Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

http://www.businessofcinema.com/

In the Genelia D'Souza article, I wish to add a statement about her brother saying that her younger brother who works with the Bombay Stock Exchange, which is present in http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=13968. Is businessofcinema reliable. It seems to be reliable after visiting their About Us page. Just wanted to confirm here. Xavier449 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, at least the News and Interviews sections...material in the Database section may well be submitted by the companies concerned and not subject to editorial oversight. Barnabypage (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a website that appears to be relatively professionally made, but the About Us page actually says little about it. We know nothing of its ownership, editorial policies, editorial board, etc. It doesn't help that the About Us page has an html error on it. I don't see anything indicating it meets WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering, it is owned by Join The Dots (JTD) Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd, and their journalists are well known, who provide news reports to leading websites, it should be considered reliable. Accroding to this dispatch, media organizations are generally considered reliable. Xavier449 (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the site doesn't give a bit more detail about its structure or ownership, and JTD doesn't seem to have a corporate site, but I think ownership by a company is a helpful indication that it's more than a blog with pretensions. These help too: http://in.linkedin.com/in/hetaladesara and http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=10000 Barnabypage (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing much evidence that it meet's Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:IRS states that, " Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.". This link clearly indicates that they atleast have a team. Secondly, the authors are well-known journalist.

• For example the author Chuman Das of the article in question http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=13968 is a well-known journalist, who can be considered as authoritative in the field of journalism.
  • The Press Information Bureau (Government of India) identifies him as a Media critic of Channel 7 here for the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) 2005 in Goa.
  • This link says, "The organisation has appointed Chuman Das as General Manager, Content, to manage and create innovative Bollywood-based content. Das was earlier with Channel 7 as Head of Entertainment and has also worked in NDTV and TV 18 as Chief Reporter and Associate Director, respectively."

THis clearly indicates this link meets WP:RS. Xavier449 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Claiming to have a "team" is not an indication of editorial oversight, nor is it any indication that a source is reliable. Also, publishing an article by Chuman Das does not automatically make a source reliable; assuming that Das is an expert Reliable Source, all that would indicate is that specific article by Das meets the requirements of WP:SPS, no more. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I still didn't understand why this source cannot be considered reliable. As per WP:IRS, " Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.". No idea about of their publication procss, but doesn't it satisfy the second criteria of the author Chuman Das being authoritative in such topics. WP:SPS is out of question, as Das has not published this article. Xavier449 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So your question here, then, is if Chuman Das qualifies as an expert WP:SPS for the purposes of WP:BLP? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

BOUML

Original sourcing and background

Hello, I'd like some help with that article. It's involved in a dispute on the french wikipedia AfD. The author of the software claims to be Bruno pages (talk · contribs) which is one of the latest contributor of the article. He's been indef banned on fr.wp for threatening to sue admins, his first contribs here have not been very nice either (see also the notice on the software web site).
So I need some help evaluating the references on that article:

• The first ones come from Bruno Pages own web site
• To me, the last are obviously the result of a random google search
• fr:BOUML has a much better english bibliography, can anybody retrieve those papers and evaluate them?

Since I am French, I can offer some advice on the french ref: the url from the PLUME project is correct, however, its title violate NPOV. Another reference on free software in French is framasoft, but http://www.framasoft.net/article3966.html is outdated.
Czech and Italian references seems to be idle chat on forums, and I can't make heads or tail of the chinese one. Thank you for your help, Comte0 (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks very much like WP:SPAM. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame that he is to stop working on it, its actually a quite nice program. What did he threaten the admins over? un☯mi 20:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At the french afd right now, a couple of people are also saying that it's a nice program used in teaching. I am then surprised that the sources' quality is so bad... Comte0 (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at both your talk pages, I'd rather have us only discuss the quality of the sources on this noticeboard. Thank you. Comte0 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources on both the English and French WP. I can't identify any reliable source on the English WP. The Italian source was definitely a blog post. I couldn't read the Czech or Chinese sources. However, on the French WP, while there are some internet forum and blog sources, there are also two academic papers: Kearney & Power, and Changizi et al., both in English. Also, in the "bibliography" section there are three books which appear from their titles and publishers to be decent reliable sources. Page numbers are given but the books aren't cited inline. Potentially five good sources, but it remains to be seen whether these are sufficient to establish notability. It would help if a specialist in software could comment. Information cited only to blogs and forums should be removed. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMPSCI has been notified. Should I also contact WP:CZECH, and WP:CHINA? BTW, the Chinese article is still available through google cache. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Steven Kearney and James F. Power (2007). Université nationale d'Irlande (ed.). Benchmarking the accuracy of reverse engineering tools for Java programs: a study of eleven UML tools (Technical Report: NUIM-CS-TR-2007-01) (PDF). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Technical report. Reliable although probably not peer-reviewed, but not sufficient to establish notability on its own. This is the only independent source that could potentially be used to base an article on, but note that the this report concludes that BOUML is rather buggy. —Ruud 17:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It did conclude that, but the French article says that the developer corrected those bugs in later versions. The report was published three years before he stopped working on the software. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Behnaz Changizi, Natallia Kokash, Farhad Arbab (2010). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ed.). A Unified Toolset for Business Process Model Formalization (PDF). p. 6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Seems to be a technical report as well. Reliable although probably not peer-reviewed, but not sufficient to establish notability on its own. Refers to BOUML but does not discuss it. —Ruud 17:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This article clearly mentions BOUML as "the only free UML2 tool we found", "runs under all major operating systems and supports the exchange of models

via an eXchanging Model Information (XMI) format" - User:af1n

• • This article is cited by at least 6 sources (IEEE, Springer) - User:af1n
• Esra Erdem, Fangzhen Lin, Torsten Schaub, Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning: 10th International Conference, Springer, ISBN 978-3-642-04237-9, 2009, p.458-459
  • These are proceedings, which paper exactle? I assume this refers to Applying ASP to UML Model Validation. Contains minimal discussion of BOUML. —Ruud 17:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Google points here, which looks like what you found. Indeed, it merely states that bouml has been used when writing the report. Comte0 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dorota Huizinga, Adam Kolawa , Automated defect prevention: best practices in software management, Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, ISBN 978-0-470-04212-0, 2007, p.398
  • Again, which paper? —Ruud 17:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

google points here. It merely says that bouml is a kind of software engineering tool. Comte0 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fabrice Kordon, Yvon Kermarrec, Reliable Software Technologies - Ada-Europe 2009: 14th Ada-Europe, Springer, ISBN 978-3-642-01923-4, 2009, p.154
  • Which paper? —Ruud 17:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

google points here. That quote merely says that bouml exports to XMI. Comte0 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IEEE

• Connecting GROOVE to the world using XMI Template:Cite article - User:af1n
• REM4j-A framework for measuring the reverse engineering capability of UML CASE tools Template:Cite article - compares BOUML to several other modeling toolkits User:af1n
• Quality Measurement Model for Analysis and Design Tools Based on FLOSS Template:Cite article - this article compares bouml to StarUML, ArgoUML, Dia, Papyrus and others using MOSCA algorithm and gives it better score then ArgoUML and Dia. User:af1n

Good catches! With these three papers I think we can write a reasonable article. —Ruud 02:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Where and by whom were these three papers published? They look like two presentations at conferneces and one student paper short of a masters or doctoral theses. That would mean they are self-published and not reliable sources. Fladrif (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The first one is a master thesis, which is has been supervised but not peer reviewed, but in this context (article on a software product) I'd consider reliable enough. The other two are from conference proceedings, which is the "usual" publishing venue in computer science and will have been peer reviewed. —Ruud 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Papers at IEEE conferences may or may not be reviewed, depending on the particular conference. IEEE Organizers Manual, p 12 Absent knowing what review process, if any was followed at that particular conference, it is impossible to know if that paper was reviewed. ISCE does require peer review of papers at its conferences, so that may pass[1]. A master's thesis would generally fall short of a RS. Fladrif (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, i think you are being a little to strict in regards to the quality and quantity of the scientific material needed to write an article about a very simple UML model designer. IMHO the fact that a UML tool is considered in academic papers already makes it noteworthy.af1n (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A master thesis will likely have had more review than a benchmark in a computer magazine. The latter would obviously be accepted as a reliable source in articles on software. We're not going to make any extraordinary claims, so be don't need extraordinary sources. —Ruud 11:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My strictness has to do with trying to determine whether a paper is self-published or not. If a conference doesn't review the papers submitted but simply bundles them for the attendees, I tend to view the paper as essentially self-published because of the lack of editorial oversight. Masters theses have been discussed many times on RSN; there's a division of opinion that I take to be pretty close to right down the middle. I'm on the side of not preferring them. Fladrif (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there are good conferences and bad conferences (as there are good journals and bad journals). I somewhat doubt an IEEE conference wouldn't have a review process, but I'll look into it. Master theses in general would certainly not be a reliable source (if there is anything really ground-breaking in it a follow-up journal article will/should have been published), but in this context (you are making a general statement here, not taking the context into account) a master thesis would be an order of magnitude more reliable than a magazine article, which already would be acceptable here. — Ruud 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, even if IEEE would not peer review a document it certainly has some acceptance guidelines and the document is read by experts. Even the submissions to minor proceedings and conferences are reviewed to some extent, although politics play much higher role there then content. I would like to add that most of the universities also have an internal review process before you can actually submit a publication to an external institution. This is the part where they add some professors to your work :D Ask some phd friends if you don't believe me. - af1n 19:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

IEEE says, per the ref I provided above, that sometimes it reviews papers for its conferences, and sometimes it doesn't. Did it or didn't it in this case? I have presented lots of papers at conferences and seminars. Sometimes they are reviewed. Sometimes not. While I like to think that every word I write is authoritative, I am not so deluded as to think that the ones that aren't reviewed are anything other than self-published. Then we get to the question as to whether something I have written would qualify as a SPS nonetheless. Of course I am a recogized expert, previously published, on whatever I write about....but I need to be convinced about the jamokes who wrote the stuff we're discussing here. Fladrif (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why you need a bunch of peer reviewed publications in case of Bouml. Is this really required in case of a simple software package ? There are lots of uml modelers on wikipedia that don't meet your criteria of being mentioned in a peer reviewed publication like Gaphor and Umbrello. Are you going to mark them for deletion ? For the sake of consistency are there any definitive guidelines what are the requirements for software to be included on wikipedia ? - af1n 12:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to contact IEEE and get the answers who reviewed these papers, just give me some time.- af1n 12:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at the AfD page about that. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, please keep the standard of the discussion high. The derogatory term jamoke (clumsy looser) doesn't suit a technical discussion well. - af1n 12:41, 26 December 2010

