Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 16


Contents

Latin American Briton population estimates

We've got a discussion going on at the Latin American Britons talk page about the use of population estimates that are described by the source as "guesstimates". For me, there are two issues: firstly, are guesstimates suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article if they're labelled as such; and secondly, is the source reliable? Given that the estimates are so far off the 2001 Census figures, I'm doubtful about whether they're reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Census figure is the one to quote up front. It's OK to add groups up to make a total, but don't carry out any other calculations. Demography is an exact and complex science. I'd say the guesstimate and source are OK if very clearly attributed. "According to the Census there are ... . OECD figures show ... However, a historian, X, writing in Y, estimated that there are as many as ...". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Do you think that the guesstimate should go in the infobox as well as the main article? Also, is there any general guidance on the validity of guesstimates as sources on Wikipedia? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No, only an official figure should go in the infobox. Census figures have many well-acknowledged limitations but they are what we use in infoboxes because we are aiming for verifiability. I don't know of general guidance on guesstimates. I think it depends on the state of knowledge in the particular field and the level of accuracy that specialists in that field usually work to. You can measure the length of a mobile phone case to the nearest millimetre, but if you state the length of a building to the nearest millimetre it will be a case of spurious accuracy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Book Search snippets

At Talk:Plymouth#The_History_section_and_summary_style, User:Bsrboy has stated that he thinks that the snippets provided by Google Book Search can be considered reliable sources. I disagree, for the simple reason that there's insufficient context. I haven't found any discussion where a consensus opinion has emerged on this, so for the record I ask: Are Google Book Search snippet views (like these) reliable sources? Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The snippet is not, or only in very rare cases. Google Books Search is good for locating sources, but you still need to reference and check the book, not the online snippet. Note that most books are available cheaply via Interlibrary loan. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that the book, more properly speaking, is still the reliable source. The snippet is simply what one easily has of it. Whether it is usable for wikipedia depends entirely on the subject, what Almighty Google, in its infinite wisdom sees fit to grant us, the type of information given, etc. These can be so variable that it is not surprising that no consensus has formed concerning a subject about which it almost impossible to make valid generalizations. If it say, gives someone's date and place of birth, as I myself have recently used a google books snippet for, what could be wrong with that? By searching for the words at the beginning or end of the quotes given, one can sometimes extend the snippet. See Crime of Apartheid and Talk:Crime of apartheid , last section for an example where several editors, one quite skeptical, corrected and nailed down a quote using google books snippets. It is hard for me to see what the snippets given above could possibly be used for, though. Here, even more than usual, what context it is being used in is all. In any case, the simple and easy course is clear. If you want to use a snippet to say something, convince everybody else that there is no other reasonable interpretation of the snippet, then use it. If you can't, if the other side has rational arguments and alternative readings, don't. Of course, one may have to serously reedit the text that the cite should support in order to arrive at a consensus, just like any other edit.John Z (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your interesting comments. Here's another problem with snippets: when I click on the Google books link to the date of birth reference that you added[1] to Michel G. Malti, I see a two-column snippet, the first column of which begins with "Yankee Doodles (1943)" and the second column starts with "MALTZ Maxwell: Plastic Reconstructive Surgeon; b. N. Y. C. Mar. 10. 1899; s. Joseph and Tobey Maltz; ed Columbia Univ" etc. The second occurrence of "Maltz" is highlighted in yellow - I assume it's an OCR misread for "Malti". So I'm obviously being shown a different snippet to what you (John Z) saw. Can someone else check this link and let us know what you see?  —SMALLJIM  18:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it was my error. I copied and pasted the wrong URL.. Thanks for pointing it out. That's what you get when you search for Michel Malti in that book, rather than all books. The problem is that the snippet sometimes (usually) isn't what you want, and is different and worse than the short preview sub-snippet that google gives along with the link when you do a search over all books. I fixed it, and now it shows his date and place of birth when you click on it, and is consistent with other sources' info. Again, this emphasizes care and context being absolutely vital when doing this.John Z (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. I now see text in the first "hit" on your new link that states Malti's DOB. The problem I can see with this is that this is a type of Google search result, and if Google later scans another book about a different Michel Malti (or re-scans this book, or changes its search parameters, or no doubt several other possibilities), it's entirely possible that the displayed links will change. I'm pretty sure that Google search results are not considered to be reliable sources on WP, probably for this reason. I'd say that for Google Book Search snippets to be useful sources, what's needed is a way to provide a permanent link to the relevant graphical snippet, i.e. the image of the part of the page containing the correct text (to remove the possibility of OCR errors). And as far as I'm aware, that doesn't seem to be possible.  —SMALLJIM  19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the context for it:

During the English Civil War Plymouth sided with the Parliamentarians and so was isolated from the surrounding regions of Devon and Cornwall which were held by Royalist sympathisers. The town was besieged for almost four years until the Royalists were defeated. Various skirmishes and confrontations occurred, including the battle of St Budeaux and the rout of Royalist cavalry along Lipson Ridge.[1][2][3]

  1. ^ Gill, Crispin (1979). Plymouth, a New History, David & Charles. ISBN 0715376179. 
  2. ^ "Siege". The BBC (2003-01-06). Retrieved on 2008-07-06.
  3. ^ Parker, John William (1841). The Saturday Magazine, University of Wisconsin-Madison. pp. 22, http://books.google.com/books?id=051PAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA22,M1. Retrieved on 6 July 2008. 

