Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 121

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115 ← Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 Archive 122 Archive 123 → Archive 125

veggies.org.uk

Please can someone tell me if the above source is reliable for the claim that Heather Nicholson is a vegan? Slimvirgin insists it is, on the basis that "Nicholson is a well known vegan". However, I contest the source in this capacity because:

  1. It does not explicitly state Nicholson is a vegan
  2. The source does not seem to represent Nicholson, it appears to be self-published, and I cannot estabish editorial oversight.

I would appreciate a third opinion on the source's RS status. Betty Logan (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't fully check your second objection, but at least the first third of it seems well founded. No matter if your second objection is unwarranted; your first objection is warranted, and rules out this "source" for such a claim.
In general, the mere well-knownness of an assertion isn't acceptable evidence for the truth of that assertion. (If it were, WP would of course purvey a great deal more twaddle than it already does.)
The article on Nicholson (of whom I'd never heard until minutes ago) also both (i) says that she's a vegan and (ii) categorizes her as a vegan, but presents no supporting evidence.
(This should be obvious, but: I know nothing about whether Nicholson is actually a vegan, wouldn't be even slightly surprised to find that she was one, and am not commenting on the credibility of the website in general.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Not RS for that claim. It does not say anything about her being vegan. However, googling her name and the word vegan brings up many hits, it seems clear that she, and her parents, are vegans, it should not be hard to source with something better. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 03:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, that is a self-published cite of dubious quality, which really does not even claim she is a vegan, though its implied perhaps, but it does not look difficult to find a RS, as Despayre said above. — GabeMc (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Sadly - this is the situation. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs

Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) is a Washington-based nonprofit organization headed by Grant F. Smith which “studies US-Middle East policy formulation.” Of particular interest is its Israel Lobby Archive documents which includes thousands of pages of declassified and/or Freedom of Information Act documents, most found nowhere else online. Some seem to be of historic importance, including letters from Henry Kissinger and George Shultz to President Obama [2] and FBI documents related to illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons triggers.[3] Being able to link to documents like this only improves the Wikipedia project.

The one past WP:RSN discussion of IRmep's reliability for facts only presented evidence of unreliablity. I think the following evidence that various WP:RS take IRmep/Grant Smith seriously as a source [added later just to make it perfectly clear: for primary source documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act] proves both are sufficiently WP:RS at the very least to permit linking to its archives of primary source documents per Wikipedia:Primary#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.

[Three later additions:]

[Added later, mentions/uses of IRmep/Grant Smith's books]:

[Added later]:

The current example under discussion at Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) is whether we can link to a November 1963 Dept. of Justice letter demanding an organization register as a foreign agent in order to establish the date of and the existence of the letter; the demand itself is mentioned in reliable sources. One editor has been busy deleting all IRmep references from other articles claiming IRmep is fringe because of its “anti-Israel propaganda”[21] and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage"[22]. I can provide links to and descriptions of other deletions upon request; most are links to documents. Another editor on the FARA article, who also has deleted IRmep links, declared the IRmep discussion "over"[23]. So I come here for more neutral opinions, hopefully from those who agree with WP:NOTCENSORED. CarolMooreDC 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

( Note timestamp. The following was top-posted to keep all cites and publications together on page. Please post any responses at end-of-thread, not immediately below; see guidelines.)
There are some additional citations to IRmep from reliable sources, and works written by IRmep founder Grant Smith which appear in RS publications that I'd like to post. I have time at the moment to add just one, however, but it's one that may surprise skeptics. Anyway, I'll update this list with more as responsibilities permit:
The following cites IRmep research; see note 43:
  • Hart, Jo-Anne. Perceptions and Courses of Actions toward Iran  Military Review Vol 85, Issue 5 (Sep/Oct 2005): pages 9-21. (Alt. source) In this 13 page paper, IRmep is cited for its Middle East Academic Survey Research Exposition that queried Middle East academics about their opinions of Iran's intentions with respect to its nuclear program.
Dr. Hart's paper was supported by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and its copyright is owned by Department of the Army Headquarters. It states that she specialises in Middle East security policy at the Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University; that she previously taught Strategy and Policy at the U. S. Naval War College, and that she has often participated in the Army Chief of Staff's annual future study program known as the Unified Quest wargames.
 – OhioStandard (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Strike sockpuppet comments  None of these are an indication that IRmep is a reliable source, quite the opposite.
Ha'aretz calls it 'an organization with openly political motives'
Mondoweiss is a personal blog, widely described as being part of a "anti-Israel blogosphere." and as "fulsomely, intensely anti-Israel."
this blog post , on a now defunct blog on the Washington Post doesn't even mention IRmep
The Palestine Telegraph is not a reliable source ,as has been discussed on this noticeboard before
this Jordan Times link does not work
...and so on.
Republication of IRmep press releases, by wire services that republish press releases (PR Newswire, Reuters) are not an indication of notability or reliability - you pay these companies to publish your press release, and that's what they do. If that was not obvious, the Reuters link carry an explicit disclaimer "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. "
And on and on it goes, in a similar vain - these mentions are either in sources that are unreliable themselves, or mentions in RS'es that describe IRmep as a politically motivated group with a virulent anti-Israel agenda. IRmep itself has no reputation for fact checking, accuracy or use of its material by reliable sources. Its website lists no editorial board nor makes mention of fact checking or error correction policy - it is a political advocacy group and an unreliable source. Jeff Song (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
There are two outputs from this organization, namely its commentary and the third-party documents it publishes. The former are unreliable and I don't think they should be used (except maybe as attributed opinions in some cases). The documents might be problematic due to being largely primary source material, but if they are handled within the guidelines for primary sources I don't see why they should be considered unreliable. They are not less reliable than, for example, MEMRI's documents which are widely used on Wikipedia. The main problem with documents produced by advocacy organizations like this is their bias in choosing which documents to present, so any sort of meta-analysis based on the selection has to be avoided. Zerotalk 01:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
First, User:Zero000 takes pretty much the position that I do, though I do believe the direction of things with IRMEP is that its material is being taken more and more seriously by more WP:RS.
User:Jeff Song highly exaggerates in stating that the list of WP:RS using IRMEP/Smith somehow "proves" these documents are not credible for use on Wikipedia. In response to his specific criticisms:
  • Haaretz claiming a critic of Israel's most powerful American lobby is politically motivated? Who would have thunk it!
  • Philip Weiss is a well known journalist.
  • The Washington Post blog may no longer be published but that doesn't mean its author mentioning Grant Smith's work (obviously in this context known for being head of IRmep) is irrelevant.
  • You are correct. Looking more closely The Palestine Telegraph doesn’t seem to be the WP:RS publication I thought it was. So I’ll cross that one off.
  • Jordan Times archive seems to be down on a few articles. The article is called "Nuclear-free Mideast" by George S. Hishmeh and meanwhile has been reprinted at another site.
  • First, do you have evidence that either Reuters or Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch accept money for printing press releases?? Second, do you have evidence that Reuters or Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch will print material it considers UNfactual or UNcredible. Such disclaimers probably are just covering their butts, rather than paying people to track down every factoid. Also This WP:RSN discussion as well as others state that a press release printed by a reliable source may have some credibility as a WP:RS. And, again, this is not necessarily to use any specific factoid published in these press release as a source for some specific edit. However, it is an excellent indication that Smith/IRmep is not merely politically motivated and virulently anti-Israel, in which case Reuters and the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch certain would not be republishing their press releases at all!!
I know some individuals may find it personally extremely emotionally upsetting that Americans will create websites having thousands of documents showing dubious and even criminal activities by Israel or its lobbies in the United States. But that is not an excuse for censoring such material from Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC 01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
AS Zero points out source material presented by pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc is widely cited in Wikipedia. In my opinion any blanket ban on IRmep on the basis of it being an advocacy group should also apply to pro-Isreal advocacy organisations such as the ones I have mentioned. Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That's right: being biased or partisan does not make a source unreliable. It only makes it biased. Wikipedia does not require sources to be unbiased. Articles should be neutral. Sources need to be reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Strike sockpuppet comment Agree. And what is it that makes IRMep reliable? Do they have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy? Do they have editorial oversight? Do they have an error correction policy? The answer to all of these is NO. Conversely, WP:RS tells us which sources are questionable, and to be avoided: Self-published sources (yes, that's IRMep); no editorial oversight (IRMep fits this, too) ; and "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature" - again, fits IRMep to a T, as evidenced even by the sources Carol has brought in support of IRmep. And, BTW DLv999, pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch etc.. a routinely removed form articles, based on nothing more than their advocacy status - but you of course know this, since you are one of the people doing this: [24][25][26]. This hypocrisy is unseemly. Jeff Song (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
If you really believe those sources are suitable for what they were used for, you are welcome to make a case on the relevant talk pages. But I beg you not to engage in meaningless point scoring and then pretend to hold the moral high ground. Dlv999 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Strike sockpuppet comment I don't think they are suitable, and I don't think IRmep is suitable, on similar grounds. That is a consistent position. You, OTOH, think they are comparable in terms of reliability, yet advocate for the removal of some (as well as actively removing them!), but the retention of others - based on the POV they promote. That is hypocrisy. Jeff Song (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Time to justify your accusations Jeff. Point to any time I have ever advocated for the retention of IRmep as a source. Dlv999 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Strike sockpuppet comment Apologies if I misunderstood your position. I took your comment timestamped 3:26, 6 April 2012 to be in support of keeping IRMep, as you seemed to be arguing that since pro-Israel advocacy groups such as MEMRI, Honestreporting, Palwatch are widely used, that IRMep should be allowed on similar grounds. But perhaps I misunderstood you. If you are saying the IRmep is unreliable and should be removed , the same way you are removing those pro-Israeli advocacy sites, I will strike out my previous accusations of hypocrisy. Jeff Song (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Zero and User:Dlv999 are both saying that IRmep's primary source documents can be taken seriously and used as sources, just like documents on the pages of those advocacy groups can be taken seriously. However, their interpretations of documents, facts, etc. cannot be used. (I don't know for sure if that is in fact the case with all those groups; and I do know there are advocacy groups that make lots of money smearing people whose opinions ARE considered WP:RS on Wikipedia. I won't mention the two I know best since I'm not pushing using IRmep's opinions, just saying IRmep's repository of documents is given credibility by various WP:RS that refer to or use or voluntarily publicize them.) CarolMooreDC 02:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Jeff Song is correct about the Reuters and MarketWatch press releases. If you're a company, these are standard channels you use to get information out to the public. All the publishing news agencies do is act as a bulletin board. They publish whatever they're asked to irrespective of its content, provided the company pays the required fee. So the fact that the Reuters and MarketWatch logos decorate these IRmep press releases is meaningless. It doesn't mean Reuters and MarketWatch are in any way accountable for what's in the release.—Biosketch (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked involved editor User:Jeff Song to back up the claim these sites are paid to publish press release; he did not do so. I ask you, another involved editor, to back up your claim they'll publish "publish whatever they're asked to irrespective of its content." Thanks. CarolMooreDC 16:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
This web page from Reuters might be relevant: thomsonreuters.com/products_services/financial/financial_products/corporate_services/public_relations/inpublic/ "Designed specifically for the European market, the secure self-publishing capabilities of InPublic enable you to take control of your message and its distribution." It suggests that they do not act in an editorial or fact-checking capacity. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If either or both Reuters and MarketWatch offer that "public relations service" in the US, it would be relevant if proved IRmep qualifies for that probably expensive service; ion any case those are only two of a dozen WP:RS present as evidence. CarolMooreDC 17:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Reuters distributes press releases in editorial feed; Thomson Reuters offers a suite of Web-based workflow tools and communication solutions designed for the PR professional including press release publishing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Since this is a topic of general interest to any number of WP:RSN discussions, though not one critical to this one, let's not confuse Thomson Reuters - the parent company that offers Public Relations Services - (as the second link User:Cusop Dingle proved) and its subsidiary Reuters - the "news agency" which published IRmep press releases. Also, the first (barely reliable?) source only writes about big corporations listings in a finance related yahoo listing of news. It is possible there is a problem there since those big companies can afford to pay big fees for Thomson Reuters Public Relations Services. But that is not evidence that Thomson Reuters subsidiary Reuters - the "news agency" - is paid to publish IRmep or other nonprofit group press releases and therefore exercises no discretion in doing so. CarolMooreDC 19:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
That Reuters and MarketWatch act as hired public relations agencies vis-a-vis the press releases they publish isn't really something that requires a source to establish. It's common knowledge to anyone with an iota of experience in the corporate world. We don't for a second try to argue that the New York Times or Fox News stand behind the ads they run, and press releases are basically just a more sophisticated form of advertising. In the case of publicly traded companies, whose operations are regulated by securities and exchange commissions, the company that's the source of the press release is expected to transmit accurate information to the public, even if it twists it in all sorts of ways to make it sound more appealing. When companies publish information considered to be of a misleading nature, they, and not the media that circulated the press release, are held accountable for it.—Biosketch (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
This was issue was discussed above with evidence and links, not with personal attacks about someone's alleged knowledge or lack there of in the corporate world. Please see the discussion above. CarolMooreDC 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

non-RSes being used to establish reliability, and RSes establishing unreliability