Well, this is the reliable source noticeboard. You've been given an answer several kilobytes below, WRT common sense. From my POV, the difference is between keep and speedy keep at the AfD. See also Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

and the guidelines about inclusion are here: Wikipedia:Notability Comte0 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Links given during the french AfD

As said above, those references were taken verbatim from fr:BOUML. The AfD at fr:Discussion:BOUML/Suppression yields lots of other french sources which may support the claim that it's widely used in education:

• http://laurentparenteau.com/blog/2009/03/uml-modeling-tools-reviews-bouml/ Blog
• http://judebert.com/progress/archives/331-UML-Editors-BOUML.html blog
• http://gna.org/projects/plugout-jpa derived project
• http://showmedo.com/videotutorials/video?name=6120000&fromSeriesID=612 tutorial
• http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4202663/Using-Bouml-to-make-a-sequence-diagram tutorial
• http://iscte.pt/~ajsco/html/en/monolog/bouml_api.htm tutorial
• http://www.adictosaltrabajo.com/tutoriales/tutoriales.php?pagina=bouml tutorial
• http://www.developpez.net/forums/f422/general-developpement/conception/outils/ a forum in french, 'next to the heavyweights Rational Rose et PowerAMC (and it's got the most messages)' according to the reporter
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=BOUML google scholar
• http://homepages.cwi.nl/~behnaz/docs/FESCA2010.pdf
• http://www.cs.nuim.ie/research/technicalreports/techreport.pdf
• http://www.emse.fr/~picard/cours/msgl/uml/ École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
• http://google.com/search?q=cours+uml+bouml a google search in french
• http://www.yopdf.eu/tp-uml-bouml-pdf.html a pdf search
• http://www.google.fr/#hl=fr&q=uml+tool&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=718c07c424f24418
• http://www.google.fr/search?as_q=bouml&hl=fr&num=10&btnG=Recherche+Google&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=d&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
• http://cnrsformation.cnrs-gif.fr/STAGES/StagesNx/MOTSDet201121.html a claim that bouml is used at the CNRS to teach engineers in the private sector
• http://www.xmarks.com/topic/uml?sid=gbxvd3ct&product=xmarks&featured=270237&xplat=SearchBoost001:C&cid=serp.shmear.rating&mid=g2ujqyjr the Xmarks rating "#9, not far from Rational" according to the reporter.

I agree with Itsmejudith that some of these are not fit to wikipedia, but I tried to be comprehensive. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're disputing whether this software exists or not. It does seem to be used by some people at least, because there are not that many competitors in the open source UML editor market. At best this software would be borderline notable however, making it not really that much of an issue whether the article existed or not. The real problem is that all those sources, with the exception of Kearney and Power, only seem to mention BOUML instead of actually discussing it. This would make it rather difficult to write a reasonable article on BOUML. In the end we're an encyclopedia, not a database of SourceForge projects. —Ruud 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

They seem to, yes. The reason why I dumped all of these urls above was that I'd like to get a final answer. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

From the engineer perspective wikipedia has much more information about the UML modelers then sourceforge and it gives the user the NPOV that is useful when selecting software. Consider [List of Unified Modeling Language tools]. af1n (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Hi, just to say I was blocked on French wikipedia because an administrator reversed the meaning of one sentences I written. Good witch hunt, even though Halloween is already past. Bruno pages (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. We aren't here to take a view on events in French wikipedia. You could help out by pointing to some sources that discuss BOUML in depth. But if you can't or don't want to, then goodbye and good luck. The article in en.wikipedia may be deleted if there aren't enough good sources discussing it. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, We aren't here to take a view on events in French wikipedia, really ? in this case why the beginning of this discussion speak about events on fr.wikipedia and indicate I am blocked on it ? What is the link with the (theoretical ) reason of this discussion ? Bruno pages (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We really don't care about all that. This is the reliable sources noticeboard. If you can provide some sources as asked for then please do. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are seriously mistaken if you only read the beginning of this discussion. You must read it all the way down to the part where I corrected people with "I'd rather have us only discuss the quality of the sources on this noticeboard". Comte0 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite article and Template:Cite article - this article compares bouml to StarUML, ArgoUML, Dia, Papyrus and others using MOSCA algorithm and gives it better score then ArgoUML and Dia. - actually compares BOUML to several other modeling toolkits, so your arguments don't hold very much. ArgoUML, StarUML, Umbrello and other similar modeling software is not discussed in much broader scale in scientific documents either. It's very hard to write a scientific article about software that already exists and uses established standards. af1n (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Widely used in education?

• University of Wisconsin–Parkside Cs475 [2] - af1n
• School of Engineering and Technology Asian Institute of Technology [3] - af1n
• Lehigh University CSE216 [4] - af1n
• Northeastern University CS 5200 [5] - af1n
• The University of Alabama at Birmingham Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences CS304 [6] - af1n
• many more, just google: BOUML homework

Back to the subject at hand, I think all we can reliably say about BOUML is something like: "it is widely used in education for teaching UML concepts", sourced with the yopdf.eu link above. Does anybody agree ? Comte0 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Widely used" is a very subjective term and not something I would like to conclude from that webpage. Quantitatively we have the SourceForge statistics (compare to Dia) and the Debian popularity contest (compare to dia). —Ruud 14:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some bias in those examples. Dia is hosted at gnome.org, not sourceforge; the sf.net statistics can only hint at something bigger. There is a newer BOUML debian package available on sourceforge, so we have to take into account people who install using the package from sf.net, among people who don't reply to the popcon poll. For all those reasons, I think a comparison with StarUML would be better. Comte0 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To establish notability we could even compare how much the article is read (BOUML vs. Dia) and conclude it is approximately 10% as notable. Personally, I'm even indifferent to whether we should have an article on Dia. In general poorly sourced article do neither much good (because the provide little information to the few people that read them) nor much harm. In this case the author seems to be using the article as a soapbox because of a conflict I do not yet think I fully understand. But I'm probably getting off-topic here regarding reliable sources and this discussion might be better continued at the AfD. —Ruud 15:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

why to compare Bouml and Dia whose don't have the same goal ? Dia is a tool to do graphic and sometimes used to draw UML diagrams, it is exactly like to compare Bouml and Paint. Sorry but do you know what UML and a modeler are ? Bruno pages (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I chose Dia because it was the first example of a "small open-source application" that came to mind, not because its feature comparable. —Ruud 16:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't sound reasonable Ruud. A comparison with Umbrello, ArgoUML and EMF would be much more fair. —af1n 00:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

it is difficult to use statistics, except of course in case there is no downloads ;-). One download may be reused by several persons (generally the case in a school because teachers copy the setup/binary to each pc to not have to download it several times), and at the same time some can download and use the tool only one time. On sourceforge the tool itself was downloaded 316000 times, on free.fr where it was placed before this was more difficult because I had to the stat myself and it was not possible to have all the numbers, but I count 160000. After there are a lot of versions and it is not possible to know when people go in a new version. Furthermore Bouml binaries are copied and placed on internet sites, and of course I don't have the number of download made from Linux/Unix distributions or of course not downloaded separately but part of a distribution. Note the Debian popcon stats applies only on people accepting to send statistics. In some cases when I receive a mail from a user I am able to know in which context Bouml is used, Bouml is not only used for studies, but also for industry (from very specific like Honda formula one team or 'serious' like about Airplane / satellite / Nuclear ) and administrations (example Nasa Ames research center or Neederland ministry of justice), mails come from all the world, but, being a primary source and the evil I know information coming from me don't have matter. About use in France for research and teaching perhaps people able to read French can refer to Nipou explanations about PLUME/ESR (Enseignement Supérieur et Recherche) ?Bruno pages (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, statistics are difficult, and no, as the author we can't just take your word for it. Not because we don't think you are untrustworthy, but because there exist people that are, and the Wikipedia community therefore decided to only rely on independent and reliable source. Compare it to double-blind testing in psychology. —Ruud 16:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't really do anything useful with these statistics and what's here is just original research to no good effect, a good source discussing the product is what's required. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as a definitive answer goes, that's going to be difficult. None of these sources are immediately apparently good enough. I can see two that are websites of higher education institutions. The CNRS one seems to have gone dead. The Ecole des Mines St Etienne is probably just about OK. With a few more like that it would be possible to show notability. I'm veering towards "not quite enough to demonstrate notability", but it should probably be decided at AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, your comment concerning the CNRS is misleading, as you can see in [7] Bouml is also used for the company trainings done in 2011 by the CNRS. I'm tired to see people including administrators spreading untruths (or even lies) on Wikipedia to discredit me/Bouml.Bruno pages (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is us doing our best to find out whether your software is notable enough to warrant an article. If you want to help us in that endeavour, thanks. If you don't, then the article will probably be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The links in Bruno Pages' above post show that CNRS have been using it for training in UMLs that they offer to business. CNRS is prestigious. The source doesn't discuss BOUML though. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you really want to know my dream is to see articles about Bouml removed in all languages, because this seems to be the only way to stop the witch-hunting made against me and to not have misleading information about Bouml. Bouml is a notable software largely used in his domain, lot of people say me they stopped to use already purchased modeler and use Bouml. I worked on it during 8 years alone at home on my free time and I give it for free. I don't need to have articles about Bouml on wikipedia, but I don't like to see misleading information about it. I am not a terrorist or a spammer but someone respectable although I am not a sheep, the way wikipedia administrators manage me since several years is scandalous and unacceptable.Bruno pages (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bruno, we're not talking about you as a person, and we're not talking about French wikipedia. The only thing we're discussing here is sources about BOUML software. I saw that it is used in some CNRS courses. Is there a book or a magazine that has a fairly long description of BOUML, two or three paragraphs or more, that tells us what BOUML does? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, it's "free as in free speech, not free beer." Comte0 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How many sources (count) do you need to qualify BoUML as notable ? Are there some algorithms for that ? - af1n

No, just common sense. A single reliable source stating that "BOUML is widely used in education would probably be sufficient, while 20 that state "I used BOUML for a project" would probably not be. —Ruud 02:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I get the idea, however i don't think we can find a peer reviewed study dealing the deployment base of UML modelers on universities. For sure we can say that to some extent it is used in education. - af1n 02:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Everything in this section is original research. I haven't seen a reliable, secondary source anywhere in the discussion above stating that "Bouml is widely used in education", just arguments and conclusions based on extrapolation and interpretation of a variety of primary sources. I don't care how many university websites have links to download it. They aren't reliable sources to support the proposition. Fladrif (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

These are not links to download BOUML. Please carefully read the provided courses. These are particular example on how BOUML is used in educational institutions around the world to teach the basics of software engineering. af1n (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that going from "has been used for these specific projects at the specific institutions" to "is widely used" in not necessarily a sound inference. —Ruud 02:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. - af1n 02:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What about this statement ?

