". They might just be on holiday. If the missing page number is the only problem, that's not a very strong indication of anything. So I presume that there must be more evidence in order to have a strong suspicion like this: for example your knowledge of the field helps you see the quote is surprising, or talk page behavior is suspicious. If the only problem is the missing page number, that is not enough to justify deletion as per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The situation we are discussing here is one where someone refuses to provide a citation, not that they are "on holiday". Please make more relevant points. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That new information, i.e. that a person actually refused to answer, confirms that my point was relevant, which was that deleting based only one a missing page number is not enough. That is how I said it every time I think, so perhaps you misread me. Did you speak of refusal before? The way I read it, you argued above that a missing page numbers and waiting times of a week, without any refusal or other reason for concern, might be enough to invoke WP:V and delete a source. I also understand in this example that what WP:V says about trying to fix a sourcing problem yourself is also particularly relevant here because if I understood correctly the context had to do with getting an article to GA standards, which is the type of situation where quite frequently one of the editors tempted to delete will also be tempted to do so without familiarizing with the content. Getting an article to GA standard in terms of some formatting norm should not be cited as a reason for ignoring standard editing practices aimed at ensuring that edits do not make content worse. I understood that to be the context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not "new information" that the person "actually refused to answer". Bali ultimate stated it explicitly in his comment of 17:46, 6 September 2010, to which I responded "I've been in that exact situation". Please review the previous comments, and ideally read peoples' responses more carefully in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate is correct. Including a page number in a citation "... is a pretty low bar (basic scholarship)..." And both of us has said that the refusal or inability to provide one is a cause for concern (with flags or bells). And I think that is a pretty important point to emphasize. It's absurdly easy to find basic citation information (author, title, city, publisher, year, ISBN) from Google Books or Scholar, other on-line sources, or the bibliographies usually included in serious books. Assuming AGF, but providing a basic citation does not mean that the including editor has actually read the source. It does not mean that the citation actually supports the content claim. Supporting content is usually not an issue with hot button articles, like anything related to Barrack Obama or the Middle East issues, where every word and comma of every source, and their reliability, is placed under a microscope and dissected. But it's more of a potential problem the less visible an article is. I even understand that there are a few people amongst the great unwashed that delight in introducing subtle vandalistic errors in the more obscure Wikipedia articles, and then wait to see how long before they are discovered and fixed by us. Citations should not be removed "just because" they are missing page numbers, nor should we go on a crusade to eliminate them. However, do challenge them, and if they can't be verified, then remove them per policy on a case by case basis. Content with citations that do not support the content is far worse than content without citations, as having citations implies that the content is more credible. Most readers do not read footnotes, and they rightly depend on authors and editors to be vigilant in this respect. — Becksguy (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The basic idea that a page number is needed is a good one. The process that says someone who won't provide page numbers is suspect is also reasonable. The process that started this thread, which is simply removing references that don't have page numbers, seems not to be the most productive route. If we WP:AGF then we're removing lots of good sources. It's better to ask for page numbers and upon failure to get them, if we can't check the source, then remove or transfer to the talk page for additional research. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Becksguy, if getting a page number is absurdly easy then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. This is fundamental WP policy. You have no right to demand anything from others as if there is a deadline concerning page numbers. I've already said that if you have other reasons to assume bad faith then that is a separate subject (not RS), but you seem to be saying "assume bad faith" should be our basic working assumption concerning all RS questions? I do not think so. Let me be devil's advocate: maybe all the people promoting this idea are just people who like to delete things without knowing the subject they are editing about? Please think about it. WP never worked by promoting the idea that all people are equally able to edit all articles. WP is not a democracy for a reason. If you do not know the subject you can do smaller jobs on articles but you shouldn't be trying to do more than you can. You can only hope someone else who knows the subject will come along, and normally they do eventually. (Remember there is no WP:DEADLINE.) Using rules to edit will never be a substitute for knowledge. (See WP:BURO.) If everything has to be verifiable to everyone then every sentence will need two or three footnotes and all article editing will be held up by wikilawyering forever. Step one will be delete nearly everything in every article? Will this improve WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I am saying in various comments here, missing page numbers are not enough on their own to assume bad faith and over-rule various core policies. We all know that there are circumstances where a line has to be drawn and bad faith considered as a possibility, but we all know that WP policy very rightfully tells us to be very careful about drawing that line. Some of the replies and posts here have appeared to imply a position that assuming bad faith should be the norm and deletion should be the norm. Assuming bad faith, and deleting material which might be right are for exceptional cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You named it. The whole issue is about one group ABF'ing content contributors, and the other group (the said contributors) ABF'ing the deletioners. Wikipedia is a battlefield. East of Borschov 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, which "core policy" states that one cannot remove a citation for which a page number cannot or will not be provided? Please quote the "core policy" stating that. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. See for example WP:PRESERVE, on one of the "five pillars" policy pages, which says "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. ... Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented" This is pretty clear isn't it? Also, just to remind, WP:V does not apply because an imperfect source is not no source; and you can not say that policy tells us that we can ignore the five pillars after a deadline which we set. As I mentioned above, I can understand that there will be cases where we have reasons to suspect bad faith. In the type of you are saying you are concerned about, you clearly suspect bad faith. Is a missing page number enough evidence on its own? I would say common sense says no, but more importantly policies like WP:DEADLINE, and WP:IMPERFECT do tell us very clearly not to delete based only upon deadlines or imperfection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First, WP:Editing policy is not usually considered a "core policy" (the "core" policies are usually limited to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR)... second, you leave out an important line from WP:PRESERVE... it begins with: Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. The section strikes a balance between unreasonably keeping and unreasonably deleting material. The important point that is being made is that a) we should not go blindly rushing about removing material simply because there is some tiny technical flaw (we should either fix the flaw or alert those who can that they need to do so)... and b) we may remove problematic material if, after a reasonable time, it can not be fixed. How long you wait depends on the specific material and situation.