  1. The Haaretz source doesn't establish that IRmep's a reliable source. On the contrary, it calls IRmep a "U.S.-based Muslim organization" and "an organization with openly political motives." That establishes IRmep as an unreliable source.
  2. Mondoweiss is a blog and not even remotely a reliable source for anything but its own opinions.
  3. The Jeff Stein piece is a blog post. Per WP:NEWSBLOG we need to attribute content sourced to a blog – even in the case of blogs hosted by reliable sources – hence not itself an RS for anything but Stein's personal views.
  4. AccountingToday is probably an RS, but nothing it says about IRmep in that article would lead a reader to conclude that IRmep itself is a credible organization.
  5. The LATimes editorial is, of course, an editorial and not a conventional news report. And beyond that, all it's done is published the responses of two individuals to an earlier letter it ran. It doesn't take a position on whether what Grant Smith holds any validity, so how can we use it to establish IRmep's RShood? We can't.
  6. The Jordan Times link doesn't load for me.
  7. This page at IRmep indicates that the Arabamericannews.com piece is nothing more than an IRmep press release packaged as an original report. Note the presence of PR Newswire at the IRmep link, though. It's a press release.
  8. The Reuters and MarketWatch links are to press releases, not to reports originating with these agencies.
  9. Did you read that essay at sdonline.org? At one point the author tries to argue that "the goal of Zionism" is to control America. No, not a reliable source for establishing that IRmep is a reliable source.
  10. CounterPunch is not a reliable source.—Biosketch (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Biosketch already has shared his opinons that IRmep is fringe because of its “anti-Israel propaganda”[27] and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage"[28]. I don't know if his use of books.google.co.il means he's an Israeli with a severe POV or even a COI.
Assuming Biosketch is accurate, if The Arab American News chooses to publish a press release as their own work, other neutral editors will have to opine if that is WP:RS for showing that the The Arab American News thinks Smith/IRmep are reliable. CarolMooreDC 20:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Carolmooredc, you don't know if my use of books.google.co.il means I'm "an Israeli with a severe POV and COI"? What does that even mean? And why aren't you confining your comments in this discussion to the substance of the arguments raised against your evidence instead of focusing your energies on what country your interlocutor is editing from? If you aren't capable of formulating a compelling and detached defense of the sources you brought, you could have saved us all valuable time by just accusing me directly and from the start of being "an Israeli with a severe POV and COI." That appears to be what your original case is fast degenerating into anyway. Are you interested in an honest evaluation of the sources you brought here even if the conclusions thereof aren't to your liking, or is it now your goal to disqualify me because my web browser redirects to the Israeli version of Google Books?—Biosketch (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The link to books.google.co.il only is relevant because your comments about “anti-Israel propaganda”[29] and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage"[30] express such a strong POV. The two neutral editors who responded do not see a problem with using the primary source documents on IRmep's website. And unless proven differently, Jeff Song has been blocked as a sockpuppet. So please allow other neutral editors to opine. Thank you. CarolMooreDC 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) This discussion seems to be going off-track (and squabbles over allegations of bias are certainly not what this board is for). Please could we focus on what this board is for, namely, answering specific questions about whether a given source is reliable for a given assertion in a given context? What specific question about reliability would you like to address? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually this came up because User:Biosketch started a whole new subsection asking many of the same questions already addressed above, as if they had NOT been addressed before. Editor bias is not entirely irrelevant when editors engage in what looks like disruptive behavior. But here are all responses, including references to repeated ones:
  • Repeated response: Haaretz claiming a critic of Israel's most powerful American lobby is politically motivated? Who would have thunk it! However, Haaretz does NOT claim the documents are falsified and we are only talking about the whether the documents are in fact real and therefore reliable and useable.
  • Repeated response: Philip Weiss is a well known journalist and his blog has credibility for his opinion on IRmep.
  • Repeated response: The Washington Post blog may no longer be published but that doesn't mean its author's mentioning Grant Smith's work (obviously in this context known for being head of IRmep) is irrelevant. If he said the documents were fake, I’m sure Biosketch would be happy to use that source.
  • Accounting Today covers IRmep from the perspective of its area of expertise and that is sufficient; it does claim IRmep documents are fake, does it?
  • The LA Times would not publish anything by Smith/IRmep if they thought he was publishing fake documents.
  • Repeated response: Jordan Times archive seems to be down on a few articles. The article is called "Nuclear-free Mideast" by George S. Hishmeh and meanwhile has been reprinted at another site.
  • See response to The Arab American News directly above.
  • See long discussion of Reuters and MarketWatch press releases among several editors above. Note again that this WP:RSN discussion as well as others state that a press release printed by a reliable source may itself have some credibility as a WP:RS. And, again, this is not necessarily to use any specific factoid published in these press release as a source for some specific edit, except when it refers to a document on the site. However, it is an excellent indication that Smith/IRmep is not merely politically motivated and virulently anti-Israel. If that were true, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch certain would not be republishing their press releases at all!! (And again there is no evidence either is paid to publish IRmep's press releases.)
  • Paragraph in “Socialism and Democracy online” (sdonline.org) article by Joel Kovel called Mearsheimer and Walt Revisited. A source used repeatedly on wikipedia. Biosketch writes the author writes: "the goal of Zionism" is to control America. What he actually writes is: hence, the prime goal of Zionism has been to so control America that this backing would be reliably insured. I don't think that's a very controversial statement of the goals of the pro-Israel lobby in many conservative and liberal circles now a days.
  • Claim CounterPunch is not reliable based on WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_110. However, this discussion as well Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10 all pretty much agree that each of CounterPunch’s article’s reliability depends on who authored them. Therefore this one quoting Smith by a professor of economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa would be reliable. The second article by a non-notable activist mentions a point other WP:RS agree with an no one has contradicted: “Grant Smith, author of several books on AIPAC based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.” Which no one has disputed yet, and various WP:RS support.
Hopefully I won't have to answer all the same questions all over again CarolMooreDC 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm still finding it difficult to understand exactly what the original question is here. As noted at the top of this page, this board works best if you could provide
1. A full citation of the source in question.
2. A link to the source in question.
3. The article in which it is being used.
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.
5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.
I assume the original question was intended to be "Is Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy a reliable source?" This board doesn't work well for such very general questions, as very few sources are ever likely to be of universally unimpeachable reliability. If you're intending to ask "Does IRMEP have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?", then that's a reasonable point for discussion, and it has been discussed, even if the answers are not always what you might have wanted to hear. The one specific point that you raised initially was about a link to a November 1963 Dept. of Justice letter demanding an organization register as a foreign agent in order to establish the date of and the existence of the letter. As a courtesy to the participants at this board, could you explain what source this letter comes from and where exactly IRMEP comes into it? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Read the first two paragraphs of this thread: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence. The operative sentence, which I just reinforced so there's no confusion, is: I think the following evidence that various WP:RS take IRmep/Grant Smith seriously as a source [added later just to make it perfectly clear: "for primary source documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act"] proves both are sufficiently WP:RS at the very least to permit linking to its archives of primary source documents per Wikipedia:Primary#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.
Doing everything in number 1-5 may be necessary when it's a question of one source being used for one item. This is a broader question of whether this Institute and its site's primary source documents can be used in some circumstances. We have one editor (and a banned sockpuppet) deleting all such uses with insulting edit summaries. I did offer to provide links to those, and I still can do so, with further analysis.
But do you really think that User:Zero0000's comment, User:DVL999's comment User:WhatamIdoing's comment, all saying IRmep/Grant Smith are reliable for the primary source documents but not their interpretation of them are irrelevant to the conversation? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I think I understand what the question is now, thanks for the explanation. No, I do not consider the comments irrelevant, I just tend to disagree with them. If we write in Wikipedia that a certain document exists and says X, or that A wrote to B saying Y, and source it to a copy of that document or letter published by an organisation O, then we are using O as a source. That means that O has to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that other organisations use material from O is not enough to establish that -- they may have different motives for using the material. Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy Until then I would say it was a questionable source and advise against using it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Cusop Dingle wrote: Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. That's an ideal for any source, do you apply it to every single source you opine on WP:RSN? I do see from a search you opine often.
In practice many Wikisources not only do not fulfill this criteria. Including some that are highly partisan and even criticized in their Wikipedia articles for not being reliable. These include, as other editors have mentioned in this discussion, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) (which is often accused of inaccurate translations) (see WP:RSN discussions here); HonestReporting whose constant highly partisan opinion criticisms of media used on Wikipedia (see WP:RSN discussions here); Palestinian Media Watch (Palwatch) most of whose refs are the Jerusalem Post covering its being banned from Youtube for questionable content but nevertheless is widely used on Wikipedia (see WP:RSN discussions here). Are you willing to offer that opinion the next time any of these are brought to WP:RSN?
Or perhaps are you willing to look at a list of deletions of refs to documents posted on IRmep's web site, as I've offered twice to do?
In any case, I'm going to look for some more sources using IRmep/Smith's books because after looking at the refs on the articles on the three "reliable sources" named above, it is clear that IRmep also deserves its own article and having a coherent article rather than list of links will make it easier for people to understand any notability and credibility. CarolMooreDC 14:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have given my opinion on the question posed here. I am personally keen on Wikipedia having the highest possible standards for sources, and on having evidence. If the other sources mentioned here are called into question, I may well contribute to the discussions there, assuming I have the time and feel that my contribution would be constructive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, no need to compare and contrast. While you may have a personal opinion, the point here is to look at policy. It does not say we must have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of [a source] directly. So it's useful to stick to the sources we have about the reliability of a source, instead of asking for incredibly high standards which even the most reliable sources may not meet. CarolMooreDC 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The object of this board is to achieve consensus, which involves various editors offering reasoned arguments. Verifiability requires that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What is the evidence that IRMEP has such a reputation? I do not say that this "must" be from a scholarly source, only that this would be ideal. I dispute that asking for good evidence of reliability is an "incredibly high" standard -- I say that it is in fact policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's your whole quote: Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy
That is very different from WP:V's statement "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There is no statement that if there is "no objective assessment of a reputation for accuracy" a source can't be used. Obviously, if there are positive statement's about its reputation, that's a big help. But it's not mandatory. The whole purpose of WP:RSN is for Wikipedia editors to decide if a listing of a number of reliable sources that consider a source reliable (be it for primary source links, facts, opinions) show it has a reputation for accuracy. That said, it seems to me there were a couple such statements re:IRmep - or implied statements. Do we need to list those to make you happy? CarolMooreDC 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems implausible that one would establish a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" without evidence, and it seems implausible that evidence other than objective would be acceptable. It isn't a matter of making me happy -- it's a matter of helping the editors at this board assess that reputation, so yes, it would be a good idea to produce that evidence. In the absence of evidence, my assessment, and, I suspect, that of anyone else who is interested, would have to be that lack of evidence implies lack of reputation, and lack of reputation implies lack of reliability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The point is that most editors see a lot of WP:RS reporting on or using a source as evidence it's reliable, which is why the WP:RS of sources mostly has been under discussion. Overall, I'm starting to feel like this point should be clarified at this noticeboard's talk page to avoid editors having to have this debate again in the future. Actual statements are just gravy. And since I'll be using such in the article itself, not a burden to look for. CarolMooreDC 19:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure if Cusop and Carol are agreeing or disagreeing, or a little of both... but they are both essentially correct... when the reliability of a source is questioned, we do need to examine its reputation. Now, one quick to do that is to examine how many other sources refer to it. But that has its limitations... as it raises the question of whether those other sources have a good reputation or not (a chain of unreliable sources, all referring to each other does not make any of them reliable). When we are examining the reliability of a source, the question of which other sources refers to it is far more important than the question of how many other sources refer to it. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for comment, Blueboar. I agree that some sources using/referring to/reporting on a source are more reliable than others. I tried to list them from most to least reliable just to make it easy. (Except for later entries, and I have put a few more up now.) And even if several are seen as unreliable, that does not mean that others do not have reliability - or do not generally support the reliability of the source for some or all purposes. If Cusop wants to list the sources he considers unreliable, fine, we can debate it. Or if someone wants to say only these six sources show it's reliable, that's fine too. I just have a problem with how I interpreted what Cusop said which I won't repeat so we don't have to discuss if I interpreted it right CarolMooreDC 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A 3rd Party Opinion - If the documents are U.S. Government documents obtained through FOIA requests, shouldn't the source be considered the U.S. government rather than IRMep? It sounds like IRMep is just acting as the host. If we were relying on IRMep to interpret the documents for us and we didn't have direct access to them, IRMep would need to meet a higher standard, but if we're just limiting coverage to the primary documents themselves, I don't see why we would need to establish anything other than the fact that IRMep is not a blatantly fraudulent organization (as the U.S. government is generally considered a reliable source). Granted, there may be extenuating circumstances I'm not aware of in this rather convoluted debate, but that's my opinion from the peanut gallery. Kaldari (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It isn't necessary to establish that IRmep is a blatantly fraudulent organization because in a sense that's already the default approach we take in situations like this where the source is advocating a fringe political agenda. Rather, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to establish that IRmep is a reliable source. Particularly in this case that we're dealing with, there are these documents on the IRmep website that IRmep is claiming are authentic, and we're endeavoring to determine where on the scale of reliability IRmep belongs in order to agree what status should be conferred on the documents. The documents themselves are of a highly charged and controversial nature in that they relate to a topic that's frequently a source of conflict between editors throughout Wikipedia. It's therefore vital that in order for us to accept IRmep's documents as authentic, we first establish a consensus around IRmep being a reliable source for information - and that's where we're stuck right now. After all, anyone can found an organization, come up with a fancy name for it, and claim to have exclusive access to all sorts of obscure documents. It's our role to be rigorous in our critical standards in proportion to the nature of the claims we're assessing. This is the root of the insistence that IRmep be shown to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and that insistence has as yet gone unfulfilled.—Biosketch (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • @Biosketch's comments directly above only: Criticism of the powerful Israel lobby in the United States, seeking FOIA information about it, disseminating that information, and having it picked up, used, publicized by a variety of sources is hardly fringe; even that article has a few of the many examplels, even if they are sometimes overwhelmed by all the denials. The problem Biosketch describes really seems to be that a number of editors with strong ties to Israel WP:IDONTLIKE IT. (And note that WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has a whole archive section on outside recruiting of pro-Israel editors dedicated to rising through the ranks and purging critical information. How successful they have been is a matter of debate.) So again I raise the issue of WP:CENSORSHIP via extreme nitpicking of sources, as say compared to use as WP:RS for extremely (and some might say extremist) pro-Israel sources like MEMRI, Palestine Media Watch and HonestReporting.com detailed above. CarolMooreDC 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Need uninvolved editors to examine my analysis of a source

Moved to a subsection of this thread as it turns out to be the same source being discussed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia_and_WLRoss, there's an issue over the proper use of a source. According to my own analysis, the use of this source fails criteria #2 of WP:SPS but no one else is agreeing with me. Can some uninvolved editors examine this source and let me know what they think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The site isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Most obvious to me is that there is no true editorial oversight, and the site seems to be a collecting place for material with a specific slant. If any of the content on the site is significant enough to be included on Wikipedia you should be able to find it in good secondary and so reliable sources.(olive (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Thanks for putting this here. I have commented under Comment by Carolmooredc at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia_and_WLRoss about the evidence presented and that four editors found it WP:RS for presenting primary source documents. It really is a bit much that just as couple dozen evidences of IRmep being reliable at least for documents is ongoing here, an editor tries to get people in trouble for using it as a source of opinion on arbitration enforcement. (Was he afraid the community might suddenly decide its opinions are valid too? Still could happen, of course.)
I do not know if LittleOlive has read the very top of this thread that lists all of those sources. Unfortunately the government does not choose to list on any website all the documents it releases through freedom of information act. And lots of other documents, news articles, etc. often dissappear from their original sites but are still useable from other sites on Wikipedia. Four editors and myself above have opined it is useable for such purposes. (Listed under my comment.)
Also, I find it interesting that two admins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_ZScarpia_and_WLRoss thought Irmep’s opinions also sometimes may be used on Wikipedia, though others disagreed. Read whole debate there.
  • ...Even assuming arguendo that the IRMEP website is not a reliable source for facts (something we need not decide to resolve this case, although it does seem true), it is surely a reliable source for IRMEP's own opinion.... T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • @A Quest for Knowledge: WLRoss and and ZScarpia are trying to include the editorial opinion of the IRMEP organization about the Middle East Media Research Institute. It is not out of the question that one research institute's opinion of another research institute might be relevant or interesting. The two institutes seem to be acting as adversaries, so you might consider whether their views deserve space in each other's criticism sections.This would not run afoul of WP:RS because it's a question of opinion, not of facts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Relevant policy on opinions can be found in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. So the question is, how expert is IRmep/Smith on their opinions on topics they write about as evidenced by WP:RS using them? Something to be discussed is some next round of WP:RSN discussions, anyway. Using above list of two dozen relevant sources. CarolMooreDC 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There should be no problem with citing IRMEP publications as a source for their own opinions, provided of course they are stated as IRMEP's opinions, rather than as established facts. Whether those opinions are sufficiently significant to be included in any given article is not an issue for this board. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize there was a second RSN discussion about this source. In any case, isn't this essentially a self-published source and you can't use an SPS for claims about a third-party? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
If IRMEP's website says "A is B", then that is a reliable source for the statement "IRMEP believes that A is B". It is not a reliable source for the statement "A is B", without further evidence as to a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether that opinion is worth reporting is another matter. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Not if B is a claim about a third party. See criteria #2 of WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. If the claim is about the subject and not self-serving, etc. then we can use it directly. Any direct quote can be used provided that it is stated to be their opinion. If it is not reported by any independent reliable source then it is probably not worth our using it. For example, if the website of the X Institute says that "The X Institute is the only impartial think-tank based in Washington, then we can directly state "The X Institute is based in Washington", possibly "The X Institute is a think-tank based in Washington" (assuming the claim to be a think-tank is not self-serving), but not "an impartial think-tank" (definitely self-serving) or "the only impartial think-tank" (relates to other think-tanks). We can however say "The X Institute claims to be the only impartial think-tank in Washington" if we want. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
But all of those examples are claims about itself. We can't say "The X Institute believes Obama is a bad man" because Obama is a thirt-party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
We often report opinions about third parties. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No, not unless it's published by a reliable source. So, if BBC News reports that The X Institute is saying that Obama is a bad man, then we can include it. But if it can only be sourced to The X Institute, we can't include it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Then we do not agree about the meaning of WP:SPS. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
To summarise: I maintain that an entity's own publication of its opinions are a reliable source for those opinions, and we may legitimately cite them to support the assertion that its opinions are what it says they are. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You can maintain anything you like, but WP:SPS is very clear:
If you disagree with policy, then you should try to gain concensus to have condition #2 removed from WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not disagree with the policy, I disagree with your interpretation of it, which I say is wrong. If the X Institute website says "Lincoln was a bad man", then as a self-published source, we cannot use that to support Wikipedia saying in its own voice "Lincoln was a bad man", because that is an assertion about a third party. But we can use it to support Wikipedia saying in its own voice "The X Institute says Lincoln was a bad man", or better, "The X Institute says 'Lincoln was a bad man'" (in quote marks), because that is not Wikipedia making an assertion about Lincoln, it is Wikipedia making an assertion about the X Institute. Note that in the case where it's a quote, WP:RS actually prefers the use of the original: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."
In summary, I say that Quest has taken an overly broad interpretation of "involve". Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Where in WP:SPS does it say that it's OK to use an self-publish source to make contentious claims about third-parties as long as it's not in Wikipedia's voice? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying "The X Institute says 'Lincoln was a bad man'" is not making a claim about Lincoln, but only about the X Institute. So that question is irrelevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln is a third-party. This is exactly what WP:SPS is designed prevent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I shouldn't have brought this up without a concrete example from an actual article (the kind of thing one can bring here.) But in general terms if advocacy groups/think tanks/institutes like MEMRI/IRMEP/etc. has just gotten documents X,Y,Z through FOIA or whatever reliable source about some individual/group and announces "we have documents X,Y,Z and they say blah blah. Note that blah blah is a violation of such and such law (see link to govt web site)." That should be WP:RS. If the group groups/think tanks/institutes say: "...And therefore X,Y,Z should be prosecuted immediately for violation of that law." That would be an opinion which would be open to challenge. Though the community might ultimately agree that opinion was useable. CarolMooreDC 00:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Quest, that is still wrong. Lincoln is a third party, but the fact that someone holds a particular opinion about Lincoln is not information about Lincoln, it is information about the opinion-holder. What SPS is designed to prevent is Jane Smith publishing on her website, say, "I was born in London and my father was John Smith", and us using that to source the statement "Jane's Smith father was John Smith". It is an acceptable source for "Jane Smith claimed that John Smith was her father" (except that if John Smith is still alive, a special BLP rule applies). Look at the article on David Icke, for example. He believes that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards, and we cheerfully source that, indeed quote, his self-published writings. For another example, look at the discussion on hopenothate.org.uk at this baord today. We should probably not report an opinion if no independent source has troubled to notice it (because reporting it would be to give it undue weight), but once we have decided to report it, a self-published source is actually a recommended source for an accurate quotation of that opinion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Carol, that's not right either. Analysis by a non-reliable source cannot be reported as fact. You can say "X Institute reports that the document said Y and claims that this violates law Z". Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at David Icke and the claim that he believes that world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards are sourced to a secondary source. In Icke's article, it's sourced to an article published by the Guardian.[31] Please cease and desist. This is getting tiresome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That seems to be incorrect. It is sourced at [37] to one of his self-published books, and his website is directly quoted at [40]. (It is also sourced to secondary sources, as one would expect for a belief which was worth reporting.) If you do not wish to pursue the discussion, by all means let us stop. I have explained your fallacy several times over and have no real desire to do so yet again. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't change goal posts, please. You asked about the claim that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards. That is clearly sourced to a secondary source as I just proved.[32] It is NOT sourced to his book. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you are now mispresenting the situation. As for 37, I don't think that "the race of gods known as the Anunnaki" really qualifies as a third-party since they don't exist. Yes, you really need to stop. Your arguments have no basis in policy and are now bordering on absurdity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the citations to Icke's self-published works are in the first and second paragraph of Reptilians and shape-shifting, which refers in the first sentence to his "reptoid hypothesis", which is that the world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards, I think the goalposts are pretty firmly in place. The reptilian aliens from the planet Draco are certainly third parties. If that doesn't help, try looking at reference [34] in the paragraph above, or [36], about the plans of the world leaders, or [41],[42],[43]. All cite Icke's SPS work, all refer to third parties, all are there to support our reporting of his shape-shifting lizard theory. The statement that this theory is "NOT sourced to his book" is simply not correct (it is also sourced to other places of course). Any absurdity you see is (either in Icke's theory or) in the failure to acknowledge the rather large difference between "David Icke thinks the world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards" and "The world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards".
There you go again. You falsely claimed that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards was sourced to his book when it's clearly not.[33] Rather than admit you were wrong, you falsely claimed that 37 was about a third-party when it's clearly not. I hate to break it to you but there are no "reptilian aliens from the planet Draco". What's the point of repeatedly proving you wrong when you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I have not made any false claims, and I am content to leave my case in the hands of impartial observers. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I am an impartial observer. I've never edited that article. Not even once. And if you bothered checking, I'm the 6the most active contributor to this board.[34] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An impartial observer of this discussion? Really? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me after reading the Guardian article, that the statements made within it rely on the fact that David Icke has claimed many times, including his books, that lizards are running the planet. I would interpret that fact to mean that, despite the link to the article, the article's source is still David Icke, which can be cited directly to his books. there is no "research" in that article that provides that opinion otherwise. Ergo, I would probably cite the book additionally, along with the article if someone feel's it's required for some reason. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break

