Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102

The Daily Dot
The prompting for making this came from this section on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page, but i'd like to ask about the site in general. The prompting article page at the Daily Dot is also here. Is this site reliable is the basic question i'm asking, obviously?

They were discussed on Gigaom here, where they were annoying vague (and said Daily Dot was vague with them as well) on what exactly the site is meant to be. The creators of the site seem reliable, but the article states that "crowdsourcing stories will be one part of it, but there will be traditional staff writers as well." So...part of it will be community stories, which would be unreliable because they're essentially like random people making news posts, but then they would have traditional staff writers, which might be considered reliable. But they annoyingly don't have a staff page, beyond a page that lists the three founders. So how do we know who is staff writers? The writer of the article in question, Fruzsina Eordogh, seems to be some sort of blogger. It says here that she's a "freelance writer/blogger" and, from the sites she's on, she seems to specialize in blogging for internet specific sites. What I mean by that is sites tailored for the internet, like this Daily Dot site.

So, i'm not quite sure what to make of this. What do we do with these community-based internet-directed news sites? I mean, I would compare them to internet gaming sites, but they seem a bit different. Silver seren C 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would like to note that I would very much want this site to be considered reliable, as it covers internet-based topics that are generally hard to find sources for. But I feel that, until it more specifically explains and demarcates its staff, that it's a bit confusing on reliability. Silver  seren C 05:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * RSN is running slow today, it seems. Anyone out there? Silver  seren C 06:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We've generally been giving thumbs up to sites that have some indication of editorial oversight. The About page names the editor. And says that they're hiring. So it does sound like a news organization. But as you say, certain things aren't clear, such as whether specific articles are written by staff writers. I'd lean toward RS. But I think we could easily resolve this by simply asking them. They invite questions and give an email address: press@dailydot.com. If you don't feel comfortable emailing them, I'd be happy to. And we could suggest they clarify this on the About page. TimidGuy (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could send the email, I would appreciate it. It would be really helpful if they either made a Staff page or added the people they have hired to the About page, so that we can then tell which are official news posts made by the site and which are made by members of the community. Silver  seren C 10:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that the Fruzsina Eordogh took great care when creating this article. Everything said within the article is cited or quoted. The author even went out of her way to contact Daniel Brandt and the anonymous user(s) behind josephevers.blogspot.com. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any baseless, uncited, or unquoted claim or statement within the article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SilverSeren, I'll send them an email. TimidGuy (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This site appears to be RS. They say that all of their content is staff written. I received this reply from Rebecca Ewing: "Thanks so much for reaching out— let me clarify that all of our articles are staff written. We're currently in beta, which is why the copy on the site you can access is somewhat limited, but we will have more public information on our reporters when we launch later this summer. I'm happy to elaborate on our current editorial staff, as well, if you're interested. We don't actually feature user-contributed stories at this time, but rather our reporters cover what happens in online communities like Facebook and Reddit in the same way a traditional paper would cover the town you grew up in. We're not hyperlocal in the sense of a physical space— but we believe the principles that guided local community publications will serve us well in the Internet's new geographies of the mind. And while we definitely dig into the communities and spend our days talking with the members of those communities to find our stories, our editorial department crafts the actual stories themselves with care. Hope this helps some. Let me know if you have any further questions. We definitely want to take all the steps to meet standards and solidify ourselves as a reliable source!" TimidGuy (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great initiative mailing them. That does make it sound like a RS. As long as the staff writers are under editorial control, and if they have a named editor that should be the case. Siawase (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds reliable, which is good. Now we can use it for other internet topics and refer back to this discussion if reliability is ever questioned later. Silver  seren C 22:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Disabled American Veterans chapter
I am wondering if a source from a chapter of the Disabled American Veterans organization, is a reliable source, for a Class A review of the article 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Unrecoverable publication in Norwegian from the 1970s - is it a reliable source?
It might be trivial, but a discussion arose on the talk page over the reliability of such source, cited here Mutual_intelligibility.

Can someone shed some light? -- Itemirus  Message me!  17:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (See Talk:Mutual intelligibility.) I wouldn't assume that this publication is "unrecoverable". Has the editor who added the citation been contacted to make sure that the citation is a full citation? If it's a valid citation, someone can ask at Resource Exchange to see what libraries hold the journal. And there are many Wikipedia users who speak Norwegian. I don't know if this is a reliable source, but it needs to be more fully evaluated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Forum posts by experts
Are forum posts by experts on a topic considered reliable sources? I can provide a link to the specific example if required. Furthermore, is a post by a person who has worked on a specific project, that did not publish its results, considered a reliable source? Furthermore, when the project is mentioned in a book that is considered a reliable source, but the project was still in progress, when the book was published, are forum posts by a person involved in the project about the results considered a reliable source? I can get more specific on all these points if desired. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it must be judged on a case-by-case basis. The expert has much greater latitude in the casual online forum setting, which may give some the idea that they can say things which are not true. I have used an expert recording engineer's forum posts to tell some interesting facts about a hit recording he was involved in, and I have used other experts in a similar manner. Sometimes, it is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so to get more specific. In the article Wieferich prime, in the section "Generalizations", I included the following statement:


 * The following table lists all near-Wieferich primes with |A| ≤ 10 up to 3×1015. This search bound was reached in 2006 in a search effort by P. Carlisle, R. Crandall and M. Rodenkirch.


 * The sources given do not mention the specific search bound 3x1015, but only 2.5×1015, because at the time the book was written, this search was still in progress. The search reached a search bound of 3x1015, as stated by Mark Rodenkirch, who was one of the persons involved in this search (see, gives 2.5x1015).


 * The search bound of 3×1015 is mentioned at . The person who made the post under the pseudonym "Rogue" is Mark Rodenkirch, one of the persons performing the search (he is also the person who wrote the software used in this search).


 * So can I use this forum post as a cite for the search bound mentioned in the article Wieferich prime? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the last entry in the first table in the section "Generalizations" was added by me after I received the value from Mark Rodenkirch via E-Mail. This value is mentioned in a forum post by himself here. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a RS that it is him posting on the forum? If he has an official website and you are in touch with him it might be easier to ask that he posts the information on his website. Easier to verify and should be allowable under WP:SPS. Siawase (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be highly unusual to use a forum or Usenet (same principle) as a source. Not only is it sometimes not certain (even if it seems obvious) that the person is the expert with that name, there can be other problems with forums. Some require logging in, and we shouldn't use such sources. And some forums, including a lot of Yahoo, include copyvio and we shouldn't link to those. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This might also be one to chalk up to WP:NOTNEWS and just wait for the updated information to be published in reliable sources. Siawase (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Rogue can be said to be verified as Mark Rodenkirch because clicking on Rogue's name at www.mersenneforum.org and selecting "view rogue's homepage!" gets you to Mark Rodenkirch’s Home Page, at which he discusses his search for prime numbers. I think the forum post can be used to give the higher number reached in the search. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I a reliable source for myself?
Hypothetical 1- I've gotten noticed enough to get a Wikipedia article, I guess it doesnt matter what I've done I could be anything from a philanthropist to a full-on rapist (gotta watch Always Sunny in Philadelphia to get that joke I suppose). Now most newspapers rely on either Bloomberg or the AP for national/international stories, even the big names; lets suppose they get my age wrong. Now every single reliable source we can find shows me to be younger/older than I am. Encyclopedia's normally have birthdates, so to have it in an article about me is encyclopedic. So can I, as a veteran Wikipedia editor, who now sees someone has made an article about me, change my age/add my birthdate based on... well, because I said so, or not much better- "my Mother was THERE and she says so", or even quite a bit better- I have these things called a driver's license and a birth certificate (but those are primary sources). Could I- A) prove my identity to someone and get my word taken at face value; B) scan and give you the primary documents proving my age and those primary sources would be ok to over-ride the secondary.

