Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2 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

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

GenerationQ

A similar challenge has been made to the use of GenerationQ as a source. GenerationQ is an online magazine aimed at LGBT young adults, particularly young gay men. It covers news of particular interest to this community. In its favor, it enjoys a broad international readership. However, it is an online rather than a paper source, and some of its reporting has been used in a biographical article that's part of WikiProject LGBT Studies, but that the article's subject self-identifies as not being part of the LGBT community. The article specifically cites facts (and includes references) demonstrating that the subject of the article's business dealings are inconsistent with his public statements. Additionally, the facts stated in the article are supported by two primary sources written and posted online by the article's subject. Similar to the question of CounterPunch, an editor is challenging a reference to this source backed up by references to the two corroborating primary sources. How is the reliability of a source like this determined, and how is that applied when the article is a biography of a living person? Fundamentally, I want to know: is this a reliable source? --Ssbohio 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to at least the magazine's website? GRBerry 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that... GenerationQ --Ssbohio 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, parts of it clearly are not. It has a "Community" subsection of user posted content. Anything there is right out.
The organization is based in Australia. Their staff page is currently blank; this is not a good sign. Their page for prospective reporters indicates that writing positions are unpaid, and for those seeking exposure. This is also not a good sign. Frankly, I wouldn't use it for anything contentious given this data. BLP sourcing is supposed to be of the highest standards; and GenQ by itself does not appear to meet these standards.
It sounds like you don't think that the primary sources lack reliability, or at least you aren't asking that question. If the GenQ site is really only being used to support a synthesis of inconsistency, a viable solution might be to cite each source and leave the synthesis unstated. GRBerry 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Studios of Key West

All of the sources for this page are self-references or links to partners. Are this, this and this reliable enough to add to the article? Corvus cornix 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The fla-keys one is a generic travel web site of the type that regularly gets removed as spam from tourist-destination related articles (one problem with this sort of source being that it's difficult to tell whether sites are listed as part of some sort of independent editorial process or whether they pay for their listing). The other two may be from more reliable publishers but give fairly trivial mentions as part of longer articles. I did find a news article from the Miami Herald, "A new lease for the arts in Key West", Jan. 23, 2007, that looks sufficiently reliable and nontrivial, altough it's not available online for free I think. —David Eppstein 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Lutherans

Almost none of the entries on this list have any citation to show that they have professed to being a Lutheran. The 3 sources listed:

do not seem at all reliable. Any thoughts on what to do here? Kevin 11:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Go slow... The fact that someone is identified as a Lutheran is not all that harmful, but we do have policies about verification that we want to uphold. Place a {{fact}} tag on those entries that are not cited. Raise the issue on the talk page (including your concern about the reliability of the three sources that are used). Then wait... give people time to respond and find proper sources. If you get no reply by the end of (say) a month, then raise the issue again with warning that you might start deleting uncited material. In the mean time... see if you can find better sources yourself. The goal should be to try to keep the list, but to improve it with solid references. Finally, after due time you can delete those entries that are still uncited. Blueboar 12:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And I guess a further question I should have asked before, what about the reliability of the sources listed? I know NNDB has been discussed before as non-reliable, and the ELCA site states that they are not sure of the accuracy. Kevin 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in the United Arab Emirates

Hi, I'm not sure this is the right place but in this article the World Sex Guide is used as a source... I'm not sure this is the right kind of source for this kind of article... Cperroquin 14:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America sourced for contentious factual claims

I have added unreliable source? tags to those statements in Battle of Jenin for which I could not replace CAMERA with a journalistic reliable source. It seems clear to me both from WP:RS and past editing experience that partisan pressure groups are not generally used as reliable sources. According to the wikipedia page for CAMERA: "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel [1] and discuss the organization's mobilisation for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers [2], organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts. [3] Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases." No editors appear to be disputing their partisan nature; according to User:Isarig "You are confusing 'partisan' with 'non reliable'. The two are not same, or even similar. CAMERA meets every requirement WP has for reliable sources." (Note that I am not arguing with use of attributed POV statements from CAMERA expressing their analyses, rather I take issue with their use as a source for wikipedia-voice statements of fact like "Palestinian Minister Abu said X on date Y.[1]")

