Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 130

Archive 125

←

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

→

Archive 135

clerk.house.gov/

Is this a "primary source" which ought to be avoided - and use reliable secondary sources in vast preference? It looks like Paul Ryan is having all his "controversial votes" "explained " in his BLP with conceivably POV intent. IMO. inless an outside source refers to his positions, it is not our proper functiom to do such research. Collect (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives is a neutral, highly reliable source. No one is doing any original "research" - the votes shown on the clerk's website are patently obvious. No one is "explaining" any of Ryan's votes with this source. They're simply providing a source showing that he voted in a particular way.

As an aside, if you're going ask for a second opinion here, it would be a courtesy to let the folks at the Paul Ryan talk page know about it. Mesconsing (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's reliable as a primary source although secondary sources are preferred especially for contentious material. If this source is being used to support controversial votes, but not controversial votes, then some WP:OR may be going on and this might also be a WP:NPOV issue. WP:BLP/N may be a better venue for dispute resolution since multiple issues may be involved. However, there doesn't seem be any discussion on the talk page. Dispute desolution should begin at the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with A Quest For Knowledge that this belongs at Talk:Paul Ryan, but, having already posted there, I'll add my thoughts here. Collect is confusing two different questions: (1) How did Ryan vote on a particular bill? (2) Given that the article cannot and should not report every single vote Ryan has cast in his Congressional career, is his vote on this particular bill worth including? The Clerk's page is silent on the second point. That's where editors use their editorial judgment, including but not limited to seeing how often a particular bill is discussed in other sources. If the decision is to include a particular vote, though, then the Clerk's page is generally the best source. If there were two confusingly similar bills (such as when John Kerry voted in favor of one bill appropriating $87 billion and then voted against a different bill appropriating the same amount), we might well supplement the Clerk's office citation with another source elaborating on the point. JamesMLane t c 21:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a lot of context to go on and the exact reference and usage. In general I would say that using a government primary source to cherry pick just one part of a voting record is original research and would need a secondary source to make the actual claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The "selection" of particular issues, and the use of single votes to describe his poisition oon issues where many votes may occur in the normal course of legislative activity I find the issue. A Congressman may well have a number of votes on any given issue which can be intrepeted with great disparity - and the idea is that we should let secondary reliable sources weight such votes. IIRC, some issues in the past (like NAFTA) had repreesntatives voting on both sides of the issue! In the case at ahnd, the votes are, indeed, "cherry-picked" and do not cover the gamut of legislative activity of the living person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think James already addressed this issue by pointing out that the decision to include a vote has nothing do with the Clerk's page. Since these votes are a matter of public record, the Clerk's page is used to confirm their truth. For this purpose, it is the best possible source. But nobody here is scanning through these public records in order to cherry pick votes. Instead, we're looking at the bills that our secondary sources mention as being significant, then using the Clerk's page as confirmation of his vote. Any reasonable article is necessarily going to limit its coverage to significant votes, as there are too many votes over the course of all these years for us to list them all, and really, that would be redundant since the Clerk's page does. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, James did address this issue...by saying we should discuss this at the talkpage of the article or BLP/N as this is not the venue for content or use of the primary source. It is clearly the consensus of editors that the site is a primary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone who added one (out of four?) of sources being discussed here, I'd just like to mention how and why the Clerk's page was chosen as a source. I noticed that someone added a sentence on Ryan's vote on something (I don't even remember what), without a source. As it seemed an important issue, I decided to look for a source for the statement, rather than deleting it. Googling took me to the Clerk's roll call page for the vote. It seemed like the best possible source to demonstrate how Ryan voted, so I used it. I suspect that the other instances of using the Clerks' roll call tally as a source also happened in such a haphazard way. I mention this because of the concern raised that somehow the Clerk was systematically used as a source for some kinds of votes, but not for others.

As to the use of single votes to represent Ryan's positions, I really don't see that happening. Typically a paragraph will begin with a statement about Ryan's position, then mention votes that illustrate that position. Take for example, the Social, environmental, and science issues section. The part on reproductive rights begins with "Ryan describes himself as "as pro-life as a person gets," then goes on to list a number of his votes on the issue. Similarly, the paragraph on gun owners' rights begins "Ryan has "championed the rights of gun owners," then goes on to list his votes on that issue. So I don't think that single votes are being used to describe Ryan's positions, but instead many single votes are used to illustrate his positions. -- Mesconsing (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Using this source for anything BUT to show that Ryan voted yay or nay on any H.R. is original research. Secondary sources are needed for interpretation of his positions. So unless this source were used solely as a reference material, it really doesn't belong in any article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, duh, that's all it was used for. Read the article and look at the citations before you jump into something you apparently aren't familiar with. -- Mesconsing (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring your 5th grade vernacular, I'm referring to the text above where you talk about "illustrating" someone's position. It is not our business to illustrate someone's position using this source. That is for the sources. If an omnibus bill has provision A,B,C and a candidate votes in favor, we as editors can't say they voted for A, or B, or C.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to attack a fellow editors vernacular (and thereby relegate their ideas to those of a fifth grader) in order to make your point? This is not a blog. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for commentary at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Right. First of all, does File:NOAAsourcebutnotofficialsunclimate 3b.gif justify he text used to describe it, which doesn't appeared to be in is source, http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html Specifically, neither seems to allow a categorical statement that no non-sunspot warming happened before 1980 - but we say that the trend was definitely until 1980, a date nowhere sourced. Secondly, can Roy Spencer be used to describe the mainstrea views, and how they differ from the fringe - an apparently very convenient description that makes the fringe sound more equivalent. sources are his book The Great Global Warming Blunder and the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101 87.238.84.65 (talk · contribs)

That article should not be arguing the points of view, it is supposed to be a list of the scientists with a short description for each. If there is more that should be with the article about the individual or in the global warming controversies page. Even the first graph "Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl" giving the consensus view is off topic - it is not about the scientists,. They should all be removed. The article is not about the controversy, there is a specific article about that. Dmcq (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Naked WP:CANVASSING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since the OP has never edited the article nor commented on its talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping, I pointed the IP to this board from FTN since the question he asked was about the reliability of a source. I also don't think it is a requirement to post on a talk page before asking a question at a noticeboard. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

People are allowed to ask here without going to the talk page if they want a straightforward opinion on a possible problem. Having looked at the original posters contributions it seems they asked the question at the Fringe theories noticeboard and a person there said they could confirm on this noticeboard which they have done. That hardly seems like forum shopping to me. I certainly believe if the discussion gets to any length the original articles talk page should have a note added, but when I tried suggesting that at the fringe theories noticeboard they rejected it strongly. I am glad to see that even if you frequent that noticeboard which I think has gone rogue in its groupthink that at least you agree with me that people should know about any lengthy discussion about topics what they are watching by being notified on its talkpage. Thanks for adding the notice but I disagree about the forum shopping bit. Dmcq (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Look again. The OP asked no questions, they just secretly condemned before higher authority. If article tweaks result, great, but bear in mind we are supposed to be working together with respect for each other. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Different people have different ways of asking questions. I see nothing indicative of a bad faith query. Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at the query on the Fringe theories noticeboard and for that one it is definitely more of a complaint than a simple query. In that case I think a notification on the talk page of the article immediately is called for but as I said before the FTN editors have rejected that. It is the FTN editors you have an argument against in that case. Dmcq (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it's here. The scientist in question is Roy Spencer (scientist) and as he doesn't represent the mainstream view I don't think he should be a source for the mainstream view. I also feel that this should be what it claims to be, a list, and should not be used as a vehicle for arguments about global warming. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Age of sources containing specific factual information a factor?.

Hello,

I recently edited the Mara Bar-Serapion article to include the following info:

Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt.[1] William Cureton published the first complete English translation of this work in 1855.[2]

[1] Perry, Samuel Gideon F. (1867). An ancient Syriac document, purporting to be the record of the second Synod of Ephesus. Oxford University Press. pp. v–vi.

[2] Cureton, William (1855). Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara Bar Serapion. Rivingstons. pp. 70–76.

This edit was quickly reverted (diff) by another user with the note, "VERY interesting info. Yet, I tried to confirm it in recent sources, post 1950 but could not. These sources are too old to be WP:RS. Do you have more recent sources?" Unfortunately I too noticed that more recent reliable sources (at least those freely available on the Web) seem to show little interest in the 19th century history of the manuscript containing the Mara bar Serapion text.

Now I agree that this user would have a point if the argument being referenced involved the interpretation of the manuscript's text within the broader context of ancient Near Eastern literature and culture because historical and social sciences have advanced greatly over the past 150 years. However, as the statements being supported by the references involve specific facts, such as Tattam's discovery of the manuscript in a specific year at a specific place, it seems to me that these references should still qualify as WP:RS despite their age. Is this a correct way of looking at the situation? Thanks in advance for your feedback. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting info. If you get recent sources, no problem. But if the door is opened (even if just a crack) to Model T era scholarship, or before, there is no end to the ensuing nightmares. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that modern scholarship should generally be considered more reliable than older scholarship, but I don't think we can go the next step and completely toss out "Model T era" scholarship as being unreliable... after all, some of those Model Ts still run ... in some topic areas there are works written in that era that are considered classics in the field, and even the authority on their topic.

As to the specific case... is someone actually questioning the accuracy of the stated fact (that Tattam obtained the manuscript in question during an 1842 visit to the St. Mary Deipara monastery in Egypt.)? If not, I don't see a real reason to object to the source. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of older book references is sometimes contested...but generaly only when there is an actual contemporary source being shown. Just because a book is old does not mean it is innacurate. Some publications have yet to updated in any real form such as some of the publications of Giacomo Boni for his work at the turn of the century in the Roman Forum. While there have been some newer speculation, so far no one has proposed he was drasticly innaccurate. I would say it depends on the same criteria as any other relaible source and if there is newer information, then we should at least check it out be sure it doesn't override earlier research.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A good example of the oppsite, where information has been changed is Platner's Topography of Ancient Rome, however there is an updated version from another author I believe and not all of Platner's work was tossed out. In fact it was the major basis for newer work.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You can always just attribute and contexualize the claims so that the readers are instantly aware of the age of the scholarship they are viewing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's feedback. To respond to The Red Pen of Doom, that option would be a good one in many similar circumstances, especially when discussing the history of scholarly interpretations and theories. But in this case, contextualizing the source could appear to introduce a degree of uncertainty into a statement that is otherwise a straightforward recitation of basic facts. For example, consider an edit such as: "In 1867, Samuel Gideon F. Perry wrote that Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt." If there were any indication that these facts were in dispute among the sources, I would do something like that to indicate who stated what, but I've found no indication of variant claims among the sources discussing the history of this manuscript that I've encountered (albeit all 19th century so far). Moreover, I've already clearly indicated the year in which the works from which the citations are derived were published in the accompanying references, so readers can readily obtain that information.

Here's a proposal. If other agree, I'll revert the reversion which deleted my edit, but I'll also add a note on the article's Talk page requesting a more up-to-date reference. Someone who is more familiar with the relevant literature would probably have access to a recent catalog of manuscripts in the British Library or some other such source which contains the relevant info.

(As an aside, does Wikipedia have a maintenance tag along the lines of {{More recent citation needed|date}}? That could be useful in certain circumstances.) --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, enough said. I will self-revert, but add where the info came from - pre Model T. The talk page gets archived, so mentioning it there is no use. But I do question this info and do NOT believe it - if it had been the case, someone would have written about it. I specifically disagree with BlueBoar's statement. But then Wikipedia is full of unreliable nonsense - one more sentence will not hurt that much. This discussion confirms my decision to be less active on Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of this discussion has led you to that conclusion? If you feel you have worth and value as an editor, being here and continuing to edit would only serve as an example to follow by others with less experiance. Consider the value you have to influence Wikipedia for the better History2007.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, too late for that, and it has been a long time coming... Pick any sequence of articles on Wikiproject computing and you will see what a sad, sad shape they are in. And no one is even working on them and COI is getting added by the day. While I do trust geographic information in Wikipedia (e.g. anything about Chicago) with over 90% confidence, I do not trust anything I would read about biology, where I am not an expert. Who knows where it came from... The scientific encyclopedia has failed. Period. But that is another discussion.... History2007 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

History2007, I would like to begin by sincerely apologizing if my role in this discussion only served to stir up negativity towards Wikipedia. Regarding the Talk page, yes comments there are archived, but the comment I posted there earlier today is the first one ever posted on that page, so any new comment requesting a more recent reliable source will probably stick around a long time before it winds up in the archives. It's only on articles that receive heavy traffic (and heavy editing) that comments don't last long on the main Talk page. At the very least, it can't hurt and could certainly help improve the article, so I'll add a comment there shortly. Also, I won't further edit your latest revision to the page unless I can locate a RS published less than ~50 years ago.

Thank-you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it was not your fault. It is the general "smile and tolerate junk" attitude that has existed for a few years now. The attitude is that it will eventually all get fixed. But I see no signs of progress on the serious articles. Progress is made on basic items such as rivers and mountains, but those are generally done now. The high technology items are getting outdated by the minute... By November banner ads will appear asking for money - will there ever be banner ads asking for quality? Do not bet on it... History2007 (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to the specific issue that was raised. Without commenting either way on History2007's point just above, in this specific case we aren't talking about junk. The first source cited probably knew the facts very well and, as far as that's concerned, would be reliable. The second source cited is the primary source for the statement in the text.

The reasons why Wikipedia prefers modern sources, in this specific case, are as follows (I'd say).

1. In the case of sentence 1 and note 1, a more recent source (if one is available) will help the reader better because it will include up-to-date opinions of the manuscript, its date, why it was where it was, why Tattam was able to take it away, etc. 21st century perspectives on all these things will differ from those in the cited source. With reasonable luck, touch wood, the hypothetical latest source should also state the raw fact "Tattam got it from that place at that date" correctly.
2. In the case of sentence 2 and note 2, a secondary source, e.g. the introduction to a later edition of the manuscript, will not only tell us those publication details (the spelling should be "Rivingtons", by the way), but will say how useful or useless Cureton's edition is now thought to be, where it stands in current scholarship, whether he had a POV, etc.

So we should aim to find modern sources for our footnotes if we can. Now, the early edition cited (note 2) definitely belongs in the article, but not in the footnotes. It belongs in a list of editions and translations of the text, and it is extremely useful to the reader because it links to a full text, available free. Exactly what some people are hoping for in a Wikipedia article like this. The other item cited might be hard to replace by any modern source, because it gives a long list of the stuff Tattam hoiked out of the monastery. It's possible no later source does that. So, in a perfect Wikipedia, we would retain this citation, for the useful context it offers, and add a later source to it.