It's getting hard to keep track of the items of evidence that are being added at the top of this thread, and adding such items out of sequence can change the sense of comments like "I have seen no evidence of reliability", which may be referring to some previous iteration of the list. It would be helpful to add any new items of evidence in thread order so they can be discussed as they arrive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite a number of these newer items are examples of IRMEP or Smith having their opinions quoted. Why is this evidence of reliability? One item comments that Smith has a Master's degree. Why is this evidence of reliability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It's irrelevant. I used to teach on a Master's Degree - most of the students were admitted without having had an undergraduate degree. It wasn't a bad course and it was in a respectable university, but the students at the end still didn't have the equivalent of a good undergraduate degree IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are two sources that seem to establish reliability for matters unrelated to Israel: [35] [36]. From my reviewing of the material above and some other sources, it seems the group is sufficiently significant and reliable to merit its use as a source. The concerns about its bias against Israel/Zionism are only significant with respect to the organization's own comments on Israel, but its opinion would be noteworthy enough to mention and it is apparently trustworthy enough to consider any FOIA documents on its site to be authentic.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources! Obviously when there is a Wiki article on IRmep any day now that ties all this material together its reliability will be easier to gauge. The Masters I just threw in there, but obviously more relevant to an article. Anyway now there are five people and me who think it's reliable for linking to primary sources on the web site, one against, and one whose opinion I will not attempt to characterize so as not to misinterpret. CarolMooreDC 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As long as it's cited as IRMEPs opinion and based on FOIA documents I see no problem with them as a reliable source. It is exactly how many other advocacy groups such as MEMRI are used in WP. Wayne (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Again no, because IRmep isn't a reliable source, i.e. not a reliable publisher of information; whence it follows that any documents IRmep publishes can't be treated as though they originated with a reliable publisher. If there's another source for these documents that has established credentials – a reputation for fact-checking, editorial oversight, etc. – that's fine and the documents are fine too. But that isn't the case here, and until the issues of IRmep's unreliability are resolved, the documents retain their status of originating with a publisher of questionable credibility.—Biosketch (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying that when IRMEP use FOI to get documents from normally reliable sources then those documents are no longer considered reliable? Since when is an organisation responsible for fact checking documents that have been released to them? Can you supply an instance where IRMEP has published or commented on documents that were subsequently discovered to not be reliable? Wayne (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If a source not considered reliable publishes what they claim to be a document from another party, we cannot use it as a source for the existence or contents of that document. We can use it to say, for example, "IRMEP claims to have documents saying XYZ", but we cannot use it to say "Documents showing XYZ exist", nor can we use it to say "XYZ is true". If IRMEP is considered a reliable source, then we can use it to say "IRMEP recovered documents and those documents say XYZ". We still cannot say "XYZ is true", unless the documents are also froma reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
What User:Cusop Dingle explained in his reply directly above is what I meant in my comment three messages up. It isn't that FOI-related documents need themselves to be reliable in order for us to use them. It's a question of who is publishing them as far as our citations are concerned. If these documents had been published by, say, the New York Times or NPR or something, there'd be no debate surrounding the reliability of the documents. But since IRmep appears to be their only source, we're faced with the problem that our only access to the documents is through IRmep, which isn't a demonstrably reliable publisher. That's what I meant. Again, it's not about anything internal to the documents; it's about the medium through which access to them is obtainable. Beyond that, the insistence that an instance be found of IRmep having ever published documents that were later discovered to not be reliable is an inversion of how these discussions are supposed to take place. The onus is on IRmep, as it were, to prove to us that it is a reliable source. To illustrate what the issue is: I can recruit a couple of guys from work, find a D.C.-based agent who'll register me as a company, start a blog with links to internally-hosted documents I claim are authentic declassified communication records, and pay PR Newswire to publish dozens of press releases advertising my claims. It's certainly conceivable no one's interest will have been sufficiently piqued that they'll care one way or another about the claims I make, so there won't be any actual evidence out there that I'm fabricating anything. At the same time, though, there won't be any evidence confirming my claims either. The absence of negative criticism doesn't make me a kosher source. In this case it just means the media's been indifferent. That's why we need actual positive evidence indicating that IRmep is a reliable source.—Biosketch (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaging consensus

This shouldn't need to be said, but since an editor appears to be keeping a tally of for and against opinions here, it should be stressed that RSN discussions are traditionally considered authoritative as a function of consensus among uninvolved editors. This was the original position of the editor who initiated this discussion, and it should be in that spirit that the discussion is concluded. Editors whose input is predictable based on their history in the I/P topic area (I include myself in that category) are of course important components in trying to establish consensus, but the greater weight is given to input from editors whose input isn't predictable, lest this turn into a vote.—Biosketch (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

[insert] My apologies for including myself in the tally. On the other hand, if we're supposed to get uninvolved opinion, don't you think you're opining once would be enough? Creating a whole sections to list things mostly already discussed, and constantly forcing me to clarify or explain, when other noninvolved editors don't see a problem, seems to me to be disruptive of the process, don't you think? Why else do I even have to try to summarize what's going on, unthinkingly putting myself in the consensus, except to deal with fact you keep going on and on and on? Geez, you think there'd be a rule agin' it. CarolMooreDC 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Christ on a bicycle, I logged in a few days ago and have been following this particular train-wreck. Documents obtained under FOIA (or similar government releases) by this group are treated as rock-solid, 100% reliable by my profession. A biased organization? Yes. A reputation for not forging documents or lying about their origins? Also yes. What's really going on here is a sophistic side-game in the battle to control underlying article content (presumably someone doesn't like what a primary document contains, so want to insist the site that hosts it is "unreliable.") As for the opinions of the group being "notable" ymmv. I concede that this back and forth nonsense, squabbling over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, has become the preferred form of discourse here (rather than direct, logical adult conversation). So it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you clarify please can this be cited for its opinions or 3rd party or not?--Shrike (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
@User:Shrike: "Opinions or 3rd party" are not really the subject of this thread. Frankly, I think that will end having to be done on a case by case basis since IRmep has done a lot of work on a lot of different issues and there are some where WP:RS quote IRmep/Grant books, opinions, actions, etc. and others where they don't. And one really has to search with very specific key words to find much such info since as we've seen very general searches don't come up with much; but very specific searches are what have come up with the most WP:RS mentions. At this point we are just talking about the documents on the website. CarolMooreDC 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
@Shrike the question "can IRmep be cited for its opinions or not" has a very clear (but not a very simple answer): It depends. Let me break it down: 1. All US and other official documents hosted on their servers should be treated as genuine and reliable. 2. IRmep also writes pieces of opinion and analysis. Some of these opinion and analysis pieces are excellent, some less so. In some cases it may be appropriate to quote (with attribution) IRmep opinion and analysis, in other cases, less so. The only sensible way to deal with this is on a case by case basis as a question of editorial discretion. There is no binary "yes/no" "Up/down" judgement to be made here, and an attempt to do so is damaging, because it limits the sophistication and maturity of judgement that needs to be applied to research.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely. Any disputes regarding the use of IRMEP should be handled on a case by case basis on the article talk page. Wayne (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That would be reasonable if these concerns re IRmep were confined to only one or two or three articles. Centralized discussion might be more efficient, but not profoundly so. Here that's not the case. There are roughly ten articles where IRmep had been linked to prior to my removals before the AIPAC sockpuppet debacle. It wouldn't be economical to have ten different and mostly overlapping discussions simultaneously. That's the rational behind centralized discussions in the first place. The discussion currently in progress at Talk:MEMRI, for example, has implications vis-a-vis everything we're discussing here, such as whether IRmep's own paperwork all adds up. That isn't something specific to MEMRI; rather, it's a concern relevant to a centralized and general discussion of IRmep.—Biosketch (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes WP:RS have commented very explicitly and in detail about certain researches by IRmep/Smith relevant to the article in question. That usually makes that material valid for any use. And people will bring individual cases here anyway. You can't stop them. CarolMooreDC 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliability depends on context. At the top of the page, we ask editors to tell us the following information:

  1. .A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
  2. .A link to the source in question. For example [37]
  3. .The article in which it is being used. For example article name
  4. .The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example

    text

    . Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
  5. .Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

Unfortunately, few do. Maybe start a new discussion (or sub-thread) with this information? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, to clarify, the original thread is about using FOIA released and other govt-related official primary source documents that only are lodged on the IRmep site. This thread was started because they were removed from a number of articles. I offered to give specific examples but no one took me up on it, in part because - given all the WP:RS mentioning/quoting/etc IRmep/Grant Smith - several people agreed that it obviously was reliable for displaying such documents. I do agree that if people challenge use of IRmep facts/opinions, be they following secondary source WP:RS and/or primary source official documents on IRmep site, those who disagree can bring specific issues here for community input on a case by case basis as discussed elsewhere in this overly long thread. CarolMooreDC 15:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

IRMEP - two separate issues

There appears to be two separate issues here:

  1. Citing this IRMEP's opinion about third-parties.
  2. Citing documents obtained in FOIA requests.

The first is not allowed per WP:SPS condition #2. The second you're not really citing IRMEP. You're citing primary documents that just happen to be hosted by IRMEP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS condition #2 does not apply as this guidline specifically applies to be[ing] used as sources of information about themselves. For use as a source of opinion about third-parties this guidline applies Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Wayne (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If you're referring to this edit,[38] Middle East Media Research Institute is clearly a third-party. Nobody has presented any evidence that the author is an established expert who's been previously published by third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Several people have presented evidence. You may just have missed reading the entire discussion before commenting. Smith has been interviewed by the BBC News and CNN, his articles have been reported by newspapers such as Reuters [39]. He has authored nine books on the subject, one co-authored with the former head of the CIA's bin Laden search team. We can assume that Smith has some expertise in the area and he has been previously published by third-party reliable sources. Wayne (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Being reported on and being a published author by third-party reliable sources are two different things. The only link you provided above is to this article by Reuters which is credited to Reuters. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"The second you're not really citing IRMEP. You're citing primary documents that just happen to be hosted by IRMEP." I disagree, as I said above: if a source not considered reliable publishes what they claim to be a document from another party, we cannot use it as a source for the existence, let alone the contents, of that document. IRMEP asserts that these are documents released under FOIA and that assertion, assuming the source is not a reliable one, is not enough, because the authority for the assertion is IRMEP. We can use it to say, for example, "IRMEP claims to have documents released under FOIA saying XYZ", but we cannot use it to say "Documents released under FOIA show XYZ", nor can we use it to say "XYZ is true". If IRMEP is considered a reliable source and publishes those documents, then we can use it to say "IRMEP recovered documents under FOIA and those documents say XYZ". We still cannot say "XYZ is true", unless the documents are also from a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Cusop Dingle and this comes back to oversight. Unless a publication has good editorial oversight (and therefore achieves reliability per Wikipedia) documents can be changed and those coming to a site would never know. As well, if a potential source is only published in a place that does not have good editorial oversight and no where else, and I don't know if this is the case or not, I would wonder if per weight the content should be included even with an in text attribution. (olive (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC))
Unfortunately, these two separate issues - 1) Citing this IRMEP's opinion about third-parties versus 2) Citing documents obtained in FOIA requests - were merged into the same thread. Looking at the culprit, it appears that Cusop Dingle was the one who made this mistake. I think it's best that Cusop Dingle step away from the discussion to avoid further blunders. This will allow uninvolved editors better able to assess this source's reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't get why you are so insistent about it being a Self-published source. This clearly is not a self-published source.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I fail to understand how IRMEPS reporting of documents is any different to that of any other advocacy group. A good example is MEMRI, they have no oversight yet are often used as a source of comment for the translation of Arabic articles (ie:primary documents that just happen to be hosted by MEMRI). They are often critisized by reliable sources for the unreliability of their translations, it is documented that they do in fact make alterations to text which changes context and some of the "articles" they translate are unreliable in themselves as many are little more than letters to the editor, but this appears to have little affect and they are frequently used as refs in WP articles. The only critism regarding IRMEPs reliability comes from WP editors. Wayne (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned that this discussion has become personal and that to me is a sign that those making the personal comments towards other editors have too much vested interest in the discussion. No one should be requesting an editor step away when the arguments have been calm and clearly articulated. For the very reason given above, that documents can be changed, as is possible with no oversight is why this site in not a reliable source, in my opinion. And Wikipedia has its own standards for reliability which is what this discussion is about.(olive (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC))
You cannot compare misinterpretation of documents (or differing and possibly debatable interpretations) of a language reported by WP:RS to an editor like User:Littleolive oil's WP:OR allegation that someone has falsified a scan of an original document. If they had you know that AIPAC et al with their millions of dollars of resources available to debunk critics would have proved it by now. CarolMooreDC 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a red herring to discuss the practicality of document falsification. The main issue is lack of editorial oversight, and this extends to articles as well as hosted documents.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to check: you have read the very beginning of this this thread with a long list of WP:RS regarding IRmep/Smith? And do you understand that despite this diversion, what we are discussing is reliability for hosting documents? See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence_re:_FOIA_docs If you only are responding to this last small section, you've missed a lot. Please respond so we'll all know. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I've added a new item to the list at the start of this whole thread that shows sources that have cited IRmep research or documents, and have several more I intend to add over the coming days, as time allows. The particular publication in this instance is the refereed journal, Military Review, published continuously by the United States Army since 1922.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Asiatic Journal

Is this work reliable? The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and foreign India, China and Australasia by Allen. - InarZan (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's too old to be used by us as a reliable source. Andrew Dalby 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
InarZan, what is the intended use? Age may not have any bearing on the matter, depending on use. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This is part of the contentious discussion about the St Thomas Christian article. A basic principle is that we never regard Victorian colonial studies as reliable on Indian sociology today. WP:HISTRS may be of interest. Please do not take this as an endorsement of one side or the other in the content dispute. It will take a lot more than just a few RSN posts to resolve it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No. This is not related to article St Thomas Christian. I am concerned about article Caste system in Kerala. I just want to include a quote to balance a view and avoid a potential confusion. I am giving below the entire paragraph. I only wish to quote the text given in the bold letters:

"The Christians, pursuant to the laws of the country, are the protectors of the silversmiths, brass-founders, carpenters, and smiths. The Pagans, who cultivate the palm-trees, form a militia under the Christians. If a pagan of any of these tribes should receive an insult, he has immediately recourse to the Christians, who procure a suitable satisfaction. The Christians depend directly on the Prince or his Minister, and not on the Provincial Governors. If any thing is demanded from them contrary to their privileges, the whole unite immediately for general defence. If a Pagan strike one of the Christians, he is put to death on the spot, or forced, himself, to bear to the church of the places an offering of a gold or silver hand, according to the quality of the person affronted. In order to preserve their nobility, the Christians never touch a person of inferior caste, not even a Nair. In the roads and streets, they cry out from a distance, in order to receive precedency from passengers; and if any one, even n Nair, should refuse this mark of respect, they are entitled to kill him on the spot. The Nairs, who are the nobility and warriors in Malabar, respect the Syrian Christians very highly and consider it a great honour to be regarded as their brothers. The privileges of the Syrian Christians are so numerous, that it would be tiresome to describe them all: but a few will be stated, of so important a nature, that they place them, in some measure, on an equality with their sovereigns. It is permitted only to the Brahmins and them to have inclosed porches before their houses. They are authorized to ride and travel on elephants: a distinction accorded only to them and the heirs of the crown. They sit in presence of the king and his ministers, even on the same carpet; a privilege granted to Ambassadors only. The King of Paroor, having wished, during the last century, to extend this privilege to the Nairs, the Christians declared war against him, and obliged him to restore affairs to their former state."

Sorry for not signing above. Please give me a reply. Thanks. - InarZan Verifiable 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
It is definitely not a reliable source for present-day sociology of India. In regard to past attitudes and practices, it's a primary source. It might be possible to use it if carefully attributed. In that case it would have a form of words like "according to a British traveller writing in 1822...". (Find out who the author was, and the best way to describe his status.) Discuss that option with other editors on the talk page and see if anyone objects. We can only use primary sources with great care. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary quoted on Necromancy

Material from the Oxford English Dictionary has been used to support a statement on the Necromancy article, but repeatedly removed as a "factual inaccuracy", examples here and here. To provide additional support for the article I added a quote from the source, here, but this has been deleted by another editor. Talk page discussion here. As I seem to be in a minority regarding the use of the source, guidance is requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

For my own part, I want to assure you that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with you citing the OED. I am not in disagreement over your use of the OED in this instance, neither am I challenging the reliability of the OED as a source(!). I removed the quote merely because it seemed redundant and therefore unnecessary. You might have noticed that I also added a link in the citation to the online OED, providing readers with direct, immediate access to the word entry where they could readily see the content you quoted (if they desired to do so) as a substitute for reproducing that content in the article. To reiterate, I did not delete the cited source, I deleted a quote taken from the source that had been added to its inline citation. Please refer to my recent post on the article talk page where I attempt to clear up the simple, unfortunate misunderstanding that has brought us to this point. Thank you. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
No, we still haven't succeeded in restoring all of the deleted source material, in the manner prescribed in Wikipedia:Offline sources, but grateful thanks to User:Andrew Dalby who has put in a lot of time and effort to achieve a compromise. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

thepeerage.com (update)

This notice is an update to previous discussions, listed here:

The compiler of this website (Darryl Lundy) has responded to me by email to clarify the some of the points raised. He was unaware of the debates listed above at the time. Here are two extracts from his email:

  • I try to show the source for every single fact given on the website - although when I started creating the database around 2000, I didn't show sources, so now I am still going back and adding sources to everything - will be a year or two before that task is finished (88.5% of all facts currently are sourced). I try to primarily use sources which are printed reference books but if someone emails me something about their own family, I will use that as well.
  • I'm not a professional genealogist - no formal qualifications in the area

So, I think that backs up the previous discussions, "thepeerage.com" website is effectively an SPS with regard to some family histories, which are accepted in good faith by the compiler. Those pieces of information should not be used here on WP.

I do not feel there is any reason to question the quality of the information on "thepeerage.com" that has been identified as being sourced from an RS, particularly if the WP article is not a WP:BLP, but it is obvious best practice to consult and cite the original source if the contributor has access to them.