Not-as-hypothetical-I'd like to, if I continue to not find it in Wikipedia, create an article on the "South Carolina Bandit" who robbed banks 2-3 years ago throughout the South and Midwest, ending in his capture in Missouri which was covered nationally and even internationally including by America's Most Wanted. Many of the secondary sources, newspapers and such, have outright wrong information. I know because I was there and witnessed his capture personally. America's Most Wanted did the best job of getting it right (partly because they were the only one's I gave an interview to). Now, I have that episode on my DVR but unless I let another editor over to my house (no, you cant), how is an episode of a tv show that doesnt do repeats as far as I know going to be verifiable? Can I use the episode as a source? And hypothetically if they got his age wrong, would I be able to use the copy of his driver's license as primary evidence to prove them wrong (see above hypothetical question; and yes I do have a copy of his driver's license, and no it's not illegal).Camelbinky (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you are primary source for yourself. Whether your information can be considered reliable and the primary source be used in the article depends on the exact information and its context. Also important is, that to be considered as a primary source about yourself, you still need to publish somewhere externally (your personal blog, website, face book, book, interview) or alternatively a letter to wp, that allows a reliable identification.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that any source has to be verifiable. One question if you have got a page on wikipedia that means you are notable, so why not ask the third party sources to correct the errors? If you are notable surely they would do this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In both the hypothetical and especially the not-so-hypothetical we'll say that the newspaper coverage occured long enough ago that no newspaper cares at this point to bother. And it is not like books that are published can go around putting out "oops! correction" notices.Camelbinky (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some newspapers have very strong correction policies. The New York Times in particular has been known to publish corrections to decades-old stories when they were warranted.  Your assumption that they wouldn't bother isn't necessarily true.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I susepct that there are issue here that should be rasied elsewehre.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you suggest, these are hypotheticals about RS's... if not the RS/N where? You do realize these are hypotheticals right?Camelbinky (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Until we see what the article says (and more importantly the sources) it’s hard to say. But I can see issues of notability being raised (so the notability notice board would be a good start) and Not news cropping up.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems similar to previous discussions: Siawase (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that being a long-standing editor on Wikipedia makes a person any more reliable as a source. ANybody can provide primary source material about their own age, it's not a contentious thing. As to witnessing a crime there's loads of studies showing how bad witnesses are. Dmcq (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPSPS permits us to use the subject's own words to support information about the subject (within limits). However, we normally expect those words to appear somewhere other than Wikipedia (unless the statement is something like "On Wikipedia, ____ once said...").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. You are a primary source for information about yourself. However, that information has to be verifiable. Getting a newspaper to publish a statement from you would work, but nowadays, it might be easier just to post it on your web site. Most people with articles in Wikipedia already have one, sometimes through their work. Posting the information there then takes about as much time as typing it. If you don't have one, make one: there are dozens of free personal web space providers. Make it convincing enough that it is, in fact, yours (get a link from a few similarly notable friends who do have established sites, or post a personal photo with you holding up a "welcome to my web site at [this address]" sign or something). Post the information there. That's a few hours work, maybe a few days if you really want to do it right.

2. A AMW television episode is a (reasonably) reliable source (reasonably sensational mass media, and all), and if you don't have another choice, I'd say use it. It's like a magazine that's out of print, presumably there is a way to get at it. Having it available would be a definite help, yes. Have you checked http://www.amw.com/show_archive/past_shows.cfm ? That seems to have quite a lot of info, even though "south carolina bandit" doesn't show in the search. Look under his real name, since you seem to know it. No, you would not be able to use your copy of his driver's license to prove them wrong; that's a primary source, and since you're claiming a reliable secondary source is wrong, this is by definition a controversial fact, and for controversial facts we need good evidence, for example another reliable secondary source to say as much. (If you think a picture of a driver's licence is clearly reliable, you've obviously never worked in a bar or selling cigarettes retail. :-) ) --GRuban (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Do simple facts in an InfoBox require a reliable source?
The article To Heart 2, about a work of anime, has an InfoBox which says "Genre = harem". An RfC was created here to ask whether that was the correct genre. In the RfC, that led to questions about whether editors were able to determine the genre on their own, without a reliable source stating the genre. Or, would an editor be violating the OR policy by stating (in the absence of a reliable source) that the genre was such-and-such. This question (do simple facts in an InfoBox require a reliable source) must have come up before, so any help from experienced RS experts would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, pretty much everything we put into article space should be verifiable in reliable sources. I do not think it is a requirement to provide citations for all items in an info box, but they should be sourceable, and if there is any disagreement about a given item, that would be a challenge of verifiability to be settled by turning to reliable sources. So yes, I would say sources would be required in this case. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my opinion also. Although it  may seem obvious to one editor that the genre is "comedy" or "tragedy" or whatever, it may not be so obvious to other editors, and the end result is confusion or misleading information conveyed to readers.  Editors really shouldn't be guessing about material they insert into  InfoBoxes.  I'd rather see the genre omitted from the Infobox when there are no sources that establish the genre. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The source doesn't have to be in the infobox, the genre can be mentioned and sourced in the article, but it needs a source, and if there isn't any, leave the genre field empty. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Genres are often highly contentious and a source of conflict. Music related articles have dealt with it forever, ie WP:GENRE WARRIOR. Infobox details do fall under WP:V like everything else, and WP:V is particularly helpful to resolve conflicts like these. You are free to WP:IAR and add unsourced genres in good faith where they seem uncontroversial, but as soon as you are challenged WP:V takes precedent. As for there being no sources regarding anime genres, surely almost all anime pass through Newtype or some other Japanese magazine at some point where the genre would be mentioned. Siawase (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your phrase "[okay to] add unsourced genres in good faith where they seem uncontroversial, but as soon as you are challenged WP:V takes precedent" seems to strike the right balance on this issue. --Noleander (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To try to make this clearer... the information in an info-box does need to be verifiable (meaning a source exists that could be cited if need be)... however, it does not always need to be actually verified (ie it is not always necessary to actually cite the source... that depends on whether the information is "challenged or likely to be challenged")... Furthermore, if the information is mentioned and cited elsewhere in the article, it is not required that it be cited in the info-box as well.
 * That said... genres are exactly the sort of opinion based fact that is likely to be challenged. So... it does need to be cited somewhere in the article (but not necessarily in the info-box).  Hope this clarifies the situation. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like we all agree that it doesn't need a source—unless it's been challenged. WP:MINREF lists the only four situations in which inline citations are actually required by policy.  As noted above by Blueboar and others, not even something that needs an inline citation necessarily needs to have that citation repeated every single time the fact is mentioned.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Or it the editor thinks that it it's likely to be challenged, or that it would be reasonable to challenge it; it'd not be OK to assign a work to a given genre idiosyncratically, hoping that it won't be challenged. Also, whether or not information is in an infobox or in the main article has no bearing on anything. here's an example of a fully ref'd infobox, and I'd like to see more of this. Herostratus (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Garnik Asatrian not a reliable source for issues with Kurds
This is a very Important issue

It is about Dr. Garnik Asatrian which is used in the English Wikipedia as a source in Kurdish matters. Garnik Asatrsian is already disqualified as a Source in the German Wikipedia because he has obvious anti Kurdish agendas and he and his Institute give false and unconfirmed claims as facts.