I just noticed this. The second item cited is not "Oxford University Press". It's "privately printed" and the "printers to the University" happened to offer the best quote. I don't suppose there were any other printers in Oxford who could print Syriac, and Stephen Austin of Hertford maybe put in a higher bid. In other words, it's self-publication. But that's irrelevant to us now, it will certainly have been cited in later scholarship. Andrew Dalby 10:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Age is a concern. I recently discovered the 1911 New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia being cited as evidence for archaeology (with no indication how old it was). I frequently find 19th century books reprinted in this century given a date in this century, which is I guess another issue but people need to look out for it as Google books shows you latest publication dates, not actual dates. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As always, context is everything... when examining how reliable any source is, we must examine it in the context of how it is being used in a given Wikipedia article.... The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia is an excellent and extremely reliable source for verifying some things (such as a statement about what Catholic Church doctrine and beliefs were at the turn of the 20th century) but is not reliable for other things (such as a statement about archaeology). There is no such thing as a completely unreliable source... the age of a source will certainly limit the situations where a source is reliable, but we can not simply say "anything written before 1950 (or some other arbitrary date) is by definition unreliable". Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Given your comment above that some Model T's still run, the next time you take your Model T on the freeway, let me know. I will come and have a laugh. But seriously, this type of lax attitude is exactly how quality degradation happens in all kinds of industries. Quality comes from diligence, not a happy go lucky attitude. But enough said on the Model T... Feel free to drive it on your own time... History2007 (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...If context is everything, I see no reason why the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia for a statement about archaeology wouldn't be reliable. You do realise that the many sites in Rome required permits and permissions from the church and that many times the church would be directly involved. Take the exact example I gave above about the archaeology of the Comitium. The church was using the Curia Julia as a tomb and the structure itself, a church. If the encyclopedia has information from the church in regards to the archeology of a structure during the transiton from church to public state building , then their documentation would be as reliable as the states documentation and the archaeologist. It would have to be used only to confirm and verify claims in regards to such information that directly pertain to the church and I wouldn't use their mentions for things not related to the church itself, such as them just commenting outside projects etc.. The Catholic archives and publications from that period as a resource are one of the largest depositories of information in the world from that period and older. I don't know if it is that easy to dismiss for aercheology, only because some of the most important digs in Ancient Roman history took place in Rome....and about 100 years ago. To understand the original projects, we need sources that can confirm the information from that period. I don't know...I may have used this source. LOL! That may have actually been me Doug! =)--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Doug is 120% right. See Jonathan L. Reed, "Archaeological contributions to the study of Jesus and the Gospels" in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton Univ Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6. The game has changed as much as the iPads in use in 1911 have changed. And by the way how many 1911 publications refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls? None. How many 1911 publications refer to WWII? None... How many 1911 publications refer to the Second Vatican Council? ... None. I think you know what I mean... History2007 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make the point 120 percent right. We don't exclude sources based on the criticism of others and controversies on faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view it does. Doctrine has changed since 1911, say Lumen Gentium.... And discoveies have been made. So let us say he is 140% right. History2007 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea that the further away one is from an event the more reliable he account or interpretation of it! I believe people thinking more recent things are in some way more reliable is more an indication about the thinking of the people assessing reliability than any truth, people agree more with people who think the same as them. However thinking the same as people now is not the way to understand something in the past. I would apply a depreciation for recent work to compensate for that effect an only say something recent was better if it was obviously very much better. Dmcq (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me tell you guys why I do not trust these 1870 or 1920 sources with no modern scholarship to confirm them. There are several reasons, but one is that for the life of me I do not know if they are not hoaxes. I have often wished I had been part of the group that managed to pull the prank that Henri Cartan did. It was just brilliant and a great laugh. They were laughing at the French Academy for years - and the Academy was frantically searching for Bourbaki. The Wiki article on it is not detailed enough, but there were huge laughs and all kinds of games. It only came out because Dieudonné acted like John Lennon. If they had just stopped, Bourbaki would have existed. But that is another story. Yet, unless things are verified by multiple scholars in a modern setting, you never know... You never know. So I just do not bet on some 100 year old statement. Not that it matters much here, but one can never be sure unless the rigors of modern scholarship have been applied to a topic. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact I am not limiting my information from that period. There were indeed some other excavations in the 1960s but they just confirmed information I believe and offered no new theories. One thing that was indeed brought up by another editor in this regards to the reference and others (even modern references) is the percieved innaccurate information pertaining to a single ancient alter known as the Vulcanal which became confused with the suggestum beside the Rostra in front of the Curia Julia probably two different structures, but I have yet to confirm what modern archaeology says about this, but am researching through a new project at the university of UCLA. The old information may have been confused due to a published work in the 1920s that was the catalyst for this belief. But, while one editor has given some reference to another theory, some are just as old. It can be difficult and time consuming and references difficult to obtain, but...don't give up and keep going!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that Bourbaki was some sort of prank or hoax? That's just a weird interpretation, it was just a name for a collective identity to write some agreed basic texts. Rigors of modern scholarship do not compensate for not being of the time nor does it give extra insight. That's like saying that someone who only studies secondary sources has a better grasp. All you get from that point of view is a bias in favour of people who are close to you in their way of thinking rather than in favour of the facts. A person nowadays studying Dickens has no guarantee of being closer to a 'correct' account than someone of the time whatever about their rigorous scholarship, they are just more likely to get money from a funding agency with their work because they have phrased it more in their terms. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I get the idea that Bourbaki was a hoax from having studied it long ago. The Wiki article is inadequate on that. Bourbaki was a deliberate prank (at first Cartan's idea) and the academy was searching for the "genius Bourbaki" for a while... In fact before selecting the name Bourbaki they went out and made sure it was a name with no living descendants to throw the academy off. Not that I can be bothered to go and find sources for it now... but it was a prank. History2007 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a book about the business Bourbaki, A Secret Society of Mathematicians. There might have been a bit of joke about the business of having to make a biography to satisfy the Academy requirements but there is no indication that anyone actually thought anything other than that it was the name of the group. Dmcq (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I said the MAA book, below, because the MAA has some idea... Anyway, let me assure you that Weil and Cartan were pranksters. I knew people who knew them both. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing, I did a search anyway, and there are a couple of new books that discuss it. The MAA published book says that Andre Weil was once arrested by the Russians because he had fake Bourbaki cards with him... and they mention even more pranks than I had read about long ago... History2007 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Surely age isn't the issue, it's how the info is used bearing in mind that it's likely to be a primary source, and the question of how reliable the publisher is. The original book itself would be reliable as a primary source, though not perhaps very widely available, but unfortunately question marks are raised above about google docs so care is needed there. As an example of using an earlier source, this 1827 publication has an impeccable modern internet publisher as well as a brief but useful note by a modern historian. Of course in this instance the context includes references to modern scholarship. It becomes much more difficult if the only available source is on google docs.
  In the instance being discussed, it would seem reasonable to use the source to say that William Cureton]] published a complete English translation of this work in 1855, as it seems unlikely to be spoofed on google. More problematic to say that William Cureton published the first complete English translation of this work in 1855, it might have claimed to be the first but a secondary source would be needed to confirm that claim, in my uninformed opinion. . dave souza, talk 18:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Google books and google docs are different things. The Cureton book -- like many other old PD books -- is on Google books. I've never heard of any spoofing or falsification there. But we can't say it's a "complete" English translation. That depends whether Cureton was a reliable translator: hence it's better to have a secondary source. Andrew Dalby 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Google books and google docs are different things." Exactly right. A clever 12 year old could add to google docs, but would need a parent who works at Google to modify Google books. Now, about Newton and Cheddar (as below) who is going to try that first? History2007 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with citing the Perry source regarding the document's claimed provenance, especially with attribution text that makes note of the source's age, as currently appears in the article (although, arguably, that should read "A nineteenth century source" rather than "Nineteenth century sources", as there's just the one of them. On the other hand, I don't agree with the use of the Cureton source for the claim that it's currently supporting. We can use that sort of primary source, irrespective of age, only for claims about itself; here, Cureton clearly represents an English translation, but third-party scholarship would be required to document that such a translation was either complete or the first of its kind. I would suggest: "William Cureton published an English translation of this work in 1855." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

<ec> Thanks for the clarification, it's a relief that Google Books are ok. So I think we're in agreement that the issue isn't age, it's the point that these should be treated as primary sources and not as modern scholarship. On that basis, may I suggest that the following would be in order: dave souza, talk 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An English translation of this work published in 1855 by William Cureton was presented by Cureton as the "publication for the first time of remains of writers who have been the most celebrated in the earliest ages of the Christian Church".[1] According to the preface of an 1867 translation, Henry Tattam obtained this manuscript during a visit in 1842 to the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt.[2]

[1] Cureton, William (1855). Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara Bar Serapion. Rivingstons. pp. 70–76.

[2] Perry, Samuel Gideon F. (1867). An ancient Syriac document, purporting to be the record of the second Synod of Ephesus. Oxford University Press. pp. v–vi. [modified by dave souza, talk 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)]

Seems fine to me. I really can't see that there is any question about the facts but there is no harm in following the guidelines about use of primary sources and attributing it in this case. Dmcq (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me as well. Andrew Dalby 08:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry for being away from this discussion for a few days. I've proposed some changes in my sandbox and provided some explanatory notes on these proposals over on the Mara Bar Serapion Talk page which I invite feedback on. To summarize, I found some additional citations which I worked into the article, so I didn't quite adopt Dave souza's proposal though I did adopt some elements particularly with regards to removing the unsubstantiated (in the secondary sources) claim that Cureton's translation was "first" and "complete". But I would like to thank him and everyone else for their feedback, which I have found helpful both now and in possible future occasions. I'd also like to add a couple general comments on the preceding conversation.

(a) Given that the topic of the age of a RS is clearly an important topic, perhaps it may be appropriate to offer more guidance to editors on this subject in the Wikipedia:RS article. As the article is currently written, I could only find a brief cautionary note that "some scholarly material may be outdated", so it may be helpful to other editors who may encounter similar circumstances in the future to provide more in-depth guidance. For example, perhaps the article should state that an edit should not be reverted *merely* because the source used is old if that source otherwise is of RS quality (unless of course other factors are present, such as the edit involving a non-contextualized statement which more recent research has demonstrated to be inaccurate).

(b) History2007, I agree that it is important to be on the watch for hoaxes and other material which may mislead. Unfortunately though, hoaxes, frauds and misleadingly presented research are not confined to the 19th century. Even so, peer-reviewed journals in general remain reliable sources (unless evidence exists to the contrary in a particular circumstance) just as (in my opinion) older works shouldn't be deemed unreliable merely on account of their age (again, unless other factors are present in a particular circumstance). --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting info on the Chaos, Solitons and Fractals item. I have not been following those for years now - but the entire fisaco makes the Kardashian wedding look scholarly. History2007 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

GreenArrowTV.com

On the page for the TV series Arrow, user (SchrutedIt08) is consistently deleting information sourced from GreenArrowTV.com, an offshoot from the KSiteTV.com website, dismissing it as an "unreliable source." Author Craig Byrne is a professional writer who wrote several TV show companion books, and if the news originally came from that site and was linked as such from the sources that ARE linked to, shouldn't it be the source credited and be considered reliable enough? 108.219.213.206 (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

www.greenarrowtv.com is basicly a fan site and states clearly in the disclaimer "Green Arrow, Arrow and related elements are © 2012 DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television, and associated entities. This is not an official site and is not authorized by the copyright holders."--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It also has broken unique news related to the show, and provided unique interviews, from a published author. I don't really understand why it would not qualify, especially if other links that are sourced use them as the original resource. 108.219.213.206 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't read what this source says

Source: [1]

Article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jayvlog89 (Jamie's World)

Context:

In 2010 Jamie's World won a Stony Award for best internet video from High Times Magazine.

The site is blocked where I live so I have no idea what the source says. Though I highly doubt it is reliable, can anyone read the source and tell me what it says so I can review the article when it's up for AfC? FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The quote is precisely supported by the site. You can read more about the source at High Times. It's certainly a reliable source for what it says, although whether that indicates notability is less clear. We also have an article on the Stony Awards. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article I understand why the site's blocked :P A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How many articles do we have on Youtube channels? How notable is the channel and in this instance, what is the basis for this not being considered a fringe reference. Wouldn't notablitiy for inclusion be more along the lines of, say a magazine or site that directly relates to video production or internet media for such notablitiy? I am not making any decisions here, just inquiring for future reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of declining it as being just another YouTube channel, but I wanted to see if the source was reliable. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Spokeo

I noticed a Spokeo page was added here as this inline citation to support the claim that Pat Condell was born in 1950, so my first question is whether Spokeo is considered reliable enough to support this claim. The first problem is spokeo contradicts itself (it first has "Born Nov 23, 1949" and then "1950 Birth"), the second is the site does not give its sources, only the vague statements that they "aggregate vast quantities of public data " and that they merge "“real life” information (address, email address, marital status, etc.) with social network data (Facebook profiles, Twitter feeds, etc.)" giving the disclaimer "Spokeo does not verify or evaluate each piece of data, and makes no warranties or guarantees about any of the information offered." (see http://www.spokeo.com/blog/about).

This appears to be the definition of an unreliable source, what do others think?

I also notice spokeo is used for several other wikipedia articles, of which this sample makes me dubious of its use: [[Nathan Kelly], Adam Cappa, Lakhai Upazila (which could very well be spokeo getting their information from wikipedia). So my second question is how should editors decide which spokeo claims are reliable? -84user (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Spokeo exercises no fact checking, from our article, "According to the site, Spokeo does not originate data and information available is only as good as its source. The information available originates from information people provide that becomes public information “even if a person isn't on Facebook or Twitter.”" Not reliable: no exercise of fact checking. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Gods (Michael Jordan)

There are a considerable number of mostly very stubby articles[2] about obscure or minor deities sourced partially or exclusively to the various editions of Michael Jordan's The Encyclopedia of Gods (variously, to the 1993 Facts on File printing or to either the 1999 or 2002 Kyle Cathie Limited editions). I suspect that quite a few of the entirely unreferenced deity articles actually derive from this source as well. Some of these articles date back to 2004, although another batch was created in 2007. Although this book gets fairly good reviews by lay readers on sites like Amazon and Google Books, I have significant concerns about its reliability for the purposes of Wikipedia sourcing.

The book contains very small information snippets about each entity listed (short enough, in fact, that some of these stubs may also be copyright violations). It has no bibliography, and does not in any way indicate where the material originated. Additionally, there are indications from user comments in various review sites that quality control is not good (errors in Norse mythology including equating Freya and Frigga, misidentification of Salus's gender, and conflation of non-divine spirit entities with deities).

Obviously, the long-term solution is across the board article improvement. In the meantime, the two salient questions are: does this book meet our reliability standards and, separately, are the uses of this book sufficiently problematic from a copyright perspective to warrant more urgent action? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, "Facts On File is an award-winning publisher of print, eBooks, and online reference materials for the school and library market." Non-scholarly encyclopaedia, aimed at school children, in a scholarly field (history of religions, sociology of religions, theology). Notability demands substantial coverage doesn't it? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Sifaoui

1. Source: Mohamed Sifaoui, Éric Zemmour, une supercherie française, Armand Colin, 2010, ISBN 978-2200255596, p. 182.
2. Article: Bat Ye'or [3] (and maybe Eurabia)
3. Content: "[Ce qui est scandaleux et inacceptable dans l’approche de Bat Ye’Or, c’est de la voir reproduire une démarche intellectuelle conspirationniste, une propagande éhontée, un schéma de pensée dont elle a été elle-même victime ainsi que des millions de ses coreligionnaires. Car, dans le fond, ces cris d’orfraie n’ont rien à envier aux Protocoles des Sages de Sion, ce faux conçu par la police tsariste pour diaboliser les Juifs, tous les Juifs. Il imite d’une certaine manière La France juive, le livre du journaliste antisémite du XIXe siècle Édouard Drumont qui laissait entendre que son pays était dominé par les Juifs.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)" translated by Wikipedia contributors into

   What is outrageous and unacceptable in Bat Ye'or's approach, is to see her reproducing an intellectual conspiracy-theory, a shameless propaganda, a way of thinking which she herself was a victim of, as well as millions of her coreligionists. Because, basically, these cries of outrage are not very different than "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", this hoax created by the tsarist police in order to demonize the Jews, all jews. It mimics, in some way, "The Jewish France", the book of the nineteenth century anti-Semitic journalist Edouard Drumont who suggested that his country was dominated by Jews.

Your comments about the reliability of the source are welcome. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My mind is the following :

Mohamed Sifaoui is not a 'reliable source' when he reports information, as eg Geert Wilders or Daniel Pipe are not either. But Mohamed Sifaoui has an article and is a notorious and controversial journalist who is known for his particular positions about Islam, Islamophobia, Islamism, etc. As a consequence, I think that giving the mind of Moahmed Sifaoui, biaised or not on some articles dealing with these topics is not a nosense.

If would set the border here :

• on articles dealing with history and science, neither his mind nor his analysis is welcome.
• on controversies articles dealing with some of his enemies or friends, his analysis could be acceptable.

Based on this, I think that what he wrote here above about Bat Ye'or is at the edge but acceptable. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Broadly, I agree with Pluto2012. Sifaoui is never a reliable source about anything except his own statements, but he is controversial and well-known within his particular sphere of influence (and the publisher here, Armand Colin, is a significant French publishing house), so his opinions about things in that field are potentially germane. My concern with regard to the Bat Ye'or article is one of undue weight, however. The other responses quoted in the Reception section are markedly shorter; to avoid bias in this inclusion, it might be preferable to excerpt from Sifaoui's comments rather than blockquote the passage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Squeamish Ossifrage's very balanced response. Since Sifaoui does have "notability" (for lack of a better term), it may be worth to relate his opinion, just follow WP:RSOPINION for cases like this. And, given the controversial nature of his work, it is a particularly good idea to avoid undue weight, shortening the quote will help. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that Sifaoui is too much controversial and to few notable to be considered as a RS. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of WP:RS sources and requirements for "evidence" and "test methods"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This kind of thing goes to WT:IRS. RS/N does specific sources for specific claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Comments on Talk:Suetonius on Christians will be appreciated. There are a few points and some of them are:

• If a scholar states something in a book do we need to ask for evidence that he is correct?

A user wants to reject what scholars say about the confusion of a Roman historian because he thinks "there is no method to test" what the scholars say.... He also thinks books by professors are not WP:RS if they are aimed at a general audience.... Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to test it, just attribute it with due weight if it conflicts with others or is somehow dubious. Books by a professor for a general audience are perfectly okay and when talking about other studies are often good secondary sources for helping to assign weight to the different views. It isn't up to us to check the sources, just to try and assign due weight by their general standing in the sources and general considerations and to summarize them. If a scholar just prays to God and the answers come to him in visions that really isn't our problem if the scholar is generally respected and other people in the field don't disagree, though I'd be okay with just an attribution rather than stating the conclusions as settled! Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with most of that -- not the visions bit :) The main thing is to insist that there is a "method to test" -- via the reactions of other scholars.

Professors who are the liveliest writers and have the most interesting things to say may reach a general audience. Don't let's eliminate them for that reason! Andrew Dalby 09:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's a scholarly work (or even general audience work of a scholar) and it reflects the mainstream assessment (i.e it's covered in a preponderance of sources), then no. It is not up to us to evaluate the mainstream assessment with original research. I should add that we don't analyse any source, even fringe views, but we would add attribution instead to make it clear that its not mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all 3 of you for pointing out the logic. I will point to this discussion from that talk page. And I think WP:V and WP:RS agree with what you guys have said: that we just summarize what the scholars write (using WP:Due) not decide if their views can be tested. And as stated above, professors can be WP:RS sources even if their books are written for a general audience. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliability of research journal: Hypertension Journal

Hi. Some content I added has been vehemently removed twice (diff, diff, talk) from the green coffee article on the basis of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. The content cites the Hypertension Research journal, and read:

The Japanese Society of Hypertension published studies in 2002 and 2005, demonstrating that green coffee bean extract has an antihypertensive effect in rats and humans.

Some more information on the journal:

• its listing at Nature.com
• some articles from the journal, via Google Scholar

I am attempting to expand the content of the stub green coffee article in a neutral and verifiable manner but am not an expert, and would appreciate a community read on the reliability of this journal. Regards. --Ds13 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Question... I know the talk on this page isn't binding, but if there is not negative consensus WRT a source (Hypertension Research journal, in this case)... does it seem reasonable to proceed to acknowledge content (shown above) from that journal in an article? --Ds13 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a pretty standard society journal, and is part of the Nature Publishing Group. Its impact factor isn't anything to write home about but its scope isn't very broad. It has well-structured editorial control and an international advisory board. I don't see anything that strikes me as fatal flaws about the journal as a whole. No opinion regarding the individual studies cited, as I haven't taken a look at them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• It's basically a WP:DUE problem. These are unreplicated primary studies. Claims that something has a medical effect need to be supported by secondary sources per WP:MEDRS, like a review article or a good-quality med school textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Makes sense. --Ds13 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• To some extent, it also depends on how the sources are being used. It is one thing to cite a primary study as evidence that research was done, but it is quite another entirely to cite an unreplicated study as evidence that the claimed medical effect is actually present. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. Well, to clarify, I would make no claim in the article stronger than: Studies published in Hypertension Research claim that green coffee bean extract has an antihypertensive effect in rats[1] and humans.[2] Seems reasaonble? --Ds13 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Google docs and similar

Couldn't find the answer in the archives - do we allow documents stored on sources such as Google or constantcontact.com to be used as references? See DotConnectAfrica. They aren't obvious when you first look, eg ""Open Letter to US Department of Commerce National Telecommunication Information Administration (NTIA) making a preliminary case for the .africa gTLD". ICANN." is one.[4]. Then there are others on reputable organisations, but can we use [5] for anything? Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the applicable policy here? These sources look like primary ones, and should only be used with caution, and they really need a "reliable secondary source for that interpretation."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the applicable policy is at WP:SPS. You can self-publish a secondary source. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources#Doesn't "self-published" mean "primary"?. Something published on Google docs or similar sites could be primary, secondary, or tertiary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to tell of these documentns have been alterd?