On a related issue - and uninvolved editors feel free to refactor out this comment if it's clearly in the wrong place - is not the removal of such maintenance tags ([4],[5]) without some approximation of consensus built on talk considered very bad practice if not outright disruptive editing? Eleland 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA's claims stated as "Palestinian Minister Abu said X on date Y.[1]" are footnoted with the name and date of the publication where the quoted individual made the statement. Interested parties cam easily check the named reference and verify it says what is claimed. CAMERA itself denies it is partisan, and WP:RS does not disallow partisan sources - it only asks that they be used cautiously on BLPs. The claims sourced to CAMERA (as a secondary source) which you are objecting to are not 'contentious factual claims' at all - they are quotes of primary sources, with name & date of the primary source provided. Isarig 16:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The relevant footnote is simply "19. ^ a b c d e CAMERA". see ([6]) Eleland 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The "CAMERA" part of that is actualy a link to a specific CAMERA article, namely this one, where all the claims are duly described with the primary source, e.g.: "April 13, Erekat, on CNN", or 'April 10, Sha'ath claimed, “We have 300 martyrs in Jenin in the last few days.” (Agence France Presse)" Isarig 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by involved editor - it doesn't matter what side a source is allegedly supporting as long as it's references and statements are reliable. for the same reason, i cannot remove The Guardian articles or the BBC despite their anti-israel bias (and countless errors). there is nothing beyond "they say they support israel" or "they only correct anti-israeli POV" to justify the claim that the source in unreliable. on top of this many of the "needs more reliable reference" statements have similar statements expressed on other references and up to now camera notes have been fairly easily verified. we are discussing reliability in report and there is no validated reason to suspect camera as more unreliable than the major news medias they are quoting or criticizing... to the contrary even. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment by involved editor - there may be times we use CAMERA for facts (about Israel sources - not about Palestinian sources as we've done in this case). But in general we'd have to treat them as extremely dubious because of their aggression and distortion. Here's a fairly random example of the latter, quibbling about words spoken (likely repeatedly) by Israel's most famous militarist. Moshe Dayan wasn't in the business of claiming land for Israel by buying it! PalestineRemembered 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your example shows that CAMERA corrected a misquote. Nobody is claiming the text, as provided by CAMERA, is incorrect, and tha the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate. It appears to substantiate that it is a reliable source. Isarig 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It is nonsense to suggest that Moshe Dayan was going round lecturing students on the acquisition of land by purchase (which in any case only amounted to quite a small proportion of the land of Israel). Dayan was a war-hero with a black patch over one eye, that's why people wanted to here him speak. He was quite open about these things, he said to Rami Tal "in the period between 64 and 67 when there were a lot of incidents on the border between Israel and Syria about 80% of these incidents were started by Israel".
And nobody reading CAMERA's claims would think they were capable of being RS (though I don't doubt many of the individual facts are true, and in some cases, one might wish to quote them). And their "refutation" in this case is based on their insistence that Dayan only said that Israel was all built on places where Arabs had lived once at this particular lecture. Pilger quotes him saying it at his retirement, so CAMERA simply have no idea what he said, they're grabbing at straws. PalestineRemembered 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
CAMERA did not correct a misquote, full stop. It restored the original text, and then went on to paraphrase it. Dayan, properly cited, remarks:'-In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.'
The paraphrase runs:'In the misquote, the key phrase "we purchased the land from Arabs" is omitted, and thus Dayan's meaning is reversed. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their presence in the region, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.'
This is highly dubious, if not indeed, an intentionally misleading gloss. For the paraphrase drops the crucial In a considerable number of places (meaning implicitly, '- in many other places what I am saying about buying the land from Arabs where our villages now are does not apply. I.e. that land was taken without purchase). Dayan, contrary to what CAMERA writes, is admitting that in many cases dispossession did occur (He was, admirably, more objective than CAMERA and is on record as admitting many ruses were employed to grab disputed land by pure force). One could name any number of reasons why this is bad reporting (who were the Arabs? The fellahin driven off the fields they had traditionally worked? Or absentee landlords in Beirut and Amman, who sold the lands to Jewish agencies, who then dispossessed the tenants, as was often the case?)
This then is not an example of 'Accuracy', it is a matter of unilaterally spinning information to one party's advantage. Were it to live up to its name 'Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America' it would have a huge amount of its work cut out just correcting the almost systematic way most Middle Eastern Countries neighbouring on Israel are also subject to misreporting. Hence its very name belies, and indeed misrepresents its partisan focus. I commend them for defending the cause of Israel, but they shouldn't pretend that this is an undertaking for a spirit of dignified neutrality on The Middle East. It is a mediatic lobby, which cherrypicks the news like Fox, and, I suggest, most major News Sources, and has an agenda, as we can see in its cleverly misleading paraphrase above, one as strong as Counterpunch's, or any other radical paper. Were it as honest as we are rightly called on to be in here in drafting wiki articles it would replace 'Middle East' with 'Israel' which it won't do, I think to its discredit. For there is nothing intrinsically wrong about a committee devoted to defending any one country's image, and pursuing an ideal of checking and combating perceived abuses in reportage on it. Many countries practice this.Nishidani 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - the CAMERA article, which as you conced restored the original text, and then went on to paraphrase it is 'spinning information to one party's advantage' because it omits the qualifier ("In a considerable number of places"), but the article they were critiquing, which compeltly omitted the conetxt of Dyan talking about buying land - that text is ok, and should not be critiqued? Isarig 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A point on syntactical implications that you appear to be unaware of. You wrote: 'Your example shows that CAMERA corrected a misquote. Nobody is claiming the text, as provided by CAMERA, is incorrect, and tha(t) the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate. It appears to substantiate that it is a reliable source.'
You are saying that, 'no one is claiming . .tha(t) the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate.'
In fact it was claimed, by CAMERA that the text they complained about was inaccurate. That was the reason for their just emendation of the truncated text. You meant, I presume 'accurate'?
(2) It was reliable in correcting a quote, wholly unreliable in explaining that quote, wilfully misrepresenting one of the meanings in Dayan's text. In restoring the quote, they then proceeded to distort its meaning. It's not difficult to check sources. It is quite difficult, I gather, to read them correctly, and CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote, and a completely unreliable source for its meaning.Nishidani 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to your analysis and opinion of the CAMERA explanation, but please realize it is your personal POV. The standard on WP is verifiability, not truth, and we do not engage in editor-generated analysis of sources. If the above quote was used in a WP article, I'd expect it to be presented as CAMERA's opinion, and if a RS commented on their explanation along the lines you have outlined, that could be presented as well. None of this has anything to do with CAMERA's status as a reliable source, certainly when the issues at hand are direct quotes, not explanations of them, cited to a primary source by CAMERA. As you wrote - "'CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote" - that's all that this dispuet is about.

