Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Shortcuts:
WP:RSN
WP:RS/N
WP:V/N

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Contents



Can anyone tell if publications by David Horowitz Freedom Center qualify as reliable sources. There is a related discussion here. Note that one of the sides, User:Kallahan, filed a complaint to Arbcomm [1] instead of asking here.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

not reliable for any purpose whatsoever except for their own opinions about things when its relevant to quote them in context. Especially not reliable in describing the activities of their admitted enemies. DGG (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I have seen your discussion here. It was confusing. Do you qualify them as an "extremist source" and why? The source was used to list projects funded by Soros. This looks innocent to me. I was also reading several articles from their FrontPage Magazine. They provided interesting opinions of well known experts, which did not seem to contradict anything I knew. Biophys (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Horowitz's site should not be used to source anything at all about his political opponents - even seemingly innocent info. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, but I like their style. See this photo at the very bottom. This is not a forgery I hope?Biophys (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Also, I believe this is real interview of Pipes. Can we use something like that, or it might be a forgery?Biophys (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a political advocacy site. One thing that should always be remembered about such sites (left, right or centre) is that they do not originate news. Virtually always, the documents they post up on their sites are available in other sources. Or if they carry an opinion piece by a notable commentator then that commentator has usually also written in a more reliable publication, and that should be chosen in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So, we have:

I don't see any evidence that Frontpagemag is any less polemical and opinionated than Horowitz's other sites. What should be done, here? Guy (Help!) 14:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jay says (in Archive 9) that he doesn't like my jihad against FPM... bravely ignoring him, I've generally removed a lot of links to FPM and CounterPunch and the like unless
  • the link is an article written by the individual
  • the linked article is by someone who is closely associated with the subject of the WP article, and the article doesn't contain anything particularly negative
  • the linked article is written by an otherwise notable authority and isn't used to support anything about a living person. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

unreliable FrontPageMag and this "Freedom Center" are both highly partisan, but the unreliability doesn't stem from that. If you search the archives, you'll find how FrontPageMag has a habit of making stuff up. I wouldn't be surprised if the center did the same.Ngchen (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is an advocacy site, just like any site by Amnesty International or CPJ. But they do not publish forgeries I guess? Unfortunately, a lot of materials there can not be found anywhere else, just like materials published by the Amnesty (and I have seen a lot of objections to use anything by Amnesty International). Can we use such materials? I guess we can, because there is an editorial oversight, and this is an official site by an officially registered organization.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not the full set of criteria. To quote WP:SOURCE: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are thus four distinct criteria: the source should be (1) reliable; (2) a third party; (3) published; and (4) have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. From what I understand of Horowitz, I think his centre would decisively fail the fourth criterion, and as such it couldn't be regarded as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think so? Any proofs that they promote an intentional disinformation?Biophys (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Except for statement of the opinion of Mr. Horowitz or of the Freedom Center itself. To the extent that such statements of opinion are notable, the site is a reliable source for them. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
given the unsourced nature of [2] & the lack of context for the quotations, the claim that it can be used as a RS for anything are unreasonable--no matter what web site puts it up. Some or possibly all of the quotations may be correct & taken in context, but how can we tell which? If quotations are wanted for the views of the parties quoted, they can be taken from better sources. However, [3] does represent the interview of Pipes--but by an extremely sympathetic interviewer who admits at the end that Pipes is one of his heroes. It represents what Pipes chose to say during that interview. In quoting Pipes, I'd use something he wrote under his own name--that's not hard to find. DGG (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a lot of articles in mainstream journals (say in Wall Street Journal) which also do not provide an exact source of citation. This is typical for all non-academic sources and does not prove that the source is unreliable. You are telling that some of the citations may be a forgery, and that the source "decisively fail" the "fact-checking and accuracy". Can you please cite any sources which support this your assertion? Can you cite any articles about their forgeries, which would be published in more reliable sources, such as academic books or mainstream newspapers, or perhaps some court proceeding about their fraud? I looked at the FrontPage Magazine article and did not find anything, except a bunch of mutual accusations between then and another similar "Center". To tell the truth, I do not care much about this FrontPage Magazine. This is simply an illustration how subjective the opinions about sources can be. Now imagine hundreds of Russian sources that are much less reliable than FrontPage Magazine...Biophys (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, you came here for input. The consensus of that input is that Horowitz and FPM are unreliable. The FPM question has been asked before, and it was decided it was unreliable each time. ---Relata refero (disp.) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Biophys, DHFC is about as reliable as Pravda. DH is a kook who is angry because nobody gives a damn about the cold war or the so called communist threat anymore. That he is batshit insane should be the first clue that he is not reliable. That he still calls people communists is the second one. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Unreliable, as others have stated above.Bless sins (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of WSWS