"BoUML is used by higher education and research institutions around the world"

I think we could find enough evidence on the internet to support that. Do we need a secondary source that summaries such usage cases ? (I'm sorry about my lack of experience in redacting the encyclopedic knowledge. ). - af1n 07:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're doing fine af1n. I don't think there's much point in continuing the discussion here right now. Let the afd run its course. Then, if the article is kept, go to WP:WikiProject Software and ask for an expert to help out. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Disappearing page

I'm asking here about an issue which perhaps doesn't quite belong here, but this is the closest forum that I could think of as far as relevance to the issue at hand. I have come across an article in the publication New American (a publication of the John Birch Society) which appears to be only preserved in Google's cache (original url). I believe pages only reside in Google's cache for a very limited period. I have tried to use WebCite to archive the cache page, but that failed. If the Wayback Machine has archived it that won't be clear for another 6 months (on average). Is there any way of preserving this page so that it can be referenced in an article? What about making a screen capture of the cached page? Worst case, could the page be used as reference even though it is no longer accessible? __meco (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Material has to be verifiable. So I would say no a page that dose not exstst cannot be used as a source. If its a magazine articel referacne the hard copy not the web edition.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is a print publication, then you can cite the print copy. There is no need for a source to be online. However, I'm not sure that a publication by the John Birch Society would meet our ciiteria as a publication with a reputation for fact-checking. Judging by a quick flip through this discussion, it would only be considered reliable for the opinion of the JBS, not for facts. --Slp1 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Try using the New American's search feature to find the article. Sometimes web sites simply move the page to a different URL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Including a page while it is in Google's archive is fine, because it is verifiable. Obviously if it is removed from the archive the claim it is sourcing can be legitimately removed as well, so I've created a back-up image of the google archive page at http://www.webcitation.org/5vASexJC6. I suggest making the google archive the main reference, and include the back-up image in the reference so that if the google cache is cleared your source can still be verified. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet again I will reiterate that there is not, has never been, and probably never will be, any requirement whatsoever that a source must be backed up with a live internet link. Print is print, and is perfectly fine. That said: nothing in American Opinion is a reliable source for anything except what the John Birch Society and affiliated writers said in print. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If the source appears in a print publication that is true, but if it is only published on a website then it must be accessible in some form, either directly or through a recognized archive. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree on both points. (1) A print article does not need to be available online to be used as a source, per Wikipedia:V#Access_to_sources, and an online source that becomes unavailable requires removal of the source only if it is also unavailable in print per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Preventing_and_repairing_dead_links. (2) New American is not a reliable source for anything other than for what the JBS says about its own opinions. Fladrif (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah; of course - that's why I said "Print is print"! American Opinion is a print publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike, you've mentioned American Opinion twice now- do you mean New American? I presume so --Slp1 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course; I've dealt with the older publication a lot longer. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Or to answer the question if it cannot be verified it can be removed, the medium of verfication is irrelevant. So if the artciel was not availible by any means it would not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether its online, print or whatever is not really the issue. As has been noted, it isn't, in any event, a reliable source except for information relating to the John Birch Society. --FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used it (yet), but in the future you can try using WebCitation.org which archives web references in case the link ever breaks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What did you want to use it as a source for? It may be usable, with attribution, in areas where the JBS's opinion is notable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Either the COP16, Dihydrogen monoxide hoax or perhaps the Politics of global warming article. __meco (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fingerpoke of Doom article

I have only recently created an account, so I apologize if this is structured incorrectly...

I have great exception to the article Fingerpoke of Doom. I see that the article has already survived deletion nomination, but it is still, quite frankly, apalling. It reads as total POV and inaccuracy from the very first sentence. Fo example in his RF Shoot Interview, Kevin Nash refers to it as the "One-Finger Finish", NOT the "Fingerpoke of Doom". The latter term seems to exist solely on the internet. Anyway, of the sources, there appear to be websites such as lordsofpain.net and onlineworldofwrestling.com. One site entitled "sportingnews.com" turns out to be a blog. Also WWE's website is cited, despite the obvious conflict there. Of the books mentioned, i do not have information regarding the others, however, the Goldberg book makes no such claim as is cited on the page. Also, as far as Realiability and Verifiability of the others goes, that's a matter for the Administrators and Experts, but it does seem rather "off" to me. Not sure of the Reliability of this site http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wcw/wcwnitro.htm , but it shows the actual "slump" only occurring some months later! This is a a problem with Wrestling Fan "Smarks" who have a notorious (in Wrestling circles) hatred for Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash, calling them the "orange Goblin" and "Big Poochie" and blaming them for everything that has ever gone wrong in Professional Wrestling. Anyone who has read Eric Bischoff's autobiography or listened to/watched interviews with people like Harvey Schiller and Bill Busch will realize what a horrendous article the Fingerpoke of Doom is. Like I said it (somehow) survived AFD nomination, but I am now questioning the Reliability of what scant sources it does have. Thank you. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Having read the last deletion discussion it seems the main reason why it was kept because it tied in with the Montreal Screwjob as a turning point of the Monday Night Wars but you do raise a good point although I am fairly sure there are some reliable sources on this. I'll have a look now, hang on a sec... The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You do seem to be correct, a brief Google search for me has only turned out more and more Wrestling fourms. As for other sources, I think it was mentioned in Hulk Hogan's autobiography (unfortunatly, I've mislaid it so I can't help) and as for WWE, it did happen before WCW was purchased but then again as WWE now own all the rights to WCW I think it turns from secondary to primary source. I'm sure an admin could double check and see if my opinion was right or not. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been years since I read Hogan's book, but I can't remember him even mentioning it in passing(I could be wrong though). I DO remember him stating that WCW started to slide even before Goldberg got the belt(ie. 6 months BEFORE the "Fingerpoke of Doom"), and blaming Eric Bischoff's being more of a business man than a wrestling man, as well as the WWF's usage of T&A(eg. Sable) and profanity (eg. Steve Austin) as ratings ploys. I also remember him stating (as do several others) that "working with Goldberg was a nightmare" or words to that effect, and that Goldberg's being champion or not being champion made no difference to business whatsoever. I'll see if I can find the book somewhere...Seeker of the Torch (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the Hogan book and, flicking through it, it doesn't appear to even mention January 4 1999 in passing. Further, the wwe.com article makes no mention of the "incident" either! The Ross Davies books are listed as "Juvenile Nonfiction". Other links are either dead links, fan websites. The RD Reynolds books do seem to agree with the article, but I am unsure as to the Reliability of this person? Having skimmed those books, I again find a wide variety of personal attacks and outright hatred for both Hogan and Nash, and an almost worshipful attitude towards Ric Flair. Is this NPOV? Brian Fritz's book doesn't seem to mention the term "Fingerpoke of Doom", but states that "Hogan and Nash selfishly schemed to protect each other's careers" Fritz aalso calls it the "one finger title change", echoing the "one finger finish" described by Nash and Feinstein, with no mention of the "Of Doom" part. I also must admit to never having heard of Messrs Reynolds or Fritz, and am totally unsure as to what would make either man an Expert on this subject? Seeker of the Torch (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to this board to actually list here the specific sources that you have questions about, and how they are used, rather than make other editors go to that article and sift through the sources. As for those you specifically mention above:

• WIA Wrestling [8] is a fansite, and not a RS. It should be removed.
• Lords of Pain [9] is part of UGO Enertainment, which could have some material that would qualify as a reliable source, depending on what specific part of the site is being used as a reference, as it also includes blogs and reader submissions that would not be RS
• Online World of Wrestling [10] is largely composed of reader contributions, and is not a RS and should be removed as a source
• The blog at Sporting News looks like it really is just a blog, though sometimes news organizations have things that they call blogs that are really daily columns by writers. In those cases a blog can be a RS. Not in this case. It should be removed as a source.
• WWE's website is a reliable source for information about what is says about itself, just like any other corporation's website. But, it should be used with great caution as a source.
• Whether or not other sources like books from reputable publishers are accurately reflected in the text is another question, not for this noticeboard. So are questions whether someone is "biased" or not. Being biased doesn't render an otherwise reliable souce unreliable. A reliable source can, and usually does, have a POV. If so, you accurately report what the source says, with attribution. Fladrif (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problems are that a)I am questioning the Reliability of ALL of the Sources on the page, and that b)at least 3 of the Sources provided, whether Reliable or not, do not state what the article uses them as References for! As an example whether or not WWE's own website is Primary Source or not, the website itself makes no reference, even in passing, to any sort of "Fingerpoke of Doom" or any controversy or "turning point". It states only that Mick Foley defeated The Rock to win the WWE Championship. However, the article then continues on using MAJOR unsourced OR and POV, yet implying that WWE's website is somehow connec ted to this outburst! The Sources listed are:

1)a book by Brian Fritz(sorry I have no idea who hes is). This book does not use the term "Fingerpoke of Doom", and merely states that Hogan and Nash schemed to help each other's careers.