Okay we are getting seriously sidetracked here, what are we talking about the Moshe Dayan quote for exactly? I mean PR is right, and anyone who knows the full context of this quote (where he talks about provoking border wars with Lebanon in order to steal farmland, etc) can see that, but this quote is not at all at issue in the article I was talking about. Eleland 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What you were talking about is the use of quotes by CAMERA, where the direct quote is cited to a primary source by CAMERA. As Nishidani points out, CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote,. Isarig 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at this reference - I don't believe the encyclopedia should ever be treating as an "RS" an article such as "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference .... despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'". I've not deleted the references, but it is essential that we source this somewhere else. PalestineRemembered 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, this noticeboard should be used to solicit opinions from editors previously unaware of the concern. I see this is not precisely true in this case. Moving to the specific item of concern, it seems self-evident that CAMERA is an advocacy website, and should be used with caution. If the only source for certain quotes is CAMERA, it is reasonable to ask for substantiation of the quotes from an alternative source. Using only quotes available through a single article in an advocacy website leaves us open to the risk of unbalanced reporting, so that should be kept in mind. In this case, CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

comment to User:Hornplease, please look into this part of the article - [7] - and see where my previous comment above said reference fits in. btw, thank you for giving this issue a look. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly think that section is by and large not problematic; however, I think if a particularly outlandish claim by a Palestinian spokesman is sourced to a TV interview quoted by CAMERA, I can see why a dubious tag might apply. I certainly would wish to alert the average reader to the antecedents of the quote. Hornplease 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
continued talk with User:Hornplease - please note these bogus statements have been repeated on other references on that same subsection. i agree that we should strive for less POV sources, however, there is no indication to CAMERA beying more unreliable than the sources they cite; to the contrary even. anyways, i appreciate your input (hope other uninvolved editors will give one also). JaakobouChalk Talk 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig I would ask you kindly not to cherrypick my words. I quite explicitly said that on this one quote, CAMERA correctly gave Dayan's words. It is reliable on this one specific quote. It is not reliable, to judge from the way it handles the quote, and generally quotes to a POV purpose. I.e. 'Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.' CAMERA is partisan, not trustworthy in that scrupulous editorial oversight which RS thinks important as a criterion was lacking in the paraphrase, and not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand' (Middle East), since it is dedicated exclusively to promoting Israel's POV Nishidani 10:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A general comment. In war all sides lie (Walter Lippman 1924) to swing public opinion about them, and if you want to know what is going on in specific actions, months must pass if not years. Sometimes decades. To document minutely the day or day battle for the 'hearts and minds' of distant onlookers, with the profusion of understatements and exaggerations, may be a useful exercise, but it is not going to last long. In a few years, this trivia will be, by a proper historian, summed up more or less as Wildly exaggerated reports by Palestinian spokesmen of massive casualties, running into several hundreds of civilian deaths - competed with understatements by the Israeli government, for attention in the world's media. At the same time, Israel was sufficiently worried about the havoc caused by the assault to block an independent UN team from investigating in the aftermath to ascertain exactly what had occurred at Jenin. What is know is that the casualties were one-tenth of what the most exaggerating Palestinian report said they were, and these deaths,52, were evenly divided between innocent civilian bystanders and Palestinian fighters.
The drift of the passage, with its meticulous citation of outlandish reports, is to document the unreliability of Palestinians. There may be point in devoting some space to this with regard to Jenin. Anyone who reads what Amira Hass or Gideon Levy writes regularly in Haaretz in the aftermath of some missile strike or reprisal raid by the IDF, in which they visit the area, interview the families, and give intimate details of how the families of numerous civilian casualties saw events, with the usual IDF reports filtered to newspapers on the same events, will appreciate that the relevant facts are mainly edited out in the latter. The Palestinian dead rarely have an identity, are 'suspected' of terrorism, or otherwise ignored, and the whole event is summarized as a strike with an array of statistics framed in a narrative of generic provocations by terrorists and reprisal by a righteous army dedicated to 'purity of arms'. Any slipup is an unfortunate mishap. The central fact, that the land where most of these incidents occur is foreign territory under military occupation, and that Israel is obliged under International law to evacuate its illegal settlers, is ignored (As regards these settlements, the ICJ notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” ). As is the fact that:-
'4. Israel denies that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which it has signed, are applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory..' International Court of Justice ruling 2004 para.102). I.e. Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza, in Israel's view, have no right of appeal to International Covenants protecting their economic, social and cultural rights' even when Israel itself, the Occupying Power, is a signatory to these covenants.
In all these issues then Israelis have the protection of law and the IDF: the Palestinians have neither, as an occupied people. If you say this of course, you are accused of having a POV.
So, until there is a real stable political settlement, all of these articles will continue to suffer from instrumental editing: we will have chronic 'incidents', innumerable pages created where pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors will battle for the minds and the hearts of those unfortunates who think Wikipedia is a reliable source for the Middle East, pages subject to incessant edits, challenges of POV, revert wars, and subtle plays to adjust the language so that, in any one section, my side gets the subliminal assent which, in a tradeoff, your side got earlier etc. It is a huge waste of effort, and quite pathetic to watch. The only people whom a bystander can trust in this area is one who shows him/herself willing to correct POV from pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis with an equally firm hand, because he/she takes on an effort to look at the record as far as it can be objectively ascertained, and not at the powerful, often militant interests behind various, mostly trivial, accounts of that record.Nishidani 12:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your symapthy for the Palestinian cause. But this is not USNET nor a blog, and your long psot above has zero to do with the question of CAMERA's relaibility and credibility. Kindly keep politcal POV-pushingout of the encyclopedia. Isarig 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your sympathy for Israel's cause. No intention of blogging. My point is that you are never going to get a decent article on any Israeli-Palestinian issue by scouting through Internet resources culling material from newspapers, since such reportage is factitious, ephemeral, and the sources are almost invariably partisan.If we stuck to printed books by scholarly publishers, and official documents by independent bodies, most of this frigging about would disappear, and wiki would have a decent set of articles. The results so far are lengthy articles full of trivia, and huge threads of squabbling over what are, mostly, relatively simple issues.
I am, on another page, suffering a revert battle by people who will not explain to me why they consider the 2004 International Court of Justice decision POV. Why? Because they don't agree with the Court personally, and have a newspaper source by a journalist-politician who questioned it before the judgement was even passed down. I don't believe they are in bad faith. I think they are so accustomed to looking for sources in newspapers to justify their take on things, that they have forgotten the primary issue, which is a purely technical one, easily ascertained, from UN documentation and ICJ decisions. Unlike them, I make no pretence of not having a POV. What I do do, is try to keep it off the page, and stay open to queries by whoever suspects in the edits I do make that my decisions are affected by personal bias, and not by considerations of fidelity to the complete and relevant historical record. This is my last comment on the matter here.Nishidani 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record. This is off-topic, but illustrates a larger problem. 8 minutes after my posting the above, Isarig reverted Palestinian territories without apparently, unless he/she is a remarkable speed reader, reading the Talk page where a lengthy series of expositions justified my edits and those of Tiamut. He/she joins User:Humus sapiens and User:Tickle me who have over the past day reverted attempts to improve the page, each twice. Neither of the latter gave anything but a vague POV warning in the revert edits: when pressed, a very brief note by each was forthcoming, the first revealing the reverter's ignorance of niceties of English usage; the second was adequately answered, with missing RS requested, amply supplied. The page before my edits was bannered with 'neutrality debated'. That is the article all three have restored, preferring the obvious POV of that earlier page to our efforts to improve it.
I suppose this passing the baton is to avoid the 3RR rule. All three are not working on the page, but simply revert insistently, while refusing discussion. POV is evidenced not only by explicit declarations, but also, far more frequently, by this kind of behaviour, which lazily employs the POV charge to suppress unwelcome edits.Nishidani 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Technically, what you're describing is a content dispute, and the danger to articles in the encyclopedia is something that cannot be addressed at the "Reliable Sources" page. (There is some suspicion that well-funded outside influence is at play). In theory, discussions held here can have a significantly beneficial long-term impact on the encyclopedia by reducing the influence of distorted, angry material such as published by CAMERA.
One of the regular watchers of this page (who might be able to help us resolve this RS business in a consistent fashion) has reminded us that article-involved editors shouldn't really be playing a part in this discussion. However, one of the very most experienced editors present may have led everyone else astray right at the beginning of this section, for reasons that are difficult to understand. It might be best if this discussion were left to try and get at least one part of the process back on track. PalestineRemembered 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment from someone else

CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. It is of course reliable for giving its own opinions, and it is sufficiently notable that its opinions on developments are often newsworthy. But when its material is republished by a RS, then it can be indirectly quoted as , eg. NYTimes , based on... That does not seem to be the question here--the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? An interesting side issue seems to be whether it can be used as a source for the statements about people whose position it agrees with. I think in general not, as no such source can be trusted to report them fairly rather than reinterpret them in a more favorable light. DGG (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is basically how I feel. I did make an effort to find the originals, or more reliable sources which replicated the originals, and I replaced the CAMERA cites where I could. The "verify cred" tags only went on those quotes which I couldn't find. Interestingly, there are a lot of purported direct quotes on the CAMERA report which return only one Google hit - CAMERA. Check [8] , [9], [10]. Objectively, these materials should have been removed entirely, but I gave the benefit of the doubt - apparently a mistake on my part. Eleland 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Summary - this section was overwhelmed by people party to the original debate (and I joined in, sorry).
  • There were two "un-involved" editors, the sense of their contributions seems to have been as follows: "CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. User:Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"[11]
  • And "CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. .... the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? ..... User:DGG 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[12]
  • There was a third semi-involved editor, User:Number_57 had visited the article 5 days earlier hoping to mediate. His involvement may have led him to make this comment: "Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"[13]
  • In conclusion, I believe the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care". PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • CAMERA is currently cited 4 times in this article, and all the unreliable source? tags have been removed. PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - (1) number57 is VERY involvedin ME articles. (2) "Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found.", (2.1) from as many as 50! citations from that article page, we've managed to find replacements to almost all of them. (2.2) the quotes/statments that have not been replaced are all (best i'm aware) repeated by the same people on close dates and referenced by other sources. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone lend a hand with reference formatting?

As you all seem to work with references regularly, so I felt this would be an appropriate place to ask for someone to help me.

I've been adding references, but many are untidy. See DiGard_Motorsports#References to see what I'm talking about. Anyone willing to lend a hand? I especially am unsure what to do with things I found off of Google Books.

Also, does References go above or below External Links?

I'm primarily looking to see if anyone would be willing to help work on the ref coding. I can fairly defend the references used if anyone takes issue with the refs.