World Socialist Web Site is a site run by the International Committee of the Fourth International. There are nearly 700 links, many of them as sources for commentary in articles on living individuals. I found it because a lengthy diatribe was linked as a source for the uncontroversial fact that Ken Livingstone keeps newts, probably the single best-known fact about his private life. Is this actually a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 11:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for their own opinions, I'd say almost certainly not. FCYTravis (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My God, Red Ken and Gussie Fink-Nottle have something in common!
If the opinions of the World Trostkyite movement are required for an article, we can quote the WSWS. Otherwise, best not. Not quite an advocacy source, as Troskyism doesn't really have anything specific to advocate for any more; also not as muckraking as some others, as they focus on meta-issues more often than not; but even so, definitely overpoliticised. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Much of the WSWS material is simply material previously published elsewhere. If the WSWS has not been authorized by the copyright holders, then linking to the WSWS reference would be a policy violation. If the republication is authorized, then linking to those stories would completely comply with policy.
Participants above write as if it is so obvious it goes without saying that being run by the International Committee of the Fourth International means material it publishes is not reliable. Sorry, IMO nothing is obvious. Without regard to whether the site's original publications are, or are not, reliable sources, it is in the wikipedia's interest for those making the case against to explicitly spell out their reasoning.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The whole reliability of "Marxist" sources was very recently discussed here. I've not examined the arguments very closely (and am quite reluctant to believe them anyway), but I quite liked: "Political Marxism holds that workers will come to control the means of production and supports revolutionary movements directed toward that end. Marxist scholarship is a different thing. It offers rigorously materialist accounts of history, literature, art, etc., is skeptical of grand meta-narratives (often, oddly enough, including the meta-narratives of Karl Marx), and emphasizes the role of systems and institutions over that of great leaders, artists, geniuses, etc. Both have genealogies tracing back to Karl Marx, yes, but those genealogies are as separate as yours and the orangutan's are to the ancestor you have in common. No offense." PRtalk 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely a website like this is unreliable. The name itself screams bias. We disreguard conservative websites, some of which seem at first glance to be professional, because they have a right wing bias, and certianly we should not give marxist/socialist websites a double standard and call them reliable when they are just as bias in the opposite direction. YahelGuhan (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs 2005 ISSN 1555-4775

Is this source considered as reliable:- Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs 2005 ISSN 1555-4775