I searched some days now for sources to demonstrate my claims.

1. Most of his controversial claims are in fact anti Kurdish and refer to Kurdish minorities.

2. The Yazidi for example. He creates on his own within his institute, a new ethnic identity for them. He claims that they are non Kurds while they speak Kurdish and the large majority considers themselves as such according to the representatives of the Yazidis

Here are two interviews. One with Garnik Astarian claiming a non Kurdish identity for them. And the other with the Yezidi and Kurdish representative which confirms that the Yezidis consider themselves as Kurds.

Here are two interviews which show us the anti kurdish and unprofessional behave of Garnik Asatrian.

http://groong.usc.edu/orig/ok-19980630.html

I will cite one of his whole unproven and made up claims. However you should read the interviews if you have some time because they are important to see his behave.

"Although they speak Kurdish - Kurmanji - they do not consider themselves as Kurds, so this is the problem."

Now an Interview with the Yezidi/Kurdish representatives Hasan Tamoyan/Knyaz Hassanov http://www.groong.com/orig/ok-20061011.html

"OK:	What is your opinion on the fact that some Yezidis consider themselves [ethnic] Kurds while others do not?

KH:	The overwhelming majority consider themselves [ethnic] Kurds. This issue is one of concern to us, but it is not so worrying as the number of Yezidis who don't consider themselves Kurds is quite small. All over the world the Yezidis consider themselves as Kurds, so if 1-2,000 Yezidis [in Armenia] do not consider themselves as such it's not significant enough of an issue. It's also their human right."

How can a Doctor give such statements like "Most Yezidis feel not Kurdish" as if it is a fact while at the same time the representatives of Yezidis/Kurds agree that the majority of Yezidi do feel Kurdish and speak Kurdish.

Here is another interview with Dr. Karlene Chachani who is President of the Department of the Kurdish Writers of the Writers' Union of Armenia, and Chief Editor of "Friendship" - an Armenian-Kurdish political Journal.

http://www.oneworld.am/journalism/yezidi/chachani.html

In his interview he explains very well the Issue. And he also notes that Garnik Asatrian has joined the Dashnakutuune (Dashnak) Party.

For more informations about the Dashnak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Revolutionary_Federation

"The ARF advocates socialism and is a member of the Socialist International.[1] It possesses the largest number of members from the political parties present in the Armenian diaspora, having established affiliates in more than 200 countries.[2] Compared to other Armenian parties which tend to primarily focus on educational or humanitarian projects, the Dashnaktsutiun is the most politically oriented of the organizations and traditionally has been one of the staunchest supporters of Armenian nationalism.[2]"

How can a man who belongs to a Nationalist Party be used as reference in other Issues belonging to geopolitical neighbors?

3. On This Example we see the behave of Garnik Asatrian when he calls a Professor of the Harvard University a stupid man.

"for example, Mehrdad Izady in "Kurdish Life" has accused some Armenian nationalist newspapers of printing racist articles regarding the Kurds and the Yezidi-Kurdish identity.

Garnik Asatrian: Mehrdad Izady is a stupid man, a very stupid man. He is a Professor at the University of Harvard, and I wonder why Harvard has Professors such as he. For example, he could not even be a mere teacher here in Armenia, even teaching children. It's amazing, it's amazing, it's very amazing."

Is this how someone with the Doctor title should behave? How can Doctor G. Asatrian be taken as a reliable source, while he calls Professor of the Harvard University Mehrdad Izady a stupid man, just because Izady supposes a Armenian Nationalism behind this Yezidi/Kurdish division. In which Izady didn´t called any names but seems to have been right with his suppose. Like we can see on the Dashnak Party and G. Astarian relation.

4. The same Armenian institute which belongs to G. Asatrian made some books in Kurdish and called it "Ezdiki" while this name is not in use by any Yazidi family and most of those families refused to use this books.

" OK:	From speaking to some visiting academics researching Yezidis in Armenia as well as hearing reports from some [Yezidi] villages, it would appear that some [Yezidi] schools are refusing to accept textbooks supplied the Armenian Government written in `Ezdiki.' Have you also heard about this?

KH:	Not some, but many. Out of 12 [Yezidi] villages in Aragatsotn, only 1 has accepted these textbooks. The rest are not using them and nor do they accept them."

Garnik Asatrian however claims in one of his other biased works. That the Yezidis call their language Ezdiki

on page Eleven.

http://www.hra.am/file/minorities_en.pdf

5. I have read some of his other (obviously biased) books and they are full of wrong and unsupported claims.

Just like this. Page 5.

http://www.archive.org/stream/ProlegomenaToTheStudyOfTheKurds/Asatrian_kurds#page/n3/mode/2up

He claims that Assyrians, Armenians are traditionally considered Kurds (This is wrong there is no single Historian or scholar which could confirm this claim. The Kurds did never claim Armenians or Assyrians for Kurds.

However at the same time he calls the Laks as a other ethnic group. Another false and unproven claim of him. The Laks are known as accepted by all Ethnologues and recent linguistic researches as Kurds and speaking one of the languages belonging to Kurds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_(Iran)

There are many other examples which show that Garnik Asatrian has a obvious nationalistic and anti Kurdish Agenda. The use of Garnik Asatrians works as source is already disqualified in the German Wikipedia and I ask to do this on the English Wikipedia too.

He is used as a source in diverse Articles about the Zaza and their language to make the historic connection of them to the Kurdish identity smaller.

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

Wikisupporting (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to reopen "Icon of Evil" case
Having noticed some dubious information in the Wiki article Mein Kampf in the Arabic language (see Talk: Mein Kampf in the Arabic language for details), I looked into the source of this dubious information ie "Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam". I am now of the opinion that this book dose not belong in a list of reliable sources which should be used to build an encyclopaedia. Whilst a few critics seem to have liked the book (eg "'the authors tell this story soberly and well"), non seem prepared to praise it for it's accuracy or scholarship. In fact most are damning about it's lack of balance, and factual unreliability. Here are a few examples:


 * Simon Maxwell Apter:- "cursory and apparently hastily written" …"bereft of any nuance or counterargument" …"To claim that Icon of Evil paints a black-and-white view of history does the book too much justice; it's an entirely black - or entirely white - story told here."
 * Tom Segev:- "of little scholarly value" …"[T]he book is worth noticing, as it belongs to a genre of popular Arab-bashing that is often believed to be 'good for Israel.' It is not…."
 * Benny Morris:- a "bad book":…"they decidedly over-reach, and, given the poverty of their scholarship, they often fail to persuade, leaving the reader with the bad taste of propaganda." …The book "abounds with errors of fact"
 * John R. Bradley;- "undermined still more by truly shoddy scholarship."… "most useful as an example of how history is distorted by those who use it only to promote a crude ideological agenda."