That to me is a major problem. How do we know these are authentic if they aren't on an official website? Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Only one of those is on google docs. The others are just PDFs that open for viewing in browser. Speaking generally, you can use PDFs. As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to use a google docs sheet as well, just give an accessdate. Websites are subject to change in the same manner. Ryan Vesey 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Google docs have been traditionally treated as self published works.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Can the following manuscript [6], which has not yet passed peer-review, be considered a reliable source for the claim being made here [7]? They use a sample of size 9+15 individuals to draw conclusions about an entire population. Thanks in advance, Athenean (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is peer review a criteria for such primary sourcing? If the document is shown to have been a published work by a notable academic and is posted on the university website, if you feel that peer review is an essential part of using the reference for facts, then use it for now, as opinion and attribute the author and site the work in the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for scholarship (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) states:

• Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.
• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars.
• Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
• Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

So, for Athenean, while it has not yet passed peer review it may be excluded (edited for clarity) if not fully vetted yet and if it is a work in progress. But Doug Weller brings up the main point, and that is whether we can trust documents placed on open source platforms and I believe the answer is generally no. However, a google document has been used as an official document on pages where the document is directly linked to the actual organization represented in this ever changing document as part of their group function to creat the document. Huge circle. but the specific document was found by contributing editors to be worthy as a primary source in this case. In cases where vetted documentation is being used it must come from the site that has the vetting, such as the university itself, that links to the author and then links to a PDF version (usually) santioned by the author and university.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, per Amadscientist. Google Documents is just another publishing format, like nailing broadsides to a church door, or singing a traditional song, or printing a monograph, or tweeting a twit. The medium is not central to reliability. The editorial control exercised over a particular publication is what we look for. Generally Google Documents are self-authored and self-published, generally. Where editorial control adequate to the claims being made by the document exists over a Google Documents document, then that document would be reliable. I too have concerns regarding the ability for such a document to be changed, but this is no different to any other media except in the speed with which such a change could be made. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Easy and fun test:

• Get a copy of a long, detailed and respectable paper on the life of Isaac Newton.
• Modify it and slip in there that his favorite cheese was (take your pick Cheddar, Camembert, or your favorite)
• Save it as PDF.

Then start posting it around the web. Sooner or later, that fact will appear in Wikipedia, under Cheddar.... Not hard to do. History2007 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

inagist.com

Is inagist.com a reliable source, I need to use it as evidence for "the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti site has been blocked by the GoI.[8] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no indication of editorial control at inagist.com. Is there something more to it than tweets? hat a site has been blocked does not stop it being a reliable source. However I don't see why Hindu Janajagruti Samiti should be considered a reliable source either, who are the editors and what are their standards? Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears to be a tweet aggregator, which is not a good sign. Tweets tend to snowball and the heat/light ratio rapidly gets out of proportion. If the government of India has blocked the HJS website then it will have surely been reported by some better source? In fact, I have seen a report from somewhere decent in the last couple of days regarding that government blocking (IIRC) 51 sites. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

TOI has a story here but individual sites are not mentioned. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't find anything in a reliable source, they'll just have to wait a day or two for it to be reported somewhere other than in blogs and tweets. Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Google search review text[9] is "Indian Govt. blocks HJS Website in India", review is for HJS site, cannot open site so have to rely on Google review. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You cannot rely on a Google Search results page as a source. Wait, as Dmcq suggests. I'll keep an eye out and add the info if something appears. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that someone from outside India checks the HJS site and see what it has to say about the block and then perhaps add it to the article? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source that I can see but that might be okay under WP:ABOUTSELF but really I think. Really though what's the problem about waiting a day or two? See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, Wikipedia isn't in the business of giving a blow by blow account of things as they develop. This is not Wikinews. Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree about wp:ABOUTSELF. I cannot do much about it though. So let us wait and watch? Anyways what does the HJS site say? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? I can see the site but it has no particular relevance within the scope of our policies etc. ABOUTSELF can surely not be used in a situation as political as this - common sense would dictate that. If we allow it then any advocacy group can publish anything about any event that it alleges has affected it and we'd be bound to take note. It will lead to manipulation and is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

wp:ABOUTSELF requires (1)the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; (2)it does not involve claims about third parties; (3)it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; (4)there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; (5)the article is not based primarily on such sources. In the present case there is no clause that can be used to prevent referring to the HJS site, those who can please check and provide info whenever possible. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Many extremist groups etc make claims on their websites that it is simply not sensible to include in Wikipedia articles without third-party support. Claiming to be blocked is certainly exceptional and it does involve a claim against a third party (the government of India, whom the HJS oppose anyway as part of the RSS/BJP etc Hindutva nexus). To say that there is "no clause" astounds me, although perhaps it should come as no surprise. The HJS site makes specific claims in gung-ho language as to why the alleged block has been imposed, despite simultaneously admitting that they have not been informed why - it is rather contradictory.

As a possible solution, can you take a screenshot of the block notice? Would this be acceptable as a source? I guess that depends on precisely what the notice says (eg: does it say that it is blocked throughout the country). - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The best we could take their site for is a straightforward statement like that it is blocked by the Indian government since whenever it started and just leave it at that. We can't use the site for the Indian government's reasons. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but has it been blocked and, if so, has it been blocked throughout India or just by some ISPs etc? The site claims a full block but since they also say that they have not been informed, and on 20 August were appealing to people to let them know if it was blocked, I am not sure that it is even reliable for such a simple statement. It probably is blocked nationally, given recent events and the (arguably) inflammatory tone, but it could also be an elaborate stunt capitalising on events or "just" a localised block of some sort. We have no way of being sure when even the HJS have dithered about it. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

BW, it is somewhat bizarre that HJS posted a message on their website] asking people to let them know if they could not see the website. D'oh. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian rebel press statements are being taken as RS statements of fact.

Someone with authority should look at what's going on on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_%28from_May_2012%29

Example: "By evening 148 civilians were killed by the Syrian army. 57 were killed in the Damascus suburbs, including over 40 bodies found in Al Tal."

Source: lccsyria

92.15.77.16 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the topic, but 92.15.77.16 appears to be correct. The cited source for the above quote is something called the "Local Coordinating Committees of Syria" which is described by CNN as an opposition group. We currently have 206 cites to this group across multiple articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

LCCSyria are geographic revolutionary councils—effectively a kind of "government." We regularly accept government statements regarding deaths. You would need to raise a specific source from LCCSyria used to support a specific claim—as we don't deal in generalities here. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A warring member to a conflict is obviously not independent of a subject. In a war, each side is going to spin news in a way that is beneficial to their war effort. We should be using Reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I suggest using highly respected news organizations such BBC News, the New York Times, and other similar media as sources for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case the question is about LCCSyria reporting in their news section, with its regular column "Syria Today" ie, abeer [pseudonym] (2012-08-18) "Syria Today 18-8-2012" News LCCSyria; to support claims about the date, location and number of deaths in a war as indicated above. I have to agree with A Quest For Knowledge. LCCSyria doesn't exercise a standard of editorial control (ie: fact checking) over its "News" section equivalent to an appropriate source for making claims regarding date, location and number of deaths. LCCSyria may still be reliable for other matters, such as the opinions and politics of LCCSyria, the organisation and aims of LCCSyria. Compare and contrast to the much more reliable newspapers of French or Lebanese political parties which are run as newspapers rather than as propaganda organs. Finally—respectable news organisations will lend both WEIGHT and reliability to incidents they report. I strongly suggest BBC, NYT, Al Jazeera, CNN, SBS (Australia), The Guardian or any other respectable international news outlet whose focus is on clearly checked and contextualised facts. I would suggest to the editors of that article (Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(from_May_2012)) that their article is a mess of original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think the various statements should be attributed to the source unless there is agreement between the two sides. Also looking there I'm not sure how weight is attached to the various statements, I think there should be some cut off point otherwise the more voluble one gets their viewpoint over more. Dmcq (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the extensive coverage of this war in reliable news sources, there seems to be no need whatsoever to directly reference statements by the protagonists for material such as this. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

REVEAL

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Churches_of_Christ&diff=508472001&oldid=508469450

There are editors using a website [10] as a reliable source for an article on the ICOC.

When I read WP:SOURCES it leads me to suspect that this doesn't meet the standards required for an encyclopaedia.

This "self-published" website has no professional journalists vouching for the material produced, no editorial oversight, no accuracy checking mechanism, in fact their journalistic standards are so low they state in the ABOUT REVEAL/GETTING INVOLVED tab:

"just write up your story, and let REVEAL make it available in the online library. We only ask that you use your real name on your story. You are free to use pseudonyms for others in your story, provided you identify them as such, and in rare cases we may agree to post a pseudonymous story provided we know who you are."

The only requirement for being pubished is you "use your real name" or "we know who you are"! No fact checking, no interviews, no investigative journalism to determine if these claims are true of false!

The claims being made and referenced on the ICOC page are also not light in nature.

Brainwashing, sexual abuse. Harassment etc...

Can someone please help shine some light here? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Which source published on REVEAL for which claims in the article ICOC? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

REVEAL is a strange website in that each page seems to share the same URL, not sure how that is possible, but when you click on a link the URL in the task bar remains the same???

The claims refer mainly to the CRITICISM section of the ICOC page where extreme statements are being made like "Sexual abuse", "Brainwashing" JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions using ~~~~. If you can't extract an URL correctly, then at least cite or describe a specific page in relation to a specific claim. We do not deal in vagueries. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I will try and do so. Thanks.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just from a quick glance, there's more sourcing issues that just that one in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is true. Trying to fix it.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me, if you click on "No frames please" on the home page, you get full addresses for the pages you then go to. Don't know if that helps. Andrew Dalby 17:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this book WP:RS?

Would you guys say that this book:

• Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans by Louis H. Feldman (Oct 1, 1996) T&T Clark ISBN 0567085252

is WP:RS? Louis H. Feldman is highly respected as far as I know, but comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In which articles for what claims? Fifelfoo (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is Suetonius on Christians and he is in the lede (ref #8 now), and being discussed on talk there. The same issue discussed above on WP:RSN here about books by professors being WP:RS or not, and the need for them to be "testable". Feldman is discussing ancient history which is his specialty. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It's a sourcebook, that is a compilation of primary material. Much of what's in it can't be trusted, but that's not Feldman's fault: it's just misuse of the material. For instance at p.7, he relates Theophrastus' quotation of Porphyry's On Abstinence. But modern scholars such as W Den Boer and TD Barnes view Porphyry as having been engaged in propaganda. [11] [12] This is one reason why we rely on secondary sources rather than primary. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to the original poster, he is interested only in a comment made by Feldman. -- spin^control 15:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Feldman is expert on this field, T & T Clark is a reliable publisher, Feldman's comment is a useful summary of the consensus. Quote it and move on. Andrew Dalby 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

VR-Zone

Can VR-Zone be considered a reliable source? Specifically, I'm asking about the reliability of this article as a source for the following content at 16:10:

On the other hand, there has been criticism towards the lack of vertical screen real estate when compared to 16:10 displays of the same screen diagonal. For this reason, some consider 16:10 displays to be more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications, which are usually designed for taller, rather than wider screens.

The site seems like a reliable tech news outlet, referenced by several other established news sites like Engadget, PC Mag, PC World and Tech Report, as well as a number of articles on Wikipedia. The author has written ca. 100 articles on VR-Zone, and has also contributed to several other news sites like PC & Tech Authority, HPCWire.com and The Inquirer (Google search because I couldn't find author profiles on theinquirer.net). Indrek (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound impatient, but is there any reason this question seems to be going unnoticed while others posted after it are being addressed? Indrek (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

statement on Israeli outposts

A user has argued that following source cannot be considered reliable for the statement Israeli outposts are illegal under Israeli law, as opposed to authorized settlements which are legal under Israeli law, though all settlements, including outposts, are also considered illegal under international law.: Ġānim, Asʻad (2010), Palestinian Politics After Arafat: A Failed National Movement, Indiana University Press, p. 32, all forms of settlement in the occupied territories are considered prohibited under international law, Israel considers only settlement "outposts" illegal.

Thoughts? nableezy - 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an accurate and neutral presentation of reality. Literally hundreds of sources could support this. One that is on my desk is The Accidental Empire by Gershom Gorenberg. Chapter 4 deals with this question in detail, including the position of Theodor Meron, then the legal adviser to the MFA, who came to the same conclusion in 1967 as all the rest of the world's jurists. An online resource by a legal scholar that also supports Ganim's book is here [13] (go to publications, then reports, then download The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in International Law from the list). It's written by a legal scholar at SOAS in London and is authoritative. (A brief op-ed summarizing his findings can be found here for those not interested in reading academic texts.[14]).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that a hundred sources could be brought (and I was reading Gorenberg now). I honestly dont even think this needs a source, it is such a basic fact that one could call it common knowledge. nableezy - 19:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As'ad Ghanem (note the transliteration difference) is a fine source for this simple fact as well. [15] Dr. As'ad Ghanem is a senior lecturer at the School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa. Ghanem's theoretical work has explored the legal, institutional and political conditions in ethnic states. In the context of Israel/Palestine, Ghanem's work has covered issues such as Palestinian political orientations, the establishment and political structure of the Palestinian Authority, and majority-minority politics in a comparative perspective. He has been the initiator and designer of several policy schemes and empowerment programs for Palestinian-Arabs in Israel. Dr. Ghanem has authored and edited numerous articles and books, the recent one's are the following: Palestinian Politics After Arafat: A Failed National Movement (Indiana University Press, 2009); Ethnic Politics in Israel - The Margins and the Ashkinasi Centre (Routledge Press, 2010); Palestinians in Israel - Indigenous group politics in the Jewish state (Madar, 2008, in Arabic).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be wiser to use either an independent or an (additional) Israeli source to support the part of the statement on what is illegal under Israeli law. In fact, there should be Israeli legal decisions that can be cited. The latter part of the statement, pertinent to "authorized" settlements verges on being a dictionary definition of "authorized". That part might be better recast in the affirmative, along the lines of "Israeli law authorizes other settlements which are considered illegal under international law". That is not to imply that there's anything wrong with Ghanem's work, but rather that it is best if possible to avoid even an unjustified suspicion of bias on such a touchy subject. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that a statement by an academic who's an expert in this field which is sourced from a book on a relevant topic published by a scholarly press can stand on its own two feet. Additional references would only really be needed if there are notable differing views of this topic (which, of course, would also need to be discussed in the article). Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Risk Management (magazine)

Wayback article, originally published January, 2002. It is being argued on K-9 (film) (talk page) that the e-zine Risk Management is not a reliable source for stating Rando was the canine star of the movie. Source quote:

On the set of K-9, a 1989 Jim Belushi movie, the veritable star of the film was Rando, a German Shepherd. “We actually insured the animal for twenty-five million dollars,” says Kingman, “in the event of a death, injury or sickness that caused an abandonment of the film. There were some backups, but Rando was the hero dog.” To make certain—were something to happen to Rando—that the backup dogs would be able to replace him in his remaining scenes, the dogs were separated in transit in order to diversify the risks of losing the film’s star character.

WP article sentence it relates to:

The dog was actually named Rando,

The "actually" is in reference to the previous sentence, where it is pointed out that the movie credits had Jerry Lee playing himself. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks utterly reliable to me - published by an established industry body and even has an editorial advisory board reviewing content (though it's unfortunate some of the relevant links on the magazine's Website are broken). Barnabypage (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Was typing this up as Barnabypage was typing one resulting in conflict, so it's "delayed"... I think you're misunderstanding my comment on the talk page. In this context, the fact that Rando was one of the dogs playing the part of Jerry Lee is not in question. The reason I disputed the source, is because when you click on it, nothing is mentioned on the page about the dog. You may have an old statement from the website that has expired. Regardless, my point is, you don't need it anyways, as you already have two other "reliable/credible sources". But if you're going to argue the Rando dog, you need to also argue ALL of the sources provided on the talk page for the film that claims Koton was the actual dog or is another dog used in addition to Rando and extras (which is actually what the entire dispute by another editor is all about). Those sources are the ones in question here, not RM. Originally, it was Koton mentioned within the article for the longest time (years), and was even that way on IMDB, until someone had it changed. (You?) You're only giving sources used to support Rando, but other providers clearly show that Konton and other "doubles" contributed to the filming of Jerry Lee's role as well. So all this to say, your reference doesn't show anything when you go to the website. That's the dispute. But it's not needed, just remove it from the article. (The Risk Management link shown on the article when I clicked on it makes no mention of your claim unless you recently changed it. Ok, I just checked as I was typing this and you have updated it although it is taking awhile to load. It's not needed, that's all I'm trying to say. You have two others.) And so I don't have to retype or copy all the sources that claim Koton also contributed to the role, check the talk page and let "us" know if they are acceptable. The argument is about a revert the above editor made on a good faith edit that gave credit to both dogs, not just one. This revert is saved on the talk page for easy reference and discussion. Let me make it clear, that the "big picture" is a dispute with the original cast, stating that Jerry Lee plays himself, but others showing proof that other dogs played this role. My suggestion was to give both views/claims, not just one as the above editor is doing. Thank you and have a great day! :) P.S. This isn't about who "wins" an edit, I was the one trying to avoid an edit war in the first place. My point is to post what's right/fair/unbiased. 209.103.209.86 (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, tried to post this while the below editor was typing a response at the same time: I realize some of these are not going to be valid, but I copied them from the talk page provided by Special:Contributions/64.134.54.102 to support another dog was involved in the film. Can you tell me which of these, if any, are reliable? I was going to move on from this "dispute" I assisted in, but feel that since the other editor wants to check his/her sources, I would take this opportunity to do the same to advocate for the original editor who left the topic on the talk page before User talk:71.234.215.133 reverted a good faith edit to reflect that Rando only appeared in the movie as Jerry Lee (sources regarding Koton being in the movie and/or later killed in action as a police dog): [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] (via "oldhollywoodtrailers") [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]

P.S. My solution, and that of the original editor, was to include claims that both dogs contributed as the role of Jerry Lee with sources, but that was the edit which got reverted (shown on the talk page for easy reference). 209.103.209.86 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please list the other sources you believe are reliable so that this noticeboard knows what you are referring to. I find myself unable to sort your postings into what you believe is reliable or not. You can skip People and LA Times, you and I agree those are reliable. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

These are the edits you reverted that were in question after it was posted/discussed on the talk page. While it may not be perfectly worded, it should not have been totally discredited in my opinion. I gave lengthy reasons why on the talk page as you know. In addition, you stated in your edit summary that there was basically a "fat chance" that an article for Koton would be created. However, in the past there was one and it was deleted. If someone has enough information about the dog's police service, as with other dog actors (whether he was really in the K-9 film or not), an article can be created by an editor. That wouldn't be your decision. The steps to discuss/dispute this to avoid an edit war were also not practiced. Here is the edit in dispute with some sources, and leaving out a lot of what the original editor was discussing/disputing (Reverted/removed "good faith" edits for any future reference and/or discussion):

• Casting "Jerry Lee"

There are many sources (some conflicting) claiming more than one dog was involved in the production of this film: Jerry Lee, Koton and Rando (and/or "extras"). Some reports focus on only one dog as the actor, but there were actually more than one used.