bsrboy (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to tell us what snippet you are using to support what statement, and what the dispute is about if one exists. I couldn't tell very much from the talk page. Have you read the book? An otherwise insufficient snippet might be OK if you can get the page number from it, and you remember the passage.John Z (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no dispute over content as such. Let me clarify: my enquiry is about the general validity of using these snippets as reliable sources. I became aware yesterday that some of the references that bsrboy (and therefore probably other editors) had been citing were to these snippet views, without having seen the book (or more of it on-line) to understand the context, and also (importantly) without clearly stating in the citation that it was only the three or four line snippet that he had seen – to me that smacks of misrepresentation.  —SMALLJIM  11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that people should be clear about snippet usage. As long as the URL's are provided, people can check that only the snippet is seen. Of course one should never wildly but plausibly speculate on the basis of a snippet, and give an unlinked book ref.John Z (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it depends on the "snippet". Some of the books on Google let you see pages and pages at a time, and its fairly unlikely that a thesis would go on for twenty pages and then say "ha-ha, _not_". It would be preferable to read the physical book but I dont see a problem with using Google. The citation, of course, would be a regular book citation with an optional convenience link, not any of this "retrieved on" business citing the web site. On the other hand, sometimes Google only lets you see a couple lines at a time, and those can be more problematic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added another reference to it from the BBC. bsrboy (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And now another reference to a book with a preview available. bsrboy (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Adding further references isn't helpful; that's not what this issue is about. It might be useful for this discussion to provide the exact URL of the snippets from Gill's book that you saw.  —SMALLJIM  11:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
here. bsrboy (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Smalljim is right about not using snippets " without having seen the book (or more of it on-line) to understand the context." My point is that once in a while a google snippet and knowledge of the subject provide enough information to understand the context beyond reasonable objections. For the given snippet, at best I think one can extract "young Sir Francis Drake (he succeeded his father in 1641) raised a regiment called the Plymouth Horse. Sir Ralph Hopton commanded Cornwall for the King. In November he advanced on Exeter, but finding it too strong..." and "..the main force of the garrison stood with their left flank resting on Lipson Fort. The Royalists held the Mount Gould peninsula, any retreat by the defenders would mean the attack would be behind the fortified line" at unspecified times. This would probably not be useful, unless one had substantial other information from other sources, and this miraculously helped patch up a tiny detail. (e.g. you had "R. Hopton commanded ..." but not his first name). In particular, it doesn't seem to support anything in the text given above aside from Cornwall being held by the Royalists, which is probably supported by something else. It makes the book a good candidate for being in Further Reading, not as a reference. Smalljim seems to me to be very sensible and careful; if you (Bsrboy) have a good argument that a snippet supports something, I am sure he will listen. A skeptical and reasonable listener is the best guarantee that you will arrive at accurate material with solid support. John Z (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added other references, but one of them didn't mention Lipsom Fort. The google snippet does, so it helps to patch that bit up. bsrboy (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Vevmo

Resolved.

Hi. Is vevmo a reliable source for news pertaining to The Real World? I relied on this page for info on the cast for The Real World: Hollywood before mtv.com had any info on that cast, and almost everything about the entire cast turned out to be correct, right down to the identity of the two cast members who left the series close to the end of it, and the two new ones that replaced them. They even had headshots of the cast members. (To be fair, the hometowns of six of the nine cast members is different from the ones now given by mtv.com.) Someone even created a vevmo article, though it is currently the focus of an AfD discussion. While AfD pertains to notability, this page is for reliability. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. It is an "entertainment community" with various forums about different shows. It does not have the kind of editorial oversight required for articles in WP, see WP:SPS. And since living persons are involved here, this site absolutely must not be used.--Slp1 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I was not asking if information from anonymous participants in the forums be used. I wouldn't want to. I was referring to information posted by the administrators of the site, such as this example I linked to above, which had the names, occupations, headshots, and even in-season departure/replacement information about the cast, all of which turned out to be dead-on true, which would indicate that he is (or has) a reliable inside source regarding the production. Are you saying that that would be unusable too? (I just want to make sure I understand you, and that you looked closely at that info and its author.) Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my opinion would be that the entire site is unusable as a reliable source, even posts by administrators (who are anonymous themselves, in fact). They may have been an accurate source in the past, as you note, but that still doesn't mean they meet the criteria for being a reliable source, which requires the editorial oversight, fact checking etc that comes from more mainstream media etc. And WP:SPS is clear that these criteria must be very stringently applied here because there are living people involved. Slp1 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Play party

Once again, an editor is adding content to Play party based on his own personal experiences rather than any kind of reliable sources. Sources have been asked for for this content for years, and they just never emerge... and various editors seem to just re-add it or remove {{fact}} tags endlessly. per WP:V the burden is on people wanting to restore content to find sources... they've literally had years here yet still it's restored without sources again and again despite being challenged. --Rividian (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine topics

Resolved.