The problem is that some of these RS require expensive subscriptions and consequently, not all libraries stock them. Rather than deleting "thepeerage.com" citations altogether, I think it would be good practice to indicate whether the information has been extracted from an RS, in which case the original source should be cited as well. In due course, contributors with access to the RS can update the citations. Obviously, SPS-sourced material needs to be deleted, or at the very least, WP:Citation needed tags applied. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No There is no reason to believe that this source copies the material intact, correct and complete: The source has no editorial control. Further, what you say you've heard via personal correspondence isn't really a suitable basis for evaluating a source. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with your first point, however, even sources with editorial oversight have errors in them. That's why this isn't an RS and why ultimately, we need to check the source material. Where this website can help is that it points directly to a page in a book; get the book, check the page and if all is well, there you are.
Disagree with your second point as the compiler is not claiming to be an expert - he is excluding himself and some of the material from being a reputable source. This really has to be taken on board. Wikiwayman (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Demonstrate the SPS exemption. There's no demonstration of a self-published source exemption, or expertise here. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to draw a distinction between unverified SPS material on the site and the re-publishing of extant material alongside it. I'd assumed the reformatted information could not be tainted by opinion due to its plain content.Wikiwayman (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
That's nice. We don't assume that the reformatted information is untainted because of the propensity of people on the internet to fake things, and because of the propensity of people in general to fake things. This is why we may use some things as external links (like thepeerage.com), even when they're unreliable sources. Because we refer people to a source we consider "unreliable" because our standards are high regarding our own use of sources, whereas people in this case may be able to make use of the information at the external link, using their judgement. Wikipedia editors rarely use their judgement about competing content claims, and only use them about the capacity of a source to sustain a claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that. If he's a published/peer-reviewed scholar in this field, OK. If he isn't, then, however useful his site is in indicating other sources to us, we can't treat it as a reliable source in itself.
NB Where thepeerage.com gives a good overview of a relevant matter (e.g. the genealogy of a family, since genealogy is not our own main concern) then there may still be reason to include thepeerage.com under external links. Andrew Dalby 08:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so if I'm starting to understand this correctly, when I come across an article that uses the website as a reference source, I should work with the authors to improve references (by going back to the original source if available) and agree to remove any dubious information that I don't believe is likely to have originated in a published work. In a small number of circumstances it may be relevant to include an external link. Wikiwayman (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Didn't answer, but that's because I agree. "A small number" may be exactly right: let's be fair, either way. If we used peerage.com originally, and as long there is still some handy added information to find there, a retained external link helps our readers and at the same time serves as acknowledgement. Andrew Dalby 10:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

MAXIMILIANO HERRERA elections

This is often cited as a resource for election dates, but it is also wrong with such examples as its previous posting of the Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2012 (he has not changed the site and put an "???" as unknown date, possibly from WP itself). And it also has no editorial oversight as a personal angelfiee page. The disclaimer mentions as much in saying "The editor disclaims any representation of warranty, about the completeness or exactness of the information on the web site.".Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Not RS, but feel free to leave a note on his user page here saying you thought about it. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 02:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, without editorial oversight and independent verification, it is essentially a blog --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

NSC Network

I have seen many articles use NSC Network for citation. But the website says it is "Powered by Wordpress". That means it is only a blog, right? Can such a blog be considered RS if it has a custom domain? There are many such Wordpress based "websites" out there. What is the general rule here? - InarZan Verifiable 08:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what domain. The issue against blogs is that, as a general thing, there's no review or oversight: the contributor(s) can write whatever they fancy. It's true that some quite scholarly material now appears in blog form (partly, I guess, because it's an easy way to set up a site). The question would be, is the author named and identifiable as a scholar who has published reliably elsewhere on the subject? If no, the blog is almost certainly not usable as a reliable source. If yes, it's worth considering. Andrew Dalby 10:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that being a blog doesn't necessarily rule out a website these days (maybe that policy needs a tweak/update to clarify?) and looking at that site, it has editorial oversight in place, and lays out all its policies clearly as well (but admits to having a pro- and biased stance on some issues). The articles I randomly looked at all had attribution to an editor, and sources listed. I would say this would be RS for most things, but if there was something very controversial, I would try and use the source directly instead. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

allkpop.com

I have been removing allkpop.com as a source for various Korean pop articles (say, Girls' Generation). However, due to the lack of reliable sources on the topic in English, many new/anonymous editors use this site and many others as a source. If you do a search on "allkpop" (link), you'll see many pages using the page as a source.

Allkpop.com is a blog that (in general) translates various Korean news articles into English. However, they have run into issues/debates/controversies with Korean media (here's an article accusing allkpop of all sorts of things, including being at best biased and at worst anti-korean) and allkpop has responded multiple times to these accusations (such as this Mailbag). However, if you look up "allkpop reliable" in Google, you'll see that it's an issue that still percolates throughout the k-pop blogosphere.

The bigger issue is that disclaimer clearly indicates that "allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts" and "Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims." As such, how can it be used as a reliable source?? Considering that most of the K-pop pages are BLPs, this is, to me, quite troubling.

There are many other websites that fall into this category (other k-pop blogs include hellokpop and seoulbeats, and there are numerous group-specific fansites such as soshified that are used as sources) but allkpop seems to be the most popular, hence this post. I wish to note that another editor brought this up earlier this year (see post) but there were no responses.

It would be greatly appreciated if other editors can provide their input. Thank you. SKS (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree absolutely. I already had serious doubts and have removed it as a reference for BLP information; SKS confirms my worst fears about the sites. K-pop is a troublesome area to begin with; I have yet to come across a K-pop article that shouldn't be labeled with a fancruft tag, and this ubiquitous use of allkpop (which reports on everything, and consequently the fans add this everything in clear violation of WP:FART) as a reference is only an invitation to more cruft. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Fladrif and blanket removal as "Not RS per RSN"

An Editor conduct issue, not an RSN question, wrong noticeboard. WP:ANI perhaps?
There is no question here about a source being reliable, this is a discussion about editor behaviour only.

Fladrif (talk · contribs) is blanket removing sources from a large range of articles. thepeerage.com is one, spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk another.

Without any personal comment on Fladrif, I have a basic distrust of any crusade edits like this. Human editors are needed to be editors, exercising some sort of executive judgement. This blanket removal is the sort of change that could be carried out by a very small Perl script. If it's really required, then it's required - but that's only in the very worst cases, such as outright spam. In particular, this run of edits (based on the unrelated dimension of a host site) inevitably crosses many disciplines of content knowledge. Personally I just edit the stuff that I know about and I stay the hell away from anything else. Problems arise otherwise.

There is no attempt here to find other sourcing for a statement. As the end result of these is to turn a statement with a less than perfect source to one with no source at all, I'm finding it hard to see an overall benefit.

I also find this absolutely strict imposal of "Not RS per RSN, therefore immediate removal of the ref" to be simplistic.

One risk is that content that is entirely uncontroversial finds itself dereferenced (when in fact there are many, many sources for the same information) and then that information is in turn removed. Given the interminable WP problem of editors looking for adminishtrivia that can be done, rather than things that ought to be done, the likelihood is that we eventually lose content and articles for no good reason.

Is this an appropriate blanket edit to be performing? What are the set of sites that should be purged absolutely like this? Is that list visible and appropriate? Is this the best, or even an acceptable, editing action to be taking in this volume? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been extensive and definitive discussions about these sources. They are self-published sources written by amateurs who are not established experts, and have never been published by reputable, third party publications within the scope of the relevant subject matter. The clear and unequivocal consensus is that they are not reliable sources and should not be used as references; at most they can be listed as External Links. After that process is completed, one can hardly be heard to object to the removal of references to such sources; those that are interested in the subject matter will indeed need to find sources that do qualify as reliable sources lest, at some point in time, the material be deleted for lack of verifiable support. There are literally tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, most of them written several years ago when it was not nearly as vigilant about sourcing, that rely heavily, if not exclusively, on online, self-published amateur websites specifically determined at WP:RSN not to be proper sources that are more convenient than actually going to a library for sources that actually qualify as reliable sources. If there are such sources, then find them and insert them as appropriate. Asserting that WP:RS and WP:V should be ignored in the meanwhile to permit sourcing to such sites notwithstanding determination at WP:RSN that they cannot be used as sources simply because "a poor source is better than no source" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise these policies are meaningless. Fladrif (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
100% agree that thepeerage.com is not a WP:RS and agree with actions to remove the cites to thepeerage.com from articles, especially from WP:BLP articles. There have indeed been several discussions about amateur self-published sites like thepeerage.com, please look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#thepeerage.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Self-published_royalty_websites. These web sites do not meet WP:RS, plain and simple. These sites may be helpful in doing research, because they sometimes site a genuine WP:RS reliable source for their information, but then the Wikipedia article should cite the WP:RS and not thepeerage.com or other amateur sites like it. Zad68 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
No-one is asserting that WP:RS or WP:V should be ignored (nice use of the straw man argument there, and I see that you've already snagged one).
However your actions here, particularly that of removing sources rather than improving them, are contra to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. It would be better to replace these sources with better ones. It would be better to work so that others might do this, perhaps by tagging the references as unreliable and in need of improvement. Simply removing them blindly is more harmful to the overall encyclopedia than I believe is necessary. In particular (and this happens with every crusade like this) it overwhelms the editor subject or project groups that might work to improve these articles by the sheer rate at which they're removed. It's the wiki equivalent of seagull management - an editor that flies across a series of articles, breaks one aspect of them (if nothing else, it opens them to summary deletion for being unreferenced) and there is no intention of that editor ever fixing the real problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
No content was removed, so there is no violation, in either letter or spirit to the subsections of WP:Editing policy cited, and a certain delicious irony to citing an unsourced article in support of this untenable position. Fladrif (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Raised at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blanket_removals_of_refs_as_.22Not_RS_per_RSN.22_.28Moved_from_WP:RS.2FN.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about Taliban/Insurgent casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox

There's currently a discussion (which I started) about whether it's appropriate to use a casualty figure apparently derived from the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article in the infobox of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) in the absence of a specific reference for this, and where there is a reliable source saying that there are no reliable estimates for Taliban casualties. This discussion is at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox, and I'd like to invite editors who frequent this board to contribute their views there. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not RS for other Wikipedia articles, as per WP:RS, subsection "Reliability in specific contexts", item b, paragraph 2, "Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.". -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ChaCha

Is ChaCha a reliable source? People keep adding poorly sourced sensitive information to an article, I need some help here. link. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Where/What is ChaCha? Please provide a specific edit, and a specific sourcing for it from ChaCha, if you would like a relevant answer. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you see my link above? I don't know what chacha is either, it looks like something like wikianswers. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The information is in the diff link^. I don't want to edit war so I'd like secondary confirmation that the blogs and chacha and wikianswers refs are not good refs for that statement made (please see the diff). I believe it's a serious WP:BLP violation. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You will likely find that instead of making people go hunt for the information required, that if you had said something like "is www.chacha.com a reliable source for this edit "blah"?", people will tend to respond more often. I found the site hidden in your diff, looked at it, and it is not RS for information on the band, Fee. It is a user-input website with no indication of editorial control, whether its contents happen to be valid or not, it is not considered reliable by WP standards. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

George Menachery

Is George Menachery a RS for articles related to social history in Kerala? More specifically, his journal "Aspects of the Idea of “Clean and Unclean” among the Brahmins, the Jews, and the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala"? - InarZan (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My quick impression is that he is a published academic in this subject area; therefore this particular paper, although apparently self-published, is not disqualified. It looks well-documented. Am I right in thinking he is a member of the St Thomas Christians? One should be aware of possible conflicts of interest and be prepared to mention his name in the text if citing him on anything contentious. Would others agree with that view? Andrew Dalby 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems to pass my WP:SELFPUB test as well, I would say this is an RS article. I didn't see where it said he was a member of STCs, but if that's the case, it's not a direct COI, but any exceptional claims should probably be backed up with another source as well. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 03:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I see no indication that he has published in the scholarly mode at all. His encyclopaedia is self-published. He hasn't published with scholarly publishers. He don't have any claims of publishing journal articles in the peer reviewed mode. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I was maybe a bit too positive but I think that's a bit too negative :) He and his encyclopaedia crop up in JSTOR references and reviews, admittedly not many. The academic side of his career is in Christian colleges, but, there you go, it happens. My impression from a brief but helpful review of the Encyclopaedia seen on JSTOR is that there is one POV issue that must be noted: an assumption, amounting to an article of faith, that St Thomas reached Kerala and is buried there. So better not quote him on that -- certainly not as a reliable and neutral source. Andrew Dalby 08:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not into that. I want to quote him for the untouchability practiced by Syrian Christians. Since he himself is a Syrian Christian, I assume he has some authority regarding that issue. Could you please refer the discussion here and comment whether he is an RS in the particular context? - InarZan Verifiable 09:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
So you want to quote him on the expert practice of religion amongst a particular group; and, we can clearly demonstrate that he is an expert practicioner of religion within this group? That's a different expert argument to say, religious history, where I'd suggest the publication mode of his encyclopaedia would need to be weighed against its use in scholarly articles (as suggested by Andrew Dalby). If you want to quote him on the contemporary social practices of a religion of which he is an expert member, that seems fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Woah, I've only just spotted this thread, despite being involved with Inarzan and other STC advocates on various articles. I had raised the issue of Menachery's reliability but it seems that it came here without any notification being made. Anyway, as with many aspects of the STC articles, the problem is as much on of English comprehension etc as it is of the more generalised reliability issues. In this instance, Inarzan appears to have misrepresented been vague the purpose for which they want to use Menachery. As I understand it, the untouchability matter relates to a historic practice rather than a current one. The chances of Menachery having experienced that practice are at issue. I seriously question the author's reliability. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Menarchy is clearly unreliable for historical caste/caste-system practices: no scholarly publications, work is self-published, no qualifications as a historian. The expert exemption I'd give him over current practices of his own religious group (due to his standing as a publishing religious figure, publishing in modes that reflect standard scholarly religious publication) doesn't apply to historical practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of source/s in 2-3 similar articles re Pakistan/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Dear Wikipedia editors/users, Would be grateful if you could kindly check my notes left on the talk pages of three articles of a similar type/area as indicated above, i.e. Jadoon, Haji Sahib of Turangzai and Bostan Khan (the last a stub I started but some new refs added) --there might possibly be others too but have only identified thse so far--I have an objection to one particular source being used as ref/citation in all three i.e. a promotional, self-published (prob commissioned or paid) volume in Urdu, Tarikh e Sarfaroshan e Sarhad which literally means 'A History of the Heroes/Martyrs of the Frontier (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Province; this was written/published by a gentleman (late) Muhammad Shafi Sabir, purporting to be a 'historian' circa 1990s. This work is in itself rather suspect in that (a) it has v few or no references or citations in it, and just lists and recounts the various heroic deeds of some figures/people from these parts (b) has a very flattering and prejudiced/biased tone and isnt an objective historical study of these people (c) it is rather poorly written with many statements that i havent been able to veriy about various people or tribes etc, from anywhere, over many long years of academic research. Regarding the late Sabir, please refere to this website which gives a bit of information about him http://www.sheenweb.com/tag/professor-muhammad-shafi-sabir . In addition, this suspect volume has been picked up by some local/Pashtun students of a well-known college nearby and they have almost copied whole chunks of it in translation to it, on a 'Khyber/Pashtun promotion' website, again not a very neutral one i.e. http://www.khyber.org (see People/Personalities section) and een a brief cursory look will show that it isnt a very reliable site and I believe that neither the book mentioned here nor the site should be used as reliable sources in articles on Wikipedia. Isnt there any way that we could consider/discuss this matter and add these to some sort of list of books/sites that dont come up to Wiki standards, please? I would welcome feedback on this thanks AsadUK200 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

  • Please follow the instructions listed at the top of this page. Please break down your requests into one paragraph per source/claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Although convoluted, the above request regards the use of Tarikh e Sarfaroshan e Sarhad (Urdu, title translates as A History of the Heroes/Martyrs of the Frontier (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Province, written by Muhammad Shafi Sabir). The queries regard:
  • the apparent claim that the author is a historian, information about whom can be found here
  • the dearth of references contained within it, and the inability of the person querying it to verify the statements that it makes
  • the subjective nature of its content
In addition, the named book is apparently used almost verbatim on this website, which itself is of dubious merit and much cited (this should probably be a separate request here).

I encouraged the reporting contributor to raise the issue here and to notify both WT:PAK and WT:INB that they had done so because of the source being written in Urdu. I have since pointed the reporting contributor to WP:NOENG, and I can confirm that there are many similar non-English sources used to glorify various Indian subcontinent community-related articles that appear to be of dubious merit and often founded on self-glorifying folklore etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg, I am afraid, although I am not in a position to comment on this particular example. What I can say is that I am struggling to find anything that suggests that the author was a "genuine" professor, and that (as per usual the usual meaningless statement) Shafir is a reliable source for his own opinions As am I! - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • What would assist is (a) more information regarding the credentials of the author; b) more detail regarding the publisher; and (c) is there any evidence that the author has been peer reviewed/cited etc by recognised independent people. Forget the khyber.org website for now - that is a separate issue (although I sympathsise). - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sitush. I'll get on this today and see what I can find, admittedly from my Australian academic culture perspective on "who is a historian" and "what is appropriate publishing" etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Unicode is necessary here:
  • The author is Muḥammad Shafīʻ Ṣābir and the work is Taz̲kirah-yi sarfaroshān-i Sarḥad Pishāvar : Yūnīvarsiṭī Buk Ejansī, [1990].
  • Worldcat indicates that it is not widely collected, but it is in Urdu. Muḥammad Shafīʻ Ṣābir's publication history is sporadic, concentrating on books of biographical sketches. He isn't cited, he doesn't have a biography online.
  • There are no reviews of his works—but, I don't expect the review cycle to have been effective in picking up Urdu muslim biography in the 1960s, 70s, 80s or 90s. He has stopped publishing and is deceased.
  • If the bio linked above is correct, he was a High School principal (of an institution he himself funded), with Masters degrees in English and Urdu. This isn't a great sign.
  • I'm really reluctant to rule someone who appears to lie between "enthusiastic amateur" and "unusual scholar" out, just because he published in Urdu in the pre-digital age. The question is: are the biographical sketches of a scholarly nature? Biographical history may use a different pool of sources to organisational, social or cultural history. The density of citations is not going to be a great indicator. If someone could translate all the citations for "the best" biographical sketch from the work, that would help greatly, as it would indicate the kind of scholarship Muḥammad Shafīʻ Ṣābir was conducting. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Fifelfoo and User:Sitush, thank you for this v informative discussion, just read it! Im v sorry for my long and somewhat mixed up discussion query above. However, am grateful that youve clarified the issue and laid it out simply and coherently. As I see it, there are 3 basic points to be considered here:

1. What sort of books did the late Sabir publish, was he an 'enthusiastic amateur historian' as stated and how 'scholarly' were his 2-3 books (between 1966-1990)?