(crossposted at [14])

Guroadrunner 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the Google books one using {{citation}}. Hope that helps as an example. I see that someone else already used that template for another reference of a different type. —David Eppstein 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Are the sources listed in question two here: Talk:Water fluoridation#RfC reliable? · jersyko talk 13:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Overlawyered

Will Beback is systematically eliminating links to Overlawyered, added by multiple editors, without discussion on talk pages, and against consensus. Though it is in the form of a blog, it qualifies as a WP:RS: it features writing by multiple writers (including Stuart Taylor and Michael Fumento) and is edited by the leading expert in the field, Walter Olson; it is regularly cited by books,[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] {and many others} law reviews, newspaper articles, and magazines (including a number that just plagiarize us without citing). Even if it is considered a self-published source, it qualifies as a source under WP:SPS. (COI disclosure: I occasionally write for Overlawyered. I added an Overlawyered link to one page after consulting with other editors to the page.) I don't challenge all of the removals, but it seems improper to remove cites to the site when it is cited as an example of an opinion of leading legal reformers. THF 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP directly bars the use of blogs for biographies, except those written by the subject. The author of the postings in question is not Stuart Taylor, Michael Fumento, or Walter Olson. It is someone called Ted Frank, who is not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. If he is being advanced as an expert in his field then we need to have evidence of that. One editor who restored a few links asserted that a poor source is better than none. This directly contradicts our philosphy on reliable sources. If we can't find reliable sources for an assertion then it's better to leave it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Frank RS evidence: The American[20]; Business Week[21]; Wall Street Journal[22]; Forbes[23]; Washington Post[24]. Let me know if you need more. The Frank article was CSD'd as an attack page about a year after someone created it after it was vandalized to remove all useful information. THF 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The exception to RS allows for citing an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Have any of Ted Frank's opinions on the case been published in reliable sources? I don't see that author being attributed in the previous versions of the McDonalds citations, perhaps we say, "According to Ted Frank of the AEI..." that would clarify the context of the blog postings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Frank is cited on legal issues. When we cite to William Connolley's blog (which is cited to multiple times on Wikipedia), we don't ask if he's been cited on the specific blog topic, but whether he's generally reliable on environmental issues. THF 19:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you object to having Frank's opinions labelled as his own? Where the citations go to ostensibly objective information that wouldn't be necessary, but when we're talking about viewpoints I think it'd be informative to know the speaker. The issue is contentious, and Frank is unabashedly partisan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:COOL and some other guidelines, I'm withdrawing from the conversation, and ask that you hash this out with CHL and other editors. THF 19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It is better to leave unreliable assertions out. If you have a problem with the claims, remove the claims (and their sources). Removing the source but keeping the claim (as you've done) is just bizzare. A sourced claim is better than an unsourced claim. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two distinct issues: one whether Overlawyered is a reliable source in the general case. The answer to that appears to be no, especially given the lack of apparent editorial oversight. The next question is whether we can use Overlawyered as a link of convenience for some documents that are hosted there. The answer to that seems to be a clear yes. The final question is even when overlawyered is not necessarily reliable is its material notable(that is, can we on BLP say something like "According to _ at Overlawyered _" the answer to that seems to be yes given that the material is frequently cited by mainstream sources. JoshuaZ 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first two points. For the third point I'd say the current exemption to using blogs applies to authors, not entire blogs. If the author has been "published by reliable third-party publications" on the topic in question then it's OK to use on that topic with caution, though it's still preferable to use inherently reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think your analysis is on-target. Straight BLP claims are not appropriate, but as a source of opinion it is acceptable. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, per Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reason_for_reverting_ban_on_self-published_external_links, that this discussion implies that Overlawyered (when posts are written by reliable-source bloggers) can be used as an external link in a biography article. I request reversion of Beback's deletions to EL. THF 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which propsoed links are to blog postings by "recognized authorities"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
90% of Overlawyered posts (and 100% of the ones before June 2003, when it was solely written by Olson) are by Olson or Frank. I don't have time to go through everything you deleted, and I don't know how many people added how many links that you removed. If I revert you, I'll be accused of a conflict of interest. So I'm politely asking you to self-revert edits you made based on a mistaken view of policy, and continued to make even as we were still discussing the issue and you knew the edits were contested. I know you removed the link (along with Olson's PointofLaw site) as an EL from tort reform, for example, where there weren't even BLP issues. THF 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As I've posted elsewhere, I believe that the authors must be recognized authorities in the topic of the article, so unless Olson and Frank are known as experts on Ed Fagan, Ralph Nader, etc, we should use blog postings as external links. In what topics do you contend Olson and Frank are recognized authorities? Tort reform, of course. Anything else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic personal pages in Scientology articles

These amateur anti-Scientology personal homepages keep recurring as references on Scientology-related articles. Some of them make some rather threatening-sounding statements that I find every bit as ominous as the "Religious Freedom Watch" lone-nut hate site (whose article was recently deleted). It seems clear to me that these kind of religious-partisan rant sites are no better than personal blogs, of no use to us as sources, nor trustworthy for courtesy links:

  • Holysmoke.org - This amateurish site compiled by one man ("Shy David") consists mostly of unverifiable material like personal emails (like this page currently used as a reference on the Gold Base article!) and Usenet posts.


Furthermore, these sites are also seeded in a very spammy fashion across the External Links sections of almost the entirety of the Scientology articles.

