Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Inspire magazine in The Way of the Master

Living Waters Publications (a close associate of The Way of the Master, a US ministry) puts out this press release. Inspire, a small and obscure UK religious magazine (semi-free, with 'subscription' apparently only available directly from the publisher[1]) puts a brief précis of this press release on their website here (with not indication that it is published in their hardcopy magazine). Is this a reliable source? I believe that it blatantly is not, but User:American Eagle insists strenuously (based upon no apparent reason than his only personal opinion/belief) that it is. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is also an inaccurate précis, in that it states that "US based Living Waters Publications has sold more than 20 million Million Dollar Bills gospel tracts" (which is included in the article) when the PR only stated "More than 20 million million dollar bills have been given away". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Franklin Knight Lane

Hi, I've nominated Franklin Knight Lane for FA, and I'm considering using this reference for biographical information about Lane (I am actually using it at present for info on the fund which is in Lane's name at Cal, which is permissible under WP:SELFPUB). Here is the bio of the guy, Levin, who wrote the profile on Lane. Reason I'd really like to mine this article for bio info on Lane is that people have expressed concern during the FAC about my use of a biographical outline which is in a volume of letters written by Lane, published after his death. Here is the link to the FAC if anyone is interested.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Rick Warren

Warren is a prominent religious figure in the US. Obama chose Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. This created controversy. Some editors claim that the invocation controversy is not notable. And they claim that the current wording of the article accurately explains that controversy. Current wording is simply this: "The decision angered pro-choice and LGBT advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[15]" without any explanation as to why. They are opposing addition of more information eventhough it has many reliable sources. Please comment in: Talk:Rick_Warren#Warren.2C_invocation.2C_views_on_homosexuality Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need the WP:NPOVN noticeboard. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Help with David Ferguson (impresario)

This article has been through a slow-moving edit war over the last few months, between SPAs who cannot write anything positive about Ferguson and SPAs who cannot write anything negative about him. I've been trying to help out, but the number of sources currently in the article that I think are bunk has gotten ridiculous (and no one's paying attention to my talk page requests for better sourcing, anyway). Could an uninvolved party come in and take a look? Thanks. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get any responses here, so I'm relisting this. In particular, I'd like opinions on which (if any) of these can be considered reliable (and for what):
  1. nyu.edu Rat Music compilations
  2. www.fuzzlogic.com/Rat Music, Vol. 1
  3. Ferguson finds unconventional fits him just right
  4. WaxFM Rat Music Vol. 2
  5. Public Image: The Emperor's New Clothes
  6. House of Tudor
  7. Rate Your Music CD Presents
Thanks... Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC self-published content?

There is user-written content here on the BBC site; doesn't appear to be a reliable source on BBC. Opinions? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is explained clearly at WP:RS. 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Heritage

I think that this website is not a RS as it is a partisan/sectarian promotional thinktank. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely material drawn from that site should be well scrutinized- however, quality material may be manipulated for the purpose of any agenda; material should not be discounted because of how it is employed, but on its own merit.Mavigogun (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What are their editorial policies? Who is the writer of the specific citation? We need more info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Packt

Is Packt, a reliable sources and more specifically their awards competition for open source content management systems. A few CMS articles (e107 (software), ImpressCMS, MODx, DotCMS full disclouser I have listed them for AfD) are claiming notability because they have been given an award from this company. For awards like these does the company and/or the award itself need to be notable to be a reliable source? Am I understanding the polices correctly or totally lost my mind? 16x9 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This all looks... vaguely dodgy to me.. I will investigate further. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any reliable sources for Packt to have its own article either. It seems to me like a circle of "notablity"... I publish a book about your product, you promote that book, you enter pseudo awards, you get prize money from awards, etc. 16x9 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree - it seems to be just a circular series of references - I certainly wouldn't consider it giving an award, any evidence of notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a circular series of references, at least in MODx's case. MODx won the award in 2007, beginning with nominations by community members. Packt is simply the Award sponsor; the awards are based on votes by users of the various software projects and votes from recognized expert judges from the Open Source and the Content Management industries[1], like The Eclipse Foundation[2], phpMyAdmin and MySQL[3]. MODx ultimately won the award in 2007 and received the prize of $2000. In 2009 (almost 2 years after MODx's original nomiation), Packt is scheduled to publish a book on MODx. I do believe some community members participated in the editing process for the book, but there's certainly no quid pro quo tied to the award or a direct benefit to date for Packt in MODx's case. I think if you were to ask the authors of the better-known CMSes that have likewise won the awards in the past they'd relay a similar story, including Drupal, Joomla, DotNetNuke and Plone. Rthrash (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why a reliable source would need to be notable. The two are orthogonal concepts. I think Rthrash has adequately addressed the provenance of the award; it follows a scheme that is common in industry awards and while not particularly notable itself, it does provide a degree of notability to the subjects that receive it. JulesH (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My name is Kushal Sharma and I represent Packt. I would like to thank you all for your advice on editing the page to suit Wikipedia's guidelines. I have added the references to the page. I would like to add here that this page is not intended to be a circular series of references, and as Rthrash has pointed out, this is an open industry award, and categories of the award have been won by open source projects that we haven't published on before. We have open nominations and voting, with the final decision being made by a panel of independent judges who have no ties to Packt. If you think more information is required to make the article more relevant, please feel free to advise further and I'll edit it as per your requirements. Thanks again. -- Kushal Sharma 17:56, 02 February 2009 (IST)
I am saying that Packt is not reliable because they have vested interested in the winners of their arbitrary awards. MODx won and a year later a book is published and I would assume more than $2000 will be made from the sales. 16x9 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of graduate theses

In the article on genetically modified organisms, an IP contributor recently added a graduate thesis as a reference. That thesis, towards a MS in Agricultural Economics, can be found here. I got a quick opinion on this from an administrator on IRC, but I'm curious to know what policy rationale there is at WP:RS for whether graduate theses are considered reliable sources. Thanks in advance, Emw2012 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, for the obvious reasons. Dlabtot (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not cut and dry. If the thesis gets published, then it is fine. Some PhD theses may be acceptable, if we know a lot about the student, the school and the professor and/or if it is cited widely (though not published). Some may be acceptable if the author is at the time or becomes an expert on the subject. Masters theses are usually not acceptable, as quality varies wildly across even reputable universities. Please see:
Those provide some hints of the dimensions behind this. Basic idea is: we should default to published work in reliable sources. If we are forced to use unpublished material to illuminate some subject, we have to give serious considerations as to whether or not we are covering it in the appropriate depth. Nevertheless, we may recognize that the source could be usable in some very narrow conditions. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the elaboration, Protonk. Since those who weighed in on the discussions you linked to seemed opposed to using Masters theses as sources, I'll remove the reference in question. The statement being supported by that thesis is also supported by another reference, making the decision slightly easier. Emw2012 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hold on there. Theses can be reliable sources, but they are primary sources and should be used carefully. It appears at first that it's being used, alongside a news article, only to cite "There are however now no GM-potatoes for food commercially being grown on PEI". However, the news article doesn't mention potatoes, and the thesis says that some GM potatoes were grown in a field trial on PEI. So the sentence should be removed as unsourced, and replaced with "field trials have begun in PEI", with a citation to the thesis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"It's not cut and dry. If the thesis gets published, then it is fine." - em no, many thesises in europe are published by what amounts to vanity publishers as a matter of course, so you have to careful about *where* it's published. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course. I thought my position was clear from the past 3-4 discussions on the subject. when I say "is published" I mean "is published in a reliable source". I can't imagine that I would mean "is printed on dead trees by anyone". Protonk (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
They aren't necessarily "primary sources". They would be primary sources if we were doing research on research or doing research on the author herself. Otherwise they are secondary sources. Use of theses with WP:PSTS as a cover where they are not being employed as actual primary sources should be discontinued. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a distinction between "published" as in accepted by an entity with an editorial board that decides whether it's important enough to run, and "published" as in "government publications", patents, data from regulatory agencies, court filings, corporate manuals, etc. The first type we call "secondary sources" and the second we call "primary sources". On WP those definitions were borrowed from historiography, but they've never meant the same as they do in that field. Many circular arguments could have been avoided if we'd started with something else to classify provenance, like "Class A sources", "Class B sources", relegating primary/secondary to usage, but we're stuck with the ambiguity. The real issue wasn't using an improper source; there was a sentence in the article that wasn't supported by either citation, other than being implied by omission. Both of those sources could be used to source other facts about GM crops in PEI, including the thesis if there's a consensus that field trials are an appropriate level of detail for the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That distinction is incorrect. Whether or not something is a primary source has a lot more to do with its use to the researcher than with the format of publication. If I am studying (just for the sake of argument) Paul Krugman and I read The Theory of Interstellar Trade (not published), it is a primary source, as I am reading it to divine things about its author. I would look for textual clues, habits in diction and syntax, etc. If I am studying Interstellar travel, it is a secondary source. This does not always conflict with the PSTS classification. But the PSTS definition is silent on master theses--a work ostensibly written as a study of something else. If we are using it to speak about that something else, we are using it as a secondary source. There is no other way around it. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Under the definitions of primary and secondary sources used in academia, then yes, I would be arguing to use that thesis as a secondary source. But on Wikipedia, PSTS was only loosely based on the academic definitions. Most editors find it useful to separate sources into a category of sources that is both reliable and establishes notability, and another category that is somewhat reliable but doesn't establish notability. An example would be the use of FAA data in articles about airports or FCC data in articles on radio stations. These are massive troves on data about everything under the sun whether notable or not. And most editors find them useful for descriptive claims but strictly speaking theyre not used as primary sources in an academic sense, unless a secondary source is citing the FAA data in an airport controversy. On the other hand, there's no point in enumerating what kinds of sources may be used as a primary source in an academic sense, because everything is on the table. You can find traces in policy towards this where we, quite properly, allow even propaganda from extremist groups or personal blogs by nonexperts in articles about themselves. But back to the main point, whatever we want to call them, there's merit to having a class of sources that may be used for detail but not to establish notability, and are generally subordinate to peer-reviewed secondary sources. I feel a master's thesis falls into this category. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In the experimental sciences, it is very rare that a reasonably good doctoral thesis would not have its main results also published in a peer-reviewed paper, and the paper should be used instead. In such fields, if it's more than a year or so after the thesis, and the paper has not yet been accepted, then I would be inclined to treat the work as being of low quality. This is not necessarily true of the descriptive sciences. It is not at ll true of the humanities. In such fields, I would pay attention to what school it comes from as a rough screen, and to some extent, whether it is cited--remembering that such fields typically have a very low rate of citation. I know that in many areas such as linguistics or history, a great del of the details are not published until the author eventually writes a book,why may be a very long time indeed, and the work is sometimes cited in its thesis form indefinitely. DGG (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

aintitcool.com

Could anyone please tell me if aintitcool.com could be considered a reliable source, or is it nothing more than a famous blog? Thanks magnius (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It may be reliable, depending on what you want to use it for. In this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I noted that one Ain't It Cool News interview had been cited in a book published by MIT Press, and if the interviews are good enough for an academic publisher they should be good enough for us. That said, the quality of the content of the site may vary, and I'm not familiar enough with the site to give it a blanket assessment that it's all reliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I'll use that as a guideline :) It is two interviews that are posted on there that I may need to use, so hopefully they are usable references. magnius (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Japanese sources in question

Three Japanese sources were recently added to the page of List of best-selling music artists to support three different Japanese artists. I have to mention that sources must be very reliable in order for us to keep artists on that page. If publishings are in foreign languages, they must come from prominent news services; in other words, their reliability has to be equivalent to that of CNN or BBC. All three artists are placed within the section of those who have sold records between 50 and 74 million. First source that was added is for Dreams Come True which is to support the act's sales of 50-74 million records. Second source is for Glay which is supposed to indicate a sales-figure of 50-74 million. Third source is for Hikaru Utada which again somewhere within claims that Utada has sold 50-74 million records. I'd appreciate if someone could tell me whether the sources above are reliable and if they are, do they contain such sales figures within as 50-74 million?. Thanks. --Harout72 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think foreign sources need to be more reliable than English sources. They just need to be reliable. Unfortunately, you probably need to know Japanese and a bit about Japan to determine this kind of thing. You might try a wikiproject, or google translate if you can't find anyone. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Harout72 is advocating heightened standards for foreign sources, rather, s/he's just pushing for reliability. A quick glance at that page shows why, I don't envy you trying to keep that list straight. My Japanese is poor, so you shouldn't rely on me, but none of these jump out to me as reliable enough for the claims made, and in fact I can't see any claim for total sales at all in the Utada article, and she's the only one for whom I'd be inclined to believe the 50 million figure. I suspect that you'll get better results if you make a request over at WP:Japan, or better yet, ask one of the active wikipedians who actually read Japanese well. Let me know if you need help running someone down. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cross-post of WP:BLP/N posting regarding The Register and op-eds quoting an individual

I posted this section at BLP/N and I have gotten no outside input on the issue, so I figured I'd link from here as well. Any input on how we determine whether a column in a major news source is under the "editorial control" of the source or whether some other sources are reliable enough to quote someone would be appreciated there. Oren0 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Links please. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Er try clicking on the this section link. To avoid the discussion splitting into two, I suggest it be kept there Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie

Hello, I found this article from the World Socialist Web Site, published by the International Committee of the Fourth International in working on the film article Valkyrie. I was not sure about how to assess the reliability of this source since it is not mainstream. Can anyone familiar with this website or similar websites weigh in? Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Right above you there is criticism of WSWS as being rubbish and I agree with it. Also in archive 15 there was another discussion about WSWS being rubbish. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Look elsewhere on the web for opinions on WSWS, or try Google Books and see how often WSWS is cited. Pretty often, and not only by the left wing. Political publications can be RS just like other news outlets. If you're looking for a socialist perspective on that movie, be bold and go for it. If you want to use their review to make a connection from that movie to a historical event, you can use it to make the connection, but consider backing up the historical facts with another source. PS. The more recent debate where WSWS was criticised was a tangent responded to by only two people; WSWS was not the subject of the RS debate. And the debate in archive 15 was over the use of WSWS for a biographical article, where additional rules apply. There is nothing wrong with using politicized sources for most other kinds of articles, especially a movie review. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It depends how you are using it. I don't think it can be relied upon as a source for facts about the relevant historical events (which is not to say it is not accurate. It probably is), but it is probably sufficiently notable to record as a criticism from a broadly Marxist viewpoint. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The WSWS web-site has nothing approaching the obvious, glaring faults identified at IsraelInsider above.
May I remind people that we don't use David Irving as a source because he's guilty of both fabrication and racist hatred. It's not because he was convicted of Holocaust Denial - that's not happened. When evidence of these two serious (and usually linked) failings is presented against WSWS then we should declare it non-RS. From my brief overview I can see nothing that even hints at it doing so. PRtalk 12:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you are making. A film review is not a good source for historical information about Nazi Germany unless the reviewer is independently qualified as a specialist on the topic. It is in this case a source for a paricular political pov on the film. Paul B (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your feedback! Based on what I've heard, I think that the source may not be a neutral fit for the "Historical accuracy" section. It is pretty politically slanted, and I am sure that there are better sources to be had about the film's historical accuracy. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can a book in Chinese and only available in China be used as a reliable source?

This is being used as a source for various articles on Chinese history:

Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , 2001, ISBN 7-204-04420-7 WorldCat seems to say it is only available in China, and not only would I question whether or not it is likely to be biased, it seems to me to qualify as unverifiable. Thanks Doug dougweller (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Turn it around another way, Doug: "Can a book in English and only available in the UK be used as a reliable source?" I would think it can - if it's published and available, it's verifiable. It may not be easily verifiable, but that is not an unusual situation, particularly where rare books are concerned. It may well be biased towards the Chinese Communist Party's POV, but I don't think that in itself is a reason to exclude it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd think it's a bit more questionable than that. If it's available to a large number of people in Mainland China, AND they are free to say here that the text is not reliable or makes mistakes, etc. THEN we can say that it is verifiable. So some more information seems to be needed - is it widely available in China, or can only a few people access it. The second part, might be a bit more controversial. I haven't followed the controversy about the Chinese government denying access to outside websites, but if they are still doing that then I'd say "not verifiable." Smallbones (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Smallbones's hit the nail on the head. Sources that are subject to Darwinian competition between ideas are worth using, especially if they've survived a few years without refutation. Any reasonable suspicion of censorship or of political or other direction is a serious negative. So it depends on the subject - if there are political implications, I'd want at least some cross-checking against other sources; OTOH I'd be happy with Chinese artciles on e.g. paleontology, because China wants to be taken seriously in that field.--Philcha (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
But this is history, and is being used in an article comparing the Han and Roman Empires. dougweller (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it would qualify if used as a citation for opinion and not fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not knowing anything about the background, I'd say fine to use with attribution. Wikipedia is supposed to mirror the knowledge of humanity, China is roughly a fifth of that. Are there particular concerns with the content, like it's saying things about the Roman empire that fly in the face of all known Western research? Jayen466 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

HistoryNet

Hi, I am rewriting an article about a japanese bombing that happened near my home in WWII. I found a nice article, here at HistoryNet, with helpful information in it, however I am unsure about the source's reliability. They claim to be associated with "Weider History Group, the world’s largest publisher of history magazines". They appear legit, but I would like to be sure. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They seem reliable based on this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Gold

The has been a discussion Talk:Gold as an investment#"Conspiracy" Theories, where reliability of two organizations as sources was questioned:

  1. Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee
  2. Ludwig von Mises Institute for information on a money supply measure TMS

GATA exists for 10 years; TMS exists for over 20 years, and Austrian School, which TMS belongs to for a much longer time period. GATA and TMS a well known throughout the gold bug community, and information is often located on the investment-related web-sites. Could someone join the above-mentioned discussion or clarify here, what kind of sources could be used to mention contrarian views on Gold as an investment. I ask this, because gold investment related articles undergo something that looks like deliberate clean-up of non-governmental viewpoint, and could be due to current Global economic crisis. Emilfaro (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources used in Scientology in Germany

Resolved
 – Secondary sources have been added where appropriate, some primary sources have been moved to the external links section.

Jayen466 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There has been some discussion between Jayen466 (talk · contribs) and myself about the usage of primary sources in this article, and we would like some input on whether usage is permissible in these cases. Please see this revision of the page. I have placed a primary sources tag on the page and pointed out the following sources:

  • 3. Bverwg.de - Court documents
  • 8. German intelligence report
  • 11,12. Administrative court of Berlin document
  • 13. Upper administrative court of Saarland document
  • 17. Government conference report
  • 4,22,25,26,27. USA Dept. of State report

I have argued that the Dept. of State reports are issued directly by the government instead of being summarized by a third party. According to WP:PRIMARY, historical documents such as these are considered an insider's view to an event, and are thus primary sources.

