Archive 115

←

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

→

Archive 125

Martin Hosking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we use a company SEC filing as a source for biographical material about one of its officers? The material here would be

From 1994 to 1996, Mr. Hosking was a consultant at McKinsey & Company, a management consulting company. Prior to that time, Mr. Hosking served with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a Diplomat in Egypt and Syria and held various senior posts in Canberra, Australia. Mr. Hosking holds a B.A. in history and economics from the University of Melbourne, Australia.

Seems to me that it's a primary source and some of the material is self-serving and BLP-related. I would feel the same if the background material were on the company's website.

At the same time, it's not horribly self-serving, and you'd think the company would be careful about what it says. I'd really prefer a secondary source, though.

My musings aside, is the source reliable for the assertions?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

True its not the kind of source we prefer, but it might be OK in this instance as primary sources are OK in some circumstances. Let's see what other editors think. Thanks for starting this thread Bbb23. I'm OK with a decision either way.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this would generally be acceptable under WP:SELFPUB because a company has no incentive to lie in its SEC filings about company biographies (there are far far better and easier places to lie about that) and because if they did permit someone to lie in their filings, they would be liable for misrepresentation. It just wouldn't be worth the risk to not be as reliable as most of our other sources generally are. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a bit of experience with SEC filings. There are very strong legal reasons why they are truthful and so on the facts would rank ahead of most other sources including secondary . So as a primary source they have high credibility. They can be coloured, of course, and I would avoid taking the adjectives at face value (e.g. "senior").XcommR (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And while the SEC filing is a primary source for some content, for material like this it's a secondary source. The corporate employment records themselves, etc., or the subject's CV, perhaps, would be primary sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Is TV Guide's website considered reliable when it comes to original airdates? I believe it is (in many cases). Anonymous user 76.107.249.211 is repeatedly reverting my edits on The Angry Beavers articles. All he or she does is mention websites known to be unreliable like imdb, epguides.com and a random wiki. --Meadyforzbs (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. Why should we be interested in when a particular episode of The Angry Beavers first aired? See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And then find something more useful to argue about... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that a hypothetical question? At one point, I removed all dates from the episode list in an attempt to stop the dispute. Said person just reverted it back again. So, that didn't work. --Meadyforzbs (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so grumpy, Andy. Several TV programs have had significant cultural impacts on society, and considerable effort has been made to record the major milestones in their production and broadcasting. A couple that come to mind that have impacted on my little corner of the world are Mickey Mouse Club and Fawlty Towers. Both now regarded as classics. (Yes, I'm old.) I don't know if The Angry Beavers will ever be spoken of in the same breath as the two I mentioned, but who are we to judge? HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree about the cultural impact of some TV programs (I'd add The Simpsons as another example), and I agree that articles should "record the major milestones in their production and broadcasting" - but do we actually need to give the date of first airing for every episode? If they have a 'cultural impact', it is as a result of the cumulative effect of multiple broadcasts - and per Fawlty Towers, often as a result of repeat broadcasts of the same episode, which makes the date of first airing seem even less significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading, this, the TV Guide website is a primary source that requires interpretation. OTOH, not having read through every last blow-by-blow revert in this edit war, nobody has come up with anything better. It does seem, um, dubious however that episodes sat around for five years before being aired for the first time. One would hope that there was some source out there that could make a definite statement about when the series ended its first run. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would agree with it being a primary source, but to the extent that while there is some synthesis to interpret a listing as being the indication of first air date, it's not a terribly bad use of SYNTH. Most TV shows - those that are aren't prime time major networks, rarely get coverage on a per-episode basis, but information about when each episode aired is appropriate encyclopedic data, so as long as all editors are reasonably sure that the selected reference site from TVG is the first airdate, then there's no need to question that. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I see several book-published guides out there that all say the series ended in 2001, and while it's hidden by snippet view I see that one of them claims that those last few episodes in the TV Guide list were not released. Given that it takes an act of interpretation of the latter to state that they were, I would tend to discount it. Mangoe (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Which book is it? "It does seem, um, dubious however that episodes sat around for five years before being aired for the first time." Not when it comes to Nick USA. They have a history of withholding episodes for a long time. --Meadyforzbs (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is really no point in arguing with this guy, I have already tried he is completely obsessed with Television air dates and has edit warred with tons of people until they were blue in the face, I had given three different sources for the Angry Beavers Air dates each time he told me his one source was more reliable, While also calming Nick USA has a history of unreleased episodes(which he seems to be doing now) He obviously believes he is always right no matter what others say.--76.107.249.211 (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, Suzanne Finstad's Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley (1997, new edition 2006) seems to be a reliable source. The book is written by a reputable biographer, journalist and lawyer who has received the Frank Wardlaw Prize in 1984 for literary excellence for her first book. The book is well sourced, as the author spent three years researching and writing the first biography of Priscilla Presley, thereby providing a detailed account of Priscilla’s childhood, including Priscilla’s discovery of her true father at eleven, her courtship by Elvis when she was 14 years old, their marriage, and her management of Elvis Presley Enterprises after their divorce and his death. The study is based on extensive interviews with Priscilla herself, her family, close friends, classmates, co-stars and numerous members of Elvis’s circle in Memphis and in Germany. Harmony Books, which is part of The Crown Publishing Group, a subsidiary of Random House (the world's largest book publisher publishing across several categories including fiction, non-fiction, biography, autobiography and memoir, cooking, health, business, and lifestyle) published Child Bride in the United States in 1997; Century London, a successful publisher of bestselling authors, published the book in the U.K.

However, some users claim that the book is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards, as Priscilla successfully sued Currie Grant, one of Finstad’s interviewees who had stated that Priscilla promised sexual favors with him in exchange for meeting Elvis and that she was not a virgin on her wedding night. Grant lost the case and was ordered to pay $75,000, though Priscilla had sued for at least $10,000,000. It should be noted that the book's author, Suzanne Finstad, was not part of the lawsuit. Furthermore, in her 2010 book, Baby, Let’s Play House: Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him, Alanna Nash has shown that the press reports about how the lawsuit was resolved and the way it was actually resolved are very, very different things. Nash has unearthed a 1998 confidential settlement agreement between Grant and Priscilla that puts a different light on the outcome of the court case. On the one hand, it says, Priscilla can tell the media that she feels "vindicated" by the result of her lawsuit. On the other, Grant will not have to pay a cent in damages provided he never discusses her again in public. Furthermore, while Grant will no longer claim to have had sex with Priscilla, she will no longer accuse him of attempted rape and will pay him $15,000 for pictures he took when she was a teenager. What to make of this? Nash argues: "Clearly Priscilla has taken extraordinary measures to silence Currie Grant, presumably to protect the myth of how she met Elvis and whether she was a virgin at the time." But there is also another possibility. Could it be that, despite the alleged rape, the massively rich former Mrs Presley simply took pity on a man who had, after all, introduced her to her future husband? In her book, Nash has further revealed that the Priscilla of 1959 — the year she met Elvis — was not exactly the innocent schoolgirl of the accepted fairytale romance. In Germany, where her stepfather was serving in the American air force, she frequently flirted with a crowd of black-leather-jacketed boys at an air force club. Furthermore, on the evening that Priscilla was introduced to Elvis, Grant found the singer kissing her against a wall. By 8.30pm, according to several people in the house, says Nash, Elvis had taken her up to his bedroom, and they did not emerge until after 1am. This strongly suggests that most parts of the story as related in Finstad's book seem to be true. In an interview, Nash has additionally stated, "Suzanne Finstad helped me see that Priscilla's story of being the virgin bride just doesn't hold up under scrutiny."

It is interesting to note that most parts of Finstad's book have been republished without difficulties in a new edition that appeared some years after the said lawsuit. Query: may Finstad's Child Bride be used as a reliable source, if Currie Grant's statements are not cited? Onefortyone (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all it would be difficult to say for certain without saying exactly what the source was supporting specifically. But it's certainly reliable in the sense that it's a reliable source for "Finstad says that... blah blah blah". This could might be more of a wp:weight issue too though. More broadly speaking, the author herself seems credible, she's written several biographies on famous people. She's won several awards and been on the New York Best Sellers List for non-fiction, plus the fact that she wasn't sued by Priscilla (or any of her other biography subjects presumably) would seem to indicate she didn't write anything without sourcing it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not whether or not she sourced her information, the problems is whether or not it's reliable information. A questionable source is one that relies heavily on "rumor or personal opinion" about "persons living or dead". Finstad's book most definitely does, and therefore it is highly questionable about how accurate it might be. Anyone can say anything about anyone or anything, and just because it's published does not make it true. Priscilla may not have sued Finstad or her publisher directly, but that also does not make the information true or any more reliable. The official line regarding the situation, from Presley herself, is that she did not lose her virginity until the night she married Elvis. There is absolutely no evidence, except "rumor and personal opinions", to prove otherwise. This article is not only about Elvis Presley, it's also about living persons, something that makes the information added even more delicate.

It may also be argued that the information added has absolutely nothing to do with the main subject of the article, Elvis Presley and his relationships. The information added is directly about the life of Priscilla Presley, mostly (or perhaps completely) about her life before Elvis. Therefore, this information wouldn't really have a place within this article even if it wasn't from a questionable source. Should someone wish to start an article about the personal relationships of Priscilla Presley then the information would be better suited to that article. The article about Elvis Presley's personal relationships is absolutely full of "rumors and personal opinion" from a large number of questionable sources. Several editors have commented on how absolutely shocking it is the weight that is given to the information that is highly questionable. I am convinced that it is only as bad as it is because it's not a very well known article, especially amongst more experienced editors.

The whole article is in desperate need of a rewrite, with a large amount of information needing to be removed for being questionable.... relying "heavily on rumors and personal opinion" about "persons living or dead". Just because something is published, it does not make it reliable or a good source for Wikipedia. Just because an author has won a few awards, it does not make them or their sources any more reliable or a good source for Wikipedia. At the very least, what this book does for the most part is present a "he said/she said" scenario. Without absolute proof of anything, these are nothing more than rumour and personal opinion, therefore, according to Wikipedia, questionable sources.

If the final decision here is that the book is fair to use then I will accept that decision. However, it would seriously affect my opinion of Wikipedia as a fair, for the most part reliable, encyclopaedia. It has a bad enough reputation as it is, one that I don't necessarily subscribe to, and this would just be a perfect example of why some people consider it such a bad source in itself. Don't just look at the source provided, look at what that source is saying. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlanding#Hoax_accusations is a perfect example of how things should be done. It gives the alternative opinion, one that is certainly in the minority and not backed up with any facts, and it gives it only a fraction of space, not only within the whole article but also within the section itself. The article about Presley, however, does the opposite. The rumours and personal opinions, or in other words the minority view without facts, is given, sometimes, more space than the actual official line, which is from the "horses mouth" so to speak. How that can be considered neutral or fair is beyond me, especially when the sources provided are questionable and fail to provide any actual evidence other than personal opinion and rumour.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

ElvisFan1981 (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your entire argument is about weight, this discussion is about source use. If you read my second sentence "This could might be more of a wp:weight issue too though", you would see that I addressed that. It doesn't, however, change my mind about her viability as a reliable source for her info. I still find it exceedingly unlikely that Priscilla would sue someone for 10 million dollars, but not sue the person that published that information, unless the author was reliably sourced. I didn't base my opinion on that either though, it's based on the whole of the author's work, which seems credible and solid in the field of biographies. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't argue it any more. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that some Elvis fans simply do not like what is written in Finstad's biography of Priscilla Presley, because the author has demonstrated that, in many cases, Priscilla didn't tell the truth in her autobiography. Finstad's book is based on extensive interviews with Priscilla herself, but also with members of her family, close friends, classmates, co-stars and numerous members of Elvis Presley's circle in Memphis and in Germany. Several of these interviewees contradict the accounts in Priscilla's book. Furthermore, a recent book by the reliable journalist and Elvis biographer, Alanna Nash, supports Finstad's research. If Priscilla's own view is cited in a Wikipedia article, then other opinions (based on the researches by Finstad and Nash) may also be cited for reasons of balance. Would this be O.K. according to Wikipedia's policies and editorial standards? Onefortyone (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please stop with this whole "People are only concerned because they are fans and don't like it.... blah blah blah" nonsense. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The reasons I disagree with the use of Finstad's book are listed above, they are all to do with Wikipedia standards and have nothing to do with whether I like the information or not. I have added plenty of balanced, negative opinion about both Elvis Presley and Priscilla Presley in the past on Wikipedia, myself. If other editors say it's a fair source then you go right ahead and use it, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's full of rumours, personal opinions, and is an extremely small minority view. According to Wikipedia standards, any sources that rely heavily on rumours and personal opinions about persons living or dead, including published works, are questionable sources. Wikipedia's own founder has insisted that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". However, regardless of all that, it's still considered a fair source according to Despayre above, despite several other editors on several other talk pages and articles, some of them believe it or not who are not Elvis fans, considering it a deeply unreliable source, and its author also unreliable. I assume Despayre knows more about the whole subject, and therefore their final decision must be respected. However, the constant assumption of some people that some Elvis fans are only interested in white washing his memory is getting very tiresome and boring. It's bordering on offensive, and it's about time that anyone's opinion about a matter is treated with the respect it deserves, not shot down just because they happen to be an Elvis fan. Perhaps picking this username was a very bad mistake because it seems to automatically undermine my intentions as an editor, something that it should not do. I might even consider a name change so that I don't get stereotyped in the future. Nearly every other editor that I've known who has come into contact with a certain other editor has decided to completely ignore them. I must admit, I think it's about time I do the same. As this matter is now dealt with, I consider it closed and I suggest we both move on to other matters. No need to drag it on any longer. Add your information about Finstad back to the article, and let it be done. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think this site is a reliable source on the characters? NB I'm not asking about the actors. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not without adding "According to Grange Hill Online...." in front of any proposed text. In the "About Us" section, it says "This is GRANGE HILL ONLINE, an unofficial site...", which means they have no official access to anything, and they could write whatever they want, whether they choose to or not. Despite the accolades listed from actors on the show and press reviews (newest one is already 5 years old btw), it has no editorial policy, other than "GH Online is provided on an "as is" basis, without warrant of any kind whether expressed, implied or otherwise. You should not assume the site is error free..". Also, the sentence "In accessing this site you agree it will be for your own personal, non-commercial use and you agree you will not or assist any third party to copy, reproduce or transmit, broadcast or exploit in any way the content for any purpose without the prior written consent of the Webmaster" might be a problem for using it as a source too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, it isn't reliable, but it's OK to use if I precede with "According to Grange Hill Online"? --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

yes, I mean I don't think it's reliable, as it pertains to the RS criteria here. Additionally, yes, it can be ok to use if you precede your info with that attribution, because it only claims that this source says "blah blah blah". Whether that's notable or undue weight or not, is another matter again. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to use an article from that website to add the genre "post-metal" to the infobox of the band Deftones, the source says:

they released their third album, White Pony in 2000. Chino Moreno was also working on Team Sleep at that time, lending to a definite shoegaze metal sound. This new sound meant that White Pony grabbed everyone’s attention...[1]

I have to point that a source from the post-metal article in wikipedia states that shoegaze metal and post-metal are sinonimous.
Now, there is another editor [2] saying that the site is not reliable and that failed to stablish notability once, but that was in 2008, the site is much more prominent and important now, it's colaborators also writes for music magazines.[3] What does the people at RS/N think?
Thrash Hits homepage: [4] -Trascendence (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to ascertain 'the next step' in having a site which is currently classified as non-RS, re-classified as RS.

On March 27, following suggestion by Dirk Beetstra, I opened this item on RS/N: [[5]]

I made the case and presented evidence for the 'Australian Business Traveller' website (of which I am editor) being an authoritative news-based online publication for which an RS classification would be appropriate.

To date we've had one response: "Sounds RS to me" (from Collect) on March 27.

In the absence of any voices raised for AusBT being not suitable for RS, what's the next step in having AusBT re-classified as RS?

I've spent the last 30 minutes poking around Wikipedia but can't see any clear evidence of what the process is for progressing and finalising this, nor how related current actions such as automatic non-RS flagging by an XLinkBot can be amended.

I'd appreciate any suggestions or clarity on finalising this, thanks.

Djsflynn (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As a confirmed spammer, I'm afraid that there is practically nothing you can do to get your site removed from the blacklist. You have already greatly abused the project, and we have no credible evidence that you intend to stop doing so. I'm sorry, but spammers have no credibility here on WP, and anything you do will most likely make the situation worse.

As far as the reliability of your website is concerned, it's a moot question. I can't imagine any information that could be supported by your website that couldn't be supported by a more reliable source. Your website is therefore superfluous and unnecessary.