Editors remove requests for sources [2] [3] from Ukrainization‎ and Ukraine‎ arguing that opinions for which sources were asked are "common knowledge" or "discouraging Russian is evidenced by the banning of Russian". What the correct action should be? --windyhead (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You put too many tags on. Everything needs referencing but one reference per sentence is usually sufficient. Avoid mid-sentence fact-tags. It is time now for a full discussion on the talk page. You are right to say that everything needs a source; "common knowledge" is not good enough. There are many academic books and journal articles in English about post-Soviet society and they should be your starting point. Or look for feature articles in the online archives of the main English-language newspapers and news magazines. Avoid a revert war, instead try and bring in uninvolved editors by a message posted at a relevant Wikiproject, tagging for an expert, request for a third opinion or request for comment. If a revert war does ensue then you can ask for the page to be protected temporarily in order to bring editors to the talk page, but I hope you don't get to that stage. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Wall of China

I believe the Great Wall of China Forum is a reliable source. It represents information, photos, and maps I have personally collected on-site at numerous Great Wall of China locations over the years as well as through research via the many books shown on the site. Just because I have chosen to present this information on a site that is a forum is not a good reason to exclude it from links sections. I have found that many of the Great Wall of China pages on Wikipedia (there are many) contain external links to sites that have incorrect information and those links remain while the Great Wall Forum has been deleted. There is a lot of misinformation on the Great Wall of China and not much high-quality information in English language available on the Internet. The site is non-profit, non-commercial, and advertising-free. It has information, maps, and other material that is not available anywhere else. Thanks, Bryanfeldman (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is quite likely that your page is very useful and correct, it is not a reliable source that Wikipedia can use. Wikipedia forbids original research and allows self-published sources only in very limited circumstances. The purpose of using sources is to be able to ensure verifiability. Wikipedia editors are not usually qualified to evaluate primary sources directly. Even if they are, we have no way of knowing that they are. Therefore we rely on external criteria, like reputation of the author, reputation of the publisher, process of publication, and so on. So unless you are an acknowledged expert on the Great Wall, we cannot use your site. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com

Are these considered reliable sources? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, in general in terms of the blog content, not a RS, so it depends on the claim and the nature of the article cited on those sources. The partisan nature of the material could be a factor to consider as well. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The parts of About.com that mirror Wikipedia and the parts where netizens answer questions are definitely not RS. Huffington Post is fine for its own opinions and non-contentious facts (though these latter are likely to have better sources). - Eldereft (cont.) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write for about.com and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight; it depends on whether the author meets WP:SPS as an expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is largely a self-published thing with no editorial oversight. It may be that some of the authors are notable, but it grants no more reliability than the author's view would have anywhere else. Treat it as a WP:SPS. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I took another look, and , to my surprise, I think they are all 3 usable, with reservations, for most purposes. the Huffington Post is in my opinion as reliable for its signed stories as any conventionally published political newspaper or magazine. They are not contributed by just whoever wants to, like Wikinews. These are editorially selected, & include major essays by major writers. Arianna Huffington herself is an important political commentator, and what she writes can be cited --attributed to her of course. The commentary that miscellaneous people put in afterwards, that's another matter--that is not usable unless it happens to be from someone reliable. About.com has various parts. Some of the content from Wikipedia, but the other principle articles are made or at least screened by a selected list of contributors, who they claim to screen for expertise--read the article on it. It s furthermore published under the control of an undoubtedly reliable publisher, the NYT company--it's not a bunch of unscreened amateurs like here, though one does not know their actual standards. I would not automatically reject such content. I wouldn't use it for negative BLP, but that part does have editorial control and is therefore usable. Again, the stuff the readers write in as responses are another matter entirely. I havce been assuming its unreliable, but I think we need to take another look there. Gawker is a little trickier because of its subject specialization in celebrity gossip. But here again, the main items are under editorial control. The comments on the articles are like any other such comments. Using anything on a site like this for negative BLP is like using a tabloid. I'm not sure its worse than conventional tabloids, though. DGG (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with DGG. The level of ignorance as to these sources is surprising. Please try to do basic research before commenting. About.com selects for experts on all the publications that I've seen from it. I happen to read their economics blog a fair bit, written by an MBA school professor / economics consultant. The Huffington Post usually has tons of major names writing for them, and it would be perverse to assume that there is no editorial oversight -- when a news publication, especially a massively notable/influential one, publishes something, they try to keep a decent reputation up. Since they have expert columnists, they may give a fair amount of leeway. It really depends on the columnist -- the nice thing about the Huffington Post is that there is more emphasis on the columnists than you might see in your average newspaper, or especially the AP. For example, a glance at their recent Business posts shows a Wharton grad/former commodities trader, a VP of an investment fund, the executive director of the Sierra Club, and economics Nobel Laureate Gary Becker. Gawker is less reliabie, as you'd expect, and I expect the major things in there get repeated in more reputable publications. It's more like a tabloid (in the pejorative, rather than the format, sense). II 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seresin, thanks for the followup query. Yes there is some ignorance (and attitude along with some alarming demonstrations of that throughout this page lately). See WP:SOURCES for some general applicable wording to help you understand that the reliability of a source can't be generalized the way some queries are framed on this page; specifically you haven't said what you want to cite or which specific page of about.com you want to use to cite it.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