In addition, the section "Criticism of Germany's stance" uses sources to state something not explicitly stated in any of the reports (that the US State Dept has repeatedly claimed that Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups). Is this not considered synthesis? ←Spidern→ 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of these sources are just ancillary cites – in other words, these are primary sources cited in secondary sources also given in the article. I responded to Spidern's point on the article's talk page; the main points are:
  • 3 is an ancillary cite, the actual judgment referred to by the Bundestag document.
  • 8 is by the German intelligence agency; it will be easy to find a secondary source quoting them, but their notability I think is a given.
  • For 11, 12 and 13, you are right; we should find a secondary source and retain the PS as an ancillary cite.
  • 17 is an ancillary primary source cite supporting the secondary source which quotes from it.
  • The US State Dept. reports are mostly ancillary primary source cites, supporting secondary sources directly referring to them. (Most of the cites to them occur in one sentence also cited to two secondary sources. I don't think we say much more than what the secondary sources say, but feel free to check up on it and amend as appropriate.) Beyond that sentence, I think the US State Dept. are a trustworthy source for (1) the assertion that German political parties don't accept Scientologists as members, and (2) for the content the UN Report. Jayen466 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
As for sourcing "repeatedly claimed", this is explicitly mentioned in the cited New York Times article (ref 24):

On the basis of the I.R.S. ruling, the State Department formally criticized Germany for discriminating against Scientologists. ... Four months after the exemptions were granted, the State Department released its influential human rights report for 1993, a litany of the countries that abuse their citizens. For the first time, the report contained a paragraph noting that Scientologists had complained of harassment and discrimination in Germany. The matter was mentioned briefly in the 1994 and 1995 reports, too.

Direct reference to the reports would also show that the matter has in fact been mentioned in at least seven or eight country reports (I think it has actually been mentioned every year since then). So even without the NYT article, we would (in any normal article) still be making a descriptive claim. But given the contentious nature of the Scientology articles and the multiple misuses of primary sources (WP:OR, WP:UNDUE) that have occurred, I strongly agree with Spidern that we should strive for secondary sources throughout. It is this higher standard that I would ask editors commenting to apply. Jayen466 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

National Post blog

I was wondering if the Canadian National Post's blog is a reliable source for a recent event in Calgary. Page in question. Thanks. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally staff blogs of newspapers are RS. But like any other RS, editors have to decide whether the info is important enough to use in the article. Is it for an article about the particular protest this happened at, or is it to provide an opinion for a more general debate on Israel and Zionism? Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've recently added a short section to the article on the Canadian neo-Nazi Aryan Guard group. The claim I made, backed up by several sources, (although I've dropped all but this one) is that local "anti-Zionists" as they call themselves, who damned Israel's actions during operation Cast Lead, marched alongside these neo-Nazis. This national newspaper related blog seemed like a good reference alongside a photo taken from the scene showing skinheads carrying a defaced Israeli flag marching peacefully with the other protesters. The Edit warrior seems to have at least reached a compromise now using his own quote (reliable source (!)) from another national newspaper to prove the protesters weren't happy with the Nazis marching with them, and reducing the credibility of my claim by pointing out that "In his National Post blog, Kevin Libin wrote...". I don't think he'll ever be happy that these “polar opposites” as he calls them in his own reference were marching peacefully together and he'll continue obsessively monitory and reverting that article (roughly ¼ of the edits/reverts are by this user) to make sure that awkward fact never enters the article as a fact, merely a conjecture from a blog. For him the fact is his own personal quote from Calgary Herald. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The National Post paper is reliable source for news, and the National Post *blog* is a legitimate source for notable opinions. We can use controversial opinions, such the NP blog, as long as we properly attribute who said it, in the body, which is the change I made. The Herald piece (which quoted me) is the only newspaper to actually cover the incident as news. I didn't use, and don't want to use the quote from me. Serious media organizations, such as Canwest have a system to fact check what their reporters write, before its put in print. However, the same organizations host blogs on their web sites, which typically aren't fact checked, as their published almost the instant the writer posts their text. Given the contentiousness of the claims, it's appropriate to give blog opinion as just that, opinion. There is an inherent problem whenever when we cover things that are barely mentioned in the media. The incident in question, has only been covered by a single reliable media organization (Canwest owns the Herald and National Post). Most of the coverage is from personal bloggers. It's impossible to fairly cover all sides of an issue, if there hasn't been non-trivial coverage from multiple independent sources. --Rob (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you're so obsessed with me you actually follow my user contributions. Do you have a crush or something? And that the progressives and Nazis marched together is not a “controversial opinion” it's a fact. Ironically the only visual evidence I can find is your photo. If you hadn't released that photo onto the internet there's no way I would have known if the story was completely true. And what do you mean all sides of the discussion? There's a photo showing Nazis and progressives side by side. Nobody but a post-modernist or any other demolition merchant of reality could claim there's “all sides of an issue” here. And the only section of the Herald article that states, as your edit does, that the Nazis weren't welcome was... your quote! If your so concerned about objectivity then remove “despite being asked to leave by the protest organizers” and just state that they marched side by side. You're inserting a point of view by adding what you did and its only source is a personal quote. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the story. Shadi Abuid, a protest organizer, was the source for saying the Aryan Guard were asked to leave. I was never quoted as saying they were asked to leave. You keep mixing up statements and actions of different people, from different groups, and lumping everyone together. I would hope other editors would get involved in this article, and help inject independent perspectives. To be a broken record, there are multiple sides to the story, and unfortunately, all we have to go on is the one story that actually made it to print. This is why it's a bad idea for Wikipedia to follow every local news story. Also, let's be clear: my picture of the incident is not a usable source in anyway, and it's pure original source to cite it is proof of anything. --Rob (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
He said much: "It went very well. I was impressed with the turnout and the various groups uniting under one voice, we addressed them at the beginning of the rally and we directly told them we didn't want them to join us, But in these demonstrations you can control the crowd but you can't control the emotions . . . you can't deny people's right to walk." Why did you cherry pick his quotes in the way you did? Simple: because only that part of his quote backed up your side. Strange since your so adamant we must include all sides. You add what you like, I can see that 24.2% of the edits (31/128) are yours so you're clearly dedicated to keeping the article the way you want it and to hell with other sides. You've even resorted to having your image removed now I've pointed out it's the ultimate evidence I'm right. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A second look

So, I've looked over the sources and the debates back and forth. Lets see what we can agree on.

  • According to the Calgary Herald article[2], there were an estimated 1200 protesters but only five or six from the Aryan Guard. Now, maybe a few were missed but it's unlikely there were more than say, twenty.
  • The photos do not contradict that they were asked to leave. Being asked to leave doesn't necessarily mean that a melee broke out. Sounds like they just kept on marching, at least some portion of the parade route.
  • Marching in the parade doesn't imply that the other protesters were "with" them or tolerated them. Many probably weren't even aware they were present.
  • The photo used of the skinheads, well, it just doesn't look too bad, not bad enough to upset over a thousand people to call off their parade. I see short hair and red suspenders, but they didn't display Nazi flags or other inflammatory items.
  • Some staff blogs on newspapers include additional details and analysis that isn't present in the printed edition. The article under debate,[3], however, is purey an opinion piece. While it's good to dig deep and present as many facts as possible, everybody has an opinion, and we have to decide if this opinion is important enough to give weight to.
  • Of course, there is always a concern about whether or not anti-Israel protests harbor anti-Semitism, and it's expected there would be a reaction in the press.
  • The title "United Under the Swastika" pretty much says it all as far as what the opinion is. I'm not sure how much material we need from this article. Simply mentioning that an essay like this appeared is weight enough. Additionally, the quote about "150 anti-racists" without context makes it sound like there were far fewer non-skinheads at the march than there were.
  • Google News shows some other news reactions to the story. Here is one titled "Convergence of Hate", from CHQR's staff blog.[4] And there are also articles on anti-Israel protests across Canada that briefly mention what happened in Calgary: "Canadian Jewish groups accuse demonstrators of 'hateful rhetoric'" from Canada.com,[5] and "Police asked to investigate anti-Israel protests" from The Canadian Jewish News.[6]. While these don't add more facts about the Calgary march, they do show that there were commentaries, plural, in the media.
  • I recommend changing the disputed paragraph to:

The Aryan Guard again received attention on January 10, 2009 when a small number appeared in a 1200-person protest against Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, despite being asked to leave by the protest organizers (cite Calgary Herald), which resulted in editorials with titles such as "United Under the Swastika" appearing in the media.(cite National Post blog) Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wisegeek.com

User:Padillah thinks that Wisegeek.com could be a reliable source, particularly it's about this article. What do you think? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL would seem to come into play. If there's something factual in the article, it's hard to believe that there isn't a better source out there. There's a world of books outside the web. THF (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks

Is the following source reliable for the Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks article:

User:Vexorg is repeatedly removing it from the article. He seems to want every source to explicitly say Al Qaeda was responsible, though I think the source certainly is a valid to say when the 1992 Yemen attack happened, where, etc. And then, other sources are included for the Al Qaeda responsibility. --Aude (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am User:Vexorg. Hello :) I'm not disputing the attack happened, I'm questioning whether it was really Al-Qaeda and not just Islamists. - with this in mind, is the other source Scheuer, Michael (2002). Through Our Enemies' Eyes. Brassey's. pp. p. 135. reputable? Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA employee. This is one person's view. WP:RS says As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. - Does Wikipedia's content rely upon one guy's view? Personally I don't think this source is reputable enough. Epsceially as the Wikipedia article makes a definite statement regarding this event. Vexorg (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to remove Time magazine as a source... it is definitely considered RS by wikipedia standards. It isn't one guy's view, since it has the backing of Time's editorial staff. That said... the fact that other reliable sources disagree, and say that a given attack was not done by al-Qaeda, can certainly be mentioned - in addition to mentioning what Time says. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue here is WP:SYN, rather than WP:RS. One can cite Time for the date of the attack, but Time doesn't say anything about the involvement of al Qaeda. THF (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be better to include this online source for TIME or omit it completely and use only offline sources? I see the TIME link as a convenience for readers, to include alongside other offline sources. Anyway, I now have two book sources—one is a Pulitzer Prize winning book by Lawrence Wright and the other by Scheuer (see Harvard course syllabus that assigns the book as reading for students, also this review of this and other books in World Politics). These sources talk about al-Qaeda involvement.
I can also provide Reuters and other news articles from 1992 that give more specifics (date, time, place, etc.) but al-Qaeda was not well-known then so Reuters didn't say it was al-Qaeda then. Just because it didn't say al-Qaeda does not mean the source is invalid. The same goes for the TIME source, in that just because they don't explicitly say al-Qaeda was responsible doesn't mean the the source is saying al-Qaeda was not responsible either. But I see Vexorg removing such sources with the edit summary "not al-qaeda" or [7] "no source" where the link (book excerpt) was dead but can easily be replaced with the book itself as a reference or with a web archive link. --Aude (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If there's no dispute that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, then there's no SYN issue, but if there is, then there is. But then you can still use Time to footnote the date (thus solving the convenience problem), and whatever other source needed to footnote the Al Qaeda. But surely there's a web source like a State Dept. report that identifies this attack as Al Qaeda. THF (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Another solution is to create a Gold Mohur bombing article, which is more likely to generate a reader click than the footnote anyway. THF (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong or doubtful information in reliable sources

So, what do you do when there is information found in a reliable source (let's just assume it is one) which does not conflict with other reliable sources (because they just don't contain this piece of information) but which is essentially just an unsubstantiated estimate? In this case, another editor just added to the raccoon article that 15 million raccoons are killed each year by vehicles using this source. I can't wrap my mind around the concept to derivate the numbers for the whole of the United States from 25 school districts in New England. If the numbers were from various school districts all over the United States, it would be okay, I guess. To say something like "According to x..." would not make it better since there is still no substance behind the claim. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless they are numbers gathered from reports nationwide they are simply not statistically valid, no more than taking the population of, say, New Hampshire, and multiplying by 50 to get the total U.S. population. PetersV       TALK 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The source is not reliable for the statistic. The Roadkill project is sponsored by the NSF as an educational project for school kids, and not as a scientific research project. Furthermore, note that the 15 million figure is only an estimate of "Merritt Clifton, Editor Animal People Newspaper", and not a finding of the project itself. Of course, in the unlikely scenario that Clifton published his results in a peer-reviewed journal, the statistic would be citable,; but otherwise it is not. Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It's also interesting that he makes the 15 million raccoons conclusion from the 1993 data, but the project did not start reporting a breakdown by species until 1997! SpinningSpark 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting on this - wouldn't common sense kick in here? I don't recall seeing many raccoons splattered on the streets of Hollywood, Ca - or in California in general - but New England, for example, is another issue all together. Why can't the citation note that the data is from "school districts in New England" and be fine? And in looking at the page supplied, I don't see any assertion it applies nationwide. I see: 1993 - "25 schools throughout New England." 1994 - "45 schools throughout New England" 1995 - "40 schools throughout New England". 1996 - "39 schools throughout new England and other regions". I also see notes that reflect "throughout New England" and "throughout the New England area". I don't see any issues with the "estimated" numbers given that the overall page seems to imply these reflect East Coast kills. (And I know that the issue is with the phrase "15 million raccoons are killed each year" but the idea is, if stated as New England or "New England region", would use more "common sense") (Sub note - in looking over the 2001 data I see Fayetteville, NC and Waseca, MN in with the "new England" are as well.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The numbers for New England would make sense if there was more information given: "The population densitiy of raccoons in these areas was x,x animals per square kilometer and x kilometers of road per square kilometer." Then it would be a really interesting piece of information, but in its current state it doesn't say anything at all. Thanks for the quick replies, by the way. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment: From looking at the "roadkill data" site, the "15 million" estimate comes from a newspaper called Animal People. So we really do have an RS making an analysis based on the class project data. The best solution would be to cite the newspaper and then cite the "roadkill data" site as the primary source they used, with attribution that it was an NSF-funded classroom project. Also try to see if there's other estimates out there to compare/contrast with, i.e. state highway or forestry departments, or other wildlife groups. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't find the raccoon roadkill statistic on the Animal People News website; but there are several high quality sources that at least study the issue. See [8], [9] etc. Abecedare (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If it's in that newspaper, it would be in a 1993 or 1994 issue, and you'll have to go to a library. ISSN is 1071-0035. Worldcat shows some libraries have it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There are often mistakes or outdated information in RS. You use common sense and keep the info out. WP is not a blind recapitulation of data.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/

Is the web-site "www.britains-smallwars.com/" acceptable in articles? Either the whole site as a regular RS to policy, or this sub-page acceptable reference for the "fact" that 784 soldiers were buried in Palestine between 1945 and 1948 and are memorialized in Staffordshire, and the "fact" there were Danish soldiers amongst them. (This from a list of "61 pages containing 1120 names, including Foreign Nationals and Palestine Police" cited to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission).

The information and source was removed here with a TalkPage contribution here which says, in part: "... not a reliable source. The account itself conceded that the numbers it presents are at odds with official figures and that there's a 'vast discrepancy between this new figure,and that of the MOD'. Second, even of this was sourced to a reliable source, it simply does not say what is claimed. Namely, that these people were killed by Zionist political violence. All it says is a that this the number of British and Danish soldiers currently buried in Israel."

The web-site in question reached its 10th birthday last month, and we have the names of two web-masters and one author. The page here indicates this to be an active project with a great deal of outside contribution, which has added a further 11 pages in the last 3 months. The specific reference to the Danish soldiers buried is cited to Mr G. Webb, Secretary of Palestine Pals Association of xxxxxx Norfolk, England PE30 for whom someone has passed on a message that credits much assistance received and ending "As you can see, the Palestine stone ... is not the work of one man, although many seem to think it is." PRtalk 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Britain's small wars relies on individual contributions from former servicemen but also includes some academic peer reviewed papers. Generally I've found it to be a reasonably reliable source as the contributions are reviewed by the site editors before publication, however, as with any self-published content it occasionally includes errors or contradictory information. However, if your edit doesn't match the source that is immaterial. Justin talk 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can't speak to the palestine area, but there are some serious weaknesses in other areas. Taking Sierra Leone as an example, I was in Spearhead JTFHQ, several of the dates and ORBAT aspects are wrong, and their description of Barras differs from other sources.
I get the impression that they're a little reliant on tales from the lads.
ALR (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning - do you think its acceptable as a secondary reference for the "fact" that 784 soldiers were buried in Palestine between 1945 and 1948 and are memorialized in the National Arboretum at Staffordshire? Would you use the personal account here (second-hand with spelling mistakes!) from one of the main organisers of the memorial that states the "fact" that there are Danish soldiers buried in Palestine too? The "fact" that this was the second biggest loss of life (after Korea) since 1945 comes from the primary reference, but that's mysteriously gone missing as well. PRtalk 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that it is not an RS, simply because of the individual contributions/apparent lack of a fact checking system. If the figures are at variance with official figures, well, that's not a good sign. Doesn't the National Arboretum have a website?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about operations in Palestine to have an opinion about the specifics, I do have enough concerns about the accuracy in areas I do have good knowledge of to say that I avoid using it as much as possible. It is present in some articles that I have an interest in, mainly because I got sick of trying to deal with former NCOs bigging themselves up and moved on.
ALR (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's nothing wrong with using a few published "tales from the lads" to add context to articles on little-known conflicts, as long as they are subordinate to more widely accepted sources. You can also find anecdotal reports in Soldier of Fortune and occasionally in "men's magazines". But there are other issues with using it in the "Zionist Political Violence" article. The intro paragraph to a super-contentious article should use super-reliable sources. The figures for the Roll of Honour could maybe be used in a more general article about the British Mandate of Palestine, but it would be best practice to find another cite about the memorial or about the role of Danish soldiers to back it up. Also the cite to Britain Since 1945 which got lost in the shuffle should probably be restored. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the point was that Britain's Small Wars is quite reliant on them and whilst Justin observes that they do use some more inherently reliable sources themselves I would assess the whole as generally unreliable because there is a synthesis of the two. Where they use an explicitly reliable paper then refer to the paper and use the site for a convenience link.
ALR (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Fortunately, we know there is a memorial at the National Arboretum, and the UK National Inventory of War Memorials says there are 747 names on it for those who died in the war. This would seem to leave 37 who died of other causes during the war or who were non-British (reported to be some Danish). PRtalk 12:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, then I would use the information from the site PR mentions.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers

http://www.cinematographers.nl/default.htm

What are thoughts of using this as a source? Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on this would be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not think I would consider it reliable per WP:SELFPUB, and Albert Steeman, the owner of the website does not seem to be an established expert on the topic, based on a quick Google search. Perhaps the website's content can be searched to find sources that would be less contested. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for weighing in. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it's a good place to get started, but a poor source in and of itself. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, no worries. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've used it several times when enhancing articles about cinematographers. Rather than rely on it solely as a definitive source, I looked for at least one other source confirming information it contained before citing it. In every instance I found such confirmation. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Still, I agree with Erik (talk · contribs) and Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs), above. If you were able to find other sources confirming that information, those sources should be used, instead. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unitary executive