Koton (aka Jerry Lee) was a real Kansas City, Missouri police dog paired up with Officer Patterson. Koton was responsible for over 24 felony arrests during his career as a K-9 officer. On November 18, 1991, he was shot and killed apprehending a suspect in the attempted murder of a police officer. Less than a month before his death, Koton found ten kilos of cocaine worth more than 1.2 million dollars.)[35]

Arthur Betz and Robert Zides are credited for being Koton's handlers for the movie’s production. Karl Lewis Miller is credited for “animal action” (animal trainer and handler). Teresa Ann Miller (also known as the trainer for Rex)[36] and R. Ruddell Weatherwax were credited as the dog trainers. Mark Mooring was the “technical adviser” for Koton.[37]

Another source claims that Koton and Rando were both used in the film to play "Jerry Lee".[38] However, the sheperd is billed in the movie credits "as himself". Donn Yarnall went to West Germany and bought four young German Shepherds for $10,000. Rando came from Germany to act as Jerry Lee, along with two other doubles. Gail Mooring was Rando's owner and the president of K-9 Paws.[39] Karl Miller and his daughter Teresa taught Rando a second language in the process, having only known commands in German, not English. In a 2002 interview, Belushi remembers that "Rondo [sic] was a "prima donna". He was a good-looking dog with a close-up that the camera just loved, and he knew it. He was more moody, snotty even."

Research shows that Jerry Lee is credited as the movie star, but mainly Koton, and sometimes Rando as well, were the trained dog actors playing the various expressions, action scenes and personality as "Jerry Lee".[40][41]

• Reception

However, not all reviews were negative, and for some was a "fan favorite".[42][43][44]

209.103.209.86 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 209.103.209.86 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fyi: The original editor incorporated your statements within the updated edit which you reverted. However, you totally dismissed all of their edits based on "original research" and "unreliable sources". But the cites aren't [all] from blogs or social sites and there is a concensus. Nor is it original research within the article, only perhaps within the talk page as summarized/generic examples provided. It's not like only one resource is in dispute about Koton/Jerry Lee (and "extras" including Rando) per several sites provided on the talk page. I'm not sure if you took the time to actually read them all or just didn't like the fact that Rando was not the only dog being used in the film to perform in action scenes, the dog's facial expressions, etc.? This is all detailed within the talk page already. Not to mention a statement about the film's reception was removed without discussion. I gave you credit for your good sources (People and LA Times). Others were even found claiming Rando was involved in the film that the other editor found. But the conflict is that other dogs were in the film too. You can't just create a section stating that Jerry Lee wasn't actually played by himself, and only include one dog when there were others involved. Just like the sequel film lists all three dogs used, and Fraiser/The Artist mentions other "stunt/replacement/back-up" dogs used, etc. I can't make my point any more clear than I have here and on the talk page. (Worn out.) Best wishes! :) 209.103.209.86 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, which is why we are here. I did not say this on the article talk page so I say, here, this is how I view those sources:

• sharetv.com - copied IMDb
• gonetooson.org - fails reliability; references only IMDb
• IMDb (IMDblist to external sites) - user-generated
• IMCDb - fails reliability
• filmsandtv.com - fails reliability
• theiapolis - user-generated
• YouTube - user-generated summary (not linking due to possible copyright violations)
• netflix - fails reliabilty
• movieclips.com - fails reliability
• yahoo movies - fails reliability
• watchamazingmovies.com - fails reliability
• nyalines.com - copied IMDB
• dogactors.com - blog
• allmovia.com - fails reliability
• moviestarpets.com - blog
• canine.co.il - blog
• citizendia.org - copy of (deleted) WP article
• epinions - user-generated
• amazon.com - fails reliability

None of these sources have any kind of editorial oversight or staff writers, accountability, or list of reliable sources. None are written by movie critics, reporters, or even "insiders". They are either selling something, posting an opinion, and/or copying from other sources. They are not reliable. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There's always something reliable and there are some websites having a some rights reserved template for anyone to edit with representation.--50.122.9.57 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, there is always something reliable. I do not believe that can describe any of the items in the list, though. I may have misunderstood what you were saying, though. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How come no one actually verified if any of those references would work besides the first one this section is about and other than the actual editor who is disputing them in the first place and reverted the edit? His list of "fails reliablity" does not count. Otherwise, all that happened was that the topic was moved from K-9's talk page to here! The point is to ask other users/editors their determination. Thanks! P.S. I also didn't understand 50.122.9.57's response, but I believe he/she is saying some of those have some amount of reliablity. 71.234.215.133 response is not acceptable in this situation. Someone else needs to weigh in like Barnabypage did for 71.234.215.133, otherwise the edit on the article is going back to how it was which included both dogs and not just the one. As well as a reference about the movie getting good reviews. There has to be some truth to all those sites recounting Koton being involved in the movie whether 71.234.215.133 likes the source or not. I was letting this go until it was that users point to claim the problem was Risk Management's source and not admit that the issue is about the other sources not being accepted leading to his/her revert which was not proper (should have discussed on talk page instead of attempt to create an edit war). Just saying... 209.103.209.86 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: 64.134.54.102 (talk · contribs) was bold in adding the Koton/reviews to the article. I reverted, disputing the reliability of the sources. Now we are discussing it. We are doing it the way things are supposed to be done. Threatening to edit war ("otherwise the edit on the article is going back to how it was which included both dogs and not just the one.") will not solve anything.

"There has to be some truth to all those sites recounting Koton being involved in the movie": we are not here to promote truth, only verifiability, which leads right back to reliable sources. I believe that none of the sources being cited for Koton/popularity are reliable; you are disputing that. We are right where we are suppose to be, on the reliable sources noticeboard. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If anything, what you are blaming 64.134.54.102 for is what you did originally. It used to be Koton, and you or someone else changed it to Rondo. You also did not participate in a discussion on the matter after that user posted it on the talk page, yet you reverted it right after the user finally changed it with sufficient sources that are used throughout Wikipedia all day long. Also, no one is disputing the sources for Koton except you obviously, and several days have passed. Therefore it most likely is credible. You are also playing semantics about truth vs reliability. Lies can't be included within an article and what makes it truth is reliable sources. There are more cites supporting Koton than Rondo. You are taking things out of context and using "rules" to support your case when this is cut-and-dry. And besides ALL of that, the consensus/popularity WAS Koton before you/someone had it changed. This business about being right where we are supposed to be, is all for not. No one has given any input other than you and another user that could be you for all I/we know. And moving the discussion to here to make your claim seem "right", is weak. If anything, you have not "proved" or "sourced" that Jerry Lee is NOT the actual dog. You have only provided a source claiming Rondo was involved. Stating he was the "star" doesn't make him the only dog or Jerry Lee. It could be that publication focused on that dog, without drawing attention to the others. It's like other actors "steal the scene" but they are not the lead person in a film. Perhaps Rando's personality was noticed more, but your claim that he was actually the one and only to play Jerry Lee as the article states, is false. Other reports indicate multiple dogs were used for the part/scenes (see talk page) and therefore the entire section needs to be removed if not corrected and left as "Jerry Lee as himself" within the credit listing. End of discussion. This is nonsense. I'm not going to create an edit war, I'm stating your claim is not properly sourced either and therefore will be removed/changed since no one else can validate it or dispute the Koton sources. No one will be to blame since no one else is assisting in the matter here or on the actual article. Furthermore, if changing it back or removing the entire section causes administration to finally get involved, then that will be a good thing. Too much typing for something so obvious and petty. I wonder if all of your edits have the same types of sources? Only large publications? I and others editors use less noticeable sources and they are not reverted. It seems you are being "bold" in your actions, not the other users. You are only now discussing it after the fact you were called out on it. You didn't have that respect in the beginning. Sorry if that offends you, but it's the "truth". P.s. I've been watching the K-9 page for years. 209.103.207.26 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your argument even is when what you actually typed up is not true/reliable. Here is how the article currently reads (since the previous changes you reverted have already been included within this and the talk page):

Casting "Jerry Lee": "Jerry Lee", the German Shepherd Dog, is billed in the credits "as himself". The dog was actually named Rando,[1][2][3] who was found in Germany during an international star search to fill the role. Animal trainer and handler Karl Miller and his daughter Teresa trained Rando for the movie, teaching him a second language in the process.[4] In a 2002 interview, Belushi remembers that "Rondo [sic], who was the first Jerry Lee, was a prima donna: He was a good-looking dog with a close-up that the camera just loved, and he knew it. He was more moody, snotty even."[5]

• 1. The sources you used do not say Rando is actually "Jerry Lee". It says the dog is involved in the movie, but not "actually named Rando" as the article reads.
• 2. The title of the section is "Casting Jerry Lee" which implies more than one dog was used for the role.
• 3. The sources previously provided claimed the issue/dispute of more than one dog being searched/trained/used within the film to play "Jerry Lee" and included the handlers with additional linking to resourceful/related articles and citations. Your entry simply focuses on one dog. The sequels also use more than one dog and are listed (not with your preferred sources either).
• 4. Your own "words" from the article state: Belushi remembers that "Rondo [sic], who was the first Jerry Lee, was a prima donna... "Who was the FIRST Jerry Lee". That means there were others. Rondo might be the first one used, and others substituted or took over. Exactly what some of the other sources you're disputing confirmed. You keep focusing on your sources without looking at the arguement/observations of the other user, which was that multiple dogs are used. With or without a name, Rondo isn't the only one and claiming so within this section is actually "bold".

So let's not debate the sources, instead, I will use what your own edit claims against your argument which is a contradiction. The section must be removed until resolved. Fyi: Primma donna is spelled wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primma_Donna) and the actual sources off IMDB for the positive film reviews are also fine in my opinion. As long as you are claiming "so and so reported/reviewed" within the article, it is acceptable. If the article claims "Crap.com" said K-9 was the best film ever... and it's sourced, that is true/reliable. Enough cherry-picking! I hope you finally understand, because we are almost literally beating a dead dog here. 209.103.207.26 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is also what you posted in this section:

On the set of K-9, a 1989 Jim Belushi movie, the veritable star of the film was Rando, a German Shepherd. “We actually insured the animal for twenty-five million dollars,” says Kingman, “in the event of a death, injury or sickness that caused an abandonment of the film. There were some backups, but Rando was the hero dog.” To make certain—were something to happen to Rando—that the backup dogs would be able to replace him in his remaining scenes, the dogs were separated in transit in order to diversify the risks of losing the film’s star character.

"There were some backups"... You can't prove that they are just backups and didn't have a significant role in the film just because your reliable article focuses on one dog more than another. That could just be a vague statement by the publication to draw attention to Rando but shouldn't discredit others were involved. Even if they were just backups, other dogs were used which is our point. So if you don't want to call him Koton or Jerry Lee, then you have to concede to the fact that you have to either include them all, or use a generic term that claims various dogs played the role of "Jerry Lee". Again, bold? The user's entry that you reverted gave attention to other dogs being used at least (whether they were Koton, Rando, Jerry Lee or Scooby Doo). Think about it, read your own edits. It's right there. Reliablity says multiple dogs were used, and that's the truth. 209.103.207.26 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the sources were not re-added this has turned into a content dispute. I would have no problem if this were closed. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition to The NY Times and The Washington Post, the LA Times source ([45]) used even states he is "Jerry Lee" which I'm sure is why the conflict about claiming he is actually another dog named Rando started. He appears to be one of several extras used, even if he was considered a 'star' or 'hero' by a publication, but was not actually Jerry Lee as the article stated. If the Koton sources are not allowed, even if mentioned within the article as only being claimed by that specific source, then stating Rando as the actual dog is also not correct via Risk Management (or the other cites which do not use the words "Jerry Lee is actually Rando"). However, the way the article reads now, there is no confusion that there are conflicting reports about which dogs were additionally used in the film. (Readers can see the article's talk page for more details and clarity.) Nor was there a confusion with the previous edit reverted. It made it clear there were conflicting reports. There may have been a lot of text about this matter, but after reading it all and researching more than one dog, it was necessary to come to the conclusion that "Jerry Lee as himself" should remain as is, with a brief mention of additional dogs filling in (per many reports that are normally accepted). Also, I think having IMDB change it to Rondo was inaccurate. By the way, the disputed reviews used from IMDB ([46]) were/are actually valid because they listed some reliable sources such as Roger Ebert, Washington Post, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. Those can still be accessed as independent sites. 64.134.151.20 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The IMDB link was not valid, as it was not a review, simply a list of reviews. Nothing could be cited to it, since it did not actually say anything.

Original research is not allowed. We add what reliable sources say to the article, which brings us right back to "which ones are reliable?" Adding that they are "less reliable" to the article does not work.[47] You need a reliable source stating that Koton was in the movie. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough, let's move on! You can have the final word (again), but the article is fine the way it is and needs to be left alone. I encourage you to focus on another topic. Your sources weren't reliable either. They claim Jerry Lee is the dog, Rando is an extra. Just because a handler says "Rando is the star" doesn't make it "reliable/right/true". You're playing semantics. Stating the sources were less reliable was only for your benefit. No one else cares. You just have a hang up about Rando and Risk Management not being used. Please, get over it. Further inspection of your sources reveal that one article is pre-release. The dog they are reporting about is a dog that may not have made the final film cut. There were possible changes. Who knows? You have failed to prove Jerry Lee is actually Rando because it is not true, and this is what it's really all about. That is why Belushi is quoted in 2002 as saying he remembered the "first Jerry Lee". So all of this was pointless and unproductive. It was never about the Risk Management source. It also means that showing out-dated out-of-context sources to IMDB (whoever did that) and having them change it without analyzing all the facts (as presented on the film's talk page or this notice board for instance), was a bad decision and IMDB should be encouraged to change it back to just "Jerry Lee". And please do not make changes to the article as another user, in case you are doing this or "agreeing with your choices" as another user. You are not reading other/all sources apparently, just your own and the edit made on the article. You want to defend your source and "dog of choice" and it's nonsense. Enough is enough. You are also twisting our words and using rules to defend yourself while missing the pillars of Wikipedia all together. And the review cite was an example of sources available supporting positive reviews which the article did not reflect. It's fine not to use it, that may have been an error. It did not warrant a complete revert. You are "nit picking" and causing discord instead of assisting with improving the article. Maybe next time you can extract the actual information from sources as I have and include it in the article instead of just doing a sweep of reverts and causing incorrect information that is biased and not neutral. I'm done, you may reply which I know you will. I will not. I will however be monitoring the article since you continue to argue something that is trivial. 64.134.151.20 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: this topic can be "archived" (closed). P.S. Editors, be careful not to instruct others how, when and where to post their comments/remarks/edits regarding the way you want them to on their user pages. Thank you! 209.103.207.26 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Images posted to Twitter as reliable sources

I'd be interested in the opinions of other editors as to the reliability of Twitter posts such as this as many editors of TV articles are relying on them to support added content. In the example given, which was used at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 6), the included image of a script has two items of concern; the episode title is deliberately concealed and in the bottom right corner the document is identified as a "TABLE DRAFT". It seems that using this as confirmation of the production code relies on WP:SYNTH, as neither the source for the episode,[48] or the tweet explicitly say that 3X7601 is the production code for "The Date Night Variable". There are some commonalities (the episode number 112 is used by both the document and Wikipedia and 601 is used by the Futon critic source while it's partially concealed in the image) but I think this requires personal analysis in order to provide a link. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not published in the sense of WP:SOURCEACCESS or WP:Reliable sources/Cost. Not reliable as not published. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The argument that is used that as the show's creator, Prady is a reliable source. It's not an opinion I share, as I've seen several cases where the show's creator has been inconsistent and the released version of an episode is considerably different, and sometimes even in a different season, to what the creator said would be the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I buy that document? No. The photo of the document isn't reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why should Wikipedia be the slightest bit interested in 'production codes' anyway? And per WP:CRYSTALBALL, why is anyone writing articles about episodes of a TV series that aren't due to air until "September 27, 2012"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Some editors just seem right into production codes. I don't see them as being of any real use except where the airing order results in notable inconsistencies, such as in the case of Firefly, and those circumstances are few and far between. I'm guessing that you don't spend much time around the TV project. Episode articles for programs like Glee are started well in advance. There seems to be a rush to get everything done far too early. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would make sense to me that images posted to Twitter are reliable sources only for the premise that said picture exists, and not for any substance of which the picture represents. In legal parlance they would be hearsay -- largely inadmissible for the truth of what they say, but potentially admissible with regard to the fact that they do exist. Using the film script example, the image could be an RS for the statement that a picture of an alleged script exists, but would not be an RS to support a factual statement that a script does actually exist or any content within the script.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Though the "not published/source access" argument seems valid as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Studentpulse.com

I recently noticed a little over a dozen articles having articles from studentpulse.com added to them as references. I removed those on the assumption that the site does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Yes, the site does claim to have peer review, but, per our guideline, "a claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs". There are several reasons to doubt the respectability of this site.

For one, the papers are all submitted by students, and while the concept of graduate (or even undergraduate) research is not unknown, one does have to look a bit more skeptically at the work, especially when no one with an advanced degree is collaborating. For another, while the site doesn't give information on who its reviewers are, it still seems dubious that a single venue can rigorously evaluate papers in fields ranging from Physics to Theatre to Journalism. Finally, while reputation is somewhat difficult to measure, I very much doubt the site enjoys any sort of credibility among scholars in the respective fields. It may accept students papers and label them as peer-reviewed, but has any academic actually cited one of these papers?

So I would venture that we should not be citing papers from here either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, here are two reviews: Stanford.edu (specifically says peer reviewed) and Points of Reference (from 2010). --S. Rich (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And this academic article [49] cited a StudentPulse article (as per [50]). (continuing to look).--S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

More background from 2010: [51].--S. Rich (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with this one, but presented for what its worth: Napier.academia.edu, but this one is interesting in that it lists StudentPulse as a resource: "The Consortium of Undergraduate Rhetoric and Writing Studies Majors was created in 2008, as a special interest group (SIG) of the annual Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC)." --S. Rich (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What you've posted is worth pondering, but let me just make one correction. The Journal of Human Resources article did not cite a Student Pulse paper. A Student Pulse paper cited the article from the Journal of Human Resources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction noted. Here are two to take its place from the University of Surrey and News on Japan.--S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit more data: OCLC 530027535 / ISSN 2153-5760 (search info, not citations) --S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There are more usages, but I'll submit WP:USEBYOTHERS has been fulfilled. Shall I continue to post (and look)?--S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: what exactly is this? It looks like a student essay itself.