The previous discussion on this book did not appear to reach any satisfactory resolution re. the books reliability as a source. However, dubious information, sourced from this book, is still being inserted in the encyclopaedia, which suggest to me that this needs to be re-examined and a resolution reached. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  11:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It all depends on how it is used. This book sounds like it would be better to use as a source for opinion rather than statements of fact. Just a brief look at Mein Kampf in the Arabic language, it seems like WP:REDFLAG would apply to most usages in that article, and the book is under enough doubt that it's not appropriate to use for REDFLAG statements. Siawase (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Siawase. Yes I think your judgment is spot on here. Hopefully some admins, and other involved parties, will concur and we shall have firmer guidelines re. this particular book. Thanks Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly uninvolved here, but wow, if Morris is saying it's propaganda, we really do have a problem on our hands. (Too bad this report wasn't a few weeks ago, before the AfD for the article.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was discussed some years back over at the Mohammad Amin al-Husseini article, in the archives somewhere. It gets a huge number of elementary facts wrong by using dated, and often tendentiously slanted sources, and in the discussion, if I remember, Morris and Segev's views were noted as fairly indicative of what's wrong with it as a source. Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not read this book, but have been involved in a discussion of one reference to it. That reference - a claim that the Palestine National Authority had published an Arabic version of Mein Kampf in 2001, which became a bestseller in the Palestinian territories - is so out of touch with the reality of Palestinian governance and life as to raise a question about the authors' motivations. If the rest of the book is like this reference, it should certainly not be considered a reliable source. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a case of a source that is both unreliable on the bare facts and uses copious purple prose. So, it's hardly reliable for anything but its own article, and perhaps those of its authors. Sources can use a hyperbolic tone, but one may be able to easily extract incontrovertible fact from them--see discussion on The Register below. That doesn't seem to be the case with this book though, based on the discussion above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead link and minor left-wing publications used in BLP
Gilad Atzmon problems once again. A couple editors insist on keeping the following dubious material (some of which was deleted years back as NOT WP:RS). There are a number of WP:RS sources that make similar accusations already in a more encyclopedic fashion, so it's not like these are desperately needed.
 * 1) Oliver Kamm’s blog opinion piece "An antisemite's progress" has been used in the past, but the link is now broken and there is no new link on the web. And all it says anyway is In his blog for The Times, Oliver Kamm charges Atzmon with antisemitism for his article "Truth, History and Integrity",[63] - and then adds a cherry picked quote from Atzmon’s article.
 * 2) A couple editors insist the following left wing/Trotskyist/Communist advocacy publication sources are WP:RS for accusing Atzmon of being an antisemite in the sentence: Others who have accused Atzmon of antisemitism include the founders of the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign,[65] and Trotskyist and Communist periodicals such as the British Weekly Worker[66] and Workers Liberty,[67] and the American Socialist Worker.[68]
 * Opinion piece "Reply to Gilad Atzmon’s ‘What is to be Done?’" in What Next? journal, co-written by an intermittent editor of the Atzmon article, as he has admitted in the past.
 * Opinion piece or editorial "'Anti-Zionist' holocaust denier" in British Weekly Worker
 * Opinion piece "Why have the SWP invited an anti-semite?", evidently from a reader with no editorial oversight exercised in Workers Liberty.
 * Letter to editor with short editorial introduction "No place for Atzmon at SW.org" in American Socialist Worker.

Hopefully we can ignore the inevitable soapbox and breast beating on this issue and have a rational discussion of proper sourcing. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple clarifications might help here.
 * Note that Oliver Kamm's link isn't dead but behind the Times paywall. Could someone with access to the Times verify that Kamm does indeed condemn the essay he is said to condemn? If so, that's WP:RS.
 * The citations Carolmooredc is calling "dubious" are WP:RS under WP:SPS; in each case an organization is named as having criticized Atzmon's antisemitism, and then a link to that criticism is provided. Under WP:SPS this is WP:RS, although those who don't get WP:SPS often don't see that. And sometimes editors try to blur the distinction between WP:RS and WP:SPS as a way to remove information they disagree with.
 * An example might help. Suppose John Smith writes in an online journal, "I think the sun is blue with green dots." That could not be used as RS for changing the "Sun" article to say "the sun in blue with green dots." But under WP:SPS it is perfectly fine as an RS for the statement, "John Smith claims the sun is blue with green dots." That is, the statement is given with attribution, which is the key distinction between WP:RS and WP:SPS.
 * In the cases mentioned here, the sources are being used with that "John Smith says" kind of attribution. And this rule does not mysteriously change if the source being cited is on the far left, nor does it hinge on their opinion of Gilad Atzmon. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A news search does not turn up the article, and the search usually includes paid articles if they exist. How do you know it's behind a paywall?
 * So you are labeling these "Self-published sources"? RS says: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We would not put a self-published source into an article about the Sun because the opinion would lack weight. TFD (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (insert) If there were only one guy saying it, on his own, sure. But there are plenty of people who call Atzmon an antisemite, and they're on the left as well as the right, and they're anti-Zionists as well as Zionists, to the point where the weight demands its inclusion, not its exclusion. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, just because an article is behind a paywall does not mean it is not a reliable source; it is no worse than a non-digitized book. -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Avi, I agree.
 * Carolmooredc, it's really very simple, once you're looking at the right policy paragraph. See RS. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," followed by a list of criteria But the citations you give in your paragraph 2 are not material about Atzmon but about these various organizations' opinion of Atzmon. That is exactly the distinction I was mentioning earlier: you can't use, say, the Weekly Worker article to say "Atzmon is a Holocaust denier," but you can use it to say, "The Weekly Worker says Atzmon is a Holocaust denier." The subject of the latter is not Atzmon but the Weekly Worker. And the same for the other sources you cite in that article. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To reply to Carolmooredc's question, "How do you know it's behind a paywall?" try the following search on The Times' website: [search for kamm, atzmon]. One of the four result presently pulled up by that search is "An Antisemite's Progress", the article you are trying to eliminate from the Atzmon entry. Click on the title for that article and you'll be brought to the paywall enforcement page. Hence, the article exists behind the paywall. Also, that link was part of the Atzmon article for quite a while without anyone claiming the article had been in anyway misrepresented. As such I don't see a significant way to claim that the source is somehow unverified. Goodwinsands (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not quite accurate either, because you're are not supposed to cite sources lacking notabiliy and/or reputability in partcular in connection with WP:BLP. In other words changing to "The Weekly Worker says Atzmon is a Holocaust denier." does yield you correct information, but you still have to justify why that information is relevant to the article and doesn't violate WP:BLP. Also you need to show that "The Weekly Worker" is notable & reputable. If you can't do all that, then there is no reason to include that information into the article (correct or not).--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * the paywall thing is a non-issue, WP:PAYWALL covers that.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, the paywall issue is settled. Obviously the other aspects of the quote would have to be contested at BLP if it was worth doing so, probably as complain about a larger pattern of biased editing. On the four questionable sources, User:Kmhkmh is the only editor to comment who has not previously edited the article. Other non-involved editors care to comment? Especially on the specious argument this is only a self-published "organizations' opinion of Atzmon." Obviously, if these four sources can be used, half the sources of similar genre that like Atzmon also could be used -- if someone went against clear policy they can NOT be used. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Principally yes since a somehwat even handed, balanced approach is desirable. Though balnanced is not to be understood as an equal amount of "pro" and "con", but it is to be understood as all sources together reflect the notable opinions/assessmenst about him in a somewhat representatve manner. As far as the article is concerned, I'd suggest to shorten the section somewhat and really stick notable sources, that is major (quality) media (newspapers, magazines, TV) and reputable/distinguished academics. Fringe publications with a circulation of a few thousand and (somewhat arbitrary) bloggers do not provide notable opinions. The particular blogger used (Oliver Kamm) is probably formally ok, since he's a well known journalist writing for a quality newspater (The Times). However looking at his WP biography I must say personally I'd rather not use him for anything in WP other than a highly publicized quote maybe (he seems to be a classical opinion journalist, big on opinion but hardly strong on investigative analysis/critical thinking).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what the issue is here. Goodwinsands is muddying the waters with a lot of complete nonsense about WP:RS and WP:SPS. S/he says; "The citations Carolmooredc is calling "dubious" are WP:RS under WP:SPS; in each case an organization is named as having criticized Atzmon's antisemitism, and then a link to that criticism is provided. Under WP:SPS this is WP:RS, although those who don't get WP:SPS often don't see that. And sometimes editors try to blur the distinction between WP:RS and WP:SPS as a way to remove information they disagree with." This is pure gobbledegook. A self-published source does not magically become "reliable" because it is used to express the POV of an organisation. The POV of an organisation may be worth including if it is notable. That's completely unrelated to its reliability. If David Icke says Barack Obama is an extraterrestrial lizard, that is probably notable for the Icke article, but not for the Obama article, since Icke's views of Obama are not significant -and anyway he thinks everyone in positions of power is a lizard. Being reliable for one's own opinions is not the same as SPS becoming RS. That only happens when the writer of the SPS is an established expert as identified through previous RS publications. The real issue is simply notability. Are a few minor Marxist publications notable enough to mention? I'd say only if there is a clear consensus view that this represents the position of these groups and that they have a significant imapact on the reputation of Atzmon. Paul B (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In most articles "clear consensus view that this represents the position of these groups" might be relevant. Here we have editors who all have expressed at various times high negative criticism of Atzmon on the talk page or in edit summaries. At least one has written against and/or been involved in organized protest campaign(s) against him. I would not be surprised if others whose location apparently is England have been too. A review of a couple of the editors' contributions shows that almost a majority of their edits are on Atzmon; sometimes edits on other topics came only after it was noted they were defacto WP:Single purpose accounts. Most of these editors generally support deleting neutral and positive info and adding negative info to the article. It is in that context that I object to the refs being used. If it is so widely claimed that he is an antisemite, there should be plenty of mainstream sources saying so and they all seem to be in the article now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if mainstream sources say so, then who cares whether the British Weekly Worker does too, since it probably has as many readers as yesterday's issue of the News of the World? It seems as though you are complaining about NPOV. Are there publications or POVs that are being excluded? Paul B (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was bringing up POV in relation to comment about establishing a consensus on sources. Perhaps I should have just said that consensus doesn't trump WP:V policy on self-published sources :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the fallacy of Goodwinsand's argument for keeping these has been countered. Any other thoughts from non-involved editors before I delete it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Melrose Press?
Google finds some 50 Wikipedia articles sourced to books published by Melrose Press, better known as the parent company of the vanity scammers at the International Biographical Centre. Can these books be considered to be valid reliable sources? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some examples of the articles that utilize such books in order to highlight those sources? Divide et Impera (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are literally the first five hits from the Google search
 * Christopher Yavelow (a music composer). Birthdate and birthplace sourced to International Who's who in Music and Musicians' Directory, Melrose Press Ltd, 1984.
 * Massage for Relaxation (an instructional video). Three of the footnotes (including the names of the video's producers) are to Men of achievement and The world who's who of women, both by Melrose Press.
 * Gustav Davidson (a poet). Only two third-party sources are listed; one of the two (but not used to footnote any specific claim) is The International Who's Who in Poetry 1970–1971, Melrose Press, 1970.
 * Drummer of Cortachy (a supposed spirit that haunts a place in Scotland). Several claims are cited to Music, witchcraft and the paranormal, Melrose Press, 2005.
 * Elizabethan Serenade (a musical composition). The original performance of the piece is cited to Mantovani: a lifetime in music, Melrose Press, 2005.
 * I also found this blog post which suggests that Melrose may work on the vanity press model (that is, authors pay or share in the costs of publishing rather than being paid by the publisher for their authorship). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Reading the report issued on WA's government website and also the blog that you provided, as well as the article on the International Biographical Centre, I tend to think that the sources published by Melrose Press may not be reliable, and they are not independent either. It seems like it's well proven that one has to pay in order to be on that world's who's who book. There is a conflict of interest there, and hence, reliability and independence of the source will be consequently missing. The removal of these sources would certainly clean many articles from bogey sources; in addition such action will contribute in redefining certain articles' notability.Divide et Impera (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was my feeling too, but I wanted a second a second opinion before I went on a rampage of source removal. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * These books should only be used where a personal blog would be used. I think the reliability is exactly equivalent. – Quadell (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Inked magazine
Would this interview in Inked magazine be a reliable source for the claim that Evan Seinfeld is Jewish? He's interviewed there, the interviewer describes him as Jewish, and Seinfeld doesn't deny it. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would work for a statement about his ethnicity, but not his religion. I'm not entirely sure about the magazine, but they appear to have some kind of editorial oversight, and the blurb at the beginning is pretty straight forward on his ethnic background. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that works as a source. We have an interviewer assuming it in a question, but no confirmation from the subject. I don't think the "he didn't deny it" standard will work in BLPs. – Quadell (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