2. Would these books be useful/valid as sources especially when taken up and translated into English by a website, in turn, which is purely dedicated to fostering its own cultural/ethnic agenda/s--and which site is in fact the main reference point, then for the users/editors here on Wikipedia who probably havent read the book at all and are just using the web material for their own 'puffery' related reasons in articles? and

3. Ultimately, how 'scholarly' and 'reliable' are either of these sources?

As a retired professor who has taught and researched in universities in Pakistan and abroad for over 30 years, and with some knowledge of proper scholarly research and writing and peer-reviewing on several academic journals here, plus some local knowledge of conditions here, I must say that as User:Sitush points out, there is a major issue of 'puffery' here in South Asia-- various caste/clan/tribal and 'biradri' systems are still deeply rooted in our societies; and in Pakistan at least, there are maybe some 200-220 families/familial groups who are the 'elite' and who comprise our main 'feudal' power structures. These people, based in various provinces and areas of this country, are people who are very vain and are very proud of their own 'ancestry' and 'pedigree' and such' and today, as in the past, actively encourage and patronise historical 'research' and 'publication' (which they commission actually) that further flatters their egos. In this regard, some of the Urdu and regional languages private presses/pubishers (running small businesses) publish most of such works and there are 'scholars' with few or no formal academic or research credentials who write 'books to order'. In this instance, for example, all of Mr Sabir's books are based on oral accounts/versions given to him by some patrons (a long list and I am willing to email further information and details confidentially) of their own inflated 'family/tribal history/ies'-- if you look at any of the texts you will not find any direct references/citations at all. Sometimes, in the text he will say 'In such and such book by so and so it is written (without dates, pages, years of publication etc) -- and thats about it. This is as far as I am concerned, please, not 'academic' or 'scholarly' enough. Indeed, some 'historical information' stated in these books are quite contrary to other reputable sources in English and Urdu, and even earlier Persian and Punjabi works c 17th to 19th centuries, that have happened to have come before me during the course of my own readings/research; and at other times, some information is given selectively only, removing the 'not wanted' parts and retaining the 'wanted' ones. Thus, in my humble opinion, (a) there is the problem of references made out of context, too and (b) there is certainly a Conflict of Interest involved. This is all I have to say on this matter, please, i hope that this is useful and that somethign can be done to at least check and limit such sources here on Wikipedia. Thank you and very best regards, AsadUK200 (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Dear Asad, your reading of Muḥammad Shafīʻ Ṣābir's publication history mirrors my own concerns. Given that Ṣābir relied on oral testimony, was working prior to the revolution in oral history, came from a culture with suspect academic publishing practices (at that time), did not receive reviews of his works, was working in the unusual historical genre of the "biographical sketch," and that he did not have other scholarly publications elsewhere meeting the expected standards of historical publications. Considering Ṣābir's work in relation to WP:HISTRS means that I believe we should conclude that his works are not reliable for sub-continental history and sub-continental ethnicity. —The conflict of interest is not significant here, we accept all scholarly points of view. The problems are that Ṣābir's method of referring to other literature, his naïve trust in his respondent's reports, his unusual genre (and the paucity of scholarly apparatus associated with this genre), the lack of overview from the publishing community at the time he published and the absence of Ṣābir publishing outside of this unusual publishing mode in an mode that is genuinely scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Asad, I have a lot of respect for the opinions of Fifelfoo but I am also aware that you are a fairly new contributor. My suggestion would be that you do nothing based on Fifelfoo's opinion for at least three or four days. This is in order to give other people the opportunity to comment here. I suspect that there will not be many, if any, who do but it provides an opportunity for consensus to form. Should you then remove references to this book based on the outcome of this discussion then it would be good to try to insert a permanent link to it in your edit summaries or on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I can explain how to do this if you drop me a note nearer to the time.

For what it is worth, based on the explanations now provided by yourself and Fifelfoo, I too consider Sabir to be unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy and "Online Gotha" ?

I'm curious about another site involved in the recent bulk removals of refs from thepeerage,com

In these two edits:

Not only have refs from thepeerage been removed, but also sites related to a Paul Theroff and an "Online Gotha" project. Searching the WP:RSN archives didn't seem to turn up anything related to this site (a passing mention in archive 77 from 2010). Is there any reason to consider this source to be beyond the pale too and subject to summary removal? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on things being subject to summary removal, but I see from your diffs that the first one is an angelfire website (the second one appears to have been hosted at pages.prodigy.net, but is now only available through the internet archive site). I see no way to claim either of those sites are RS for anything other than that those pages themselves exist. Not RS. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there a real reason to distrust the credibility of the content? - or is this just hostname snobbery? In particular, has there been any consensus-based discussion (presumably here) to determine Paul Theroff's sites (wherever he chooses to host) as unreliable and subject to summary removal? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No snobbery. Zero references, zero credentials listed, zero site policy on verification, zero information on what to do about errors/corrections. No email address to ask questions to. No phone number to call. No attribution to any authors of the "article". A google search of his name does show some links, but they all seem to link back to his page as a source, ergo, they aren't sources either. Other than those, I can't find anything notable aobut him that would indicate that he is any kind of authority on this subject. Did I miss something obvious, is this person a notable person in this field? Sorry for the shorter answer before, I hope this helps you a bit more. I will say, as a starting point, user-content pages are often going to have a little bit more of an uphill battle for RS-ness right off the bat, but mainly that's because of all the zeros I listed above, those problems are usually quite consistent across user pages that way. Keep in mind, I'm not saying anything about whether their information is correct or not, just that we can't use it here based on our policies (as I read them anyway). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
On the plus side, assuming his information is correct, there's a source he used out there somewhere, all you have to do is find it! -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Online Goetha wasn't mentioned in passing at Archive 77. It was discussed in detail and specifically. It is a self-published source by an admitted amateur who is not recognized as an expert, and who has never been published by an independent, third party reputable publisher within the scope of the relevant subject matter. There are no references provided for any of the information provided, and the general statement from Mr. Theroff about his sources shows that he relied heavily on usenet postings, private correspondence from other amateur enthusiasts, and web forums. Fladrif (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
That would be "discussed in detail" with comments like, "Paul Theroff seems to be highly appreciated on the on-line genealogy community.", "It may well be that Paul Theroff's on-line Gotha may in fact be the most reliable." and "I do not think this notice board can pass judgment on Paul Theroff."
I don't see that archive #77 reached any firm conclusion here, certainly not one so negative as to make the site immediately forbidden for use as any source from WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please supply a citation and link to the source[s] in question so third parties can comment? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

sites.google.com

In the article about Johan Galtung a Google domain of sorts that I'm unfamiliar with is used as reference for his many honorary doctorates.

It looks to me like an individual's private website hosted by Google. Is this any good? __meco (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. It is the self-published website. [40] Not a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Not reliable per Fladrif. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the response and have removed the reference from the article. __meco (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

I am raising this here following a semi-related (but not really) discussion at WT:FOOTBALL - I believe this website is not reliable and should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia. I understand it is user-generated content with only minor editorial oversight, and I, and other users, have encountered far too many errors - some deliberate - for it to be allowed. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the errors on this site are numerous comparing to other established reliable sources. However, I cannot confirm that the material is user-generated, where did you see that? All in all, I would not discourage to use the site anywhere per se, just (IMHO) it shouldn't be used to justify notability per WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
As in I could register an account, contribute some information, and it would probably get posted. GiantSnowman 18:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Which part of the site are we talking about? One part of the site is a news aggregator, although on the first page it looks like all the news stories are coming from PA Sports. PA Sports is certainly a reliable source, being part of the Press Association, a legitimate news organization. I would think that it would be better to be citing PA Sports itself, rather than some aggregator just reprinting it. Another part is an online web forum, which most definitely does not qualify as a reliable source, as it is entirely user-generated. Fladrif (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I'm talking specifically about player databases/profile pages - such as this - which I presume forms part of the latter. GiantSnowman 19:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how it is for other languages, but the most of articles on the German version of the webiste are by the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a reliable source. However, the database is clearly unreliable. The most obvious example of it is this where false information was added to transfermarkt profiles as a result of it being added to Wikipedia. Given that they rely, at least in part, on us as a source we cannot accept the website as reliable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The site requires you to input a source in order for that information to be added. So it should only be wrong if other reliable sources also have it wrong. I strongly disagree with GS with the statement should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Its a highly useful source i totally agree its user inputted so can not be seen as fully reliable. However for some players transfermarkt is highly useful for identifying missing parts of a players career and for working out sources so as long as its backed up by other reliable sources i see no reason why this cannot be included as an additional source. This is an overaction to a very overreacted thread at WP:Footy already linked.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing that I see on those player profile pages that indicate their provenance, or what kind of editorial control is maintained. I tend to be highly skeptical of sites like this. But, in its favor (i) I see that it is part of a much larger media company, and not just the product of one person's little empire, having been bought out several years ago from the founder, and (ii) a Google News search indicates that those player profiles (or more precisely, the "values" which at first blush I regarded as probably the least reliable thing about the site) are actually cited relatively frequently by mainstream press sources. This is rather like looking at the Impact Factor of a paper in a scholarly publication - if other unquestionably reliable sources are repeatedly relying on it, it has presumably gained a level of acceptance for accuracy. On balance, while I remain skeptical of these kinds of sites, it apparently has a level of acceptance in the press that would permit it to be used as a source. 19:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Other sources do not copy Transfermarkt; Transfermarkt copies other sites. We need to ask the question "if something appears on Transfermarkt, but not other, established reliable sites, why is that?" GiantSnowman 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Other reliable sources do reference Transfermarkt.[41][42][43][44] etc...Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On point (i), please could you add a link to where it says it's part of a much larger media company, and no longer the responsibility of its founder? Transfermarkt's legal notice names Matthias Seidel as CEO/chief editor and legally responsible for the content, and the TM-team page names Mr Seidel as founder. On point (ii), I think the estimated player "values" aren't something that would be used in an encyclopedia, whether the German press use them in speculative pieces or not, and, as I understood it at least, aren't what's under discussion here. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Axel Springer AG bought a majority stake in Trnasfermarkt in 2008. [45]Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes but thats what we do we rely on other sources so do they. (Im aware not really the point here) They use sources so my point is if they are incorrect then other sources will be also. I think to say it should never be used at all is an overreaction. It shouldn't be used on its own but used along with other reliable sources as part of a bigger picture i see no problem, as long as its not the sole source establishing notability. We have many other stats sites that to be plainly honest are probably more inaccurate but yet we consider them reliable. We have to be proportionate to the situation at hand and to say it should never be used full stop is an overreaction to a situation that to be plainly honest should never of seen the light of day.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec)@Struway2, what´s in question here are general information about players profile, career and statistics. Speculative prices are not an issue as I don´t recall any case of that being included in a WP article and being a matter of discussion at any place. I defend that the website should be used as comlementary source, while GS wants to remove it from WP completelly. FkpCascais (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
But not everything on Transfermarkt is from another site, I could register an account now and add some stats I've made up. And I'll repeat - "if something appears on Transfermarkt, but not other, established reliable sites, why is that?" GiantSnowman 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Ive only edited it once but it wouldn't let me change anything without adding the source. It wasn't stats though and to be honest wouldn't use it for that. My position is that to ban its use completely is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, and at this time is an overreaction i take that opinion from reading below and at the project. I think we all agree that it certainly shouldn't be used at a primary source , however it is useful for some information and as long as the article has other reliable sources this isn't an issue so where is the need for the highline here. This should have all been left to calm down for another day rather than keeping it going now which is going to get us nowhere due to the bad feeling clearly ongoing below.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
GS, you are wrong. You apeak with certainly that you could add phalse statistics, but you are only speculating. You are asked to provide a source for you changes there, and the changes are not introduced to the page until a website admin confirms them, a process that sometimes takes a couple of days. So you are making precipitated conclusions which are not giving the real objective image of the website (I called your attention to this a couple of times in the past when yu made the same exact claim, and you never responded to me). FkpCascais (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I will like to comment that this entire discussion begin with my complain at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Filip_Kosti.C4.87_and_sourcing_problems. To resume it all, what happend is that User:GiantSnowman PRODed the article Filip Kostić (a footballer which passes WP:Notability) on the basis that its notability is sourced by Transfermarkt, and being the website an unreliable source, he PRODED it. I complained because not only was very easy to find better sources and imporve the article, but because GS was also disturbing WP to make a pont. Now, the website is righfully listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links and it has been used in same way as other generalistic football websites. For established users it is not difficult to see what infirmation of theirs need double-checking and which doesn´t; for instance, one league appereance of one players 20 years ago may need to be confirmed, but 23 current season match-by-match reports for one player of a league they are known for following well, thinking it is a HOAX is just exagerated. I already said at FOOTY, adding a refimprove tag for situations where the site may contain doubtfull information is OK, but PRODING articles sourced by it, and asking for the website to be completelly from WP is unreasonable. FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We KNOW that false stats can be added - Zombie433 (talk · contribs) made a career out of it. GiantSnowman 20:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
But it was what? 2 years ago? The site has expanded and changed much of the content since then. Also, he usually focused on African players, so no need to reject the rest of the content. Come on GS, I remember how we fought against Zombie "the cheater", but, despite not having evidence of him being around anymore, even so, his edits were just a drop in the sea within entire Transfermarkt world. Also, it is not at all easy for him to cheat actual match reports of leagues, so once the website has a match-by-match league record (they have it since 2006 for Serbian SuperLiga) cheating stats become much more difficult because implies phalsefiying entire match reports. Basically, and that is how I have been dealing with it, the stats prior to 2006 can be doubtfull, but the ones since 2006 are close to error free (speaking on SuperLiga case, each league may have a different time point when they started having match-by-match reports). FkpCascais (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Fkp, I'd politely suggest you strike your accusation against me that I was making a WP:POINT; I'd also you suggest we keep your issues with me and the PROD at the WP:FOOTY discussion, and keep this discussion purely for talking about the merits (or lack of them) of a certain website. GiantSnowman 19:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I opened the thread at FOOTY because I wanted to discuss the correct use of an accepted website which is not RS. We have been using many similar websites in numerous articles, and we need to establish the proper way of using its information. You are the one who derailed the discussion making this a debate being an unecessary "all or nothing" to that website. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you opened the thread at WP:FOOTY to create more drama and whine about me PRODding an article. GiantSnowman 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, because you PRODed an aticle just because it was sourced by Transfermarkt... If you have said, "OK", I wouldn´t be "making a drama", but instead you continued with this making it now a "life or death" issue for the website... FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I PRODded it because the claim to notability was not verified by a reliable source. Tjose are basic, key policies that you seem to be ignoring. GiantSnowman 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
What I said is that having in mind that we have houndreds, if not thousands, of articles at FOOTY which are sourced by similar non RS websites, for these cases of players obviously passing notability (because they play in top level league which is quite easy to confirm), putting a refimprove tag would be adequate and enough, but you never said "OK" to this... FkpCascais (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
We're going round in circles. I came across an article that had only one source of highly doubtful reliability. I looked for other sources, and found none. I PRODded it. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't take my PROD so bloody personally. GiantSnowman 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, the problem here was that, well, call me crazy, but I felt long time ago that you had a personal issue regarding this website, and we had to discuss it at some point. Once you srtated proding articles sourced by him, and removing it from articles, well, I though it was time to set this out. Makes sense? FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Evidence of my "personal issue" with the site please? GiantSnowman 12:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen, some civility please. Whatever your grievances with the other's behaviour are, bringing them up here does little to advance the substantive discussion on the topic, namely the reliability of transfermarkt and how to deal with it. Regarding the actual substance, I think we've established fairly clearly that transfermarkt is of questionable reliability at best. Clasifying it as such should, in my opinion have the following conscequences:
  1. No articles should be created relying exclusively on transfermarkt to verify content and/or notability.
  2. Users should endevour to add additional sources to existing articles that rely exclusively on transfermarkt. If the subject is notable, such sources should exist. It should also be noted that transfermarkt clearly falls under the category of "database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" which WP:NSPORT defines as trivial coverage.
  3. Failing at point 2, existing articles which rely exclusively on transfermarkt should be deleted by whatever process may be appropriate.
  4. It may be used as a secondary source, but this should, in my opinion, be discouraged as it gives the impression of reliability.
Regarding the refimprove tag, while adding it to otherwise unsourced articles is not without merit, it, like all other maintanance tags, does little to address the underlying problem of a poorly sourced article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with four per what I've already said above and three takes us back to the original problem articles must not be deleted because they are solely sourced by Transfermarkt they must be properly checked to establish notability with other sources. I do agree with the first two but really you need more input to say thats a consensus given clear opposition. However if you are looking at questionable reliability then Soccerbase which we widely use is worse for reliability and they won't change anything full stop, because they just ignore you, for another day however.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Have a look at the Terms and Conditions of the website. Section 4.1 states "You are responsible for all content such as, for example, texts, data, photos, or photo series (hereinafter “content”) that you transmit to Transfermarkt. This content is not inspected by Transfermarkt before it is placed on the websites...". This doesn't make it sound like a reliable, checked source. Eldumpo (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Eldumpo, I think that disclaimer may be about the forum, as a little futher ahead on the same term it says "Content in this sense refers not to Transfermarkt’s own content, but to third-party content of users of Transfermarkt." It is unclear whether career statistics belong to Transfermarkt or the user who added them, unlike the forum, which is clearly user-generated. – Kosm1fent 03:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's only related to the forum. There's nothing to say that. If you look at 1.1 it says the T&C's 'apply to all content'. Eldumpo (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I think they are refering that mostly because of image copy-right violations and proteting themself against that. FkpCascais (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
We have a similar disclaimer as do most sites that have user submitted data. They do ask for a source to be provided when making an edit so that's in contrary to their editing policy which is odd.
I agree with SirSputnik in that Transfermarkt's player profile/database information is user-generated with uncertain publishing/editorial guidelines. As someone noted above, Transfermarkt is cited by other reliable sources, but only for specific items (estimates of player values and transfer fees) which are generally not encyclopedic or used in these articles (rather the biographic and playing career details are used). In most cases, there are alternative sources to Transfermarket (often ones that are reliable sources) so we should discourage the use of these player profile/database pages as external links in BLPs. Jogurney (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the articles being proded because of it. Within the website, there is a major difference between the data which is presented, it is not the same to take one doubtfull report from 20 years ago or to have 25 current season match-by-match report. Thinking that 25 match-by-match reports of a league which they are known to be reliable for is a hoax is just unreal. I beleave that once they start haing match-by-match reports their credibility grows substantialy and it wan´t be doing any favour to our project to disregard that information. We have been using some common sense until now, I am not sure why can´t we continue doing so. FkpCascais (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, the way this discussion ends will be the way all other generic websites which are used in the project and are not RS should be treated. FkpCascais (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
No, every site should be taken on its own merits. GiantSnowman 12:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me be very clear on this. I'm not suggesting that articles where transfermarkt is the only source that is listed be deleted, but that those articles where transfermarkt is the only source that exists be deleted. In the case of articles that are only sourced using transfermarkt, other sources should be added. Only after that has been attempted and proven to be impossible is deletion an option. Furthermore, an article only soureable by transfermarkt is not going to be notable regardless of the websites reliability. If it's the only source that exists the article won't meet WP:GNG, and in the case of BLP's, WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes databases as trivial coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine then. I am only affraid that your propsal will be missinterpreted and that more prods will appear just to make a point about the website. What I mean is what happend with GS and Filip Kostić article, where despite all evidence and 318.000 Google hits GS still insists that he had hard time confirming notability for one of the best young Serbian Superliga players and he didn´t even bothered to confirm his preferable Soccerway page, where the 26 league appereances are confirmed. Just as note, as you see Soccerway, the one recomended to use instead by some, has one match missing, simply because they are much more slow in updating the league, while Transfermarkt is almost instant and much more reliable for some leagues such as the Serbian SuperLiga. Sir Sputnik, we are all already established editors and all of us are here trying to improve the project, and while I agree with your proposal of getting better sourced articles, I still disagree with the removal of the website which is what GS suggests. As I mentioned, some leagues like this one have in transfermarkt its most complete and most reliable non-Cyrillic source, and I don´t feel at all convenient to make an incredible unecessary ammount of replacement of sources in houndreds, perhaps thousands, of articles only because Zombie messed some African players 2 years ago. As you said, proding articles where transfermarkt is the only available source is OK with me (because with some basic Googling another source will be found for the players I am refering here), but I still don´t support the idea of proding articles just to incentivate the use of other sources, also understood as discentivating the use of this one. I still beleave that proding a player with many match reports from a league which they are known to be following consitently and from where we don´t have any indications anyone like Zombie messed them is exagerated and will be making us unecessary work. Lets be real, Zombie added African national team caps and lower league transfers (both of which don´t include match reports), he didn´t messed any current top league match reports (from where individual player stats come) and they are much harder to phalsefy simply because a source is required, however even if suposedly he fabricates a source, Transfermarkt already has admins who are known to be working quite well with that specific league and have their usual sources. Basically, what is most important here are the SuperLiga match reports which provide individual player appereances and which grant notability to the player. Now, Transfermarkt has had ocasional problems with national team stats (which Zombie added) ocasional place of birth error, ocasional wrong year transfer (ex: 1997 instead of 1996), mostly information for less known players from less known leagues where spotting those errors was more difficult. But I have never ever found one single match report to be wrong for the Serbian SuperLiga in my years experience with the site. So, disregarding that information, which in their case is more reliable and complete that in other similar websites sugested to be replaced with, only because of some wrong non-related content of theirs, is not doing us any good. FkpCascais (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Prequel