  • It appears that the Natural Philosophy Alliance is dedicated to controversial ideas in the areas of physics and cosmology. [4] Most likely its proceedings are a reliable source for the fact that the ideas therein are held by the people who express them, but it seems likely that those ideas are not considered mainstream in the world of physics. Thus, use of this publication as a source could run the risk of violating the WP:FRINGE guideline. This doesn't mean it's banned altogether, but this needs to be taken into account. (Disclaimer: I have not seen the Proceedings themselves.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The NPA is essentially Cranks United. The web site is running on a standard home page, and rants against all that inconvenient new devil physics, like relativity and quantum physics. Aether hurray, here we come, marching back into the comfortable age of spherical sheep of uniform density deterministically moving with respect to the absolute frame of reference. This is not a scientific organization and their publication are not a a reliable source except in the most narrow confines of WP:SPS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream ideas have several paradoxes and other results, which cannot be understood by even the most intelligent scientists. It is desireable to view different ideas, so as to bring improvement by concensus. Censoring all 'fringe' type ideas will not improve the subject. So please discuss the different views.Daralam (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the normal state of science that we do not fully understand an issue - if we did, we could stop doing science. But what I saw on the NPA website is so far out, it does not even enter the ring. This ranges from completely refuted to not even wrong. Also note that Wikipedia does not do original research, but summarizes what reliable sources have to say on a topic. No, bringing in unfiltered nonsense is not going to "bring improvement by concensus", but will rather drown out good and reliable information under mountains of garbage. --Stephan Schulz(talk)00:30,1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have formed some wrong impression of NPA. Natural Philosophy Alliance has the following website, consisting of large number of pages on various aspects: - http://www.worldnpa.org Modern physics uses extensive amount of mathematics, which because it can support imaginary terms, gives virtual solutions that cannot occur in real world. Several such solutions (paradoxes) in a virtual world occur in relativity, quantum physics, string-theory etc. Even the most intelligent scientists cannot logically understand such results, with their common sense. Effort is therefore made by NPA to discuss, theorize and understand and publish the fundamental basis of the natural phenomena in a rational manner.Daralam (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they got a domain name and some slicker web design, but the content is still the same as on the original http://home.comcast.net/~Deneb/. These are people who attack the most successful theories of modern science for no other reasons than "I can't do the math" and "this makes me feel uncomfortable" and "scientists are all in a giant conspiracy". Their papers generally show a pre-college level of understanding of physics and a high crank factor. They are not considered part of the scientific literature, and they are not cited by reliable natural scientists. Just see "A Third Alternative to the Generation of Energy by Fission and Fusion " or "Electromagnetic Space –Time –Ether" or "Recent Discoveries in Physics that the Natural Philosophy Alliance (of the USA) Should Support ", all from [5]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Many successful theories of modern science can not be logically understood by anybody. For example can you uderstand how measuring rods in moving systems shrink, or the clocks go slow? These results of Relativity theory are accepted without any logical reasoning, because they apparently describe strange irrational behavior of light. Th NPA tries to find different solutions and presents them to the scientists, to make them think of better alternatives. Ultimately that which is logical rational and clearly understood will be acceoted by all. The purpose is to present different alternatives and not to berate or pull down any body.Daralam (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, those theories can be understood logically without any trouble (well, you need the math). Internal consistency is the prime requirement of a theory, both in logic and in science. An intuitive understanding is hard for e.g. quantum theory or relativity, because these theories describe phenomena not usually encountered in normal life, and hence outside our experience. The theories are not paradox, they just disagree with your (or our) prejudices that come from living in a world of small macroscopic objects moving at slow speed and under the influence of weak forces. But this discussion moves to a level not really suitable for this board. The NPA is not a reliable source in the Wikipedia. It has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It represents fringe a view that we should not give undue weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The members of the Natural Philosophy Alliance are active in analyzing the fundamental basis of the theories of modern physics; and to the modification of those theories, which are illogical or unrealistic, by sounder ideas developed with full evidence, logic, and objectivity. Annual meetings are held, where the members discuss new papers and evaluate them by consensus. These articles are then published in the Proceedings of the NPA. These are the normal practices followed by members of reliable Physics organizations. Therefore Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance,may be accepted as reliable. Daralam (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is noted above that in modern physics an intuitive understanding is hard for e.g. quantum theory or relativity, because these theories describe phenomena not usually encountered in normal life, and hence outside our experience. On the contrary to logically understand the experiments done in our labs on light, electronics, etc, one needs logical, and rational theories. Quantum theory and relativity, which have been actually setup to explain these very phenomena are totally irrational; and so search must go on to find theories which can logically explain these natural phenomena. Efforts made by NPA members should therefore be strongly supported. Daralam (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While this may be somewhat monotonously: No. I'm all in favour of supporting research. But the NPA is not a reliable source. All of their publications I checked are either plain nonsense in the not even wrong category, or wrong at a 10th grade high-school level. You are free to strongly support them. But they are not a reliable source on any scientific topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, this is a fringe source dedicated to fringe theories with little or no acceptance in mainstream science. Continually shouting and whining about that isn't going to change it. Per policy, that book is not a reliable source, you may not use it on mainstream articles, and must establish notability of the ideas before you can use it even on pages about the fringe concepts, and even then may not say them as true, or misrepresent their acceptance - they must be clearly labelled as fringe. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear a lot of shouting and whining to support the so called infalliblity of main stream science, without proper understanding of the logic behind theories like Relativity, which may be rationally termed as in the not even wrong category. For example as per Relativity theory, your measuring rod shrinks in the direction in which the earth is moving in space, but not at right angles to it where it remains unshrunk. Then when you hold down one end of this rod on a sheet of paper, and holding a pen on the other end rotate it around, should you see a circle or an ellipse? Discussing such paradoxes is not to be condemned as fringe science, but is essential to bring some order in the irrational and illogical parts of the main stream physics. Daralam (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a paradox, it just displays a complete misunderstanding of relativistic length contraction. There is no inconsistency except with respect to your unspoken and wrong implicit assumptions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So since the velocity of earth in space is expected to be very much less than C, the ellipse will look like circle due to minute difference in the two axes. But another member may say, if the velocity of earth were say 0.1C, then it would be seen as ellipse. Not so says a third member, as per relativity an observer will not find any contraction of measuring rod in his own system, irrespective of the value of his uniform velocity in space. It is when he is observing another system traveling at say 0.1C relative to him, then in that other system similar figure drawn, will look to him as a clear ellipse. But another observer traveling in that second system will see it only as a circle. Well now is it rationally a circle or an ellipse, this opens out as a paradox. But this is not the place to solve it. So let NPA members do all the work, and if they find some better solutions they can publish it. Let others have access to it in Wikipedia, instead of censoring all the so-called fringe ideas. Daralam (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Things look different depending on your movement and position with respect to them. That is not a paradox, its not even unusual. If Big Van Vader is standing next to me, he sure looks large. If he is at the horizon, he looks small. Anyways, I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach special relativity online. The NPA people are free to do research, and once they have a great new theory, they can publish it in a reliable source, just like every other scientist. Before publication it will undergo peer review and will be properly evaluated. The PNPA is an unreliable source not because it has no chance of publishing a good paper. It's an unreliable source because they publish a large percentage (putting it generously) of complete crap. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The apparent visual size reduction, as an object moves away from one, is not in anyway comparable to the shrinkage of rods prescribed in relativity. It is good of you not to be inclined to teach your ideas of relativity to others. However if you do feel inclined, you are free to tell them to others, and conversely permit others to state theirs, without insisting on any form of censorship.Daralam (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I'm free to do so, and so is the NPA. They can start Crankopedia, or maybe produce a self-published journal (oh, wait...). Neither they nor I are free to do so on Wikipedia. The value of peer review in journals and on reliable sources on Wikipedia has a valuable purpose: It separates the crap from the stuff worth reading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To separate the crap from the stuff worth reading one must firstly have adequate expert knowledge of the subject. One’s ignorance of the latest knowledge of the subject can cause lot of problems for others.Daralam (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that we agree. Although the problems you cause are not that bad, so far. I have enough expert knowledge to recognize the NPA publications as complete crap. But luckily, the world does not have to rely on me for paper evaluation in physics (I do it in a sub-area of computer science), but on real physicists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There may have been some quarrels and name calling in the distant past, but for the last two years, no real physicist has called a paper approved in the meeting and published by NPA, as crap. Computer science is a practical science clearly understood by mature commonsense, whereas theoretical physics is much more in mathematics, where imaginary terms give unreal solutions (paradoxes). Even experts find it difficult to separate the real from virtual results. Sometime back top experts enthusiastically expected String theory to give out real results, now it is failing to do so. In future some one may even classify it jokingly, as a twelve dimensional crap. Differences in opinion on technical matters are better settled by discussion and concensus. So please consult real physicists to re-evaluate your opinion. Daralam (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful to continue this discussion. Our positions are sufficiently clear. I am right and you are not ;-). Anyways, anybody but you seems to agree that, whatever value and truth may be in the PNPA, they are not a reliable source for scientific articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Epoch Times

Is this a reliable source to cover events relating to China and the group Falun Gong? According to [6] [7] [8] it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners and has links with the organization. A US congressional report lists the Epoch Times as a Falun Gong-linked source [9]. Even Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, has expressed links between Epoch Times and Falun Gong practitioners[10].