Applying this to the issue at hand... the fact that a citation is lacking a page number is not grounds for immediate summary removal of the material... However, when the lack of a page number has been noted and challenged, and a page number either can not or will not be provided, then removal becomes a valid option. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That way of wording it sounds much more reasonable. A key point that makes a difference to me is that you are talking about a case where there has been a challenge. Who hasn't deleted material in such situations? The context of the discussion here, as I understood it, was for example a case where someone is trying to bring an article up to, or keep it on, GA standard and does not want to wait for a response. Thanks for the jargon help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I and others have been saying, Blueboar. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Not exactly. It would have been good if you had. I'd say your replies to me implied strongly that you disagreed with this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, exactly what I've been saying. Please review my previous responses if you need further clarification. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try [1] but I think the answer is "no". Thincat (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

American Thinker

Is this article ok for citing an opinion of the author on a political movement? Truthsort (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That article certainly represents Thomas Lifson's views. Lifson's views don't seem to be notable, as Lifson doesn't seem to be notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not notable? The man publishes The American Thinker. Your inductive reasoning isn't a valid excuse for this not being notable. Truthsort (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The American Thinker appears to be basically a blog site, not hard to publish one of those. What is the context for the citation? That would affect whether or not the source could be considered reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See this. Truthsort (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The American Thinker isn't a "blog site", any more than Salon.com is. It's an online news and political commentary journal with a particular political bent, like most others. It's quite clear about who its editors are, and many of its contributors appear to be well-known enough to have Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, the editors do not appear to have any specific expertise in either journalism or political analysis. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reliable sources for facts, only for the opinions of their writers. Whether or not this opinion is notable is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. However, it might be better though to find a news article that says something like "American conservatives have criticized them, claiming they are astro-turfing". TFD (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a brief bio of Thomas Lifson:[2]

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of "American Thinker." A self-styled recovering academic, he holds three separate advanced degrees from Harvard, where he taught all three fields, in addition to visiting professorships at Columbia University and Japan's National Museum of Ethnology. An expert on Japan and veteran management consultant, he turned his focus from strategy and organization to political and social analysis in the wake of 9/11, founding American Thinker in 2003.

Which version to cite?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiral Dynamics: ABC Radio, Haaretz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using Patch.com as a Reliable Source

Copied from Talk:Charles Lavine:

No spam from Patch.com (online news website). All items are appropriately sourced. Eyespy4you (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you No, patch.com is not a reliable source and should not be used as one in a Wikipedia article. I've also gone through the article, trimming a lot of tangential material, and removing a lot of promo/POV material as well. TNXMan 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC) How does Patch.com's professional editorial advisory board not make this website a reliable source? I ask for a third party review.Eyespy4you (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you Professional editorial advisory board? At this particular patch site (Glen Cove, NY), their "advisory board" includes, among others, a high school senior, a newspaper intern, an amateur photographer, and more "freelance writers" than you can shake a stick at (source). Hardly a professional anything. TNXMan 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) "Phil Meyer is Professor Emeritus in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" and "Jeff Jarvis is the associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York’s new Graduate School of Journalism." It appears that they have oversight of all Patch.com content. Eyespy4you (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you Where do you see that? I don't see it on the Glen Cove site, which is the one you're trying to use. TNXMan 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Here's the information: "Patch is run by professional editors, writers, photographers and videographers who live in or near the communities we serve, and is supported by a great team in our New York City headquarters. Patch also gets advice from our Editorial Advisory Board and from many members of the community." Phil Meyer and Jeff Jarvis are part of their "Editorial Advisory Board." Eyespy4you (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you Yes, for the main patch site, not for the specific Glen Cove site. The editors for this site are college graduates, nothing more or less (although one did intern for a newspaper, which doesn't count for much). As a further point, "letters to the editor" or "open letters to such-and-such" are not encyclopedic and should not be included. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish rants from the general public. TNXMan 22:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Villa del Cine