The Anti-Scn editors will likely cry that I'm seeking to silence all criticism of Scientology. Far from it - I want lots and lots of criticism, but criticism with airtight sources, not these homepages of people ranting about their holy mission to "expose the global scam of Scientology". If these criticisms are so encyclopedic, we should be able to get all the dirt we need from reliable sources, not some angry conspiracy-theory personal webpage made by persons with evident grudges. User:AndroidCat has done a great job recently supplanting CoS articles with solid newspaper articles as sources, so let's follow his example and lose these childish "Scientology sucks" pages. wikipediatrix 04:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two bits to this. I recently made these edits [25][26] to the David Miscavige article. I found that Lerma's site had altered the title of the article to sound much more sinister than it actually was. Right there, that seems to disqualify it as a reliable source. As someone else pointed out to me the source is the source, and not a website who is hosting the article to make a point. I would personally like to see less criticism in the Scn-related articles, but I know that's not going to happen. So, if there has to be criticism, then let it be well sourced from reliable sources, as well as make sure the article says what the source says (if you notice my edit, once I changed it to reflect what the article actually said, changed the tone of what was being said quite a bit).HubcapD 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Although the authors of these self-published web sites are occasionally quoted by the media and occasionally termed "expert" in that context, there is a difference between using their statements as reported by the press (i.e. by reliable sources) and considering their personal websites themselves as reliable sources. The authors of these "Scientology Sucks" web sites are, IMO, extremists, if, by "extremist", we simply mean someone that is as far from center or from NPOV as is possible. When an extremist makes a statement to the press we have a number of factors at work. 1) The extremist will tone down his rhetoric and limit himself to provable facts or sustainable opinions; 2) the reliable source should fact-check and only print those portions of the remarks that check out; and 3) the reliable source will also publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes a reliable source "reliable".

    For an example, look at this San Francisco Chronicle article, Scientology link to public schools, in which anti-Scientology "extremist" David Touretzky is referenced not an "expert" but as simply what he is, a computer science research professor that has a web site; a web site that, according to the SF Chronical, "includes some controversial material." This is my opinion but I see that "controversial" as a codeword for "biased", "not reliable", even "dubious". The SF Chronicle did not use Touretzky's attack site as a source. They were able to write quite a critical article without using these dubious personal sites as "sources". That is responsible publishing and the standard that we must maintain here.

    Self-published personal Scientology attack sites are under no constraints to 1) limit the rhetoric to provable fact or sustainable opinions; 2) do any fact-checking at all; or 3) publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes such sites not reliable. They are self-published. They are polemic. They are biased. They are unreliable. We do not need them. --Justanother 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Internal Information

Can I get a clarification on whether internal information, like manuals, memos, etc pertaining to an organization, that is distributed only for use by members within the organization is considered "published" and hence reliable sources? I scoured through a few pages of reliability and its archives, and i didn't find anything specifically addressing that point. The Jackal God 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For an article about the organization (or its subsidiaries), such items would either be self published sources (see WP:SELFPUB for guidance on handling them) or, more likely, non-published private correspondence. Ask the question - can someone go find a copy of this source and verify that it says what the editor here said that it said? If they can, use WP:SPS guidance. If they can't, it is probably private correspondence. GRBerry 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources

Please see WP:BLP/N#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns, particularly: WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself, which pertain to questions pertaining to reliable sources of material about living persons (not only biographies but other articles concerning living persons as well). Thank you. --NYScholar 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

Per WP:N a subject is notable if it has recieved non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. I was looking at the article on Claus Elming, a Danish football player and TV personality who has recieved significant non-trivial coverage in the Danish media. Ignoring for a moment that the reliable sources in this context are not used solely to satisfy WP:V what is the general concensus on the use of foreign language sources as reliable sources, especially when such sources are in a language only understood by a small minority of editors? Is there a generally agreed upon concensus on a threshold for how minor a language may be before such sources are disregarded? MartinDK 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Such sources are never "disregarded"... it is simply that equally reliable sources in English are given preference. A reliable source is a reliable source, no matter what language it is written in. Blueboar 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

An FDA document, obtained from FBI files: Does its use violate "reliable source" and "verifiability" policies?

This is a dispute I wish could be resolved one way or another soon. It might be my misunderstanding, but we need external input with convincing arguments. The case is currently an open RfC, but I wish this was settled soon. It's about a Food and Drug Administration document, found in the FBI files, now available from this FBI web page (it can be ordered, or consulted at the FBI headquarters). Also available for a few dollars at the paperlessarchives.com. That FDA document contains a note that a specific product can be used for iron-deficiency. There is no mention that it can be used for anything else. The FDA statement from that letter was used in an article as follow: "The tablets had in fact only been approved as a supplement to counteract iron-deficiency anemia.". If you want to comment on this issue, I rather you do it at the RfC of the talk page of the article in which the dispute is ongoing, this will save me to have to notify all the person involved to have their say here. Thank you. Raymond Hill 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Please look at the referenced RfC for comments by both involved and uninvolved editors. Short story short, FOIA is NOT published. It is AVAILABLE. Not published. In the specific instance, the desired edit was not "sourced material". It was WP:OR based on an unpublished primary source (granting that the letter is legit). Big difference. But more important, the cited source of the letter (xenu.com) is not RS so we cannot use the letter. RS is published material, not FOIA material, or interviews you go and do, or pictures that you take, etc. I quote WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Emphasis as original. Or as WP:V puts it, I quote: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." That specific letter has not been published in a reliable source. Nor has reference to that specific letter been made in a reliable published source. For the purposes of Wikipedia, that letter does not exist. Personally, I could care less and the letter adds little to what we already have from reliable sources. My concern is OR and poor sourcing, that is worth addressing here. --Justanother 22:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Raymond Hill, but I don't want to weigh in on the actual dispute, so I won't be posting there. I will point out why the FOIA source seems valid to me. They are primary sources, and here is what some policies and guidelines say about them:
WP:OR says: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source...Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.... and most importantly Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.
WP:RS: The FBI is a RS, is someone saying they aren't?
WP:V: The FBI is a Verifiable source too since copies can be ordered from them. (There is almost no difference between asking someone to order docs from a gov't office and trying to get a book ordered that a local library doesn't have.)
Anynobody 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
AN, you make my case for me. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources. The primary source is an FDA letter. Supposedly, that letter is in the FBI's file on Hubbard and one can obtain it by ordering it from the government. But it is not PUBLISHED. Not by the FDA, not by the FBI, not by anyone. I can order a pastrami sandwich from my local deli but that doesn't make the pastrami sandwich "published". You order PUBLISHED books from your local library - you order UNPUBLISHED material by FOIA. Big difference. --Justanother 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Justanother maybe the problem is a difference in definition of what it means to "publish" something.
Publish
To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
Ordering FOIA information is public distribution. Because the same info is available to anyone who wants it, it can be verified. The definition you seem to be insisting on is info from private publishers only, which seems unnecessarily limited since a reference like this currently used in the article about the Virginia class submarine would be invalid by your argument. After all the gov't didn't publish this like a regular book. Anynobody 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos (book)