My problem is, if an event received large coverage by Epoch Times, and its associates NTDTV and Sound of Hope, but little from mainstream media, can it be considered significant coverage?--PCPP (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it also depends on how would you quantify little coverage from the rest of mainstream media. See [11]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about that. Quit following me.--PCPP (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.--PCPP (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Epoch Times is Falun Gong mouthpiece should not be used as RS especially when covering events related to China and Falun Gong. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a look at it. From the type of people that distribute it every morning, to the quanity of those who reject it, to the content itself, the newspaper smells of irreliability.Bless sins (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

References


Atrl.net

Is the site http://host17.hrwebservices.net/~atrl/trlarchive/no.html reliable? This is being used in an article I wrote that is currently cooked in FAC. --Efe (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would lean towards no. Do you know who created this website? Was there any editorial oversight to the author? Do you have any reason to believe the data is reliable? From WP:SPS Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Do you have any reason to believe that this source is not self-published (ie - a personal website)? DigitalC (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I dont know. I am not expert on this and cant even access the site for now. Its being used here: "Baby Boy (song)", in the music video section (paragraph 3). --Efe (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at atrl.net? [12]. This seems to be where they get their information from, and they state "TRL recap was originally posted by various members of the ATRL forums." I would think that indicates that it is NOT reliable DigitalC (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC). Also note that data from that link contradicts what is listed in the article. I would just nuke that whole sentence about the video from the article. DigitalC (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Which line? --Efe (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would remove ""Baby Boy" premiered on MTV's program Total Request Live on 25 August 2003 at number ten and reached the top spot.[19][20] It stayed on the show for forty-one weeks, the same chart run "Me, Myself & I" earned.[19]". DigitalC (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead. thanks. --Efe (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com review

is this review allowed? http://www.amazon.com/Iowa-Slipknot/dp/B00005A46T. --Efe (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Such reviews are never considered RS. -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that you understand it is the "Amazon.com Editorial Review", the one written by the employee of the site wrote, not a fan review. Is he not a legit critic simply due to his employer? Blackngold29 06:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahh! That could make a difference, but I still would be hesitant to use it, in spite of it being well-written. If it were published in another and better source, then we'd be on more firm ground. How about Rolling Stone, or some other music magazine? There ought to be good reviews there. I assume you're referring to the paragraph starting with "Right from the introductory shriek...", written by Dominic Wills. -- Fyslee / talk 04:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
We have used many reviews in the article (including Rolling Stone), but we used this one more as a description of how the music itself sounds. It's not used in the Reception section. Since most reviews are "This album is good" or "This album is bad" and don't describe how the music itself sounds; this one does describe it. Blackngold29 04:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That is even more questionable. Describing the music? By the way, who is Wills? In the first place, amazon.com fails as RS. So, let assess Wills if he passess the criteria. --Efe (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You've seen the quote in the article. I don't understand how we can question the guy just because he works and writes reviews for Amazon, and not Yahoo or Rolling Stone, it's not like those guys are well known either. Like I said if there's no one else that supports it we can just take it out; we aren't really starving for material in that section. Blackngold29 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
We do not question whether that person writes for Amazon or for Rolling Stone. The issue is how this site or the writer himself passes WP:RS seeing that the content used in the article is not for the reception but for the music and lyrics section which are highly technical, demanding writers who are in the expertise. In this phrase where you cites the source, "Amazon.com's official review said that Taylor's performance on the title track was "a deeply unsettling heavy-metal Midnight Rambler", Fricke also stated that the track is a "vivid evocation of a makeshift-cornfield grave at midnight".", is more on a review (an opinion) and not the description of the music or lyrics. --Efe (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Is he in the right position to give reviews? I mean, is he in this field? --Efe (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. It's not really that big of a deal, but it was a unique review. If Fyslee doesn't reply again we can remove it. Blackngold29 07:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Its not in being unique. In the first place, Amazon as a source fails to meet WP:RS requirements; commercial-related websites usually fail. The next question is if the writer is in the right/related profession to write reviews. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant "unique" as in the comments and comparrisons he made were unlike any other reviews that the traditional "critics" made. Blackngold29 00:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. And I would consider user Amazon reviews reliable evidence for the fact that a certain sentiment exists, as well; if a book has 100 reviews with an average of 2 stars, that's pretty good evidence that it wasn't liked very much...but perhaps I'm radical in this belief. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What about those sentiments? --Efe (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In this case I don't think the source is problematic if attributed, so that the reader can see that it is no more and no less than a signed opinion in an Amazon Editorial Review. Using this is quite different from taking the average of readers' reviews on the Amazon website. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have seen books on pseudohistory which are absolute rubbish (eg Fomenko's stuff) get loads of rave reviews on Amazon. I've even seen reviews which are clearly by the author writing under another name. On the other hand, when it comes to fiction I do pay attention to them if there are a substantial number of reviews. Doug Weller (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check WP:ALBUM, I believe it prohibits using Amazon as a source for anything. indopug (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor removed the source in the article as well as the sourced content. Article now passed as GA. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

LoolLex Encyclopedia

I was wondering if we can get a ruling on weather or not Encyclopaedia of the Orient/LoolLex Encyclopdia is considered to be a reliable source or not. I don't know about all the issues, but regarding the Middle East issues, the enyclopedia looks very reliable and realistic. Chaldean (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I would prefer to look for better sources than the LookLex Encyclopaedia. It appears to be written through user-generated content. The authors are not required to have any particular credentials, and the site is not set up to display references showing where the authors got their information from. Although LookLex is not a wiki, it does not appear to be much more reliable than a wiki, so I do not think it should be considered a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but isn't that the same as Wikipedia, who checks the credentials of wiki editors? I am in Malaysia and travel to the Middle East frequently and agree with the above comment. I personally would consider it reliable. Agungsatu (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Industry specific trade journals?