It would be far more helpful if you posted the specific about.com pages you want to cite, and what article and text you want to cite to about.com. The problems with the responses you've gotten to about.com generalize to three things:
  1. Reliability of a source is not a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue. A source isn't either reliable or not, it depends on what text you're citing, context, and I'm not going to use a special ed housewife mom who about.com calls a published "expert" (because she writes Hallmark cards and food and wine cookbooks and received a BA in Literature) to cite an article about Tourette syndrome, just because "they" consider her an "expert" in something (food and wine, I guess?) [4]
  2. As shown in my example above (I can give you many others) another key here is in how they define "expert" [5] in relation to our standards, for example, at WP:SPS. They've decided housewife mom is a "published expert" in something, but about.com has a lot of inaccurate info for example on TS, so what makes her a reliable source for our Tourette syndrome article? Again, it would depend on text cited, but for most medical info, housewife mom is not a reliable source.
  3. As others explained, there are different areas of about.com and different writers. Some of their writers may meet our standards, for example, WP:SPS, for some text being cited and some purposes, others may not. Just because ImperfectlyInformed "happen(s) to read their economics blog a fair bit, written by an MBA school professor / economics consultant" doesn't mean he can declare across the board that about.com is "reliable" for all purposes or that special ed mom who writes Hallmark Cards and cook books should be cited in a medical article. Generally, about.com is a very iffy source since, as I've shown you, their definition of "recognized experts" doesn't necessarily lend itself to our standards. Further, if the about.com economics blogging expert is really so "expert", the content will likely be published elsewhere and verifiable to higher-quality sources.
You'll get a better answer if you post an example of what you want to cite and what page you want to cite it to; perhaps you've hit on one of the few "true" experts at about.com. Depending on the area, it's easy to sign up to "be a guide" at about.com, and their standards are not high, as in the example I've shown you. Depending on what article and text you're citing, and unless the particular about.com writer meets our standards of published experts, I'd be surprised if you couldn't find a better source. In any conversation about reliable sources, btw, be concerned about absolute answers; the answer as to whether a source is reliable almost always depends on context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it depends (use common sense?). When I've seen people ask these real general questions about sources here, my first response has been "what is the context"? As far as the mother, she did write a book related to the subject, and some areas might lend themselves to a "mother's perspective". Apologies; I was inaccurate with regards to About.com: their information should be looked at as basically a SPS, since they basically give you a section and let you do what you want. The Huffington Post appears to be basically like a newspaper: they syndicate columnists and publish news; they have an editorial board, ect. II 06:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another fine example; she wrote a book about sensory integration disorder, which isn't related to TS and for which a lot of application and common knowledge borders on quackery, so ... again ... what is an "expert" according to about.com? What is her training in SID, considering her BA in literature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Another question I like to ask is, "Is a better source available?" In the case of About.com, the answer is almost always yes. --Laser brain (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)a
Quite right. II | (t - c) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd al-Karim Qasim

Resolved.

An IP address editor has been deleting a series of website sources from the above article on the grounds that they are unreliable. One of the sources is directly copied from Saddam Hussein where presumably it was considered acceptable on a high profile article. The websites with the sources quote reputable newspapers/news agencies verbatim, but as they date from pre-internet days I can't find any first hand quotes and the subject is not extensively covered in readily available books. Could I have comments about whether these sources could be considered Reliable Sources. Ironically after deleting the sourced comments, the IP editor put up a notice about the lack of sources in the article. Dabbler (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian, the New York Times and Reuters are reliable sources. Whether they are used in other WP articles is not relevant. From what you say you have not accessed the actual reports in these media but have read them or excerpts from them on websites. These websites may be acceptable as convenience links. It is much better if they include a whole article rather than an excerpt as there is then less scope for cherry-picking. Please try to avoid labelling other editors' contributions as POV. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The articles in question are quoted in full on the disputed websites, not excerpted; so I understand that these would normally be aceptable? You will note that I have merely tried to "report the controversy", not claimed this as the truth. Dabbler (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, explain that you want to use them as convenience links and ask if anyone thinks that they might not have hosted the documents reliably (i.e. the websites have interfered with the documents' content). It is often possible to agree on convenience links. You may find it useful to note that we do not have to include an internet link to sources. So long as a paper copy is available in a library then that should be OK. All these three are generally reliable for facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but the editor involved does not accept it and persists in deleting the references etc. Dabbler (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mania.com

Resolved.

Is http://www.mania.com/ reliable? I'm not sure... Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Billboard Turkey chart (cut from WP:RS)

A user has been adding Turkey entries in many song-related articles using this site. Is the source reliable and is it the official chart of Turkey? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a reliable source. Turkey has a few charts, with the Billboard one being probably the best. Fribbler (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it the official chart of Turkey? --Efe (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

American Chronicle

This is something I thought would have been discussed before now & my apologies if a definitive answer has been given. (Attempting to search Wikipedia for the answer has brought up nothing on this.)

Is the website American Chronicle a reliable source? I ask this for two reasons: one is how an article from this site has been used in the article Ogaden National Liberation Front to introduce some information that I find definitely "iffy", writing from my experience in the area. (Had it appeared in another source, especially one I trusted, I would have given it the benefit of the doubt.) The other is that after studying the website, I find the following disclaimer:

The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content. In addition, the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the American Chronicle or its affiliates.