2)a "Juvenile Nonfiction" book by Ross Davies(sorry again as to who he may be), that makes no reference at all to "fingerpoke of Doom" or anything besides Goldberg losing the belt.

3)Some guy's called "Rowdy"'s Blog, which appears to now be a dead link.

4)A book by Bryan Alvarez and R.D. Reynolds (I had heard of the former but not the latter) called "The Death of WCW". Again the expression "Fingerpoke of Doom" is never used. They DO point to this as a pivotal point....along with at least half a dozen other events. In fact this is a running joke in the book, as everything from 1996-2001 is "The Beginning of The End....well the latest one". The whole book is written with tongue-firmly-in-cheek.

5)Ross Davies' (again) book of Kevin Nash. Haven't found a copy of this one, so can't say what it does or doesn't say. But again it's "Juvenile Nonfiction". Davies' books are all the size of kids' booklets btw.

6)Something from "WrestlingDigest"(really) Sadly, it's another dead link. Unsurprising as WrestlingDigest was a fringe pro wrestling website.

7)Slam Wrestling!'s article on Kevin Nash, where we encounter the term "Fingerpoke of Doom" for the first time! However, they use it in parentheses, and never state that is was a significant incident. The article also appears to have been written recently(ie. AFTER this Wikipedia Article was created in 2005)meaning that it is possible that they got the term from this article itself!

8)WWE's website, which only mentions what happened on WWE RAW that night, and makes no mention whatsoever of what happened in WCW on January 4 1999!

9)Another R.D. Reynolds book, this one co-written with a Randy Baer called "WrestleCrap: The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling". Again the term "fingerpoke of Doom" is not used. Again they point to January 4 1999 as a significant event. However they state that it was "almost two years to the day after Starrcade 1997"... which took place in December 1997! They also make a far greater fuss about Vince Russo being the "Death of WCW", again a year AFTER the "Fingerpoke of Doom"!

10)OnlinWorldofWrestling. Another fan website, this is listed as the second "Biggest Blunder" of all time. yet again, no mention of a "Fingerpoke of Doom", and the author of this piece(one "Joe L") cites Kevin Nash as booker in late 1998, a clear and obvious error. It's some fan's website anyway, and can certainly not be Reliable?

11)LordsofPain, another fan website, and another dead link.

So we're basically left with whether Ross Davies is Reliable, however only one book MAY mention this. R.D. Reynolds never uses the term "fingerpoke of Doom" and appears to be a comedy writer first and foremost. He even has a website called "WrestleCrap"! SlamWrestling.com is the ONLY mention of "fingerpoke of doom" in lower case AND parentheses, yet makes no mention of this leading to any sort of "turning point" or even any significance!.......... In short, I question ALL 11 sources. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

To summarize, the Reliable Sources(which may not even be so) state merely that on January 4 1999 Hulk Hogan "won" the WCW World Heavyweight Championship from Kevin Nash when Nash lay down after Hogan jabbed him with his finger. The same night in the WWF(now WWE) Mick Foley won the WWF World Heavyweight Championship from The Rock. More than two years later the WWF(now WWE) bought full control of WCW. Somehow this seems worthy of creating a Wikipedia Article with a supposedly "common nickname", and pinpointing WCW's eventual sale to this one event! For what it's worth Hulk Hogan's autobiography, states that the decline had started more than six months before this event, and points to WWF's "raunchier" content, over WCW's more PG stuff. (Hulk Hogan Hollywood Hulk Hogan 978-0743457699).Eric Bischoff's autobiography continues this thread, saying the beginning of the end was when many Turner employees were replaced by Time Warner people, and the one specific event was a meeting in August 1998 where the Timer Warner people insisted on major changes to WCW, and a more "family-friendly" show. (Eric Bischoff Controversy Creates Cash 978-1416527299). A major problem with the sources(besides their questionable Reliability) is they don't state what they are supposedly referenced for. As an example the article states x(with Source), but the Source clearly states y. Or they say a+b+C(with Source), but the Source merely points to a. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As of right now (5 minutes ago anyway), there are 11 footnotes in the article. All of them, except #3 and #10, look like reliable sources. They are books published by reputable publishing houses, or print and/or online magazines published by real news/entertainment outlets, plus one cite to a corporate website. As noted above, Footnote #3 is a blog, not a column by a SN reporter, and #10 has reader-contributed content. Those two sources are not a RS. As for the other big issues, it is not the function of this board to discuss whether the article accurately reflects those sources nor is is the function of this board to discuss whether the subject of the article is notable. There are other boards for those issues. Fladrif (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The other fellow stated that at least 3 are Unreliable. So which is it? Likewise, where WOULD one go to discuss that the Sources do not state what they are used as References for? I would greatly appreciate any help. However, I will be unable to reply for the next few days, for obvious reasons. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism and The Times et al

[11] defends removal of a short declarative sentence sourced to RS sources. The excuse appears to be that if The Times does not make the same claim in every article, that somehow it is not RS, and the Daily Mail is not RS in the first place. This edit does not comport with my recollection of the discussion here, and I would like this edit examined for being properly supported by RS sources: [12].. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the point is that while the debate on RS and NPOV on this issue is still active here Editors should not be changing the article in the areas of contention. The RS and WEIGHT issues were previously discussed and transcluded to NPOV as per the diff above. Lets have the discussion in one place. --Snowded ^TALK 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You assert, for example, that the Daily Mail is a "tabloid" and automagically not RS [13]. This is an RS issue, clearly, and the NPOV discussion is actually over. Perhaps you would like to stop over there for an opinion that the "The Mail is a tabloid not a broadsheet"? Thank you most kindly - the aim here is to get the opinions of others as to whether a "tabloid" is ipso fact not RS. Collect (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK then, opinion again on the Daily Mail. It's been discussed before. Worth looking at the archives, but from memory the consensus is that the Mail is mid-market, good for some things, not so good for others. Science reporting is the most notable area where it's problematic. For factual general news, should be OK; for an epithet that is essentially opinion, if that's what you're talking about, avoid. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to judge a newspaper by its content, rather than its size. As for whether the Daily Mail is RS, I'd say on any issue concerning politics, it is far from neutral, and generally it has a reputation for making crap up, so I'd never trust it as the sole source for anything of significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Actually Collect the RS resolution which was not altered by the subsequent NPOV discussion was implemented on the article, restoring the long standing stable version before you and others edit warred to impose a label which failed on WP:WEIGHT. That was immediately reverted by one of your side in this dispute. In consequence there is some more work to do there or on ANI to deal with the issue. This edit by you is a part of that resolution. --Snowded ^TALK 18:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no "side" other than meeting the obligation of WP to present material from reliable sources in as neutral a manner as possible. AN/I has nothing to do with this, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Inserting "left wing" without consensus and not respecting the RS view that the sources did not support the insertion per WP:WEIGHT. That sounds like something which is probably ANI sooner rather than later. --Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Andy: The word 'tabloid' has multiple definitions.[14] In the US, "tabloid" usually means the second definition, "featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. On that basis, the Mail is definitely a tabloid, see here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

IOW, you do not like the Daily Mail which, on WP, is not the way RS sources are determined. Collect (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, Quest, there is "tabloid" = small format, and "tabloid" = sensationalist. We all agree that the format of publication is irrelevant. The DM is sometimes sensationalist but not consistently. The editors have formulated their policies deliberately to frustrate WP editors who want clear-cut rules. Either that or to sell lots of copies. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you really want evidence that the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, I'm sure it isn't difficult to find. Is there any particular field in which you'd like to see its unreliability demonstrated? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP has WP:RS which governs. And by the standards of that, the DM is RS. RS is not determined by "I found something they printed which was wrong"-type argumentation -- in that case the NYT would never be usable. The criteria as set forth on WP:RS are all we are to examine. Collect (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, where the text in dispute is along the lines of "UAF has been called a left-wing organization by X, Y and Z" and the Daily Mail is "Z", the Daily Mail is a reliable source for that purpose. It doesn't mean that UAF is a left-wing organization, it means that the Daily Mail and some other sources called it one. The argument that the Times used the term in one article but not others and thus the one article in which it did is not an RS or gives undue weight to that one article is frivolous. We just got done discussing that source here recently. This looks like a content dispute and an edit war rather than a legitimate RS issue. It doesn't even look like a legitimate NPOV or weight issue at this point. Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the dispute, Fladrif. The issue is about whether these sources are good enough for us to label the organisation, without attribution, as "left-wing" in the first sentence of the lead. I don't think anyone would suggest that attributed discussion of the political leanings of the organisation is not appropriate in the body of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing the point, because the specific question posed above had nothing to do with the first sentence of the Lede nor with unattributed statements. It had to do with removing a sentence which is clearly attributed and sourced to RS, based on claims that the sources were not RS for the purposes for which they were being used. Those claims lack merit. As for how to write the lede, that is a matter for another board, and from my vantage point the fact that the interested editors are unable to resolve that question is looking like an edit war rather than collaborative editing. Fladrif (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I see nothing whatever in WP:RS that can support a statement that 'X is RS' in the abstract. It is only of relevance in determining whether it is RS regarding a particular issue. Given the Daily Mail's long-standing right-wing political stance, I'd hardly take it as RS for unattributed assertions about the politics of UAF. What do other newspapers say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For the billionth time, the political leanings of a source are completely irrelevant to the question of its reliability. Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the statement that 'X is left-wing' can only ever be opinion, reliability doesn't even come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There are in fact probably millions of statements of opinion in Wikipedia; like all content, our verifiability policy requires they be cited to reliable sources. Statements of opinion should be cited with attribution. The WP:Identifying reliable sources guideline quite correctly does not include political leanings or alleged bias among its criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the Mail is a tabloid, it isn't a RS; indeed, it has a reputation of making things up (ironic for the paper with the columnist who says that "you couldn't make it up"), especially for political purposes. This is an endemic problem among the "mid-market" papers that include, in essence, the Mail and the Express. Hell, both papers probably account for more PCC complaints than anything else. However, the Times is an RS for most intents and purposes; it has a reputation for being a good news source, and doesn't toe the Murdoch line as much as say, the Sun. It is right-leaning, though, so I'd personally not use it without due care (like I wouldn't use, say, the Guardian in an article about the EDL without due care). General rule of thumb: if it costs 50p or less, it's probably not reliable. The Evening Standard is a notable exception of this rule. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