People are removing numerous sources[10] claiming they violate RS. Could some uninvolved editor explain which of the sources that are both MSM and legal experts are or are not permissable? See diff or this version[11] to ascertain if any of the refs there are inadmissable.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

NB that the problem is not just WP:RS cites to blogs, but WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT. User:Nescio also insists on including this fringe theory, most prominently espoused by Lyndon LaRouche, in John Yoo (in likely violation of BLP) and Carl Schmitt. It appears to be based mostly on the unpublished dissertation of one Ahmad Chehab. Without the dissertation, the cites don't support the claims. This is just simply disruptive fringe POV-pushing. THF (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Can one of you list the particular sources that are under dispute and what content they are being used to support ? Abecedare (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the only source that directly supports the claim that the centuries-old constitutional-law theory of the unitary executive is secretly a plot to invoke the Nazi theories of Carl Schmitt. It's a fringe theory straight from Lyndon LaRouche. Everything else in the footnote--blogs, etc.--is synthesis to try to support the dissertation. Ahmad Chehab has no google footprint outside of this editor's idiosyncratic contributions to Wikipedia, so one suspects COI problems, as well, given the editor's insistence on putting his name into articles as a "legal expert," but that just might be WP:PUFF for purposes of POV-pushing. THF (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sopurces Linking UET Prof Levinson[12] Scott Horton (lawyer)[13][14] Der Spiegel[15] Le Monde Diplomatique[16] All aparrently violating RS.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

87 is a blog post, and has no business in a BLP. 88 and 89 are the same source twice, and is a blog post, and has no business in a BLP. 90 doesn't mention unitary executive theory and violates WP:SYN. No. 91 is also WP:SYN, as it doesn't support the claim made. As I note on Talk:Unitary executive theory, there's no reason to rely on pop magazine pieces when there is an extensive legal literature on the subject that isn't even referenced in the article. THF (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First, you may not be aware that ArbCom feels that Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in. Therefore any notable individual (i.e. Kofi Anan, George Bush, John Dean), even when writing for a blog is acceptable. Second, you will find that if one would actually take the effort of actually reading the references every part of the article is verifiable. Third, to call "the writings of reputable legal experts "pop magazine pieces" is at best unfortunate. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:SPS, rather than a 2006 arbitration decision. There's no reason to cite to blog posts when there is a wealth of legal scholarship on the same issue that is being omitted, nor any reason to cite to blog posts in a BLP. THF (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just say it: "Reputable legal minds cannot be used." I will wait for non-involved editors to clarify whether Le Monde Diplomatique and Scott Horton (lawyer) are allowed.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT and WP:SPS says that an article should use mainstream sources and mainstream views before we resort to blog posts about fringe views. Stop playing Argument Clinic, please: you asked for a third opinion, so let others comment. THF (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Merely repeating my words "I will wait for non-involved editors" while suggesting it is your idea is bad form. So yes, let's await ouside views. Second, how are Le Monde Diplomatique and Scott Horton, and the myriad legal articles not mainstream? Maybe we should ask ArbCom some clarification?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Either address the argument I make, or don't post at all, but stop misrepresenting me on multiple pages. THF (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess, here are the sources claimed to represent the FRINGE and which I am interested to learn whether they are WP:RS Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, Harper's Magazine, John Dean, Marty Lederman. Please could somebody clarify?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, for these it is an NPOV and SYN issue, and not an RS issue, despite Nescio's disruptive and tendentious insistence on misrepresenting the consensus on the page of multiple editors. There's not even anything to escalate to arbitration, because there's already a consensus that Nescio is wrong; and an admin deleted his policy violations on John Yoo. THF (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Several observation. Calling a sudden influx of new editors on the same time consensus stresses believe. Further, the blatant misrepresentation in this forum is appalingly schocking. Calling Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, The Washington Post, and more LaRouche is at best an uninformed judgement, at worst wilfully misleading potential commenters here. As to accusations of SYNTH and OR, the information this group of editors is trying to eradicate is heavily sourced (almost every sentence) and literally taken from those sources. Nowhere is there a statement that cannot be attributed. If so I am looking forward to specific examples and not name-calling. Merely spouting acronyms in the hope something will stick is not cool.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

http://glockstore.com/blog_detail/74_Compensated_vs_Ported_Barrels

is http://glockstore.com/blog_detail/74_Compensated_vs_Ported_Barrels a reliable source? it's a blog, which is usually not a reliable source, but there is an edit war on Glock pistol because one editor claims that since the blog says the same thing as other reliable sources, the blog is therefore reliable. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If the blog says the same thing as other reliable sources, why not cite the reliable sources that aren't controversially reliable? THF (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
the other uncontroversial sources are there, but another editor wants to keep the blog too in order to 'back up' the other sources. it's a blatantly spammy blog to me, but i was told in the edit war message to consult with this board. i'm not sure where the precedent is for blogs that are suddenly reliable because they 'back up' other sources, but i was told to come here to ask because the other editor insists on edit warring Theserialcomma (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If the other sources are uncontroversial (and, I assume, reliable) then they do not need to be "backed up". No matter which way you approach it, the glockstore.com blog should be taken out. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The reference has been removed, however this question was brought up because Theserialcomma doubted all five of the sources provided, not because of this source provided. A reference was provided and he disagreed with it, then two more references were provided and he disagreed with them. Two further references were proviced to back up the other two which were backing up the first one. Four out of five dentists agree that this is a tedious discussion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How to properly quote?

Suppose I am going to use a newspaper, let's say, "Somewheristan News", as a source in an article. But the newspaper is actually quoting an expert, say "Dr. John Smith".

Should I, in the article text, write "Somewheristan News states that it is going to rain tomorrow", or "Dr. John Smith states that it is going to rain tomorrow"?

And if this is disputed, can I for instance write, "Daily Somewheristan states that it is not going to rain tomorrow, but other source states that it is indeed going to rain" - the "other source" here, of course, meaning "Dr. John Smith as quoted by Somewheristan News"?

And if I write it like that, and other user edits it to "Daily Somewheristan states that it is not going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith believes the opposite", can I reverse such edit? Ninguém (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This scenario is rather confusing. You seem to be implying that the article itself says one thing but that an expert is quoted in the article denying what the article asserts as fact. Is that the case? Sounds like a remarkable Xeno-like paradox of reliability. If the source is reliable then it must reliably assert what the expert says, but if that is the case then the assertion made in the article must be unreliable since its own reliability calls its reliability into question. Boy! Paul B (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. It would be the following case:

Source 1: It is not going to rain tomorrow. Source 2: Most experts agree it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith says it is actually going to rain tomorrow.

Sources 1 and 2 aren't experts in meteorology, just news organisations.

This is then quoted in the article like,

"Source 1 says that it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but other source says it is going to rain".

Then if someone tries to change that to "Source 1 says it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith says it is going to rain", the edit is reversed. Ninguém (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to respond to questions adequately when put in this abstract way. Firstly, weather reports sometimes appear as tabulations, icons etc which are fairly stark, but it is clear that these are just predictions, not absolute assertions of fact. I don't suppose you are talking about weather reports at all (I do suppose you are talking about population statistics, which are different since they are not assertions about the future). If it is clear that Dr Smith's view is dissenting from the mainstream opinion (and that it is accurately reported) then his should be presented as a dissenting view. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


OK. I was trying to put things in a neutral way; few people do have an axe to grind concerning tomorrow's weather. If I should bring into discussion the actual problem, then in fact it is about demography.

It has to do with the percent of Brazilians that are of German descent, in the article White Brazilians. It is reported that the German consulates in Brazil believe there are 5 million people of German descent in Brazil. Then it is stated that "other source" states 10% of the Brazilian population. The other source is in Portuguese, an online newssource on German-related issues, Deutsche Welle. It reports the following:

Já o jornalista e historiador Dieter Böhnke, de São Paulo, relativiza essa data, afirmando que os primeiros alemães desembarcaram em 1500, entre eles o cozinheiro de Pedro Álvares de Cabral. Segundo ele, mais de 10% da atual população brasileira tem pelo menos um antepassado alemão.

Which means, "But journalist and historian Dieter Böhnke, from São Paulo, relativises this date*, stating that the first Germans arrived in 1500, among them Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook. According to him, more than 10% of the Brazilian population nowadays has at leas one German ancestor."

  • the date in question is the date for the arrival of the first German immigrants in Brazil, usually considered to be 1824.

What I want to do is to put in the text of the article, "historian Dieter Böhnke", instead of "other source". Is it possible? Ninguém (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No... see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... since you got the info from Deutsche Welle, you should cite that. This is because the news source might have misquoted the expert, or (as in this case) might be paraphrasing him (so it isn't actually a quote). That said... what you can do is create a citation that mentions the expert, but cites the news source. Something like... <ref>www.germannewswebsite.com (citing historian Ima Expert)</ref>.

I see... should it be then, "according to Deutsche Welle, historian Dieter Böhnke states that..."?

The problem here is that, for all that I know, Deustsche Welle's credibility is higher than Dieter Böhnke's. As the source is in Portuguese, people may be misleaded to believe Deutsche Welle endorses Böhnke's theory, while it is in fact merely reporting the fact that it is Böhnke's theory. Ninguém (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest... "According to the German news website Deutsche Welle: "... journalist and historian Dieter Böhnke, from São Paulo, relativises this date*, stating that the first Germans arrived in 1500, among them Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook. According to him, more than 10% of the Brazilian population nowadays has at leas one German ancestor. <cite to Deutsche Welle, (including the german language quote in case someone wants to check it)>"

Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can a source that advocates lying ever be considered a reliable source?

According to the New York Times, in his book Earthforce! Paul Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, "as Ronald Reagan did." (Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels. New York Times, November 10, 1986.) If he has published statements advocating lying, can anything self-published by this individual in future ever be considered reliable? How can we know when he is lying and when he is not? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be a reason to double check what he says against other reliable sources (and if they disagree, I would probably trust the other sources) ... but I don't think we can discount everything he writes. Whether he is reliable or not is more of a judgement call, and would depend on what you are using him as a citation for. In general, self-published sources should be used as statements of opinion... and for a statement about Watson's opinion, his own writings are probably reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar, but additionally bear in mind Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source and WP:SPS/WP:QS, incl. the paragraph following WP:QS. Jayen466 19:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As discussed here [17], "entries dealing with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela do not reflect WP:DUE attention to broad, mainstream, reputable and reliable sources according to WP:V. Most of the arguments presented there are spurious and those sources are clearly and blatantly biased for all the reasons long known to most knowledgeable about Venezuela." Further, evidence confirming bias and conflict of interests of certain sources [[18]]is completely ignored by some editors that otherwise apply, almost immediately, Wiki principles to sources that clash with their POV. Can independent editors please look into this matter?Alekboyd (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

TVSquad.com page

Is this particular page at TVSquad.com a blog-type page, or is Ryan j Budke some type of professional TV critic? The bio to which one is directed when clicking on his name does not indicate the latter. What say you? Nightscream (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding reliability of a source

A dispute has arisen at Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing concerning the reliability of the website [19], specifically regarding the following paragraph:

While Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat later did condemn the act, documents seized by the IDF during Operation Defensive Shield revealed that the Palestinian Ministry of Social Affairs granted a sum of $2,000 to the father of the bomber about two weeks later.[4]

The website's self-description can be found here. Discussion is welcome; my personal position is that it looks like a professional organization with paid staff members and editorial oversight, although we necessarily have to control for bias in something as fraught as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ray (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

in A History of Israel, from Zionism to our time, Howard Sachar reports that during operation Defensive shield, documents were captured that proved that Yasser Arafat had granted money to the familly of the kamikazes. Maybe this website is not a wp:rs source but the informations seems to be correct. Ceedjee (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
(Involved editor has lifted his comment from here and moved it to the duplicate section below). PRtalk 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

terrorism-info.org.il

Can I get some outside (not the usual IP crowd) feedback on whether terrorism-info.org.il is a reliable source or not? It is an issue that pops up now and then and is the centre of contention in two discussions here and here.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:39

Hadn't seen the above post, sorry about that. Would still be interested in outside comments, though... Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:51
  • Comment Here's some background info. According to a whois query, the website belongs to an organization called, "Center For Special Studies", which is a nonprofit. The person in charge of this organization, Dr. Reuven Erlich, once served in the IDF Intelligence Corps as an analyst. The website is widely cited by other Israeli websites.
    I will not draw conclusions on whether or not the site is reliable, but it is clear that the site is notable by virtue of the fact that it is so widely cited. Personally, I prefer using third-party published sources such as peer-reviewed academic sources or other published print sources such as newspapers. I also prefer sources which have a person's name attached to it, so that the credibility can be assessed on the basis of his/her credentials and other published works. If this source is to be used, attribute that the information was presented by this organization, rather than presenting information without in-text attribution while using the website as a reference. ←Spidern→ 16:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment from an involved editor This is more than a regular POV source (the kind we use and have to use constantly). It is effectively a propaganda operation. It calls itself "an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot, north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich". We have to ask ourselves whether we'd use a web-site dedicated to Muslim martyrs, hosted by retired Palestinian militants or Iranians.
The site hosts "A display of Palestinian documents and materials related to terrorism, captured by the Israel Defense Forces in the Palestinian Authority-administered territories. The display includes weapons, posters, documents and various types of equipment" leaving the door wide open for outright fabrication. Any form of cult document and any form of criminal activity can be laid at the door of the PA in this fashion - and this despite the fact they have very little control with every security asset of theirs has been repeatedly flattened and their staff at every level subject to assassination, often at random. (PA areas are also full of collaborators, again making any kind of determination of what's really happened virtually impossible).
This site is not irredeemable, even handing modest encouragement back to the "peace lobby" "Since the end of Operation Cast Lead, the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip have violated the ceasefire 12 times. In our assessment, Hamas wants quiet in the Gaza Strip but so far does not deter the other organizations" but its reliability for anything "surprising" can only be slim. A report on these PA documents from internationals is the minimum we should expect before refering to them. PRtalk 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing-stars.com

I am preparing Premiere (The O.C.) for FAC, and have been advised (by Ealdgyth) to get feedback here of whether http://www.seeing-stars.com/oc/ is reliable.

I would say that it is reliable as a self-published source. It is written by Gary Wayne, someone who has become an expert in that field, and who's site has gained coverage in relaible third party publications. These include the Washington Post, Los Angeles Daily News, and Los Angeles Times. Additionally, an article in Chino's Daily Bulletin specifically mentions that The O.C. part of the site "backs up its assertions with photographic comparisons." There is also an area on the site in question that details its press reviews. I have put forward a case for why I feel it is a reliable source, and would like input from the community to determine whether it can be deemed reliable or not. Many thanks in advance for all comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's OK. Reliable sources use their info, and they do have photographic proof. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment, does anyone else agree/disagree. I would like to try and build some form of consensus, so I would like as much input here as possible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is CDI a reliable source?

Is Center for Defense Information a reliable source? I have seen many cases where it seems quite biased, especially when it comes to Russia related themes. If you take a look at [20], you'll notice that almost everything they say about Russia is negative. At the very least I think they certainly have a strong agenda. Offliner (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds more like they care about human rights abuse. Anyway, they mostly collect news articles related to Russia, not make them themselves. Grey Fox (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they collect only the most negative things they see. But since they only collect, I guess one cannot blame them. Offliner (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDb for BLP info?

At Talk:Pauley Perrette there's disagreement over IMDb used as a reliable source. Feedback there, and clarification at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples please. Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t00:58z

IMDB is not considered a reliable source, especially for anything beyond this person appeared in this film, which can be sourced to the film anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

sources for "Jack Warner" bio page

I would like some opinions as to the reliability of sources for the biographical article on Jack Warner. I don't know if I should list them here. I am concerned in particular with the "Early Years" section. They are published sources in book form, but I contend that they aren't reliable enough to be used, and in some instances paraphrased as fact, for encyclopedic content. In my opinion they are in the "creative writing" mode, designed to be a good read, but there is no evidence that there was any fact-checking involved. They disagree with each other on some points and seem very much prone to repeating heresay. Thanks! 69.86.119.87 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a complaint about the use of http://dougsinclairsarchives.com/benjaminwarnerfamily.htm in Jack Warner. I would agree that it does not qualify as RS, and that a better source should be used. THF (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't a published source in book form and is quite the opposite of what I'm talking about. One of the books I refer to above is Cass Sperling, Cork Millner, Jack Warner, "Hollywood be thy Name, the Warner Brothers Story" (University Press of Kentucky:1998), which can be read, in part, at google.com. Particularly, pages 17-22 covering some of the early period of Benjamin Warner and his family. Others are Bob Thomas, "Clown Prince of Hollywood: The Antic Life and Times of Jack L. Warner," (McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York:1990) and Michael Freedland, "The Warner Brothers" (Harrap:1983). Declair (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the question then. Non-fiction books, especially from a reputable university press, are RS. If a quote from a book seems sketchy, you can flag it and ask for proof on the talk page. If there's a controversy because different books take different positions (or are factually incorrect), that's an WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT issue rather than an RS issue. THF (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Walking that back a bit, if a book is widely recognized to be inaccurate, there may be a consensus to drop it from RS status, but a book by credible authors is generally presumptively RS, unless there are reliable sources that demonstrate why it isn't RS. THF (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the International Association for CFS/ME [21] a reliable source for a person's bio?