So I could write an article about how I got cheated out of the 1938 Nobel Prize for medicine, & they'd publish it with that qualification? I'd assume that an undeniable requirement to be a reliable source is that it takes responsibility for what it prints. Any thoughts? -- llywrch (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They claim to have an incredible number of writers, but also to have an editorial staff. Given what you stated above, it would seem that staff does not claim responsibility for what it "reviews." I'm not really sure a reliable source can have it both ways, and I too am suspicious of any source with such a disclaimer. I would say that if you see it publish anything suspicious or contentious that's not backed up by obvious RS's it's safe to call it unreliable, and it would take a positive outside review to convince me of the opposite. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My experience with the American Chronicle is that they don't have much in the way of standards for what they'll publish. Occasionally it will be something good, much of the time its error-ridden, ignorant drek. HrafnTalkStalk 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet Fora re Mankind Project

I would like an external and disinterested opinion on three sites as they regard WP:RS and the reasons for and against

* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ex_mkp/
* http://forum.rickross.com/list.php?4
* http://www.houstonpress.com/
* http://wthrockmorton.com/
* http://adayinthelifeofalcoholanddrugrecovery.blogspot.com

Thank you in advance for any help that you may be. Rorybowman (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Houston Press, published by the Village Voice group, seems to be generally reliable. The others seem to be internet fora or blogs and therefore not RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrology reliable source?

I've been wondering if Astrology-online.com is enough of a reliable source per the requirements of Wikipedia, as it seems it often contradicts itself in its articles. I am asking this as there is some issue with an editor adding contradicting information from the website to the Wikipedia article, Aquarius (astrology). Could you guys take a look?

The article uses this source: http://www.astrology-online.com/aquarius.htm

Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the source is demonstrably self-contradicting, what else do you really need to say it's unreliable? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta

I would appreciate other editors reviewing this edit and the sources. I don't question the publishers reliability per se. I just don't see how the sources relate to what the Wikipedia article says. I've tried to explain myself on the talk page. --Rob (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The book seems to be a very useful source and my main concern with the edit is that it seems to be taking one point out of context and not using the book to the full. I have another idea that you and the other editor might like to consider. That is that it is not logical to have a timeline of events of a particular type until there is a History of Calgary article. I suggest that you take the history section in the Calgary article and the timeline article and merge them together as a basis for History of Calgary. At first the ethnic unrest might have too much prominence but I'm sure you would quickly attract other editors and the article could be filled out. Then at a later stage you would revisit the question of whether the ethnic unrest merited its own article. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Help!!!

are the following sites reliable? GameFAQs, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, Game Rankings, GameZone. Gamespot has a lot of news on it. Ign, Gamespy/Rankings/Zone all have reviews. Gamefaqs has well written guides that serve as refs. answer on my talk page! Moogle 12 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The news on those sites is probably reliable, and the reviews are significant viewpoints (which means you can place them in a relevant article with in-text attribution to the site, but do not make it appear as if the reviewer's opinion is a fact). Be wary of the guides, however. Some are professionally written guides, financed or sponsored by the sites, but others are user-generated and probably shouldn't be trusted as far as Wikipedia is concerned. 151.152.101.44 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDB

I'm almost certain that this has been brought up before, but www.imdb.com - surely this is not a reliable source? IMDB (an open source website) republish information from anonymous users that is often wrong, and they don't cite their sources. I believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to get such errors in IMDB corrected.

Is there a specific guideline about this? The only thing I can find is here. I keep seeing www.imdb.com, and so think we need clearer guidance on its suitability. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't go into the entire website, but my previous experiences with the biography sections were bad. The information is user contributed and blindly taken from other websites, without there being a reliable publication process in place. If there is a specific article, can you provide something like a link or diff? Species8473 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
There are many articles that use this. It was this change that prompted me to raise the question here. I think we need some kind of (foot)note, essay or guideline specifically about IMDB to raise awareness about its unreliability. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
[6], [7], [8] and [9]. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I posted this in the IMDB discussion down below but it worth repeating here. Please see the Zachary Jaydon hoax for a great example of the perils of sourcing to IMDB. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Journal of Religion & Psychical Research a RS on comparative religion

A Journal of Religion & Psychical Research review on World Scripture (a comparative anthology of scriptural quotes) is being used in the article on the book's author, Andrew Wilson (theologian). JoR&PR (now The Journal of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies) is published by the Academy of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies, Inc. and contains such articles as "Are Organ Transplants Metaphysically Contraindicated", "Posthumous Personality, Reincarnation and Liberation", & "Report about the Teleportation of a Living Person" (sample cover can be found here). Should it be considered a RS in this context? HrafnTalkStalk 06:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it depends. I have looked at the web site that you give and even read the two full-text articles posted as samples. It is evident that, although they try to give this journal the look of a scholarly journal (editorial board, use of academic titles, etc), this is nothing like a scholarly journal. If World Scripture is being touted as a serious work (as I know it is being done in the Wilson article), then I don't think that JRPR is a RS. It could perhaps be considered a RS, though, if one were to look to establish the notability of some subject under WP:Fringe. --Crusio (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The Journal is certainly not a real academic journal and not a reliable source on any external topic. It might be useful for opinions of named authors and editors in some rare circumstances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's what EBSCOhost (link may not work due to subscription requirements) says about it:

Title: Journal of Religion & Psychical Research
ISSN: 0731-2148
Publisher Information: Academy of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies, Inc.
PO Box 614
Bloomfield Connecticut 06002
United States of America
Title History: Journal of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies (2006 - present)
Journal of Religion & Psychical Research (1990 - 2006)
Changed to: Journal of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies
Bibliographic Records: 01/01/1990 to present
Full Text: 01/01/1990 to present
Link to this Publication: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&jid=G77&site=ehost-live
Publication Type: Academic Journal
Subjects: Psychology & Psychiatry; Religion & Theology
Description: Contains academic articles, correspondence and book reviews in the area where religion and psychial research interface.
Publisher URL: http://www.lightlink.com/arpr/index.htm
Frequency: 4
Peer Reviewed: Yes

It's claimed by an independent third party, who specializes in the collection of academic journals, to be a peer reviewed publication, albeit in a niche field which does not require the rigors of the scientific method. On what basis is it not a reliable source? WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any indication that EBSCOhost performs checks on peer review process? More likely they merely take self-reporting at face value. There are a large number of (often far WP:FRINGE) publications that claim "peer review", without anything substantive to back it up (Michael Behe was once caught out claiming "peer review" of a book of his by a 'reviewer' who had never even read it -- merely discussed the idea of the book with a then-potential publisher). And thank you for that "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" crack -- it gives editors a very good indication as to where sympathies lie (and your willingness to uphold WP:AGF). HrafnTalkStalk 06:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no more information on EBSCOhost's process than I do on the New York Times'. Here, I expect, is a good spot to get other Wikipedia editors' take on the whole topic, not limited to your perspective or mine. You're expressing unrelenting skepticism, which is your right, but not a position that is helpful to consensus building. Rather than say that a rhetorical WP:IDONTLIKEIT presumes that I'm not assuming good faith, why don't you articulate your objection to EBSCOhost's process? Absent any evidence to the contrary, I don't see why their assessment should be deemed unreliable. You differ. Why? Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Peer reviewed != reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The journal may well be peer reviewed by editors with a serious axe to grind, or complete idiots (yes, you can academic credentials and still be one). I am not accusing this source of anything of the kind, but the point, J, is that the reliability of a source can itself always open to discussion, dispute, consensus, and discretion; a mere listing with little context does not settle the issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not an expert on JRPR; I'd never heard of it before this. I'm just looking for non-biased third parties to take a look at it.
Process Question Is it acceptable to solicit folks from affected wikiprojects, such as the Paranormal, Spirituality, or Religion wikiprojects, to participat in this RS/N discussion? Given that at least one editor has expressed concern that the entire topic is WP:FRINGE, might it not be appropriate to solicit editors who are committed to the serious study of such areas as academic disciplines? Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS says that Google Scholar is a good way to judge hits. this search string Yields ~500 references to articles. Rabia Clark's review doesn't appear to be one of them, and she only gets 3 Google Scholar hits herself. Can someone with more experience in RS/N tell me whether this is good, bad, or ugly, given what EBSCOhost claims above? Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, it appears that most of the 498 articles from JRPR referenced from Google Scholar are purchasable from British Library Direct. A Yahoo search yields twelve references to articles in JRPR. MSN Live seems to find many of the same references. The journal is accessible at The University of Washington, which seems to rely on EBSCOhost for electronic copies.
Absent any reliable source which actually says that JRPR is not peer reviewed or taken less seriously than other publications on the same topic, the evidence presents it as a peer-reviewed academic journal in an area which garners little respect. Does anyone disagree? Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Emphatically disagree: (i) no substantive evidence has been presented that it is "peer reviewed" (ii) "not ... taken less seriously than other publications on the same topic" is a ridiculously low bar. Further, the outside opinions already stated above contradict your conclusion. HrafnTalkStalk 07:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Of the three posts beside yours or mine, two were made before any evidence had been presented of its reliability, and one after the first of three posts detailing reliability had been made--and that post doesn't take a position at all. Thus, all the no !votes were made before the presentation of any evidence. Now that the evidence is presented, I'd like to see more discussion from interested parties. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, the alleged academic journal has no connections to academia, and thus the statement that it is an "academic journal" is suspect. The Academy of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies, Inc., the publisher, does not seem to be either an independent, objective source on the subject, or, for that matter, necessarily even a regular academic institution, as per its own website here. On the basis of that information, and the comparative lack of indications that the journal is one which is seen as being reliable as per the comparative lack of ghits, I would come to the conclusion that there has not been sufficient evidence presented to support the article being seen as a reliable source. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you comment on the use of a review from the journal in context? Hrafn is contesting the inclusion of a review of a religious book from this source in a footnote to Andrew Wilson (theologian). I believe that the use of a review in a non-mainstream religious publication to document the reception of a religious book is an appropriately limited use of this source. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The question as to whether the source meets the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources standards takes priority over trying to include information from as many viewpoints as possible. Based on the information that I have seen, there is no clear reason to believe that the source in question meets RS standards, which would seem to disqualify it from inclusion for any reason. As per the page cited by me here, "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page (WP:V) and that one (WP:RS), this page has priority." John Carter (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You know what, that really helped: The issue was really not whether this was a questionable source or not, but whether it could be used in this context, despite its status. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Further comment: I've tried to find out more about the journal. It still raises several red flags with me. It's not included in the ISI Web of Science. Google Scholar lists it, but not one of the articles from the journal have any citations listed with them. The publisher is extremely suspect, and the topic is inherently unscientific. So I won't use it for anything but the opinion of an author. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Further sources on this subject