In this edit, Gothicfilm calls the seven sources deleted from the table section "less than rigorous"; Gothicfilm explains in more detail here. The sources were collected by Barsoomian and myself (I am attempting informal mediation between the other two, though without complete results yet, so I am probably an "involved editor" by now). The question is whether, on the in-universe discussion of whether the three time-travel films are "prequels" or not, the sources are sufficiently reliable to carry the point that they "have also been regarded as prequels in a broad sense of the word" as per the table inclusion criterion that is generally agreed at Prequel#List of prequels. Note this is different from the question of whether they are undisputedly prequels; they are clearly also called "sequels", and, in other disputed cases, we have agreed on graying out the table line to indicate disputed status. The question is about excluding them from the table at all given the criteria.

Side question: IIRC, Gothicfilm believes that, since the majority of the sources call them "sequels", this is testimony that these sources count them as "not prequels". Barsoomian believes that these sources have not considered the "prequel or not" question and should not be treated as relegating the other sources to tiny-minority status. Gothicfilm's view that sequel and prequel are (or should properly be) mutually exclusive has only been borne out from one inference from one source (Silverblatt in Prequel), and more sources have not been found, partly because Gothicfilm believes that hunting for them, or similar backup, is proving a negative. That side question appears to be a due-weight question and was taken as such to WP:NPOVN, but there is a 3-week backlog there and this board seems to be humming. There is also technically an open RFC at Talk:Prequel, but it has not attracted new blood due to my (and others'?) volubility; and there are a number of other discussions floating around. Accordingly, if RSN should not be involved, please close the thread quickly. JJB 06:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not framed as an "in-universe" question. The sources apparently disputed by GothicFilm are all review works discussing the films mentioned, and all explicitly call them "prequels". These citations were provided after "in universe" and "from definition" arguments ended in stalemate. These sources should be more than sufficient to justify the inclusion of the referenced films in the list of Prequels. Barsoomian (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are the full citations in dispute:

References

  1. ^ Dirks, Tim. "Science Fiction Films Part 5". AMC Filmsite. A sequel and prequel to the first two films.
  2. ^ a b c Slotkin, Richard (1998). "Foreword". In Greene, Eric; Slotkin, Richard (eds.). Planet of the Apes as American Myth: Race, Politics, and Popular Culture. Wesleyan University Press. p. vii. ISBN 9780819563293.
  3. ^ a b c Shirey, Eric (2011-04-14). "Interview with "Planet Of the Apes" Comic Book Writer Daryl Gregory: New Series Takes Us Way Back to the Monkey Planet". Yahoo!.
  4. ^ Britt, Ryan. "Who's Your Caesar? Rewatching Conquest of the Planet of the Apes". Macmillan Publishing. Conquest is in a separate category of films as it serves as both a sequel to the previous film and a prequel to the first two films. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Matheou, Demetrios (August 14, 2011), "Ascent of Ape", The Sunday Herald, Washington, D.C., Aficionados of the original series of five films will know that a prequel already exists, namely Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes.
  6. ^ "The Science Fiction, Horror and Fantasy Film Review". With Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, the series sets out to chart the beginning of the events that lead up to the ape-ruled future.
  7. ^ Kelly, Chris (2006-12-10). "Hannibal Rising Something Something George Bush". Huffington Post. Prequels are a waste of pre-time. Battle for the Planet of the Apes, for heaven's sake?
  8. ^ Associated Press. "With the documentary 'Chimpanzee' opening, a look at 5 prime primate movies". The Statesman. Retrieved 5 May 2012.
  9. ^ Silverblatt, Art (2007). Genre Studies in Mass Media: A Handbook. M. E. Sharpe. p. 211. ISBN 9780765616708. Prequels focus on the action that took place before the original narrative. For instance, in Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith the audience learns about how Darth Vader originally became a villain. A prequel assumes that the audience is familiar with the original—the audience must rework the narrative so that they can understand how the prequel leads up to the beginning of the original.
Quick replies by JJB: Sorry if my sense of "in-universe" was off-key; yes the sources are all reviews; one does not use the word "prequel" but its definition instead; to board regulars, obviously the sources in question begin only with Dirks above; I prefer "impasse" to "stalemate" as the latter implies closure; thanks for chiming in. JJB 15:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Question, are not all the later movies all sequels in our universe, even if they are prequels "in-universe"? I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive. In fact, it seems to me, by defniition, all prequels are a subset of "sequels", but that's just my opinion, and not what RSN is for. So does the question boil down to "Are these sources reliable to back up the statement that these later movies were prequels?"? Even if you get an answer to that, I can't give you an opinion on wp:undue for your article, or any other objections, but if that's the question you want answered, I can give my opinion on that. If not, please state your question a little more clearly (talk to me like I'm 5 ). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 13:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the question I am asking for RSN purposes, with "prequels" defined in the broad sense that appears in the article. The rest is for context. We agree they are at least sequels. Barsoomian believes all prequels are sequels and so they can and should be listed as "prequels in the broad sense". Gothicfilm believes that sources listing them as prequels should not be treated as more reliable than the many sources listing them as sequels, and so they should not be listed as prequels in part because of insufficient reliability. I am attempting to move the conversation forward because it has been very hard to reach a conclusion without fresh input; but of course I may just be forum shopping. If you and maybe another regular have a clear answer on the RSN question I think it would be an advance. There may be another valid RSN question, namely, "is Silverblatt (added above) reliable for the point drawn from it?", as it's the only RS brought on the other side of the question. JJB 15:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
By my definition as well, as stated above, all prequels are sequels (but not all sequels are prequels). Therefore, if the subset (prequels) is contained completely within the data set (sequels), both statements are correct, one is a little more focused. All mansions are still houses, therefore if one person refers to it as a house, and another as a mansion, neither are wrong. With that as my premise, here are my opinions on the RS-ness of the sources you're asking about:
  1. filmsite.org, owned by AMC networks, seems RS for the claims it makes.
  2. Slotkin - page not available via link provided, no comment (may want to fix your ref on page)
  3. Shirey - As I read that, they are talking about the comic book series written by Daryl Gregory (who I don't find on any cast lists), which is a prequel to the original movies, not the movies that are sequels/prequels, am I reading that wrong? If I'm correct in that, not RS for the claim.
  4. Britt - does seem RS for the claim
  5. Demetrious - does seem RS for the claim
  6. Sheib - RS for the claim
  7. Kelly - Not RS for the claim
  8. AP/Washington Post - Source link provided was not found, no comment
  9. Silverblatt - is this just here to define "prequel"? I would agree that he is RS for that definition.
Hope that helps. If you would like my reasoning behind any of those answers, let me know, I'll elaborate. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your quick turnaround! 2. Try Slotkin and Greene US. 3. Yes, there was an inference there that "new prequel" implied other prequels existed. 8. Strange that WP pulled the article; here's a courtesy mirror but it appears to be only the lead. Anyone else want to chime in? 9. Yes, technically; he's the only RS defining "prequel" from which the narrower def can be inferred. JJB 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Regarding "Shirey", yes that's about a new comic book series, authorised by the owners of the film, calls the comic a "prequel" to the 1968 film, following the events of the 70s films, implying they are also prequels. I suppose that is a bit indirect.
Re the AP article, here's another source for that. I've replaced it above as well.
Re Kelly: He's disparaging "prequels" as a genre and uses Battle for the Planet of the Apes as an example. So I don't see why that isn't a clear statement about that film.
Re "all prequels are sequels", that is for instance how its defined at Sequel. Barsoomian (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just on my way out, so I probably won't get to those 2 other sources before tonight, sorry about that (someone else might though), but regarding the other comments you both have, the "new prequel" reference doesn't necessarily imply there were other prequels, it could just as easily be implying "new movie", which doesn't mean there were previous movies (even though, coincidentally, there are, in this case). That sounds a little confusing, to be clear, what I mean is, if he had made the sentence longer, it may have meant "what we have here in the new movie is a prequel to the last movie in the series", it's unclear if he meant that, or is referencing previous prequels, therefore, I can't say I find it RS for that claim. that makes Shirey still a no from me.

Re Kelly, I don't find him RS because of his credentials (essentially, he has none for this claim, he's no kind of movie critic that I can find, he's not talking on an RS movie site, I can't find any evidence that he has any training in this field [admittedly, I suppose anyone that has an opinion on a movie could claim they are a movie critic], and the subject of the article isn't the movie, or prequels [If I say the Canucks will win the Stanley Cup when pigs fly on a hockey website, I should not be sourced as an expert in porcine avionic upgrades ), not because of his attitude towards prequels.

Re "all prequels are sequels", makes a lot of sense to me. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lemire - RS for the claim it's a prequel
Slotkin - Not RS, he doesn't mention which ones fall into which category, the best you could claim from that is that at least 1 of the movies was a prequel, actually, 2, since he makes it plural, but you can't prove which ones he's talking about. (I had 2 more minutes . -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. Makes sense. I'll modify the refs used accordingly. Barsoomian (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
In the Slotkin book I would think that it's just a mathematical calculation to review the noncontroversial film timelines and conclude that if 2 are prequels then all 3 of the films in question must be. However I would agree that Slotkin would be better as a source for the trilogy itself rather than for any individual film. I appreciate the reality check. JJB 18:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that you and I could do that math and figure it out, but Wikipedia says no WP:OR, and that's what that mathematical calculation would be. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Just closing with a brief ad to rereview the whole guideline. No offense or disregard to your efficient service. JJB 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a subject for a whole different noticeboard, you could start that discussion at the talkpage for WP:OR. I'm just here to try and help other editors interpret the policies as they are now, not write new ones (otherwise, there would be a lot I would change!) . -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Media Matters

I believe that Media Matters (MM) should not be treated as a reliable source. First of all, we have former White House Counsel G. Boyden Gray stating that Media Matters has engaged in a "pattern of illegal conduct" and has engaged in a partisan strategy in violation of US tax law. http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/04/former-white-house-counsel-to-irs-yank-media-matters-tax-exempt-status/ In particular, question 1 asks the applicant "Specifically the IRS application for 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation status, Section VIII, Question I asks the applicant: "Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?" http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2011/06/29/media-matters-tax-exempt-status Additionally, Media Matters founder Lou Brock has openly stated that he is fighting a "war on Fox". http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html Presumably as a part of this war, MM Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt said: “We made a list of every single person who works for Fox and tried to figure out who might be disgruntled and why, and we went out to try to meet them. Clearly, somebody in that organization is giving us primary source documents.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949_Page2.html Of course, when you are relying on disgruntled employees as your primary sources, there is a risk that you will put out false information.

Taken together, I believe these actions show that MM is not a reliable source. William Jockusch (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters has been repeatedly discussed ad nauseum at RSN and repeatedly been determined to be a reliable source which should be cited with attribution. Presumably, if Boyden Gray is successful in his quixotic and ill-conceived complaint to the IRS, and that is a big "if" it would lose its tax exempt status. That has nothing whatsoever to do with its reliability as a source. Nor does the fact that it is open and unapologetic about being critical of Fox and other right-wing media. Having a POV does not disqualify a source, which is why attribution is important with these kinds of sources. By the standards you are advocating, we would also disqualify Fox and every media outlet that Media Matters criticizes as well. Fladrif (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Reliability is not about bias. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply stating that an organization has a stated goal is not (IMHO) enough to label them as unreliable. The consequences of that reasoning would be far reaching. We could not site any sources from virtually any non-profit or NGO since they all have a mission and an goal. Instead, I think we would need to show that there is actually a pattern of false or misleading information. This request is an attempt to remove unflattering information about Fox News from the Fox News Controversies page. If the source is truly unreliable, I would think it would be possible to refute the information sited on that page. But that has not been done. Instead a parliamentary maneuver has been made to justify removing accurate but unflattering information. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This user has an unambiguous WP:COI and wants to make Fox News look good. He cites Fox and Fox Business to support his belief, and this definitely does not support his case. This discussion should be tossed out entirely in favor of MM retaining its status as a reliable source. While the organization does have a mission of identifying errors in FOX and is certainly biased in this regard, this bias does not dampen its credibility as it does report factual information and does not excessively misrepresent facts. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 05:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Blogs at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

I'd like to request some outside input about the sourcing at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. My most serious concern is with the sources inserted here. I believe the article falls under WP:BLP, but many of these sources seem to me to fail even the looser general reliability guidelines.

I've opened a talkpage discussion thread here, but have not found it particularly productive. Most recently, the editor reinserting these sources criticized NBC, CNN, and ABC as unreliable sources, and belittled my concern as "Eeek! A blog! BLP! BLP!" Which leaves me at a bit of a loss, so I'd like to invite comment here. MastCell Talk 23:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please supply a link and citation to the source[s] in question? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The Agitator. Doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is complicated. There are plethora of horrible quality sources around, on both sides of the issue, including some horribly racist, completely speculative blogs etc. There are a ton of mainstream sources. But the mainstream sources have really fallen down on the job here, and published an incredible amount of speculation, and biased material, and done deliberate misediting of primary sources. Between the "good" and "horrible" sites are some sites, which would normally be fairly unreliable, which have done very solid work correcting the mainstream sources, and doing some actual investigative reporting. In the particular instance under debate in the talk page, I am in total agreement with MastCell, as there are much better sources for the information under discussion. But I would like to point out that in this topic, the "top tier" are not as top tier as they are normally considered, and some of the normally weaker sources should be given a second glance, as the mainstream sites are not doing due diligence as they should, and are not doing the self-introspection that is a lot of the meta-critique, which is coming from the weaker sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

← The sources are those (re-)inserted in this diff, specifically:

I think these sources vary from outright unacceptable personal blogs to low-quality partisan blogs/websites to one or two blogs which might squeak by in a non-BLP article. The overall selection of sources is clearly rather one-sided, but that's a separate issue. My focus here is that I don't think these are the sorts of sources a BLP-sensitive article should feature (nor should any article feature such sources when a wide range of higher-quality material is available). MastCell Talk 00:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot sources to examine in one discussion, so let me answer generically: Blogs - unless published by a professional news organization (or some other reliable source) - are not acceptable for this article (which involves third-parties and living people). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
(Disclosure, I edited the article when it first started)- Balko's, Marcy Wheeler's (emptywheel), and Merritt's blogs are RS for the opinions of Balko, Wheeler, and Merritt. Ricochet is a RS for the opinions of its contributors, several of which appear to be notable conservative comentators. prawfsblawg appears to be a RS for the opinions of its notable legal contributors. They should be attributed in the text (by name) if their opinions in those blogs are sourced. Popehat doesn't appear to be a notable blog or have notable contributors (based on my Wikipedia search for it). American Thinker and any other partisan publications are ok to use if they are attributed in the text. However, as AQFK points out, BLP trumps all of this. Blogs are not acceptable when commenting on living people. Are these sources being used to comment on a living person? Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
nb: The exact and complete text these citations support is "Many legal experts have criticized the affidavit of probable cause that was used to obtain the indictment of Zimmerman as legally deficient."Andyvphil (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
So, what is your answer to "Are these sources being used to comment on a living person?" Andyvphil (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
When articles deal closely and extensively with living and recently deceased people, they are typically subject to WP:BLP. The policy is generally not applied selectively on a sentence-by-sentence basis, but rather to the article as a whole. In any case, the sources in question do directly comment on living people. My understanding of this site's culture is that we've generally been vigorous and expansive in our enforcement of BLP, rather than doing our best to sneak borderline sources in around the edges on these sorts of technicalities, but others here may have less jaded viewpoints. MastCell Talk 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
My question was directed at Cla68. Andyvphil (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Balko appears to have marginal professional expertise as a journalist, this means that he may be marginally reliable for the one statement he makes that relates to media analysis, "This to me suggests a media and commentariat that very much wants there to be a crime here, not a media and commentariat in search of the truth." Balko's halting supposition, combined with the unedited nature of his blog, and the undue weight placed upon his claim (due to his irrelevance as a media analyst) indicates that the source is not reliable for this particular claim, due to the supposition and unedited nature of the blog. Balko is unreliable for any further claim as it is a Self-published source and he doesn't have any reasonable grounds to claim expertise. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Marcy emptywheel"[pseud.] is a pseudonymic blog by a person who claims Doctoral expertise in relation to the analysis of "feuilleton," a genre within newspaper contents. Marcy emptywheel's claim of expertise cannot be verified, and is completely unconnected to the subject of her post: Florida law. Not reliable: SPS no expert exemption. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Jeralyn E. Merritt's blog is unedited. Merritt has no other history as a legal reporter. Merritt is making claims of fact regarding living people. As the blog is unedited we have no guarantee that these claims have gone through an editorial process to check the facts. Not reliable: SPS no expert exemption. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Jack Dunphy" [pseud.] is a police officer and amateur columnist. Ricochet is an unedited political forum designed to achieve political goals. Not reliable: SPS no expert exemption. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • John Work claims to have been involved in the criminal law industry for 22 years, seemingly in a police/investigatory function. American Thinker is an edited publication. Work's piece is an opinion piece. The piece is reliable for Work's own views; but, Work's own views are utterly irrelevant (weightless) in relation to the analysis of Florida law, and Work lacks appropriate expertise.
  • Dan Markel is a published scholar and academic in the field of Law. PrawfsBlawg is an unedited blog for which contributors take sole responsibility for their content. He however disavows any expert knowledge, "I'm not a member of the Florida Bar and don't study this stuff as part of my research." Not reliable: SPS no expert exemption. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested in seeing some demonstration of the quality of your analysis. E.g., "Merritt is making claims of fact regarding living people." An example of some "claim" you think potentially objectionable would help. Thx. Andyvphil (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Claims regarding living persons don't need to be "objectionable." One example of a claim in Merritt is, "It is written and sworn to by States' Attorney Special Investigators T.C. O'Steen and Dale Gilbreath[...] it doesn't show in the Affidavit." Merritt's blog is unedited, and they aren't an expert in the meaning of the expert exemption. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the quality of your analysis is not impressing me. That the concerns expressed in WP:BLP have any relevance here is not in evidence, so far. That, "It is written and sworn to by States' Attorney Special Investigators T.C. O'Steen and Dale Gilbreath" is unchallenged and uncontroversial fact. Since "[...] it doesn't show in the Affidavit" is simply unintelligible and unlinked, I have no idea why you "quoted" it. Try again. Andyvphil (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
You're being tendentious and playing IDHT games. I'm not playing close text analysis for you because you're incapable of reading "About" sections of private blogs. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
If we required all of our sources to be written by certified experts in the topics they are writing about, we would have to remove a lot of our current content. In my opinion, if the consensus on that article's talk page is that it is ok to use Merrit's, or Markel's opinion, then it's ok to use them, unless BLP is involved. Are they commenting on Zimmerman or Martin, or are they commenting on a legal aspect or document? Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you ought to read your policy some more. These are (on the whole) self-published sources. Self-published sources without any editorial control. Moreover, most of these are opeds from nobodies with no capacity to present a meaningful legal opinion. The two sources which lie outside of these criteria are a single op-ed by a non-expert in an edited publication, and an SPS by a legal expert, who explicitly disclaims his expertise in relation to the statements he makes. Only one of these individuals has a notable legal opinion, and that individual disclaims the basis for any notability of his legal opinion.
Stop hankering after the fleshpots of self-published op-ed blogs and locate meaningful legal commentary. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Except in certain instances, such as BLP, editor consensus often guides which sources we use and how we use them. We sometimes even use primary sources if a consensus of editors allows it (except with BLPs). If the consensus of editors on that talk page decides that Merrit's or whoever's opinions are notable and should be included, and they aren't commenting on a living person, then I think it's ok, as long as they are attributed in the text. The reader will, of course, check the sources and note that they are from blogs and come to their own conclusion on their credibility. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
This is precisely one of those circumstances, where a walled garden of citations has been exposed to the full light of day. Dodgying up legal opinions via SPS blogs is appalling verification. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be right that none of those commentators have certified expertise in analyzing that particular legal document. I understand what you are saying and I think you have a compelling argument. It just seems to me that, if the editors of that article support using those sources, and those commentators are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and it is made transparent to the reader that the opinions are from non-experts on their blogs, and it's not about a BLP subject, then it is ok. I understand your point that it is not necessarily helpful to the reader to present non-expert, self-published, partisan opinions in our articles. Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear because I know MastCell and the other editors at that article need opinions that they can act on, I agree with Fifelfoo that the blog sources are non-expert in the legal field pertaining to that legal document, self-published, and, in some cases, politically partisan. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There were a couple of other sources discussed on the talk page regarding the same subject area of the article. How about these two?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, both are reliable sources. But be careful when citing an author's opinion:
See WP:RSOPINION. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said on the article talk page, the Star Tribune is a reliable source. The article in question is fine with me, so long as it's appropriately presented as conveying the opinion of Alan Dershowitz. In fact, I inserted this source into the article myself, although it was promptly buried by the avalanche of partisan blogs. MastCell Talk 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
And your present thoughts about the National Review article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I purposely didn't raise that issue here, because it's not an issue of reliability per se, but of massive over-reliance on one-sided partisan sources in our contextualization of the incident. I'd like to address the most egregious problem first: the massive proliferation of personal blogs and other patently inappropriate sources in a WP:BLP. Even that basic first step apparently requires a federal case, given the lack of interest among active page editors in high sourcing standards. So let's focus on the blogs first, and once that issue is resolved I'll bring you your next shrubbery. MastCell Talk 22:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Re "one-sided partisan sources: There's a reason Merritt's site is called talkLEFT, and while Dersh's leftism is on the dry side, he is not a man of the Right. John Lott and Andrew McCarthy (I'm probably going to add him) are regulars at NRO, so they are just that. As is David French, the only one with any claim to expertise who I've found that defended the APC (though in a piss-poor fashion), also at NRO. (Where the head guy, the replacement for W.F.Buckley Jr., Rich Lowry -- wrote an article on the case called "Sharpton was Right".) So much for "one-sided".
And Fifelfoo's ignorance of the subject matter is showing. An Affadavit of Probable Cause isn't some oddball document peculiar to Florida. There are only certain other states which use the term capias, e.g., but the elements of an APC are well known across fifty states, DC, and all the possessions. Its Fifelfoo's opinions on this matter that are "weightless", IMHO. Andyvphil (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
You might consider raising the BLP concern at the BLP Noticeboard, because I'm not sure myself if a discussion of the legal affadavit in this situation falls under BLP. I don't think you would be forum-shopping to do so, because I think you have received an answer here on your question as to whether the blogs are reliable sources or not. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Mastcell, No problem. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Specific Learning Difficulties provision (Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire)

Statement:
"Woodleigh School has a SpLD (Specific Learning Difficulties) learning support unit for the teaching of pupils with dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia."
Referenced to:
  1. "Learning support". Woodleigh School. Retrieved 27 April 2012.
  2. Darley, Karen (26 May 2010). "Visit to Woodleigh School". Gazette and Herald. Retrieved 27 April 2012.
  3. "Crested Report". CRESTED. Retrieved 24 April 2012. (Note that despite CReSTeD being listed as "publisher", this is an unsigned copy of a four-year old report hosted on the website of the school. The school is no longer accredited by CReSTed.)
  4. "Woodleigh School". Good Schools Guide. Retrieved 27 April 2012. (Website clearly states that the information was provided by the school itself, and that it has not been independently reviewed.)
  5. "Woodleigh School". ISBI Independent Schools. Retrieved 27 April 2012. (See About ISIB)

The view of several editors in the section Dyslexia and SEN on the talk page is that especially references, 3, 4, 5 are unreliable and misleading and do not qualify as reliable, independent sources to support such a statement.

Note that many of the other sections on the talk page involve discussions (at times heated) regarding the general reliability of the sources, not only for referencing certain statements, but for establishing notability. See also Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire. An outside opinion would be appreciated. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for posting about the same article above - feel free to merge my issues in with your own. I did not mean to distract attention way from your concerns which I feel have equal merit to the ones I raised above. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is the same issue that I have posted in the previous thread. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
No apologies needed. :) I think it's probably better to keep the two issues separate, as they are somewhat different in terms of how and what sources are used and the types of statements they are used to support. It also allows the discussion by reviewers to be more focused. Voceditenore (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this article has been the subject of an attack by schools' article 'deletionists'. This should be born in mind. isfutile:P (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

These queries about the sourcing for specific statements have nothing to do with "deletionism". I voted "Keep" at the AfD as did another editor who has also expressed concern about the reliablity of the sources used for the SEN provision [53]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, what is the relevence of this "attack by schools' article 'deletionists'", I do not understand what that has to do with a question about whether a source is valid. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
In order:
  1. woodleighschool.com - is RS for the claim
  2. Darley, Karen - Only RS for the claim that they have a specialist area for dealing with dyslexia, not RS for claims about dyspraxia or dyscalculia
  3. Crested Report - NOT RS. The report is hosted on the school site, it is not signed by either the Principal or the reviewer, and when I look on the Crested site (here), they are not listed in any category. If you can find that report hosted on Crested's site, that would be different
  4. Good schools guide - NOT RS. As noted above, info comes from the school, it's no different than source 1. Also contains this sentence, "Woodleigh School has not been reviewed by The Good Schools Guide."
  5. ISBI - Not RS. This seems like an advertising page available to schools, and has a policy page that says "Schools can maximise their exposure to potential parents and pupils by enhancing their school profile by upgrading their subscription in a number of ways.", which I read to say, "pay us more, we'll make you sound better". That doesn't mean I think there's anything wrong with the info provided, it just doesn't fill me with confidence, and again, it's all provided by the school.
-- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
By "suppporting the claim", do mean explicitly rephrasing, e.g. "According to the school, it has has a SpLD (Specific Learning Difficulties) learning support unit for the teaching of pupils with dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia."? Or simply leaving the assertion as it is, referenced only to 1. and 2.? Voceditenore (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
2 doesn't support the claim, you'd have to move that over to beside the word dyslexia, other than that, I think you could leave the assertion as is, unless you feel it's a controversial claim, then you could attribute it in text if you want to, but I didn't see anything that makes me think Woodleigh is lying about having a SpLD. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems Ok to me, thanks. Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Black Swan director's opinion

Black Swan (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been an ongoing somewhat silly dispute about the genre of this film. Initially, editors kept trying to inject horror as part of the genre in the lead, and other editors kept reverting because they disagreed. Finally, a more resourceful editor added a source for the horror genre, a video by the film's director, where he clearly says it's a horror film. Then, either the same editor or another (can't remember and not important) added an LA Times article source for horror as well. Then, editors kept removing the horror genre AND the sources. Mostly they were inexperienced editors, and I and others would revert the removals.

The latest episode in this Wikipedia horror story is a more experienced editor came along and removed the material. So, I then opened a discussion on the Talk page about it. The other editor makes two points, both havinng to do with the reliability of the two sources. The video he says is just the director's opinion and therefore not a reliable source. The Times article he says is "promotional" and therefore not a reliable source. I pointed out that most film articles I've seen have NO sources for genre, and it's somewhat ironic for him to be complaining about the fact that this article has two in support of the horror genre. I also pointed out that the director's opinion as to what kind of film he directed seems fairly reliable to me in this context. I also disagree that the Times article is promotional per se. It's an article in a major publication about the film. Whether it gets more people to see the film is irrelevant. The same could be said for any review or preview of a film. Finally, although not directly on the issue of reliability, where are we going to get sources to support genre for films? From reviews? Books eventually once the film is old enough? Isn't it more than likely that the sources will disagree? Are we then going to devote a lot of article space to a discussion of the disagreement?

Comments welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not live in the USA, so I cannot view the video, however, if Aronofsky says "Black swan is a horror movie", that is RS. The LA Times article is definitely RS as well. Aronofsky is an expert in this field, and his opinion is valid. From our own article on him,

Darren Aronofsky is an American film director, screenwriter and film producer. He attended Harvard University to study film theory and the American Film Institute to study both live-action and animation filmmaking. He won several film awards after completing his senior thesis film, "Supermarket Sweep", which went on to become a National Student Academy Award finalist.

Combined with the fact that he directed the movie, it's ridiculous to say his opinion isn't reliable.
It only took a few seconds to find another source as well, such as E! Online. WP:NPOV says we report all significant points of view, it is not right to say "It's not reported as a horror movie over here, therefore it's not a horor movie if it says so over there". Report all relevant views. The director of the movie is singularly important in this aspect. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If I attend Harvard to study burglar alarms, have previous efforts win awards, and I build something, and you don't recognize it, but I tell you it's a burglar alarm, why would you, as a wikipedia editor, argue with me, or tell me I'm wrong? That makes no sense to me. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI, highbeam reseach has 343 articles returned when I searched for "black swan movie horror", not all are what you are looking for, but a good many of them are newspaper movie reviews that support the horror genre view. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 18:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd disagree with the director source, as musicians can't describe the genre they are in, as we need third party sources. The director of The Vanishing referred to his film as not belonging any genre, even though it is generally classified as a thriller film. That LA times article is referring to the film before it's even released. I don't think a source describing something they haven't seen yet, what are they basing it on? That's not strong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you an expert published in the field, of either musical, or film, genres? If not, as a wikipedian your job is to report all relevant views, not to choose which ones to pick because you like them better. If the director of the Vanishing thinks his movie doesn't belong to any genre, then maybe that's relevant, and should be included, it does *not* mean that no other views should be included. the LA Times is quoting someone who has the qualifications to have an expert opinion on what genre it should be in, and, he's seen the film, he made it. Your objections as reasons not to include it would violate WP:NPOV, a core policy of WP. You're also ignoring the fact that I gave you an movie-centric news cite calling it a horror film, and informed you that there were hundreds of other newspaper reviews calling it a horror film. It sounds a little like WP:IDHT. My opinion is unchanged, the LA Times is RS for that source. Furthermore, the article is dated Dec. 9, the movie opened Dec. 3rd, ergo, your statement that the article was referring to the film before its release is also wrong. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the video, but the LA times article quotes Aronofsky referring to the "oldest scare in the horror playbook". The article, In its own voice, refers to the film as a "psychological horror ballet flick" twice. Perhaps "psychological horror" conveys something slightly different than simply "horror" does? If so, It may be less odd to some readers if "psychological" and "horror" were not separated as they currently are. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the editor is arguing here, if it is, he forgot to mention it completely. If you'd looked at the link I provided, it's referred to as simply a horror flick, and I would suggest that any sub-genre of horror, such as psycho-horror is still within the overall genre of horror by definition ("light blue" is still "blue"). Also, my understanding is that Andrezejbanas is of the opinion that Oronofsky isn't qualified to have an expert opinion that is relevant on the matter, I don't see how that view is correct. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Swingersocial.com

Please comment on whether http://swingersocial.com/ is a reliable source. For present usage, note Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/swingersocial.com. Thanks, --JN466 00:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Too vague: present a typifying specific use. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Example: [54]. The question is whether this social networking site/group blog is an encyclopedic source for sexological information. (As far as I am concerned, it clearly fails WP:USERG/WP:SPS. There are plenty of scholarly sources in this area that Wikipedia can rely on.) Editors may want to look at other articles it's used as an encyclopedic source: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/swingersocial.com. --JN466 03:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Unedited user generated content on an open blog. Not reliable for sexology (hard to see how it would be reliable for much). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Drug Free Australia

Requiring some input on a source being disputed at Talk:Insite#Expert Advisory Committee. User:Steinberger wishes to categorically delete all text [55] describing any observations or criticisms of harm reduction interventions deriving from Australia's peak drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia here. Drug Free Australia is continually cited and quoted in Australian Parliamentary debates and Inquiries and in the media [56] [57] [58] [59] see full pdf [60] [61] in relation to its critiques of the studies on harm reduction interventions, and more particularly here its analyses of safe injecting site evaluations.

I note that the same user lodged a Reliable Sources/Noticeboard question on Drug Free Australia’s reliability as a source on 13 October 2010 here but its reliability was there affirmed. The relevant source documents in dispute are all found on the Drug Free Australia website here, here and here. Steinberger challenges Drug Free Australia’s credibility in analysing or commenting on harm reduction interventions such as supervised injecting sites and needle exchanges on the grounds that they do not publish their critiques in medical journals (although their critique of a Lancet study on Insite is published as a 1 page letter in Lancet, complete with chart). I note that analyses of safe injecting site and needle exchange outcomes do not require in-depth medical expertise, with no physiology, biology or biochemistry being involved in the outcomes, which are rather just statistical and able to be adjudicated by anyone well versed in statistics. Nevertheless, the Drug Free Australia contributors to these documents on SIFs and needle exchanges are almost entirely medical doctors/epidemiologists/addiction medicine specialists worldwide who each have multiple entries in Pubmed against their name (eg Dupont – 120 articles and letters, McKeganey 64 articles). I am concerned that the MEDRS objection is just an excuse for censoring content that may be too confronting and uncomfortable for some with an unquestioning support of these interventions, based as it is on analyses of all the data available.