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

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

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

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

4. Template:Es icon "La Villa del Cine promete 12 películas para 2011". El Universal. 16 August 2010.

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

I have been unable to determine the reliability of these sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not one iota of feedback from independent editors; at any rate, most of the marginal sources have now been replaced by reliable sources.[3] However, I still don't know what "Jump Cut" is, and whether it is reliable; ditto for Art Forum International. Thanks :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I wouldn't describe that woman as a graduate student. She teaches at the university, and also is studying for a PhD. Many professors teach while writing a thesis or working towards a PhD. She is foremost a teacher, and secondly a PhD student.ValenShephard (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the other way around, many graduate students do some teaching to help support themselves (and provide cheaper teachers for the University). Now if you can show evidence that she's a professor... Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Candela Live publish a magazine, there has to be some oversight because they afterall need to secure a publisher, and they have editors. Their article is very detailed and well written, so that seems to indicate that some research when in to it. (It doesn't seem to be based on anything else, it looks like their research.) Its very well balanced and contains alot of important information, we could use it to add alot to the article.ValenShephard (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Art Forum also publishes a magazine, and they seem reliable. They have offices in more than one place for example. I can't see how you would find out who has fact checking or oversight. How do you know they do or don't have it.? ValenShephard (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

the power of culture source on Villa del Cine is relaying the opinions of a Venezuelan film maker, there is nothing to indicate that he is not a reliable source on venezuelan cinema. Also, the website is supported by souces such as international organisations, small NGOs and the Dutch government. So there must be something reliable about them. A government wouldn't support an organisation, even just in name, if it wasn't sure of its credentials. ValenShephard (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen, thanks for adding clarifying info, but let's try to keep this from growing overly long; the determination of reliability of sources is based upon the policy page WP:V and guidelines at WP:RS-- reading those thoroughly in terms of how Wiki determines reliability will be helpful in responding here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so unthinkable to you that a state owned organ can have an indepedant source for funding? They are owned by the state, and the state probably funds the buildings, but another body (explained in the article) decides on funding. There are two sources which say it is not politically motivated for example (the new one also says this, I will add it some time probably). Funding for projects (we know this for sure) comes from an independant body which is not political or controlled by the govenment, it is a group of private and state actors. I don't know how else to say this but as autonomously funded. You could say "funding for projects goes through the independant body whatever its called". The body which handles funding for projects (maybe not for the studios themselves) is called the National Autonomous Centre for Film... Is having autonomous in its title not enough? When talking about such bodies, to say it is autonomous means autonomous from the government, or private companies. ValenShephard (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's much simpler than that; does any reliable source say it is "autonomous"? No. But they do all say something about its association with and control by the state. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Which source says "it is controlled by the state"? It is associated with the government, the IPS news source says it is governmental and independant. It can actually be both.. ValenShephard (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Like the IPS source says it is governmental and independant. ValenShephard (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ville del Cine is part of the Ministry of Popular Culture, and so is the entity that funds it, according to the Venezuelan gov't itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One could also describe the BBC as government-owned and controlled in a Socilist-run state with a hereditary head of state (which the UK government admits), yet you did not point this out when you presented it as a source. TFD (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, one differance is that is not actualy part of (or A) govenment department, nor technivly is it funded by the governement , its funded by the licence fee. Which is payable to the BBC, not the governement and is not avaiible to the government to use.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is not owned by the government, it is owned by "the people". But detractors could see that as just more socialist propaganda. TFD (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

With the one caveat that its enshrined in law. The differnace here (as far as I can see) is that Ville del Cine is officaly part of a government department, its not accused of being indirectly under the control of the government. The BBC is n ot under law part of any department, its automomous (and actualy has thru the licence fee tax rasing powers, thus is almost a shadow governement in a sense).Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For the first group, 1. to 4. are news articles by journalists in highly regarded news sources, and therefore meet rs. One problem I see with them is that they provide opinion in addition to news, and those should not be reported as facts in the article. Also news sources are generally best for news, i.e., what is happening now. There is no need to use three year old articles or rely on current articles for what happened 3 to 4 years ago when better sources are available. Google scholar for example returns 23 hits for "Villa del Cine".[4] Google books returns 45 hits.[5] Among these are peer-reviewed articles although they are mostly in Spanish. TFD (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Google scholar hits include, ummmm ... Wikipedia (when did Wikipedia become a "scholarly" source?), along with several repeats and sources that mention Villa del Cine only once. So far, the only new info I've found in reading these sources is a reminder that Chavez replaced the 1994 Cinematography Law with a new 2005 Cinematography Law that obliges theatres to run more local productions. Other than that, I haven't found anything new or inaccurate in the reliable sources currently being used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD rated the first four sources as reliable. Does that mean I should reconsider returning some of the information within them which I have since deleted? Because it was interesting and informative as I mentioned some time before. ValenShephard (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't deleted anything from the BBC, El Universal, Time or Newsweek (in fact, you haven't added them yet, either) and TFD has frequently labeled reliable sources on Venezuela (such as The New York Times, the BBC, etc) as "opeds" and containing US and corporate bias,[6] yet he doesn't apply the same standard to Venezuelanalysis.com, which offers the same criticism of Ville del Cine. His Google scholar hits do produce this mention of discrimination, though, along with criticism of the new Cinematography law. Other than those two, I don't find any new info in the Google scholar sources, or info that is not repeated or similar to the sources we already have (although I can't read the French sources); most of them are repeated info or equally old, and we really have to worry about Google scholar if it now returns Wiki as a "scholarly" source, when Wiki isn't even a reliable source. It would be helpful to get a read on the marginal sources which were used in the article from independent parties who apply Wiki sourcing policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith over what TFD said. His previous edits or comments are of no consequence to this discussion. I am wondering why I should or shouldn't take one opinion over another? I want to listen to all sides. ValenShephard (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, TFD's opinion that the New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, BBC and many others are "opeds" should give you an idea of whether he applies Wiki's WP:V or WP:UNDUE policies (see links in the diff above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it then be a good example of assuming good faith to think that this time he isn't doing that? (Even if he did, I am not familiar with these statements.) ValenShephard (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's look at a concrete example; according to TFD's statements about "oped" opinion in reliable sources, you would need to delete this lopsided statement you added to Villa del Cine, because it is certainly speculative journalistic opinion rather than fact (similar to Newsweek's complaints about traffic in Caracas) and doesn't reflect the criticism in the BBC article—criticism which even the partisan, por-Chavez Venezuelanalysis repeats:

• The BBC article concluded that "... if the foundation's bosses are to be believed [that production is not politically motivated], then it will simply be good films that come to life, whatever the message", and "[u]ltimately that has got to be good for Venezuelan cinema."[1]

Does that help you understand the problem? Why is some opinion "fact", while known reliable sources are opinion? Yes, you should be careful to avoid journalistic opinions, but you've added something from the BBC which is clearly speculative opinion-- it's a matter of knowing how to use sources, even when reliable, and then applying that standard equally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have never labelled articles as "op-eds", I have never used the term "corporate media bias" and I have never expressed an opinion on Venezuelanalysis. TFD (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears you didn't read the diffs I linked above: here is one sample, and here is your take on Newsweek as a reliable source. Conversely, we currently have a distinctly editorial and speculative journalistic opinion in Villa del Cine from the BBC that has not been removed, although it adds nothing to the encyclopedic content of the article, and significant criticism from that very same BBC source is excluded from the article. It seems that when journalistic opinion is favorable to Chavez, it is "fact", but when unfavorable, no matter how many scores of reliable sources report the same thing (eg, crime and corruption, see due weight), it's journalistic "opinion" and quickly deleted, while favorable "opinion" is left unchallenged. At any rate, in this particular case, all of the reliable sources (and even the partisan Venezuelanalysis) repeat the concerns and criticism, which as of now, have only one line in the article, creating unbalance and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I never used the term "corporate media bias". It has always been my position that articles in the mainstream media are reliable sources for facts, per WP:RS, but that op-eds are not. Also, that opinions expressed in op-eds, think tanks or even newspaper articles are not notable. You have compiled a long list of sources like this, all of which represent one point of view, and you have never presented any peer-reviewed articles from academic journals or books published by the academic press. Note your comment, "There will be plenty of academic sources in five or ten years offsetting the current crop of biased academic sources, but we have to address neutrality now, not in five years." You fail to realize that representing the opinions expressed in academic sources is neutrality and must be followed whether or not we agree with those opinions. In fact there are opinions that do not favor Chavez. Incidentally the only text I removed was in the crime section in the Chavez article where I re-wrote the section, which had been based on numerous newspaper articles, despite the fact that it covers a period of over 10 years, using quality sources none of which could be described as pro-Chavez.

TFD (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review the diffs I listed above. You continue to overlook WP:DUE-- when scores of reliable sources present same, due weight must be given and all mainstream views should be reflected in our articles, which is why I compiled a long list of mainstream views that are not present in any of the Venezuela/Chavez articles. But I'm glad you're concerned about speculative journalistic opinion being present in articles, even from reliable sources-- I suppose this means you'll be deleting the BBC journalistic opinion that is currently in Villa del Cine, saying it must be good for Venezuelan cinema, soon? Certainly, info that is reflected in multiple mainstream reliable sources is very quickly deleted from Ven/Chavez article, yet this "opinion" that is favorable to Chavez stands-- let's be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to have hit the point where it is better dealt with on specific article or specific wikiproject talk pages :) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why? I have yet to get a single response on the reliability of the marginal sources from any independent editor, or in fact, from any involved editor, and every talk page discussion results in the same handful of editors responding (which would be the same group of editors at WP Venezuela). Isn't the purpose of this noticeboard-- or any dispute resolution forum-- to get feedback from independent, uninvolved editors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki markup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More potential Transformers related sites.