As for this, it simply seems to be a case of a news portal featuring a Student Pulse article among its links.

I'm not saying the site is totally unreliable, just that it hasn't garnered approval among any noticeable subset of the academic community. Perhaps others could also weigh in? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the links provided in this thread provide any degree of assurance that studentpulse.com has editorial oversight. In fact this link dated Sunday, May 23, 2010 says: "Dustin Turin, a student a Northestern University in Boston, founded studentpulse last year. He invites students to submit papers which are read by Turin and two other student editors." Which doesn't give me much confidence in its usage as an RS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If the writers and the editorial readers are all students, they are approximate equals and that is exactly what peer review means. Same as if submissions to a cookery magazine are read by cooks: that's peer review too. But it's not what we want in our citations ...

As for this (the link given by Biruitorul) it shows that self-publication on the grand scale is possible through Google Books. I had my fingers crossed when I said (on a thread somewhere above) that I haven't seen "spoofing or falsification" at Google Books. I hadn't, but I knew I might, and I have now: this is falsification in a way. These are made to look like books, but they don't exist as such until someone orders them. At least, that's how it appears to me. Andrew Dalby 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI -- here is a breakdown of topics presented by Student Pulse. Many of them are cross-referenced, so the overall total is much less than enumerated. A total of 183 articles are listed as "Featured Articles". This data suggests that Student Pulse limits what they present. (English & History majors may enjoy an exception!)

• African-American Studies - 13
• Anthropology - 29
• Applied Physics - 0
• Architecture - 4
• Art - 13
• Behavioral Neuroscience - 3
• Biochemistry - 5
• Biology - 9
• Book Reviews - 4
• Business - 7
• Chemistry - 0
• Common Interest - 13
• Communication Studies - 18
• Computer Science - 6
• Criminal Justice - 7
• Economics - 10
• Education - 22
• Engineering - 2
• English - 134
• Environmental Science - 4
• Environmental Studies - 14
• Film and Cinema - 14
• Globalization Studies - 12
• Graphic Design - 0
• Health Science - 27
• History - 100
• Human Services - 2
• Information Science - 3
• International Affairs - 87
• International Business - 1
• Journalism - 11
• Law and Justice - 18
• Linguistics - 4
• Literary Criticism - 67
• Mathematics - 1
• Multimedia Studies - 6
• Music - 9
• Nursing - 1
• Opinion - 38
• Pharmacy - 2
• Philosophy - 16
• Physics - 0
• Political Science - 95
• Psychology - 37
• Religious Studies - 24
• Sociology - 20
• Theatre - 6
• Women's Studies - 5

In any event, here are some more actual works which cite Student Pulse/Student Pulse articles:

• Dr. S. N. Deepa Yuvaraj (Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore), Student Pulse Academic Journal
• Jean-Pierre Hombach Eminem citing Student Pulse as an external link (page 316)
• Alex Jeffrey (University of Cambridge, Department of Geography), The Improvised State] citing Student Pulse as a reference (p. 193)
• Corinna Colette Vellnagel (University of Surey), Semiotics and Shock Advertisement (Essay) citing Student Pulse (p. 18)
• Jacobson, Johnson, & Lapp Effective Instruction for English Language Learners citing a Student Pulse article (p. 85)
• Elizabeth Daniels, PhD, Positive Youth Development Research (blog) citing a Student Pulse article
• William M. (Billy) Wilson Father Cry citing a Student Pulse article (ch. 3)
• Jan Leslie Holtz Applied Clinical Neuropsychology citing a Student Pulse article as a reference ISBN 978-0826104748
• Modern Art After Wwii citing a Student Pulse article (and, gasp! Wikipedia articles)
• Not sure what this is -- Annotated Bibliography
• A couple of items from www.grin.com (GRIN Verlag) are available, but I doubt GRIN published stuff would pass muster.

--S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that for us Student Pulse articles are in a similar category to MA dissertations. If a specific SP article is cited by real academic-level sources (for example, the citation you list at "Jan Leslie Holtz" above, in a book published by Springer) then that's a sign for us the article is good enough to get into the specialist literature and is acceptable for us to cite. Without previous citations in academic sources, we shouldn't cite Student Pulse articles. Andrew Dalby 09:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As an editor for the publication in question, I would like to thank a kind wikipedia editor for notifying me that this conversation is currently ongoing. Hopefully I can help put this discussion to bed. First, I will make several important clarifications. Student Pulse is an edited publication, with only a small portion of submissions accepted (less than 1/3). Articles are reviewed by persons with expertise relevant to the topic and appropriate to the level of the publication (this is an undergraduate and graduate student publication); reviewers are at least at the graduate level of education, either having obtained or currently pursuing a PhD. As noted above, SP does cover a broad range of topics, however it was also pointed out that the vast majority of published articles fall within the social sciences and humanities -- this is absolutely correct, and a testament to our editorial policy of only accepting material that we are confident has been appropriately reviewed.

I will make my own suggestion as to SP's fulfillment of the WP:RS requirement. Student Pulse is a relatively new publication (first full run in 2010), and given that its focus is on publishing undergraduate and graduate work, it should not be altogether surprising (or taken as a sign that SP does not meet WP:RS requirement) that SP articles have not been widely cited in the academic literature. The academic cycle is slow and long-established publications dominate most fields. On the other hand, SP articles are clearly being consumed by an academic audience, and some reputable citations are already apparent despite the obvious challenges facing any new publication. At the same time, SP articles do meet particular high standards: all are subject to editorial oversight, all are reviewed by members of the academic community, and all conform to standard academic conventions, such as the use of other high-quality sources in clearly indicated reference lists. My personal feeling is that those traits qualify Student Pulse as a reliable source. However, if those factors are not overwhelming in their ability to sway the views of other wiki users at the current time, my suggestion is that instead of making a blanket decision that Student Pulse is either "reliable" or "unreliable," the community of Wikipedia editors instead consider each SP article, where referenced, on its own merits. User:tustind

In summary, my opinion is that SP is not reliable source, generally speaking, but may be appropriate in some instances and those exceptions can/should be considered on an individual basis.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion modifies but overall agrees with Keithbob's: I think SP can generally be considered a reliable source, but depending on the context, may be inappropriate in some circumstances. I agree with his conclusion that each case should be considered on an individual basis. --Tustind (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter, how would the evaluation of articles take place? By what criteria, for instance, would we decide that this can be cited at Aeneas, but this cannot be cited at Michael Cassio? If these had appeared in, say, Parnassus and Shakespeare Quarterly respectively, there would be no question as to their validity. But here there is, and I wonder how the decision whether to cite or not would be made. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that WP:SCHOLARSHIP provides some guidance. --S. Rich (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And, upon reflection, perhaps links to SP articles would be best in WP:Further reading and/or WP:Layout#External links. Doing so would be helpful the readers and allow editors to consult the SP article for ideas on WP article improvement. --S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, adding to "external links" would often be appropriate.

Thanks to Tustind for those helpful comments above. Andrew Dalby 08:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Online opinion

Is this source [52] reliable, or appropriate, for this contested statement "Another commentator has said, "Try Googling both male or female ACL staff members, and the F word, or the C word. Thousands and thousands of results returned." at this page Australian Christian Lobby. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it would be reliable as an assertion that 'a commentator' said something. But why are the opinions of this commentator of any significance? Given that the commentator appears not to understand how the Google search facility works, I can't see why they should be. The source might be 'reliable' for a statement that 'somebody said something', but I can't for the life of me see why we should want to refer to it in an article, unless this 'commentator' was some how of significance to the subject matter. Is he? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he isn't. An IP keeps trying to add that little statement to the article and reverting its removal and I thought maybe if somebody impartial also thought it wasn't appropriate they might listen. Thanks for confirming what I thought already. Freikorp (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Australian Christian Lobby#IP edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a particular impartial source either considering it has a disclaimer that he's an ACL supporter from the outset which kind of wrecks the objectivity, it would never be reliable for anything beyond the commentators opinion (and that probably has no due weight) IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Arabiya

Al Arabiya is sometimes referred to as a Pan-Arabist news channel. I wonder if this by itself makes it a bad thing to seclude this news channel from BLP articles? The specific question is about an article in Al Arabiya criticizing an Iranian poet who made a poem that some Arabs found insulting. My question is whether I could reflect Al Arabiya's point of view in the Poet's Wiki article by saying "Some Arabic sources found his poem 'XYZ' insulting". Thank You.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

While Al Arabiya may be reliable for news or other matters; it is not an appropriate source for literary criticism. Seek Arabic and Iranian journals of literary criticism, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Grist.org being used as a reliable source?

In regards to: Mountaintop_removal_mining

I am trying to clean up this article and bring it to the standard of NPOV.

While checking all of the cited sources, I visited www.grist.org and it would not be a choice of mine to cite as a reliable source. Does the site grist.org meet the Wikipedia guidelines as a source?

http://www.grist.org/article/epa-sleep-in-lisa-jacksons-fundamental-misunderstanding/

The above is an editorial/opinion piece that is clearly not NPOV. Sadly, this source was used to justify the use of a POVTITLE and other aggressive comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs)

The publication Grist looks like it has an agenda of environmental activism. From its website, it describes itself this way: Grist has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a wry twist since 1999 — which, to be frank, was way before most people cared about such things. Now that green is in every headline and on every store shelf (bamboo hair gel, anyone?), Grist is the one site you can count on to help you make sense of it all. So my sense is it should not be used.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia as racism.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We do not discuss original opinions of wikipedians here, nor do we discuss "truth." This is a message board for source reliability. In particular, "I don't believe" has no place on this noticeboard. As Carolmooredc observes, in relation to reliable sourcing policy, "properly worded scholarly discussions of Islamophobia as racism is fine." We ought to follow the preponderance of scholarly opinion as scholarship provide both weight and verifiability. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

---

At the Islamophobia article a few editors are trying to consider Islamophobia a form of racism. As we all know the defintion of racism is discrimination, prejudice or stereotypes based on race, ethnicity or nationality. This is there sources. I'm trying to state that just because it has what would normally be considered a reliable source that dosn't mean it is true. There are so called "reliable sources" that state that HIV dosn't lead to AIDS, or that premote holocaust denial or even sources that supposedly prove that certain races are not equal. The fact of the matter is that by defintion I don't believe that the Islamophobia article should call it racism. Especially when the antisemitism article dosn't even call antisemitism racism.

^ Reviewed in: Ayhan Kaya (2011). Fryklund, Björn; Righard, Erica. eds. Islamophobia as a form of governmentality: Unbearable weightiness of the politics of fear. Malmö: Malmö University, Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM). Retrieved August 15, 2012. See also: Schiffer, S.; Wagner, C. (2011). "Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - new enemies, old patterns". Race & Class 52 (3): 77. doi:10.1177/0306396810389927. edit

Halliday, F. (1999). "'Islamophobia' reconsidered". Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (5): 892–902. doi:10.1080/014198799329305. PMID 20499467. edit
Semati, M. (2010). "Islamophobia, Culture and Race in the Age of Empire". Cultural Studies 24 (2): 256–275. doi:10.1080/09502380903541696. edit
Webman, E. (2012). "Discourses on Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Arab Media". European Societies 14 (2): 222–239. doi:10.1080/14616696.2012.676455. edit

-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It is just poorly worded. If it were slightly reworded, it would be fine. -- Avanu (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering the Racism article mentions antisemitism as racism, I'm sure that properly worded scholarly discussions of Islamophobia as racism is fine (especially since so many Muslims are people of color). In fact, whoever is doing the work should improve the article in that regard since there is only a questionable, unsourced, WP:OR comment at this point. Or editors can remove antisemitism from the racism article. In any case, a single standard should be applied. CarolMooreDC 14:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never in my history ever heard of Muslims being an ethnic group. There are atheistic Jews, Christian Jews even Muslim Jews because they are of Jewish heritage. Heck I even knew a Satanic Jew. I would love to meet a Satanic Muslim. By definition Islam itself dosn't believe that you can pass it on as a heritage. Jews have been considered an ethnic group for at least 2000 years.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sidebox.

Right, sidebox genres on Allmusic.com surely they're not reliable right? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

No. Genres are incredibly contentious. Allmusic.com displays none of the expertise required for genre classification. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mondoweiss+Jessie Benjamin

At Zion square assault, there are some sections, standard for this type of article, dealing with reactions. Rather than limit these to political utterances, I have covered press comment of what public intellectuals think in Israel, and also a section on discussions in the American Jewish community. Two editors are removing material in this section on what strikes me as spurious policy grounds, more out of objections to the content, it strikes me, than anything else. See here and [53]

Of 3 opinion pieces so far, two have been challenged. Exception has been taken esp. to an article by Jessie Benjamin, appearing in Mondoweiss, and the remarks, no different in substance from many others cited in the article, esp. that of Jill Jacobs, above it, runs:-

Jesse Benjamin, an Israeli American Associate Professor of Sociology at Kennesaw State University, writing for Mondoweiss, the alternative news website run by Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, contextualized the incident within a detailed memoir of his own youthful experiences as a Jerusalem yeshiva dropout in Zion Square, and argued the attack constituted a wake-up call to challenge what he called Jim Crow practices. Jewish allies within Israeli society are needed to assist Palestinians in exposing the problem, he argues, but concludes that, 'the globalized West still holds onto Jews as the victims par excellence,' and after 9/11, is even more comfortable in denying humanity to Arabs.

• Jessie Benjamin is assistant professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University.
• His professional interests appear to cover marginal historical or social groups, as you can see from his page here, or articles on ancient Nubians and Nabataeans, or on marginalized bedouin communities in the Negev.
• A mainstream community magazine like The Forward has no trouble him as an expert on the Bedouin, see here.
• BRILL, a major publisher of academic works has .published his work on the Nubians and Nabataeans ('Of Nubians and Nabateans: Implications of Research on Neglected Dimensions of Ancient World History pp.31-52,':the thesis again is their neglect as marginals)
• He chose Mondoweiss, and alternative news outlet, to express his own interpretation of events in Zion Square of which, as his article shows, he has substantial knowledge personally and as a sociologist of cultures.
• I quoted him for an informed opinion by an Israeli-American academic sociologist who specialized in the kind of culture that produced the event the article described. I took care to avoid any use of this source for facts, guided by the following WP:RS policy:

News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.

• (a)he is a drop-out from a Jerusalem yeshiva, like 2 of the suspects in the assault.
• (b) he had indepth experience as a youth of the area where the assault took place and its youth culture
• (c)He became a sociologist and anthropologist, and gained university tenure in that capacity.
• (d) his expertise concerns marginals, and those who are suspected of assaulting the Arab in question are classified by other sources as marginals, and drops outs from yeshivas.
• (d) That he had his opinion piece or interpretative essay-memoir hosted by Mondoweiss does not seem to impugn the fact that the article reflects the opinions of a competent Israeli-Jerusalem academic with critical and personal knowledge of the subject background.

I'd appreciate careful analysis and input from independent specialists on the appropriateness of Jessie Benjamin as a source for his own views as a Jerusalemite, an Israeli, and a sociologist with tenure specializing on marginal cultures. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I searched WP:RSN archives and was surprised to see no discussion of whether it is a WP:RSN for anything. (Did I miss it?) It's used in a few places on Wikipedia, besides relevant articles. I certainly think it is WP:RSN for opinion, especially for someone with Benjamin's background on this topic. I might think other quotes or summaries might be more appropriate for that article, but I'd support using him. CarolMooreDC 01:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin seems to me to be (just) notable in his own right as an academic in the relevant field, so whether Mondoweiss is RS as such doesn't seem to matter all that much. At the least, I don't think Benjamin is less notable than some other people that are now cited in the article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin appears to be a rather minor academic (asst. prof at a 2nd or 3rd tier state university); his expertise, such as it is, appear to be Bedouins, Nubians and Nabataeans, not Yeshiva dropouts. "Mondoweiss" is a partisan, fringe blog. If, as the OP posits, the remarks attributed to him are no different in substance from many others cited in the article, then why are we resorting to this marginal-of-marginal sources? Let's stick with the more mainstream ones who say the same thing. All Rows4 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Carol, Mondoweiss was addressed slightly as part of the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#IRMEP_-_two_separate_issues. Inevitably that discussion was disrupted by a NoCal sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Horoscope Talk

Good day, there are fluctuations on the Chinese Zodiac signs and I can tell by two user and mainly one, User:Bobrayner and User:Drmies both have been supposedly deleting fiction of a source (and the latest user is User:Beyond My Ken), when they are just informational sources from the pseudoscience website, it its the same going with the Western astrology. They were only sample sources and I am hoping you notify them to stop deleting them as they were appropiate for the article, while I was on break they usually sabatoged the signs, although, one IP user did try to undo they believe it was useless, I am trying to configure with the Western Horoscope as well, all I am saying let them know to stop revoming the atributions it's sources from reliable sites, please, and thank you--GoShow (...............) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I am deleting the Ruling countries seems to be fictational, otherwise, most of the attribution are reliable thank you.--GoShow (...............) 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In what way is Chinese Zodiac.com – "Your Guide to Chinese Astrology and the Chinese Zodiac" – a reliable source for encyclopedic information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussing whether particular named sources are suitable for particular statements attributed to them. If is not an appropriate place place to make accusations of 'sabatage'. I suggest you discuss any issues relating article content on the talk page (which you have not done), and avoid making baseless accusations - the Chinese Zodiac article edit history shows no edits of the type you describe made by the contributors you name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah - I see. You aren't referring to the Chinese Zodiac article itself, but to the articles about the signs. Please try to make things clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am looking into more book sources right now thanks.--GoShow (...............) 17:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's totally a FRINGE issue anyway. Look at what content was being restored on Horse (zodiac). "These people are extremely independent and confident. The horse person is very quick-witted, inquisitive and determined. They are very good at recognizing patterns". What source could possibly verify that? Drmies (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• The articles of encyclopedia have the right to use pseudoscience as facts from the horoscopes as information about the animals, otherwise please do not delete the sources otherwise you can also check Western astrology and delete their unbiased sources as well, but until then, don't delete the articles just because earlier user allowed them as articles for encyclopedia as facts like many films and fairy tale article on this site--GoShow (...............) 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• If anybody is going to claim that a clearly-defined subset of the population - hundreds of millions of people - "...are very loyal individuals. They dislike dishonesty and corruption of any sort. They are up front and honest people and expect those around them to be the same. Roosters are happiest when they are surrounded by others, at a party or just a social gathering. They even enjoy the spotlight and will exhibit their charisma and wit in a minute. This star quality can be overbearing..." (and so on and so on) solely on the year they were born, we'd need an exceptionally strong source. I do not believe that any such source exists. Even worse are the neat little tables where people born in certain years are allocated to specific countries, times of day, compass directions, gemstones, foods, and countries. (If you were born in the year of the Monkey, your gemstone is peridot and your food is cloves. It's not quite clear what happens to the 92% of Norwegians who weren't born in such auspicious years). All this stuff is made up, plain and simple. An encyclopædia should not contain made-up stuff. It may occasionally be possible to find a source which repeats made-up stuff, but this noticeboard's job is to filter out sources like that. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 17:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to forget Western Astrology can be made up as well too, but these are just showing the informational background. Otherwise if delete the main plots summaries on all horoscope signs as bias and show the calendar type would be find, otherwise the users who used the plot summary believe it was the best interest of Wikiproject in psuedoscience would just informative, which I am about to check if I can make the summaries more informative instead of opiniated.--GoShow (...............) 18:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you would like to strip the Western astrology articles of similar material, I would have no objection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see also wp:INUNIVERSE, which omits to address common belief systems such as astrology but still is useful in explaining how to write well about them.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I read your comment Beyond My Ken on your talk page and I agree, here's deal I will delete the comment summaries, other than the calendars I will keep and the attributions, the summaries I will delete, they do seem unbias, however I'll let the people decide on other psudoscience webpages to check if they are those characteristics, other than that I agree, I'll delete the characteristics. Be back 3 hours, taken a break but will finish deleting the characteristics unless someones will do it for me.--GoShow (...............) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Needed quick view.