UKchartsplus
Hi all. There is a problem with a web source that I have noticed on quite a few music-related articles. The source is www.UKchartsplus.co.uk which is often used as a source for UK singles and album charts details. However, despite the fact they have plastered the logo for the Official Charts Company (OCC) on their website, UKchartsplus are not an official organisation. By their own admission, they are just a group of four music fans (they call themselves "chart watchers") who do the website in their spare time as a hobby (as confirmed here). The OCC are part of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) (as confirmed here) who are the UK's official music industry authority, but UKchartsplus are not affiliated with either the OCC or the BPI. The problem lies in the fact that some of the data on the UKchartsplus website (particularly year-end charts about sales of albums and singles for each year) are often quite different to the official year-end sales charts published by the BPI. Since the OCC/BPI are the only official body that can provide sales data information, should UKchartsplus be deemed as an unreliable website and therefore not appropriate to use as a source? 88.104.30.153 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This sounds similar to user-submitted content at IMDB (not a reliable source). – Quadell (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This website would fail WP:RS in a second. As stated, it's not related to the BPI or the OCC and cannot be trusted to provide reliable, impartial information. I'm actually wondering if the OCC know they are using their logos for personal profit. Perhaps somebody should tip them off. GoldCoaster (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it fair to rebroadcast a libelous allegation - with a disclaimer?
This is the subject of a fierce debate on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) in reference to the Russian oligarch in exile in UK, who had won three consecutive libel suits over allegations of various misdeeds. The disputed article repeats these allegations in minute detail, with a disclaimer that they have been actually rejected and/or retracted. Technically, everything is properly sourced, but is it fair? And is it legally sound from the standpoint of filtering potentially libelous off these pages?--Kolokol1 (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On a quick glance, this appears to be more a BLP issue than an RS issue; I see that you've already raised this issue at WP:BLP/N, and I'd look for an answer there. I'm certainly no BLP expert, but this appears generally OK to me. We are not saying, for example, that Berezovsky had his rivals murdered; we are stating (factually, backed up by sourcing) that Forbes made this statement. We follow that with a description of his suit for libel and the court decision, again, backed up by sourcing (Washington Post). The only question I have, and again, this is not an RS issue but a BLP one, is whether the article gives undue weight to the various accusations by going into too much detail. cmadler (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting contentious allegations with a simple statement that they were unfounded is quite against the premise of WP:BLP and yet found all too often.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not an RS issue. TFD (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That Anime Show
At Joel McDonald I added links to That Anime Show, which is done by J. Michael Tatum.
 * That Anime Show EP 2, “Joel McDonald”
 * That Anime Show EP 19, “The Return of Joel McDonald”