I was wondering if this Diaclone site and this Microman site could be a reliable source as I need something for Transformers related character articles. Sarujo (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fansites are not reliable sources, no. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• While we have a Transformers topic up already, I'd like to bring attention to. The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s Revised & Expanded 2nd Edition and Transformers: The Ultimate Guide have been added to dozens of articles in an attempt to stave off deletion at AfD. IMO toy guides would be fine for sourcing supplemental info on the more well-known characters, e.g. Optimus Prime or Megatron, but it is not enough of a reliable source to get an article to meet the WP:GNG. I've owned such books and guides and such in my youth as well, but all it is is a litany of in-universe data, it is not a real-world treatment of the subject area. Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I specifically added the Unofficial guide because it talks about the signifigence of the characters (a whole page devoted to the concept female Transformers toys like Minerva and their like-dislike by consumers for instance), it talks about the animation and the toys (it's not just a toys list and price guide), it covers things outside the Transformers (Microman and Diaclone) and it's non-licensed, not affiliated with Hasbro or Takara. It is in fact written by a (in the words of the book) "professonal toy dealer", not a fan, but a professional in the field. Mathewignash (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like there reliable. There usefulness at AfD may be another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

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

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

Clearly not as the site states: "The information you find here on EthniCelebs.com is not guranteed to be 100% correct, but the site does strive to be as factual as possible. EthniCelebs.com is an entertainment news commentary database that simply lists what it believes are the ethnicities of celebrities. The information is provided for entertainment only. In no way does it intend that users should rely upon ANY of the ethnicities provided for any purposes whatsoever."[7] Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links

• - Celebrity ethnicity (open wiki) - Clara
  • Considering that they have no indication of how reliable they are (e.g. their page on Kevin Costner, who has according to their Ciara page the same ethnic ancestry, gives Wikipedia as a source), I wouldn't advise on using this wiki for a, by its nature, possibly contentious topic, and since it is the basis for the wiki, I wouldn't use it anywhere on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you can just put her in the category African American anyway. If it is sourced that she comes from Austin, Texas, there is no doubt that she is American, and from her photo she is obviously black, therefore African American. If she defines her ethnicity any other way then there will be sources to that effect. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Judith, thanks for commenting, this is the partly the issue... Is it ok to add people to the African American cat without any content in the article or a cite that supports it, just by the simple claim that they sure do look Afican American? Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's pure WP:OR. You don't need sources to prove that she is not African American, you need sources to show that she is and that she or anyone else considers it relevant to discuss it. Fram (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The last part is correct, I think, but it does leave the issue of whether people who are "African American" or "Black" can be put in categories contatining these terms. We don't normally think that something has to be particularly relevant in order to apply a cat, just factual. It looks like this is part of the issue in this particular case. --FormerIP (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is likely to be any doubt, then we should be careful and find a source, and even a stable wiki is not a good enough source. Common sense says that she is African American, but since BLP sourcing requirements are stringent probably best to leave it until you can find a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well Fram, people like to tag these genetic labels on, it is widespread practice on this wikipedia, there is little to no care about if it is relevent or not, someone who is Afro American goes around labeling all other Afro Americans. A sort of my gang mentality. I myself am in the group that dislikes such labeling and I often remove such claims but its like resisting a tsunami. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

At least we can try! Fram (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, Fram is correct, and Itsmejudith is unfortunately incorrect. One cannot assign someone a label of "African American" simply because "from her photo she is obviously black, therefore African American". WP:BLP and WP:NOR forbid it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we say she is "black" because "from her photo she is obviously black"? There's no synthesis involved in that. There's no interpretation involved (any more than there is in understanding the meaning of a sentence), so how would it be OR. Photos and videos surely pass RS, so where is the BLP concern?

That said, we probably don't need to mention someone's race or ethnicity unless there is a particular reason to - in which case, there would surely be something more than a photo to go off.

I notice that in Martin Luther King, although it names him as a leader in the Black Civil Rights movement, nowhere does it mention that he himself was black AFAICT. By the logic that we need to be incredibly careful about all this, he should probably be removed from the various "African American..." categories he is in. I double dare someone to go over there, remove the categories and then demand Reliable Sources that King was indeed African American. --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just realised that BLP wouldn't apply in this case, so no need to point that out. Nevertheless, you get my point. It's a bit daft to be demanding sources for the fact that someone is black. --FormerIP (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot go by your interpretation of a photo. Is this black? or this? or this? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, and with something of a similar point). Not necessarily. It might be daft, but if someone did ask for a citation for MLK being an African American it would be easy to find. Pictures can be deceiving and we shouldn't be deciding on ethnicity based on our opinion. For example, is this woman] black? Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that there may be cases where there is ambiguity or it is not clear what the picture tells us does not really affect the vast majority of cases where this is not an issue. Text sources can also be ambiguous or there may be obvious reasons not to trust them ([8], [9]), this does not mean we cannot take information from text sources. The point about demanding a source for the claim that MLK was black is not that it would be difficult to comply with, but that the demand would appear absurd. If an interpretation of policy would lead to people doing absurd things, then I'd say the interpretation of policy must be faulty. --FormerIP (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) [WP:BLP]] - if any claim is averred to be "contentious" by any editor then it must have a solid source. Pictures, alas, are not a "source" for asserting ethnicity. Now it may well be that any given assertion of contentiousness may be "faulty" but the policy does not say it is up to any individual to assert that something one editor finds contentious is not contentious. The rule is clear - and WP:BLP can not be bent. Collect (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In a case where there was any reasonable bone of contention as to what the fact of the matter actually is, then fair enough. But there doesn't seem to be one in this case. The editor who wants the material removed also says "She is indeed African American". Plus, there is no good reason for supposing that a photo of someone is not an RS. --FormerIP (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A photo doesn't explicitly state what a person's ethnicity is; the viewer has to use WP:NOR to guess it. Can I now look at photos and decide who "looks Italian"? "Looks Jewish"? "Looks Russian"? "Looks Irish"? "Looks Mexican"? Obviously not, despite the masses who believe they can discern these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We're only talking here about black people though. It isn't OR to recognise a black person (the issue of when a black person is heavily made up, or "almost white", or photographed from a distance or whatever has been discussed above - we can treat these as we would any ambiguous source). --FormerIP (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What? "It isn't OR to recognise a black person"? Where is that special exemption codified? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Filmbug.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for nutrition issue: Monosodium glutamate