it has a reputation of making things up -- Sceptre, could you point out some specific instances of DM 'making things up'? Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Notably, nearly everything about the EU it reports are complete falsehoods; an example is this article about Cadbury being forced to remove their "Glass and a Half Full" slogan from their Dairy Milk bars by the EU (they did remove it, but for completely different reasons). That said, the fact that the Mail makes things up is a generally accepted truth in most of Britain. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What part of the text of the Cadbury article are you saying is inaccurate? Or are you just disputing the headline. I would argue against citing the headlines from any newspaper. Dlabtot (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The general tenor of the article is an anti-EU screed that the Mail is famous for. Indeed, as a Sun article mentioned on the same day, they removed the slogan as "the phrase didn't make sense" with the different sizes of bars Cadbury's uses. In addition, the European Commission released a letter sent to the Mail describing the story as (another) falsehood about the EU. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that the BBC ran a story to the same effect the day before the Daily Mail ran the article cited above [15], as did a number of other reputable news organizations[16] before Cadburd "clarified" what is was doing or not doing, this would seem to be an ill-chosen example. The story isn't really "wrong", at all, it just has a bit of a Europhobic spin. Even the best news organizations get things wrong now and again. Not saying the Daily Mail is among the best news organizations. Just saying. Fladrif (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a reliable source in that it generally reports accurate facts. If it reports Tommy Sheridan has been convicted of perjury we can believe that. If it reports Heathrow has been closed down due to snow we can believe that. It is a reliable source for reporting facts. If you were to check the Daily Mail, most its reported facts (as opposed to unqualified and ill-informed opinion pieces) would check out. Labelling something left-wing is an opinion, so it is really an issue of notability. I would say that comes down to the background of the person writing the piece. What is his education? What is his area of expertise? Is his judgment respected by other reliable sources? If the writer's credentials are established so that he is an authority on political ideology, then it is acceptable to source his views as a opinion through the Daily Mail. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The author is Jack Doyle, who is the main Home Affirs correspondent for the DM. Several hundred bylined articles. Apparently started as an "investigative journalist" but can't find his c.v. immediately. Clearly writes a lot on political topics though, as specialist on Home Affairs. Collect (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend the PCC website for evidence of the Daily Mail's 'reliability': a search for 'Daily Mail'. Here's a classic: (not for those with a weak stomach) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail might get some stuff it gets from the agencies right, but its quality of journalism otherwise is really bad. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

From that PPC site you get 492 hits for the Daily Mail compared to 316 for The Independent, 1400 for The Times, 159 for the Daily Telegraph and 184 for The Guardian. When you consider that the circulation for the Daily Mail is 2 million compared to 200,000 for the Indy, 500,000 for The Times, 700,000 for the Daily Telegraph, and 300,000 for The Guardian it doesn't seem to attract a disproportionate higher rate of complaints than the broadsheets. In fact, from those stats it's The Times we should be worried about. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Statistics should be treated with caution. If the Mail has a poor reputation, people may not feel they need to worry so much if it lies about them. As has been said above by someone else, the Mail has been discussed to death as a source. Community consensus appears to be that it is a reliable source for certain facts about news stories, but non for scientific reporting or for matters of opinions related to politics. That seems to me to obviously fair and there's no need to go round in circles over it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The community consensus doesn't really seem to be founded on anything concrete though, just a casual disregard for the Daily Mail. In reality no newspaper should be used for something like scientific reporting, peer reviewed journals should really be used for that sort of thing. As for political opinion pieces, again this is entirely down to the notability of the author, not the newspaper. The Daily Mail is no less reliable for sourcing an opinion piece than say The Telegraph would be for the same piece by the same author. I don't see any evidence based arguments for regarding the Daily Mail differently to the broadsheets. I have no love for the Daily Mail but the reliable source criteria seems to be getting applied fairly arbitrarily here. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 'statistics' like those Betty Logan gives are best ignored entirely. The 1400 hits for 'the Times' on the PCC website include such newspapers as 'The Herne Bay Times', and quite likely every article that includes the words 'the' and 'times' too. There are clearly some false positives in the 'Daily Mail' search, but I'd suspect a lot less, from looking at the articles found (and I didn't cite numbers anyway). I'd also point out that not every complaint to the PCC is upheld. And yes, the Daily Mail is widely held in contempt, for being demonstrably biased and unreliable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to the "Graudian"? Amazingly enough, folks seem to view "the other side" as intrinsically "unreliable" but WP policy is that is not a reason to call an RS source "unreliable." Really. Collect (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that a demonstration that a source isn't reliable is irrelevant to its status as WP:RS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So far, I have never found an infallible news source. Only if such exists would RS ever be construed to mean "infallible." What it means, moreover, is described in detail on WP:RS. And "infallible" is not one of the words used for RS. Collect (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

True enough. Here's some words that are used though. "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis". Now can we assess whether the Daily Mail is reliable when it says that UAF is a left-wing organisation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG states Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors, which is a criteria the Daily Mail satisfies. I would say the Daily Mail is a reliable source for someone saying the UAF is a left-wing organization. Whether their opinion is notable enough for inclusion in teh article depends on their authority on political ideology. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The writer has written several hundred articles on the broad area of "Home Affairs" which is certainly enough to establish reasonable journalistic dredentials. And since the sentense used the term "called", and the fact is that the DM did call them that, that is sufficient. The edit did not assert that the UAF is anything at all, just that a number of reliable sources have called them "left wing." Which is a fairly incontrovertible fact, I should say. Collect (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit needs to be to be reworded slightly: it is the writers that call the UAF left-wing, not The Times or Daily Mail so it shouldn't be attributed to them directly, but I think those sources are fine for saying something along the lines "...the UAF have been described as a left-wing group in The Times, Daily Mail etc..." Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that in general, but also I think it gives undue weight to one or two sources to have that in the first sentence of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No I wouldn't agree to that per WP:UNDUE passing mentions is not enough to label this whole article as being about a left wing group. Mo ainm~Talk 22:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with those sources being used to say it is a left-wing group. I'm not convinced the writers are qualified to make those judgments, so they should be kept out of the lede. The best place for them would be in discussing perceptions of the UAF, which do have a place in the article. They are commonly seen as left-wing, or at least having left-wing allegiances even if they have no actual political affiliation, and it is fair comment to document public perception of their political ideology. In that capacity it is ok to mention The Times, Daily Mail etc and other newspapers that describe them as left-wing, but it should be explicit that it is only a description, not a qualified assessment of their ideology. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly correct. --FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

From where I'm standing, it's not a matter of political ideology. I find the Mirror to be just as unreliable as the Sun or the Star. As far as whether the Mail is a tabloid: the Mail, I believe, has always been a compact-size paper. From the driest sense, it is a tabloid. This is in contrast to the former broadsheets (Indy, Grauniad, Telegraph, Times, FT, all of which I'd be more inclined to use as sources for anything), which I find to have a better sense of writing. The Mail do have a tendency to be over-sensational too; other Britons will remember last Monday's front page, expressing outrage at the over-sexualisation of The X-Factor and then printing the pictures.