Is that website a reliable source?  D r e a m Focus  18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that the description given of J. Michael Tatum is indistinguishable from that of Joel McDonald (both "American voice actor, ADR director, and script writer who works for anime series at FUNimation Entertainment") -- I certainly don't see how they can be considered to be independent. Nor, given that it's explicitly a "podcast" would it appear to be a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Given that it is a podcast which does not have an article itself, by someone who does not have a well sourced article themselves to establish their notability (not that the podcast would inherit the notability in any case), it does not appear to be a reliable source.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not having a Wikipedian article does not mean the person is automatically unreliable. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Blog used as source in O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Cmadler has added information to the cast section of the O Brother, Where Art Thou? article, claiming that the character Governor "Pappy" O'Daniel is probably based on former Texas governor W. Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel. I removed it once as unreferenced, and he has restored it with the following source:


 * Sorin, Hillary (2010-08-04), "Today in Texas History: Gov. Pappy O’Daniel resigns", The Houston Chronicle, http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2010/08/today-in-texas-history-gov-pappy-odaniel-resigns/, retrieved 2011-08-02,

The relevant quote in this blog entry is as follows: "Many cultural and political historians think the character Gov. Menelaus “Pappy” O’Daniel of Mississippi is based on the notorious Texas politician, Wilbert Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel." But, she does not cite any of these "many cultural and political historians." Given the vagueness of this statement, the lack of verification, and the fact that this is a blog, I want to know if this can be accepted as a reliable source for the purposes of this article. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 18:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. If it is true that "many cultural and political historians" think this, it should be easy enough to cite the opinion directly to one or more works of these "many cultural and political historians." Yworo (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just remove it then. I figured that stating that a character named "Pappy" O'Daniel, who is a southern governor in the late-1930s and owns a flour company, might be based on a historical figure named "Pappy" O'Daniel, who was a southern governor in the late-1930s and owned a flour company -- particularly when there is also a clear physical resemblance -- was so obvious it didn't need citing. When RepublicanJacobite removed it for lack of a citation, I gave what appeared to be the best (from the Houston Chronicle, one of the largest newspapers in the USA) citation I could quickly find. I don't care enough about this to dig through scholarly works looking for it, particularly when other parts of this article are cited to fan sites or even uncited. cmadler (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that falls under WP:NEWSBLOG and is a completely acceptable source - indeed, as Cmadler points out, a better source than we often get in film and TV articles. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roscelese that this source is ok and should not be removed, per WP:NEWSBLOG, but I just added a second scholarly source. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, David. It's always great to see a dispute about an "okay" source being resolved by someone boldly providing a really good source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Second Line of Defense
My policy WRT the sldinfo.com site has been to accept anything that is quoted from a known person (until that person objects) and reject anything based on unknown sources like say:

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21086 Former Senior USAF Officer: When I was with the F-22 program ...

Right? Hcobb (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This site is very confusing at first glance. I can't tell who's behind it, who writes it, or what sort of editorial scrutiny the material receives. And the source you point to is an interview with an anonymous source and conducted by an unnamed author. Plus, I don't understand the Media Kits label at the top. Would be great if you could explain a bit more what this site is. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The media kits are information for potential advertisers. Barnabypage (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This BNET piece
I assume that BNET is considered reliable, since it's notable enough to have its own article, and is owned by CBS Interactive, but in reading Interactive this page, which the writers/editors of the Alexandra Govere article cited in that article, much of it, including explanations of the things that would make her notable, is written by Govere herself in the first person. This doesn't disqualify it as user-generated, does it? Is this page okay to use to cite for this material in Govere's article? Up until now, all of the material in her article was either unsourced, or supported by sources that were self-published, user-generated, or which failed verification, with the exception of one passage sourced to an Elle Girl article. But now in looking at this BNET article, I wondering if this is a valid second one, and if it confers notability on her. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The principle is that material which is not subjected to any fact-checking at all is not a "reliable source." No matter who owns it. The reason is that, sans any fact-checking, a person can make rather broad claims about their own notability.  This does not mean they are lying, only that, without such oversight, we do not know if they might lie about their notability.  Now if your experience in reading resumés is that they are 100% accurate, I have some land west of Miami to sell you. Collect (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliability as a source, and notability of an organisation or publication, are not the same thing. We also have articles on Youtube and Myspace, on hoax organisations, on people who are primarily known for deceit or fantasy, and so on...
 * We can cite things that people say about themselves even if it's in a venue that's not otherwise particularly reliable, but we have to be careful. bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears to be an opinion piece and therefore not reliable for the facts expressed, only as a source for the writer's opinion. TFD (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the writer of the article appears to be reporting who the two people that McDonald's Corporation and Walt Disney Company chose to be Millennium Dreamers Ambassadors, which would appear to be factual. The material that then follows is written by the two youngsters. Does the former go to notability? Is it not presumed that the latter is reliable enough to be added to the article because it appears in a reliable source? Nightscream (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The BNET article is autobiographical, but published by a reliable source. We've got lots of biographical articles based partly on autobiographies. For example, Evelyn Waugh, Ernest Shackleton, and other Featured Articles. WP:ABOUTSELF isn't about sources written by the subject, just published by the subject. Unless she turns out to be a highly influential member of the BNET staff, or she claims highly unreasonable things there, it will do. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Digital Blasphemy‎
I'm not sure if this is a WP:RS issue or a WP:NPOV one, but is it acceptable practice to cite an article almost exclusively to the topic's website? This would appear to be a violation of WP:PSTS and/or WP:ABOUTSELF to me, but I have an editor on this article claiming that "primary sources [no matter how pervasive] are fine for the article's content if the information is not in doubt" and that "you only need third party reliable sources to prove its notability" on an AfD -- inclusion of them in the article itself isn't necessary. This strikes me as WP:WIKILAWYERING that subverts the whole reason for having a requirement for third party sources. Opinions? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That isn't a neutral call for someone to come over and comment. And this is not the page for this. This is where you ask if something is a reliable source or not. The AFD proved that the topic was notable. If you want to include those sources into the article, go ahead, do it yourself.  D r e a m Focus  16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That user is kinda right. The self published sources are probably reliable in this instance.  And, the fact that there aren't any secondary sources may mean that the subject isn't notable, and should be put up for AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It went to AFD and ended as keep based on sources found covering it.   D r e a m Focus  16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article itself should certainly have sources that are more than primary (indeed, ideally the majority of them should be independent). If you're struggling to find them, just make sure the article is tagged so that other editors will be encouraged to help out.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like Hrafn and Dream Focus have already had a long argument about this on the article's talk page. Hrafn is right:  a well-written article is based primarily on WP:Independent sources.  But over-reliance on the company's own opinion about itself is technically an NPOV issue, not an RS issue.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexa rankings?
A number of articles on WP about web sites have "Alexa rankings" in their infoboxes or bodies - which get updated with "increase" or "decrease" on almost a monthly basis. Two questions - is Alexa really a "reliable source" for ranking web sites? And is an uptick or downtick in a ranking of sufficient value to be noted in any inbox or article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I often see Alexa rankings cited by many reliable sources, which is usually an indicator of a source being considered reliable. The uptick/downtick is probably beyond the scope of this page, but I would say it violates WP:RECENTISM by tracking current trends rather than documenting overall performance within a historical context. Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was pretty sure the "uptick/downtick" stuff would fail . The real problem otherwise is that the "rankings" are not citable in any way - they are constantly motile, and they are based on a non-random sample of Internet users. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely think the uptick or downtick indicator should be removed, Wikipedia is not a ticker tape. They can always follow the link to the Alexa site for at this moment stuff like that. I think the updating is too frequent but haven't strong feelings about that. Otherwise I am fairly happy with them being present. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Alexa is the only company that gives this info for free. The other web trends firms require payment for their reports. So, I don't see a good substitute for the majority of Wikipedia articles on web sites, unless someone here feels very generous... FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sugar" websites, e.g. Buzzsugar.com, Popsugar.com
I have been seeing a number of people using the "Sugar" websites, such as Buzzsugar.com and/or Popsugar.com, as sources in articles. They are published by Sugar Inc.. I was wondering what the opinion is of these websites. (I wasn't able to find anything about them in the archives.) The Popsugar homepage uses the word "gossip" several times, which sends up a red flag for me. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And even if a site gives reliable news what are the guidelines about xyz and the bikini beauty on the beach in Brazil or whereever? Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you give some examples of how these sites are used? Without looking too deeply into these ones, from what I have seen of similar gossip sites, what little information they have of value to an encyclopedia is almost always culled from other, more reliable, sources. So the preferrable sourcing practice would be to replace sites like these with the originating source. Siawase (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Mona Lisa
The editor has been insistent upon inserting a reference into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa for some months now despite being informed by multiple editors that the theory expressed (apparently originally by  is original research. I would appreciate some evaluation regarding the reliability of the reference in question.