  • The article also cites a review from "Bruce Schuman, founder of United Communities of Spirit" (I could however find no indication that Schuman is the founder of UCoS) here. I could find no indication that either Schuman or UCoS is prominent. Should this review be considered a RS?
  • This may be slightly off-topic, but are generalised comments about a list of "12 volumes" that contains this book a 'reliable' characterisation of this one book (out of the twelve) specifically? (The citation is to Booklist, but no accessible online link has been given.)

HrafnTalkStalk 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I think you're actually challenging the notability of these, rather than their accuracy or verifiability. Not sure this is the proper venue to do so, but I could be wrong. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I am (i) challenging whether some random web designer (with no apparent expertise in comparative religion, as you accidentally established in this link to his resume) is a RS for a book review of this type and (ii) challenging whether comments made about a list of 12 books are RS for a single book in that list. HrafnTalkStalk 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(i) I never said he was a reliable source for anything other than what he said. That may sound circular, but that's what WP:SPS can be used for. I also never made any attempt to conceal his secular career--I'd been preferring neutral and independent sources, but couldn't find one in response to your tagging that position--as he was never asserted to be an expert in comparative religion. At any rate, my sincere apologies--had I known you hadn't found that before you first challenged his applicability as a source, I would have linked to it earlier; if any accident was involved, it was that. At any rate, I think the whole assertion is moot, given the current version of the article, which doesn't refer to him by name, just as one of a variety of folks from different religious traditions who have praised World Scripture.
(ii)Are you really challenging Booklist as a WP:RS? Or, instead, are you arguing that the mention in the RS is trivial? I sincerely believe it's actually the latter, in which case the reliability of Booklist is not really at issue. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(i) Please read WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves" -- you are not using Schuman as a source about himself, but as a source on World Scripture. If you do not "assert[ him] to be an expert in comparative religion", then there is no reason to include his opinion. He is not a RS on comparative religion, so we have no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to his inexpert view (any more than the view of any other random person who decided to put an opinion up on a website). (ii) This can be framed as an RS question (is a generalised comment about a list a RS on a list-member), and there seems to be no forum that is more appropriate for discussing it (it seemed too small a point to be worth raising a WP:RFC over). HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
We can take this back to the talk page now. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

End run around RS/N consensus

Jclemens has stated his intention to ignore this consensus in this thread, on the flimsy basis that these sources are not being used "about" Wilson's book, but rather "about" what they said, and thus "about themselves" (per WP:SELFPUB). I have pointed out to him that this line of argument is tendentious. HrafnTalkStalk 06:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not agree with this characterization of my actions, but I do not believe this is the proper forum in which to discuss it. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You were the one who raised WP:SPS on this forum, as a rationale for using these unreliable sources anyway. You can therefore hardly complain when your interpretation of the intimately-related WP:SELFPUB is brought to this forum's attention. HrafnTalkStalk 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

LoolLex Encyclopedia

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

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

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

  • That's the point. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, so an encyclopedia which is not much more reliable than Wikipedia is probably not a reliable source either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Guysen News International

I'm wondering about the reliability of a mostly French-language website (with some English articles), Guysen News International. Has anyone heard of it before? A handful of Wikipedia articles link to it [10]. As far as I can make out, it seems to be a French-language, Middle East-focused equivalent of WorldNetDaily or FrontPage Magazine, i.e. essentially an outlet for commentary and opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a rather important Israeli Press Agency of French langage : [11].
It is considered to be pro-Israeli.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I have follwed Guysen News for some time ... In French it is here: http://www.guysen.com/ It calls itself "L'agence de presse francophone d'Israel et du Moyen-Orient". It is considered pro-Israel because it is Israeli. It operates out of Jerusalem and carries the Jewish as well as the Christian date. It carries articles in English [12] and in Spanish, and has a television station [13] associated with it which can be found on Israeli cable stations. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, better take another look around the site. It is set up as a newspaper with news, editorials, political, society, cultural, sports, arts, religion, science and high tech, tourism and financials, and more. Each section seems to be updated daily. There is considerable local (Israeli) advertising for hotels and airlines and such. Not at all like WorldNetDaily or FrontPageMag. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be "set up as a newspaper" but that automatically doesn't mean it is one, or that it follows journalistic standards, hence my question. Anyone can set up a superficially professional website but by itself, that doesn't make it a reliable source. Don't forget, "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog". :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well we can take Ceedjee's answer as definitive. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Journalistic standards?" Are we trying to determine that on this noticeboard? I was just speaking to your stated opinion at the question "As far as I can make out, it [is]... essentially an outlet for commentary and opinion." As to pro-Israel, as I stated -- it is an Israeli news source, so of course it will be pro-Israel, much the same as any US paper will concern itself with US interests. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

National Post

Is the National Post considered a "tabloid"? It's a Canadian daily published in Toronto, and my impression is that it is a reliable media source, but I was wondering what others thought. ATren (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • It should be considered generally reliable in my opinion. As far as I know, it's a mainstream newspaper. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it should be kept in mind that it has a specific declared ideological bias. DGG (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It also has a horrible track record on at least one politically sensitive scientific topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to the "specific declared ideological bias" ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IRNA

Resolved.