• The online newspaper/magazine that has full editorial board, this, should it not be considered as a WP:reliable source?. Please needed your quick view and opinion. The source has been cited for the WP:notability of the subject Nandini Sahu. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As a citizen journalism site, it may be questionable regarding notability. And it's marginal regarding RS. Here's their policy, which suggests there is little editorial control: "All the articles submitted to merinews pass through a moderation process profanity and authenticity check. Depending on the quality of the article, it gets posted either on merinews.com or the clog (citizens' log) section of merinews." It sounds as if they post everything one place or the other. TimidGuy (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Timidguy, and this reminds me of the section in WP:DUE which says roughly that if something is relevant enough to enter into an encyclopedia, then it ought to be quite easy to find indisputably reliable sources for it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well amazing to me, would you please take a look at this, it is also questionable?. Thanks for your assistance.Justice007 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please assist me about these all, 1

2 3 4 5 6. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Times of London is no more accessible free of charge!

Hi, title says it all. - I want to bring this to the attention of the more experienced Wikipedians, since in the meantime this kind of nuisance might have killed a lot of other reference links on the entire WP as well...

First observed this problem here: Talk:Phantom_of_Heilbronn#Please, somebody check that reference link!. - And please excuse me, if this here is not the right place to share that kind of information. (Should this be the case, please drop me a line on my TP. I'm still a Newbie.) -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL - there is no requirement that sources be available online free of charge. In fact there is no requirement that they be available on line at all. Obviously it is preferable to use easily-accessible sources, but the link is still valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if editors need to access sources that aren't freely available in order to edit, they can always make a request at the resource exchange. Our volunteers can typically provide articles from even very obscure publications. GabrielF (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The only difference is that it can no longer be linked as a general "external link" at the bottom of an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not challenge the reliability at all.

But should these sources be tagged - and how - to notify the readers? (Who then perhaps could add alternative sources.) I mean, even if you were a subscriber, the links would always first stop you at the customs gate.

Is tagging them as "dead link" completely incorrect then? (If yes, I've made some blunder that I should revert.) -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC

I cant see when a newspaper would be added as a general external link! but a cite template is available for the London Times at Template:Cite newspaper The Times as printed newspaper it doesnt really need an external link it just helps sometimes. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. That was very helpful and interesting stuff. - Following your hints, I think that tagging with Template:Subscription_required would be the correct thing to do in these cases, right? - Again thanks and Bye! -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

glbtq.com Redux

Previous discussions:

• Archive 62
• Archive 129

If I read the Archive 129 discussion correctly, the consensus seems to have ended up that glbtq.com is *not* a RS. I take exception to that. From what I understand, if a source has editorial oversight and provides their own sources for their material, then they could be considered "reliable". Glbtq.com seems to pass both these criteria. The presskit at the site claims editorial oversight, and many (if not most) articles include bibliographies. For example, the article about William Inge includes the sources used, and the article about Kenneth Anger does as well.

Question: How does Glbtq.com fail the guidelines on Reliable Sources? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the 129 discussion only, and rightfully, dismissed glbtq.com in one instance, citing that it was referencing research which should be cited directly. In general glbtq.com's research is acceptable but like all sources needs to be used judiciously and on a case by case basis might not be the strongest sourcing available. The 62 discussion veered more into the LGBTQ categorizing, which has a higher standard on Wikipedia of self-declarations for living people, but essentially held up glbtq.com as reliable. Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

21st century lexicon

Would the 21st century lexicon ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigo%20child ) be a reliable source for this diff in Indigo children article? The attribution of an "important spiritual impact" is common for the concept in question across multiple primary sources (like published books and interviews with the authors who introduced the term into broad usage). The 21st century lexicon summarizes and defines it in a compact form, while being not a primary source. Thanks in advance. -- Nazar (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries are inherently tertiary sources and not useful for much at all in a Wikipedia article. Thus - not a reliable source for the use to which it is being put. Collect (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I would say a dictionary would only be useful for non-contentious summaries, if someone is contending it, it's probably too contentious. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate source for appropriate spiritual impact would be peak professionals in various religions with reputations for publishing; theologians, sociologists of religion, historians of religion; etc. Dictionaries are not appropriate sources for the impact of spiritual concepts. (Unless they're Scholarly Dictionaries of the Sociology of Religion etc.) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's, however, not about the actual "spiritual impact", assessed by independent professionals, but rather about the definition of a New Age concept, one of the core features of which concept being the belief about important spiritual impact exerted upon surroundings. And that belief is addressed in various sources on the subject: primary, secondary ect. While the dictionary in question summarizes it as a prominent feature of the concept. -- Nazar (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And the definition of New Age concepts that make scientifically testable claims should be (and in this article are) addressed by scientific sources, rather than one that repeats the claims at face value without getting into evidence for or against the concept (especially if added for the purpose of advocacy for those claims). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the claim of having "important spiritual impact" is hardly scientifically testable. Beating down the newbies who clearly try to make their first edits with best intentions is not an advisable practice. And an encyclopedic article should pay attention in first place to illuminating the subject in question (which includes its neutral definition and versatile exposure), and not give the prominent weight to the skeptics' opinions about "how terribly pseudo-scientific it is". But, as usually, I humbly respect the opinion of majority of editors in this collective project, however defective it may appear. -- Nazar (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a claim that falls squarely within the remit of the social sciences' broadly accepted claims to produce knowledge. And internet dictionaries are not part of the social science knowledge creation process. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a dictionary definition can be a reliable source for an obviously controversial statement - especially in an article that falls under the auspices of WP:FRINGE. I'll repeat what I said on Talk:Indigo children when this question first came up:

• Firstly: the dictionary definition is at best a tertiary source - it would be a pretty poor choice for referencing such a statement in the lede. However, the way it's being used here is as a way to back up the fact that the dictionary really did say that - which makes it a fully acceptable source for a completely unacceptable statement (and, arguably, an egregious copyvio). If we were to remove the mention that this is the definition in that dictionary (as we must) - then using it as a reference becomes incorrect.
• Secondly: this is quite possibly the only mainstream dictionary to define the term. If I go to Dictionary.com and search for (let's say) "elephant" - I get definitions from six different dictionaries. The fact that only ONE of the many dictionaries that dictionary.com searches had a definition at all suggests that we're giving undue weight to the fact that there even is a dictionary definition. Rather, our experience here on this article's talk page is that multiple references show that there truly isn't a single definition that even a fraction of the Indigo children promoters would agree with. Using a single dictionary in this way is a rather serious bias.
• Thirdly: the lede is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article. Since there is no discussion of the 21st Century lexicon's definition anywhere in the article, this sentence is not allowed in the lede because it's not summarizing anything.
• Fourthly: the main article has an entire section explaining the claimed characteristics of indigo's - much of it backed up by primary and secondary sources. The dictionary definition: "a term used for a powerful, intelligent, independent child who is believed to have an important spiritual impact" doesn't entirely jibe with our better-referenced claims - "an important spiritual impact" is hardly a valid summary of our findings from primary and secondary sources: "exhibit a strong innate sub-conscious spirituality from early childhood (which, however, does not necessarily imply a direct interest in spiritual or religious areas)"...so again, this dictionary definition isn't a summary of what is stated in the main article. The dictionary also states the these children really are "powerful, intelligent, independent" - which is a claim that's not backed up by WP:RS.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable tertiary source making controversial assertion; not a reliable source by any means. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Babylon Bank

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:IDHT IP Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi All,

I posted a link to more information about the trading financials of the Babylon Bank - and another editor thought it was not appropriate.

Is this link okay: http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html On the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Bank

I have read the wikipedia rules and I understand the addition of links is suitable on the basis there is not many as it undervalues the page. The page currently has 1, I was adding 1 more.

Please advise. Though I get the impression, you guys are bored and need to exert some sort of "power" haha

Regards. 80.39.19.147 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor who flagged this link and suggested 80 take it here. I felt that it was unduly promotional to the Baghdad Invest company. 80 also added this link to about five other pages, so I thought there was a high risk of spam.

Additionally, I think another editor should teach 80 about civility. But don't let that affect your judgment as to the outcome of this discussion. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I apreciate your response Jp. However, you are misinformed. I was not adding the same link to many diffrent pages. I was adding diffrent links to diffrent pages.

Example: Warka Bank http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Al_Warka_Investment_Bank.html Example: Babylon Bank http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html Example: Bank of Baghdad http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Bank_of_Baghdad.html

I am surprised at his move as I have an understand that wikipedia is in the business of sharing content. I am not interested in self promotion. I am interested in adding worthy links, eg there is only 1 link on Babylon Bank page so surely 1 more is better?!!!

Regards. 80.39.19.147 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, no indication of appropriate levels of fact checking. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So does that mean I am able to place the link? The data came directly from the Iraq Stock Exchange.

If a source is not reliable, then no, you aren't able to link to it as proof of a fact. The "data" did not come directly from the Iraq stock exchange, the "data" comes from, as you note, Baghdad Invest. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I am able to... An example: http://www.baghdadinvest.com/Babylon_Bank.html and it is direct from here http://www.isx-iq.net/isxportal/portal/companyGuide.html?companyCode=BBAY Reliable or not?. 80.39.19.147 (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, baghdadinvest.com is not reliable, it doesn't matter where you believe they got their data from. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wrote where I got it from and provided a link!!!!! Are you not looking?????? Seriously? 83.41.4.176 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cornell yearbook

This question concerns a part of the infobox of the article Leo Frank regarding his height. The change would only affect the footnote for the 5'6" height. The proposed change would add to the footnote a comment regarding a height of 5'8" along with the Cornell yearbook source.

Height           5'6" ^[1]

---

Notes

1. ^ Oney 2003 p. 10. Lindemann 1991 p. 244.

  (5'8" according to Cornell University Class of 1906. The Senior Class Book. pp. 344–5, student #177.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link))

Is the Cornell yearbook a reliable source for this information? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Other editors currently involved in a related discussion, which is a continuation of a previous discussion, are Carmelmount and Tom (North Shoreman). --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please include a full citation indicating the publisher as displayed on the bibliographic information page. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The original book does not have a bibliographic information page. Here are links to info regarding it's online publication[54][55] and a page near the beginning of the online publication.[56] (Please note that you can navigate to any pages of the yearbook from any pages that are linked from this and my previous message. For example, here's a link to the beginning of the online publication[57] from which you can go to any page of the yearbook by using the appropriate buttons at the bottom of that webpage.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked further and found a hard copy reproduction of the original at Amazon.com where the publisher of the reproduction is listed as Nabu Press.[58] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. As we can see from Page 1, the title page, the book is published by the Cornell University class of 1906 themselves, edited as indicated later. I would suggest that it is reliable for the height of an individual known to the editorial board. I'd suggest that there's no WEIGHT behind this, nor is there any Notability given by the document. So I would question anyone including the height of the individual unless another source actually drew our attention WEIGHTily to his height. (Nabu Press is a reprinter.) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Not reliable per Tom (North Shoreman) below regarding Original Research from Primary Sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The trial and lynching of Leo Frank were national news at the time and historians and popular writers have continued to write about and analyze the case. The two sources for the height listed in the Info Box are both highly important sources on the subject -- Oney's footnotes show that he consulted a vast amount of primary and secondary sources while Lindemann, writing a different type of book, relied on analyzing the most important secondary sources. Nobody has been able to find ANY reference to a different height in any reliable secondary source.

The yearbook is a primary source with no explanation of how it determined height. Using a primary source, especially when reliable secondary sources are available, is the exception rather than the rule. It is not a reliable source for its apparent purpose -- to propose an alternative height. A two inch differential is insignificant in and of itself and COULD be simply the result of wearing shoes or boots in one of the measurements or a short person deciding to add a couple inches out of vanity. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could join in this content dispute brought here by Tom, but there is the following instruction at the top of this page, "This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page..." (Perhaps the section title here was misleading, and thus I am changing it to "Cornell yearbook" to be in line with the titles of other sections here which are referring to sources.)

So instead of joining in a content dispute discussion, let me renew my request for comments by editors at this noticeboard regarding whether or not the Cornell yearbook is a reliable source for the height of Leo Frank, according to Wikipedia policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't argue reliable sources in a content free environment. From the guideline:

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.

The issue is whether a college yearbook, a primary source created before Leo Frank was famous, should be offered as an alternative source to the reliable sources already cited. The fact that nobody has shown that any reliable secondary source has used this primary source or used the same content (i.e. height of 5-8) provides valuable CONTEXT for this discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The excerpt you quoted is referring to the context of the article rather than the context of your content dispute discussion. Tom, you and I can make our arguments about the content at the article talk page, if we so choose. I think it would be better if we waited and read the fresh opinions of editors here, without trying to influence them, if we want useful new information about whether or not the Cornell yearbook is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy, which might be useful when taken back to the article talk page. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the article, I see no reason why the information has to be included at all, given that there are conflicting sources. It doesn't seem germane to the case, so my inclination would be to omit any statement as to his height. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that there is a second reliable source of Leo Frank demographic information from the United States National Archive, Leo Frank's official passport (1907, 1908) that supports his height at 5'8" and weight of 145lbs. The document can be found on ancestry.com (with a free sign up) and it is mirrored on The Internet Archive. Steve Oney and Albert Lindemann provide no sources or references for Leo Frank's height at 5'6" and weight of 130lbs. Carmelmount (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Same problem with your second primary source as the first one. As far as Oney and Lindemann, there is no doubt that they are reliable sources. Whether they cite a footnote for any given content depends in large part whether the info. is considered to be common knowledge or not. This is from Princeton University guidelines:

Facts, Information, and Data. Often you’ll want to use facts or information to support your own argument. If the information is found exclusively in a particular source, you must clearly acknowledge that source. For example, if you use data from a scientific experiment conducted and reported by a researcher, you must cite your source, probably a scientific journal or a website. Or if you use a piece of information discovered by another scholar in the course of his or her own research, you must cite your source. But if the fact or information is generally known and accepted — for example, that Woodrow Wilson served as president of both Princeton University and the United States, or that Avogadro’s number is 6.02 x 1023 — you do not need to cite a source.

There is no controversy anywhere but on wikipedia as to Frank's height. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He's not notable as an athlete; why the heck do we even need to include the stats?????? Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just made your suggestion on the article's talk page.[59] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom, Neither Steve Oney or Albert Lindemann provide references or sources to Leo Frank's height, but there are two reliable sources that do have information on LF height, passport and yearbook. Carmelmount (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: Leo Frank's height has been removed from the article,[60] per Mangoe's suggestion, and there is consensus there for the edit.[61] --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blog Reliability questioned

• Link: http://everythinginmusic.com/artists/fall-out-boy
• Article: Fall Out Boy Former members section and in the infobox.
• Statement: "Brandon Hamm – guitar (2001)"
• My argument: the source is a blog made by an open source blogging tool called [WordPress]], severely reducing its reliability. It has been cited in an attempt to support Brandon Hamm's inclusion as a former member on the Fall Out Boy page, which a user added alongside a shaky self-published source made by Hamm himself in the comments of an online newspaper website. There has been an RFC on the contentious issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fall_Out_Boy#RFC_on_Brandon_Hamm with a general sentiment of excluding Hamm from the page. Hamm's involvement in the band has not been verified by any reliable sources and has not contributed to any released material, making the grounds of his membership very contentious. However, the said user has just added the also-shaky everythinginmusicsource.com source in an attempt to keep Hamm on the page. While I'm on this issue, the original source used for Hamm's membership is this http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2008/05/background_reading_on_the_prom_1.html#comment-314099. I feel that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP policy is not being taken into account by the user supporting Hamm's involvement due to the sources being weak and unreliable for such a large membership claim. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

cortandfatboy

Hello, I recently created a page for cortandfatboy, a Portland-based podcast (talk page) and it was deleted for being a recreation of a previously deleted article. Unbeknownst to me, a prior version was created in 2011 and it was nixed due to an alleged lack of reliable sources. Over the past year, the show has been featured in a cover story in the Portland Mercury, a weekly newspaper, and on the blog of the Oregonian, the state's biggest/most widely read publication. I think the sources are there to warrant an article. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone here would be willing to look over the article's citations and tell me if they're up to par. Cheers... Multnomahblues (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

geteducated.com

• Specificially this page in List of unaccredited institutions of higher education List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning

Hi. :) This is, of course, a "list of unaccredited institutions of higher education". There are several institutions which are sourced only to this website (and a few which are supplemented with a link to this website) -- as of this writing, it is reference 15. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter challenging the accuracy of this information, but, of course, they do not handle content issues and are thus not in position to make this call. I searched the board for prior discussions about geteducated, but only found one off-topic on its notability.