In short, there are a lot of better sources out there than your website. WP will not suffer because your website is black-listed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Also note that there is no such thing as an RS in general - the question has to be whether a source is reliable to support a particular statement in a particular article. It is therefore a question of whether an editor wishes to use it a source, and whether that is appropriate. There are various red flags that editors would look for in assessing reliability.Martinlc (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I used the fact box in this source to write the following: The Western Wall is one of the holiest of Jewish sites, sacred because it is a remnant of the ancient wall that once enclosed the Jewish Second Temple. An editor has described this as original research. Your thoughts please.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I do not see how it is OR. The source (bad as it is) certainly supports your addition. Perhaps this one would be better, ^[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::The press release of the Israel Antiquities Authority^[2] upon which the Mail story is based might be a better source. There is a mention in the Jerusalem Post.^[3] Any published papers by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron might be better but they may not appear for some time. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't original research, but it isn't great editing either. In general we should use sources as good as we can find, and for a question as commonplace as this one it is very easy do to far better than the Daily Mail. Besides that, you didn't report the source very well. It says "surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard", not "enclosed the Jewish Second Temple". But I'm glad you brought this example here because it shows why newspaper articles should not (except in very limited circumstances such as guest articles by historians) be used as sources of history. Here are the first two paragraphs of the infobox:

The Western Wall – or Wailing Wall - is a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard, located in the Old City of Jerusalem at the foot of the western side of the Temple Mount. It is one of the most sacred sites in Judaism outside of the Temple Mount itself.

And here are some sentences from the start of our article Western Wall:

The Western Wall, Wailing Wall or Kotel ... is located in the Old City of Jerusalem at the foot of the western side of the Temple Mount. It is a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard, and is one of the most sacred sites in Judaism outside of the Temple Mount itself.

And it continues like that, sentence after sentence. The newspaper's infobox was a blatant rip-off from Wikipedia, without any attribution! Unfortunately this is very very common. It is so common and such a danger to the integrity of Wikipedia that I believe the sourcing guidelines should be changed to prevent the use of such sources. Zero^talk 13:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, how do you know if this is OR or not as Ankmorpork hasn't stated what article we are discussing? The article in question is in fact the 1929 Palestine riots. The Daily Mail article does not discuss the riots at all so using it in the article is OR. (WP:OR "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."). We have a number of very good academic secondary sources which cover this topic so I see no justification for using a DailyMail science article which does not mention the riots. Dlv999 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is not OR and obviously pertains to the article, this is what the Pratchett fan wrote "The Western Wall is one of the holiest of Jewish sites, sacred because it is a remnant of the ancient wall that once enclosed and the Jewish Second Temple." How exactly does this information have no bearing on the article? The fact that it is one of Judaisms holy sites obviously should be mentioned in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what I thought. The paragraph that this infomation was added to was The Western Wall Tensions, and I thought that this historical backdrop was directly relevant and informative. That better "good quality academic secondary sources" could have been used did not seem a satisfactory reason for the reversion.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The information is surely relevant to the article, but the source is inappropriate, because it is not discussing the riots. We have numerous good quality academic secondary sources that cover the riots and discuss the meaning of the wall to both Jews and Muslims. Those are the sources that we should be using.

The source I provided above is an academic one, I believe it is more than suitable for what was added. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And this one discusses both the riots and that it is one of the most holy place in Judaism.^[4]

I have no problem adding the information supported by RS. But most of the RS I have read on the topic balance the beliefs Muslims and Jews, which is not what Ank's source or edit was aiming to do. For instance Segev(2001) writes:

"Jews had prayed at the Western Wall since the Middle Ages. They considered the wall, one side of a narrow alley, to be the sole remnant of the Second Temple. It was holy to the Muslims as well, considered part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where according to Islamic faith, the prophet Muhammad had tied his horse, A-Buraq, before setting off on his night Journey to heaven. For Jews, the wall is the most sacred place in the world for prayer; for Muslims the two mosques on the adjoining Temple Mount are of lesser importance than the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina. As part of the Temple Mount, the Western Wall was under control of the Waqf, the Muslim religious trust."

Using this type of source will lead to a balance NPOV article. Relying on Daily Mail sicence article that does not mention the article topic will result in the opposite. Dlv999 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, I do not want this Reliable sources discussion to degenerate into a NPOV spat, although I am puzzled as to how you construed my addition to be imbalanced and controversial. Darkness Shines and Jezhotwells have kindly provided excellent sources and I shall seek to incorporate them into the article. I thank you all for your contributions.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Recently, Andy Dingley added three sources to The City of Lost Children to backup the claim that this is a "steampunk" movie. I do not think any of these sources pass muster as reliable sources, but I want some opinions from editors here. The sources are: The Steampunk Tribune (http://steampunktribune.com), the website of the Brattle Film Theatre (http://brattlefilm.org/) in Cambridge, Mass., and The Steampunk Forge (http://thesteampunkforge.wordpress.com). None of the sources provided actually back up the claim made in the article, i.e. that the "film is widely regarded as one of the first steampunk films". Two blogs and the website of a movie theatre do not seem sufficient to backup this claim. All they really argue is that people in the steampunk subculture have laid claim to the film and draw inspiration from it. This is essentially the same argument made over and over when people attempt to claim, without sufficient sources, that Brazil is a steampunk film. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

City of Lost Children is a steam punk film, I recall watching it first it screened. Those sources are of no use though. Use ^[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

DS, if you're referring to p.169 of the book, it says the (promotional) website for a construction project/art installation (called "Steampunk Tree House") lists the movie as an influence. A self-promoting website probably wouldn't pass muster as RS for the "steampunk" claim. But that issue is moot, as there's no mention of this wonderful movie (currently, at least) on the website. Unless I missed it? Writegeist (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No page 166[6] Preview on GBooks. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also raised at WP:ANI#user:RepublicanJacobite.2C_Steampunk.2C_WP:OWN_and_forum_shopping. RepublicanJacobite has removed all three of the references again. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

When judging the quality of these references, editors may find it useful to see the actual deleted references from the previous version of City of Lost Children, rather than RJ's somewhat pejorative use of host website homepages alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The article entitled Mazhory uses an article "Like fathers, like sons: Ukraine’s untouchables", by Mykola Riabchuk. This article was first published on Ukraine Analysis The article claims to be an analysis of incidents where rich and well connected people in Ukraine are reported by newspapers to have engaged in violent criminal acts. The article says that they are all connected to the conservative party, which in Ukraine is known as the Party of the Regions.

I believe that Riabchuk's article is an opinion piece by someone described as a journalist. If it is, then various wikipedia policies such as WP:NEWSORG and Wikipedia:No original research would class it as a primary source.

Mykola Riabchuk's claims are a fringe theory. They are (or appear to be) political propaganda attacking one political party in Ukraine. In reality, there are criminals in all political parties in Ukraine, and very large numbers of criminal investigations are currently being pursued in Ukraine against politicians of all political parties and also against other public servants who are believed to have abused their power.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you believe it's an opinion piece by someone only described as a journalist? A quick google search of his name brings up many references, including "Mykola Riabchuk is a senior research fellow at the Ukrainian Center for Cultural Studies, in Kyiv". He seems credible to me, and his article seems to have been well sourced, but I don't read russian, so someone else may need to double-check on some of the sources provided. What evidence do you have that he is presenting a fringe theory? Ukraine Analysis describes him as a "Ukrainian cultural and political analyst". I don't see any evidence of him providing fringe theories. IWM says that "Mykola Riabchuk is one of Ukraine’s most prominent public intellectuals. He is Senior Research Fellow at the Ukrainian Center for Cultural Studies, Kiev, and was a Visiting Fellow at the IWM. He is the author of Die reale und die imaginierte Ukraine [The Real and the Imagined Ukraine], published by Suhrkamp Berlin in 2006". Is it your belief that Ukraine Analysis, IWM, and the Ukranian Center for Cultural Studies are all fringe groups? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• As the editor who added the info from this source, I'd just like to say that although it came from Ukraine Analysis originally (which describes itself as a 'blog' but is run by a Canadian educational institution), it was then republished on Open Democracy, a reliable website dedicated to human rights issues. There is therefore editorial oversight and for this reason it seems to be a reliable source for WP. The author is described by Open Democracy as "a senior research fellow at the Ukrainian Center for Cultural Studies, in Kyiv, and co-founder and member of the editorial board of Krytyka, a leading Ukrainian intellectual magazine." To me that sounds reliable, once more.
• The article does not say that all crimes committed in the Ukraine are "connected to the conservative party, which in Ukraine is known as the Party of the Regions." - it says that the author analysed news reports of about 100 crimes committed by VIPs, and especially their offspring, over a one year period - and these were all connected to the party mentioned, or associates of theirs. This caveat is mentioned in the WP article in the appropriate section.
• The article is not a primary source: the author does not talk about events that happened to him, but events reported by other news organisations. He then analyses these. It's secondary; I'm bewildered that another editor could think it's primary.
• While the article's claim that it's mainly people linked to one party that commit these crimes (and then use their positions to escape punishment) may be surprising, Toddy1 has so far not presented any sources which dispute this. He disputes this. Thanks for your time.Malick78 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted the following in the article on Amitabh Bachchan:
=== Amitabh Bachchan on Ajmal Kasab === In 2009, Amitabh Bachchan posted a comment on his blog that the lone surviving terrorist of 26/11 attacks, [[Ajmal_Kasab|Amir Ajmal Kasab]], is the "safest person" in the country. Maharashtra Chief Minister [[Ashok_Chavan|Ashok Chavan]] disapproved this comment but according to media reports, Maharashtra Government had till that time spent rupees 31 crores to protect [[Ajmal_Kasab|Kasab]].<ref> {{cite news|url=http://zeenews.india.com/news/state-news/maha-cm-disapproves-of-kasab-most-safe-comment_584895.html|publisher=[[Zee News]] |title=Maha CM disapproves of 'Kasab most safe' comment: PTI |accessdate=2012-04-16}}</ref>.

Some of the co-editors are frequently removing it, terming it as trivia. Amitabh Bachchan is a cinema icon in India and his view on security and terrorism in the India matter a lot. The information is properly sourced and is verifiable. Please enlighten me on the issue. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Seems like this is not really a matter for this noticeboard. At first sight it seems obvious that this is likely to be accused of not being notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The source looks reliable, which is what this page is for. Whether the information should or should not be in the article is a different matter. You'll need to discuss the issues (eg WP:UNDUE) at the article talk page: click here. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above editors, the source looks ok, but there may be WP:Weight issues here, unless Amitabh Bachchan is also an expert in matters of state, law, and/or security. His views on these matters as a publicly popular person are no more valuable than yours, he just has a bigger platform for them.-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan was a member of parliament in India and he has campaigned for political parties. Hence I suppose his views can be quoted on the subject of security and terrorism. Please advise. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC).

I agree with others above that this is not really a reliability question.

Yes, the fact that the chief minister responded to the comment makes it potentially notable; but just one exchange between Bachchan and the chief minister, on a topic that doesn't seem otherwise related to the biography and so needs to be elevated into a one-sentence section, is undue weight. If Bachchan speaks effectively and evokes responses on related security issues, there'll be more to say, and this information could be integrated into that. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts on the Journal of Hate Studies? Looks like it's published by Gonzaga University, and the program of hate studies appears to be based out of the same institution. As of last August, it appears to have failed to catch on [7], though perhaps things have changed in the subsequent 8 months. Seems an odd little journal and field, though probably notable [8] [9]. It's used as a reference in corrective rape and I'm wondering if it's sufficiently reliable for use at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It claims to be peer reviewed; they look like standard sociology titles. There are 9 volumes issued. I'd say it is fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's published by a university press and appears to be peer-reviewed. Absent of other evidence, it looks like a WP:RS. Are there statements in corrective rape sourced to this journal that appear to be extraordinary or out of order? If not, I would think that this source is fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No specific concerns over its use (yet), the page overall needs lots of work and better sources, and low impact, low notability, low circulation journals are dubious in my mind and often can be partisan. But still, a crappy peer reviewed journal is still better than a blog, and we use those for sources. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A dispute has arisen on Trade group efforts against file sharing whether TorrentFreak is an appropriate source or not. TF has been discussed twice before. First in May 2009 and again in April 2010. On this occasion, a perfectly reasonable complaint by the Motion Picture Association of America to Swedish authorities regarding the commercial nature of The Pirate Bay is conveyed by TorrentFreak under the headline "MPAA Begged Sweden to Take Down The Piratebay". A tad overstated, one might say, but the dismissive and disparaging tone is a common theme with TorrentFreak, who often attribute the worst possible motivations to individuals and groups who hold a different philosophy.
Arguments in favour of using TF include:

• TorrentFreak has a reputation for reporting on torrent-based technology and is often first to announce the arrest of individuals connected to the Warez scene and the closure of unlawful filesharing networks
• Regularly shares tips on encryption and privacy
• Maintains a list of the most popular downloaded movies
• Has been cited by quality sources such as the The Guardian and New York Times

Arguments against:

• The site is operated by 3 anonymous bloggers with no evidence of editorial oversight or fact checking by anyone with published credentials
• Guest contributors include Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge and The Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde
• Unlike other tech websites that report with objectivity (e.g. CNET, TechRadar, Wired) there is a strong whiff of advocacy as TorrentFreak encourages visitors to vote Pirate Party and even tipped-off the operators of NinjaVideo they were being watched by authorities before their arrest and successful prosecution in 2012^[12]

In the current discussion (torrentfreak meets WP:RS) I'm in the minority by arguing against inclusion (3 to 1). I am told that hundreds of external links to TF already exist on Wikipedia; that it's recognised by Wikipedians as reliable for "straight news reporting"; and that I am "pushing a pro-industry POV" for desiring a neutral source. Clarity and fresh input is most welcome because this area is still a learning processes for me, regardless of outcome. — ThePowerofX 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a non-neutral source, and as I mentioned on the talk page, there are very few sources in any subject area that could possibly be described as neutral. The fact that torrentfreak uses a non-neutral headline does not at all invalidate them as a source. Opinions in torrentfreak articles should only be included on Wikipedia with the regular opinion disclaimers, but the fact that their articles are frequently opinionated do not make them an invalid source for matters of simple fact. I have no idea why you think the fact that they have run editorials by Peter Sunde speaks against their reliability - many news sources run editorials by people who have opinions and/or people who are involved in controversial stuff. For that matter, Wired also ran an editorial by Peter Sunde (and also frequently uses opinionated headlines.)

Torrentfreak has multiple full time employees, is regularly quoted in the mainstream media, has a reputation in the tech community for accurate reporting, etc. It's a reliable source for issues of straight fact.

You've repeatedly deleted not only the first torrentfreak source in the section, but also the second one, where torrentfreak is used to support the statement "The 2006 raid was detailed in the documentary Steal This Film." The notion that torrentfreak is not a reliable source for such a statement (remember, reliability depends on context) is silly. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguments in favour, 2 and 3 don't strike me as relevant, and I'd like to see more specifics about #4 before making up my mind. In arguments against, #2 should almost certainly be placed in the other category, as these people would certainly be considered experts for their opinions on torrent issues. Lack of oversight is definitely an issue though.

As the movie was primarliy distributed through torrents, it's likely that a torrent-specializing website would be a good source, although I suspect there are better sources available for these issues, than a 3 man crew running a website. I think it would be ok for non-controversial issues, such as what the movie was about (but that statement really doesn't get you too far). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that better quality sources are available. You are the third user to say that. Countless mainstream sources offer technology news and report copyright infringement cases with neutrality and disinterest. TorrentFreak is a good source of criticism based on their knowledge of BitTorrent protocol, but for "straight news reporting" some pieces can be deemed controversial, especially when there is considerable overlap with their own anti-copyright stance. Instead of deleting these links point-blank I shall replace them with higher quality references to avoid further dispute. — ThePowerofX 08:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that replacing them with higher quality sources is fine, but just to be reiterate in order to be totally clear: the mere fact that they hold opinions does not mean they are unusable as a source. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In the article on Mazhory, the list of citations include a large number in Russian and Ukrainian. These are very good citations.

Does the title need to be translated into English as well as appearing in the original text?