The following was written in the main monosodium glutamate article but then constantly removed by three editors: sciencewatcher, Ddbrodbeck and Sakkura.

On the other side, John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated: "[W]henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world." The American Academy of Family Physicians, one of the largest medical organizations in the United States, concludes that an overstimulation by glutamate generally may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer. Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy.''

Sources were the following:

University of Iowa

American Academy of Family Physicians

The whole section reads as follows:

Health concerns

Main article: Health effects research into Glutamic acid

A report from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) compiled in 1995 on behalf of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe for most people when “eaten at customary levels”. However, it also said that, based on anecdotal reports, some people may have an MSG intolerance that causes “MSG symptom complex” and/or a worsening of asthmatic symptoms. Other research published in the "Journal of Nutrition" found that, while large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent, not reproducible, and not observed when MSG was given with food. No statistical association has been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even in studies with people convinced that they are sensitive to it. Adequately controlling for experimental bias includes a placebo-controlled double-blind experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.

On the other side, John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated: "[W]henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world." The American Academy of Family Physicians, one of the largest medical organizations in the United States, concludes that an overstimulation by glutamate generally may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer. Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy.''

Since the issue of possible health concerns connected to MSG is, indeed, an issue of controversy as it can be seen in

Main article: Health effects research into Glutamic acid

the main MSG page section should reflect a short summary of that controversy not just one side of the issue.

Also, the sources for the critical side of the issue are reliable.

Sakkura, Ddrodbeck and sciencewatcher claim these sources were not good, and were violating the weight which must be given to specific positions. I disagree. And others before me did too. If you see the talk page of the issue, it becomes evident that user sciencewatcher i. e. has removed all content in the past, which questioned the safety of MSG. But wikipedia should not become a place for industry agenda-pushing.

There is also a dispute about the source EUFIC. EUFIC is linked to under External Links with the description "The facts on Monosodium Glutamate" (it has been changed by me, but will probably be reverted). EUFIC's funders, however, include: Coca-Cola, DSM Nutritional Products Europe Ltd., Ferrero, Groupe Danone, Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Nestlé, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Suedzucker, etc

Sakkura, Ddrodbeck and sciencewatcher consider EUFIC to be a reliable source for nutrition issues nevertheless. They wrote the following:

Just because there is a conflict of interest in the funding does not make a source "unreliable". We include many drug studies funded by the drug companies themselves (and this is generally noted in the text). The EUFIC website does seem to represent the scientific consensus. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It should also be noted that EUFIC receives funding from the EU, so it isn't just funded by the industry. Sakkura (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So we need an opinion about the validity of three sources:

EUFIC

University of Iowa

American Academy of Family Physicians

Thx. And I ask the above mentioned editors to stay out of this. Just let third parties decide.—JCAla (talk) 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved user response. These three sources are all quite different. EUFIC is likely to receive much more industry funding than EU funding. It can't really be regarded as scientifically neutral, but is probably OK for an external link. The link should be described correctly. A university interview with an alumnus is not a suitable source for a science article. Moreover, it's not clear that the subject of the article is talking about dietary consumption of glutamate. American Family Physician is a regular peer-reviewed journal. The issue about using it in a science article is whether an individual article should be regarded as a primary source. Ideally, we are looking for reviews of the literature rather than individual items in the literature. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Itsmejudith. If EUFIC (although not reliable) is ok as an external link, then links to NGOs such as Truth in Labeling should be also, right? Because such links have been removed by the above users. Truth in Labeling are an NGO campaigning for MSG to be labeled on food containing it.

Also, the university interview was done with John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences. He has campaigned for greater regulation of monosodium glutamate (MSG), aspartame and other excitotoxins for over twenty years. So he is talking about MSG but I see your point that it does not become evident in the linked interview. What about the following source (as a better replacement source)? It was released by the United States General Accounting Office and states:

"Dr. Olney said that large doses of aspartame or combined dosesdoses of aspartame and monosodium glutamate, another food additive, could cause brain damage in infants and young children. He claimed that, based on research done by himself and others, L-aspartic acid (a component of aspartame) exhibited the same toxic response in the brain as exhibited by monosodium glutamate in earlier studies. He stated that the neurotoxicity (poisonous to the nervous system) of the substances is augmented when they are combined. ... Regarding Dr. Olney's objections, the Bureau of Foods ... noted that L-aspartic acid and monosodium glutamate can act similarly and are of about equal potency but did not agree that their effect would be augmented when combined." USGAO source p 9-10

This should be a valid source. What do you say?