The Wikimedia Foundation recognizes that the community is the expert on what sources are or are not usable and are hoping that you will review it to see if it is reliable in this context, taking any action you may deem appropriate if you decide it is not. They trust and respect your review and resulting decision and will communicate to the correspondent the result of any discussion.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: I checked List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, and that page is not referenced there. It is referenced in List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning. jfeise (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ack! Thank you. I can't believe I linked the wrong one. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• [EC] Because it's a commercial website in the business of selling advertising, I wouldn't necessarily rate GetEducated.com as the highest-quality of reliable sources, but I think it's reliable as a source of information on unaccredited institutions and non-recognized accreditation bodies.

One particularly strong factor in its favor is that the website is recommended as a resource by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Articles about the website have twice been deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geteducated.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetEducated.com; although those discussions did not find the website to be notable, they uncovered quite a few instances of reliable sources mentioning the website. Those mentions lend it some credibility as an information source.

The GetEducated website itself has several attributes that indicate reliability. It identifies who stands behind the information[62]; it has a complete set of contact information[63] (this is very much unlike most of the entities listed at List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations and List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, which typically either list no geographic location, operate from an obscure and remote place such as Vanuatu, or use a physical address that turns out to be a Mailboxes Etc. outlet); it provides thorough documentation of the basis for the information provided on its reports for individual institutions (this is an example of a report for a fully accredited school; here's an example of a report for an unaccredited school); and the information it reports is conservatively worded.

The Geteducated database of online schools is much smaller than the lists on Wikipedia and the list at http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-police/college-degree-mills/204-fake-agencies-for-college-accreditation is shorter than the list in the Wikipedia article List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations. These comparisons give me confidence that they didn't copy from us (this is important, as some ostensibly reliable vendors of information on diploma mills and accreditation mills appear to have copied from us). I have observed that the GetEducated lists have grown slowly over the last few years, which is consistent with what would happen if they researched every entry individually, as they say they do. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would not consider geteducated.com to be a RS. They have a vested interest in guiding people to one school or another. Just because they might be (currently) correct doesn't mean they are reliable. If I say "The United States has 50 states" on my blog, it doesn't make it a RS for geography. FWIW, I'd support deleting that list article.....what a mess. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I recently reverted an edit by a new user whose only edit was to delete an entry from the list of unrecognized accreditation organizations that was sourced to geteducated.com. The entity whose listing I restored was IAO. That organization's website shows a credible set of contact information and lot of accreditation activity worldwide, but it does not give any suggestion that IAO has recognition as an accreditor from any legitimate government authority. We would not include it on the Wikipedia list solely on the basis of lack of evidence of recognition (inclusion in the list requires a reliably sourced indication that the entity definitely does not have recognition as an accreditor), but I can't find a basis for questioning/challenging its listing as "unrecognized or fake" at geteducated.com. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Firishta

Can Firishta, the historian of the 16/17 centuries be considered a reliable source for the history of the Khokhar community? I don't mean cites of his opinions but rather cites of him as fact. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

specifics pls. what article? what claim? have other more recent scholars made claims counter to him? if so who and based on what evidence and what is the scholarly opinion of the sources that contradict him? how "controversial" are the claims that are being attributed to him? have the claims been specifically challenged by an editor?

In general, a scholar from that long ago, it would probably be best practice to attribute claims. Even if outplaced by more recent scholarship, it could be good content to keep and present to show the historical evolution of the views and interpretations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, TRoD, and yes, I am familiar with the outcomes and procedures of this noticeboard. I linked to the article. The claim is everything related to the history of the community, apparently up to Firishta's own time. Treating him as being some sort of ultimate source.

I was trying to keep it neutral but, since you appear to insist, then yes, I challenge the usage for factual statements. This is an Indic caste article, it is subject to general sanctions and it is an area in which (a) a lot of puffery goes on; (b) most stuff from centuries ago is either ignored by modern authorities or is deprecated; and (c) I have much experience. You can forget the evolution of historical views and interpretations because that is an issue for an article concerning the historiography of India etc (which would be interesting, to be sure).

I really did not want to say any of this because it moves the query from one that is neutral to one that is clearly biased. But you did ask, sorry. I must admit to getting a bit fed up with the pussyfooting around this subject area and it is all pushing me that much closer to jacking it all in. The odd bad day is becoming the odd bad week and it simply is not worth my effort, especially when it almost invariably ends up as I anticipated and, if you can forgive my ownership, in "my favour". My apologies for the rant: I do appreciate the input and the request for clarification but this type of issue is old news here. I feel like a hamster on a wheel. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously "Treating him as being some sort of ultimate source" is "NO" :-)

I had just quickly glanced at the articles but as you have pointed out the views of 16/17th scholars are clearly no longer considered as valued for anything other than examples of historical views regarding caste issues. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Per HISTRS and the fact he was born, lived, wrote and died before Ranke this is not reliable for any claim. Quote—at most—as a primary source per WP:HISTRS regarding using primary sources for illustration, ie only where a modern historiography of history quotes Firishta on a point. and only where that point is WEIGHTy to the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomson Reuters

Is the following Thomson Reuters page:

http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/healthcare/tr_announces_top_health_systems

A reliable source for the claims made at Prime Healthcare Services#Awards and Recognition? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It is a press release. The actual report mentioned in the press release, Thomson Reuters 15 Top Health Systems 2012, may actually be reliable for that. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The press release is from Thomson Reuters, not from Prime Healthcare Services. Why is not reliable for stating that PHS was indeed in the Top 15 list? — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Network Marketing Insider

Can "Network Marketing Insider" be relied on as a source to review a network marketing company? For example, would it be legitimate to use the following as a source for the MonaVie article...http://www.networkmarketing247.com/monavie/monavie-review-one-of-the-good-guys/?Tonyhammond (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a blog, written by one person with no editorial review. The individual writing is also very straightforward about their favor towards network marketing in the "about" section of that web site, so this source is neither neutral nor reliable. VQuakr (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Understand the comment about editorial review, but why would being in favor of network marketing suggest that he is not a good evaluator of network marketing companies. As an investor, I would prefer an analyst with experience in the field to tell me whether a company is a good company or not, and I wouldn't hire a blacksmith to tell me about the cut and color of a diamond.Tonyhammond (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't written as advice to investors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On the same topic, would the Better Business Bureau be considered a reliable source?Tonyhammond (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been told that it isn't for what you are trying to cite it for, per "BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services". [64] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have repeatedly made that statement, and I have repeatedly shown you that BBB's own website and FAQ which clearly states it DOES evaluate businesses. just because you make a statement repeatedly, that does not make it true. I was not citing it as a reference to the products and services, but as a reference about the honesty and integrity of the company. Is there some reason you refuse to believe that the BBB can be a credible, independent, reliable resource when so many consumers would disagree with you? If you check out WP:Better Business Bureau you would see that even WP's own article on the BBB considers it a reliable source, and I quote, "The BBB serves as a trusted intermediary between consumers and businesses, handling nearly 1 million consumer disputes against businesses in 2012[6]. The BBB also alerts the public to scams, reviews advertising, and assists when donating to charity." You are arguing against that properly sourced and cited statement.Tonyhammond (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Who says that? I certainly haven't considered the BBB a "trusted intermediary between consumers and businesses" since 20/20 exposed their ratings as fraudulent. Checks article for source. Oh, the BBB considers themselves trustworthy, and it looks like they've been editing their own Wikipedia article too. No thanks, I think it's be WP:UNDUE weight to tarnish a company's reputation by mentioning their association with the BBB. Kilopi (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup - I've just come to the same conclusion - another article needing cleaning up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial Steve Earle web site

This self titled Original Unofficial Steve Earl Site is being cited in a number of places in the BLP for Steve Earle. Is it a reliable source for his discography? collaborations? TV and movie appearances etc.? Biographical information? It appears that it may be a personal web site with no editorial oversight but I am not sure. Any thoughts? Thanks for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This actually gets at why I think Wikipedia's appearance of proper sourcing is problematic and an illusion. You are questioning unofficial Steve Earle (USE) site, but were rewriting the article to conform to a CMT bio which takes much of its content from the bio on the same exact site. You have ignored my criticism of the sources you are using. Note the CMT bio is equally unreferenced, has no author, and has a great many sentences and phrases taken from the USE site (which is copywritten and lists it authors). Longtime fans of Earle know this as an old site with some of the most accurate, though in some cases outdated as it is less active, information on Earle. It is written by two people who know subject well and have clearly read the biographies and interviews. Clint and Lisa, the authors, have worked directly with the Earle management on many occasions, especially when there was no official site and this was the Steve Earle site, though fan published. That said, I know that is my personal knowledge and judgement. Would I accept it as a reference for an academic paper? No, but I wouldn't accept Wikipeda, either, for these exact reasons. USE may not be reliable, but the bios you have been using are no more reliable. Just because there may be an editor, or a writer is labeled a journalist, does not mean there is any real oversight or quality control. I think this is probably particularly true of entertainment bios, like those at CMT or AllMusic, which get copied and plagiarized from source to source. (Though at least Allmusic has an identified author, which gives weight over the CMT bio.) One defense of the USE site is that, unlike a great many fan sites, it does have references (including an extensive archive of interviews), though not in-line citations, and the authors are clearly identified. What constitutes a published source on the web? I think that the extensive nature of the site does give it some weight and appearance of authority beyond a typical fan site.

Also, are you willing to do the work to find the same information and cite it to make sure the Wiki article adequately covers the subject? The Grammy site would give you the nominations, but you have to dig. (On a completely different note, I would say collaboration lists and use in other media lists are problematic for a prolific artist like Earle. It can't help being partial and incomplete. Better to trim to most significant.) I am same person you have been conversing with! 65.185.126.6 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, as there is no indication that Clint Harris or Lisa Kempe exercise any fact checking. It is a SPS website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is judged unreliable, than so is the CMT site. I see no evidence of fact checking there, either, and in fact know some information is incorrect based on more thorough writing on Earle. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'Original Unofficial Steve Earl Site' is not a reliable source because there is absolutely no indication that it is reputable or fact checked by uninvolved individuals. CMT has a reputation, so we trust that they have done more than just copy and paste from some random 'unofficial' website. --Onorem♠Dil 18:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Other Stuff Exists" is not a valid argument. If you would like to start a section on CMT's reliability with a specific article for a specific claim in a specific encyclopaedia entry, please do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

CMT has a poor reputation for journalism among music writers I know; it is a entertainment channel. On what basis do you say it is trustworthy? What evidence do they show of fact-checking or authorship (of their bios, not the attributed articles)? Many of their bios are simply taken from artist sites, which is not unusual among promoters, but is not good journalism. By the way, the bio on the unofficial site has been posted on that site for at least 12 years, before CMT started posting bios, and has often been pirated when it was the only Earle site and no official site exists. In any case, it is not perfect (mostly because it relies heavily on one source and is dated) and am not really arguing for the unofficial site, though I in fact largely trust it. What I am arguing that Wikipedia editors often show poor judgement in referencing, and that CMT should not be preferred over more extensive interviews and published bios. I know that people try to make it a reliable site, but this is why Wikipedia is not trusted. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus here that the Original Unofficial Steve Earle Site is not a reliable source per WP:RS so I will remove it from the article. Thanks everyone for your participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

genealogy.com

I have a questions regarding a reference used at Jorge Otero Barreto. The reference is from geneology.com and am wondering if this is considered a reliable source. I believe that the addition is done in good faith given my notability concerns of the subject of that article, and thus am bring it up here (for the sake of the quality of the article) to ensure it meets our RS requirements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I suggest all "home-made genealogy sites" are intrinsically not WP:RS sources. 2. The ancestry.com link specifically is from a person who made the genealogy, hence is SPS at best, and really, really unuseful at worst. 3. Using online genealogy sources, I found that I am a descendent of Muhammed, Minerva and Thor. I suggest this result is sufficient to show my opinion of using such sources on any articles at all, and especially not any referring to living persons. Collect (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Collect. The lack of editorial supervision over these sources means that they should not be used (except regarding themselves, for example, citing ancestry.com on the article ancestry.com). Most edits adding these are in good faith by people unfamiliar with our sourcing policies. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect and Fifelfoo, but as per various discussions about ancestry.com, I think genealogy.com also have some scanned copies of third party publications, such as old books? I think it is not relevant to this case, but the normal advice about such works is to cite the third party work itself. In such cases it can be acceptable I think to "convenience link" to such a website, like we do with google books. The internet has a lot of self-published genealogy, and most of it can not be used on Wikipedia. To be used it generally needs to be shown that there is fact checking and a reputation for accuracy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable source for: [65]. (all relevant info is in the reference. See the linked article about SPLC. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

All of my relevant answer is in the archives. If you can't be bothered copying and pasting to here, why should you expect readers here to be bothered answering? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite archives of the discussions it is getting brought up in numerous articles by members of wikiproject conservatism. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC has opinions. It is citable for its opinions clearly labelled as such. Anything further delves into the question as to whether that organization has a particular point of view, and if when it finds others with different poits of view it moght represent them in a less than NPOV manner. Collect (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You haven't given a reason why you think it is unreliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How does the SPLC qualify as a RS? They are not a news organization with fact checking. Are their findings and research peer reviewed? They seem to be in a unique position compared to most RS used here. Are there examples of similar sources that fall into neither the two standard categories?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Egad, are we here again? The SPLC does a ton of fact checking and is widely quoted as a factual source. The linked addition to the American Vision page was perfectly legitimate. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being obtuse, but do you have any references to their fact checking policies? That would settle a lot of these issues (at least for me).  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest looking through their staff [66], for example here is there editor-in chief [67]. Newspapers aren't peer reviewed by the way. Editorial oversight isn't peer review. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Yes, newspapers aren't subject to peer review, but they (should) be subject to fact checking and retractions. Newspaper opinion pieces are frequently NOT subjected to fact checking (George Will's column is a good example of that). With that aside, it appears to me that SPLC is operating using similar principles of that of newspapers. In general I wouldn't object to them being used as a RS, though in more contentious claims (not in this RS query) I would prefer additional sources that have a proven record with respect to fact-checking and retractions to be used as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Let's try this again, at American Vision, a group designated by the SPLC as a hate group and run by Gary Demar, the contested passage is -

Demar has said that not all homosexuals would be executed under a “reconstructed government", but that he did believe that the occasional execution of “sodomites” would serve society well because “the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet.” He also said a “long-term goal” should be “the execution of abortionists and their parents.”(18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda Evelyn Schlatter, Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140.)

Is SPLC a reliable source for this purpose? Insomesia (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropriate. The SPLC is the best judge of this sort. If we doubted them (which we don't), we could independently check some of the quotes ourselves by looking for bits of them online. For instance, the SPLC reference says DeMar wrote "Homosexuals aren’t content with only having the bedroom" in April 2010. DeMar blogged that phrase in April 2010, according to another blog. The problem with americanvision.org is that the Wayback Machine does not archive it because its website tells the archive bots to stay away, by the wording of robots.txt, a file on the website. To know what DeMar wrote on a particular day, you would have to have been looking at it. SPLC has people who do this and document the site. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Binksternet. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Insomesia (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is to say that "we" don't doubt them. (And, we're here again, because the previous consensus is that SPLC is reliable for their opinions, and certain editors want to revisit that.) As I said on one of the talk pages, there's no (reliable) evidence that they are reliable for anything other than their own opnions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. There's no recent consensus, but consensus in 2010 is that they have sufficient fact-checking to be considered reliable, but not WP:BLP-reliable, for statements which are clearly facts (which are the statements covered here); there's no consensus as to whether their statements about opinions can be used, except for their own opinions. However, these statements are about a living person, so it does require revisiting the matter. I don't think they could possibly be considered BLP-reliable. I think the prior consensus should also be revisited, as there's no evidence to support the claim that they do sufficient fact-checking, but reviewing the prior consensus is not necessary to determine that SPLC is not BLP-reliable, even for (theoretically) verifiable facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

They are definitely BLP reliable and their statements should be attributed and treated with care just like any other sources used on a BLP. Use common sense and on a case-by-case basis. Generally they are reliable. Insomesia (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, it may have slipped your mind, but there's no doubt that the quotes we're getting from the SPLC are correct. After all, they're directly from the subject's book, and we have it in its entirety right here. All we're relying on from the SPLC is its selection of these quotes, as we wouldn't want to be guilty of WP:OR. To be fair, the SPLC is a sufficiently reliable source that we don't actually need the book, but we do have it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We clearly cannot use them for a selction of quotes. We can select quotes on our own, but that is not something that a biased reliable source can be used for. For this article, we need to use the book as a source, rather than SPLC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are making an absolute statement when there is a continuum at work here. We can use the SPLC as a guide, or not, depending on our purpose. The attention given to the particular quotes by SPLC makes those quotes rise higher in significance, so they are more likely to meet our needs. We could choose other quotes, perhaps ones vetted by another third party observer, but we are not required to stay away from the ones that SPLC noticed. The fact that an outside group pulled certain quotes from the American Vision Rulers of the Nation book gives us the benefit of making sure the text is not overly self-serving to American Vision. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC examined by RSN and by outside experts

SPLC has repeated come up on this noticeboard because of the hot responses they get from their strong statements, not because their fact-checking is flawed. It's hard for new editors to understand how highly respected the SPLC is in US universities, law enforcement and government. SPLC is, if anything, more highly respected by scholars outside of the US. Here are the past RSN discussions:

• RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center, October 2008. SPLC is a reliable source per Squidfryerchef, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and SlamDiego.
• RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center, January 2009. SPLC is a reliable source per ScienceApologist, Moni3 and Verbal.
• RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center (again) & Rousas John Rushdoony, November 2009. SPLC a reliable source per Dougweller, The Four Deuces, RightCowLeftCoast, John Carter, Jayjg, Verbal, Jmabel, Blueboar, Squidfryerchef and Hipocrite. Fact-checking ability challenged by CaroleMooreDC, with scholarly sources.
• RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center, July 2012. SPLC is a reliable source per Nableezy, Slatersteven, Whatamidoing and Skinwalker.
• RSN:Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?, July 2012. SPLC is a reliable source per Itsmejudith and Binksternet.