I interpreted Wikipedia:Style#Foreign-language quotations as meaning that since the titles were being quoted in a foreign language, translations into English of the titles must also be given. However this is disputed. Please advise.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Style#Foreign-language quotations says: "Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear in translation. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context)." Titles of citations, in the reference section, wouldn't seem to be what is meant by 'quotations' - and giving a translation of a source's title hardly guarantees the cited material is to be found in the article anyway. It's therefore illogical. Malick78 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless the title is being used in the article, not just the reference section, I read the MOS the same way. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Many of us monoglot speakers appreciate a translation of a work's title in an article's reference and bibliography. That way I don't have to go to google translate to readily observe that the article is dead on the issue of the topic. It is a courtesy, not a requirement. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it could be done as a courtesy, but I don't believe the MOS requires it, which I understood the question to be. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable? Really, the amount of episodes would be verified by paper, not electronics. --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

TV.com is user generated and should not be used. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed TV.com as unreliable. What about EPGuides.com? --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Education_Services There is a discussion about the California Miramar University article. Specifically on whether or not Education_Services is a reliable source for the history of Pacific Western University, which was the previous name for CMU. One side of the argument is that "State of California that officially lists and recognizes ES as the recognized and official source of records for PWU California by the State of California, employers, government agencies, law enforcement agencies and the courts. This puts ES in a recognized second party position to comment on all aspects of the article dealing with students and graduates of PWU California regardless of the 2004 GAO report. Note: the State of California site lists ES as the, "custodian of records". It does not distinguish merely academic/student records." My view is that there is a bit of word play going on here. I think that within academic institution terms a "custodian of records" is understood to be graduation records, not records for history of an institution. To me the ES website is not a Wikipedia reliable source. Doing a reverse address lookup for suite #1304 at 11835 Carmel Mtn. Road on Google maps I find Keller Williams Realty:‎ 11835 Carmel Mountain Rd #1304, San Diego, CA 92128 not Education Services. My view is that ES is apparently owned or somehow related to CMU. Looking at the ES website, it does not appear to be a reliable source for CMU history. The address thing is more like icing on the cake, so to speak.

Your opinion would be welcome. Zugman (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• educationservices.us: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.educationservices.us

Site sppears to have the primary purpose to sell academic and administrative information. Has no actual reliable information to verify encyclopedic content. --Hu12 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Does not appear to be RS for history of the school, with the possible exception of the government report that references Diploma Mills, but that's a government report, and should be publicly available elsewhere, more reliably. The government report is not a scan, it is typed out, and there is no reason to believe either way that the info is correct or incorrect. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Further to Zugman's report, when I looked up the entity's mailing address, I found it to be a UPS store in a suburban shopping center. Additionally, their web domain was registered in November 2011 (hardly a long history to indicate stability), and the website is about as plain-jane an HTML page as I've ever seen. Furthermore, the California state agency whose website is claimed to vouch for them is an agency (i.e., BPPE) that is notorious for lacking the resources needed to begin to do the regulatory job for which they are ostensibly responsible. All in all, this is a pretty pathetic excuse for a "source." --Orlady (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Movopia (specifically, these pages on it: [13], [14], [15]) acceptable to support these edits to the Mike Manning (actor) article? Nightscream (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Movopia looks to be less good of a source than IMDB. The content from the first page appears to be cut-and-pasted from either IMDB or LinkedIn. The IMDB content is attributed to "Anonymous." Who knows where the Linked In mirror of it came from, probably Linked In just copied it from IMDB too. In fact the more I click around on Movopia, the more I see the content there is largely illegally copied from IMDB. There is no "about us" at Movopia, there is no way to attribute any of the content to a person or get any idea of the qualifications or content standards of the editors there. Also several of the important features of Movopia appear to be broken, I got several fatal errors looking at the site. So overall, I'd say, No, not a reliable source, and anything you'd find there you should probably be looking for on IMDB first. However, I don't see that the particular edit you asked about is particularly surprising or controversial. If I were you I'd leave the content and replace the Movopia cite with a 'fact' tag. Zad68 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me also point the use of IMDB itself as a WP:RS is very debatable, and there's a long history of discussion here on WP:RSN about using it. Zad68 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly has been debated, but most people who have participated in the discussions here on it have opined that it is not reliable. I actually looked through them all, and even started a new discussion sometime in the past few months in which I provided a list of them, all linked, though ironically, I can't find it in my bookmarks or with the RSN search engine. Nightscream (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Boyé Lafayette De Mente is an alumnus of Thunderbird School of Global Management. He is neither a sociologist, nor a sexologist. But an editor insists the book Sex and the Japanese: The Sensual Side of Japan (p.115) written by him could be used as an RS for the article Car sex for the information "In Japan, car sex is known as Ka sekusu. This a common practice among Japanese youth." Second opinion is needed. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone would want to put such useless information into an article. "ka sekusu" is not a Japanese phrase, it is just the English phrase "car sex" transliterated into Japanese syllables in a perfectly standard manner. (Japanese doesn't have a native "x" sound.) Zero^talk 09:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This crap is a plague; currently it is cited in 75 articles. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97#MobileReference for background. Is there a way to automatically slap a tag on all citations to MobileReference (and periodically repeat that since new instances are bound to crop up) to alert editors and readers that this stuff is absolutely unacceptable for sourcing? An article that cites fake sources is worse than an article that cites no sources at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I found it in 110. I'm replacing it w a cn tag using AWB. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. That's an even better solution. (I see you actually deleted the refs wholesale instead of replacing them with a tag, but I don't mind.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

On the article Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact, I was recommended on the talk page to add to the article information from the following source:

Robert A. Freitas Jr., Xenology: An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civilization, First Edition, Xenology Research Institute, Sacramento, CA, 1979

While the book is not self-published, or published by an organization connected to the author beyond whatever is required to get a book published, the very name "Xenology Research Institute" raises eyebrows. The book cannot be found on Google Books (as far as I know from numerous searches of "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact") and I have yet to see anything about a more recent (2008) edition in Google News. The book is only attested to on blogs and various organizations.

However, the book itself does not seem bad. The information seems to be quite accurate at first glance, and even upon a deeper reading of some parts, the information passes every test with flying colors. The book has citations to reliable sources and is logically believable. I am torn regarding its reliability, and request an outside individual to make a fair and honest study of the book.

The book is available online; just search its title. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 06:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say it is self-published. I can find no evidence of this Institute that isn't clearly related to Freitas. Google map's satellite view shows that the address is a private house. Freitas' website[16] says "The book was privately published and circulated in hardcopy form during its writing in 1975-1979 and after its completion in 1979." Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is self-published, and I explained that to Wer900 at Talk:Cultural_impact_of_extraterrestrial_contact#Robert_Freitas but the user does not appear to understand what I wrote. To recap again, the book is self-published (the explanation is found here) but is considered reliable on Wikipedia because Freitas is an expert on the subject whose work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications.[17] Further, Wer900 was not asked to add information from the source; Wer900 was told that the self-published source can provide pointers and that the 4000 sources that Freitas uses can be drawn upon for further research. It was also pointed out to Wer900 that the source is very, very old, and was originally published at a time before astrobiology and bioastronomy became part of our lexicon. According to WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Freitas meets that criteria. See also: [18] Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say that someone who was an expert in the field 20+ years ago, who has not published anything since, would still be considered an expert today? Is there an expiry date on "expert"-ness? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 04:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a legitimate question, and Freitas is honest enough to address it himself in his 2008 preface linked above. He points out which chapters are still accurate and relevant and which are not. Considering the fact that we have not established first contact with any extraterrestrials (or any that we know about), the contact scenarios and other aspects regarding cultural impact are still highly relevant. To answer your question, yes, currency is highly relevant to authoritativeness, but we're dealing with a speculative subject (cultural impact of ET) that has not changed all that much. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis regarding the possible inclusion of a selfpublished e-book in the article. The book is one of a few works published about this fringe theory and is interesting because it has the participation of a well known specialist - but it has not generated any new interest in the scholarly community and it has not been reviewed or evaluated by other scholars (no peer review, and no post-publication reviews). The question is whether the book can/should be mentioned as an example of a recent publication not whether it can be used to support statements of fact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that makes this a "reliable source" question. It makes it more of a content question, and should probably be discussed with some depth where you've listed it, on the RFC page, although it does sound like an interesting question. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Are original articles published by natllawreview.com reliable, per se? The site has advertising and they are promotional. Submissions ("well-researched legal analysis or how-to articles") are reviewed mainly for interest to their readers. There is no listed editorial board. Authors pay a "nominal fee" to have their articles published unless they are from a non-profit. In return, authors' names and their firms' names and logos (even promotional videos) are prominently displayed on the article page and new submissions are featured on the main page. "... the National Law Review provides an excellent opportunity for your firm to put your name and knowledge in front of thousands of legal consumers who are actively seeking your expertise."

From About Us:

"Advertising with the National Law Review provides you a highly effective way to reach legal decision-makers."

From the FAQ:

"Contributions are accepted from professionals and organizations who are well-versed in any topic of law or law-related area and who want to share their knowledge to people interested in learning about key developments in that particular area of the law."

"We organize and showcase the author’s knowledge in a third-party format that is easily searchable by anyone looking for legal analysis. ... The author’s name and firm are prominently featured at the top and bottom of each article along with the author’s biography and hyperlinked contact information. We can also include a photo of the author, the firm’s logo and even embedded video for additional impact."

"We will not publish press releases. We are interested in well-researched legal analysis or how-to articles that will appeal to in-house counsel and other attorneys, business executives, insurance professionals, accountants, compliance officers, human resource personnel, law students, paralegals, and/or other professionals."

"What does it cost to get published on National Law Review? If you are a nonprofit organization, there is no charge to post documents in our database. If you are a for-profit entity, we do charge a nominal flat annual fee in order to defer the costs of administering and marketing the website."

"The bulk of our postings are articles drawn from law reviews, law journals, law firm newsletters, and bar association and other professional publications."

(They also distribute articles from other sources, but I think those should be validated based on the original source. I am only questioning their original articles.) Jojalozzo 04:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting case. The site has the form of a blog, which we usually avoid. On the other hand, it seems that most of the articles are written by legal professionals. I'd say that it could be cited as the opinion of the article author, but not as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Zero^talk 09:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Highl dubious it seems but i woudl take the instance of who had added it. Was it COI? If not i would stick with Zero0000 to attribute it strictly to the author and at that IF the author is notable enough for inclusion (ie- partner at a senior firm (notable enough with a wiki page) or a aparalegal/fresh graduate which would not be notable.Lihaas (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Because many if not all the postings have been by one editor, I have difficulty with AGF. I also think Zero's take is apt. Jojalozzo 13:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this article The National Law Review. The web site is the online presence of a law journal going back a long time. I don't know if that would alter our thinking since it still appears to be promotional and below academic review standards. Jojalozzo 13:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Kind of feel like the National Law Review is being singled out here a bit. Are there any examples or instances of incorrect or slanted information being attributed to the National Law Review. Many of the references listed above are taken out of context. For example, if you read on the same page that the "Jojalozzo" tries to draw the conclusion that their is no editorial board: "We do not publish firm press releases or other promotional material. But if you have written an analytical article examining a recent court decision, legal trend, or legislative action, we encourage and welcome your submission for publication consideration." Somebody there is deciding what gets published. The National Law Review first started publishing in 1888. It does publish content from law firms, generally some of the United State's largest and most have partners involved in their authorship. Virtually every law firm and law school which contributes to the National Law Review has a wiki page as they are some of the most established legal organizations in the United States. The contributing law firms and law schools are opening listed here: http://www.natlawreview.com/National-Law-Review-Contributing-Law-Firms-Organizations. If the listing is reviewed, most of the law firms listed are AM Law ranked or Martindale Hubble recognized law firms and all of the law schools are accredited by the ABA. Additionally, if you read further about the advertising standards of the National Law Review, they expressly state that they do no accept direct ads from Law Firms. If accepting advertising alone is a disqualification to be listed as a reference, kindly disqualify all citations to every major newspaper, and journalist website too.

I think you're missing important issues here. It's not our role to analyze the content of the sources, e.g. whether we can provide "examples or instances of incorrect or slanted information". Our job is to determine if the source meets the criteria for reliability, irregardless of what we think of the content.

Regarding advertising, reliable newspapers and magazines maintain a firewall between advertising and editorial divisions. The online National Law Review does not appear to do that. It solicits content with a promise of promoting the firm or organization that provides the material. It does not appear that NLR's editorial decisions are isolated from revenue making decisions. The fact that editorial decision process is so loosely defined does nothing to improve the picture.

I think we could approach this site according to the same criteria as self-published sources which are considered reliable when we can establish the credentials of the authors. I do not think we can confer blanket reliability on all NLR content, since it appears that they will publish interesting, readable content that is written by most any lawyer who pays them to publish it. Jojalozzo 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They are RS for "legal news" in thier bylined columns. They are not RS for the analyses they publish for fee for thier readers (given the presentation above) (although editors can always mine them for other sources to look at). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I was adding the truth given by Sri Lankan Defence Ministry Website^[2]The Nation (Sri Lanka) and http://sinhalaya.com that Channel 4 is funded by LTTE.It has been been removed.

It is funded by money from the LTTE ^[3][4][5] රණකාමි333 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A fringe theory not supported by reliable sources. Editors were right to remove your additions, and I politely suggest you don't try to add them back. GiantSnowman 18:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

seems like he's forum shopping: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. The Nation is the only one that looks like it could be legit, but it has no listing for editorial policy, no listing of staff writers, or even a "contact us" page that I can see, despite how their website seems, it would be very difficult to prove the reliablity of any article there (for WP purposes). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Sri Lanka News | Ministry of Defence and Urban Development Archived 2009-12-11 at the Wayback Machine that is Defence.lk website is a government website and is a reliable site and http://sinhalaya.com is anti terrorist site.රණකාමි333 (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But, almost by definition, sources of this type are going to have an inherent bias. It might be OK to report that this accusation against Channel 4 has been made by the government of Sri Lanka — but even then, it probably doesn't belong in the lead section (where the comment currently sits), and I'm uncomfortable about having this sort of accusation made anywhere in the article without any response or opposing view. I would also prefer to see the inclusion of at least one reliable source outside Sri Lanka discussing this claim before including it. — Richwales 07:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See item below, which is the same question. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if these guys can be considered reliable. For example, a contributor is citing what looks to me like unsupported gossip about new characters coming to the series, Young Justice. Looking at their 'About' page doesn't fill me with confidence as to any real substantive editorial oversight or separation of fact from fan gossip. Any suggestions as to how I can address this? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reasonably good looking site, and I didn't see anything that looked terribly outrageous, however, I would say, it's not RS for this. The article at least has an attributed editor, but I don't see any strong credentials for anyone on the staff. Having said that, it looks like the article is written on the basis of the new Mattel packaging for the action figures (that's what the picture is of), so there must be other sources out there that could address that too I would think. Since you do have an actual picture included in the article, I think you may be safe if you wanted to include something like "According to LeagueofComicgeeks.com, the new packaging seems to indicate that... blah blah blah", but really, that's all speculation anyway, so it's probably better to wait for a press release or airing of the show. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Unfortunately, the source was being used to verify the introduction of two other characters to the animated series. However, the lack of strong credentials reinforces what I had thought. Thanks. Anyone else want to weigh in? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Despayre, not a WP:RS fit for an encyclopedia. I'd also like to emphasize that many editors get caught up in editing articles about their favorite subjects and ignore WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N in general (and WP:EFFECT in particular). There is absolutely no reason to include speculation like this so far in advance of the suspected event that there is no WP:RS coverage of it. The article will still be there if and when the event actually happens, the content can be added at that time when a legitimate WP:RS reports it, there is no need to rush to have Wikipedia "break" this news. An encyclopedia is usually the last to report, not the first. Zad68 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you both more. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've been in discussion with Kashif Siddiqi for a long time now regarding his article, he's been e-mailing me news stories & websites etc. to expand his article. He's sent me an e-mail containing a letter from the Pakistan Football Federation confirming his number of international caps, looks legit to me, on headed paper, how can I source it on the article? GiantSnowman 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

get in touch with the Pakistan Football Federation, asking if they have a record of this letter, and confirming its contents, then cite them as the source for whatever claims are in the letter. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Although superficially attractive, the use of such primary sources is problematic, since a reader of the article will have to take it on trust that the editors have the expertise to verify the source and interpret it. The better solution would be for Siddiqi to ask the Pakistan Football Federation to include a statement about his career stats on their website, or to find a reference in a newspaper or yearbook.Martinlc (talk)