So the three issues to be considered are:

1 If EUFIC as an unreliable source is included under External Links, Truth in Labeling can be included also.

2 The USGAO report explicitly mentions the effects of monosodium glutamate as described by John Olney and the Bureau of Foods. It constitutes a reliable source and should not be removed when included into a short summary about health concerns in the main monosodium glutamate article.

3 Although the American Family Physician source may not be ideal, it is still considered valid and reliable and thus should not be removed.

Do you agree on these three points or on some of them?—JCAla (talk) 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say, regarding:

• 1). No, sources should be evaluated individually. Truth in Labeling home page says "This Web site is dedicated to people with problems that once defied medical diagnosis -- people who discovered that elimination of MSG from their diets let them be well," so they have a clear bias, and I note that many of the web pages there (all that I visited) lack references to any scientific material (see this, and [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/formulacopy.html this, which contains data from an unreferenced "canadian study". Clearly not reliable.
• 2). Yes, the USGAO report you mentioned explicitly mentions that Dr. Olney claimed that monosodium glutamate is harmful, and that he claimed that conclusion was based on studies done by himself and others. I think it is a primary source that should probably not be used for that reason, could only be used in a very limited way if at all, but it basically reliable in terms of the claims made by Dr. Olney. Whether or not those statements should be in the article on MSG is another question.
• 3). Yes, I think the site may be considered a reliable source, but this blub is not appropriate for the Monosodium glutamate article, since Monosodium glutamate is not mentioned in it. The statement "Overstimulation by glutamate may result in neuronal damage" appears there but is not sourced, and to draw any conclusions about MSG based on that statement would be WP:SYNTH. But that's another notice board. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but American Family Physician is not the highest quality source, and if it contradicts higher quality medical secondary reviews, should not be used. WRT Tourette syndrome, the AFP physician printed several errors; it just isn't as high quality as some other medical sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1) If a bias is reason for not including an NGO such as Truth in Labeling under External Links, EUFIC should not be included. An organization which evaluates the safety of food products, produced by some of its major funders is not a reliable source and not to be included. Either there are only reliable sources or sources with a bias are allowed. You cannot outrule the bias by one organization and allow the one by another. Agree?

2) Since there are scientists (who enjoy a very high prestige among some scientists) who consider mononatrium glutamate to have considerable health effects, these concerns should be mentioned (if only shortly, but nonetheless mentioned) in a summary about MSG health concerns. Agree? Such a new health concern section could read:

Health concerns

Main article: Health effects research into Glutamic acid

A report from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) compiled in 1995 on behalf of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe for most people when “eaten at customary levels”. However, it also said that, based on anecdotal reports, some people may have an MSG intolerance that causes “MSG symptom complex” and/or a worsening of asthmatic symptoms. One study published in the "Journal of Nutrition" found that, while large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent, not reproducible, and not observed when MSG was given with food. The study stated that no statistical association has been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even in studies with people convinced that they are sensitive to it. Adequately controlling for experimental bias includes a placebo-controlled double-blind experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.

On the other side, scientists like Dr. John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated that monosodium glutamate exhibits a toxic response in the brain. Regarding Dr. Olney's findings about the neurotoxicity of monosodium glutamate the U.S. Bureau of Foods agreed that monosodium glutamate can act similarly as L-aspartic acid (a component of Aspartame) and both "are of about equal potency". Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy among some experts.

Do you consider that version appropriate? —JCAla (talk) 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sunni

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

"Traditional" is meaningless in this context and shouldn't be used, really, ever as a modifier for the Muslim faith (since most everyone claims they're "traditional" even when they believe and do novel and new things. The Salafy's, for instance, are modern radicals. But i digress). At any rate, Erdogan is a Sunni. He leads a Sunni-based party (part of a long string of Sunni based parties inspired, if now different from, the Sunni Muslim brotherhood), he prays at mosques led by Sunni Imams, and he comes from a country where 80% of the people are Sunni. This shouldn't be challenged -- and it's such common knowledge that no one dwells on it. However, here are some sources that contextualizes him as a "sunni islamist." [10], [11] [12].Bali ultimate (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Does typical WP practice demand "plagiarism lite", and does it matter?

I would like to ask if others are sometimes uncomfortable with the following, and whether anyone has any practical suggestions about it. The most common scenario is something like this made-up case:- "this online review article looks well-written and well-sourced, great, but because RS debate is possible you should just use its handy bibliography for what you wanted to put in and not mention what led you there". Sound familiar?

Even when people then get copies of the articles in said bibliography (as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) in many cases of course, what ends up being put into Wikipedia is structured and worded in ways which are inspired by the helpful author of the good but potentially questioned source. However, editors are effectively told not to say so. (Indeed many are presumably doing this the whole time and not talking about it.) Structuring of subject matter, simple observations, basic ways of explaining uncontroversial things, are often not "OR", raise no red flags, and their sources are hard to prove, so no one cares where they come from. But if such influences are so uncontroversial why is being honest about it considered such a no-no?