Here are some scholarly thoughts about SPLC:

• Jessie Daniels, PhD, CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College: Cyber Racism. "...it has established a Klanwatch/Militia Task Force, which provides accurate information and analysis..."
• Cengage Learning textbook: Brooks/Cole Empowerment Series: Human Behavior in the Social Environment. Official US government statistics are not completely accurate but SPLC is not questioned.
• DIANE Publishing textbook: Racial And Ethnic Tensions In American Communities. SPLC's Danny Welch was invited to make a presentation to the US Commission on Civil Rights in February 1991 about "hate incidents", speaking on his own from a panel of other notables from the US Dept of Justice, B'nai B'rith and the FBI.
• Russell Sage Foundation: Making Hate a Crime, relied on SPLC for information on hate crime statutes.
• Criminologist Mark S. Hamm, PhD: American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime, all data collected about American skinheads has some flaws, including data from the FBI, the SPLC, the ADL, etc. However, the flaws are not such that "sociological sense" cannot be obtained from the data. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of those descriptions of the RSN archives are false. There's no consensus in the July 2012 threads, except that the SPLC Intelligence Report is an RS. And there's a 2010 thread which finds the SPLC is not a BLP-RS. But check for yourself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more explicit about what you think is false? Also, you haven't addressed the scholarly thoughts which do appear to agree that it is reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first one listed immediately dives off into a tangent and never addresses the question; the second case starts off with the observation that the first one didn't go anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not my field of scholarship, but if you're interpreting the books correctly, and those books are reliable sources which state the SPLC is reliable (some clearly do so only in specific fields, not including what we're trying to use them for), then it meets WP:SPS, but still cannot be used for BLP statements. It's being used in American Vision to support DeMar's (apparently opinions, but they're probably also) statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at the 5 previous RSN threads, only the third is on point, and the only consensus seems to be that their magazine is reliable, they are reliable for their own notable opinions, and they may be reliable for facts about their subjects. The allegations made by the subject in the 2nd thread suggest that they remove false statements only when pointed out. If the site is archived by the wayback machine, we can check the history of the page. If it progessed as the subject suggested, that site is clearly not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense! You would have a group continue in an error if it was pointed out to them? Of course not. Even printed newspapers print corrections. Online newspapers update stories when mistakes are found.

The RSN discussions above are all in agreement that the SPLC cannot be classed as categorically unreliable, which is much of the point I wanted to make. The SPLC has various degrees of trustworthiness; its journal is the highest level. Nevertheless, the online entries are no less reliable than newspaper reports. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can quote them with attribution on any article, biography or not. They are a scholarly group akin to a foundation or a think tank. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite true. They are a political group, with opinions found to be notable at RS/N. Cited as opinions. They have not been found to be a reliable source for facts about anything or anyone in general - and that has been rehashed many times here. The concept behing WP:RS is "fact-checking" at the start - not "they correct mistakes". There is nothing to suggest "editorial fact-checking" for the SPLC as a publication, and sufficient examples of errors to warrant a belief that they do not check "facts." Nevertheless their "opinions" are widely noted, and can be used in Wikipedia articles. Again - cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not a political group, they are a legal group. 184.88.216.155 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll get no traction with "political group". Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Tightening the focus here

The issue, quite specifically, is whether the SPLC's identification of a set of conservative advocacy organizations as "hate groups" trumps the objections of conservatives to this identification. The intent is to put this identification in the lede of each of these "family values" groups and suppress mention at that point of conservative objection. If you want to subject yourself to the argument, it's going on in Talk:Family Research Council, but it's not the only article affected.

I'm reasonably willing to take the SPLC as a reporter of what people said, but that's not the authority that's being claimed here. It's their analysis that is at stake, and for that, they are the primary source. In general there's not much controversy over their tracking of hypernationalist and racist groups. They are also widely relied upon in examination of hate crimes, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand because nobody is seriously accusing these groups of committing or abetting criminal acts. It's easy enough, though, to find objection to the essential categorization of opposition to homosexual marriage as hate speech. There's an obvious political division between those who accept their analysis, and those who don't; it's bloody well obvious in the discussion. My personal view is that the designation has enough traction in media sources to be mentioned, but that the controversy needs to be admitted to up front. But at any rate in discussing their "reliability", we are really evaluating their authority on this particular point, not a general view of the organization. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You misstate the SPLC position. You say:

It's easy enough, though, to find objection to the essential categorization of opposition to homosexual marriage as hate speech.

In fact, the SPLC categorization is based on the following:

Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't so much of a misstatement as it was an oversimplication in the cause of not making an awkward and elongated sentence. I don't see that the difference in grounds eliminates the reliance on their authority, as one still has the calculation that "saying things that are false" (modulo disputes over whether they are false) equals "hate". One could apply Hanlon's razor to the falsehoods and get a different conclusion, after all. Let me say again that I personally don't see an issue with recording SPLC's condemnation prominently; the issue at present is over suppressing or burying that their position is reciprocally condemned by various conservatives. I question whether anyone here's approval of their reasoning is grounds for overriding a fairly prominent mention of conservative counterreaction. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Query: Has the SPLC ever described or listed a progressive advocacy group as a "hate group" at any point? Which ones? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't lump the FRC and American Vision in with the Klan and skinheads. SPLC has a political axe to grind, and this is how they do it. – Confession0791 ^talk 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of any that should be included? The SPLC lists three "black separatist" groups as hate groups.[68] These groups would be "progressive" except for their hate. Also, some hate groups (anti-immigration, anti-Muslim) have progressive supporters. Eugene McCarthy supported FAIR. TFD (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is certainly a reliable source for whom the SPLC classifies as hate groups. The real issue is WP:WEIGHT - how important is it that the SPLC has called an organization a hate group. But that is not a topic for discussion at this noticeboard. And yes, the SPLC is also a reliable source for facts, as has been shown above by the many reliable sources that attest to their reliability. TFD (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the ideologies listed relate to bigotry of one kind of another, and are neither conservative nor progressive[69]. I don't think anyone really considers, neo-nazism, holocaust denial, skinheads, black separatism, or racism in general as conservative movements. aprock (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In general I think in the USA the black separatists would be counted as leftist and the skinheads as neutral evil, but the others mentioned are generally associated with political conservatism, and it's certainly common enough to accuse conservatives of appealing to those movements. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying here is that hate groups are not confined to one political stripe. This makes it hard to claim that the SPLC is just a political group that insults groups they don't like.

1. Is the SPLC a reliable source for what the SPLC says? Yes, obviously.
2. Is it a reliable source for the content of direct quotes by others? Yes, they're not going to misquote Demar. Their track record on quotes is better than some newspapers'.
3. Is it a reliable source for selecting and synthesizing these quotes? Yes, because it must do so in order to explain why it designates AV a hate group. In general, yes, because they're talking about their field of expertise, and they're respected for it by academics and law enforcement.
4. Do organizations disagree with being called hate groups? Always or almost always. Does even the KKK admit to being a hate group?
5. Does this mean there's always controversy about hate group designation? Looks like it.
6. Is being an SPLC-designated hate group notable? Highly so, to the point that it always belongs in the lead.
7. Is controversy over this designation notable? For the FRC and some others. Definitely belongs in the article, with due weight.
8. Do we need to stop grinding our teeth and start editing? I certainly think so. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

More claims of unreliability: Illinois Family Institute (IFI)

In it's Hatewatch, the SPLC states the designation (about Illinois Family Institute) was based on the association with Paul Cameron, a researcher who has been disassociated from professional organizations American Psychological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association, the later for "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."

Is this text reliable sourced? I've also notified BLPN as the editors at Talk:Illinois_Family_Institute have claimed BLP issues IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The original source from where the above was generated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IFI official Laurie Higgins has angrily disputed the hate-group label, which was mainly based on the posting on IFI’s website of a laudatory story about the discredited work of anti-gay “researcher” Paul Cameron, a man who has been thrown out of two professional associations because, as one said, he “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism.” IFI’s story on Cameron — “New Study Shows that Homosexuals Live 20 Fewer Years” — was preceded by what amounted to a full-throated endorsement of Cameron from then-IFI Executive Director Peter LaBarbera. (“Paul Cameron’s work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he’s been demonized by the left,” LaBarbera wrote, “but this should not discount his findings.”) Higgins wrote angrily that SPLC’s listing was based on a single article, posted in 2005, and that she would not remove it because it showed how “flimsy” SPLC’s characterization of IFI was. As the SPLC noted years ago, the Cameron “study” cited by IFI was based on obituaries in gay newspapers and has been completely discredited. It was published in what IFI characterized as “the scientific journal, Psychological Reports” — actually a vanity publication that charges “researchers” a mere $27.50 a page to publish their work. Interestingly, it was another version of the Cameron study on gay longevity — the subject of the piece published by IFI — that was referenced in the video IFI put up this week. But now Higgins has apparently decided that IFI should avoid repeating the Cameron defamations, and thus the scrubbing of the video it published. The film also apparently managed to get something else wrong — if you believe IFI’s story on Cameron, that is. That article says that the Centers for Disease Control found that “9% of heterosexuals who died of AIDS were at least 65 years of age.” In the video — until it was scrubbed by IFI — the claim was that only 9% of homosexual men live past the age of 65. Needless to say, those are entirely different statements. The Illinois Family Institute Again Cites Discredited Research, Briefly

I've included the above quote that was used to develop the proposed content. The full read and other articles seem to support these statements. I removed a lot of the original wording in from the proposed text due to BLP concerns. Insomesia (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we don't have a Copyvio noticeboard

I've noted what looks like rather close paraphrasing between The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Jurgen Habermas [70] and ours. There are at least a couple of sentences in the biography section that are copypasted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We do see Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The situation with this article seems to be resolved, but for future reference I'll point out that WP:SCV is bot-populated. The closest thing to a noticeboard for copyvio would be listing it at WP:CP, generally with {{subst:copyvio}} although a variety of other templates will cause it to end up there eventually. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Peabody Institute

71.230.50.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is persistently inserting information pertaining to student complaints about Peabody Institute, repeatedly claiming that Facebook and a blog are verifiable sources: [71].

I would like a third opinion as to whether or not this information should be included.

69.251.42.0 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Facebook and blogs are only ever "reliable" sources in the most limited of circumstances such as when they are used to support non controversial content solely about the verified owner of the Facebook account / blog. (ie John Doe's blog being used to verify a claim such as "Doe was inspired to write the song X after seeing a beautiful sunrise") or when they are the verified account of a known expert who has been previously published and the blog postings/content are in the same topical area for which the person was published see WP:SPS. In this case, nope, not usable in the least. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is more a notability issue. If it makes the papers or the evening news, it can be included, but a bunch of people grousing on Facebook or in a blog isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Student complaints on social media and blogs are not reliable enough for Wikipedia. Complaints must appear in newspapers or similar. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegation of abuse of sources in Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

Discussion by editors previously involved in this discussion elsewhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion unrelated to RS/N's purpose of evaluating source reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

---

G'day all, There has been an ongoing dispute regarding the title of the subject article (which is not the subject of this post, it obviously needs to be dealt with elsewhere). As part of this discussion, several editors have claimed that I have been abusing the sources I have used for the official name of the territory in question. I have used several sources here, so for completeness I will lay out all of them, along with the exact statement in the article that I am using the sources to support. I would appreciate a few more eyes on this to make sure I am not too close to the issue.

1. Sources.

a. Bond, Brian; Roy, Ian (1977). War and society: a yearbook of military history, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-85664-404-7. p. 230 here [72].

b. Deroc, Milan (1988). British Special Operations explored: Yugoslavia in turmoil, 1941-1943, and the British response Volume 242 of East European monographs. East European Monographs, University of Michigan. ISBN 978-0-88033-139-5. p. 232 here [73]

c. Hehn, Paul N. (1971). "Serbia, Croatia and Germany 1941-1945: Civil War and Revolution in the Balkans". Canadian Slavonic Papers. 13 (4). University of Alberta: 344–373. Retrieved 8 April 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |editorlink= (help) here [74]

d. Kroener, Bernhard (2000). Germany and the Second World War: Volume V: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power (Part 1: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822887-5. p. 86 here [75].

e. Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2002). Serbia: the History behind the Name. London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. ISBN 978-1-85065-476-6. p. 141 here [76]

f. United Kingdom Naval Intelligence Division (1944). Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration. Michigan: University of Michigan. p. 380 here [77]

g. Kerner, Robert Joseph (1949). Yugoslavia. University of California Press. p. 358 here [78]

2. Content.

The above sources are used to support the following content.

'Official name of the occupied territory translated from German: Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens' - which is contained in a note to the bolded article title in the lead.

I would greatly appreciate a view whether any or all of these sources can be used to support that content, and/or suggestions on what if any modifications should be made.

Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is source abuse. Peacemaker67 is try to promote name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” in Wikipedia and he have only one source in English that support this name - Hehn, Paul N. (1971). All other sources here do not use name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” and Peacemaker67 list them in pages to create false impression that name that he promote in Wikipedia have support from more sources. Name that he promote have support from only one source in English and that source is 40 years old and no other source support that. Nemambrata (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Having read the (heated) discussions on the articles talk page, it seems that the current title only appears in one RS, and the context it appears is as a translation of the official Nazi-Germany name of the territory, not as the actual name of the territory in English. It appears that there is no-one & nothing other than this article which uses the articles current title for the subject 92.15.79.29 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect, Nemambrata has made their opinion known on the article talk page, I am asking for a community view from a few well known experienced editors who have dealt with many situations like this. I think it is always good to get wider views. Immediately above this post I inquired about the reliability of Cohen, received a response and then modified my view in an article as a result. This shows I am willing to accept the view of the wider community. I hope you would do the same. However, the allegations by Nemambrata that I have been forging sources, which is a personal attack on my integrity, and which has been used on the talk page of the article will be reported shortly. All I am asking for here is a fair and disinterested assessment of each of the sources I have used for the content I believe it supports. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've commented recently on the talk page but not prior to the other day and am not a regular on that page or the topic more generally. I don't know if it's a problem with the links as presented, differences between Google results in different countries or something else, but about half of those sources do not seem - at least when I open them - to provide any evidence in support of the content. The first three and the last seemed to offer the terminology, either in German, English or both; the others not. My own Google books search for the phrase brings up only four results, with only one of those actually picking out the precise phrase. That said, I'm not sure lots of sources are needed to demonstrate what an official name for the area/administration might have been, and to verify a brief note about it in the page or the page footnotes, unless in itself it's a controversial point (as noted, there is a separate but related dispute about what the title of the article should be, which is where numbers and common use, as well as issues around clarity and consistency with similar articles, would come into play). N-HH talk/edits 21:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Well, German works verify the German official name so asking for sources that use a translation like Area/Territory of Military Commander in Serbia is rather inane. There's not much to abuse in the first place when the issue revolves around a straightforward translation.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, it is very clear that this name is wrong and unsupported! We should override any problems in order to fix this construct and wrong title for this article, which was pushed without agreement anyway! --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, filling up this notice board by the same editors (WW and Nemambrata) that have made their views clear on the talk page is unhelpful and probably repels disinterested experienced editors that are actively involved on this noticeboard. If you have something to add to the actual discussion of whether these sources support the listed content, please try to stay on topic. The title issue is related, but this request is not a content dispute. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion by editors not previously involved in the discussion of the sourcing issue alone

If you have previously been involved in discussing the name of the article in question, please do not comment further on RS/N. Feel free to discuss the results of the RS/N discussion of sources on your article talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Are the sources reliable for the territory being discussed being "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens" and that a reasonable translation of this title being the territory of the military commander in Serbia?

Bond and Roy (1977). This text is miscited as it appears to be a chapter in an edited collection. As the text is miscited it is unable to be reliable as the basis of scholarly reliability cannot be adequately determined from the text as cited. Was this actually read before being used? Because miscitation (and miscitation in the manner of a Google Books snippet search) is indicative that the text was not read in full prior to use.

Deroc (1988). While I am very familiar with this monograph series, I am unable to view sufficient context to determine text reliability.

Hehn (1971). Text supports the claim that the territory was officially known by the Germans as "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens" it does not support the translation of this title being the commonly known name of the area in English but it does support the idea that "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is a valid translation used by scholars of "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens"

Kroener (2000). Map I.II.6 lacks adequate context to support the claim. pp194–196 supports the claim that the area is known in English to scholars as "the territory of the military commander" when discussing 1941 occupation policies.

Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2002). adequately supports "The territory of the Military Commander, Serbia" as being a term used by this scholar at least to reflect on the German occupation

United Kingdom Naval Intelligence Division (1944). Out of date, inappropriate specialist.

Kerner, Robert Joseph (1949). Out of date in the rapidly moving field of Balkan studies and Balkan history.

None of this indicates what the common name amongst scholars in English is, or what the common English referent is for the territory directly occupied by Germans containing a large Serbian population in WWII. None of this indicates if the most common name is an English translation, or a German loan word. This indicates that in three reliable scholarly sources, scholars are aware of the german Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens, and that this is a Territory controlled by a Military Commander in or of Serbia. Regarding your name dispute, I suggest mediation on an appropriate forum and a close friendly discussion of title naming policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

G'day again Fifelfoo, and thanks for trying to keep this on WP:RSN matters. Let me make it clear that, given this is the WP:RSN, I naturally did not ask for an opinion about whether it is the WP:COMMONNAME, or whether these sources support the translation of this title being the commonly known name of the area in English. In fact, I have never suggested that was the case, or that they do. However, if you interpreted my question more widely, or assumed that I was making that suggestion, I am sorry for the miscommunication. Essentially all I asked is whether these sources support the idea that "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" is a valid translation used by scholars of "Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens". Cutting through to the issue in question, your answer, I believe, is yes in the case of Hehn, although you did not address the issue of the 'official name' included in my question. I believe you have also answered that Kroener supports the claim that the area is known in English to scholars as "the territory of the military commander" when discussing 1941 occupation policies, and that Pavlowitch supports "The territory of the Military Commander, Serbia" as being a term used by this scholar at least to reflect on the German occupation. I have a couple of supplementaries if you don't mind?

• What I asked is whether the sources can actually be used to support the content 'Official name of the occupied territory translated from German: Gebiet des Militärbefehlshaber Serbiens'. Are you saying that Hehn can be used to do this, taking into account your issues with the apparent miscitation of Bond & Roy, lack of context for Deroc, and older references? Can any of the other sources be used for that purpose?
• On what basis do you discount the older sources, and how old do they have to be? Is Lemkin, for example, published in 1944, no longer in date? What criteria have you used for that opinion?
• What does 'inappropriate specialist' mean?
• Why have you dropped the capitalisation of 'Territory' from Pavlowitch and 'Serbia' from Kroener in your response?

Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why my comment has been boxed off above. I have not commented previously on the sourcing issue per se at all, and my response above was entirely focused on the precise question here, not on the article title issue. I have discussed - briefly and for the first time only the other day - the title issue, but I do not see that this renders my observations about sources redundant or that I should be subject to a "do not comment here" instruction. N-HH talk/edits 08:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ditto to NN-Hs' statement 92.15.79.29 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)