I found what I thought were 9 non-trivial sources for an article about a company in an AfD disucssion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrightsoft using the EBSCO database from my public library. They are from various trade journal from within that companies industry. Several other editors say that because they are trade journals they do not count as reliable sources. I could not find anything in WP:RS, WP:N, WP:CORP that specify that trade journals as not reliable sources. I realize that many trivial trivial articles can appear in trade journal. Has there been any consensus on trade journals as reliable sources? Here are the sources from the AfD discussion.

  • Wrightsoft Is 20 Years Old. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 11/6/2006, Vol. 229 Issue 10, p6-6; From abstract: The article focuses on the accomplishments of the Wrightsoft Corp., which has celebrated its 20th anniversary, to contribute to the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) industry with many software programs.
  • Wrightsoft wins design award. Contractor Magazine, Aug2007, Vol. 54 Issue 8, p26-26; From abstract: This article announces that Wrightsoft was given the 2007 Dealer Design Awards.
  • BITS & BYTES. Engineered Systems, Jan2007, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p122-122, 1/2p; (AN 23835654) From abstract:The independent panel of 45 contractors chooses the Wrightsoft Corp., in partnership with Uponor to win a gold medal award for its innovative design of the Uponor System Design software.
  • HR Expo 2005 Innovation Award Winners. Supply House Times, Feb2005, Vol. 47 Issue 12, p28-28 From Abstract: The article announces the winners of the Air-Conditioning Heating Refrigeration Expo 2005 award. The winners of the award are Wrightsoft Corp. and Danfoss AS.
  • HVAC-City: A home on the Net. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 10/13/97, Vol. 202 Issue 7, p19 From Abstract:Reports on the Air Conditioning Contractors of America and Wrightsoft Corp.'s development of the HVAC-City, a full service Internet site.
  • Software Products That Boost Profits Win Raves From The Contractor-Judges. By: Skaer, Mark. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/19/2004, Vol. 222 Issue 12, p32-34, 2p From abstract: Highlights the winners in the contractor services and software category of the 2004 Dealer Design Awards for the U.S. heating and ventilation industry. Right Proposal Plus Module from Wrightsoft Corp.; Luxaire Business Analyzer from York Unitary Products Group.
  • Winners Have the Right Stuff. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/17/2006, Vol. 228 Issue 12, p52-53, 2p; From abstract: The article announces awards given to outstanding heating & ventilation products in the contractor services and software category in the U.S. The company Wrightsoft Corp. has won the gold award for its Uponor System Design Software.
  • Software Winners Selected. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/16/2007, Vol. 231 Issue 11, p46-46, 1p; From abstract: The article announces that Jonas Software has won gold, Wrightsoft Corp. has won silver and FastEST Inc. has won bronze award at the 2007 Dealer Design Awards ceremony in the contractor services and software category.
I would say the trade journals are reliable. If the issue is whether they indicate notability, I would think we need something beyond the industry for that. Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The caveat I'd add is that the trade journal is actually a trade journal, with some editorial standards and oversight, rather than a fee-based "Who's-Who" sort of advertising or promotional rag. The sources you list above look OK to me. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. A leading trade journal is a reliable source--usually the most approrpiate one for many things. It is necessary to distinguish actual major editorial content from repeat of PR, but that can be a problem with most sources. DGG (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
These sources seem fine for establishing the awards that the company has won, and if that helps establish notability then that is a suitable use. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

JewsAgainstZionism.com

Should we accept the web-site JAZ.com as RS to policy?

It is apparently published from within the Satmar community of c.120,000 Orthodox Jews in Williamsburg and Brooklyn, NY. They have a number of convincing contributors, I have been able to find Reuven Waxman, Jacob Dershowitz, Leizer Fishberg, Hersh Lowenthal making detailed contributions, more or less speaking for the the "organisation". A brief letter at Rense.com written by "M. Katz" on behalf of JAZ is apparently signed by Rabbi Joseph Dershowitz, Rabbi Meyer Weberman, Rabbi Menashe Filipe, Rabbi Joseph Schmilovitz, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, Rabbi Jeremiah Teitelbaum and Mr. Russell Waxman. (At least one and possibly two self-identified members of their community editing here have stated it speaks for them all, though this is not confirmed).

Despite JAZ.com being anti-Zionist (on religious grounds) they were sharply critical of seven Neturei Karta members who went to Ahmandinejad's "Holocaust Conference". The differences between the two groups seems to depend on whether it would be right to wind up Israel immediately, whatever danger this presented to Israelis - JAZ does not want Israel abandoned like this. It is possible that NK could be dubbed "extreme" on these grounds, but I see nothing to indicate that JAZ has the same problem. (The NK has a similar web-site, JewsNotZionists.org - examining this, I see no reason to doubt their reliability on factual matters either).