 * The reference being inserted is this page. There is no indication of whether this statement has been peer-reviewed, published elsewhere, or otherwise given credence.
 * It has been inserted multiple times into the articles Mona Lisa, Lisa del Giocondo and Speculation about Mona Lisa.
 * The origin of the theory that the Mona Lisa is Da Vinci's mother appears to have been inserted first by User:Relpmek here; User:Relpmek self-identifies as Roni Kempler.
 * A look through the contributions of both editors will give a good indication of their efforts to have this theory included. Talk page discussion has generally been less than constructive.

Opinions would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The page of Roni Kempler that user:Simple Blue has entered in several pages is, of course, of no reliability whatsoever. Ron Kempler (be it or not user:Relpmek) is not a reliable source. Neither is a reliable source Serge Bramly, who is a fictional writer, not a historian, and in particular, not an art historian.Divide et Impera (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. Not reliable. A personal website like this wouldn't be acceptable even if there weren't a vast corpus on the Mona Lisa. Has someone filed a SPI, by the way? Relpmek isn't editing anymore, but Simple Blue, y'know, just happened to start editing right around when Relpmek stopped... Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured I'd do this first, see how it goes. I doubt we'll need an SPI to deal with things. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that the painting at some level represents Leonardo's mother dates back to Freud. It's notable for being one of Siggy's attempts to apply Psychoanalytic theory to Leonardo's work, but even Freud did not claim that the painting literally depicts his mother, rather that unconscious memories of his mother affected the way the image was painted, particularly the famous smile. Of course it is a purely speculative and entirely unfalsifiable argument. There are no images of Leo's mother, or home movies of her smiling, so we can't possibly make any actual comparison. What Freud says is notable, but it has nothing to do with normal art historical methods or standard scholarship on the painting. R Kempler's views are neither notable or reliable. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, ..." (about their thoughts).
 * "Speculation by scholars and hobbyists assigned Lisa's name to at least four different paintings and her identity to at least ten different people". The issue is Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory.
 * The issue is not Kempler. The consistency of a theory is not measured by the person standing behind it but by the ability of that theory to stand on its own merit and provide a plausible explanation and answers. The name of the person proposing the theory should be mentioned simply to provide an address for future questions or debate. (If the theory neither addresses relevant questions nor provides a credible explanation then such theory should be dropped.)
 * This material is not unduly self-serving;
 * It does not involve claims about third parties;
 * It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * The article is not based primarily on such sources. Ago Ves (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Reports by organizations with a POV
There are numerous reports published by various organizations with certain POVs. For example, Wikipedia's articles on renewable energy cites many reports published by various renewable energy trade or industry organizations or otherwise by clearly pro-renewable energy organizations. Such reports seem to fall outside WP:RS. They are not academic reports or newspapers. Neither are they self-published material by a single person which seem to be the case for all examples of self-published material in the policy. Another example would be reports by political parties or by special interest groups. So are they allowed or not? Miradre (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Contrary to popular belief, "self-publishing" is not necessarily the act of a single human. "Self-publishing" means only that the author and the publisher are the same, regardless of whether that means "same human" or "same multinational corporation".  Coca-cola.com is self-published by Coca-cola, Inc., as their lawyers will be happy to tell you if you ever violate their copyright.
 * Our SPS policy is especially appropriate for small groups. You may certainly cite their reports, websites, newsletters, etc., as reliable sources for the group's opinions; really, no other source could be as authoritative.  (An independent source would do a better job of showing that their opinion is WP:DUE, but they are the best source for the claim that they hold a given opinion.)  Factual claims, especially if on a disputed point, should typically be given WP:INTEXT attribution:  "According to the Flat Earth Society, the Earth is shaped like a tortilla.[cite FES newsletter]"  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Register at Santorum (neologism)

 * 1) A link to the source in question.
 * 2) The article in which it is being used.  Santorum (neologism)
 * 3) The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. See
 * 4) Links to relevant talk page discussion. Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism

Some editors claim that The Register is not reliable in quoting Jimmy Wales or Seth Finkelstein (the latter individual however wrote the quote is accurate). FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an area in which I would argue that the Register is a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree; the Register has consistently pushed a ... rather firm editorial position concerning wikipedia. If we were using the Register article for an exact quote of a third party, or some other concrete fact not subject to interpretation, I could live with it; but we shouldn't be relying on qualitative comments made by somebody who starts their rant with "The world's Wikifiddlers are obsessed with santorum..." The Reg likes words like "wikifiddler". bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. I agree with Bobrayner on his line of reasoning, but not his conclusion in this case. Most of the added material is direct quotes from Wales and Finkelstein. The only interpretation by The Register seems to be: "the line between participant and documentarian is inherently blurred". Which is not controversial, I don't think. We should be really careful about material from the Reg, but I think this narrow case is acceptable. – Quadell (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an editorial position at The Register regarding Wikipedia, as opposed to a few of the writers who often cover it tend to be critical of Wikipedia. However, the mere fact of being critical of Wikipedia should not be evidence of not being a reliable source. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a material difference between "the Register having a certain editorial stance regarding wikipedia" and "A couple of the register's handful of writers like to rant about wikipedia from a certain angle" then I acknowledge it, but it probably doesn't affect my earlier point. ;-) I'm not concerned about whether they are broadly "pro" or "anti"; but when the Register gets a bee in its bonnet - given away by their choice of wording and selective reporting - I think we should no longer treat it as a reliable source for qualitative stuff. The same would apply to certain earlier Register articles on climate change, "Stuckism", &c... if this stuff is significant, surely a more credible source covers it? bobrayner (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the argument above is that it effectively ends up defining particular Wikipedia-critical aspects as per se not credible. That is, if The Register covers a part of an overall story that's critical of Wikipedia, and you say other sources must cover that specific Wikipedia part too before it's OK to mention it, it's problematic, as all sources don't covers all aspects of every story. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Observer article about My Little Pony's 4chan presence
Noted in the Friendship is Magic talk page, the Observer article consists of interviews of a few convention-goers who misquote Know Your Meme. The article has seems to have no editorial oversight and contains obvious factual mistakes. It is used to cite the firing of a moderator from 4chan, but there are no reliable sources for this claim, and I feel the article itself is unreliable because of its many mistakes. -IsaacAA (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't question that the article is basing a lot of facts on what the writer likely got directly from fans. It is the fans' estimates in timing and numbers that are certainly off from what I know to be true but can't source directly. But that said, the use of the NP article within the WP article does not cite any of the questionable figures, and instead primarily used to detail the events (not the exact timing) that did take place at 4chan which did correctly get reported by the fans and correlate not only what I know is correct but at least 2 other sources.  --M ASEM  (t) 12:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: Know Your Meme is an unreliable source to start. They may have editors improving the various meme articles, but they're not 100% infallible, and users are still free to add info w/o oversight. So saying that the fans are misquoting KYM may actually be more that both fans and KYM may have different facts in their head about how the numbers work.  More reason not to try to work in the exact numbers but stay with the parts that are consistent. --M ASEM  (t) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason the article is unreliable is because it relies on people apparently quoting KYM. It would be very helpful to have a reliable source about the alleged firing of the moderator by Poole. -IsaacAA (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The source usage in the article as it is right now looks ok to me. Details like exact dates or related firings seems like material that could be skipped anyway. A Wikipedia article should provide a summary overview on a topic. It doesn't need to include every turn of an event, just outline the broad strokes. You could make the sourcing issues clearer to readers by in text attribution, ie that the 4chan events are described by fans from their point of view of how events unfolded. Siawase (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -IsaacAA (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives
There's one of those standard "sources say" reports on various sites that the TV show Desperate Housewives will end after the upcoming season. ABC is supposedly making an announcement Sunday. I would think that this is a matter where encyclopedic values would call for us to wait until the announcement, or at least until someone with actual knowledge says this on the record. This isn't exactly an earthshaking matter that we need to urgently stay on top of in real time, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, who's the source? Are you referring to the Deadline Hollywood source cited at the end of the Lead? I believe Deadline is considered a reliable source. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