I was recently involved in an example where a sourced quotation which had been subject to some questionable RS debate was removed, and a re-written sentence openly intended to capture something in the old material was then inserted without sourcing. The wording change possibly improves the article, and is (and was!) obvious enough not to need special sourcing, but I don't feel good about the deliberate lack of attribution.

In academic literature one still sees authors who are correct enough to quote a source as something that they read in another source. Indeed this is often quite useful. In WP, it seems odd to see people on WP argue quite strongly sometimes that an apparently good source should be used indirectly and without attribution supposedly due to WP rules. In reality of course what people mean is that it is better to avoid a long RS debate about how the WP rules might apply, and to find a "path of least resistance".

Just trying to think why this is happening, it occurs to me that it is relevant that if you put words in an article without sourcing, then someone needs to actually look at the content and understand it before they can judge if they need more sourcing. Feedback is likely to be informed in such cases. OTOH, if you try very hard to mention all sources, you can expect "feedback" which is generalized and awkward to deal with: based not on any reading of the content but upon quick browsing for theoretical sourcing warning signs. Are the incentives wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki

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

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

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

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

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

The only place it appears to be discussed is here [[13]] and it is not found to be RS, in fact it seems to be declared non RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here are at least 500 or so articles here on Wikipedia that use Orthodox Wiki in them. [15] in one way or another. What can now be done to correct this situation? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is DemocracyNow a reliable source?

In Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch [18] DemocracyNow.org is being presented as a "reliable source" with an edit summary DN is a reliable source). Is democracynow.org a reliable source? Is a "video report" from that site a "reliable source"? Collect (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per editors Bail and Slatersteven here again is random websites in the Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological difference article.

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

• 1.Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but this opinion is now questioned, as is indicated by the title, "Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?", of a paper presented by Stuart Squires of the Catholic University of America at the 2009 meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature [19]

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

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

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

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

• 2.The Reverend Dr Theodore Stylianopoulos, pastor of St George Greek Orthodox Church, Keene, New Hampshire, United States, provides yet another indication of the diversity of Eastern Orthodox belief with regard to the nature of hell. "Many Orthodox saints and writers", Father Stylianopoulos says, "assume the general view of hell as a place of punishment, even by means of material instruments such as fire, whether of the soul after death or both soul and body after the resurrection". He adds that one Orthodox interpretation of hell, "based on certain Orthodox luminaries such as St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian", asserts that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment" [20] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 4.

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

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

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

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

2. "Father Ted" (i.e. Dr. Theodore Stylianopoulos) is a reliable source for such matters (Harvard Divinity PHD and has taught at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology [22]).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree I pointed this out to the editor Esoglou and check his response. [23] I will follow up with the noticeboard there. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Summarise

At this time Source 1 is not RS. Source 2 is RS for his views Source 3 is RS, but not for the statement it is being used to support.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

May I question the judgement on source 1 as now expressed? See the context, which states: "Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but more recently the question has been raised: 'Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?'" (followed by the source). Is the source not really a reliable source for the fact of the presentation of a paper of that title at the meeting in question? Esoglou (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments. On "source 3" the first bit was perfectly cited (don't want any wikilawyering later). It is the second bit (in its entirety - "but not first without the will of God to do so") that needs a citation. @Esoglou on "source 1". It seems highly likely that this is a correct summation. But it's a brochure that could have been written by anybody. Not good enough on its own. If it matters to you, get yourself to a library and read his paper. He might even send you a copy yourself by email if you ask.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No, it doesn't matter at all much to me, and I will not try to hold on to it. My question was out of curiosity much more than for practical purposes. I presume you know well that, with regard to source 3, "the second bit" was an insertion by the editor who questioned the whole thing. Esoglou (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

fok.nl

I found this review on fok.nl using Google News Search: [24]. I'm hoping it can be used in Thunderdome (music festival) as a source regarding the CDs, perhaps as a source in a new section about praise and criticism.

I don't speak Dutch, but from what I can tell it appears to be user submitted, but that user seems to be a current member of Party Animals (musical group) (see [25]). Also, I don't know if any member of the site can post reviews, or if the members can pretend to be whoever they want.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for page number when the statement and the source are overviews.

• 1. Diff [26]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a passage from the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

internationalliving.com

Resolved

Can this website [27] be considered a reliable source for the purpose of ranking countries by quality of life? To me it appears that it shouldn't, as it is a self-published website. I also believe it is on Wikipedia's spamlist. Athenean (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I assumed it was the article Developed country based on this diff [28] from Athenean's contribs.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This diff [29] looks like the content edit in question. I don't see an issue with it in this context, but if the section is undue weight for the publication without adding much that's a debate for the article talk to form consensus on.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Jackie Evancho Forum Reference

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

Yes, forums are not reliable sources, neither is youtube. If the editor is trying to make the point that the voice is real I suggest this good article from the LA Times [30]. If this is to show that the described incident happened on the show no source may be required unless the action is in dispute. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Lol, no problem. In reference to sourcing events in TV shows tvguide.com has episode summaries for future use, but they are sparse [31]. There may be other sites with more detail. Just FYI.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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