I should also point out that the Mail shouldn't be used as a source in this case, because if not through support then through tone, they do have a strange relationship to the far-right. Infamously, they ran the famous "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" story back in the thirties. Even now, though, their readership does tend to be more reactionary than the broadsheet conservative papers, as evidenced by their "exposé" of the EDL last week which went down in flames. They also take a reactionary editorial line on the Muslim population, and are so well known that it's been mentioned in songs. In any case, they'd probably have a vested interest for this topic to negatively cover the UAF, if only to keep their readership. However, I have no reservations to using the Times with the standard due care given. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The DM may have apolitical outlook but most (if not all) newspapers do. We would not say that you cannot use the Gaurdian as a RS for the EDl becasue its a bit lefty. Nor do we dismiss fox news as a sources becaseu its biased or somethimnes makes 'mistakes' we then see it retract in small print. NOw if we dismiss the DM here I hope we would dismiss it in all similar circumstances. The DM is used 5 or 6 times in the EDL article with no question of its RS status having been raised (as far as I know) until now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre, why do you keep raising the bias argument, even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that it is irrelevant? Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the right-wing bias of the Daily Mail is relevant? They are stating an opinion, not a fact, and as such, their own political stance is clearly going to affect their stance regarding UAF. This is common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias is not a factor in our WP:Identifying reliable sources guideline. If you think the guideline should be changed, go to the take page of the guideline and propose a change. Dlabtot (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The same applies to any newspaper (and most other medai). So I propose that any medai outlet (including magazines and webzines) that are politicaly opposed to a group as RS for the politics or polocies of that gruop.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail quite obviously meets the standards of WP:NEWSORG. Most UK papers have a political bias; indeed, most Western newspapers do. If we started dismissing them based on "political bias", we'd disqualify them all. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The latest source being objected to is Searchlight. Which has been called non-RS for its views on its split from the UAF, and its accusation that the UAF is a SWP recrutiment drive [[17]]. Is searchlight RS for its views on this matter?Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Searchlight is not an RS. It's a pressure group with an agenda that sometimes publishes stuff, but not a news organization. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight is used as a source on the English Defence League, however. If it is not RS in one place, it can not be RS in the other? Alternatively, as a SPS, would material relating to its own view of itself be ascribable as its view of itself? Collect (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would qualify as a primary source for information about itself, provided that information was not disputed by third-party sources. It would qualify as a primary source for its own views, but I seriously doubt its views about UAF and the EDL would qualify as notable. I can only imagine it is sourcing the EDL article because no-one has challenged the source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Can people stop using this 'it's a reliable source, therefore everything it says is reliable' argument. This isn't what WP:RS says at all. Look what it says in relation to News Organisations for instance: "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting.". If this is true for mainstream sources, it must be even more so for less-reliable ones: "a specific fact or statement... must be assessed on a case by case basis". In any case, the comments about the relationship between the SWP and UAF were not written by a Seachlight journalist, as has already been indicated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Can people stop using this 'it's a reliable source, therefore everything it says is reliable' argument." - I'm pretty sure no one has ever said that, therefore people will be unable to 'stop' doing so. Dlabtot (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Political bias certainly does affect the reliability of a source, as it very often compromises journalistic integrity or scholarship (it's why I mentioned to another user a couple weeks ago why we should use less Searchlight, and more academic work). Given how the Mail uses "left-wing" as a slur, it shouldn't be used as a source for the term (and I should argue, with its record on political reporting, nothing regarding politics at all). We should also be careful with what we do cite, given its (somewhat unfortunate) association with the far-right may also compromise its reliability (even if it's only to keep its readership) and its status as a mid-market tabloid with a tendency to oversensationalism (e.g. last week and X-Factor, or Manuelgate a couple of years ago). However, given the Times has none of these disadvantages, this may be used to cite "left-wing" (again, with care to ascribing labels and due weight). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If you start trying to disqualify sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS based on allegations of "political bias", then you're heading down a very dangerous road. If we disqualify all newspapers with a "political bias" from commenting on political matters, we'll pretty much have to disqualify almost all of them. Are we now going to disqualify The New York Times or Wall Street Journal as WP:RS on political issues because of their well-known political stances? Are we going to disqualify all Marxist academics? Not likely. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only does 'bias' not disqualify sources from being 'reliable', as the term is used on Wikipedia, but our WP:NPOV policy requires that all significant viewpoints be included in articles. That would be impossible to do if a source could be disqualified for having a strong point of view. Dlabtot (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"...our WP:NPOV policy requires that all significant viewpoints be included in articles". Yes, but here's the problem. The Daily Mail's viewpoint is that UAF is a left-wing organisation, so it says so. Other sources apparently don't consider it 'left wing, and therefore don't say it is. You can't cite what a source doesn't say, so if you cite only the sources that do say anything, you risk giving a spurious impression that this is consensus. This is actually a fundamental problem with the way Wikipedia rules on sourcing work. About the only way around this in this particular case would be to say that "certain right-wing newspapers have characterised UAF as a left-wing organisation", but that isn't exactly elegant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of multiple RS saying something without anything else disputing it is flawed.Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How? If the only notable sources that describe UAF as left-wing are right-wing, are we supposed to ignore this? It is ridiculous to suggest that a source can give an opinion on the political orientation of an organisation, and at the same time suggest that its own orientation is beyond comment. This isn't NPOV at all, instead it is 'RS' fetishism, which treats an opinion about something ('we think X is reliable for what it says on Y') as a statement ('X is RS, therefore anything it says about Y must be reliable'). There is no objective measure of political orientation, so everything written is opinion, and needs to be treated as such, with allowances made for the orientation of the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Just account for the bias in the claim then. You can say something like "the UAF is often described as a left-wing group by the right-wing press such as The Times and Daily Mail". Although claims may be one-sided, the socialist and liberal media as well as the UAF itself don't seem to be contesting those observations, and if they did you could include them. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Might you give an RS for specifying The Times as "right wing"? I would think that specifying their position sans any sources would be far worse than simply specifying that these particular sources identified the UAF as "left wing" in articles. Collect (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ipsospublicaffairs.co.uk/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=755 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/04/general-election-newspaper-support. The sources don't refer to them as "right-wing", but they do show them to be conservative newspapers if you want to qualify the political allegiances of these newspapers. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And a paper which supported Labour in 2001 and 2005 is "right wing"? I would think such a claim is weak. Very, very weak. Collect (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As did the Sun, but alleging it's been left-wing at any point in the last thirty years would get you laughed at, as it takes, and has taken, a editorial line in support of most traditional Conservative policies (especially its Euroscepticism and stances on the economy and immigration); indeed, it had Richard Littlejohn on the payroll in those two election years.

On the topic of bias of sources: in most cases, especially for statements of fact, these sources would be fine to use. But when it comes to things such as political outlook and using these very general and very loosely defined terms, then we need to be careful. It's why I wouldn't use "left-wing" (questionable sources, bad specificity) in the article if we could use "anti-fascist" (good sources, good specificity). Which includes using high-quality sources over low-quality sources. For non-peer reviewed sources such as newspapers, there is a very real danger that an otherwise reliable source will skimp its duties to journalistic integrity when covering something it's opposed to (see: Fox News and its coverage on the healthcare debate).

For high-quality sources, such as the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, the Times, the Guardian—traditional broadsheets—this danger is minimised. Indeed, some newspaper editors for more sensational newspapers (Kelvin MacKenzie comes to mind) insist that their writers don't fully research stories because otherwise they wouldn't have a story at all. Which is why I'd lean against using the Mail (mid-tabloid, sensationalist, very right-wing), but I'd use the Times (former broadsheet, drier coverage, centre-right) or even the Telegraph (broadsheet, infamously pro-Tory). But given that the Times and the Mail are the only sources that use the appelation, we're really down to one source: which brings in WEIGHT issues.

Finally, Andy has a point on "RS fetishism". There is this obsession on Wikipedia that " if an RS says it, it must be true!". RSes are not always right and we don't expect them to be; it's why Fox News still remains a source despite infamously calling the then-chairman of the Republican Governor's Association a Democrat. We don't expect the sources to be neutral, either. But too many editors have blind allegiance to the fact something is an RS that they don't bother checking what the source says; I remember one source I used in an article mentioning Easter happened on a date in early March that happened to be a Thursday: instead of making the claim that Easter fell on a date it actually can't, I instead made the assumption they meant "April" (a Sunday that Easter did fall on that year). Editors really need to check the sources, especially ones that aren't peer-reviewed, before using them, because otherwise, we could re-introduce obvious inaccuracies that should've, but didn't, get caught out in the peer review process. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't encourage editors to label sources as "left-wing" or "right-wing", particularly based on WP:NOR; these simplistic labels add nothing but POV to articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm encouraging editors to clarify the political viewpoints of sources that make political claims as opposed to just stating facts. The Daily Mail is an RS, but including their political opinions without clarifying their political leanings is to be selective in the information you include. If David Cameron wrote in the Daily Mail that "Labour is crap", do you not think it would be wise to mention the fact here leads the rival party? Please don't encourage editors to violate Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, you should read up on here: WP:NPOV. Betty Logan (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely WP:LAME. Looking at the subject page, there's no way this group could be considered anything other than left-wing. Referrign to a political group aligned as this one is as "left wing" is not a contentious claim. As a matter of fact, it should be so unlikely to be challeged it wouldn't even need a source. Anyway, there's been a lot of churn, and it looks like both the Times and the Daily Mail were used as a source for it. And that doesn't require any further attribution; this org appears to be much further to the left than the Times is to the right . Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with you on this, Squid. How can a group that David Cameron supports be unequivocally left-wing? Betty has said a lot of good sense about the Daily Mail, which will be useful when it crops up here again. I sympathise with what Jay says about not labelling sources. It well poisoning when this is done in mainspace, but in the discussion here I see a good faith attempt to unpick reliability. If we want to bring the thread to a close and help the editors of the page towards a compromise, I think we can say the following. There are sources to support "the group has been called left-wing"; sources to support "the Socialist Workers Party had a role in setting it up", and also sources to support "senior politicians from across the political spectrum have expressed support for the group". While it isn't the role of this board to determine exactly how those sources are used in the article, as a board we could advise that there are sufficient reliable sources for editors to write up a nuanced description of how the group is regarded. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Another sources saying that Seachlight mleft becaseu of SWP influence over the UAF http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/09/fighting-racism-united-we-stand. IS this RS for the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Because it doesn't say that. It says "When Unite Against Fascism was founded, Searchlight and its supporters were part of it. The fallout centred on the Socialist Workers party, and its perceived influence over UAF. As a result Searchlight and its supporters left UAF". Firstly, note perceived influence, and secondly, note that this is in the Guardian 'comment is free' section. The writer is Peter Lazenby "...chairman of the Leeds branch of the NUJ and Joint Father of the NUJ Chapel at Yorkshire Post Newspapers". [18] He is clearly not writing as a Guardian journalist (he isn't), but in a personal capacity. This is an opinion piece, nothing more. Though there appears to have been a falling-out between Searchlight and UAF, we cannot simply take Searchlight supporters as sole arbiters of the causes of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So we are saying that the Comment is free section of the Gaurdian is not RS? By the way is there any evidacen he is a Searchlight supporter? It seems to me he is not attributing blame. Asl owe can use one side, if only one side is ever given. This seems to be the case here. O)ne side has stated their reaspons for the split and the othe side has nopt reponeded.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy is confusing WP:RS and WP:NPOV. WP:RS qualifies the Daily Mail as a reliable source for reporting facts and opinions (although some editors may disagree) until there is a consensus that it isn't a reliable source. I understand his concerns about the Daily Mail not being neutral, but there is no requirement for the sources to be neutral. There is however, a requirement that claims are presented neutrally: WP:NPOV. To take this specific case, the Daily Mail has published an opinion that the UAF is "left-wing"; it is a reliable source for that opinion, but some care has to be taken in presenting it so WP:NPOV is not violated. The Daily Mail clearly don't like the UAF, so it is entirely conceivable that they decided not to identify it as "anti-fascist" since it could generate support for the group among their readership (some of which are presumably against fascism), so they label it as "left-wing" to immediately generate contempt for the group among their majority Conservative readership. An editor has argued that WP:NPOV obliges the inclusion of the Mail's opinion because it it is a viewpoint held by a notable contingent of the press, and I agree with that, but WP:NPOV also compels that opinion is put into context, by either including counter-claims or by clearly identifying potential bias in the publisher. I think it's fine to include polticial opinion pieces by the Mail (and any other mainstream newspaper for that matter), but its political allegiances clearly have to be identified for such opinions to be presented neutrally in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pucca and related articles

It seems to me that these articles do not have reliable third-party sources and probably do not meet the notability guideline. This content should be reserved for some sort of fan site. Other opinions very welcome. Just in general, there seems to be a tacit understanding in Wikipedia not to interfere with fans putting up all sorts of information on their favorite characters or books or whatever, regardless of whether they are notable or whether the articles are mainly based on third party sources. There is a fundamental disconnect between practice and policy such as "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." And "the article is not based primarily on such sources."