JAZ claim to be speaking on behalf of c. 150,000 anti-Zionist and around 1 million non-Zionist Jews, and it looks as if their numbers add up. Depending on how you define it, this makes them a substantial proportion of practicing followers of Judaism in the world. They have been accused of being unreliable, extreme and publishing "hate-speech" - no evidence for this has ever been produced. (Three sources describe them as "fringe", whatever that means - it's not the same as WP:FRINGE). The most contentious single article from JAZ is a transcript of an interview by a 1929 Hebron survivor, Rabbi Baruch Kaplan (also published by the NK here). We are led to believe the original is at the Otzer Emunah Tape Library of Monsey, (845)426-6812 (I've not checked this myself). Kaplan went on to be a principal (headmaster?) of the Beis Yaakov Girls School in Brooklyn, in the 1980s he was adamant that this famous massacre was caused by something that Zionists were doing in Hebron. This version is at least partly confirmed by interviews and a film made of all (?) of the remaining survivors in 1999. If there is more than simple prejudice to stop us treating these people as reliable, I'm not seeing it. I think their carefully collected evidence deserves its place in articles. PRtalk 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

JAZ's unreliablility and status as a fringe group has been thoroughly explained to PalestineRemembered here. I recommend that PalestineRemembered stop causing trouble and wasting people's time. His arguments are a dead end and have been for weeks now. --GHcool (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This innovative method of determining RS will be better understood by examining this (note the first statement) and then this. This particular example was against a consensus I calculated to be 4.5 to 1.5. The most disturbing thing is that in all cases the JAZ, written by devout Jews, tends to preach tolerance (as well as richen historical understanding). While other sources currently favoured in articles treat entire ethnicities as being diseased, ascribing incurable violence to them by means I can only call absurd historical fabrications. PRtalk 08:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
JAZ and the Satmars are certainly politically "fringe", and I'd never use them as the main source in any broad historical treatment, but we certainly know who they are and there is no reason to doubt their basic honesty. It seems to me that an interview with a specific survivor of the Hebron massacre that they published would be exactly as citable as any such document published by a Zionist group. - Jmabel | Talk 15:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not all Zionist groups are fringe, but I appreciate Jmabel's understanding that JAZ is fringe. PalestineRemembered's argument is a tu quoque, and an especially poor one because it relies on false premises. --GHcool (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