If it's cited, it could be independently verified by any reader, trust not required, no? (although I agree a link on a website makes it more commonly accessible, but that's not a source requirement) -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to your private correspondence, nor do I trust you to convey your private correspondence accurately, intact, and in a proper context to a repository. I would suggest that you doubt my capacity as well. When we are editors of the encyclopaedia, we are not archivists, historians of sport, or records officers. Citing this kind of primary source is unacceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get into matters of mutual trust, but Fifelfoo's conclusion is correct. An email is not a published source. If the information is notable it will appear in a reliably published source. Once it has, we can use it and cite the source. Until then, not. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor wanted to know how the contents of the letter could be used as a source, the email isn't a source, but the contents, if accurate certainly could be used, in at least the 2 ways stated above. Also, in reference to Fifelfoo, from our policy page, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries", which means even if it's very difficult to source the original document, that is not grounds to keep it out of WP (I'm talking about the letter itself, not the email, no one is saying the email is usable). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Private correspondence isn't a reliable source, no matter how legitimate it looks. WP:OTRS sometimes uses e-mails to cut material out of pages, I don't think it's ever said it's OK to use them as a source to include the information. This is for a very good reason - anyone can claim personal correspondence as a source, and even if it comes from the person it is supposed to, it is too easy to provide self-serving information. The kinds of sources discussed in WP:V are reliable, secondary ones - not personal communication. If they posted it as a scan on a website, there could be a case to be made to linking to that if attributed but you're far, far better off sourcing it somewhere else. If it's sports statistics, I'm surprised there's no reliable source for the information. The best way to resolve the issue would be to find said sources and use them instead. But I agree with Martinlc, Fifelfoo and Andrew Dalby that personal communications like these shouldn't be used on Mr. Siddiqi's page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. There is no way to use a private letter. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure sourced exist out there confirming the contents, but none in English, and I don't speak Urdu. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll e-mail back asking him to get the PFF to put a scan on their website. Thanks, GiantSnowman 21:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well that's actually less of a problem! Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, but you might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Urdu to see if someone can translate them (or write up a list of scores/numbers based on what you've got, and ask someone who can read Urdu to give it a proofread). You're still better off using the Urdu sites than you are using a scan of the letter, to the point that I would say a scan is not acceptable if Urdu sources exist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked an Urdu-speaking editor I know of to help locate sources. GiantSnowman 14:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So just to clarify the original question, am I right in understanding that personal letters may be reliable depending on the context, but that unpublished personal letters are a categorical exception because they are collectively too fraught with potential for POV introduction? In other words, the usability analysis of unpublished letters dies before we get to the question of reliability because A)It is difficult to verify and B)There is too much potential for misuse. Is that about right? -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, depending upon what you mean by published. If they are published or reported upon in a reliable source, fine. On a website, generally no, although I imagine there may be exceptions. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK and the reason a non-RS's presentation of a private letter (including a photograph of the original letter in question) is considered unusable is because there is no proof that the non-RS has the expertise to authenticate the document. So User:GiantSnowman couldn't just create a website to host a scan of the letter he received because the authentication would be left to the Original Research interpretation of the editor/reader, right? -Thibbs (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pandolin is a website I came across a few times while searching for film-related stuff. I would like to know whether this can be considered a reliable source; the website seems to be well-organised but gives a very bloggy feel. Very specifically, I was interested in this, this and this. They are all interviews of people related to films. Are interviews usable as reliable source despite the source website? I mean, they are interviews. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is a bit on the bloggy side, but it isn't a typical fan site. The people listed as being in charge are professional film industry folks. I'd say that it could be cited for things that are not too controversial, if the article editors agree. Zero^talk 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so I guess we could use it for the interview bits. Well thanks so much for the clarification; I'll inform the other editors too. :D ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have recently been going through WikiProject Video Games' list of sources to determine reliability in cases where multiple prior discussions of the source have already taken place. So I've dug through the talk archives there and here, and I've come up with a number of summaries for these prior discussions. Based on these prior discussions I have attempted to determine what the current consensus is regarding the reliability of the source.

This is not always a simple task and I have requested input from WP:VG members to A)Verify that I have properly summarized the prior discussions, and B)Weigh in on whether the source is reliable or not. I have received a tepid response (2 or 3 editors reviewed a good number of my summaries and weighed in, and perhaps 4 or 5 others commented on at least 1 summary) and consequently there are still 4 more source summaries that need comment at east to verify that I've properly analyzed prior discussions. I would be very grateful if someone(s) here could take a look at these sources. I'll provide links to the 4 summaries below:

• TechCrunch
• Mania (previously AnimeOnDVD.com)
• ZTGameDomain
• PC World

Please comment on whether I've properly summarized the prior emergent consensus and if you feel up to it please comment on the reliability of the source. You may also check out the other sources listed in the grand list if you're in the mood. While some summaries have collected comments from up to 4 editors, the bulk of them only have a single 3rd party comment so more (contemporary 2012-era) eyes would be helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty tall request I think. My first thoughts, previous consensus (consensii?) are never going to override a current consensus, and in that category, I would think there is a lot of volatility in terms of sources being reliable. If you're looking for an over-arching "yes this source is always reliable" answer, you probably aren't going to get one of those here, RS-ness relies on the specifics of what is being asked, no source is *always* reliable. You might be better off asking the more specific question "Is 'Source A' a Reliable Source for this specific statement, 'statement B.'?", having said that, there are, of course, some sources that are *never* reliable, but at first glance I don't believe any of the ones you've listed above fall into that category. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... Are you suggesting that the whole concept of the List at WP:VG's Reliable Source guidelines is outmoded/ill-conceived? Or just that RS/N is usually incapable of making general RS determinations? If the guidelines are inappropriate then I suppose they would have to be taken down or heavily modified. If this is just one of the limits of RS/N's ability, though, then that's a different matter. -Thibbs (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the first question, not necessarily, there may be some justification for keeping a collection of sources that are *usually* RS. At the very least, when looking for affirmations, it would be a place to start. I would say that you may want to be careful that you don't end up with "I reverted him because his source was not on the approved list" type of problems though. The second question is easier. Yes. I think, as an aid, there's nothing wrong with a list like that, as long as it doesn't gain any characteristics of percieved "authority" for what is or is not OK. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, well thanks anyway. Hopefully this note will catch the eye of a passing member of WP:VG and his conscience will be pricked so that he'll respond. -Thibbs (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The list is a great idea, but it shouldn't be taken as Gospel. Not all sources are 100% reliable. Occassionally, they make mistakes. Editors should exercise good judgement on a case by case basis. If I may ask, are you disagreeing with what the list says in regards to the four items above? Off the top of my head, PC World is clearly a reliable source. I believe that TechCrunch is also reliable. I am unfamiliar with the other two sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think the list works very well for what it is - the representation of a current general consensus regarding reliability. Although these general guidelines don't cover every possibility, I think they are intended to be used as a rough yardstick when the sources are brought up in relation to content disputes and as evidence of notability in AfDs. There is always an argument to be made that a source may not be used in a specific case of course, and consensus can surely change, but I think that the point of the WP:VG/S guideline is to serve more as an established starting point instead of as a final word.

My interest here is in reviewing and updating the list with a goal of improving its usability. To this end I've sought to clarify the current RS prescriptions, condense the major redundancies, and expand the list's coverage if circumstance demands. My specific interest in the four sources listed above relate to the fact that they have been repeatedly discussed in relation to their reliability but no authoritative voice has yet stepped in to put consensus into words. The same is true for 24 of the other 25 sources I listed in talk (linked above). I am not particularly interested in whether any of these sources in particular are deemed reliable or non-reliable or something in between so long as some kind of consensus regarding their reliability is reached. So to answer your question, I disagree with what the list says about the four sources above inasmuch as it says nothing whatsoever about their reliability despite the fact that they have been repeatedly discussed. I think it's high time to reach a conclusion. -Thibbs (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and also let me say thanks to the two of you as you have expressed some kind of opinion on some of the sources in this thread. That is definitely helpful to me given the relative silence at WT:VG. -Thibbs (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned by some of the sources used in this article about a British private middle-school (Junior-high). Most of the references appear to be from local newspapers which seem to report on sporting fixtures, awards, scholarships and other routine school matters. This seems to reflect this newspaper's unusual editorial policy rather than any significant notability of the school, since just about every British private school engages in similar activities (e.g. sports, awards, scholarships etc). There's no actual news. Are these kinds of sources considered to be sufficiently reliable to establish notability of a school? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of this page Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Optimistic Fifelfoo! But I agree completely. Salimfadhely, this is not a board about notability of pages, if you have a specific statement you would like an opinion on, regarding a specific source (ie, article, not entire paper), please lay it on out, just like it says (you know, where Fifelfoo just sent ya!). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this webpage an rs for edits like this? (Update:) Oh wait, it says "Wordpress" at the bottom of the page. That makes it just a blog, right? Nightscream (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it's an anonymous blog, absolutely not in any way a WP:RS. I bet the content of the edit itself is correct but "yuppie punk" isn't a WP:RS to support it. Zad68 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The content of the edit includes the source. It's like demanding a separate reliable source for the fact that a published book has a certain chapter; the book is the source. --GRuban (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of off-topic bickering, 99% from involved editors from Jefferson talk page. No specific question regarding a statement and a source here anywhere.
Not relevant for RS/N...
Are self published summary articles written by a private organization like the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) considered reliable when there is no author/expert taking credit for the authorship? The policy reads: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis mine) I have seen some editors use a web-page article from the TJF as a reliable source, but there is no "established expert" or author and the info in the article has not been published by reliable third-party publications. Are these web page summary articles with no author/expert considered reliable sources? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC) It very much depends on the "private organization". I find yours a somewhat curious characterisation of the TJF. The TJF maintains the Monticello site and conducts educational initiatives through its subsidiary, the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies, which has this advisory board of very highly respected academic specialists (including e.g. Richard B. Bernstein, Annette Gordon-Reed, and Jack N. Rakove). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Insert : The TJF is indeed a private organization and was criticized by one of their own historical research members for harboring acute bias before the DNA and other evidence was evaluated. Regardless of what "educational initiatives" they are involved with, they publish summary articles that make claims with no expert/historian taking any credit. Nor do they cite the sources for any of their claims. Their articles are summary at best, and are far from being something written by an expert as RS policy maintains. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC) It's hard to take you serious if you make obviously nonsensical claims. Of course they cite sources for some of their claims. They may not publish sources that satisfy you for all of their claims, but then they have the expertise to perform original research and to come to their own conclusions. The advisory board alone has more than 15 members, most from top universities, nearly half of them holders of prestigious endowed chairs, and three of them Pulitzer Price winners. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Such organizations might well commission artciles for their publicity material. One needs top look at other material of the same ilk to see what standards the organization concerend applies. Also look at their budget - are they able to pay for expert research? GHAving given the TJF site a cursory glance, their activities are such that they are probably reliable. Martinvl (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Where and when are they being used? If it's basic, not particularly controversial information and the citation is just to avoid WP:PROVEIT, probably not bad (but better to use a textbook or something similar). Highly partisan statements should be attributed or outright removed. Probably reliable for information on Jefferson, I'd suggest using it like a tertiary source - OK, basic, but fine points and details are better left to secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Insert It was used as one among other sources for overall perspective on the state of Jeffersonian scholarship in a section of the main article on Thomas Jefferson. It is not the only source to assert the consensus.Parkwells (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Indeed, the dispute about these web-page summary articles involves the Jefferson-Hemings controversy and the partisan claims they make about "most historians" believe, etc constitute "fine points and details" and are attributed to no expert as RS policy maintains:Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.. Other sources with actual author's names have been criticized for their 'expertise', all the while these articles are simply summary statements with no writer or expert attributed to -- so we seem to be dealing with a double standard. Sometimes an expert is demanded -- sometimes not, as is the case with these summary web-page articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC) This is the article: "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: Brief Account". It appears to meet all scholarly standards. Tertiary sources are mandated by policy for tertiary information -- overview of scholarship. WP:RS/AC The statement re "most historians" is tertiary information. See also,: [19] and [20] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC) The Thomas Jefferson Foundation is a scholarly, non-profit organization; its staff includes many published historians with PhDs, and it is a recognized authority on Thomas Jefferson and Monticello. It maintains Monticello, the primary public history site for Thomas Jefferson, and creates exhibits and other educational materials. They maintain a website with extensive primary and secondary materials on Thomas Jefferson, his family, Monticello and its architecture, and plantation operations. The individual webpages (which is what is being referenced here) do include sources consulted, although individual sentences are not footnoted. Their staff historians and curators have individually published scholarly books, as noted in other sources used in the articles on Thomas Jefferson and the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation publishes monographs and other materials written by their staff historians which are recognized as scholarly. The TJF report in 2000 that historical and DNA evidence lead to the conclusion of Jefferson's paternity of Eston Hemings and likely all of Sally Hemings' children was the result of an independent report by their professional staff. Such conclusions have also been reached by experts of the National Genealogical Society, among others.[6] The scholarly consensus among "historians and other experts" was reported by the PBS Frontline program entitled Jefferson's Blood (2000).[7] Major historians and writers such as Andrew Burstein, Richard B. Bernstein, and Christopher Hitchens have published books on Jefferson since 2000 that reflect this academic consensus. (Some historians continue to disagree with these conclusions.) Annette Gordon-Reed's book, The Hemingses of Monticello (2008) includes the consensus of Jefferson's paternity; she did additional research to reveal the lives of individuals of the large Hemings slave family. Her book was recognized by a Pulitzer Prize in history and 15 other major awards. The assertion about Jefferson's paternity is part of the current Smithsonian/Monticello exhibit Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: The Paradox of Liberty (2012) at the National Museum of American History and appears in their Online Exhibit material. The exhibit is a collaboration led by curators (each with PhD and relevant professional experience and publications) of the National Museum of African American History and Culture and of Monticello. The NY Times characterized it as a landmark exhibition; it is the first at a national museum to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the lives of his slaves and their descendants.Parkwells (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC) As I said, this is a summary article, and the claim "most historians" is not to be found in any of the sources they give. If this is not the case then we should use 'that' source. The above claim that TJF is "the primary public history site on Thomas Jefferson" is not an opinion shared by many historians and professors, btw. Serious scholars use established experts and primary sources for their research, not some summary write up written by an org that is involved with clearly partisan agendas. Burial rights, alleged family rights, movie/book rights etc. It should also be noticed that the TJF is a partisan group of individuals with political involvements. It is in their own various interests to promote the idea of Jefferson paternity. The fact that they all have "concluded" this paternity on evidence that points to numerous Jefferson related individuals supports this. Orgs like the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society have never claimed that any one individual was the father of Hemings' children. The only 'conclusion' they maintain is that the evidence doesn't come close to proving Thomas Jefferson, or any other individual, fathered any of Hemings' six or more children. Org's like the TJF are okay to cite basic established history, but using this particular org as a source for ambiguous claims about the 'opinions' of so many other historians, about something controversial, is not a good idea IMO. This article is self published and self serving and is not attributed to an expert of any sort. If controversial or partisan claims are made [in a WP article] they should be sourced by a reliable expert with a name who has published this in a third party publication, per WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Your evaluation seems to be based mostly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please check the list of advisors I linked above. These are among the most respected and widely cited Jefferson and early US history scholars today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC) The summary article of 2010 provided an overview of the scholarship, as noted above. It represented their scholarly opinion, not something that had originated in another source.Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC) The same could easily be said about your evaluation which you obviously don't like -- and I could easily link to the various sources about TJF's interests and agendas as I have done on the TJ talk page on several occasions, but this will only side track the effort, and we don't want that, do we? Are we going to let the notice board people sort this out, or are we just going to fill up the section with the same sort of thing that goes on at the TJ talk page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC) What is the basis for the claim that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation is not an established expert of the topic of Thomas Jefferson or life at Monticello? What is the basis for the claim that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation is not a publisher of high quality reliable sources on Jefferson or life at Monticello? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Careful, I only point out that they offer no individual expert. If they have one, why isn't this person signing the summary article that makes these controversial claims? Why can't we find this claim in any of the sources they offer? Again, for controversial, opinionated and ambiguous claims made in a WP article we need a concrete RS source by an expert historian who has published this material in a third party publication. This is fair and is clearly spelled out in WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC) That's not what that policy says about the Thomas Jefferson Foundation: its not "any" person and its publication is not any of the things mentioned there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC) The TJF article is self published. No one else published it for them. There is clear policy involving its use as a RS. Your general link to the TJF WP article says nothing about this either way, so I am content with letting the noticeboard people do what they have to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, as everyone has told you it is RS. They are an established expert on the topic and a publisher of RS, as everyone agrees. Editors are also fine with attribution, as Martinv1 said above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC) The TJF and the Smithsonian are American institutions. There is no need to have a single author source, such as in a book or article, if the established web pages are not considered fringe web sites. Please stop attacking American institutions. As an American citizen I give full support to dedicated professionalism at both the TJF and the Smithsonian. Both of these sites have emails that users can get information requests on how these sites source their material. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC) While I agree with the evaluation, the reasoct=resultn you give does not make sense to me. The Institute for Creation Research and the Heartland Institute are also "American institutions", but are in no way generally reliable sources. The Smithsonian and the TJF are reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense because they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per our primary criterion. They achieve this by having a highly qualified staff and adequate internal quality control, not by being American. Examples from other countries are e.g. the Max Planck Society and the Deutsches Museum in Germany, the Royal Society in the UK, or INRIA in France. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Some chronological perspective is important, for the historiography on the topic was changing well before the TJF published this article. The article in the TJF Monticello website, noted above, was commenting on the state of the scholarship in 2010, as it notes it was ten years after their own report of 2000. Even when TJF issued their 2000 report, it was released after already published comments and works by historians such as Joseph Ellis, Annette Gordon-Reed, Philip D. Morgan, Peter S. Onuf and others. A review of scholarship shows that by 2010 a consensus had emerged; the TJF statement was not an opening partisan position. For instance, in 1996 in his American Sphinx, Ellis had rejected the idea that Jefferson was the father, based on his interpretation of character. At the announcement of the DNA results in 1998 and after, Ellis talked on PBS Newshour and in other venues to say he had changed his mind: he believed the DNA results for a descendant of Hemings' youngest son showed that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with her.[8] Others came to similar conclusions. In 1998 Annette Gordon-Reed published a revised version of her Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (1997), which had critically examined the historiography related to the controversy, and showed how historians had overlooked significant evidence. The 1998 edition incorporated the DNA results, which she interpreted as affirming the paternity of Jefferson of Hemings' children, when combined with other historical evidence. Peter S. Onuf, now Thomas Jefferson Professor at UVA, and Jan Lewis edited Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory, and Civic Culture (1999), a collection of essays related to the topic. It included Philip D. Morgan's "Interracial Sex In the Chesapeake and the British Atlantic World c.1700-1820", on Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children in relation to his culture.[9]. Joshua D. Rothman published Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Interracial Relationships Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861, University of North Carolina Press, 2003, which acknowledged Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, and explored its meaning in the context of other interracial relationships in Charlottesville and Virginia.[10] These are examples of work being published by academic presses that were establishing the consensus referred to in the TJF article of 2010; others can be cited. Some historians, particularly those associated with the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, have continued to disagree with these conclusions and have published other accounts.Parkwells (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC) The Smithsonian and the TJF are American Institutions and do their fact checking. Yes. The TJF may have been slow on giving the minority report, however, the minority report was given. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC) The TJF also has a reputation for bias where the Jefferson-Hemings controversy is involved. Not only were they slow to come out with a minority report, their biased was flatly exposed when one of their own committee members reported that they had formed their opinion before DNA and other 'evidence', so called, was evaluated. As I said, we can use the TJF to cite basic historical and established facts, but for the controversy, using them to source an opinion about Jefferson would be like using the PLO to source an opinion about Israel. We need a special ruling for the controversy. Letting one partisan opinion dominate the section is just plain dishonest and I'm not impressed with the attempts to do this by citing policy as has been done in the past, and duly corrected. If the TJF has a 'reputation' for fact checking, why can't they source the opinion of 'most historians' in any of their own sources? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Wallenborn criticized the TJF; they do not have "a reputation for bias", which are your words. You did not mention the severe criticism by a variety of scholars of the Scholars Commission Report of the TJHS. As noted before, the overview statement by the TJF is attributed to the organization; it is their professional view, more than 10 years after the DNA study, of the consensus that has emerged among historians on Jefferson's paternity; it is not coming from somewhere else to be sourced. Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC) I see we have gotten to the point where the usual editors, myself included, have filled this section up and now we run the risk of the noticeboard people just dropping the matter because the issue is getting too far afield and overwhelming. Hopefully we will get a decision of some sort soon. I know this is sort of a long shot, but the controversy needs a special ruling in terms of using an untangible and clearly partisan opinion as a source for a controversial topic not firmly established in facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC) What you are proposing is not the way an academic consensus and dissenting opinions are expressed, according to WP.Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC) TJF has been called out to account for their Jefferson-Hemings controversy conclusion and they published the minority report. Had TJF not published the minority report, yes, I would say they are unreliable. TJF views prior to the study are not relevant and do not automatically assume bias in any TJF majority report. The TJF majority report is reliable and in my opinion without bias. The Smithsonian (2012) Exhibit in combination with the TJF is extremely valid, and I believe that the Smithsonian (2012) exhibit trumps turn of the century sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Closing comments The TJF is not an acceptable source for the Hemings controversy, as they are clearly biased and selective in their evaluation of DNA and other evidence. At a press conference the TJF refused to admit that one of the its own committee members, Ken Wallenborn, M.D. not only noticed that the TJF committee had already made up their minds 'before' the DNA and other evidence was evaluated, but that they routinely dismissed evidence that pointed to other possible father(s) of Sally Hemings children. Head of that committee was Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American/Special Programs at TJF. Another committee member Lucia (Cinder) Stanton has made openly derogatory remarks towards Jefferson and refers to him as "elusive and slippery" in her book 'Those who labored for my happiness' (hardly an objective title). Meanwhile NAACP president Julian Bond sits on the TJF board of directors. The fact that this private organization harbored bias before evaluation of evidence and was/is personally involved with Hemings descendants collecting the 'oral history' that their report so heavily relied on more than establishes their bias and as such, plainly demonstrates that they are not reliable to use as a source for a 'Controversy' with so few tangible facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC) I notice that no single editor has agreed with you on this stance. Your WP:OR is not useful, and, to be honest, your reasoning seems to be entirely unacceptable. Basically, you suggest that any scholar who has a vague interest in modern historical views like gender history or African-American history is biased. I have a hard time understanding how you arrive at that stance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Insert : Schultz, and anyone else, this is supposed to be a closing comments section, not a place where you continue petty objections "no single editor has agreed with you". No, my issue is not over their opinion, the issue is that they tried to fabricate the outcome of a study where they then presented it as a forgone conclusion -- just as Nature magazine did when it said in no uncertain terms that "Jefferson fathered slave’s last child". This is BS scholarship and yellow journalism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Insert: These comments show why RS criteria do not and should not depend on individual editors' opinions. You have gone way beyond your original question. Your accusation that an over-simplified headline in Nature (reported as the decision of an editor rather than the authors of the article, anyway) means the entire article is "BS and yellow journalism" suggests that you think Foster's Nature article should be disqualified as RS. Your comments suggest that you are not prepared to accept WP criteria and guidelines for RS. In regard to the TJF, it appears that you have decided that just one critic, Wallenborn, is sufficient to disqualify the TJF report; and you go beyond that to suggest that the entire organization of scholars and all their work of the last decade should be disqualified as RS, and to accuse them of "fabricating a conclusion" (this is not a science experiment, anyway, but historic interpretation) because you disagree with it (just DON'T LIKE IT.) You ignore that other, independent scholars have reached the same conclusion. Their report was not the subject of the question you asked in the first place, anyway. That was a summary, overview page they have on their website. You accuse Stanton above of bias because she used a quote you find "hardly objective" as a title for a recent book. Do you realize that these are Jefferson's words from his writings, not something she made up? Your suggestions that a title is sufficient to indicate bias, or that the professional activities of Stanton and Swann-Wright mean they can't be considered professional scholars, or that Bond's participation in the board means that TJF cannot be considered an RS suggest your bias, not theirs or that of the TJF. Parkwells (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Gwillhickers, even if TJF is "biased", there is no evidence to suggest any bias. The point concerning suppressing the minority report is valid and the question is asked why did they delay in releasing the minority report. I admit, there may have been political reasons for not initially putting out the minority report, however, this does not equate to bias in their majority report. TJF did release the minority report and I am for putting this minority report as an external link in the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Insert : There is plenty of evidence to suggest this, starting with their so called evaluation of DNA and other evidence. Please read the threads more carefully. We all can forget this item or that, but you are carrying on as if weeks of discussion had never occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC) What a curious discussion. The original objection was that material published by the Foundation is not reliable because it is self-published. Then the objection was that no author was attributed to the material cited. Then, after others replied that the Foundation has well-established expertise on the topic of Jefferson's life with prestigious scholars as board members, that publishing anonymous summary material by non-profit organizations is standard practice, and that the citations from the Foundation are used in a tertiary manner to help establish a summary claim of historical consensus, the objection now has become that the Foundation is biased. The tactic seems to be that if one objection doesn't work, raise another one. The attribution of bias is based on several factors. Among these are: members of the Foundation argued for Jefferson's patrimony based on historical evidence before it was confirmed by biological evidence, a committee member used a quotation from Jefferson's writings as the title of a book, and a board member is president of an organization that promotes the advancement of an historically oppressed group through judicial and legislative action. Why bring up such weak objections about an issue that has nothing to do with self-publishing, the original objection? Is it because bias is really the fundamental issue? Raising the issue of bias, suggests that an ulterior motive is being used to besmirch the character of an otherwise respected person. How does it denigrate Jefferson to say that after his wife died he a had a long-term relationship with a woman he was not married to and that he had several children with her? Perhaps this makes a him a even more interesting and well-rounded human being than he was before this relationship came to light. This suggestion is only meant to show that this whole issue seems to arise from a felt need to defend Jefferson against unwarranted allegations and that this felt need may stem from a bias of its own -- a bias based on outdated beliefs about what is socially acceptable. Although these biases were certainly prevalent in Jefferson's time, Jefferson apparently rose above them. Perhaps it is better to follow his example and not let those biases govern our judgments today. --Rmrwiki (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC) There are multiple issues with this org. Nothing has 'changed'. Yes, they are self published, their summary article apparently written by a secretary or curator. No experts name attached to it. WP Reliable sources states: 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.... Also, WP Self Published sources states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Yes, a "reputation for fact checking" is required...along with the author's 'name', who has to be an expert. Neither a name/recognized expert has been presented, nor has this summary info been published in that expert's book, if indeed there is one. If they can present such an author/expert then there is not a problem on that note. We have gone over this time and again, but I see there are those who are attempting to turn the closing comments section into a repetitious and lengthy debate all over again.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC) All the "multiple issues" are addressed, above by multiple editors, thus there is consensus that it is RS. Moreover, it is not a valid objection to state the foundations opinion is biased -- it is their opinion. An opinion, as the cites show that other RS share. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Yes some editors addressed but never linked to the policy that countered my contentions. I have addressed "...reputation for fact checking..." as this is qualified by 'expert author'. If the source is summary, it is hardly an expert account as would be the case with e.g.Reed's work regarding Hemings family history. We should be expecting that same standard here, esp for controversial opinion. Experts. It was also suggested that these arguments be taken to the noticeboard here. So here we are. As I said, it's probably a long shot, but the TJF, in particular, was involved in cherry picking the evidence and then jumping to foregone conclusions in the same way Nature mag did. As former TJF committee member Dr. Wallenborn noticed, it is no coincidence that the evidence they chose to ignore all pointed to other likely possibilities. Given TJF's political and ideological involvements of some of their top staff members they came with a negative bias before the evidence, and maintained this bias after they were done amusing themselves with it. It's now disappointing to see these various other government and media sources going along and parroting the same party line also, which is why we should use historians and professors who have published books as sources. So apparently after we're done here, web page summary articles, written by unnamed curators, will be the standard we use for expert sources on the Thoma Jefferson page. I can only hope that the noticeboard people will not be woooed by these high visibility web-site articles and instead will uphold, not only RS policy, but the standards we use for sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My original question was general and brief. If you need a specific statement in the Jefferson article this is one:

It is the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address these topics. Created in collaboration with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, it notes that evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children.[191]

This is the address/page of the source being used.

Since this source, the TJF, were involved in the evaluation of DNA and other evidence and was exposed by one of their own committee members for strong negative bias/opinion before the evaluation had even begun and for ignoring evidence that didn't support their 'conclusion' I believe it is inappropriate to use this as a source, for the Controversy only. I also believe there are RS policy issues involving expert authors and self published material involved here. Thanks for your patience. My apologies for my part in the lengthy discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to sell your position, we all got it, days ago. Does footnote 191 use TJF as a source, or is it directly from the Smithsonian exhibit? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Ref 191 is a TJF web page, as is ref 196. Yes, the statements mention the museum and the Smithsonian but it is the TJF page making the statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

From the Smithsonian Online Jefferson exhibit, here, "Elizabeth’s daughter Sally Hemings was likely the mother of four of his children", based on the Wikipedia policy, WP:V, which states that "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable". I would say that yes, that is RS (sorry, I know that's not the answer you were looking for). That does not however stop you from adding to your article that "Such and Such notable Historian has claimed otherwise" or "However, the accuracy of the TJF in supplying this information has been called into question by highly reliable source B", assuming you have such sources. Also, you may want to join the conversation here, that is discussing that very aspect of WP policy. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanaks for your help Despayre. I sort of knew that challenging, in any capacity, a well known org like this was going to be an uphill effort. Yes, on one occasion I added a note to a source whose wording was an outright mistruth. If the unclear and deceptive language persists, I will add other notes for clarification, sourced. Again, thanks for your help and patience. Regards, Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I arrived at my conclusion by basing a lot of my opinion on the reputation of The Smithsonian, not only on my opinion of the TJF. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, are these sources reliable for sourcing the sentence "Theodor Herzl saw Zionism as a "colonial idea"?

• "Theodor Herzl: a biography" by Josef Fraenkel (Ararat Publishing Society Limited, 1946), page 126 link

• "The Case for Palestine" by John Quigley, page 7 link (click on "page 7" to read the full page)

• Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 36 link

• Palestine digest, Volume 8 link

• Here is another doc which is strictly speaking an opinion piece, however the author seems reliable in his own right.

Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see someone wants to get into this somewhere, hopefully where most relevant, which could be a few different articles. Scholar Google might have a couple relevant comments too. Don't forget the related ethnic cleansing issue; various secondary sources from Books.google.com have commented on Herzl writing in his diary in 1895 about ethnic cleansing of Arabs and need to "spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment...Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried away discreetly and circumspectly." CarolMooreDC 21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Herzl did describe Zionism as a "colonial idea", the following quote is well documented:

“

The English were the first to recognize the necessity of colonial expansion in the modern world. Therefore, the flag of Great Britain is flying across the seas. And, therefore, I believe, the Zionist idea, which is a colonial idea, must be understood in England easily and quickly.

”

• The problem is that, while there are plenty of secondary sources that report that Herzl said this (for instance Fraenkel) and some sources that present the quote without much commentary (Quigley), there are also sources that question whether this quote accurately reflects Herzl's conception of Zionism. On Talk:Zionism, I've quoted extensively from "Theodore Herzl: A Reevaluation", by U. Toronto Professor and Herzl biographer Jacques Kornberg in The Journal of Modern History , Vol. 52, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 226-252. Kornberg's argument is that Herzl described Zionism in different and opposing ways to different people. To a colonialist audience in Britain he used colonialist language, but when writing in German he espoused a socialist vision. Kornberg's position is that Herzl's main goal was to build support for his movement before his death and that he borrowed whatever language was popular at the time to do this. When trying to tease out Herzl's actual beliefs, Kornberg finds some elements that seem colonialist (the idea of trying to uplift a backwards region), but some ideas that are opposed to colonialism (the rejection of colonialist policies vis a vis taking advantage of native labor). My argument is that since we have a reliable secondary source that challenges whether this quote actually represents Herzl's ideas, we shouldn't use the quote as evidence to add Herzl to a list of people who believe that Zionism is colonialism (this is how the editors propose to use the quote). I don't see any secondary sources that are challenging or discussing the objections that Kornberg raises - at most they are taking the quote at face value without commentary. GabrielF (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent example of why reliable secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. Zad68 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the article? If it's Palestinian views on the legitimacy of Israel, great. But otherwise there are so many more good-quality, academic, non-partisan sources, why use these? Zad68 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:GabrielF:So what's the problem. Different sources interpret the same quote differently. The quote and a short (not WP:Undue) review of dissenting views would be appropriate. Remember, Wikipedia:Not Censored, because some might take offense with what most would take as a clear interpretation of a statement.

The intended use of the quote is at the end of a footnote that already cites 12 contemporary sources. Given the length of the footnote, and the way it is used in the article (to support contemporary opinions on Zionism as it has actually been carried out), it makes very little sense to me to add a source that is 100 years old, addresses Zionism before it was much of a practical force in the world, and is disputed. GabrielF (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Zad68: I don't see only primary sources discussing this:

• "Theodor Herzl: a biography" by Josef Fraenkel (Ararat Publishing Society Limited, 1946), page 126 link. Can’t see much; is there any commentary on this quote?
• "The Case for Palestine" - clear secondary source published by Duke University Press, 2005
• Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 36 link, Palestine digest, Volume 8 link aren’t and Al Jazeera should not be dismissed as sources, even as Israeli/Jewish/Zionist sources should not be; both should be judged by the same editorial criteria. Journal of Palestine Studies more useable because presents more of a complete thought.
• Mark LeVine, professor of Middle Eastern history at UC Irvine, and distinguished visiting professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden, actually makes the clearest case for the complexity of the issue and the quote, even if he uses a slightly different quote to make the same point. CarolMooreDC 01:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content issues, the Journal of Palestine Studies is an academic journal published by University of California Press. It's a high quality source, something that should be used more often in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Herzl actually established a body called The Jewish Colonial Trust as part of his project. There are plenty of reliable sources for the existence, activities and history of this organisation. It is clear that he saw Zionism as a colonial idea. RolandR (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, Levine discusses some of Kornberg's points in his piece and concludes inter alia that "Herzl's main problem was with the atavistic and un-cosmopolitan nature of Boer nationalism. He had no problem, for example, with British arch-imperialist Cecil Rhodes, to whom he wrote admiringly and even asked to "put the stamp of authority on the Zionist plan" precisely as a "practical visionary" in all things "colonial"." and "It's not surprising then, as Kornberg points, that while Herzl might have found Boer nationalism distasteful, leaders of the emerging Zionist polity saw in the experience of a European settler movement carving out a society in a "hostile and threatening environment" a "model" for their own predicament." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The ut tick has been adding http://ThePoliticalGuide.com to the external links section of several members of the US House and Senate. It doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source, although from a cursory glance it doesn't seem to be pushing a particular POV. Thoughts? Arbor8 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The guideline you're looking for is WP:EL. For questions about external links, please see the External links noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to add Aravindan Neelakandan's summary of the above, using a series of articles starting with this as a source. However, I was stopped by Sitush. Can you please resolve the dispute?