• Pucca
• Pucca (TV series)
• List of Pucca characters

BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a RSN issue. The three articles are completely unsourced. Either tag them as unsourced, or submit them to AFD for deletion if you think there are no sources that could be cited. Not an issue for this board. Fladrif (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'm with you, really. But then let me explain why I came here. It's because I'm coming across HUNDREDS of these. And further, a while back when I tried to get one deleted, it was voted keep, because -get this- people thought it ought to be notable. Not because they could show it was. So basically, I'm frustrated, and I want to know what to do in these cases. I would be very happy to try and clean up all these unsourced and/or non-notable articles, but what do you do when a bunch of fans want them? Give me advice (besides "ignore the problem"). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

For example, click the links in the box under "voices" on the Pucca (TV series) article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought this query was going to be something about Púca. Nevermind. LadyofShalott 03:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, sry BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

On the night she premiered Girl Rush in her home town it was devastated by a flood caused by Hurricane Carol

The Firefox News footnote is not a RS. Firefox says that it is just a blog. The Jetix press release is marginal as a source; it would be better to find a news outlet that actually printed it. It looks to me like there are reliable sources for the subject of these articles that could be cited, they just aren't being cited. That's a problem, but not one that is going to get the articles deleted at AFD, and also not within the scope of this board. Fladrif (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be within the scope of this board to discuss general issues of what happens when reliable sources can't be found for articles. Can you suggest another venue for this? Anyway, that's a primary question I have: if people think there should be RS, and no one can find any, does that mean we should keep the article? I would refer you to this deletion discussion for an example. I did manage to get the thing deleted even though most of the votes were Keep (later undeleted when sources were written), but only by strongly challenging people to find the source they though should be there. Read the closing admin's summary. I believe there should be a time limit on how long articles can sit around without notable sources before they are automatically deleted when put up for AfD (unless during the process someone finds sources). I think policy should be amended that way. What do you think? I mean, we already have that at WP:BURDEN, it's just not specific. And BURDEN is not followed in deletion discussions, and it's dammed frustrating. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How editors and admins behave at AFD is not RSN's problem. RSN is only for discussing whether a specific source is reliable or not.[19]Fladrif (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of your suggestion of where such a question is appropriate I'll leave it here. If you can recommend a better place, I'll move it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD is the appropriate place to discuss deletion of a particular article. If you want deletion policy changed, try the talk page on the relevant policy pages, or Village Pump (Policy)[20] Fladrif (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take it to other venues. This did start out as mostly about RS, but I guess thee is a deeper problem. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This should have never been an issue brought up here. Articles concerning works of fiction geared towards children are not going to have the best sources. Therefore, we have to bend the rules a bit and use subpar sources (compared to the high standards you people are holding) which would normally not be allowed on more important articles such as those on hard science or biographies.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 03:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I dumped sources here. There should be enough to source a) creation of character, b) popularity, c) adaptation to theater, d) Korean minister awards, e) plot and f) characters.

In general, there is a difference between:

• "I have searched and I haven't found any good sources for this topic" and
• "This topic is notable, so it's bound to have good sources, but nobody has bothered searching for them"
• P.D.: or "This topic is notable, but all good sources are probably in Korean, good luck finding them"

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, it appears that there are RS for at least some of the material in these, which is why it obviously passes AFD. Why no-one has bothered until now to add them is a mystery, and claiming that non-RS sources like blogs and fansites should be used as sources because better sources are scarce or nonexistent is a non-starter. Fladrif (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why no one bothers to add them is that no one else made an issue of it. Thanks Enric for the research, you're better at it than I am, and you spent a lot of time. Or actually, I think Google may not be searching for me in other languages than English, so maybe I need to put in some other settings? I agree that maybe only one or two of those sources (if that) establishes notability by itself, but the number of mentions in RS is sufficient overall. So this takes care of the issue originally brought up here, though I think there is still a larger issue of non-notable and non-sourced material/articles on WP which can't get deleted because people think there ought to be sources, or else think basing an article totally on a primary sources is okay. I hope to have you guys help to sort this out in the future, it's an issue that interests me and I hope it interests you as well. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Anime

Is this an RS for anime generally, and other related stuff such as pucca? See also [21] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Per its own website, this is basically a glorified fansite with no connection with any legitimate news organization. I would say that it is not a RS and just a big SPS. Fladrif (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be pretty much a WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought but I was hoping for the sake of the fan articles (see above) on WP that you would think differently. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it simply isn't reliable due to lack of adequate editorial oversight. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page you'll see links to staff bios, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, the rules can be bent to utilize the next best possible reference material. ANN is accepted as a reliable source concerning Japanese animation, particularly if Kotaku is acceptable for video games despite it being a blog.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 03:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You are going on the assumption that Kotaku is acceptable, and it isn't [22]. The problem isn't confined to the subject of Pucca. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And you're pointing to a two year old discussion. What is done in practice works much better than what you are proscribing should be forbidden by policy.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia either needs to go by its rules or change them. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is explicit. Everthing in an article must be supported by reference to reliable sources. If reliable sources are not available, the article is to be deleted. We do not keep statements in articles supported by non-RS sources like fansites and blogs just because there are no better sources. Fladrif (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I just can't imagine that this would actually be done without a policy change so things can't sit around for years unsourced or be kept at RfD because they "ought to" have good sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I was under the impression that Anime News Network is a reliable source, at least when it comes to what it is used for. Just because a bunch of you guys here don't think it's reliable doesn't mean that the people who generally edit the subject area will listen. This bit here seems to suggest that it could feasibly have moved out of the self-published source territory, considering later in the FAQ they note that while they take submissions from the public, it's still under editorial control.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 19:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd lean to accepting ANN as a RS (and possibly Kotaku); its an accepted and reputable website, and Ryulong's digging seems to imply that it does have tight editorial control. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This could be. I'm not sure what you're looking at. The FAQ says "ANN is operated by a team of people, under the guidance of Christopher Macdonald, Daniel DeLorme, Zac Bertschy, Egan Loo and Justin Sevakis. A full list of the staff can be found on the staff page....Christopher Macdonald (ANN Editor-in-Chief) represents the owners in all issues. " I don't know what this really means in terms of reliability. However, like I've been saying, we shouldn't make an exception to the rules for these articles, unless that exception is actually in the rules. Not having it in the policy leaves you open to wicked editors like myself who come in and tag your articles and question your sources and notability of subjects. Re this source in particular, there should be a discussion about it. And relative to articles with iffy or primary sourcing (like an article about a popular book which doesn't have any significant third party sources, where the article is based almost entirely on the book itself or the likes of this), we need to know what to do. If the decision is to allow, this needs to be written up in policy, and if the decision is that they don't meet the standard, then we need a way to get rid of them. And hey, I know this was hard for you, thanks for working with me on it (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's back up. What on earth makes anyone think they are not a RS? Because they sometimes include submitted material on the site? As well damn the New York Times or any newspaper for its editorials and letters! RS covers this exact situation, and staffers and fans are fairly clearly specified as different, satisfying RS's requirement. They do everything a normal Internet media source does; they hire reviewers, columnists, podcasters, etc., to produce original content; they republish other RSs (translating where necessary, quite often given their Japanese focus); they report on cons and online events like software releases; and all sorts of things. (Their encyclopedia, while useful especially as a news index, is irrelevant to the question.) Google has no issue treating it as a news source. It is the principal source in English for many important events like the Tokyo Youth Bill. No one has questioned it before, not even the most ferocious deletionist in the wikiproject has ever said ANN is not a RS.

That we're even discussing it is kind of amazing. Before any more yelping about fan material or being online or Kotaku, let's see some specifics - quotes from RS or V and how exactly, with links, ANN fails them. Anything else is a waste of time or just so much smoke-blowing. --Gwern (contribs) 20:06 25 December 2010 (GMT)

So basically what you're saying is that the wikiproject has its own standards for RS which others have not in the past agreed with. This seems to me to be food for a general discussion. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No. They're saying that Anime News Network and Kotaku currently qualify as reliable sources, as do other news aggregate blogs.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In the past they said Kotaku wasn't RS, and right now Fifelfoo, Jayjg and Fladrif are saying ANN is not RS. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that neither you nor they have cited any specific quotes from guidelines or policies, nor provided any ANN links. Hm, who was it talking about a small inbred group having its own standards which everyone else doesn't agree with? Oh right, the other guy opposed to ANN whom you have mysteriously failed to criticize. --Gwern (contribs) 20:37 25 December 2010 (GMT)