A dispute between me and Cyrus XIII about the NPOV of my contributions to Lords of Chaos (book) has escalated into an edit war. I can't see any substance in his accusations. Lords of Chaos has some - mildly put- controversial content. I disagree with this content, but I definitely think it has to be included in the article. In my opinion Cyrus XIII is referring to WP:NPOV and WP:EL in an attempt to keep this content out of Wikipedia, thus censoring the article. We are both experienced editors and I don't think that one of use is going to make the 'mistake' of braking the 3 revert rule. Zara1709 15:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this is quite old already, and probably this was the wrong noticeboard, there is something concerning the reliability of a source here: Is an article by Kevin Coogan a reliable source for the following information:
"The book itself [Lords of Chaos], however, is not a "fascist" tract in the strict sense of the term, in part because Moynihan co-wrote the book with Didrik Saderlind, a former music critic for a mainstream Norwegian paper who is now an editor at Playboy. Moreover, Feral House editor Adam Parfrey clearly wanted to publish a popular book on the strange universe of black metal rather than a political polemic."
I think it is rather important to state that Didrik Saderlind is not, unlike Michael Moynihan (journalist), the other author of the book, or Varg Vikernes, the main subject of it, an extreme right activist. There is no reason to delete that kind of information. Zara1709 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com

For example, [27], this is cited extensively in Rogerian argument. I noticed this site yesterday when an anon added links to several pages. We have 300+ links from articles. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as any other web hosting site: the content should be considered self-published, and used as a source only if we have some reason to believe that the author is a recognized expert on its subject, I think. A relevant quote: "Associated Content is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic for distribution." —David Eppstein 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I've stated on Tom Harrison's talk page, I feel that this site differs from other web hosting sites...in that it has served to be truthful as many times that I have looked over it, meaning that I have not personally seen any inaccuracies with it...yet, and so there must be some sort of condition that they have in making sure who types there is typing the real deal. I feel that Wikipedia would be losing a great source of references in discouraging (or eliminating, for that matter) the use of this site as an independent reliable source. I really have not seen any objection on Wikipedia to the use of this site as an independent reliable source until now. Flyer22 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd treat it the same as links to another wiki. They're self-published, so I would not use it as the sole citation for a fact in an article. I'd avoid using it in BLP's. On the other hand, if the link is in an "External Links" section and the AC article simply happens to be a good, useful article, I'd keep it. I'm against removing links to AC simply on principle. Squidfryerchef 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22, we aren't supposed to even use other Wikipedia articles as a source. We may refer readers to other articles of related content for related info, but since an article can change at any moment they are not appropriate for an actual reference. This site has the same problem, as David Eppstein pointed out:(emphasis mine) Associated Content is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic... Essentially it's describing Wikipedia. Anynobody 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that we are not supposed to use other Wikipedia articles as a source on Wikipedia, of course, but I don't see associatedcontent.com as truly the same as Wikipedia. For one thing, there is no worry of vandalism to their articles or other editors inaccurately adding things to their already published articles. And as David Eppstein also pointed out, associatedcontent.com can be used as a source if we have some reason to believe that the author is a recognized expert on its subject, except David Eppstein stated only. For me, I feel that it can go beyond that. What also separates it from Wikipedia is even if a Wikipedian has expertise in a certain field, that still does not stop Wikipedians from not being able to use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. Associated Content has actually been used a source in some good articles on Wikipedia, and from what I've seen of it so far, I cannot change my mind on the subject of its use. I still feel that it should and can be used as a reliable source quite often here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't given any reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT from treating it any differently than any other self-published source. —David Eppstein 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have given other reasons besides WP:ILIKEIT. I don't even frequent there often, not out of personal interest, I mean, though I often and only see their articles accurately written (so far, that is). Frankly, I don't have a lot more to state on this subject. I feel that it's a waste to disregard that site, and I'm not up for stating the same thing over and over again on this matter, in different variations. Flyer22 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of United States Presidential religious affiliations

Repeated insertion of the claim that George Washington was a Deist... without any source or reference to back the claim up. Also repeated deletion of Thomas Jefferson from the list of Episcopalians even though there is a source for this. Other material boarders on WP:SYNT and OR. This article needs serious help from neutral editors. Blueboar 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Institution website as reliable resources?