I am having a difference of opinion with an editor. Is this organization and it's archives, specifically[22] (under Medical Literature Review), a sufficiently reliable source to support the wording, "Bell served as a board member of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME."? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference we are having is, a bio of a notable person will have secondery sources about the person. When there is not reliable second sources about the person, it does not matter when you can find they are on the board of a club that is not very notable in primary self published sources. RetroS1mone talk 01:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
the International Association for CFS/ME is hardly a "club" or self published source. PMID 17662750, "a single modestly sized professional organization (about 300 members), the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, represents the interests of CFS researchers and clinicians worldwide." Ward20 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Without looking at this very carefully, it sounds like it is reliable source for the statement (and maybe nothing more), but whether or not to include it is an editorial decision for us to make. You might try Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I haven't worked on that noticeboard, so I'm not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Found another source,[23]. Is this a reliable source for the information they give on The International Association for CFS/ME[24]? Ward20 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interactive tables...

Can they be used as sources?

For instance,

[25]

(which, besides being interactive, is also in Portuguese) - can it be used as a source for religion in Brazil?

Thanks in advance, Ninguém (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That it is in Portuguese is not an issue... non-English sources are allowed. However, the interactive bit does cause concern. Who may enter information into this table? Anyone? If so, I would not call it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the information is in the IBGE database. It's official government information. Users can only retrieve information, mounting their own tables. The problem would be, using it as a source would probably imply explaining how to retrieve information... or not? People who don't know Portuguese probably will have trouble accessing it, I imagine. Ninguém (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The drop-downs don't seem to be too tricky to follow, though I know a little Spanish and French, which probably helps. If you give the Portuguese naems for the various religious groups, and maybe the geographic areas in the article, most people should be able to get to grips with it I'd have thought. David Underdown (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as reliable sources?

Hi there, please could you tell me if journalist's blogs can be considered as a reliable source? This concerns a controversial matter regarding the biography of a living person; a newspaper sensationally (and inaccurately) reported a detail of the controversy which, while more 'readable' and 'exciting' I feel unfairly blows the whole thing out of proportion. I would like to get it changed/toned down on Wikipedia and have found a blog by a journalist which presents a far more fair and balanced portrayal of what actually happened. I'm told I need evidence from a reliable source in order to sanction this - would the journalist's blog count? Thanks in advance for any help or light you can shed on this. Cheers guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinxCariad (talk • contribs)

See WP:SPS. THF (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Make sure to read footnote five at WP:SPS.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

IsraelInsider

I'd like to raise the status of IsraelInsider as a reliable source. It has previously been the subject of discussions on Wikipedia about its reliability (see [26]), as it's linked from numerous articles (see [27]). However, there are a number of things that make me doubt its reliability. It's run by a Tel Aviv web design company called Koret Communications rather than any mainstream media organisations. It has the characteristics of a self-published source: its founder, Reuven Koret, is the website's owner, publisher, editor and apparently the principal if not the sole author of its news stories. According to him it's a "social blogzine, combining the characteristics of a newsmagazine, a web journal, and a social network. The journal aims to present an insider perspective on the Jewish State for the outside world. Registered members can create profiles, post comments or blog entries, or communicate with each other." [28] Looking at some of the content, I think we would definitely have to consider it a questionable source for its focus on fringe and extremist viewpoints - they seem to have a thing about Barack Obama in particular ("Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?"). I'd be interested to know what others think about this. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes:
  1. What is missing in this statement is that the source has been used to reference the note that:
Pallywood ... is a neologism that is used to describe "media manipulation ... Among the most notable claims to belong to this "film genre called "Pallywood."" are the incidents of the Muhammad al-Durrah tapes and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies (dubbed: Hezbollywood).israelinsider reference+[Jerusalem Post ref]
  1. The insider's reference clearly does mention Hezbollywood; both in title and body, as well as related articles despite an opposite claim by ChrisO here.
  2. It's disappointing that on one hand the sources for the term are "pro-Israel media watchdog advocates"[29] but on the other hand, these very sources are unreliable to reference the relevant term. There's clearly a double standard here in my honest opinion.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, could we put the specific citation to one side for a minute? We're discussing the general reliability of Israelinsider as a source. Nothing you've said above contradicts (or indeed addresses) the points that I've made about it being a self-published group blog. I'd appreciate it if you could explain why you consider it a reliable source, which presumably you do since you've added citations based on it. I removed the citations you added because I believe it falls far short of our requirements, but there is a wider issue to be addressed here since there are many articles where it is being used as a source. If it's not a reliable source, it needs to be weeded out. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There's really no reason to make this Pallywood related discussion into something else and I'd appreciate it if you could stick to the issue and explain why you consider it a non reliable source for citing that when they and like minded people/sources use 'Hezbollywood', they refer to the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies; and that Pallywood is used for such instances as the controversial al-Dura tapes as well as the fake funeral from the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Jenin. You can't delete proper encyclopedic content and then expand the debate into something general that isn't even address the relevant removed content. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already explained why, and you've not dealt with any of the issues I've raised above. It's a self-published source. We generally don't accept such sources as reliable - please see WP:SPS. This is a general principle, not just something that's confined to the article or topic that you cited. What I'm trying to do in this discussion is to get some feedback from the community on the general reliability of the source, not just your use of it in Pallywood. I might add that the burden of evidence lies with you as the editor who wants to use this source - you need to explain why you consider it reliable. You've not provided any such explanation yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view: Nothing about the website's organization and (often fringy) original content indicates that it would qualify as a reliable source on wikipedia, especially since the posted stories seem to confound news, analysis and commentary. Even a biased source can be cited on wikipedia (with proper attribution) if it is a noteworthy/prominent voice, but I haven't found any evidence (such as other RS'es quoting it) that this is true for the Isrealinsider either. Abecedare (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A very good point Abecedare. What matters for this one is the notability of the source rather than it's so called reliability for explaining the terminology they use (as this article is about their terminology). Isreal Insider's prominence is actually higher than you'd think as a number of other sources who used these memes (Pallywood/Hezbollywood) credit and mention Israel Insider as notable for being the source for popularizing the term 'Hezbollywood'[30] or 'Hizbollywood'[31].
p.s. Here's the Google Scholar links about the Hezbollywood term [32], [33].
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed the link, but can you list one or more reliable sources that credit Israelinsider with popularizing the term Hezbollywood ? Abecedare (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Reliability is relative when discussing memes but here's a couple.[34][35] Regardless, the point is really not about the source itself but about this edit by ChrisO removing the term when this 'Hezbollywood' nickname is clearly relevant to the article. Here -- [36] -- the 'umbrella group of Jewish organisations in Belgium' is noted for using it so I'm just baffled by the over the top deletionist approach to encyclopedic content. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) add diff 14:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The World Socialist Web Site is not reliable source for anything except as an SPS for the organizations' views; and the second link is an article by Isrealinsider republished on Iranian.ws, so that doesn't help either. If the " 'Hezbollywood' nickname is clearly relevant to the article", then it should be easy to establish that using reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
WSWS is tripe. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In case people wonder why we're looking at a WSWS article, it's because of the passage "One popular right-wing Zionist web site, Israel Insider, described the Qana massacre as “Hezbollywood”, and accused Lebanese resistance fighters of planting the dead bodies in the building and then conducting a controlled demolition in order to blame the Zionist state." Jaakobou should be commended for bringing us a pretty devastating indictment of the reliabilty of "Israel Insider". The first article I checked made it look terrible too. PRtalk 12:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that Im Zweifel für den Zweifel,' Der Tagesspiegel is being used to cite "Hezbollywood" in the article now - if the reliability of that source is not disputed the issue of Israelinsider's unreliability is now irrelevant, right ? Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This part in ChrisO's intro: "Registered members can create profiles, post comments or blog entries, or communicate with each other" does not speak to its reliablity one way or the other, since numerous newspapers are doing this now, including Canada News, Washington Post[37] etc. with differing degrees of user input. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it seems to have completely changed its format in the past few weeks, and does not seem to be doing original news stories. However this is apparently not the focus of this query, as it refers to a specific edit in relation to itself. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Some other sources for the use of "Hezbollywood": Jewish journal, National Post [38] The g-hits for "Hezbollywood" are 13,800. Obviously, since it is a new and "informal" name, it will not be written in most RS newspapers as reporting language. However, there is considerable evidence that it is now a commonly-used term to describe this phenomenon. The fact that the World Socialist Web site and the Iranian site are using it demonstrates that it is in common parlance.Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, there are two separate issues here. Let's try not to mix them up.
1. Use of Israelinsider in this specific instance. Jaakobou has sought to use a self-published source - an article by the owner, publisher and apparently sole author of Israelinsider - to cite a statement in the article. The rules on using self-published sources are clear and do not permit this source to be used in this way. I regard this issue as irrelevant now, though, because another editor has found an alternative source that does meet the requirements [39]. I don't think we need to discuss this particular issue further, since it's been resolved.
2. Use of Israelinsider in general. As I've already noted, Israelinsider is being used as a source in numerous articles (see [40]). Many of those citations appear to be to copies of Associated Press articles on Israelinsider. This doesn't seem entirely satisfactory; Israelinsider isn't a mainstream source and it appears to edit the AP articles (e.g. substituting the POV term "Judea and Samaria" for "West Bank" [41]). I would suggest replacing these links with links to mainstream publications' copies of AP stories. Elsewhere, citations include stories written by "Israelinsider staff" (which appears to mean Reuven Koret, since he's the only one named). This is self-published content so, as with my 1st point, it's unusable under our rules. Those citations need to be removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We still need to resolve the first issue of whether or not they are notable enough that their explanation on how they apply this terminology can be used in the article. This goes also for sites such as hotair as well as seconddraft and others who use this meme. The real problem for this article is how notable vs. wiki-RS the sources used must be when the article discusses a term that is only used by this pseudo-click. Basically, I feel as though an overly aggressive "deletionist" approach has been taken with this article to the point where clearly encyclopedic content that shouldn't even be contested is removed. This is very bad for the collaborative spirit that was achieved in the past couple months and certainly is not in the spirit of the encyclopedia. To be succinct, I feel as though recent removals were an error and that this thread should not have even been opened. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Clearly encyclopedic content, the term 'Hezbollywood', is again being removed and this activity is at a point of damaging the quality of the article. This requires an external perspective. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved note: I got to this discussion by following a link sent via random PM on IRC from Jaakobou. Apparently he's been randomly canvassing people in the main en-wiki channel, sending a link to "look at his argument here". I don't really care and I'm not gonna do anything, but I figured it might be relevant to your interests. Bullzeye contribs 08:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea to Bullzeye's perspective and made no argument outside the ones listed here.
Warm regards though, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not RS - the first article I picked up from this "newsmagazine" was this one from 2004, subject "The ADL and Never Again". It includes statements such as "Of course, anyone who will look at the facts honestly will find that Rabbi Kahane was not a racist but rather telling the painful truth about Israel's enemies as he was correct in his observations concerning the PLO and the Palestinians." Need I go on, or will the details at Meir Kahane suffice? PRtalk 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that PalestineRememebered. I'm not sure you understand the issue raised here as it involves Israel-Insider's reports on their own language. What counts here is notability of opinion, not reliability for reporting on events.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand it just fine, thankyou. IsraelInsider is being used to blow out of proportion the propaganda neologism designed to smear an entire nationality as liars. When another editor examined "Pallywood" in Sept 2007, they discovered the following:
Pallywood was an 18-minute video edited together out of TV footage by a medieval historian in Boston, who then posted it streaming on his blog. The word "Pallywood" is almost totally obscure, it has 16 citations in Google, include the blog of the man who coined it, as well as a usenet thread where someone says it off-handedly and then applauds his own cleverness. Some "neologism"! "Pallywood", both as the youtube video and as blog-slang, is all but completely unnoticed by the mainstream media. You can see it on youtube, but it was never distributed, screened or even reviewed. It is not registered in the exhaustive IMDB database, is not available through Netflix, is apparently not available in any research library (significant documentary works, even short ones, are routinely purchased by research universities; not this one. There are also distribution companies that specialize in independent documentary shorts; Pallywood is apparently not available through any of these. It appears to be referenced only in a few blogs and a very few (as in five or six) back-page feature articles which note it in passing. A search for "Pallywood" in the complete historical archives of the New York Times results in: "No documents found for: pallywood. Did you mean: plywood?"
I fail to understand why it is permissible to use Wikipedia for this racist propaganda (because that's all it is - the most famous example of "Pallywood" is the alleged fake funeral, which is plainly kids playing with a blanket and wasn't filmed by anybody other than an Israeli drone).
And a quick glance at IsraelInsider tells me that it defends a man so extreme as to even be tagged "racist" and banned by the Knesset, head of an organisation banned as terrorist by both Israel and the US.
When it's a blocking offense to quote from the completely peaceful and (almost certainly) high-quality Jews Against Zionism it seems extraordinary that there are editors still free to pump rubbish this bad into articles. PRtalk 08:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you still promoting the so-called legitimacy of JewsAgainstZionism.com? JaakobouChalk Talk 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view: Seems a clear fail of our reliable sources policies and should not be used as a source. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: The discussion is about use as source for what the source (and similar ones) refer to when they apply their own meme -- Hezbollywood -- in the Pallywood article. The relevant text is:
The incidents of the Muhammad al-Durrah tapes and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies (dubbed "Hizbollywood" or "Hezbollywood") have been cited as alleged examples.
Relevant references which are under contention include notable news blogs such as hotair.com and IsraelInsider's daily news magazine as well.
As was suggested above, the issue is of notability of their opinion amoung the community that uses these XXX-llywood terms. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
As always, it makes a difference as to what something is a RS 'for'... Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's not beat about the bush: the contention you're making in this particular case is that those terms are used by the Islamophobic far right, of which HotAir and IsraelInsider are mouthpieces. It seems apparent that far-rightists do use this term. Those two far-right blogs certainly do. However, they do not say anything about who uses the term - they just use it. Those two citations are being used by Wikipedia editors as evidence that the term is used by particular groups. This is exactly what WP:OR prohibits: an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Icon of Evil

Does this source meet Wikiepdia's WP:RS criteria? It is published by a mainstream publisher (Random House), and co-authored by two academics, one is the Taube Research Fellow in American History at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author of nine other history books. The other is on the faculty of the Fromm Institute at the University of San Francisco, and is described as "an author, teacher, archivist, political consultant, and talk show host". It seems to me this meets all the requirements set out by WP:RS, but some editors are objecting to its use, even when the claims made in it are attributed to its authors and not stated as fact, on the grounds that it is "cruft", or that the authors are "quacks". NoCal100 (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a reliable source as far as I can see, though the authors' opinions should be attributed. Still, issues of undue weight etc apply to any content that might be added. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion and thought I would offer some thoughts - history is my own area of academic qualifications, and I have plenty of experience of reliable source issues. Icon of Evil is not suitable as a reliable source. WP:V#Reliable sources states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Icon of Evil does not appear to meet the last criterion; it has received very bad reviews (see Icon of Evil) which criticise it for bad scholarship and factual errors. This does not meet the standard that the source should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Additionally, I have been unable to find any other work that cites Icon of Evil as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Dalin is a minor academic, who held a post at Ave Maria University, before becoming Taube research fellow at the Hoover Institute (not exactly a non-political posting by the way). His books deal with mainly the history of Jewry in America. Rothmann has an MA in teaching from Whittier College, and is a talk show host in S Francisco, who occasionally lectures at the Fromm Institute. The book deals with Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, who has had several biographies by historians of the Middle East (Elpeleg, Sachar, Mattar etc.) The disputed point is about Dalin and Rothmann's use of a rumour circulating among Zionists in the 1920s to the effect that the appointment of al-Husayni to the office of mufti was the result of an intrigue by three secret homosexuals, Storrs, Richmond and al-Husayni. The problem is, (a) this is an extraordinary claim, and fringe, and therefore needs an very good source for it. (b) In the dozen sources I have examined, Al-Husayni's appointment is explained in terms of politics. No serious historian appears to take seriously, or mention let alone give credence to the 'rumour'. An article, on line, by Dalin, was pushed on the page for inclusion over a year ago. It had three mistakes in the first paragraph, visible even to a non-specialist. What distinguishes 'Icon of Evil' from serious works of scholarship on al-Husayni is that it revives and recycles the kind of garbage circulating as agitprot during the early years of Zionism, stuff historians, many of them Israeli, have now buried under the weight of close reading of archives, Amin's diaries, and other sources. If it's not treated seriously by Tom Segev writing for the New York Times, it shouldn't be acceptable to Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting case! The pedigree of the book (publishers, academic authors) looks impressive enough at first glance for one to say that this is a reliable source for wikipedia. However, as far as I can see, informed reviews of the book have been uniformly negative and have, in particular, criticized it for factual inaccuracies. That means we have multiple real-world reliable sources saying that this book is unreliable, and I don't think WP:RSN can overrule that. So, unless new evidence is brought to light, I would have to agree with ChrisO and Nishidani, that this book does not pass the WP:RS-test. Abecedare (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, I disagree. Aside from Tom Segev, I have not seen anybody who criticizes this book. On what basis do you claim, "informed reviews of the book have been uniformly negative and have, in particular, criticized it for factual inaccuracies. That means we have multiple real-world reliable sources saying that this book is unreliable." You seem to imply that more than one review has been cited. Just because one man doesn't like the book does not mean it is an unreliable source unfit for Wikipedia. --GHcool (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Icon of Evil for more reviews. They're all negative to a greater or lesser extent, differing only in how strongly they criticise the book. As Abecedare says, it is an interesting case, not least because it illustrates why it's necessary to consider all of the criteria for a reliable source - including reputation, which usually seems to get forgotten about. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It cannot be sourced for the cruft NoCal wants in. For the claim made is extraordinary, and therefore a book making that claim must have exceptionally good credentials to be harvested as a reliable source (a hitherto unknown homosexual cabal made cup of three married men conspired to get one of them into an administrative post. The biographies of all three, independently checked, give no such indications. The specialist scholarly literature does not mention the rumour either, and 10 sources give a completely political explanation of why al-Husayni was chosen.Nishidani (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
GHcool, please do look at Icon of Evil and the linked reviews, including ones by historians Tom Segev and Benny Morris, and by Simon Maxwell Apter, the assistant editor at Lapham's Quarterly.
We typically use the reputation of authors and publishers as surrogate measures to judge the reliability of a source, since we don't typically have any independent basis to judge the veracity of their claims. However in cases where we have reviews telling us that a work is essentially bad scholarship, we shouldn't pretend that we don't have that information and continue to use it as a, so called, reliable source. To give an (inexact) analogy: it would be wrong to cite the paper "Human basophil degranulization triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE" published in the premier scientific journal Nature, and authored by researchers at the French research institute INSERM, once subsequent events are known. Abecedare (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are heading down a slippery slope here, by suggesting that books that received negative reviews fail to meet WP:RS. The article Icon of Evil was rewritten by ChrisO today. 30 minutes after he finished his rewrite, he is posting here, making his case based on that rewrite. I have many issues with that rewrite, which appears to have cherry picked only the most negative reviews, in order to claim that 'Reviews for the book were generally poor'. A few examples:

  • That rewrite subjectively describes one review, on the Washington Times as "strongly critical". "strongly critical" is ChirsO's subjective evaluation of the review. As it turns out the Washington Times had another review - a much more detailed one - of the same book. This review is quite positive, saying the authors 'argue persuasively' and 'tell this story soberly and well'. It describe the book as 'the first serious biography of the mufti to appear in 14 years', and complains only that it is too short, encouraging the authors to "Greatly expand their research for a much larger second edition. The first edition is already valuable for the dark tale it tells. ". For some reason this review did not make it into the rewrite.
  • another review, by Publisher';s weekly says 'The authors draw persuasive links between al-Husseini and current contemporary events—notably the execution of journalist Daniel Pearl—giving this history a haunting relevance. ' - this too, did not make it into the rewrite.
  • there are several other reviews, some listed here which range from very critical, through neutral, to overtly positive. This range of opinion is not reflected in the rewrite.