From the limited feedback at this noticeboard, there seems nothing to indicate that JewsAgainstZionism are anything other than what they claim to be, a collaborative venture speaking for a major community of devout and anti-Zionist Jews. To what extent they speak for the other devout non-Zionist Jews (they claim there to be 1 million of these in existence) is not clear. Their POV is obvious, but their honesty and historical care is not in question and they pass all the tests at WP:RS. PRtalk 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The group may be biased, but that can be dealt with by directly attributing their statements if need be (ie turning material that is cited to them into statements of opinion as opposed to statements of fact). I would say the source is generally reliable... and especially reliable for statements of opinion. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I refer anybody who claims that JAZ is reliable to the discussion here in which this was proven categorically false. I recommend that PalestineRemembered (and others) stop the argumentum ad nauseum. --GHcool (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is absolutely no "proof" there at all about JAZ either way. All I see are several editors who clearly represent a POV different from JAZ engaging in argumentum ad nauseum with claims that it isn't reliable. The fact that an admin decided to also claim unreliability in his block of PR does not add any "proof" either. Now, on the other hand I don't see any proof that JAZ is necessarily a reliable source either, but this emphatic claim just above my post is rather annoyingly empty (since I had to read through that other awful exchange to figure it out). I agree with Blueboar as well that attribution is really the key here. Don't source facts to them, but use them for statements of opinion, whether theirs or whether from interviews conducted by them, but attribute appropriately.PelleSmith (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Unreliability isn't the only problem with JAZ. They are also a fringe group. Wikipedia wouldn't necessarily benefit from editors who cite the opinions of fringe groups within articles. Imagine: "According the ElvisIsAlive.com, Elvis Presley has been spotted taking a stroll in Central Park on June 12, 2008." --GHcool (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So in your diversion I take it that you commentary actually has nothing to do with "unreliability" at all? As such it is entirely unappreciated here. Its clear that this website should not be used for facts, but there is no "reliability issue" in using them for opinions--at that point it becomes about WP:WEIGHT and adequately understanding the difference between the two, "opinion" and "fact".PelleSmith (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Fringe group? Definitely not. Reliable? Probably not either. They appear to be just another website out there (like Jewish virtual library, Camera etc.) They may be used on an article about themselves. They may also be used (and I say this with great reluctance) for presenting anti-Zionist views on anti-Zionism and maybe even Zionism. However, I wouldn't use them for facts on Hebron massacre or other articles on history, even if they are attributed.Bless sins (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"Fringe" per WP:FRINGE refers to theories. It doesn't refer to political positions. —Ashley Y 06:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-)JAZ is an internet-vocal fringe group that should not be used on anything outside their own articles or articles about their members. -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The "major" community they speak of is maybe a few hundred people. They warp and twist the words of other Rabbis and scholars to make it appear as if they represent much more than they actually do. They are similar to rense.com and cannot be used for anything outside their own existence. Check PR's talk page archives for more discussion. It's not as if he has not discussed this with multiple editors and admins. -- Avi (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think PR can be faulted for bringing this issue here, even if has been discussed on his talk page. His talk page is visited by a select group of people, not by the community in general.Bless sins (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we could really say that " their honesty and historical care is not in question" -- their intentions may well be impeccable, but their commitment to one particular position is so strong, and their belief in their own correctness so unquestioning, that I do not see how anything they say is evidence for anything other than their position on the questions they discuss. DGG (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I was waiting to see what you would say about his matter. The core of it is whether they can be used in any way as a source for this. Personally I strongly doubt it is a fabrication. That Kaplan existed and was injured in the massacre is not in doubt and is attested in the NYT and the FRUS, and considering the general anti-Zionism of the Hebron community and very religious Jews at that time, what it says is not terribly surprising. The matter has been kicking around for years. However it is admittedly a free translation of a transcript of a tape at a site which is not too clear about who is behind it. What would you think if someone got hold of the original Yiddish tape, which may be publicly available?John Z (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Three points. The position Kaplan held, as an anti-Zionist Jew, was not a WP:Fringe viewpoint at the time of the 1929 Hebron massacre. It was throughout the 1910s and 1920s a very widely held view among both the Orthodox and Ulta-Orthodox rabbinate. It has become fringe because of practical accommodations to the fact of Israel's establishment, the foundation of which, however, unless I am mistaken, is interpreted, theologically, as de facto and not de jure. To lose sight of this is to retroactively interpret the past according to the conventions of the present. But the past, as Hartley reminded us in 1953, is 'another country'.
Specifically, on the 1929 Hebron Massacre, most of the points PR wishes to make with Kaplan's speech are already made by an appropriate reference to the event as described in the Hebron article in the Jewish Virtual Library. The only point Kaplan makes that differs is in attributing the specific cause of that massacre to Zionist meddling (a gross simplification, but legitimately his view).
Somewhere in the talk pages on this, I have a memory of my having asked, as John Z does now, if anyone could find out if those who hold the tapes might yield their tape by putting it in the public domain. I second his suggestion. These things take years, but one never knows who may be reading. The only serious point against the use of Kaplan's evidence however is methodological. We are supposed to privilege secondary reliable sources, and not fossick (WP:OR) after the strange gods of primary evidence Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Without a doubt, Kaplan's opinion belongs in Kaplan's article. The question is whether JAZ is a reliable source on Kaplan's opinion. I believe I speak for the majority when I say that JAZ is not a reliable source on Kaplan's opinion in part because JAZ is a fringe group. The argument that anti-Zionism among Orthodox Jews was not a fringe group during the time of the British Mandate for Palestine is disingenuous for the reason that Nishidani notes: the reality faced by Jews during the 1940s (namely the Holocaust and the events surrounding Israel's establishment) have weakened the anti-Zionist argument to the point of negligibility, with followers that are extremely out of touch with the historical and present reality.
In this way, anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews are like segregationists in the United States after Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are a handful of segregationists still active in the United States, but the historical and present reality of the situation have made their arguments unconvincing and they are rightly condemned by all reasonable people. We would no sooner include Kaplan's opinions cited to JAZ into the Kaplan article than we would include William J. Simmons's opinions cited to a Ku Klux Klan website into the Simmons article. --GHcool (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It would help if you were a tad more careful about your language, GHcool. There is nothing 'disingenuous'('lacking in candour, morally fraudulent'O.E.D.) in reminding the somnolent about the different shape of the past, about which they occasionaly show deep confusion when not caught up in ignorance. Neturei Karta and associated 'fringe' groups cleave to a majoritarian tradition that is now forgotten, and we ought to bear that in mind. Their perspective on the state is, technically, still shared by the Orthodox rabbinate, in so far as the latter withhold formal de jure recognition of its legitimacy, unless I am mistaken. 1948 didn't weaken an argument, it simply placed a different order of facts on the landscape of Jewish interests. Historical events do not necessarily 'weaken 'arguments, they simply, as Alexandr Zinoviev once acutely remarked (The Yawning Heights)) simply ignore them. The analogy with segregationists is one of convenience. The Supreme Court has endorsed laws that have done away with, in the view of many authoritative legal scholars, fundamental guarantees inn the Constitution and its Amendments. Not for that does this mean that the new dispensations by, for example, the Bush Administration have put paid to, 'weakened' the views and perspectives of constitutional scholars who vigorously oppose that Court's judgements, as motivated more by a political vision than by any deep attachment to the intent of the Founding Fathers. Such misfetched analogies are a pure distraction from the point at issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)
Historical events do weaken certain arguments, and those who continue to make arguments similar to the losing side when the issue was hotly debated are considered fringe. No reasonable post-19th century person argues in favor of slavery in the United States, although the issue was hotly debated during the 19th century. No reasonable post-20th century person argues in favor of racial segregation in the United States, although the issue was hotly debated during the 1960s. No reasonable post-20th century person argues against the necessity of a modern democratic state in which Jews can govern themselves, although the issue was hotly debated during the first half of the 20th century. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I note you now say certain arguments. 'Historical events do weaken certain arguments'. Sure, Jerusalem and the West Bank will form, if they do not already, part of Israel, and those who argue against the 'reality' are fringe. No really, just 'fringe-dwellers' as the geopolitical preponderance of power makes them out to be.
In Italy, we have a man with a tremendous record for being criminally indicted at the head of a government, who is now revising by popular mandate all laws of the kind which got him and 25 of his cronies, also elected to Parliament, some of them with Mafia backgrounds, into deep trouble. Down the line, he will impose his will in law and in perceptions on the way the real landscape of Italian life is interpreted. He even controls all 6 major TV channels so his line is dominant, and the critical voice that recalls his shady past has all but disappeared and is branded as 'fringe' or 'extremist'. Slavery again has been abolished, but, in some views, not fringe, simply reconstituted in the market place, and generalized over a large part of the working population. As to 'no reasonable person', you are dismissing a good many thinkers within Israel's religious centers who are not wedded to Israel because it is a democracy, but because it has become for them the hearth of Judaism. They are not interested in 'democracy', they are interested in a state governed by halakhic prescriptions. If that means you are saying that they are not 'reasonable post-20th century persons' I'd probably agree with you. But then the category 'reasonable post-20th century persons' is one I don't really understand, since reason died (WP:SOAP) some decades ago, though few have read the obituaries.
More germanely. A Christian could use the same reasoning theologically with regard to the New Covenant and argue that Jews who were 10% of the population of the Mediterranean in the Ist cent.BCE., were beaten into the margins by a small heretic sect of Jews which, by apostasy, oppression and politics, eventually reduced them to a fringe minority in the world (by natural growith they would be some 200 million now), whose rabbinical interpretations, being fringe, are thus not pertinent to understanding the bible. I don't think you realize what peculiar implications your position leads you to embrace. For the record, I am indifferent to religion, and would be the first to jump on anyone who used the reasoning above to brand the Jews as 'fringe'.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I may be saying the same thing, but I am going to put it in a different way. This JAZ group appears to be a religious group as well as one that takes a political view. We cannot base decisions on the reliability of the publications of religious groups solely on the basis of the number of adherents. Judaism has fewer adherents than, say Christianity. Orthodox Judaism is one current within it, therefore has fewer still. But that does not indicate fringeness in the sense of deviation from the mainstream. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Hersh Lowenthal, one of the editors at jewsagainstzionism.com. It looks like no one in this discussion doubts the demographic facts about the Satmar group: about 120,000 people. See the WP article on Satmar. The dispute seems to be about whether our group truly represents Satmar, or is a fringe group similar to or identical with Neturei Karta. The confusion is compounded by the fact that NK calls itself "Jews United Against Zionism", a name similar to ours.