Are institutions websites (Colleges, Universities, etc.) reliable sources to use for referencing articles. Like for example the Technological Institute of Piraeus? Link to the site:[28] and link to the information: [29] Can they be used in a wikipedia article as a reference or are they inadequate? El Greco (talk · contribs) 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To give you a clear answer we would need more information. It depends on what why the websites are being cited ... They are certainly reliable for information regarding the college, university or organization - its courses, facutly, official policies, and stances on issues, etc. They might or might not be reliable as cites for other kinds of information, depending the specifics. Blueboar 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
One of these links is for a thesis. If the thesis was published, it can be used as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bose Corporation and the intellexual web page

This debate has been going on for over 2 years now and it has re-surfaced again. The debate is whether this article should be included in the Bose article or not. If you check the talk page not only do I believe that this article does not qualify because it is blatantly POV but it fails the tests of verifiability and being a reliable source (detailed listings of this are on the talk page). But this can be summed up by this comment:

the intellexual.net review is unsigned and is published on what appears to be an unknown individual's personal web site, its subject was a technologically unremarkable product which is long defunct and whose performance may bear little relation to that of its successors, and it discusses the product in a gleefully negative framework that is anything but neutral and unbiased and is thus of dubious value as an encyclopedic link [..] Besides, if that stale and biased review is the most credible link that we skeptics can come up with, I'd say that's pretty sad. Rivertorch 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please can you help lay this issue to rest? -- UKPhoenix79 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is being used to support the assertion that there exists a significant viewpoint that Bose sells deficient equipment. This occurs in a section which also contains the assertion that there exists a significant viewpoint that Bose sells high-end equipment. In order to accurately portray the dispute, we must represent both viewpoints. We have worked hard to ensure that the section issues no judgment on the quality of the equipment itself, but merely provides an exposition of the dispute.
Our last discussion uncovered numerous articles in traditional newspapers that referred to the article in question as an encapsulation of the viewpoint it represents; it has become something of a classic and makes use of laboratory-measured frequency response data from Sound and Vision, a reputable audio review publication.
To use this source to support an assertion over the equipment itself would be a grave mistake, but there is no one advocating that. We merely wish to represent all significant viewpoints, and this article is a touchstone for one of those viewpoints. —ptk✰fgs 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also support keeping this link in the article. While it's a personal site, the individual provides detailed rationale for his or her opinions. I would argue this intellexual.net review has more relevance and credibility than the non-specific assertion of "high-end" in Forbes Magazine (a magazine that depends on advertisers like Bose for its survival). Frankly, these days Bose products are not subjected to stringent critical review by vertical publications dedicated to audio and video. Bose doesn't compete in that market anymore. As an encyclopedia, we can let the reader draw their own conclusions about which sources they choose to embrace. Furthermore the quoted observation that the intellexual.net review deals with a discontinued product does not really matter. The article has many references other past events and products - why single this one out? Mattnad 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A self-published web site does not qualify as a reliable source, in my opinion. It makes it worse that the review has no author who is willing to take responsibility for it. Elsewhere on the web some people attribute these views to Richard Wang, who is the owner of the intellexual.net web site according to whois. The current Bose Corporation article includes plenty of criticism, and readers have their pick of many reliable sources for criticism, including the Wall Street Journal. The commenter who argued we have to 'represent both viewpoints' can only mean that we should reflect the diversity of opinions found in reliable sources. That doesn't give carte blanche for self-published sites. EdJohnston 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I have NEVER said that we shouldn't cite a credible source, actually I REALLY want to find one. But I have not been able to find any. This website CLAIMS to use Sound and Visions audio equipment for the testings but I could claim the same and say whatever I wanted to. I also agree that the "high-end" sources are problematic and even in the talk history said that this just doesn't make sense. But from what the discussions came down was that Bose is "high-end" consumer grade audio equipment which seamed to made sense to everyone involved.
Now I put this in the talk page but I thought that I'd post it here to help with the discussion.
If you check you would see that it does not meet the standards of Verifiability:
  • third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable 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, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
    • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
  • If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
This web page fails everything, it has NO reputation for fact checking, these claims have not been cited from other reliable 3rd party sources, This person is not an expert or has he been credited as being an expert in the audio field, and has no notable published works aside from this single page.
Nor does it pass reliability:
  • Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand
  • Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
  • In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  • In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
  • 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, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
  • Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
I don't think that I really need to list this one point by point but check out the last one. Yes this is extremely valid with this persons notable anti-bose and blatant POV throughout the web page.
No other reliable site can be found with these claims only forums and most link back to this article. Hence all the debating for over 2 years on this issue is focused on the reliability, verifiability, and POV of this particular website. according to the Official Guidelines of Wikipedia this website fails every test...
This is an encyclopedia and I just don't see how it can be used here... -- UKPhoenix79 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Eric, and anyone else who has not edited the Bose article, in your opinion should the many quotes in there from reliable sources /outside their areas of expertise/ be regarded as aceptable sources? In particular Bose's PR would appear to claim that they make 'high end audio' gear (whatever that means), and this is often quoted in reviews of Bose gear by non-audio mags. It seems to me that quoting Pop Sci, Forbes, or a PC magazine, on that subject is like quoting Sound & Vision on Bose's finacial standing - just quote picking.
As to the site in question, raised by our voluble friend, we are attempting to link to an objective test, a graph of frequency response. This is the only objective measurement of a Bose system we've found so far. Greglocock 22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If you checked the archived talk page I have said that I thought all the "High-end" references were dubious so please realize that I agree with that statement. The only reason I have not removed them myself was the case for them to stay was it was from well respected sites like Forbes Magazine, Edmunds Inside line, Popular Science, PC Magazine and C|Net. Now it is VERY noticeable that NONE are Audio magazines but regular Consumer magazines. So it was decided to keep because it was stated as being High-End consumer Audio products. Even though I think this makes sense it is still... well... odd. Though if you ask regular people on the streets if Bose is High-End audio I'd say 9 out of 10 times you will hear a resounding yes.
Going to the second point Anybody can make a graph of anything out there and claim that they are using this or that to test on this or that product. It is actually very easy to mess with numbers & tests to make them come out whatever way you wan