My main point is not directly related to Icon of Evil, which might very well be a poor source for extraordinary claims about Husseini, but with the methodology proposed here, of disqualifying a book because it received some very negative reviews. Take, as an example The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. This book was torn to shreds by some reviewers. David Pryce-Jones in Literary Review pronounces "As history, the book is worthless." Seth J. Frantzman in Middle East Quarterly says of several of its passages that they are "a cynical exercise in manipulating evidence to fit an implausible thesis.", and that "As a work of scholarship, Pappé's book falls short, and it does so in a particularly damning way. He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evidence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring other sources entirely." Mordechai Bar-On was highly critical of the book, and called Pappe “a propagandist, not a historian.” So? Will we now remove it as re frence from the dozen or so articles it is used in? I think not. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The reviews mentioned in the article are not "cherry-picked" at all; they're what I was able to find using Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar. I'm not familiar with either Ilan Pappe or The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine so I can't speak about that specific case, but I would say that in general you should take into account what reviewers say about a work. Remember what I said above about reputation? If a particular work is highly debated or controversial, it needs to be treated with caution, especially if serious concerns have been raised about its accuracy. Of course, this gets a bit complicated when such concerns are raised for partisan reasons; think creationists arguing against Darwin, or climate change deniers denouncing Gore. But in the case of Icon of Evil, I was struck by the general agreement from across the political spectrum that this was, as Benny Morris puts it, "a bad book". -- ChrisO (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It may be that my Google searching skills are vastly superior to yours, and that I utilized them to find elusive reviews that by chance happen to be positive, but I am skeptical of this. I did not spend much time on this, did not search Google Books nor Google News nor Google Scholar, and all the reviews I found were available on the first or second page of a Google search for '"Icon of Evil" reviews' or some simple variation of it. It is particularly revealing at least one of the reviews you included, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, is cited not to the WSJ, but rather to the official web site of Icon of Evil - where it appears right next to the favorable Washington Times review that somehow eluded you. But that is not the point. Whether due to deliberate cherry-picking, sloppy research or incompetence, the end result is that the rewrite of Icon of Evil you performed resulted in a very one-sided presentation of the actual spectrum of opinion about the book - a problem that I will remedy shortly. Once fixed, the article will show some highly critical reviews, some highly positive ones, and some neutral ones - and rest assured this will be the case for just about every book about a controversial subject, since as you note, such topics often lead to criticisms raised for partisan reasons, alongside praise due to opposite partisanship. That is why I made my original point - that the minute we start disqualifying books because several critics found flaws in it, we are heading down a slippery slope that undermines the basis of our WP:RS policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone really wish me to deconstruct the ignorance underwriting Martin Sieff's review. He's forgotten, apparently, what he studied in gaining a Master's Degree in modern history in 1972, perhaps because he's basically a journalist. It starts with this impressively false passage, which means he does not touch base with the specialist work on Amin (see the bibliography on the wiki page) done on him. He is no longer demonized, as he was by Zionist historians down to the 70s. This means to Sieff that he has become 'invisible'. No. He has merely resumed his proper place in history, and lost the notoriety of the constructed image as Hitler's Moriarty in Palestine. Note:-

Haj Amin el-Husseini has been the Invisible Man of modern Middle East history: Academic courses across Britain, the United States, the European Union and even in Israel over the past 60 years have failed to do more than mention him.

I'll be quite happy to cite the simple factual mistakes which abounds in Sieff's review itself, factual mistakes which show his lack of grasp of the subject was not remedied by reading 'Icon of Evil'.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not interested in your original research attempting to 'deconstruct the ignorance underwriting Martin Sieff's review', nor should anyone else who is editing in accordance with wikipedia policy be. We report what reliable sources say, and if we can quote James Srodes's critical review from the Washington times without attempting to 'deconstruct the ignorance underwriting' it, we can do the same for Sieff's review, which appears in the same paper. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Praise for Icon of Evil can be found, not surprisingly, on the back of the hardcover first edition 2008. It includes praise from: Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum; David Frum, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Dov S Zakheim, former US undersecretary of defense; Douglas J Feith, former US undersecretary of defense for policy, and author of War and Decision; Uri Bar-Ner, former Israeli ambassador to Turkey; Ruth Gruber, author of Exodus 1947; Joseph Telushkin, author of A Code of Jewish Ethics; Jonathan D Sarna, author of American Judaism.Tanbycroft (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Nearly all of them proponents of the Islamic = Nazi equation, and not one of them a competent historical specialist on the period or person.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
David Frum and Douglas Feith? Are you trying to be humorous? Dlabtot (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. What exactly is it that qualifies two neoconservative politicians to comment on this particular issue? Tarc (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
they're probably at least as qualified as some anonymous Kirkus Reviews reviewer, or as Simon Maxwell Apter of Lapham's Quarterly, or James Srodes of The Washington Times. (that 3 of the 5 negative reviews, if you're keeping score). Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the second time in 2 days,Canadian Monkey, that you have accused me of 'original research' when I am simply referring to the known facts attested by undisputed reliable sources, facts you know nothing about, and hence revert or challenge on pages out of some other obscure principle, that bespeaks indifference to close study of pertinent books. When you cited Sieff's review, I examined it, and counted 15 errors. Those are errors that no one who complains, in his incipit that scholarship has neglected Mohammad Amin al-Husayni in recent decades, would make. That statement presumes he has some intimate knowledge of the area's scholarship. It is not my 'original research' to note that when Sieff remarks then that:-

The mufti had been jailed by the British for 15 years only a few months before for inciting a bloody pogrom against Jewish inhabitants of the Old City of Jerusalem only the year before in 1920.

He confuses, unaccountably, Vladimir Jabotinsky, al-Husayni’s adversary, with al-Husayni. Al-Husayni was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the 1920 riots, but fled to Syria, and was never jailed. Jabotinsky got 15 years and was jailed. Samuel gave them both an amnesty.
Anyone who had read the wiki article would have known that 15 years was a mistake. Anyone who was, as Sieff feigns to be, familiar with the following sources (which have been used in drafting the wiki page) would have known that this was a whopping bloomer, proving that its author, the reviewer, Martin Sieff, was himself incompetent to judge the quality of Dalin and Rothmann's work, and could hardly be adduced as evidence the work was to be taken as a reliable source. It's quite Nabokovian: an unreliable narrator appraising unreliable narrators.
(1) Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, Fayard, Paris vol.2, 2002 p.509
(2) Sahar Huneidi, Walid Khalidi, A Broken Trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians 1920-1925, I.B.Tauris, 2001, p.40
(3)Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin Al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement, Columbia University Press, 1992 rev.ed. p. 17
(4) Taysīr Jabārah, Palestinian Leader, Hajj Amin Al-Husayni, Mufti of Jerusalem, Kingston Press, 1985 p.21
(5)Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood,Beacon Press Reprint, 2007 p.69
(6) David K. Fieldhouse, Western Imperialism in the Middle East 1914-1958: 1914- 1958, Oxford University Press, 2006 p.158
These are all sources uses on the page, and everyone pushing for Dalin hasn't apparently read any of those sources. I am, yes I’ll admit it, really getting tired of something no wiki rule or mode of arbitration seems to be able to cope with. I must have spent some 100 hours working to bring at least the first half of that one article into respectable shape. Just one one source, Laurens, runs to about 2,000 pages, and cost an arm and a leg to purchase. Now I and one or two longtime editors suddenly have to fight off an eminently silly piece of partisan scandal-mongering, put in by a newbie, from a third-rate pulp scholarship source, and the usual band is now rallying the troops. All of a sudden NoCal100, Tanbycroft, and Marktunstill and CanadianMonkey have jumped in to a page where they have never edited, showing by the evidence they adduce (approving Sieff without noticing the review is rife with elementary historical slips) trolling for a revert battle. I don’t mind GHCool being there, for he, like myself, will examine evidence and concede or compromise, even if, in this case, he's out of his zone of specialized knowledge (1948). I have of course no proprietorial rights over the page, but I do happen to know the literature, even if it embarrasses me to say it. None of these people seem to know anything, except what they have read from Dalin and Rothmann’s trivial pastiche of clichés, or from what they have seen cited from it. So yes, I’m prepared at this point to voice Eleland’s infamous commendation. It simply isn’t worth the candle to undergo harassment of this kind from blow-ins with a POV-pushing chip on their shoulder, who know nothing about the period, the person, but everything about how to troll for futile bouts of tagteaming and wikistalking, with the usual boring bunfights, and the usual sanctions. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. And, yeah, go and whinge to some arbitration court about WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc. I probably do need a wiki-suspension in the range of Jabotinsky’s sentence.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If you keep using original research as arguments, I will keep calling you on it. When you write "I examined it, and counted 15 errors." - you are acknowledging original research. Please edit in accordance with this fundamental Wiki policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If a book says Hitler was born in 1892, discussed logic with Wittgenstein at Linz, may have studied painting under Gustav Klimt, rose to the rank of colonel in WW1, won the 1933 elections, and wrote out an order for the Endlösung, it is not 'original research' to note that, since nothing there corresponds to the best historical sources, the book, or whoever reviews it with praise, is ignorant of the subject it deals with. Fuck me dead. At my age, do I really have to put up with this crap?Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to participate in this project, you have to play by its rules. One of those rules is "no original research' - which includes personally going over material published in a reliable source and attempting to "deconstruct" it. No one is forcing you to put up with anything at your age, but we don't give out waivers for the aging, either. If you can't play nice with the other kids, find another sandbox, please. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
'Call me' on anything you like. I won't pick up the phone. One rule you overlook is that people who don't know what they are talking about shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. I don't play in sandboxes. I leave that to the Sandmen, who abound. vis. those named above. Goodnight, goodbye etc.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The rule that 'people who don't know what they are talking about shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia.' may be a good one, but, like it or not, it is not currently one of the rules of this project. That's why I suggested a different sandbox for you - perhaps you will be more at home editing at a project like Citizendium. It seems that editing here is causing you a lot of emotional pain - so I am making this suggestion in all sincerity. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nishidani is clearly overtired and emotional and I doubt very much his ability to be neutral in this discussion. I also note with disappointment his tendancy to argumentativeness unaccompanied by an inclination to edit except to undo and censure. If he is going to make a constructive contribution then he should then he should include "drafting" in his notion of editing and try to resist the temptation to dismiss authors of whom he personally disapproves. Regrettably, his conduct, comments and intemperate language suggest attempted censorship and an effort to stifle legitimate free speech; neither attempt should be tolerated.Tanbycroft (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just popping in here to deconstruct some apparent complete misunderstanding of No original research. This policy prohibits what content may be placed on a Wikipedia article. It prevents editors from adding their personal findings or interpretations (also prohibited by NPOV anyway). So I have to very emphatically say that WP:OR does not restrict editorial decisions about which sources are reliable or appropriate for an article. You'll notice that the guideline explicitly affects only articles and only the content therein. Behind the scenes original research to filter out bad sources is not and never has been prohibited. So if an editor claims to have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in a questinable source, it is best for Wikipedia to actually consider it instead of digging one's head into the ground. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Re User talk:Nishidani|talk 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC): with its intemperate language, this constitues a form of vandalism and Nishidani is invited to apologise to editors and readers.Tanbycroft (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For extraordinary claims, I'd say it would need to be cited as a source of opinion, not fact, e.g. "In their book Icon of Evil, authors David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann claimed that..." Of course, this would leave the question of whether the extraordinary claim was notable enough for inclusion in the article in the first place. If this book were the only source of the claim, it would be hard to justify its inclusion in an article. Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. In addition to WP:V#Reliable sources, I think Wikipedia:Fringe theories also has to be invoked. I can't claim any expertise on this matter, as I don't know the history involved, but it appears that Icon of Evil is being used to support a claim that mainstream historians reject. If you look at what Tom Segev - an actual historian - says in his review of the book, he singles for criticism out the very claim that editors are trying to add to the disputed article. WP:UNDUE is also of relevance here. Note in particular the following: "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." (bolding added) I am unaware of any evidence that the POV put out in Icon of Evil has any wider support - as I said earlier in this discussion, I was unable to find any other reliable sources (other than reviews of the book itself) that cited the book. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The unreliability of this source is rather clearly established by now, as it does not at all reach the "exceptional sources" threshold. So the only avenue left for the book's proponents would perhaps be WP:FTN, and see if there are any other reliable sources that could elevate this claim above a fringe theory. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, no. what's been established is that it can't be used, on its own, for extraordinary claims. Nothing more, nothing less.Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already raised it at the FTN - see WP:FTN#Homosexuals in mufti (apologies for the pun!). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, yes. The reason that it cannot be used on its own is because it is unre...wait for it...liable. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Agian, no. It is because extraordinary claims require a higher bar, which this book does not pass. But there is nothing in this discussion that say the book itself is unreliable in general. Quite the opposite. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, yes. The critical reviews of this rubbish pan it in totality, while noting the particular odiousness of the homosexuality claim. If this is used as a source in any other part of the project, it should be removed in favor of a more reliable source. Tarc (talk)
No. There are critical reviews, neutral reviews, and positive ones. Even the critical reviews are, for the most part, mostly critical of the thesis that modern-day Islamic leaders have a "lineage" that can be traced back to the mufti, and to the inclusion of a chapter that is a speculative "what if Germany had own WWII", but at the same time make it clear that the parts discussing the actual events related to Husseini's biography are uncontroversial. Only one of the reviews even mentions the homosexuality claim. Do take the time to actually read the material you are commenting about. More importantly, the discussion on this page does not lead us to the conclusion that it is an unreliable source - only to the conclusion that it does not meet the high bar required for extraordinary claims, such as the one about his homosexuality. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What makes you believe that it is a reliable source? I remind you that the burden is on editors who wish to use sources to demonstrate their reliability, not on other editors to disprove it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It is written by two academics in good standing, and published by a mainstream press that has a good reputation. One of the academics is an historian, and currently holds a prestigious position of research fellow at one of the world's leading universities (Stanford). The book has received positive reviews describing it variously as "valuable"; "[a]n insightful examination of a rarely studied aspect of World War II" ; "the first serious biography of the mufti to appear in 14 years"; "exceptional"; "on target" and "soberingly truthful and to the point". It also received some critical reviews, but those criticisms focused primarily on the inclusion of one chapter which is self-described as a hypothetical "what-if" exercise by the authors, and on the book's thesis that a direct line can be drawn from the Mufti to modern-day Islamic leaders, a thesis that has been described as "over-reaching" and 'significantly weaker' than the rest of the book - but having a reviewer disagree with a thesis advanced by an academic is not grounds for deciding that book is not relaible. Oh, and yes, there are some factual errors in the book. Show me a book of history that has none. Canadian Monkey (talk)
All those remarks come from blurbs, or friendly hype, none from accomplished experts in the field. Nearly all of it comes from partisans who seem to confuse politics with scholarship. Secondly Rothmann is not an academic in any serious sense of the word. Thirdly, Dalin is, in so far as he has expertise, an expert in American Jewry, has never held a chair in Middle Eastern studies, and is a research fellow at the Hoover Institute, not for his contributions to the field of Middle Eastern history, which is brimful of high quality scholarship precisely on the subject where he intrudes as a rank outsider. The only historian in that field who, as far as we know, has deigned to look at their contribution, Tom Segev, dismissed it as polemical and unreliable. Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What I find incomprehensible is the variation in interpretation of WP:RS according to context in I/P articles. I once introduced an edit from David Shulman, who has a chair in Sanskrit in an Israeli University, is a known peace activist, fluent in Arabic and Hebrew, with a background in peace studies and ethnography, who spent several years in the Occupied Territories, who then wrote up the results in a very well received book, finely commended by Avishai Margalit in the New York Review of Books, published by the University of Chicago, and yet User:Jayjg argued till the cows came home that this could not be used because Shulman was not an area specialist, and the claim was 'extraordinary'. The first part of the discussion in here and flowed on to the next archive. This quote made the settler movement look bad, and was rejected on an extremely strict reading of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Okay, what may tarnish Israel's image is subject to the strictest tests. If however something from a shoddy piece of hackwork, one of whose authors is a radio talk show host in Frisco, the other an historian, of poor credentials, with no qualifications in Middle eastern history, which was slammed by a senior Israeli historian as unreliable in the New York Times, and puffs a rumour no scholar has taken seriously, if this makes a Palestinian figure look bad, then all standards are dropped, wikilawyering enters with a swagger, and suddenly the rules are changed. Though I think I was correct in suggesting Shulman was a RS, I never pushed this against consensus, onto the article. Here crap is being pushed, against consensus, where there is not a shadow of doubt that the source is unreliable, the authors not qualified, and the content is mere partisan hearsay. You can't have it both ways. Either the principle at stake is consistently applied, or one is just engaged in image-manipulation for political advantage.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

'Oh, and yes, there are some factual errors in the book. Show me a book of history that has none. Canadian Monkey