• The diff I wanted to add
• The discussion in the talk page is here.

vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If that is the exact quote from a book that he wrote (and if the parts left out do not distort the meaning that remains), it is RS for the fact that he wrote that, yes. However, I don't see how that's part of the "politcal career" section, and any further analysis or conclusions about what his overall views and opinions were, would be OR, and not acceptable. Selfpub sources are acceptable when they meet certain criteria, as this seems to. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it a RS source to add or not to use in Wikipedia ? My edits are being removed.It is a Sri Lankan government website.රණකාමි333 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Vandalism by JohnCD in Channel 4 News :Wrong It is from the Defense ministry website why cannot I use it.The title itself is LTTE's money talks again [21]%252525252525257E%252525252525257E%252525252525257E%252525252525257E]%25252525252E Why cannot I add the truth.රණකාමි333 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This user wants to add to the article Channel 4 News the statement "Sri Lankan defence ministry state that it is funded by money from the LTTE", using as source the headline "LTTE's money talks again" from the article cited. The accusation may be implied by that heading, but it is not directly stated in the article, and per WP:REDFLAG so serious an accusation requires better sourcing than that. JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Still not RS. Source does not support claim. Entire article (not surprisingly I suppose) reads like a promotional piece for the Sri Lankan government. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the point at issue here is that Channel 4 aired a controversial documentary about the Sri Lankan civil war, in which it is alleged that war crimes (including extrajudicial killings of civilians) were committed not only by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), but also by Sri Lankan government troops. There are numerous sources dealing with this (I won't list them here because anyone should be able to do a Google or Bing search, as I did just now, and find them), so there is definitely no valid reason to rely solely on sources that are clearly committed to the Sri Lankan government's position. Additionally, any description of this controversy would belong, not as part of the lead section, but in a later section of the Channel 4 News article — possibly under a neutral heading something like "Sri Lankan civil war documentary controversy" — and per WP:NPOV, the discussion should fairly represent all major views substantiated by reliable sources, not simply present one view as "the truth". — Richwales 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Sri Lankan government is a party in this dispute, and as such it cannot be used as a reliable source regarding the funding of Channel 4, but it can be used as a primary source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government on the dispute. And this clearly does not belong in the lead, but rather, as Richwales has said, in a separate section dealing with the documentary controversy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The only role the primary sources would have is then in a supporting role to the secondary sources (showing what the Sri Lankan government propaganda says etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you would have a hard time getting even that much use out of the article, since other than the title, all you've got in the article is that the government disagrees with the report from channel 4. Nowhere in the article does it talk about channel 4 recieving money from the LTTE. It quite simply does not support the statement "Sri Lankan defence ministry states that it is funded by money from the LTTE", which was the question here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This source is a frankly rather witless rant against Channel 4's documrntary which at not point makes any claim that Channel 4 is funded by the Tigers. Never. The only reference to money is in the headline - which might mean any number of things (that the Tigers can bribe witnesses to make false statements, or fund a lobbying campaign to get the attention of C4 etc etc). In fact that vacuousness of the "claim" in the headkline is of a piece with the general empty ranting about irrelevancies that constitutes the main article. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the defence.Lk reliable.I want to add Amnesty International gets funds [22] and about human right watch [23] and about David Milibnd [24]%2525257E%2525257E%2525257E%2525257E and also add some of them in sinhala wikipedia.රණකාමි333 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At the very most, I would say that Defence.lk may be a reliable source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government. In a dispute involving Sri Lanka, anything said in Defence.lk is clearly going to reflect one side of the dispute, and thus anything from this source must be used with caution (and probably not just by itself, but only in combination with other sources giving a well-rounded picture of a given situation). If you are asking whether Defence.lk is "reliable" in the sense that a statement from Defence.lk can be used all by itself as an authoritative statement of an objective fact, I would say no, it is not "reliable" in that limited meaning of the word. — Richwales 14:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As for whether Defence.lk is acceptable as a source to be used in the Sinhala Wikipedia, you would need to ask this question there. Different language editions of Wikipedia are editorially independent, and the standards in place for the English Wikipedia may not necessarily be the same as the standards currently accepted in the Sinhala project. — Richwales 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

රණකාමි333 has asked me to reply here to the question "Please let me know if it is okay to use Defense ministry website it or will you remove my edits." I think the answers above cover this well. I am not going to say "You must not use it" but your edits will be closely scrutinized and, on its own, it is unlikely to be acceptable as a source.

In addition to the points made above, I would point out that although Defence.lk is a Sri Lankan Defence Ministry site, the articles quoted from it are written in so violently polemical a tone that I seriously doubt whether what they say can be taken as the official view of the Sri Lankan Government. Take, for instance, their statement that David Miliband is an "Incompetent neo-imperial meddler" who "tried to destroy Sri Lanka". Defence.lk is not a good source for the statement "David Miliband tried to destroy Sri Lanka"; but I do not believe it is even a sufficient source for the statement "The Government of Sri Lanka says DM tried to destroy SL."

රණකාමි333, people who come here with a strong wish to push a particular point of view do not often go away happy. Please read WP:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, WP:UNDUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Source : Rajendra Prasad: A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals - pp. 475-491, ISBN 81-8069-595-6 [25]: The section related to Saint Thomas Christians is authored by C.D Sebastian. Is it reliable a reliable source for the information regarding social status and cultural identity of the community? --AshLey ^Msg 11:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks RS to me (although I'd rather have a specific statement to apply the source to). While Prasad's expertise might have been called into question, it appears that C.D. Sebastian has published over 80 papers/books all in the area of Indian religious history/philosophy/ethics, and teaches several courses as an Associate Professor of Philosophy at a university in India. The information comes from him, not from Prasad. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The context: To balance a primary information in Caste_system_in_Kerala#Untouchables : User:Sitush uses a quote of 19th century to infer the relative status of different castes in Kerala. I think, it's a primary information and also an unbalanced view. Hence introduced a new point as follows:

"The inference of relative social position specifically between Syrian Christians and Nairs from the above quote is ambiguous as many other historians mention that the Syrian Christians used to go for a ritual bath after physical contact with even Nairs.^[11][12][13]"

But, it was reverted by Sitush, reintroduced by me, and subsequently a discussion challenging the reliability of sources was started here: Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution. Many more sources (some listed below) were cited, but all of them are being challenged.Sitush argues that Saint Thomas Christians or Syrian Christians were outside the caste system, but hasn't provided any sources to support his view.

• Harold Coward - Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters[26]
• Benedict Vadakkekara - Origin of Christianity in India: A Historiographical Critique[27]
• Duncan B. Forrester -Collected Writings on Christianity, India, and the Social Order

So I decided to seek help from this forum. Your guidance in this matter would be highly helpful for further improvement to the articles related to Caste System and Saint Thomas Christians --AshLey ^Msg 08:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

AshLey is misrepresenting the sourcing issues, and is also being challenged by someone else for similar problematic edits on Caste system in India. What I said was this. This is not the best forum for resolving a content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, If you don't have any concern regarding the reliability of information from these sources, I'm quite free to use them for citation and we don't have any issues in this regard. Here, we are discussing the reliability issue only; your concerns on typography, misprint etc of the sources also could be discussed here. Issues related to the content of wiki-article are separate; if needed, we could discuss in related forum.AshLey ^Msg 12:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No., you are fudging the issue. This matter should never have been brought to this board in the first place because it is irrelevant to this board. Now, please, take it somewhere useful. I have explained what the problem is, and it is nothing to do with Sebastian's authority (which I explicitly stated was not at issue). - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

An important part of a dispute [28] at Programme for International Student Assessment is regarding this source: [29] (Mel Riddile, "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid", December 15, 2010, NASSP blogs). Is it a reliable source? User:CartoonDiablo argues that it is and wants to include some of the claims such as a comparison between share of US students in schools getting reduced or free school lunch and share of populations in different nations under poverty lines. See the section here, currently including the blog post material: [30]. It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price lunch and different national poverty lines. (There is also a strange link [31] to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR.) I argue that the Mel Riddile material is not a reliable source. It is a blogpost at nasspblogs. It is not written by a scholar. Some of the arguments in the blog post are reliable since they cite this source: [32] which in turn seems to be citing this source: [33] (Page 15). However, these sources do not make a strange comparison between between getting reduced or free school lunch and national poverty lines. No sources are given for the statistics. Poverty lines can be defined in many different ways and are often not compatible with one another since different nations use different criteria. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The top of the page is waaay up there now, so you may have missed the suggested format here:

Before posting a question regarding the reliability of a source, please keep in mind that reliability is often dependent upon context (that is, on exactly how you are using the source). You will get a faster and more useful response if you include:

1. A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
2. A link to the source in question. For example [http://www.webpage.com]
3. The article in which it is being used. For example [[article name]]
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

#4 is the key there. It isn't very important to say who the other editors involved are, I'm sure it can be figured out from the talk page. While some explanation of the situation may be specifically required, if all your reasoning is already on the talk page, there's not a lot of reason to re-post it here, at least, imo. Anyone else, feel free to disagree. Largely the issue for me here is scale, I can't give you a yes/no for multiple assumptions at once, pick one? It's only an observation of mine, but the shorter and simpler your question is, the more replies you get here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Updated my post. To clarify, see the section here [34]. It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price school lunch and different national poverty lines. There is also a strange link [35] to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and which does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well totally off-topic, but first of all, regarding the "NASSP" cell in your table, using bare URLs as citations is definitely frowned upon by the MOS (see WP:BURL and {{cite web}}), it should be inside a <ref> tag too, and it should be outside the table, but I digress...

Reading the nasspblogs article, it seems good, and the author seems to know what he's talking about, but go to http://nasspblogs.org and you instantly see the problem. This site is not RS. Why has someone not found the direct statements of Tirozzi and used those? They may be exactly as reported by nasspblogs, but that does not make nasspblog RS. nasspblogs and a few other sites seem to have found quotes from Tirozzi's statements, so we should be able to find them too. I took 5 minutes, this seems to be what you were all looking for, although I didn't see Mexico mentioned, or a couple of others. The actual report is somewhere at oecd.org, it looks like a little more digging is required. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, having "NASSP" indicated as the source is false, it's NASSPblogs. NASSP.org does seem like it would be generally RS, so that gives a false impression at best. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And just to really muddy the waters here, I'll throw this out for other editors. I do not have a problem with Dr. Riddile, or Mr. Tirozzi, only with NASSPblogs.org. I think there must be better places to find this source. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tirozzi's arguments are here: [36]. While he does not it say it outright he seems in turn to be quoting this source: [37] (Page 15). However, neither of these sources make a comparison between poverty rates and getting a free lunch at school. This is the main claim by Riddile which I object to. It is a very dubious comparison since national poverty rates vary from country to country since poverty is defined differently in different countries. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean page 23, 15 is "intentionally left blank". Tirozzi's arguments don't include Mexico (for example), I think I referenced that page in my previous comments, it doesn't give you a source for all of that chart. If you do a search in the document you linked, you'll find on page 30 that it does actually talk about lunches and grades. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Page 15 (as numbered at the bottom of the page) which has as section called "School Socioeconomic Contexts". Probably page 30 by your count. Yes, it talks about lunch and grades. Which Tirozzi also does. But there is no comparison between getting a free lunch and different national poverty rates of the kind Riddile makes in his blogpost. This is a very strange comparison. Getting a free lunch is not comparable to the many different definitions of official poverty which vary by nation. For example, in some countries everyone gets a free lunch in school. This does not mean everyone is poor. Tirozzi makes no such strange comparison. Riddile does in a blogpost which is not a reliable source. I agree that Tirozzi arguments are fine. Riddile's further arguments are not.Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this specific article:

David Strovny. "Bathroom Sex Positions". AskMen.com. IGN. Retrieved 23 April 2012.

can be considered a reliable source for sexual health-related topics and for the claim "There are six special sex positions possible for having sex in a bathroom" in the Bathroom sex article. Previous discussions about askmen.com at RS/N ([38][39][40]) have found it to be passable for pop culture topics. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Askmen is owned by IGN, which in turn is owned by News Corporation. It has an editorial oversight and meets WP:RS. Askmen is at par with Playboy, GQ, Maxim etc. and specializes in men's fashion, lifestyle, dating coaching, relationship and popular sex guide. So it is fine for information on sex positions. It is used for information on sex position, not on sexual health. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would consider articles such as bathroom sex to be closer to pop culture than sexual health; this isn't a medial or psychological article so much as a look at a phenomenon. Askmen is as reliable in this context as sources such as Cosmopolitan, which is also used with the same weight. GRAPPLE X 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is occurring here:

• Date of birth, birth name, and birth place

We don't have it, but would an official copy of her birth certificate from the state of California be admissible as a primary RS, or is it only allowable if it's been cited in a secondary RS? I don't remember the details about such rulings here and would like the latest interpretation.

I've been doing my best to keep out sources which we don't consider RS, but have been getting lots of flack and personal attacks from 64.223.235.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Contrary to their charges, I have never deleted a source because of the date, only because the source itself isn't considered reliable here. We currently have three different ages supported by RS.

It would be nice to get some fresh eyes on this situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that you have a quote from her saying "“I don’t like revealing how old I am", and that you have the public record of her birth (when/if you get it), and that there are no records apparently of a Jessica Howard being born in California between 1976 and 1982 when I look that up on the site linked from the talk page, I would say that a bith certificate from the state of California would be admissible as proof that the state at least says that's when she was born, and that's RS. Which could end up with something like "While there are various dates given for her birth, ranging from X to Y, the State of California says she was born on Z.^{(birth cert cite here)}". -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with using birth cirtificates. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

While it says to avoid use of public documents, I don't read that to mean that a document who's sole function is to provide date of birth information shouldn't be used for that. I read that more to mean things like court documents (mentioned) or drivers licences. However, there was also this section further down, which I didn't read before:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

And that would seem to say pretty clearly that we shouldn't use it, so I guess this is a slight alteration of my opinion, (but I'm not admitting my first one was wrong ). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the year of birth could be used from the birth certificate, a primary source, since it is a matter of fact that requires no interpretation. The month and day should not be essential to the article, especially when they do not seem to be generally known and previously published in reliable sources. The month and day is an issue of respecting privacy and not exactly a reliable source issue, since it is not a bigger leap to take month and day from the birth certificate than to take the year. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are wrong. Read what was quoted immediately above your statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the name Jim Hawkins ring a bell? If Chastain does not want her birthdate in Wikipedia, going to primary sources is most definitely not the answer. Leave it out unless and until it is published in reliable secondary sources, and in that case only use the year. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The name Jim Hawkins did not ring a bell with me since I wasn't involved in that situation, so I looked it up and here is a diff that can be studied:

• Jim Hawkins' talk page (one version)

I don't think we have an exact parallel situation here:

• For some odd and seemingly irrational reasons Hawkins was extremely sensitive about several types of publicly available information appearing here, and he even seemed to come unglued about it. A sysop even mentioned to him that his behavior and objections were triggering the Streisand effect.

• By contrast, Jessica hasn't objected to Wikipedia, or anywhere else that I know of, about the publication of her date of birth, only that she doesn't think that actresses "should be asked about their age", that they "should be allowed a degree of mystique when it comes to their ages", and she doesn't "like revealing" her own age. She hasn't forbidden anyone else from doing so that I know of. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that "Chastain does not want her birthdate in Wikipedia", but we can show a bit of sensitivity by limiting anything here to only her birth year.

What's really ironic about this is the Streisand effect. Her secrecy only creates more interest in the matter. She would be wise to just settle the matter before more digging ends up uncovering some kind of skeleton in her closet (everyone has things they'd rather not see published here, no matter how trivial they might be).