I understand that the requirements of a source will change according to its application in Wikipedia, and that peer-review is not an absolute requirement for Wikipedia articles, particularly for this kind of critique by such well-qualified teams of medical and social commentators from such a high profile prevention organization in Australia. Your assistance on the issue appreciated. Minphie (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The specific question Minphie askes in this case, is if findings of a DFA report should be given equal validity to articles in Lancet? The DFA report in question say that the Lancet article is dead wrong and that is authors may have engaged in scientific misconduct. The university of some of the authors (UBC) took the allegation seriously and sent their report for review (by Mark Weinberg of McGill) but dropped the matter, when they found out that the report is "without merit" and "not based on scientific fact" [62]. The authors of the original Lancet article have also written in length on the DFA report [63] and Lancet have not retracted the original article. Steinberger (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment to do more than observe that there are multiple gross misrepresentations in the post with which Minphie opened this request. To just mention one very innocuous example relative to some of the others, I'd suggest people actually compare the previous RSN thread about Drug Free Australia to his claim that "its reliability was there affirmed". The single editor who responded to the previous request actually wrote, "...this seems to be an advocacy group, rather than a scientific research group. In fact it often criticizes scientists." He did suggest at that time that it could be cited with in-text attribution, but I think he might have expressed a rather different set of opinions if he'd had before him information about the organization that I'll make time to post here within the next several days.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that I should let OhioStandard's input go without comment. It is not a 'gross misrepresentation' to say that the reliability of the source was affirmed while providing the link to the previous RS/N input. The advice 'with attribution' does not change the organisation's status to an unreliable source. Every reference to Drug Free Australia in Wikipedia has been carefully attributed since. In all fairness, I believe care needs to be taken with accuracy of comments such as this, if fairness is what a Wikipedia Noticeboard is all about. Steinberger alternately raises questions about Drug Free Australia's challenging of a Lancet article, which is a whole debate in itself which is at Talk:Insite#Expert Advisory Committee. I believe Steinberger should not declare that debate settled, perhaps trying to influence input, when readers of this notice would best make their own conclusions without coaching. Minphie (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
User Minphie appears to have missed what I actually wrote about his characterisation, viz. "To just mention one very innocuous example relative to some of the others ..." More to follow here, with "some of the others", as my time permits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I give this a bump so as this is not prematurely archived. Steinberger (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I do still intend to comment substantively; apologies for not having done so already. In addition to time constraints, I've really been struggling to overcome my antipathy at needing to spend still more time here simply because a wp:spa with 370 edits has been using this and other boards as a second home to try to gain support for his singlehanded wikicampaign for over 2 years, now.
First he was flogging a publication with an H index of 1 (unity), for about six months, trying to use it to refute over 20 studies in some of the world's most prestigious medical journals, such as The Lancet, with it's H index of 432. And now he's back here for the umpteenth time pitching his other favorite theme, that peer review and the consensus of the scientific community are irrelevant when war-on-drugs elements within any government fling money about to buy the conclusions they demand for their political aims. As Maclean's put it, re some of the junk research Minphie has championed previously,
The only “research” the Harper government is prepared to rely on, as it fights Insite all the way to the Supreme Court, was not research; was secretly bought and paid for with federal tax dollars; contradicts the actual research; has been disowned internally by the police force that bankrolled it; and would have been disowned publicly by that police force if somebody at the RCMP’s highest ranks or outside it hadn’t put the kibosh on. This is not mere disregard for reliable data. It is an attempt by the state to put falsehood in the place of reliable data.
Sure, those are the kinds of sources we'd be using to inform our readers about the science supporting harm reduction, if Minphie had his way. Those great “reviews” commissioned in stealth mode by the RCMP itself, that they eventually owned up to, and that RCMP Chief Superintendent for drug enforcement in Vancouver said “did not meet conventional academic standards” until Ottawa shut him up. Good times, and another round in the war-on-drugs propaganda blitz goes to the righteous. More to follow soon, about DFA more specifically.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am again concerned that User: OhioStandard has again failed to address either the RS/N request I originally placed here or my outlined evidence while again misrepresenting a number of largely unrelated or distantly contingent issues which appear to have been written to negatively influence any independent opinion here in this forum. Anyone who wishes to draw their own conclusions on these issues aired by User:OhioStandard above will find that the aforesaid disputed journal with a purported ‘H index of 1’ has been discussed extensively on RS/N, and certainly not with any such consensus as OhioStandard would appear to assert from third opinion contributors who had not been involved in the prior Talk page disputes over this source. These RS/N discussions can be checked here, here and here where the prior disputants (myself, Steinberger [64], OhioStandard [65] and Jmh649 - Doc James [66] can be clearly distinguished from the third parties. Of course the relevant Talk pages have the full discussions. I believe that misrepresentation, particularly of other complex disputes in Wikipedia, should not be used to influence the question of Drug Free Australia’s reliability as a source. Minphie (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Says user Minphie, "the aforesaid disputed journal with a purported H index of 1" Really? "Purported"? The so-called Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) - click the wikilink; you'll be surprised - that he's euphemistically referring to as "disputed" here doesn't have a "purported" H index of 1, it has an H index of 1 as calculated by the only science citation database that bothers to index it, Scopus. If he sees any other number next to the "H index" reliability metric here, then he needs to visit his optometrist. That's the publication that he wants us to consider on equal terms with The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, with their H reliability indices of 432 and 589, respectively, at the time I write this.
As I painstakingly explained to Minphie last June, (link/permalink) that so-called "journal", JGDPP, he's so fond of for his "science" had, at that time, a grand total of two citations in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals over its 4+ years of publication. And even those were made primarily to ridicule the publication, in effect; one mainstream journal article labelled it a "marketing device" for its parent organization, the Drug Free America Foundation. See the same talk page section linked to in the first sentence of this paragraph for a look at Minphie's careless and very exaggerated way of counting citations for individual papers and authors, too.
Uninvolved editors might also like to look at how things turned out when Minphie launched a request with ArbCom last summer to try to push JGDPP "research" results into our articles in this topic area, a request they declined. Here's a link to a diff of the requests page, one edit before the ultimate decline. ( I wish they archived pages; I don't know why they just delete declined requests. ) Arbitrator Elen of the Roads wrote, "All the four times cited above that this journal has come up at WP:RS, there have been questions about its reliability and suitability as a medical source. Arbcom is not going to challenge that decision." (emphasis added) Then, in reply to arbitrator John Vandenberg's comment, "This has gone on long enough", Elen responded, of Minphie, "would it not be easier just to block the filing party indefinitely for disruptive editing, given that he is the only one persistently adding it to articles?"
Minphie is correct, though, about one thing. I haven't yet responded about Drug Free Australia (DFA), specifically. I'm a volunteer here, like most everyone else, and my time is limited. He'll get the more specific response he's asking for, just not at the convenience of his own schedule. But he won't like it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I reply to the above inaccuracies only because these inaccuracies may be negatively influential if not engaged. First, I again note that these issues have nothing to do with my request on RS/N as to the reliability of Drug Free Australia as a source. Second, I note for the sake of the illumination of readers of OhioStandard’s inaccuracies that an article from the aforesaid disputed journal, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) has been cited by no less than the US Institute of Medicine [67] in its 2006 review of the effectiveness of needle exchanges and by the European Monitoring Centre’s [68] 2010 Monograph 10 on Harm Reduction. These are the two most eminent organisations dealing with reviews of the science in the US and Europe. Of course the US Institute of Medicine review cited a direct presentation by Dr Kall to their 2005 Geneva hearing here reproduced here which any person can easily verify as being the same material as in the JGDPP article here. Why does OhioStandard hide this evidence? Third, re my ArbCom request, a reading of the input from all ArbCom contributors involved yields a different picture to the negative view of one ArbCom contributor cited by OhioStandard, as can be verified from a reading of proceedings [69]. Minphie (talk 11:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The "two most eminent organisations dealing with reviews of the science in the US and Europe" are The New England Journal of Medicine and The British Medical Journal, respectively, not those Minphie proposes above. What, does he think they don't publish review articles? Government officials and the publications produced by the bodies they fund are notoriously subject to political pressure. For that reason especially, and because they are not peer reviewed, they must be read with greater care: Their quality varies tremendously. And the so-called "Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice" he likes so well still has an "H index" reliability metric of one, i.e. the lowest possible rating, whatever else Minphie might say about it. Finally, on this sub-topic, I'd encourage people to read the ArbCom request he launched; that's the reason I linked to it in the first place.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, those hansard links Minphie included above make for some very interesting reading re DFA.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(indent reset) I think the whole point here is that Lancet is clearly, unambiguously a reliable source. Drug Free Australia appears to be an organization with a particular agenda, and so should not be treated as a neutral or reliable source. Absent anyone else of greater stature agreeing that Lancet was wrong, Lancet would very clearly prevail here, and without any but-but-buts beyond possibly (only possibly) that DFA disagreed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference between neutrality and reliability and we should not confuse them, or treat them the same way. Concerning neutrality, some people would say there are no neutral sources. In any case WP does not and can not seek to avoid using sources that might not be neutral. What we do is that we try to report what notable and/or reliable sources say, but in a way which allows readers to get some insight into any potential non-neutrality. So a well-known lobby group can be hard to avoid citing, but in such cases we would normally attribute the opinions, for example "according to the Belgian-Russian friendship thinktank, Russia is...".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate both the preceding comments, and acknowledge the principles presented by both as a helpful addition to this discussion. I'll also admit that I'm a little embarrassed that I haven't made time yet to document some of the remarks that were made in the hansards that Minphie cited previously. They're very telling, and give the very strong impression that DFA is an organisation driven by religious and moralistic conviction, and for whom science is seen primarily as a vehicle to further those convictions, rather than as a vehicle for discovering facts. One Australian MP says that rather explicitly, as I recall; I don't have time just now to find the exact quotation in the hansard, but will do so asap, in a subsequent post here.
To mention one example of this, a physician DFA describes as one of their principal researchers presented a talk to Australia's parliament that seems, to me, to be a bit unhinged. For example, while presenting a chart based on the tree of knowledge of good and evil in that talk to illustrate the wages of sin, he alludes in passing to a couple of natural disasters, like the Japanese tsunami, iirc, as being a consequence of sin, as representing God's judgement or punishment on a depraved world.
If he holds with the orthodoxy of the religious sect he's been quite active in, another of the organisation's researchers - one who lacks any scientific credentials - would maintain that the earth is just 6,000 - 10,000 years old. The person who the group identifies as its "patron" - presumably a principal donor - has set up her own church, in which her faith healing ministry plays a major role. People certainly have a right to their religious beliefs, and I support that entirely, but this group doesn't seem able to maintain a healthy boundary between their religious beliefs and scientifically determined results.
This same person who thinks tsunamis represent God's judgement, and whose work Minphie wants us to admit to the encyclopaedia as a reliable source for scientific conclusions, is also opposed to free access to condoms for birth control, which he views as a form of "harm reduction", similar to needle exchange programs. He and his fellow fundamentalists who make up the organisation clearly think that the consequences of what they view as sin - e.g. sex outside of marriage, or drug use - shouldn't be mitigated. The sinner should suffer the maximum possible consequences, both as a punishment and a deterrent. The group is entitled to that opinion, of course, but its representative speaking before parliament then goes on to correlate the rise in access to condoms to the rise in the rates of STD infection - which seems to make one MP almost choke - and then strongly implies that condom use and distribution causes STDs. Another MP later ridicules him for making the inference.
I'll document this more fully here as I can make the time, but to me, the central question is whether we can allow the publications of a group like this - that views science as a vehicle to promote their religious beliefs, or at least that science should be subordinate to those beliefs, and should serve them - to be presented as being on-par with peer reviewed science from real medical journals. The question we need to answer is whether their publications should be admitted to rebut the findings of over 25 top-tier, legitimate medical journals that have presented results concerning the effectiveness of needle exchange programs. Are they in the same category, in other words, that we should present their results as a legitimate contradiction to findings presented by so many legitimate medical journals?
We all agree, I think, that in matters of wholly subjective opinion about drug use we can cite them, with attribution. But it's my view that what they present as science is just too emphatically subordinated to their religious beliefs to be admissible for any statement of fact. If that doesn't sway you, Andrew, then perhaps the absence of peer review, and the fact that their publications fail WP:MEDRS will bring you to the opinion that we'd do our readers a disservice to cite them for scientific results of any kind, or to allow their publications to be presented to rebut results published in MEDRS compliant journals?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like we agree. I think that especially concerning anything to do with medical or health advice, but more generally concerning anything where science comes into conflict with "culture wars", WP is always particularly careful to try to use scientific sources, or at least sources which summarize them and are consistent with them. I only meant to stake out the extremes of that zone. For example if a group is being widely cited by politicians then we might have to mention them somehow somewhere. For example I would not agree for the Discovery Institute being cited as a source for core material in Evolution, but the Discovery Institute's opinions are mentioned on Wikipedia. Neutrality is in these cases not necessarily the reason for not using these sources, at least in any simple way, but rather space and clear writing makes it important to avoid filling articles with comments about every fringe group that has an opinion. In short articles, large digressions about notable public debates might are often thought acceptable - a bit like "pop culture" sections sometimes are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

+972 Magazine/ Noam Sheizaf

+972 is a blog-based online magazine that is owned collectively by its bloggers. Each blogger is independently responsible for the output of their own blog. Many of the bloggers are professional journalists, including Noam Sheizaf whose work it is that I want to reference. So, pro journalist but publishing in a context without editorial controls. I would think this would not be particularly promising for sourcing anything controversial. Now, I do want to source something from here but it is entirely uncontroversial. Sheizaf, in an article on the funding of a human rights watchdog called NGO Monitor, describes ones of their donors, the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) as a 'quasi-governmental body'. This description is extremely common and can also be sourced to the BBC, NYT, Guardian, JPost and Forward, amongst other extremely reliable sources. So, why do I want to cite it from Sheizaf? Simply because he uses this common description when talking about JAFI as a donor for NGOM, a point that is not at issue in the other sources that use this term, which all discuss JAFI in other contexts. Now, that JAFI is a donor for NGOM is also not in question - it is stated by NGOM on their website but Sheizaf is the only writer who links the two bits of data (probably because his discussion is the only one in English so far of NGOM's finances). So, we have two true pieces of data: 1) that JAFI is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body, and 2) that JAFI is a donor to NGOM. It is logically necessary from these two pieces of data that one of NGOM's donors is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body but Sheizaf is the only person who brings these two points together explicitly. So, my question is, is he a reliable source for this?BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide links to your source, and a proposed edit, as per the instructions at the top of this page. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies. Source: http://972mag.com/questions-regarding-foreign-influence-transparency-of-ngo-monitor/35854/. Proposed edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NGO_Monitor&diff=489470952&oldid=488638215. (overly) extensive discussion (probably best to skip to the stuff from the last few days!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NGO_Monitor.
Wher does it say that they are one of the major funders?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Second largest donor according to NGOM's own published accounts: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/pdf/NGOM_signed_audit2010english.pdf. I didn't add a ref at that point because the donors are reffed in the previous paragraph. Btw, I want the stuff on JAFI's status to go in the first paragraph, not where it currently sits (which is where someone else moved it to because they objected to it). BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the claification.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This one is interesting, he is *probably* RS, but the article gives some negative press to an organization, through an outlet that has no oversight, by allowing part of the article, we'd be saying we allow any of the article, and then the question is, is it RS for everything it says? He does have a solid journalistic background however, so I have no reason to doubt his character, without finding evidence to the contrary. Can you also provide the links from the BBC and the NYT that you referred to originally? Also, please note, english sources are not a requirement. If you have sources in any language, that's acceptable, as long as it can be verified. And I'm not clear still why it's important that both these pieces of data are referenced through a single source, if you are saying that both things are widely available separately. Can you elaborate on these points please? -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, "where it goes" in your article, is a discussion for your article talk page, I won't be offering an opinion on that here. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
BBC no. 1(2003): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3107219.stm. BBC no. 2 (2009): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7901082.stm. NYT: search for 'quasi' on this page: http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/jewish-agency (sorry, can't get to the article itself as I have used my month's free allocation but you'll find it easy enough). On the point of needing this particular source, it's because I have been told by a number of people that bringing the description of JAFI and the fact that JAFI is a donor together would constitute synthesis if I do it myself. So, the +972 piece is unique in using the quasi-governmental description specifically in the context of identifying JAFI as a donor to NGOM. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that this would be synth but ... As to the location in the article, that stems directly from whether the source is acceptable or not. My initial edit was moved by another editor who had concerns about RS and OR but was willing to compromise by allowing the data in at another place. But if the sourcing or synth issues are sorted out there will be no reason to put it anywhere than its original location. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Some background info that may help
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Noam Sheizaf has written for The Nation, The Forward, Haaretz,The Daily Star (Lebanon), The Jewish Telegraph Agency and a number of other sources
  • NGO Monitor's view of +972 here. They have described them as "crude anti-Israel propaganda", "a particularly poisonous web magazine", "odious", "many of the writers are from the tiny fringe anti-Zionist sect of Israelis and Jews", "resort to inflammatory rhetoric", "anti-democratic manipulation and warfare" and a "modern version of colonialism and antisemitism"....which would tend to suggest, at least to me knowing NGO Monitor, that it's probably quite a reliable source. Just kidding. Carry on. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked any of your last source material yet, but that is a mis-reading of the WP:SYNTH policy. You can *definitely* say that source A says "blah" and source B says "yadda yadda". It's only synth if you then go on to say "Therefore this proves "new allegation not shown in either text"". THAT would be synth. If that was the only issue, I don't see any reason not to use multiple sources, and we can neatly sidestep this whole issue (I have to step away for a few hours, but will look at those other sources if still needed, later on today). -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That was indeed my understanding of SYNTH. However, to play devil's advocate, this is where the issue of location in the article comes in. Previously the article contained just the statement that NGOM say they receive no governmental funding. Back in January I wanted to place next to this the statement that many reliable sources call one of their donors a 'quasi-governmental' body as I think this statement would be well sourced and would provide useful context to the reader for NGOM's own statement. However, putting it in this particular place can be understood as qualifying NGOM's own statement about funding and nobody, at that time, had written anything that described JAFI as quasi-governmental in the context of NGOM. So, the claim would be that the implicit qualification (or even 'challenge', if you like), rather than the sourced facts, would be SYNTH since no source brings together the quasi-governmental status of JAFI and its status as a donor and no source challenges NGOM's own statement. The synth, then, would be in the implicit meaning that arises out of the juxtaposition (so, the additional conclusion that goes beyond the sources would be the implication that NGOM's own statement should, indeed, be qualified in this way). I was partially swayed by this reasoning, so consented to leave the material out at the time. My rationale for trying to introduce the present edit was that a source now has identified JAFI as being quasi-governmental specifically in the context of it being a donor, thus meaning that the contextual synthesis has already been done and the synth issue can be avoided by using this source. So, the +972 article is really only being relied on to justify bringing the 'quasi-governmental' description into relation with the donor information. I have to say, though, that I would be extremely happy to find that there was no synth issue in the first place! BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The source is not reliable its clear WP:SPS even if not take in account that its clear agenda site.--Shrike (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's not reliable for the statements in question? WP:SPS says that self-published sources can be used in some circumstances and WP:RS says that the source only has to be reliable "for the statement being made". What bit of information do you think is unreliable in the statement at hand? BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:SPS could be used about as WP:PRIMARY in the article about himself or if its an expert on the topic.You hadn't show that the author is an expert(for example academic in the field) on this topic especially making such controversial claims.--Shrike (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
What claim, exactly, do you think is controversial? BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Your edit " "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status" anyhow you failed to explain why he is an expert.--Shrike (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not at all controversial. See the two BBC quotes I provide above plus one from the NYT. I could also give refs to the Guardian, JPost and Forward but they shouldn't really be necessary with those other three (indeed, pretty much every major news organisation I have checked, plus plenty of books use the 'quasi-governmental' description; JAFI certainly has a special status but I'd be happy to drop that bit - it's only in there to preserve the integrity of the quote). As to why he is an expert, professional journalist who is published in high-quality RSs writing within his area of specialisation? BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
So if you have good sources why use WP:SPS and being journalist doesn't make you expert on anything being academic is.

I think there is a reason why it was printed in WP:SPS it probable wouldn't pass the editorial board--Shrike (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not the page to argue about your article, that's what its talk page is for. Here's my opinion, BHB, if you have sources for both of the claims you are making, I would suggest you sidestep this issue entirely, using two sources to say two things about that org is *not* synth. BRD, insert your edit, support it with sources, if it gets reverted for source, bring it back here. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give that a try. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121&oldid=1136075494"