Some factual errors? Have you read Dalin's book, then?
This is an example of how, without even Rothmann to blame, and Rothmann knows next to nothing of Middle Eastern history, Dalin writes on the Mufti in an earlier article that Armon and Zeq supported. Just one paragraph. Worse still, Dalin's article was cited for Wiki from an Adelaide antisemitic site. We got rid of it.
David Dalin, ‘Hitler’s Mufti’. Dalin here uses Kenneth R. Timmerman as an authority on the Mufti. Timmerman is a novelist, ex-Fatah prisoner, exponent of yellow journalism and conservative Republican activist, better known as the author of ‘Shakedown;Exposing the real Jesse Jackson'. In two paragraphs, this is what Dalin asserts.
'al-Husseini was born in Jerusalem in 1893
His career as an anti-Semitic agitator and terrorist began on April 4, 1920, when he and his followers went on a murderous rampage, attacking Jews on the street and looting Jewish stores. He was subsequently convicted by a military tribunal of inciting the anti-Semitic violence that had resulted in the killing of five Jews and the wounding of 211 others.
Sadly, the British—recognizing his status among the Palestinians—disregarded his record and appointed him to the prestigious post of grand mufti of Jerusalem in 1922, which made him both the religious and political leader of the Palestinian Arabs. Only two months after his appointment, his propaganda, including a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, precipitated a second anti-Jewish riot in Palestine. On August 23, 1929, al-Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safad.'
It requires no original research, but merely the requisite background reading and knowledge of reliable sources, to spot immediately the following:-
  • He was not born in 1893. But, according to the most authoritative modern sources give 1895 or 1897
  • He was neither an anti-Semitic nor a terrorist in 1920 (all authoritative sources).
  • He did not go on a ‘murderous rampage’. A crowd did.
  • He did not attack Jews on the street. A crowd did.
  • He did not loot Jewish stores. Thugs did.
  • He was not convicted of inciting anti-Semitic violence, but of being responsible for inflaming Arabs who, in a protest against Zionism, subsequently went on a rampage.
  • The British did not recognize his status among ‘Palestinians’. He had none. They appointed him mufti to compensate the al-Husayni clan for their lost of the prestigious position of majors of Jerusalem. It was a balancing act between 'notables' in Palestine.
  • His propaganda did not precipitate a second anti-Jewish riot in Palestine in 1922.
  • He did not have a ‘new’ translation into Arabic of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ in 1922. A partial version was translated and printed in Damascus from the French first edition, the year before, 1921 and al-Husayni had nothing to do with that.
  • The first full Arabic version, Mu’amarat al al-Yahudiyya ‘ala-‘l-shu’ub, was the work of Anton Yamin, a Lebanese Maronite priest, and was published in Cairo in 1925. Christians were most active in the introduction into the Arab world of this crap, and it was this version which the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Barsalina, told his Christian congregation to buy in the mid 1920s. Uncomfortable facts that people like Dalin, with his work in vindicating a Pope who scarcely lifted a finger to help Jews in the midst of the Holocaust, ignore while rewriting history to make out ‘Muslims’ are intrisically antisemitic
  • Al-Husayni did not lead a massacre of Jews in Hebron (a Nashashibi clan area) nor Safed.
  • 6o Jews were not massacred in Hebron. 59 died on the first day. Several more, either grievously wounded, or very old, died of their wounds or shock-induced heart attacks in the nfollowing weeks. The number overall varies from 64-67 in all modern sources.
  • 45 Jews were not killed at Safed. 18 were, 15 on the day. (On this the relevant wiki pages are inadequate. See David Hacohen, Time to Tell: An Israeli Life, 1898-1984, Associated University Presses, 1985 pp.37-40)
I.e. 13 false or incorrect remarks in just the opening two paragraphs of Dalin 's diatribe. These are elementary schoolkid's errors, of dates, of simple facts easily checked, even by just glancing at wiki articles which are indeed, if bad, better sourced that Dalin or his sources. If Dalin can't get a date right, or a death toll in Safed (universally known by anyone interested in Palestinian history) right, is he to be trusted with a moribund rumour? Anyone can cross-check this. But I presume that this sort of slapdash polemical pastiche of history is one reason why Tom Segev dustbinned it in his review. Most serious historians probably won't even trouble themselves with it. Are we really serious in suggesting a precedent be set for allowing this kind of rubbish as a source. If so, then the whole of the book will then be used to create endless editorial conflict.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Refocusing the discussion

Does this source meet Wikiepdia's WP:RS criteria?

No. I want to be clear about my opinion here, I think my earlier comment may have been misinterpreted. Dlabtot (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Canadian Monkey here. What we have here seems to be a new and highly controversial book that makes some extraordinary claims that draw dangerously close to WP:REDFLAG. However, this book is not a blog, and it does have some academic credentials. I think the solution here should be to attribute those extraordinary claims to the authors per WP:ASF (e.g. "According to Dalin and Rothman, in their book Icon of Evil,...). -- Nudve (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
That isn't compatible with WP:UNDUE, an essential part of WP:NPOV. To quote Jimmy Wales himself, "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." Ask yourself if you would find a fringe viewpoint in a Britannica biographical article - obviously you wouldn't. Not everything that is in print is suitable for inclusion in a mainstream encyclopedia article. I have posted some questions at Talk:Mohammad Amin al-Husayni#Questions for the editors which address this and related points - please feel free to comment there. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. One problem with attributing the claim to the author: apparently this book (icon of evil) got bad reviews from other scholars. So, if we are to attribute the claim to the book, we need to make it very clear to the reader that this book got bad reviews and criticisms. i.e: (icon of evil) claims so and so, however the book got was heavily criticized. Which I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic. Imad marie (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASF starts out with:'Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." The information is a rumour, evidently concocted to smear three people almost a century ago, and not a fact. Of all modern sources, fully familiar with the 'facts', none I know of mentions it. The only recent book on the mufti to mention it is written by people with no formal qualifications in Middle Eastern history. Hence the dominant issues are WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, neither of which would seem to back the inclusion of this source on the page.

What do you want to source exactly ?

Dalin, Icon of Evil is exactly on the same level as Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. The reasons are that these authors have political agendas (they don't hide this) and come with "controversed" analysis or conclusions. I would personnaly not use them to report facts but try to find better ones, such as Zvi Elpeleg and Philip Mattar for what concerns the Mufti and as Benny Morris or Nur Masalha for what concerns the 1948 Exodus.
Nevertheless, wikipedia offers us no real tool or rule to start selecting which academic source would be right and which one would not.
As a consequence, I would suggest :

  • when a fact is concerned, to try to find better sources that Dalin or Pappé
  • when an analysis is concerned, to attribute this and to give the other's scholar analysis on the same issue, if any.

I have a question : it was asked several time if this book was a wp:rs source. But a wp:rs source for what fact ? If it is about general relativity, they are not ! What would you like to source with this ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@Ceedjee - I think you're quite wrong about "Wikipedia doesn't offer us tools to select sources", since, by general acclaim, nobody would reference David Irving for anything. Why not - because he was convicted of holocaust denial? No, he's never been so convicted - in fact, there is only one serious historian ever so convicted, and we're still using him.
The reason we don't use this assiduous and important researcher is because he's known for two very serious failings, which we know are normally linked. Irving falsified the content of his sources and panders to hatred. (Much later, our suspicions were underlined by the comments of a judge in a civil case).
And the same principles will apply throughout articles that we edit. Under no circumstances should we be using Joseph Schechtman, who, in his book The Arab Refugee Problem says: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated". (Schechtman also created a number of "original sources" for propaganda effect). When we're looking at recent books and web-sites, we should use those that speak of "Palestinian duplicity" the same day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". PRtalk 09:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Not quite on a par, my friend. Ilan Pappé held a senior post at Haifa University, specialized in the history of Palestine, is fluent in both Hebrew and Arabic, and has a chair in history at a major British University, Essex University, in addition to having written 9 books on Middle Eastern history. He is an area specialist. I and you might disagree with his methodology, or his conclusions: he is an interpretive historian, like Dalin. But Dalin has no such background in Middle Eastern history, does not know Arabic (a major source of Pappé's alternative reconstructions; and indispensable source if you are going to write about the life of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni), and Dalin quotes an awful amount of dubious journalism by political activists, as well as old sources. Pappé's method are distinct from Dalin's.
As you your questions. This has nothing to do with 'facts' but a rumour. There is, further, no analysis in Dalin of this rumour, which he asserts as a fact. We have neither facts nor analysis, but an unanalysed rumour asserted as a fact in a source that is written by non-specialists, of of whom is not even an historian, but a talk-show host.
It is also asserted, rather than argued, that Dalin is a WP:RS for the life of Husayni, and specifically for the rumour he gained the position of mufti through a homosexual liaison with two other married men, British administrators. Since, as you often have argued in the past on the page, Elpeleg, Mattar (and several others) have written detailed bios, and they are specialists, one must ask why Dalin's potboiler, recycling poor material from exclusively Zionist propaganda and polemics from several decades ago, should be considered on a par, or as supplementing authoritative biographies which have superceded the poor scholarship and fictions of an earlier era. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well. Dalin is not a wp:rs source for that. Does he give his sources ?
If it can be sourced from a wp:rs source that is is a *rumor*, I would suggest to write in the article that : "Dalin gives faith (from French "donner foi" ; ie "reports without justification") to the rumor that Amin al-husseini...".
Nb: about Pappé, that just gives full discredit to the whole staff of Exeter. It is no a question of "I like or I don't like". He doesn't even just make mistakes. He just lies. Ceedjee (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't discredit anyone. Karsh thinks Morris as bad an historian as Pappé, and accuses him of the very faults you, who hold Morris in great esteem, accuse Pappé of. The modern world accepts as a premise of civility and its civilisation, as does wiki, that there is a manifold of ways to interpret anything. Controversial historians don't necessarily lie: they accentuate ideas and facts their peers undervalue, and perhaps ignore what those same peers emphasize. Much is being made in one article recently under discussion here of the refusal to offer transit passes and papers to Jews fleeing from Nazism. The person noting this ignores the fact that both Israel and Arab countries do the same thing to Palestinians, refuse them sanctuary, refuge, assimilation and the security of an identity.
The editor is so totally focused on the wrongs to his own ethnic group he cannot see the analogy, he can only array the facts that bear on the atrocious indifference of European goverments, esp. Great Britain, to the plight of the Jewish refugees in WW2. It little matters that, to satisfy his solution, 3 million refugees in Palestine, the same plight would have reoccurred with the native population. Pappé sees such things, (Morris doesn't) and it colours his interpretation of the mainstream Zionist representation of history. There is a good deal of politics in all this: Pappé is not the only one whose career has experienced difficulties because of political pressure. I know, personally, several cases, from all over the political spectrum. I know of two very good Japanese historians who had their careers threatened, once by the yakuza acting for the LDP, another by the magnate who financed research, Norman Finkelstein is a case in point. No one, except AD who is a bizarre liar retaining a chair at Harvard, doubts his record of close checking of sources. He lost his bid for tenure simply because his interpretation embarrassed people. Pappé is caught up in this. If he is deemed to 'lie' then a good many of his peers on the conservative side of Middle eastern history 'lie', in the sense they wittingly dismiss or ignore important facts. As for Dalin, he does not 'lie': he's simply incompetent in this area, has never read any primary materials in Arabic (a requisite now, as Laurens shows) draws on unfounded, extraordinary rumours, often from journalistic reportage, ones that circulated to discredit adversaries, and then died a natural death, should not have a place in an article that must deal succinctly with someone's career. Indeed, it is obvious the desire to put it there is to discredit both the British and al-Husayni on the page, not to honour history. It's a bit like someone waging war on the Ze'ev Jabotinsky page to plunk in details about his mentally defective son. That kind of stuff is neither here nor there, even though, in this instance, it is a fact, not a rumour. It is not relevant to a terse summary of his life and work. Examples of using history to fish for smear material could be cited ad infinitum. al-Husayni's record, from the mid-thirties, is not a good one, and hardly needs this kind of scraping the barrel to make it look worse.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My two cents is that for the claim of homosexuality, redflag would be the appropriate policy, since this is a "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Until and unless it is covered by mainstream sources, it should be left out of the article. However, for other issues the book has not got such "bad" reviews. Tom Segev doesn't like it for political reasons. Most of the reviews acknowledge that it is well researched but feel it is overly political and biased. This is not uncommon for a work documenting fairly contemporary history. Thus I say, ok for historical points, not for exceptional claims that they are the first and only to document, such as homosexuality. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've shown time and again on that page that Dalin can't get even his dates right, let alone who did what to whose 'date' (see any slang dictionary) in the hysterical frecklepuncher's triangle conjured up by Dalin and Rothman. If you have any sources which say that a serious historian like Tom Segev, who knows this stuff inside out, and isn't known for carelessness, gave the thumbs-down for political reasons and not simply because he got bored pencilling in corrections on a sloppy piece of character assassination by amateur orientalists, by all means provide them. The 'reviews' cited are not by area specialists but by chums in the talk circuit. The fundamental reason why Dalin should not be used is that the area, and Husayni's life, has been covered with a microscope by specialists in Israel and abroad, and since we have an abundance of excellent sources, which cover the period and the man from a variety of perspectives, third-rate hackwork has no place on the page. Whatever Dalin might have that is true, will be found in those sources. Editors, unless they are familiar with the diapason of critical scholarship, in using Dalin's book, probably will not be able to sift the rare wheat from the abundant chaff. RS calls for the best sources, and here there is a foison to pick from.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Those are remarkably misleading claims, Tundrabuggy - "Tom Segev doesn't like it for political reasons. Most of the reviews acknowledge that it is well researched." That's simply not true. Segev certainly says it is politically harmful, but he also disputes the authors' assumptions and criticises the quality of their research. He says specifically that "the lack of solid evidence" - not the political harm, note - "is the main problem throughout the book." Most of the other reviewers say very similar things. Benny Morris criticises "the poverty of their scholarship". David Pryce-Jones and Martin Sieff criticise the authors for ignoring all the non-English sources. John R. Bradley criticises the authors' "truly shoddy scholarship". Most of the reviewers criticise the suppositions and speculations of the authors. I don't think I've seen a single review of the book which is completely positive, and the vast majority are critical. It's simply dishonest to claim otherwise. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Using a blog to reference information on illegal online activity?

I'm curious as to what you think about TorrentFreak (it has an article at TorrentFreak). It is a self-published blog dedicated to online filesharing, and gives a strong focus on reporting information regarding illegal online activity, like transferring movies online and such. The website is definitely one of the most, if not the most, popular websites dedicated to illegal online filesharing, but because of its nature, I don't think it can really ever be considered a "professional" website—but the website's writers are certainly "experts" in their field. There are hundreds of reliable sources that reference the website; about 156 on Google News, and a few on Google Books. "Scene stealer: The aXXo files" from The Independent is a particularly good article that mentions the website several times.

The site doesn't share copyright material, just discuss it. In particular, they have a lot of interviews with people in the industry—not just people who trade software online, but also with people who work for government agencies and organizations like the MPAA and RIAA who are charged with preventing piracy, so those can be very useful. A lot of the material is similar to The Indendent article I linked above. Also, I don't plan to include it in just any article; I'd like to use it in articles such as aXXo and The Pirate Bay, both which are about software piracy, so TorrentFreak is very relevant in these cases. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say it could be used as a self published source (with all that entails). They are definitely the recognized experts. It's a mildlly close call, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, when I asked User:Ealdgyth about it, she said that ultimately she would let others decide on the reliability of the sources if it were ever used at FAC. So, I guess some people are on the fence with this one. I am of course hoping that I can use it as I think it's reliable in its own field, and because it has a lot of useful information for related articles. Gary King (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
While it is a mildly close call, I would say it's acceptable. Just be careful with BLP stuff (like with any source). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Digital publisher / expert author / can this source be reliable?

I would like a second opinion on this source. I believe that in context it passes reliability criteria, but if it does not I can find other sources, but I would really prefer not to. The source in question is this book on Google Books which is a book published by "Digital Scanning, Inc" and appears to be a small-town print-on-demand type operation. (This is a book on local history, so there may not be much of a market for it.) It's available on Amazon, though I know that doesn't mean much.

  • Factors against it: It's not a paper publishing house and may not have the same level of academic rigor. I could see this as violating WP:RS: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process. I can't speak to the publication process.
  • Facors for it: Jack Dempsey, the author, has a Ph.D. in Early and Native American Studies from Brown University. This appears to satisfy WP:RS: their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Also, he is a former professor at Wheaton College. (English department, not History department, however.)

My feeling is that the authority of the author here trumps the potential lack of authority in the publisher and that this source is "reliable". Can I please have a second or third opinion? The article this refers to is Wessagusset Colony. JRP (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this in the abstract. It's basically a self published source. What matters if he is a recognized expert. Has he been published in peer reviewed journals? Or non self published books? I don't think just being a professor is enough, but there's a good chance he's been published in stuff that would qualify him as an expert. Also, if he's published, it has to be in the same area of study. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Basically, you're best bet is to find that he's been published in peer reviewed journals on the subject (he probably has). If he hasn't, that's a red flag. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the guy shares a name with a famous boxer, so searching for him is trickier than it might be. JSTOR finds one article of his in a peer-reviewed journal (Reading the Revels: The Riddle of May Day in New English Canaan), but that's sadly not pertinent to Wessagusset. (About ten miles too far north and about five years later.) If this book isn't reliable, I'll live. JRP (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I would say that is pertinent, but if you can only find one, that's probably not enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You probably already know, but the minus sign "-" can remove results from searches. You might try "-boxing" or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Juan Cole's blog a RS?

Can someone help with the edit warring at MEMRI? The issue is whether Juan Cole's blog is acceptable under WP:SELFPUB for purposes of commenting om MEMRI. There is consensus that Cole's commentary is relevant to issues raised in the entry. WP:SELFPUB says:

[A] Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published 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.

and

[B] However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

Cole certainly qualifies under [A]. He's an established expert on the Middle East. He's an academic with many scholarly publications, he's published many articles in major newspapers and magazines such as the New York Times, he's frequently quoted in major news sources, and he appears on major radio and TV programs in the English-speaking and Arabic-speaking world.

The question is whether Cole is disqualified under [B]. Some editors read [B] as saying that Cole's blog "can't be used here". Others read the guideline provision that blogs "may sometimes be cited" as applying to Cole's blog.

The editors who oppose Cole read [B] as saying that, instead of quoting Cole's blog, we must find a reliable source that cites Cole. However, this subject, criticism of the Arab media, is specialized and most of the people who critique MEMRI are in Cole's position. So the alternative reading of [B] is that non-self-published sources are preferable but if they don't exist self-published sources are acceptable.