So...if we can ascertain her birth year, that should be good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So far we have three different ages given in published, secondary, RS (even more when one figures +/- one year, depending on the exact month). Since we have no certainty, we're just listing what RS say. It would be nice if she settled the matter in an interview. Then we could drop the sources that have gotten it wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We need active participation from experienced editors, and preferably an admin ready to do some blocking. The personal attacks (including outright lies) from SPA 64.223.235.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continue, with a pronounced IDHT attitude and refusal to seek to understand our policies here. NPA and AGF aren't followed at all. RS isn't understood, with a denial that Time Magazine be used as a RS. They also insist that IMDB is a reliable source for her age, and refuse to accept our policies about the use of IMDB. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of the archives for this page will show you that IMDB has often been found not to be RS. On the other hand, TIME has almost always been considered to be RS (actually, I don't know of an instance that it wasn't), but without a specific source reference, I can't give you a specific yes/no answer either, but it's very likely that TIME is RS to start with (imo). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. The IP fails to realize that when we say "RS", we're using the word "reliable" in a slightly different sense than the general meaning. The IP refuses to even study the policy. If a source is verifiable and consistently there, and there is some form of fact checking, we usually consider it "reliable" (stable), even if it occasionally makes mistakes. In this case a source which mentions Chastain's age is from a short blurb about her written by Gary Oldman for Time's coverage when she entered the list of Time 100 most influential people of the world. The 100 Most Influential People in the World: Jessica Chastain, by Gary Oldman, Time Magazine, published April 18, 2012. It is the fact that his comments are published by Time Magazine that make them eligible for use in the article, not whether he's right or not. We just quote him, and the IP wildly objects, because the IP went to high school with her and knows her real age.

I have repeatedly made it clear that I have no particular preference regarding her age, and I have supported the inclusion of any and all RS that mention her age (until we have definitive certainty for it). The IP refuses to believe me and keeps attacking me and lying by insisting that I have deleted all sources that don't back up an age of 30 years old. Well, that's patently false. The IP also claims I have edited the article for months, but I made my first of few edits on April 10. The IP is the only one contesting any of my comments, but claims that others have done so. Not true. Only one new editor with two edits (one on the talk page) has shared the IPs POV, and I strongly suspect it's a registered sock of the same IP. The same lack of logic, lack of reading comprehension, and same language. An SPI would block based on WP:DUCK alone...;-)

I'd appreciate some participation from others. I'm tired of the uncivil behavior and personal attacks. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The TIME article you cite says she's 30, but that means that her birthday could fall on either of two years (1981 or '82 depending on when her actual birthday is). The fact that the other editor went to school with her is completely irrelevant, and is definitely not RS. If his behavior is disruptive, the place to report it is WP:ANI. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 06:41, April 26, 2012‎ (UTC)

Time is of course a highly reliable source, but this matter is evidently extremely contentious and we don't know what source Time relied on.

My view, which I will add to the talk page if it would help, is that the infobox should not mention her age at all (and it didn't when I last looked). If (as I understand) we have fairly reliable sources for two conflicting years of birth our text can say, plainly, that her year of birth has been differently reported as X and X, with a footnote for each.

I agree with others, this would all change if she stated the date clearly herself, but that's her choice. We should respect it, and stick to reporting reliable sources. We must not do original research, and anyway we cannot cite the birth record because we cannot prove that it applies to this person. Andrew Dalby 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In general terms (without given context) Time Magazine is considered a reliable source (on the level of "serious" newspaper publication). The IMDB however is generally not a reliable source and as such in particular its biographical information cannot be used as a source. However it might be used to "source" largely undisputed/unproblematic content (cast of characters, movie quotes, statistical infos on the films etc.). --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. I knew all this already and I agree. This is what I've been telling the IP, but I only get abuse in return and an insistance that I am wrong for not allowing the use of IMDB. They also insist that Time Magazine should not be used because the IP thinks that Gary Oldman is wrong. (After all, the IP went to high school with her!) When I explain our policies about these matters, I only get further abuse. Note that we're not talking about an edit war, but talk page abuse. Your participation there would be appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here familiar with whosampled.com? I had never heard of it 'til yesterday, when it was used as a source in the List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange article. Specifically, an anonymous editor added "American rapper Cage sampled the score in his song 'Agent Orange,'" and used the site to source this claim. Taking a look at the About Us page on whosampled.com, it says that the content is user-generated but is moderated, and gives a list of who the volunteer moderators are. This sounds a lot like what we do here at WP, and leads me to believe that this is not a reliable source. I would like to hear some other opinions, though, before removing the information from the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it is a user-generated site with a team of anonymous moderators (example) who's expertise are unknown. It is analogous to Wikipedia and is not RS. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my gut instinct. Interesting site, but not reliable. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any opinions about whether or not [41] is a reliable source? Angryapathy (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an unnotable fansite. It doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a website that I have watched and used regularly for years now. I have found it to be accurate, and it often contains more correct information than is provided by some newspapers and other such media. Despite it's rather quirky styling, do not be fooled - it is professional in its approach and, in my long experience, it is reliable. Perhaps some editors would carry to check the information therein for its accuracy. It obviously is not going to out trump The New York Times for example, but it does cover music on a worldwide scale, is not opinionated, sticks to basic factual information, and often contains musicians that are not covered by major news sources. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be true, but it doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for what is considered reliable. If the web site's author has been published by a third-party reliable source, it might qualify as reliable per WP:SPS. If not, there's still Ignore all rules: If a rule gets in the way of making the encyclopedia better, it should be ignored. I'm sorry that I can't give a most satisfactory answer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Appears non-notable and non-reliable. Reliability is not decided by degree of accuracy, but by authoritativeness and degree of professional involvement and review. This site is basically a personal blog.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree not RS, as per Maunus·snunɐw. No oversight policy, no credentials. I won't even take marks off for style (hideous though it may be), the degree of accuracy is irrelevant (as far as WP is concerned). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In reviewing our overblown coverage of pornstars, I have noticed that the vast majority of female stars that I have reviewed all appear to comment about how attracted to women they are, at least when they are talking to their industry trade rags. I am concerned that including this kind of "in universe," information as reliably sourced encyclopedic fact is problematic. Two examples to which I refer: [42] and [43]. I contend that information about pornstars that is sourcable only to trade rags and is of questionable provenance (such as "being in an open marriage," or "enjoying swinging," or "identifying as a bisexual, but preferring men," or "loving bsdm," is of questionably veracity, and such sources are not reliable for biographical information that is likley overblown, created out of thin air, or exagerated. Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you ask the wrestling editors how they deal with kayfabe. Industry rags are likely to be highly reliable for porn kayfabe, but unreliable for actor's personal lives. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, other than if this section title is true, I just want to say "Yay!" -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it terribly difficult to believe that a pornstar from San Francisco is bisexual and into BSDM. That being said, usually statements that a person makes in an interview are considered sufficient for their sexual identity, but interviews with a porno mag might be an exception--since that's part of the performance of being a porn star. In any case, "loving bsdm" might be a trivial detail best left out of the article anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion at Talk:Pogrom#Paragraphs_removed has paused on the question of whether this book is a RS with respect to this paragraph about massacres committed by Muslims:

[In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them.] These and other indignities have been regularly punctuated by organized massacres and pogroms: in Morocco (1728, 1790, 1875, 1884, 1980, 1903, 1912, 1848, 1952, and 1953), in Algeria (1805 and 1934), in Tunisia (1864, 1869, 1932, and 1967), in Persia (1839, 1867, and 1910), in Iraq (1828, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1946, 1948, 1967, and 1969), in Libya (1785, 1860, 1897, 1945, 1948, and 1967), in Egypt (1882, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1938-39, 1945, 1948, 1956, and 1967), in Palestine (1929 and 1936), in Syria (1840, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1967), in Yemen (1947), etc.

Here are some snippets from the wiki article Sam Harris (author):

• While Harris is "extremely critical of all religious faiths," he asserts that the doctrines of Islam are uniquely dangerous to civilization,^[14] stating that unlike Jainism, Islam "is not even remotely a religion of peace."^[15]
• Suggesting that the Qur'an and the hadith incite Muslims to kill or subjugate infidels, and reward such actions with paradise (including 72 virgins), Harris believes Islam is a religion of violence and political subjugation. He asserts that the liberal argument of stating that the phenomenon of religious extremism is a consequence of fundamentalism in and of itself is false, and that many other religions such as Jainism have not experienced the same trends Islam and Christianity have. Harris considers jihad, which he calls "metaphysics of martyrdom", as taking the "sting out of death" and a source of peril.

Here are some snippets from our own wiki article on the book.

• In a review for Free Inquiry, the editor Thomas W. Flynn alleged that Harris had allowed his argument to become clouded by his personal politics and by his use of spiritual language.
• Another review by David Boulton for New Humanist, also stopped short of a ringing endorsement, describing the book as containing "startling oversimplifications, exaggerations and elisions."^[16]
• Writing for The Independent, Johann Hari was largely encouraging but also expressed considerable reservations about Harris's political leanings, and revealed how he "began to choke" while reading the final chapter on spirituality.
• Madeleine Bunting, writing in The Guardian, quotes Harris as saying "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Bunting comments, "[t]his sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition." Quoting the same passage, theologian Catherine Keller asks, "[c]ould there be a more dangerous proposition than that?" and argues that the "anti-tolerance" it represents would "dismantle" the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.
• Critical reviews from Muslims include Sam Harris and the End of Faith: A Muslim's Critical Response by Bill Whitehouse.

Views gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile. That quote is very specific, and really only provides 2 things: 1) a list of dates and locations of Muslim violence, 2) the characterization of those events as "organized massacres and pogroms." What exactly is looking to be supported with that quote from The End of Faith? Is it item 1), the catalog of Muslim violence that you question? If so, then are you suggesting that Sam Harris has lied, invented events that did not occur, and that the book was not fact-checked, and nobody has called this book into question on that? W. W. Norton, the publisher of the book, is top-tier and publishes a lot of college textbooks, and I would not expect that from them. The widespread notoriety of the book would certainly have attracted critics to look into questionable claims. My initial thought would be that this book is indeed a WP:RS for that catalog of Muslim violence. Is it item 2), whether it is acceptable to use this book as source for the common popular use of the word "pogrom"? I'd think it meets that as a WP:RS there too. Zad68 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so. The book itself was both a best-seller and winner of the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction. While it (like most books) has received criticism, the issue here is not regarding the author's overall thesis, but rather on the very narrow question of whether the source is reliable for describing the specific events listed as "pogroms". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How can being a best seller suggest reliability? Mein Kampf was a best seller in its day! And the extreme position of this author is reminiscent of that... Oncenawhile (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is absolutely a superbly excellent reliable source (although a primary source) if an article makes an assertion that Hitler expressed a religious basis for his atrocities, and you support it with a cite from Mein Kampf like the quote "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." It always matters what assertion you are trying to support. Please answer the original question back to you: What assertion is trying to be supported here? Once we have BOTH the questioned assertion and the source used, only then can we make a determination. Zad68 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is a suitable source for the opinions of Hitler as you say. The End of Faith is a suitable source for the opinions of Sam Harris. Are the opinions of an anti-religious polemicist neuroscientist significant on the subject of Islamic history? probably not. Is a polemical publication by said neuroscientist suitable for the verification of facts in the wiki voice relating to Islamic history? Definitely not, in my opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's still a viable argument that the book could be a reliable source for the particular list of dates and locations for Muslim violence based on the fact that the book was released as non-fiction plus the strength and reputation of W. W. Norton for fact-checking. Wikipedia's basic policy for determining whether something can be considered a WP:RS is "Is the source open to review, does the source fact-check?" and W. W. Norton does fact-check. But before we even go down that road, the whole discussion of whether the Harris quote can be used as a reliable source to support something might be moot if the something isn't even dependent on this. So, back to the original question, what assertion is this Harris quote being used to support? Zad68 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zad, the assertion it is being used to support is the characterisation of all the historical events in the quote at the top of this discussion as "pogroms". If you read some of the better sources at pogrom, and some of those currently being debated at talk:pogrom, you'll see that, because the term "pogrom" is loaded with implications, there is a great deal of scholarly debate over what type of events can be categorised as such (although none of the above events feature in the specialist scholarly works on pogroms). It is clear from the reviews of his book listed above that Harris's political pov has influenced his work. So it is not much of a stretch to imagine that Harris could choose to be somewhat "generous" in his apportionment of loaded words like "pogrom" to incidents where Muslims people were recorded to have killed those of other religions. It supports his central thesis that Islam is an evil religion. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your example of Mein Kampf, please review Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, the book looks like exactly the sort of unreliable polemic that the rules are supposed to exclude. The author is a neuroscientist with a very strong political stance against religion. Nothing wrong with that, but on what grounds is such a person citable for historical events? Zad68's argument doesn't hold water; there are libraries worth of books out there full of complete rubbish that nobody has bothered refuting. In the case of this list of alleged events, Harris says that he got it from books of Wistrich (who is biased but meets WP:RS) and Dershowitz (who is an absolutely unreliable activist). Zero^talk 00:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article pogrom can be written quite easily since, as anyone may verify at google books, there is an extensive library of academic works by specialists on the phenomenon. Twice now, poor sources, firstly the Center for Policy Research, which is a far right political think tank, and now Sam Black's book have been used to to document data that are not present (so far) in academic works. As Zero states, Sam Black's book is non-specialist and does not distinguish between good or bad sources in its synthesis. The question is, why the push to use poor sources, when excellent sources abound? The answer probably is, because some editors like that data, and will bend the RS ropes to get it into articles. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So Nishidani, rather than discuss sources, you'd prefer to use the Reliable Source Noticeboard to speculate and make assumptions about editors' motivations? Please review WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A far better better page would be one that includes history books discussing individual pogroms rather than a list of years. This would seem a better bit of information to include in Harris' page, not as a raw dump of information in pogrom (in fact, List of pogroms would be most appropriate). The book is reliable, particularly or mostly for Harris' opinion, but I would say it is not appropriate for this use. May I suggest using the dates and locations to try to find more appropriate works to verify the specific incidents? It would add more information to the page, using better sources, which seems like a win-win. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Supporting references from actual historians would be much more credible. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Wistrich has been suggested as a source, and apparently Harris uses him as one of his sources. Zero0000, what does Harris say? Jayjg ^(talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He just says he compiled the list of events from Wistrich "Oldest Prejudice" and Dershowitz "Case for Israel". No indication which event is from which source, or how the source described them. Zero^talk 12:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If Harris is relying on a source that we would not regard as reliable for the material (i.e Dershowitz) surely we must conclude that Harris is also not reliable for the material. Dlv999 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, this source could be regarded as reliable. Are there any "pogroms" the author lists that editors would question were really pogroms? --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be about as reliable as any mainstream source - that is, not by an academic publisher (and Norton's is a quasi-academic publisher, and highly respected, like Blackwell or John Wiley and Sons or Routledge), nor in a scholarly journal - is going to be. He has a well known anti-theistic and anti-religious bias, but he's not being used to support statements of fact on the nature of religion, which could only go so far as to say "Harris's opinion on X is..." (as much as any other religious author). He's being used to cite a list of facts, and that's the kind of stuff that is screened out by a reliable publishing process. He's generally well-regarded, even if he lost his debate with William Lane Craig, and theists (such as myself: I was a partisan of Hitchens, the only worthwhile one of the "Four Horsemen", who happened to be the one riding on a pale green horse; he had more philosophical sense as a journalist than supposed professional philosopher Dennett has as a professor) tend to loathe him. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph from Harris' book in which this is quoted is an attempt to prove that Muslims have not lived peacefully alongside other religions. I have added the immediately preceding sentence above "In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them" for context.

As to Dweller's question, yes there are many that I would question his definition for (if you look them up, most sources do not refer to them as pogroms, and whether they were "organized" is rarely established). The problem though is that the word "pogrom" can be used loosely or strictly, and different people understand it in different ways. That's what we're trying to work through at the RfC on talk:pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Sputnikmusic a reliable source to use in articles for songs and albums? For example this. The reviewer is apparently a user of the site, but I have seen the site used in other articles previously. Till I Go Home (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic has both staff and user reviews; only the former have had sufficient editorial oversight to be considered reliable. Avoid using user reviews as it's just user-generated content. GRAPPLE X 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your example is not RS for anything to do with the Sugababes. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed it from the article I was writing. Till I Go Home (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of RS rules is that personal websites are permitted as reliable sources for claims by the person they supposedly belong to, but as with Twitter I understand that there must be some way of confirming their authenticity i.e. such as a confirmed Twitter account. Or maybe a reliable source that provides the address of the person's website. What is the judgment in regards to sites where they claim to belong to the person but there seems to be no concrete evidence that they belong to the person in question?