Anime News Network is a RS per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational. While not everything on ANN is reliable some does qualify including reviews and articles, pretty much everything that is not their encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)ANN is one of the most widely respected anime news sources out there and is the "goto" website for news about the domestic and Japanese industry as well as reviews next to Mania.com (formerly AnimeOnDVD). ANN frequently interviews industry personal as well as report on announcements made in Japanese anime and manga magazine, viewer ratings and sales charts as reported by Oricon and Video Research, and receive industry and convention press releases. ANN has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as their reporting has had very few errors. And when there is an error, they are quick to correct it. Their review sections has editorial oversight, which is made clear by Executive Editor Zac Bertschy occupational complains on ANN's podcast about the poor quality of reviews submitted by people who try to apply for a reviewer position. The parent company of ANN has also publish Protoculture Addicts, one of the oldest anime and manga magazines in North America, since 2005. They also host regular columns by Jason Thompson (Manga: The Complete Guide) as well as Mike Toole (formerly of AnimeJump) —Farix (t | c) 20:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Knowledgekid87 now that's a nice resource to know about, that you already have the sources reviewed, along with a guide of how to use them and how not to. It's interesting, because people here were responding to this, see above, as a WP:SPS. I think we're clearing some issues up here. There seem to be little sections of WP with their own traditions and knowledge base re RS. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I do have another question re notability: what sources are sufficient to establish notability? What is generally sufficient? Is ANN enough? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Becritical, stop poo pooing over the fact that the WikiProject that primarily uses ANN as a reliable source has proof that it is, as well as their own rules to deal with some of the editorials that may be posted there. And ANN is not being used to establish notability. It is being used to source various other aspects of a page. Generally, if a television show has been released nationally (or internationally), that pretty much cements its notability in the English Wikipedia, and there will be other sources (various news outlets in Japan) that will establish the notability.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 20:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN, WP:NOTABILITY, and please read the list of unreliable sources here, which includes FireFox news. You seem to be disturbed that I requested you prove notability and come up with some RS so that the Pucca article is not based mainly on primary sources as it was before yesterday [23]. That the show should have notability is acknowledged, but this is Wikipedia- please don't be too bothered when you're requested to source things and meet the other standards of this encyclopedia. It's not that that I have to prove that there is something wrong, it's that every article needs to meet these basic standards. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And re my sandboxing of the list article, that may have been hasty, but you said yourself it was full of cruft, and certainly at the time it was a list forked from an article which itself didn't have sources or establish notability. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Pucca isn't Japanese in origin so WP:ANIME and its various rules have no governance over it, and it is therefore completely unrelated to this discussion on Anime News Network.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龙) 21:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Pucca is Korean not Japanese. Although I did find something on ANN for Pucca, are you asking if this [24] is a reliable source? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're dragging ANN's reliability into the notability of Pucca. ANN doesn't have either a single article or a review on the series. —Farix (t | c) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I seem to be mixing up discussions. Anticipation of eggnog. And I have nothing against ANN by the way ([25]). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is neither a review or an article. It is an entry in the user edited encyclopedia section and part of the website that is explicitly classified as an unreliable source at WP:ANIME/RS. —Farix (t | c) 22:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would further add that anime/manga editors do know how to use ANN appropriately; there is not a single use of ANN's encyclopedia in the main articlespace. --Gwern (contribs) 23:36 25 December 2010 (GMT)

They are present, but not that frequently and generally removed when spotted. Some editors not famliure with the whole subject don't realize that the Encyclopedia section isn't a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to meet the requirements of a secondary source. I scrolled down to the bottom of the page and saw an editorial staff, job and internship openings, and so forth. While it appears to be an entrepreneurial organization, it's not a selfpub. The other part of RS is whether something has earned a reputation, and a quick look at Google Books shows that it's been cited many times. When citing a web site, it's good to include the name of the company that owns the site as publisher and the city where it's based out of; the publisher is Anime News Network, and a little more research shows a mailing address in Westmount, Quebec, a suburb of Montreal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Humanist Society of New South Wales Inc.

Is an essay or opinion piece by a member of the Humanist Society of New South Wales Inc. a reliable source? It is being used as a source in the Distributism article to verify a claim that Distributism originates with Catholic authors but was later embraced by non-Catholic thinkers, including socialists and humanists. But, the article cites no sources, and I can find no indication that Howard is considered a notable scholar on the subject. I would like some other editor's opinions. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

SPS, not a RS. Fladrif (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Just Some Website. Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither the author nor the website would be considered experts on this subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

HSNSW's website exists to promote the opinions of the HSNSW and its members, non-notable opinion being used for fact. Not RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Modern

Modernbeats.com has the recording info about the recent songs that were released. They duplicate the methods of recording and derive at the conclusion. My question is how reliable is the website regarding the recording info? And can the info be added to FA class articles? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? To which article are you referring? What text? What citation? The website, as far as I can tell, does not claim to be reporting on the actual productions, but rather, how to duplicate them. Dlabtot (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, for eg if I were to add their production methods to an article like "Bad Romance", would that be advisable? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel it would be rude for me to refrain from replying, however, I have nothing further to add beyond my original comment and questions. Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so here is the link from Modernbeats.com which I planned to add to the article Bad Romance. I wanted to add the Drum Production and Audio, and the vocal synth mixes. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s Revised & Expanded 2nd Edition

Would this book be at least one additional reliable third party source for a fictional Transformers character? It's not licensed, it's published by major company, has a bibliography. Seems legit to me as both real and NOT primary. Mathewignash (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

[26] Seems to meet the requirements of WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As lead writer of the Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club newsletter, the author would appear to be more an enthusiast source rather than a scholarly one -- and not one demonstrating much in the way of independence, objectivity or distance from the subject, thus thoroughly WP:PRIMARY. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

umm, no. Please re-read WP:PRIMARY, perhaps with the assistance of an English-language dictionary. Dlabtot (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event" -- I would argue that as a part of Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club, Alvarez is "very close to", "directly involved" & "offering an insider's view of" the topic. I can give you the full, 20-odd volume, OED's definitions of any of those words, if you have difficulty with any of them -- some of them do after all run to two whole syllables (and one to three). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but those words don't have the meanings that you apparently believe they do. For example, a 'enthusiast' is pretty much the opposite of an 'insider'. An 'insider' would be someone involved in the production. 'Directly involved' -- since the plain meaning of this so obviously and clearly excludes the author, I am at a loss as to how to explain such a simple concept. Dlabtot (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, 'enthusiasts' are quite frequently also 'insiders'. In this case, the Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club, produces its own toy line and fiction (see for example Transformers: Timelines) and organises the "Official Transformers Collectors' Convention", BotCon, by license from Hasbro -- and thus is "directly involved" in the promotion of the francise. Your inarticulacy leaves me feeling profound sympathy for you -- here, have some colouring crayons. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alvarez went to work for the Transformers Collectors Club magazine in 2005. That book was published in 1999, long before the company that prints the magazine was even started. I don't think you can disqualify someone's work as too close to the source retroactively. The work he did before being employed by the club is definitely by an "outsider". Mathewignash (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Schiffer Publishing appears to be a respected publishing house. Their books have been cited by or recommended as further reading by many reliable sources such as the Smithsonian magazine,[27], PBS,[28] the Weider History Group,[29] and others.[30] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Judicial opinions

At the BLP Noticeboard, there has been a discussion today about an article Professional objector. This resulted in one editor deleting some material critical of certain attorneys sourced only to judge's opinions, citing WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I think this rule was intended to bar the use of raw documents such as complaints and witness testimony, which can contain quite wild assertions. Judicial opinions, by contrast, are more of a secondary source, as they are the judge's definitive evaluation of the assertions made by witnesses and parties. Moreover, the material was cited not as absolute truth, but to indicate that the judges had a negative opinion of certain attorney behavior. From this point of view, I can't imagine a better source for a judge's opinion than a recognized, reliable series of volumes reporting the rulings of that court. And I can't believe WP:BLPPRIMARY would really require us to turn to newspaper accounts rather than the judge's own words. By analogy, WP:Reliable_source_examples#Law says: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting." I was hoping for a reality check here on whether court opinions qualify as WP:RS. Thanks, Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If we are looking for a source that says "Judge X said Y in case Z," then the opinion of the court in Z may fairly be cited. However, secondary sources are still useful in most cases to assess the meaning of the judge's holding or comment when it is not obvious, the long-term significance of the case, and the notability of the case, not all of which may be obvious from within the opinion. Caution is particularly appropriate where the opinion is being cited for negative findings the Court may have made about a not-otherwise-notable party or attorney involved in the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JW that WP:BLPPRIMARY was not a good reason for deleting the material. The problem here is that the quotes were cherry-picked to paint a non-neutral negative picture of individuals, basically WP:COATRACKing an attack page that would have been G10'ed if it had been titled with the attorneys' names instead of the term. (The article suffers from further problems of cherry-picking and misrepresenting sources to POV-push on the substance, but that's a separate issue.) This is a BLP/NPOV/NOR issue, not a RS issue. THF (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

To comment on Jonathan's point about preferring to use a judge's words to a newspaper report of those words, WP:BLPPRIMARY allows for primary sources to be used to augment a secondary source, but not in isolation which was the case with the material I removed. Ensuring the presence of a secondary source helps to prevent us from straying into original research, and ensures that we only cover cases that are significant enough to have attracted that secondary coverage. January ^(talk) 12:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the cases appear to have been chosen not for their importance, or for the importance of any decision by a judge, but only for comments made by a judge containing a specific phrase. This is, intrinsically, OR territory, especially when searches are done of primary sources, and not of reliable secondary sources which are presumed to have chosen material based on its importance, and not on a reporter searching for a phrase in Westlaw. The phrase, by the way, does not appear to have been intrinsically important in the cases cited. Collect (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things I would like to discuss

1. First of all, I think Larry_King should go under the category: [Category:American_people_of_Belarusian-Jewish_descent] because it says in the article that his parents emigrated from Belarus and they were Jewish. Also I think Peter_Douglas and Eric_Douglas should go under that category as since their father Kirk_Douglas is listed under that category as well. 2. I think it should be noted in the Alexandra_Powers article that her mother is Katharyn_Powers and was a writer for variety of TV series. This article says they are related: http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Katharyn_Powers Also I think in the Katharyn_Powers article these links should be added: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0584251/ http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Katharyn_Powers http://www.moviefone.com/celebrity/katharyn-powers/2035049/main http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Katharyn_Powers In the Alexandra Powersarticle I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Songwriteruniverse.com

Can I use this website to expand an article. It's really important for me to expand the corresponding article. Is it reliable? Novice7 | Talk 10:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not for this purpose. The subjects of the article are also centrally involved with the website, so the article counts as self-published. The website seems to exist to provide consultancy to songwriters; it doesn't carry independent reviews of work. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. So, I cannot use it write the "Inspiration: or "Background" behind the song too? Novice7 | Talk 12:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know.

Hello, Reliable sources. You have new messages at Neptunekh2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Consensus is that this is not a RS. Discussed less than three weeks ago at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_83#www.truthaboutscientology.com_usage_in_BLPs Fladrif (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)