Does SELFPUB allow Cole's blog? Does it forbid Cole's blog? How do we decide? Nbauman (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's permissible so long as it is sourced solely as to Juan Cole's opinions, and so long as those opinions are not about living people. Your "alternative" reading of B is the correct one: we prefer non-SPS, but when it's not available for highly specialized areas like this, it's not unusual that the main opinion pieces are found on blogs, in which case we hold our nose where the author qualifies under (A). NB the WP:WEIGHT issue, though: the article shouldn't become a WP:COATRACK for Cole's criticism. THF (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
THF is correct (IMO) that it is a weight issue. Cole is certainly an expert for certain specific topic areas. However, he does not contain his thoughts to those topic areas. So long as we are careful to use his blog only where he is a noted expert and only in proportion to the significance of his views, we should be fine. In practice, that means use references to the blog sparingly. Protonk (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The page in question already lists numerous criticisms under the same section, from reliable sources. It is not at all clear why we should use a personal blog to repeat arguments that are already present in the article, in the very same section, from sources that are not problematic. Per Protonk, we should use blog sparingly - there does not seem to be any reason to do so in this case. NoCal100 (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

cole's criticism, which is included in the article, comprises one sentence/two lines. this "section" is clearly attributable to him. his arguments/observations were not existent there before, therefore it's not a repetition.--Severino (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Protonk NoCal100, the page cites Juan Cole as saying, "On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigotted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."
Cole reads Arabic, and he is in a unique position to tell us that MEMRI is selective in this way. I didn't see any other criticisms on the page which made this point. He's the only one who said that, even when there are side-by-side articles, MEMRI will choose the bigoted one and ignore the tolerant one. Who else said that? What specific criticisms are you referring to? Could you quote one? If it actually was duplication, you might have a case, but I think Cole is making a separate point. Nbauman (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
the section is titled 'selectivity', and two of the quotes in it, on eof which is by somone who reads and speaks Arabic better than Cole, make this exact point, that MEMRI is selective in choosing to highlight extreme views. There is nothing that the Cole quote, from his personal blog, adds to this section that is not already in it. NoCal100 (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
NoCal100, I don't understand what you're referring to. In my reading, the other quotes make different points. Cole said he saw Arabic sources with bigoted and tolerant viewpoints, and MEMRI chose only the bigoted viewpoint. He's the only one who said that. None of the other quotes said that. Could you copy the quotes here that you think said that? Nbauman (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
"MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world" - Hooper
"[MEMRI] consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it" - Lalami
Both these make the exact same point, and were published in reliable sources, so there's no need for Cole's quote, from his personal blog, making the same point. NoCal100 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I would agree. We use the SPS when we can't find the more conventional reliable source. Once we have it, there's no reason to use the SPS. THF (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

cole doesn't really make the same point as hooper and lalami. of course it too centers on selectivity - thats the title of the section. but his observation is not mirrored in the other statements.--Severino (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cole said, "On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a [bigoted] Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."
Hooper and Lalami do not make the "exact" same point. They're making the claim in general, while Cole gave specific examples. Cole gives a more specific, and therefore better, idea of what MEMRI does than Hooper and Lalami. Therefore, the Cole quote contributes to the article. Therefore, we should preserve it. Nbauman (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a material distinction between the Cole quote and the Hooper and Lalami quotes -- other than that the Hooper and Lalami quotes are not only in superior RS, but they're also more concise, and thus convey the same idea in fewer words, which any acolyte of Strunk & White would find preferable. But three editors fighting over this is a poor use of skilled resources. !Vote for one or two of the three quotes (depending on whether the length of the article supports that level of balance) and move on. THF (talk)
I'm an acolyte of Strunk & White, and I find Cole preferable. Strunk & White said to omit needless words. Supporting evidence is not needless words. Strunk & White said that writing should be specific. Cole was more specific. He said MEMRI found two opinion pieces side by side, one bigoted and one tolerant, and MEMRI used the bigoted piece and ignored the tolerant piece. Nbauman (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It's really a distinction without a difference, but I'm making the problem 33% worse by continuing that aspect of the discussion. The much larger problem is that, now that I look at it, the section is a set of competing WP:COATRACKs. The controversy section needs to be entirely rewritten. Since it does seem that the regular editors on the page have particular points of view they prefer, each side should pick the 200-250 words and five or six cites they like most, and then collaborate to weave it into one coherent set of prose rather than competing lists of quotes. THF (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how WP:COATRACK applies. That essay (not a guideline) says:
"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".
What's the nominal subject? What's the bias subject? Nbauman (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hooper and Lalami quotes are more concise and clear, and found in reliable sources. The Cole quote is overly wordy, and not found in a reliable source. I think the issue is pretty much settled. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

jayg, am I correct in assuming that you disagree with Cole? Nbauman (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can this online source be used if it is specified this is the site's view?

Hello, I'd like to know if I can use the following webpage in wikipedia dedicated to a musical genre.I know websites are to be used with caution in general. But I'd like to know if I can quote this page: [42] in specifying this is a view from a website like this:

The website "A Study of Gothic subculture" describes it as being "most characterized by soprano female vocals combined with bass, lead guitar, and drums which creates a surreal, angelic or otherworldly effect e.g...."

Also I have to specify this is not the only source I use, we also use published sources for this article. As I said I'm aware online sources have to be used with caution, but I just like to know if I can use it in specifying this is a view of this site.

Thanks in advance Fred D.Hunter (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that site has editorial control, or is notable.[43] Basically, it cannot be used. Sorry, I know defining genre's can be really difficult. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson (impresario) (yeah, again, sorry...)

Okay, here's the issue in a nutshell:

The March/April 2008 issue of NY Arts had an article by Angela Holm. Her byline for the article said:

Angela Holm is a San Francisco-based freelance writer and the Director of Productions at Big Sound, Inc., where she is currently working on the definitive restoration of the 1929 silent film, Pandora’s Box.

The initial version of Ferguson's article said (May 2008):

Ferguson formed Big Sound in 2006 as a means of realizing his ambitions to preserve and present classic silent films in a live setting. ... The German classic Pandora's Box — based on the restoration of the original film funded by Hugh M. Hefner — which starred the American actress and Jazz Age icon, Louise Brooks is the first of Big Sound's restoration efforts. Spearheaded by Ferguson and Big Sound's Vice President of Production Angela Holm, the project also enlisted The George Eastman House, a preeminent leader in film restoration, as its archival sponsor.

My thought: okay, Holm worked for Big Sound (based on her byline). Per the old version of the article, not only did she work for BS, but Ferguson started BS, and they worked together. Easy answer: it's obvious COI, and we can't use her piece as a source.

At a later point, research made it clear that there are no sources for that section at all—not that he founded BS, or even that it ever existed. Consequently, that section got cut. That's fine by me.

However, now an editor (one with an admitted conflict of interest) is claiming that this is trying to have it both ways: WP must either allow something to be in the article with no sourcing (the existence of BS) or WP must allow Holm's biased article to be used as a source (since our article no longer says she works for him).

My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true. I think it's a DUCK, and we can't use her piece as a source.

Your thoughts? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)



Response to DoriSmith re: David Ferguson (impresario) /Angela Holm false COI accusation

Re: DoriSmith is trying to cloud the RS discussion by again reintroducing as evidence something that she, herself, previously dismissed as unreliable due to lack of verification. Now she is straining to recycle the original David Ferguson (impresario) article to illustrate a COI between Angela Holm and the article's subject, David Ferguson.

To quote DoriSmith from above: "My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true."

Is this instinctive knowledge that Dori refers to corroborated by any verifiable third party source?? Funny...but I bet if another user tried that 'plenty of things...but we know to true' nonsense to substantiate or argue for the inclusion of a passage of text in an article, Dori would step in and challenge immediately and be most vociferous in her objection. For example, in addressing user 'Damesmartypants' (who has stocked Ferguson's Discussion page with potentially libelous commentary), DoriSmith wrote:

Could we please stop all talk about "go contact so-and-so" or "it's generally known by insiders" or similar language? If you want to do that kind of writing, go start a blog. That's not what WP is about. If you have any questions, read the above quotation again, and follow the links. How about we instead start discussing when would be a good cutoff for deleting all the stuff for which no one can find a cite? Or alternately, we could start editing the workpage I set up a few weeks ago. Right now, this article is still a disaster area. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that argument for verifiable sourcing seems to matter little. It was for those very reasons of improper sourcing that the Big Sound passage found in the original article was removed. Now DoriSmith wants to turn around and now use it as a fall-back position to defend what is an unfounded COI allegation. This hypocritical gesture should be confronted and the NY Arts article written by Angela Holm should be allowed to substantiate text for the David Ferguson (impresario) article.

Thank you for reviewing


DrJamesX (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Dori, Failing to properly substantiate a COI between Holm and Ferguson (and failing to properly provide a source for a connection between Ferguson and Big Sound) you instead try an over-reach on a different front. You have again improperly characterized my relationship with David Ferguson. Unlike 'uwishiwasjohng' I did not admit to COI in the passage you cite, as you falsely state above. In fact, I disputed 'uwishiwasjohng's COI accusation in this very passage :
And just to address any concerns of COI on my part. I'm not a 'sock puppet' or a 'meat puppet' (though if Kirkson asked me to join the band, I would seriously consider it). I'm not in the employ of Ferguson. I am an independent writer putting together a book on Ferguson and seek to maintain an appropriate professional distance from the subject
You can try to manipulate my acknowledgment of being an independent writer 'putting together a book on Ferguson' as COI but it doesn't fly. It is possible to write or engage in scholarship about a subject and maintain objectivity or a balanced point of view. Please refrain from trying to twist my words to your advantage and from issuing such baseless accusations.
DrJamesX (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Docstoc.com

Is this website acceptable for use as a reliable source? It seems like anyone could post there. The article is for BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and the link[44] is a legal document. I'm concerned it's being used as a primary source instead of what newsmedia are reporting in the high-profile case. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Using legal documents as primary sources is always a minefield, and should only be done with great care. That said, legal documents can be found hosted on many websites and when they are actual scans their veracity can be judged without much concern about which site is hosting them. However I see in this instance that the document is unsigned and doesn't have a clerk's stamp, so it could be a draft or an unsubmitted document. Regardless of the site hosting it, I'd say it's a dubious source. At best it gives the defense's lawyer's viewpoint but should not be relied upon for any factual matters.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It's only being cited for the defense lawyer's viewpoint. A large proportion of legal documents these days are physically unsigned because they are signed through electronic filing procedures. THF (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It's probably true that most documents are submitted eletronically nowadays but that has an impact on their verifiability from our viewpoint. While a scan of a signed and stamped document would be hard to casually alter, it'd take no great effort for anyone to produce a document like the one linked. How can we authenticate it?   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Authentication.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good. When the article is unlocked, we can replace the docstoc with the more reliable sfchron link. THF (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Question. How is sfgate publishing it make it authentic? Maybe they got it from Wikipedia?

Maybe we'll find out that Sfgate gets all of their news from Wikipedia, but for now they're considered a reliable source.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question. Is not this a primary source. Are no secondary sources available?(unsigned)

Yes -- documents are intrinsically "primary sources" about which reams of electronic paper have been used on the appropriate noticeboards. In practice, it means that you should only use the precise wording in the document, and avoid making any conjectures whatever otherwise. And if conjecture is needed, then you absolutely need a different source. IMHO. Collect (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case there are hundreds of reliable sources. Why are we trying to use any primary sources? Perhaps Wikipedia should wait until some reliable secondary sources report the material instead?

I think it could be very carefully used with inline sourcing for a statement of the ex-officer's position on bail. I would not use it for much else. Speaking as a lawyer, who has filed bond motions, they are pure and simple, advocacy. You're trying to put the judge in a favorable frame of mind towards what you want, which is to get your client out of jail with a minimum of bail. And sometimes the allegations you put in, in perfect good faith, don't turn out to be so, because you're acting with haste and an imperfect understanding of the facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is a primary source which is POV slanted it would seem better to leave it off. If it must be included then it should be matched u with corresponding POV primary sources representing the other legal side of the argument. It would probably be best to leave them both off and use reliable secondary sources instead. This case is wisely covered so why not a neutral summary in lieu of two POV statements from primary sources?

The RSN issue has been addressed; we should leave the content dispute on the talk page of the article to avoid WP:MULTI. THF (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There remains doubt if this is an authentic document even though a media source has also posted a copy. And it remains a primary source with an obvious bias. This is cited to at least five statement in the article. If reliable sources cover those statements then this is not needed. If they don't cover those statements then maybe the statements should be left out. There is eagerness to use faulty sourcing when we should instead focus on neutral writing.

It's not a reliable source to verify assertions made by the authors, but it is a reliable source for the fact that the authors have made those assertions.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been put in again[45] and even expanded when no consensus for the use has materialized. Maybe we should use secondary sources here instead of primary sources when there are so many available. This case is in the headlines regularly so there is little need for Wikipedia to quote court documents. This seem to go against neutrality. Also the talkpage discussion was favoring removing all the speculation and strip down the POV material.

You raise some valid concerns that would be appropriately mentioned at the article talk page. The only issue here at this page is whether the source is a WP:RS, and it seems to clearly be that. A leading California newspaper confirms the authenticity of the document. Incidentally, please sign each of your comments with four tildes(~). Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I followed the article talk page here, the discussion on the talk page favored leaving POV material out so I wondered why it was re-added. The discussion there leans towards bullying as far as I can tell so I do not wish to be a part of that. (~)

Werner Cohn "The Jews are Bad!" - reliable?

This book review:

http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html

Used in article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak

Issue:
[1] Web link is supposedly of his review published in Israel Horizons, but it seems to have been edited extensively. Postscripts, addendums - what else was changed?

[2] No way of telling whether or not this publication is widespread or respected enough to be considered reliable. The publisher Meretz does not give any circulation information, which sets off alarm bells for me. In my experience, any publication that doesn't trumpet its circulation numbers is usually very limited. Reputation is part of WP:RS - with few publications referring to the magazine (that I can find), should it really qualify, as is required by WP:RS, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?

[3] Amateurish writing style - for example, "I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find...". No identified expert referred to? His nephew? I couldn't get away with using my mommy as a reference back in grade 5. Should one really consider such a poorly written article to be WP:RS? Doesn't the amateurish writing indicate that it's not up to quality for use as a reliable source?

[4] The article completely misrepresents the facts - he states, "Gore Vidal tells us that an (unnamed) "American Zionist" brought Harry Truman two million dollars", where the actual introduction has it as a humorous anecdote - or in his words, "a funny story". Yes, yes - no original research. But the misrepresentation of facts seems to be enough grounds for it to bring into question it's applicability for use as a WP:RS, aside from use as a source of colorful and inflammatory language to use to discredit Israel Shahak, hopefully misleading any reader who doesn't take the time to check the actual material being referred to.

In a nutshell, my opinion is that it's an incredibly poor WP:RS, and really doesn't deserve mention in a Wikipedia article. More professional, informed sources are surely available; written by people who actually take their time to check with experts and present arguments which don't completely misrepresent the facts.