Hi, I'm wondering if IRNA, the Islamic Republic News Agency, is considered a reliable source for news items outside of Iran. I believe that it is Iran's state-run media organization, so I'm unsure of how neutral it can be expected to be as a source. The specific article I'm looking at is here, though the question is a general one regarding its reliability as a news source for events outside of Iran. Thanks. ← George [talk] 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The particular article you are citing was apparently derived almost entirely from a Los Angeles Times article. If so, it would be much better to find and cite the original L.A. Times article instead of the secondary source at IRNA. (I should note that despite my misgivings about the use of IRNA as a reliable source, it can be useful in some circumstances. For example, as indicated at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, some people don't believe Ahmadinejad said Israel should be "wiped off the map". It certainly seems relevant to note that this IRNA article says, "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Monday that the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map.") --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've found the original article here. It would appear that IRNA is taking the article extremely out of context, and misquoting it. The L.A. Times article, titled "Lebanon’s Sunni bloc built militia" was renamed to "US has built militia in Lebanon" by IRNA. Furthermore, the original article doesn't state that the US built or funded the milita, it says that the US backed (as in supported) the Sunni political bloc that built the milita. This makes me question IRNA's status even more. I'm going to replace this with the original source in the article where it was disputed. ← George [talk] 04:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia TODAY

Personal blog by Raja Petra Kamaruddin. Is this personal blog reliable for biography for living people? It is a blog run by Malaysia's most famous conspiracy theorist, can this blog be used for reference for biography for living people?

Blogs are not considered reliable sources, especially not for BLP. It may be all right for material about its author but not for articles on other people or other subjects. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as the blog can reliably be established as belonging to this individual it can only be used to source facts about himself, that is it.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is run on a University of Tennesee website by James Fieser, Ph.D., founder and general editor and Bradley Dowden, Ph.D., general editor. It describes itself as "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a non-profit organization run by the editors. The Encyclopedia receives no funding, and operates through the volunteer work of the editors, authors, and technical advisors." I have seen some good info and some questionable info, so thought I'd get others' opinions before either knocking it as a source or using it as a source. Carol Moore 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The two editors are both full Professors, so it's off to a good start. However, despite the front page saying "A Professionally Peer-Reviewed Resource", I can't say it's as reliable as a book published in a academic press or a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal (at least until an explanation can be found for exactly how the peer-review process happens in regards to this site's content). - Merzbow (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'll email and ask them :-) Carol Moore 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
It is generally well-regarded as an introductory source of information in academic philosophy circles. It's not the most reliable source, but its failings are common to most encyclopedias and other overview or introductory sources. (It often glosses over details or omits some context, rather than any kind of gross inaccuracy). It's good for the basics and it most certainly meets our general model of reliability. That is, it is well-regarded in its field, it is written and maintained by experts, has editorial oversight and is published/endorsed by a reputable university. A similar project that has a slightly better reputation for accuracy, is much more complete and is much better established is The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, though it also has similar limitations/flaws to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vassyana (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarmac

The article states that "tar-grouted macadam was also in use well before 1900". This goes against the general view that tarred roads did not really come into use until the turn of the 20th century with the advent of the motor car. Thus, I am challenging this statement.

The article needs more sources and if you know of any perhaps you could add them to the article or leave a message on the article talk page. However, I think it is clear from the article that although such methods were known and sometimes used in the 19th century, they were not introduced on a large scale until the patent of 1901 was granted. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Then, shouldn't we make this clear, that though the technology was known it was little used until the motor car arrived on the scene? 19century (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to tighten up the wording in the article so that it reflects the sources that we have. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexa.com

Is site information from Alexa a reliable source? Discussion at Talk:Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain#Successors. --Soman (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be OK for site traffic, I don't know. But from what I see at the talk page discussion, that does not seem to be the issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's just a repeat of the claims made by the website, not an independently reviewed description. Cite the website directly for the claims it makes (but be cautious to follow WP:SPS). It would be greatly preferable to rely on what reputable independent sources have said about the topic. Vassyana (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"It's just a repeat of the claims made by the website, not an independently reviewed description." Where is the evidence for your claim? The user Soman is a well-known Stalinist propagandist who is attempting to erase all mention of the anti-Stalinist successor group Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee). --62.136.183.186 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this is in no way a real source, it's repeating gossip and self-representation. No fault of the site, they're set up to do just that, and there's no indication that they're making any value judgements. It's like saying that "I typed cpgb into google, and this came up, therefore...". Funnily enough, I typed "cpgb" into alexa.com, and guess what came up...? Everyone outside of this sect sees them as having hijacked the name, not as successors. If someone can turn up a respectable academic reference then it may be applicable... but I believe that respectable academic sources see the CPB and the CPS as the "successors" to the CPGB. Grmdy (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable sources on