Specifically, http://wjsullivan.net claims to be the website of William John Sullivan but I can't find any concrete evidence in reliable source that this is actually true. In this case is it permissable to use it as source for biographical information about the subject, or does RS required that its authenticity be established independently? Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe a reliable source is required to verify who the web site belongs to. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou, that's what I thought but I needed to make sure. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can this be used? It has name, phone numbers, and addresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that the site is registered to a "John Sullivan", and he seems to live in the right area. It looks like it probably is his website, so is that sufficient or is it original research to link the WHOIS registration to the subject of the article? Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Checking whether a source is a reliable source is not counted as original research. The most we can do about them is check whether it is reasonable to say they are reliable. You seem to have done a reasonable check. someone might come up with a reason why it is not reasonable but I think the onus is now on whoever says that to provide evidence to back up what they say. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, I just love asking dumb questions at RSN!

User:Kwamikagami argues that in our article on the Secular Islam Summit, we need to "find a RS that presents some factual criticism," because s/he believes that this article is insufficient to support the statement that the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized the summit for being organized and attended by non-Muslims/anti-Muslims. The article is from a reliable secondary source, it says that CAIR made these criticisms, and it also says that the conference was organized and attended by non-Muslims who made anti-Muslim comments such as equating radical Islam with regular Islam. This means that it goes over and above our normal requirements for criticism - we often don't even care if a secondary source can be found, let alone if the criticism is based in fact, but here we have both. I believe RSN will confirm that the removal of the article's criticism section on these grounds is spurious.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We do discourage "criticism" sections, but USN&WR is definitely a RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into an "article shape" discussion, this seems RS to me as well. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

USN&WR is absolutely a RS, and there is no need to expressly avoid all well-sourced critiques, as long as they are quoted directly, or framed in the voice of the author, not the 'pedia. See, WP:RSUW for guidance. — GabeMc (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could also take this to NPOVN or something, but in the interest of not spreading the dispute across every forum that exists: would you consider this to be an accurate representation of CAIR's criticism?

The summit was criticized by the Council on American–Islamic Relations as hostile to Muslims. CAIR pointed out that the conference was organized and headlined by non-Muslims, and criticized remarks like those of Wafa Sultan, who claimed that there was no such thing as moderate Islam.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate some input. Otherwise I suspect this is going to ANI. Roscelese concluded from your lack of an answer above that "RSN has already unanimously rejected this argument on all points." The source in question, USNews, describes the speakers as ranging from 'angry ex-Muslims to devout reformers', which she wants to change to 'anti-Muslim activists', which is her own invention. CAIR calls them 'a bunch of atheists', which USNews calls 'mudslinging'. Roscelese insists that we include the mudslinging, since it's in a RS. (At first she refused even to present it as CAIR's opinion, insisting we present it as fact, since it's in a RS, though she has compromised on that.) In her last version, the criticism started in the introductory paragraph; the article was more about CAIR and their criticism of the summit than it was about the actual summit. This is also a bit of a BLP issue, since we list by name the people, some devout, that are being called atheists by CAIR. She also wants to include an inflammatory statement by one of the speakers which he did not even make at the summit, wording so that it looks like it was part of the summit, and wants to remove mention of a (cultural?) Muslim from the list of organizers, so that it looks like it was organized solely by non-Muslims. I don't understand the edits, and the repeated misrepresentation, unless it is to push her personal agenda. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, it's almost as though you objected to the presence of a criticism ghetto! Could it be that you just want to pretend no one objected to anything about this conference, rather than integrating the material into the article in the interest of avoiding a criticism section?

Kwamikagami is also (probably deliberately) misrepresenting the U.S. News source - which characterizes Sultan's remarks, not the comment about atheists, as mudslinging - but this behavior is unfortunately unsurprising after the edits s/he made to the article. It's far from the only thing about which s/he isn't telling the truth in this comment, but it is the one most directly related to the sources, so I'll leave it at that; maybe s/he will see fit to tell the truth later on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article one word at a time. It characterized both sides as mudslinging.

Roscelese has made a mess of the article. She's in an edit war to push a POV which her own source does not support. I've tagged the major points, but it now reads as a joke. I'm here because I don't want to multiply the discussion, but this is really a matter of NPOV and WEIGHT, not RS. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The USN&WR quote is balanced and neutral, can you provide a better example, or is this the worst? — GabeMc (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if the regulars on this noticeboard could help me out. There is currently a talk page discussion on Creme Puff (cat) concerning the accuracy of the claims made in the article. The article's verifiability seems to be completely dependent on Guinness World Records publishing that this cat is the oldest ever recorded [44]. There is coverage of the cat in other sources, but those sources also depend on Guinness to back their claims. However, another user claims that the cat breed that the owner and others claim this particular cat to belong to did not exist in the purported year of birth.

So the question I pose is, are there/have there been reliability problems with Guinness World Records in general? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer your question specifically, but there have been hoaxes in the past, but that does not take away from Guiness as a reliable source. I personally have seen that they send employess out to verify claims for the record book, in one case, an employee spent hours counting heads in a video. I would say that Guinness is definitely RS for that assertion. The fact that they are occasionally wrong (hoaxes, or just error), does not make them a non-RS, as, when they find out about it, they will correct the error, as a reliable source should. Just like a newpaper publishing a correction notice. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

the statement is currently attributed to the Guinness book of world records, this seems fine. There appears to be no source stating it is a hoax. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - the GBWR may not be a perfect source, but until there is equally verifiable and reliable information that contradicts it, an attributed statement seems more than acceptable. The argument on the talk page seems to be one editor's opinion, unverified by any sources I could see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't mean to imply the cat thing was a hoax, just there have been hoaxes played on GBWR in the past, and even so, they are still a reliable source imo. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of the original question, but what the hey. IMO sources that are generally reliable are reliable for all information contained therein unless there is specific evidence to the contrary for the challenged fact. The reason I bring this up is because I see a lot of CAM-pushers who attempt to discredit whole fields of study on the basis of Big Pharma being generally evil or having ghost written single (or even several) articles. I see this as similar - people claiming a specific, generally reliable source can't be trusted on the basis of unrelated incidents does not discredit the source in general. Though GBWR may have been hoaxed before, unless there is specific evidence that this is a hoax, I don't think the information can justifiably be removed. This isn't pointedly aimed at you Despayre, it's just something I've seen before (and if anyone has a policy or guideline relevant to this discussion, I'd be keen for a link). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with you on this point too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In the present context, it's probably OK to say "sources that are generally reliable are reliable for all information contained therein unless there is specific evidence to the contrary for the challenged fact" (as WLU says above). But I don't see this as a policy or rule. Yes, there are indeed sources that we generally trust, and whose fact-checking we respect, but it still all depends what they are saying and whether it is in their field of expertise. Andrew Dalby 08:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion hi-jack

I would say that GBWR are beyond doubt RS—they are extensively covered in other reliable soures and they have very strong fact-checking practises. I'm more inclined to believe a claim by them than say the general media. However, I ran into an issue with them regarding methodology in a particular case, where they published two distinct figures, one in their published book and one on their website! It involved the adjusted box-office gross for Gone with the Wind. The issue is a bit too complex to go into here, but I question their methodology in relation to one of their figures. I would appreciate it if someone could offer an opinion on it. The relevant sections are the last paragraph of List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation (along with the table directly below) and the discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Worldwide_highest-grossing_films_.28adjusted_for_inflation.29_Guinness_World_Records_2012_.28.D1.81.29. Betty Logan (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GBWR is most certainly a RS, but its best to attribute in-text when using it to justify inclusion of contentious material. Such as, "According to GBWR, John Doe is the greatest actor alive". — GabeMc (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a dispute over the validity of some of the sources used in the case of Will Tuttle's entry at List of vegans. The dispute is over whether the sources constitute RS status in regards to the claim he is vegan. Please note that this does not effect his position on the list because I consider his official site to be legitimate for the claim, but an editor keeps adding further sources that I consider not reliable and I request an impartial opinion.

The edit in question: [45]

The sources:

• "In Conversation with Dr. Will Tuttle: Towards a World Peace Diet". Vegan India!. 2012-01-05. Archived from the original on 2012-04-25. Retrieved 2012-04-25.
  • A blog based on Blogspot; I do not regard this as reliable as per WP:BLOGS.
• Tuttle, Will (2011-04-02). "Spiritual People Moving Toward Veganism?". VegSource Interactive, Inc. Archived from the original on 2012-04-24. Retrieved 2012-04-25.
  • This is a privately run site run by a husband and wife according to http://www.vegsource.com/about-us.html. I believe it fails WP:SPS.
• Will Tuttle (Speaker) (2008). Will Tuttle: Eating for Spiritual Health & Social Harmony (MP4 OGG) (Video recording of live presentation). San Francisco, California, U.S.A. Event occurs at 29:16. Retrieved 2012-04-25.
  • Video footage uploaded to Archive. I believe it fails WP:NOYT which states video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight; it uis not possible to ascertain if the publisher i.e. the uploader is a reliable source.

The editor in question is using lots of these types of sources, so I would be grateful if we could draw a line under it one way or ther other. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Blogspot - Has an editorial policy page, lays out its goals, and provides a resource for corrections if needed. The article claims to be an interview with Dr Tuttle directly, I'm not sure where else you would get that interview from. It's not an exceptional claim, (and I don't see why it's even needed as a backup, that goes for all these sources), but I think this one could be borderline reliable is not RS. While it is definitely on blogspot, this isn't really a blog. I changed my mind when I realized I had no idea who the actual author was of the article. Personally, it's probably fine, by WP standards, I'm going with not RS.

vegsource seems to be down, and the archive wouldn't show either, no comment

Video Footage appears to have been uploaded by its creator, San Francisco Vegetarian Society (link to about page, they seem RS to me, and this video can be found linked to their site, link), and therefore would be RS (uploaded by anyone else and it would not be). But again, it's such a non-exceptional claim that as per WP:BLUE I don't know why you'd need additional references at all. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I find it all a bit weird personally, he seems to be adding lots of redundant refs to many entries (like 4/5); since some of them are ok it's not even like their removal precipitates the name coming off the list. At first I thought it was someone connected to a particular site and was just trying to slip in some promotion, but it's much more widespread. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding the extra refs because of users like you who are so eager to delete content. These extra refs increase the chances of there being at least one valid ref in place for a long time to come, even if other users like you come along to delete them because they find them unsatisfactory or because both the original site and its archived counterpart are no longer accessible. The extra refs increase the chances of the name remaining on the list. --Andomedium (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I never "came along" and started deleting content. When I came along a couple of years ago both the vegan and vegetarian lists were completely unsourced, which violated Wikipedia policy regarding claims about living people. I spent a couple of months adddng hundreds of sources to the lists, and removed the entries I could not source so both lists were completely sourced. These lists are completely sourced now, and editors who come along can see that so there is no excuse for adding entries without sources. I have better things to do than chase down sources to cover someone else's lazy editing, so I remove them if the entry is unsourced or is not RS. Tagging entries for a citation doesn't work because no-one actually does come along and add a source, and if you ask someone to supply a source they point out there are other entries that are unsourced. While I appreciate anyone who comes along and adds sources, they are not much good if these sources are blogs, private sites, youtube videos etc, since if the list ever gets to FL standard they will have to come out anyway. Either help or don't, but it is not your place to criticise an editor for not doing enough to source the lists when they have done far more work and for more sourcing on the article than you have. These lists probably would have bene deleted by now if it were not for my efforts in sourcing these articles; you have source half a dozen entries, let's see how motivated you are after you have done several hundred. Betty Logan (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Betty, I respect what you're doing in trying to keep the list tidy and properly sourced. I think the problem lies in your reluctance, in some cases, to accept people's self-published websites. These should not be accepted to establish notability, but as everyone on that list is, in theory, notable enough for a Wikipedia article, notability is not the issue. Therefore, WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS kick in, and these say that self-published sources are fine for claims like this (unless we have reason to question the source's authenticity). Indeed, the subject herself is (in most cases) the only person who knows whether she is a vegan, which is an inherent problem with a list like this, in that the subject's word is realistically the only criteria we have. That means we can never be sure of the list's accuracy -- someone could say she's a vegan on Monday, then by Tuesday be tucking into steak sandwiches and ice-cream. But that's not related to the sources being self-published. We'd have the same problem of checkability even if they announced it through the New York Times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with sourcing through self-published sites, but if you can't establish authorship then it is not a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion on the talk page. There's no requirement for editors to contact every single website and somehow check that the owner is who she says she is. We don't use sites if we have reason to doubt the authenticity, but there does have to be a reason to question it. Without that, it's okay to use it under WP:SELFPUB, which is policy, so long as the site owner is talking about herself and not a third party. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You say there is no requirement, but I don't see anyone supporting your position. If authorship of self-published sites do not have to be validated then put it in the guidelines, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You can read the policy for yourself at WP:SELFPUB. It is part of the Verifiability policy (policy, not a guideline):

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It says nothing about editors being required to authenticate each and every website, which would be close to impossible. It does say there should be "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," but note the word "reasonable." In the absence of a reason to believe the website is fake, we trust it, unless the issue is a contentious one per BLP, but someone publishing of herself that she is a vegan is not contentious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that Betty Logan has opened a second thread about sourcing at this page here below. I tried to join it to this thread, but he reverted, so I'm leaving this note instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think more is required. If she is a self-professed vegan notable enough for this discussion then surely there is an article or a book, that this could be sourced to versus a selfpup which may or may not have a connection to the subject. — GabeMc (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a question about three websites being used to source "cultural references" in The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald article. There is currently a dispute about the content in that section, and these are the only three examples that have any source at all, but I doubt any of these pass muster.

First is metal-archives.com, which previous discussions here on RSN indicate is not a reliable source. In this case, it is only useful to source that the band Jag Panzer recorded a cover of this song. That proves nothing about its notability.

Next is www.paulgross.org/music.htm, the personal/career website of Canadian actor/musician Paul Gross. This is being used to source the claim that he intended to use the song on his show Due South, but ultimately decided to write a song of his own. The page does support that claim, but the claim and the source are trivial.

Last is http://wiki.ytmnd.com, which sources the claim that there is a fad on this website relating to the song. To this, I have to say, "So what?" Even if the source supports the claim, this is utterly irrelevant to the song, and is completely trivial, not to mention obscure.

I would like to hear what other editors think of this information and the sources used to support these claims. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My opinion,

1. metal-archives - Not RS
2. Due South - Was a moderately successful show on American and Canadian National TV networks for several seasons, borderline notable, and RS for that claim I think
3. ytmnd.com - Not RS, not notable

-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to know about the following sources whether they are reliable for quoting the casualty figure in the article Siachen Conflict:

1. K.R. Gupta (2008). Global Warming (Encyclopaedia of Environment). Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. p. 109. ISBN 978-8126908813.
2. Aamir Ali (November 2002). "A Siachen Peace Park: The Solution to a Half-Century of International Conflict?". Mountain Research and Development. 22 (4). International Mountain Society: 316. doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0316:ASPPTS]2.0.CO;2.

There is also a related discussion on talk page of the article. On a side note majority of the troops died there because of extreme climatic conditions. --SMS ^Talk 13:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

First this is an important figure of casualty in a war theater which cannot be poorly sourced. This figure will be used in the Infobox of the article so we need to be careful about not using improper sources.

1. The book by K.R Gupta (cited above)[46] is titled A Textbook of Agricultural Extension Management By K.R. Gupta related to global warming/agriculture and is not reliable source for Battlefield casualty on Indo-Pak border.
2. paper by Aamir Ali pg 2 last para does not not state his source or clarify how he reached the magic number (or wild guess ? ) of 15,000 Casualty and there is still no official (or reliable or neutral) source supporting the unusually high figure of 15,000.

Besides they do not give any clue on how they reached the figure of 15000, Which makes them unfit for such an important figure in the Infobox of the Siachen conflict article more discussion is on Talk:Siachen conflict-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Title of Source 1 I would not have raised this point, had I not told the editor multiple times on the article talk. The title of first source given by DBigXray is a deliberate attempt to misinform the readers, so please do not regard any of the above comments (including mine) and do an independent analysis. Thanks. --SMS ^Talk 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• The title i gave is what your link above says, not any deliberate (or non deliberate) attempt by me, we can see who is misinforming.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• This book (Paul R. Dettman (2001). India Changes Course: Golden Jubilee to Millennium. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 109–. ISBN 978-0-275-97308-7. ) says that the figures have never been officially released but the news paper report says that its 500 dead and as many as 10,000 sick or injured --sarvajna (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• yes this book by Dettman (which is a neutral author) tells us why source 1 and 2 are unsuitable for this particular situation-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these sources are RS, although it does not matter what the title of the book is, if it was sourced properly, it's not, that's the problem, not the name. Both sources have the exact same sentence in it, so, it seems safe to say that one lifted it from the other, or they both lifted it from somewhere else. Both articles have sources listed at the end, I would look through those and see if you can find the real source of those numbers (I didn't look, but if they have a source in common, that's where I'd start). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• thanks a lot Despayre for giving your valuable comments and rationale. we all agree to it, so I am marking this as resolved. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)