Or is it entirely valid to use any old published material, so long as it adheres to the bare minimum of WP:RS? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on the majority of this question, but if a book review appeared in a reliable source, use the reliable source, to an unreliable copy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, since it's such a tiny publication, it has no reputation to meet WP:RS guidelines, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - or does it say somewhere that the default reputation of any publication meets those standards and editors contesting it have to prove otherwise? Doesn't it say somewhere that the burden of proof on the shoulders of the editor adding the material - which implies that default state for an unknown publication is not reliable?
Being a reprint on the author's site, there's no way to verify its accuracy (what he puts on his web site as opposed to the edited and printed version) - WP:V seems to be questionable.
Really, these guidelines are kind of vague and sometimes contradictory. I'm not certain which side of the line this one falls on. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought Israel Horizons was a magazine (based on this very cursory search). We generally just call magazines reliable without requiring another source to say "they're reliable". Searches like this can help you tell how other sources feel. It looks like they're reliable, but no powerhouse. They've been around since 1952 and they look to be a real magazine, therefore probably reliable. They may be biased, in which case you want to attribute anything they say to them. They may be a tabloid, in which case they're not reliable for controversial material. Like I said earlier, I'm not getting to specific, but these are the things you look for, and I would say it is reliable. If you think the author is being shady, look to the magazine and not his website. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm taking a closer look. 1) use the magazine and not the website if the info is contested. 2) not listing circulation doesn't matter. If we removed all sources that don't list circulation, or left all the ones that did, that would be a poor way to judge sources. Ex. scholarly magazines vs. tabloids. As far as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", it meets it, but not by a mile. 3) Remarking on the writing style is commonly brought up here, and generally rejected as original research. We can't use our own opinions to decide reliability. 4) Sounds like OR, or more likely Synthesis. Basically, there may be several guidelines or policies that prohibit thie sources use, but I don't think RS (for the actual magazine article) is one of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, it's WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to look at the collective information availability, and judge whether or not a source is WP:RS? I thought they (OR and SYNTH) only applied to the actual integration of the source's information into the article, and not the evaluation of the source's reliability and relevance to the article. That pre-integration evaluation Wiki guidelines seemed to be to me, as I read it, more based on common sense than dictated rules.
Or am I wrong here - in that any source, no matter how partisan, fantastical or poorly researched, is valid for inclusion in an article so long as WP:RS bare minimums are met? It's against Wiki guidelines to take any stance to oppose their inclusion in an article (re:WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) - if the source isn't explicitly shown to fail WP:RS?
Would that be a correct interpretation? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It depends. A book review is, quite often, an opinion piece, even if it is not explicitly marked as such. This one surely is. It is, thus, reliable only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact. Opinions can be included if they are notable - that's a matter of editorial discretion and WP:WEIGHT, but they must be properly attributed ("According to so and so..."). I would not accept this for, say, a statement like "Shakak is a retired teacher" or "Shahak's nose is longer than Pinocchio's". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That's contradictory to what Peregrine says, however. If the source is WP:RS, then Wiki editors are required, unless they can show a specific reason (ex: uncited, clearly crackpot) to allow it in. If it's reliable, to cast any question or doubt is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH - it has to go in. So if one user thinks it's important to state the size of Shahak's nose - then if you complain - it's OR/SYNTH - he sticks it in, and there's no clear grounds for reverting it (and since he's put it in first, under 3RR it stays on as long as he wants it to). Questioning what's notable enough for entry into an article is, as Peregrine said - OR/SYNTH - so it's disallowed. Sooo.... there's no checks? No balance? It all comes down, ultimately, to sticking to your guns and getting in the first shot with a 3RR contest? Correct? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No, and I don't find your tone particularly helpful. Reliability depends on context. An opinion piece is usually a reliable source for an opinion, not for a fact. A NYT article is usually reliable for politics and events, but has to be taken with a shovel of sand for science. PNAS is usually good for science, but I would not accept it for the artistic quality of a painting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A polemicist prone to personal smears and exaggerations, not RS The clip in use at the article Israel Shahak is this one: "Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident." a review in 1994. I don't expect to see writing like this in an encyclopaedia, not even if the views of Werner Cohn were notable and Shahak was a fringe politician or notorious propagandist, publishing for political effect. (and neither is the case).
According to another notorious polemicist, Werner Cohn goes to great effort to link Noam Chomsky to the views of a Holocaust Denier for whom Chomsky once signed a petition. This is "guilt by association", a classic McCarthyism, and Cohn dabbles in it himself, eg here on Obama.
I think using this source (and the clip in question) raises serious questions about the balance of the whole article. Werner Cohn is most certainly not an RS, with "fact-checking" and an "editorial board" as required by policy and should not be used for anything factual or substantive in any article.
(I should add that I'm aware of the Shahak article and think it's atrocious, but I'm too frightened to have tried to edit it, ever). PRtalk 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you are not reading well, PR. This link that Cohn made had little to do with a petition Chomsky signed, but the fact that Chomsky wrote the preface for this Holocaust denier's "pamphlet". [46] That is not "guilt by association," or McCarthyism, but simple research and factual accuracy. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky did not write a preface for Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson's book, Mémoire en defense. Werner Cohn has been totally discredited on this point. Both Christopher Hitchens and Chomsky (plus almost 500 other intellectuals) signed a petition defending Faurisson's right to freedom of speech, but Chomsky was singled out and criticised. In response to these attacks, he wrote an essay called "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression" and handed it to Faurisson. Robert Faurisson then used this text as an introduction to his book without informing Noam Chomsky or seeking his permission. Consequently, Werner Cohn accused Chomsky of collaborating with Faurisson in Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers. See this short video for more information It is detrimental to this project that Cohn's output should be given so much weight by editors Jayjg, Canadian Monkey, NoCal100, Brewcrewer and Malcolm Schosha. Dynablaster (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Werner Cohn has an academic background as a sociologist. At some point late in his career, he turned to polemics. None of the cautions for evidence, and argument, which characterize his earlier work are in evidence in the scrappy comment he makes on Shahak. He tries to engage more closely with Chomsky, and indeed dedicated a considerable amount of time trying to pin Chomsky down in an exchange of letters. The Shahak piece is flaky, fluff, an outburst, if you like, and I do not think that these off-the-cuffs opinions warrant inclusion in an article dealing with a scholar. What we need is serious reviews of Shahak's work, not just name-slinging (Werner Cohn is a 'name' of sorts) + mudslinging. One could even cite the following
‘Now a retired chemist, Shahak travels the world to propound a simple thesis: Jews)with only a rare exception – guess who that might be) are evil. The Talmud teaches them to be criminal, and Zionism compounds the evil. Naturally, Shahak is an active, enthusiastic supporter of the most militant Arab terrorists’ Werner Cohn, Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers, Avukah Press, (1988) 1995 p.18
But to what effect. It was not published under a serious imprint, has but a page which contains several lies, since Shahak never said Jews were evil, save for himself. Nor did he teach that the Talmud taught Jews to be criminal; nor was he an enthusiastic supporter of the most militant Arab terrorists (Shahak was in private a very strong critic of extremist tendencies in the PLO as in Israel). So, again three lies, in a virtually self-published text, that only have value if you think Werner Cohn's private war of hate against Shahak is notable. It is not. He never troubled to study the subject, nor to inform himself of who Shahak was, a man greatly respected by his Jewish colleagues, in and beyond Israel. So it's just shitshovelling, and deserves no notice.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, from the comments so far, it seems that whether or not the source makes any logical sense, or it improves the article in any way - any source that IS NOT EXPLICITLY proved to be not WP:RS has to be included in the article when it's represented. It doesn't matter if they say, "Shahak has a nose 1 foot long and is the love child of Elvis" - if it's published, and an editor wants it in - then it has to go in. Questioning the size of Shahak's nostril or his ancestry is a WP:OR and/or a WP:SYNTH violation. Or that's the Wiki guidelines as I understand. Since the article in question hasn't been shown to be under the minimal bar for WP:RS - if someone wants it in - then into the article it goes. Odd as that sounds, it does give one an incredible degree of liberty to (ab)use, since any complaint of a source - is a violation of Wiki policies.
Beyond that, if there's a dispute. Just make sure you get in the first shot, so he breaks 3RR, and edit-war any complaints down. Or so it seems that's the way of things, from WP:ANI GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It's reliable source for his opinion. We use New York Times book reviews for their opinion as well. Reviews are not a good source for contested information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Grizzly, I think you're not totally understand what is being written above. The question you posed is "Is this considered a reliable source?" and so some of the answers have focused on that individual question alone. The general sense seems to be that the magazine might barely meet the requirements, but that anything included from it should be attributed to the magazine and the author. The next step of the question is "is Werner Cohn a reliable source" - the general sense on that is "only for his own opinion." Neither address whether the information should be included in the article - all reliable sources aren't guaranteed space, and inclusion is a separate editorial decision. In this case, it seems obvious that Cohn's comments should be excluded. Avruch T 16:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, how much rumour and innuendo, as opposed to scholarly critique, should be used. Cohn is very interesting on Gypsies. He has nothing of substance to say about Shahak. It is all hyperbolic and inflammatory smearing, which has no anchor in the realities of Shahak's life and thought, and belongs to that degenerate form of polemic we associate with tabloids. Years ago I found two pieces of criticism by students of the Talmud, which analysed Shahak's use of sources critically, and argued he had distorted or been less than comprehensive in his interpretation. That is the sort of thing that should be cited. As it is, we have great attention on the false imputation he was both a liar and a fabricator, and the use of his work by antisemites, and no attention given to scholarly rebuttals of his approach. I think this impoverishes the aim of the encyclopedia, which in the I/P area tends to personalize thought, as just a pro/contra facing off of prejudices. Cohn, Neuwirth, and Bogdanor are there for this reason, they are plunked in to set off suspicions (which, in several years of reading I have personally found no basis for), and draw the casual reader to overlook the fact that little if anything is being said of what Shahak actually wrote, much is asserted as if true that has no basis in Shahak's writings. A scholarly critique, such as Shahak wrote, should be paraphrased, and then, to it, one should append what others scholars say in disagreement. To substitute this with guttersniping that says 'Don't read the books. This is dangerous bigotry' is to undermine the ideal of an encyclopedia. But of course, this comment has little to do with the question of RS. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Various reviews of The Asylum DVDs

Hello. I am starting a discussion to bring up the reliability of the following sources.

"STEVE ANDERSONs Weekly DVD Reviews". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Slasherpool Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Horror Talk Reviews". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Slasherpool Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

"4outof10 Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.

Each of these sources was added by the user Magnius in the article The Asylum. The Asylum is known for producing low-budget films capitalizing on the releases of major Hollywood studios. These releases are sometimes known as "mockbusters". The article for the studio contains a section listing mockbusters and the original studio releases. I had asked editors not to add titles for which reliable sources (such as newspapers, books and NPR) which refer to each title as a "mockbuster" could not be provided. When I questioned Magnius about these sources, he did not respond in any way. He simply blanked his talk page without responding in either his editing description or on my own talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I looked at a few of the sources. They do not appear reliable. That's all we can really do here. There's probably some other page that can help. Not sure which one, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fancy rat

Another editor and I have a question about whether an established club can be used as a reference on standards in a hobby. Specifically, whether the websites of the National Fancy Rat Society and American Fancy Rat and Mouse Assoc. can be used for claims about standards in coat colors, types, etc. for pet rats. My argument is that this is not unlike sourcing the American Kennel Club, or other such long-standing club when discussing standards, and it provides the most current and accessible reference. PSWG1920 would prefer to use books on pet rat care as they would be a more secondary source. Please respond at Talk:Fancy rat. Thanks! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not that I would necessarily prefer books, I just have some doubts about whether the aforementioned associations would be considered RS by Wikipedia standards. I'm trying to make sure that this is an objectively good article before I pass it. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking into them. NFRS[47][48][49] AFRA[50][51][52] It looks like they're both notable, so their opinions on rats should be OK if attributed to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviews on naxos.com reliable?

Specifically this one of Segovia: http://www.naxos.com/reviews/reviews.asp?reviewdate=2/0-0/2008&rvwtyp=2008/2&reviewtype=david#8.111092

Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

jdorama.com

I'm trying to use this as a source/external link for Bengoshi no Kuzu. Japanese television drama, Miho Kanno, Naohito Fujiki, Sora Aoi, just to name a few, all cite jdorama.com as reference or external link. Is the information reliable? Extremepro (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a self-published website by Jakob Persson. He does not appear to claim to be a "recognised authority" in the field, and the website does not appear to be widely cited in the news, books or scholarly articles. As such it appears to be a self-published site not by an acknowledged expert nor the subject of the article, and thus not reliable. User comments and forum entries are of course totally unreliable. --Rogerb67 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Medpedia

Could some expert take a look at Medpedia - currently preview as not launched yet & see whether it would be considered relaible because of the contributors - even though its a wiki?— Rod talk 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

While contributors certainly appear to require some kind of medical background, this disclaimer seems to suggest there is not full editorial oversight: "[I]nformation provided on Medpedia is written and monitored by a large community of people that are not employees of Medpedia or controlled by Medpedia.com" (emphasis mine). This part is similar to a regular Wiki. the signup page says: "to qualify to edit or contribute to the main content, you must have an M.D. or Ph.D. in a biomedical field", i.e. any medical doctor or PhD in a medically-related field can potentially edit the content, without editorial oversight. Thus these are effectively self-published, and not every PhD or MD is a "recognised expert" in every conceivable field in medicine. In general, these are not reliable. If articles are properly referenced, it may be a good place for finding reliable sources however. --Rogerb67 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Internet encyclopedia as sources

hello

Anybody there to enlighten us about the use of internet-published encyclopedia as sources for debated points? We have a certain debate of using figures for ethnic groups and percentages from the following sources (there are no official figures on this subject):

My question: is any of these sources considered a reliable source? If some of these are not considered reliable, should they be deleted speedily or could they be kept as to give an overview of what figures are given around on internet?

Thanks for any answer--Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am always cautions when it comes to citing figures for ethnic groups... the statistics can be skewed, even in the best sources.
  • Encarta is usually reliable... and it does list its sources (which are reliable themselves). so this is your best option.
  • I do not see any indication of authorship or reliability on the pu.go.id site
  • nationsonline.com lists Wikipedia as a source, so we should definitely be cautious. We could be citing ourselves. Essentially we need to know if they took their figures from us or from some other source (and which one).
  • populstat is a personal website. According to the About page and the Sources page, the page's owner seems to use use good methodology and sources ... but we have no way to know for sure. Not reliable.
So... The only one that can really be relied on with any certainty is Encarta. The others are questionable at best. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Blueboar, that helps me a lot further. I'll keep only Encarta.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxford University Press a reliable source?

I am interested in third opinions. At present, myself and another editor are in disagreement whether a passage from the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion in the article. This is the edit in dispute. This discussion is ongoing on the talk page Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Saul_Cornell_paid_mouthpiece_of_the_Joyce_Foundation_-_POV_bias_issue and I would welcome some third opinions in the discussion there. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more a WEIGHT and NPOV issue than an RS issue. Your edit fails to note that Cornell's view is controversial. Phrase it as Cornell's POV, fairly note that it's disputed and that more reputable scholars like Amar disagree with him, and there shouldn't be a problem. THF (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Who's Who

Is Canadian Who's Who a reliable source for a WP biography about an individual listed there? In addition to other sources? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a reputable press. I'd say yes for sourcing, though not enough to establish notability by itself. THF (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

JKRowling.com

Is JKRowling.com a reliable source to show that a fansite is notable? [54] --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be bootstrapping, I think (notability doesn't transfer, etc.). It may or may not be worth including in the article if the fansite is otherwise notable, but it doesn't demonstrate notability on its own. THF (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So, can it be used as one of the reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria? --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009

As I said, no. By its own terms:
This criterion includes reliable published works ... websites... except for the following:
    • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address,...
This is just a link, and is the sort of trivial coverage that does not constitute significant independent coverage. THF (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The link points to more coverage about the fansite, so it is not trivial but that's not important if it does not qualify as an independent source. Thanks for your help! --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey discography sources

There is an ongoing edit war in the Mariah Carey discography article regarding figures and sources for album sales. (The problem is much more widespread, but this is as good example as any.) The problem is that centrally located, publicly accessible information regarding world-wide album sales figures is not generally available (that I know of), and press releases and news stories from primary and secondary sources are spotty and often dated. Tertiary sources (such as fan sites) may provide more up-to-date information, but the reliability and verifiability of the information has been questioned. Several editors disagree as to what figures and sources should be used.

I consider myself a passer-by who took an interest in trying to resolve some of these sourcing issues. However, I am not familiar enough with the industry nor am I sufficiently knowledgeable in Wikipedia reliable source guidelines to know what the best solution would be. So I am inviting any of you who read this to join this discussion to express your views. More specifically, I also would like to solicit opinions on the use of "http://www.mariahdaily.com/infozone/charts/albums/worldwide/index.shtml" and "http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=4687" as sources. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be breaking protocol, but I'm moving this to the end in another attempt to get some attention. Are there any RS regulars here here who could evaluate and comment on the sourcing problems in the Mariah Carey discography article?. I'm ready to punt and move on otherwise. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Try billboard.com, they are the industry leader.(~)

Thank you. I'm familiar with billboard and several other industry sites. My dilemma is that these sites and other preferred sources such as mainstream media to not regularly release detailed information such as sales figures. If such sources are available, often they are dated. My question was could less well known sources such as "http://www.mariahdaily.com/infozone/charts/albums/worldwide/index.shtml" and "http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=4687" be considered reliable sources for more up-to-date information. Several editors of the Mariah Carey discography article were insisting on using such sources. I did not think these sources were acceptable and was looking other opinions here. (I'm still waiting for an answer.) -- Tcncv (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look like mariahdaily.com is reliable. I don't see anything on their site about editorial oversight. Undercover.com is harder to judge, based on this and this. They're probably very borderline, if acceptable at all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) After a quick review of those sites, here's some feedback on your question:
  • http://www.mariahdaily.com - not a reliable source, because they state on the page with their sales charts: "These worldwide sales figures are based on both press releases from credible sources and certifications in the top music markets in the world. Keep in mind, that world sales reported by labels and the media are basedon certifications/shipment figures from around the world and not actual sales." So they acknowledge the figures are inaccurate, and in addition, some of the info is repeating self-published sources (press releases).
  • http://www.undercover.com.au - might be reliable, but not enough info to be sure. Their "about us" page states they report info from their own staff and from AP, Reuters, etc, but we don't know the level of fact-checking. If someone knows more about them and can show that their reputation is solid, they could be a reliable source. Without that supporting info, the way I would handle that site is to use attribution when mentioning information sourced to that site. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both. Out of interest, what are you (Peregrine Fisher) looking at in the results of the google search? -- Tcncv (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

familytreelegends.com

What do people think of this? I ran across it here and when I saw the citation I was like "how on earth do I know for sure that this is the celebrity, and not someone with the same name?" I then did a link search and saw that this site is currently used over 500 on wikipedia. And suppose that a public figure, like a celebrity, does not want to have their birthday published, and they have successfully made sure that the birthdate has been kept out of the media, is it appropriate for wikipedia to dig up county records and publish the birthday for the first time? Anyway, what do others think about this site in general, and this case specifically?-Andrew c [talk] 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought this would be a no-go, but it's associated with some published software. So I don't know. If it was a published book, it would be fine. As far as their being more than one Amanda Michalka about the same age, good question. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Andrew c, in this particular case, you seem to really want to keep the birthdates of the Michalka‎ sisters a secret, you've deleted it several times in the past. Any particular reason? Their ages (and hence their birth year) is pretty common knowledge and easy to verify and many sites list the same birthdays for them that we have here. Why are you convinced that they do 'not want to have their birthday published'? --Judgeking (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, do you really think it's likely that 2 girls with the exact first, middle and last name would be born in the same city in the same year? Especially with a name like Michalka? --Judgeking (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of what I think is likely or not. It is a matter of verifiability and reliable sourcing, both wikipedia policies. Without using original research, how on earth can we verify this content? In terms of our policy, specifically how does this source qualify as "reliable" (please cite our policy). It seems like you are suggesting we ignore the rules here because this information is "common knowledge", yet not a single unarguably reliable source can be presented (what does it say on their official website?) Hope this helps explain where I am coming from.-Andrew c [talk] 02:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
When dealing with biographies of living persons, an unarguably reliable source is rare. Most, like FamilyTreeLegends, are "cautiously reliable". This is valid, according to our policy; nowhere does it state that all references need to be "unarguably reliable". It does state that "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published". This is not libelous information, it's just their birthdays. Show me the "unarguably reliable" citation for Charles Darwin's birthday!
This software is sold on Amazon.com, recommended by a published magazine (http://www.familytreemagazine.com/softwareguide) and recommened by Dick Eastman, Assistant Executive Director for Technology of the New England Historic Genealogical Society. It's also currently used as a reference for hundreds of Wikipedia pages, which means that thousands of users are, at the very least, optimistically cautious about this source. --Judgeking (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, in regard to their birth year, I've already explained in my update that several cited articles state their current ages as well as the article publication date, which tells us their birth year. --Judgeking (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if something is widely published, then cite it. You said nothing regarding my concern of verifiability. How do we know these are the celebrities? Having a sort of unique name is not a good enough reason, IMO. Either their birthdays are already published and we can attribute them to their published sources, or we can't. Can we get a third opinion here please?-Andrew c [talk] 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
They were the only girls born in the entire state of California with those names in the year of their birth, that's how we know it's them. And it's not a 'sort of unique name', it's a very, very unique name, there are only 23 Michalka's listed in the entire state of California on 411.com. And if you want to see how widely published their birthdays are, Google 'Michalka ("March 25" OR "April 10")' to get a few thousand examples. --Judgeking (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Then why not cite one of those few thousand sources instead?-Andrew c [talk] 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Timeline of Packt Award
  2. ^ Best Overall CMS
  3. ^ Best Open Source PHP CMS judges
  4. ^ "The Palestinian Authority's support of Hamas' suicide terrorism". October 2004. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28&oldid=1140678476"