With that in mind, I would like to direct the attention of anyone who understands Yiddish to the articles published on December 13, 2007 by Der Yid and Der Blatt, the two main Satmar newspapers, heartily endorsing our group Natruna a.k.a. True Torah Jews Against Zionism, and describing the annual dinner at which 1500 people attended and a few major Satmar rabbis spoke. These articles are available on our Hebrew site http://www.natrina.org/yiddish/deryid kinus.htm and http://www.natrina.org/yiddish/derblatt kinus.htm. Anyone who thinks we fabricated these articles can just call up those newspapers and check it with them.

As to the much-disputed Kaplan interview, it's true that the English version published by us and NK is a free translation, and we said so openly. The original Yiddish transcript is available at http://www.natrina.org/gedolim/kaplanyiddish.htm and a word-by-word Hebrew translation is at http://natrina.org/gedolim/kaplan.htm.Natsmith (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, those links I gave to Der Yid and Der Blatt came out wrong. Here are the correct links: http://www.natrina.org/yiddish/deryid%20kinus.htm. http://www.natrina.org/yiddish/derblatt%20kinus.htm. Natsmith (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the discussion above about the reliability of the material on the site is pretty much irrelevant. As has been explained to PR multiple times, jewsagainstzionism.com is an anonymous personal website. The owner is unknown, and the "About us" page leads to a Post Office Box. Per Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." That's really all there is to say on the matter, and it's conclusive. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume for this discussion that Natsmith is telling the truth about at least two things: (1) that his real name is Hersh Lowenthal and (2) he is one of the editors of JAZ. As far as his arguments are concerned, I'm afraid they are rather weak. The unstated major premise in all of Natsmith's arguments is that because JAZ is ran by religious Jews, then it must somehow be an authority on Jews, and therefore on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In truth, JAZ is not an authority on anything (except, perhaps, for itself). --GHcool (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Senseis Library

Hi, just though I'd ask what people thought of this wiki being used as a reliable source. It is basically a repository of Subject-specific common knowledge so does that mean it is acceptable for referencing work about Go?--ZincBelief (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link for it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
http://senseis.xmp.net or see the wikipedia article about it--ZincBelief (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Wiki's are not considered reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is linking to a specific version of a wiki page contained Subject specific common knowledge not a valid reference in all instances? A wiki can be a reliable source.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The policy on verifiability of self-published sources says that open wikis are largely not acceptable as sources. There are numerous books about Go in various languages; I think it would be a much better idea to use some of them as sources instead. If the information is common knowledge among Go players, it ought to be sourceable to a book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If information is common knowledge amongst Go players it is subject specific common knowledge and doesn't need to be cited in the first place. One book is often not a reliable source in itself. Wouldn't it be better to use both in combination? --ZincBelief (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:Verifiability... if this is common knowledge a reliable source will discuss it, but an open wiki is not considered reliable. The problem is with the source, not the information. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I did read it actually. Common and Subject Specific Common knowledge do not need a reference in the first place. It is entirely possible that linking to a specific page version of a wiki would and can be understood to contain accurate knowledge.--ZincBelief (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Even though it is likely that most of the information in Sensei's Library is accurate, it is still an open wiki and thus less subject to editorial control than a reliable source should be. Besides, if the information is common knowledge, whether general or subject-specific, then it should be easy to find a proper reliable source for it rather than using an unreliable source. If it's information that doesn't even need a reference, then using an unreliable source isn't going to improve the article.

To use an analogy, suppose that I needed to include in an article a statement that as of 2008, George W. Bush is the president of the United States. Well, that is common knowledge, so I could probably just leave it as a bare statement with no citation and it's unlikely anyone would make a citation needed demand. But suppose I decided that I should include a reference. So I call up my dad and say, "Dad, I need a reference for a Wikipedia article. Who's the current president of the United States?" My dad answers, "George W. Bush, of course." So I thank him and put the following reference into the article: "Personal interview with User:Metropolitan90's father, June 16, 2008." Now, my father is a well-informed person and his information about who is the current president of the United States is accurate. Yet citing "As of 2008, George W. Bush is the president of the United States" to a conversation with my father would make Wikipedia look silly, or at least it would make me look silly, because there are sources out there on this topic which are not only much more reliable but are also easy to find. By the same token, we shouldn't cite to open wikis if we can find more reliable sources, even for common knowledge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is a pity it gets used at all, but it is very useful for satisfying demands for subject specific common knowledge (which doesn't need cited). You don't deal with the instance where your father is say, a leading expert on presidents of the united states. Not to be frivilous, but in many cases you can link to a page v