James Naismith
Hello. My name is Joel Templeton. I have just received some news on my family tree that James Naismith(he would have been her uncle)was related to my Great grandmother Mrs. Peter Templeton. The Templeton side of my family came from Scotland, then to Canada, then some came to Wisconsin(that's where I'm from). Any information regarding this is helpful and appreciated. Thanks. Joel Templeton


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Joel. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is for examining whether sources that editors ask about here are reliable enough to be used under the WP:IRS policy. It is not a resource for answering miscellaneous questions. Try Reference desk for that. Good luck! :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. supporters
I wonder if we could have opinion on some sources used on this page, where it has been suggested the editing has been too "fanzine like" and has some sources open to question.
 * 1/ Glasgow based Celtic have developed a strong fan base since their foundation in 1888. No source. Is that acceptable?
 * 2/ However, since then Celtic have developed new fan bases in; South Korea, Honduras, Mexico, Kenya and most significantly Japan where an estimated 7 million people support Celtic.[4] This means Celtic have a global fan base of over double the population of Scotland. No source for South Korea or Mexico. Honduras source comes from an agent brokering a deal to take a Honduran player to Celtic. |1.Kenya source comes directly from Celtic FC |2. Japan source comes from a sports marketing company - not sure what there relationship to Celtic is |3
 * 3/ in June 2011, new signing Adam Matthews, who had been linked with Arsenal and Manchester United, described Celtic as being "the second most supported team in the world" The statement that Celtic are the second most supported club in the world comes from a player signing for Celtic. Is that good enough? |4
 * 4/ Celtic have become very popular in Nairobi ... The Celtic jersey is now the most popular in Nairobi, outselling the likes of Man U and Arsenal. The source for this is again the club, i.e. Celtic. Is that acceptable. |2
 * 5/ Noel Gallagher AND Liam Gallagher are listed as Celtic Fans. The brothers are in fact fanatical Man City fans, but a reference says they have a "soft spot" for Celtic. Is that good enough? |6

General comments on this page would also be helpful. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be no question that Celtic have a global fan base. Screw the sources used and delete them for not meeting WP:V. But instead of spending the few minutes to post here go and Google News Archive it to find a better source. And then laugh at Celtic for sucking.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's precisely the kind of unhelpful comment we can do without. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the page maybe could take a leaf out of the Arsenal F.C. supporters page book? I do agree that it is very fanzine-like in favour of Celtic and has no mention of some of their less than savoury actions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mattun--none of the things you listed can count as reliable sources, and all the information relying on it should be removed. Claims such as are made in item 1, unsourced, cannot stand either. Thank you for bringing this to the general public's attention. You'll have noticed, no doubt, that this board receives very little traffic, unfortunately--I wish it were different, but I hope that some more editors will weigh in. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pambazuka News

 * Pambazuka News, published by Fahamu since 2000, is a pan-African electronic weekly newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa providing: contemporary commentary and in-depth analysis on politics and current affairs development, human rights, refugees, gender issues and culture in Africa. It is designed to be a tool for progressive social change.

Can this source be used reliably to establish that a blogger is notable enough to have their views included on Wikipedia? User:Halaqah claims it can. Shii (tock) 08:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This editor, skipping the talk page has a Specific issue with a specific comment from a person more than qualified to make the statement. the section refers to an opinion which years ago we (who edit the article for years and are very familiar with the history or Africa and the opinions and scholars). balanced this section by representing a controversy with the topic. I have seen nothing writing on the Arab slave trade cite that makes it false history, unreliable history, junk, unscholarly, fiction, or unreliable. two source, one of them the no2 website on Arab slave trade (after Wikipedia)Google rank] is not a blog and our personal hatred of different views does not make something trash to be deleted at whim. In this article the quality of other references are far lower yet only this specific comment is targeted by this new editor to a page I have worked on for over 5 years. Pambazuka News is a well respected African based opinion on many matters, as opinions go why are African opinions not coming from BBC and CNN all of a sudden RS issue? RS has become a place to throw out anything from a minority news group.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an international spam factory as far as I can tell. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Span (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it is good enough all across wiki, and as i said there are TWO references. And no it is not a SPam factory, I think beyond personal views you will have to prove that it is. BBC on Fahmu [BBC Fahmu] and here is another reference to them as a credible info source. [Al Jazerra Pambazuka] So how is this a bloggers site? And here is ALL AFRICA All Africa on Fahmu] so please prove it is a bloggers site and unreliable for an opinion made by an author on Fahmu who is a UNESCO winner for work on slavery. Now All Africa who is reliable beyond doubt, saw the article suitable enough in quality to republish it [All Africa republishing article]--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That All Africa link is just a repost of material from Pambazuka News. Shii (tock) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, now why would they do that if it was a BLOG? Does a credible news agency repost blogs? I dont think so. One of the biggest new agency on Africa saw it news worthy, notable in content from a author who seems to know the topic (as i have seen no junk or false history in any of the arab slave trade, to reprint it in their journal which i subscribe to. And republishing is common with news groups who get sources from other credible sources--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes news post used as source in Big Boi article
A Tiny Mix Tapes post (http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/big-boi-names-his-next-solo-album-daddy-fat-sax-honor-great-service-he-received-white-castle) is used as the source for a section of the Big Boi article on Wikipedia, purportedly explaining the title of his upcoming album "Daddy Fat Sax: Soul Funk Crusader." The section in question:

"The album's title originates from when Big Boi and André 3000 would visit a local White Castle in between recording/writing in their earlier years before ATLiens (1996), because of an employee known as Daddy Fat Sacks, for his habit of including multiple extra sliders in every 10-sack that they purchased, as he was a fan of their music.[8] Upon hearing of his death after visiting the same location after completing Sir Lucious Left Foot, Big Boi decided to name his follow-up solo album after Daddy Fat Sacks, but intended to use "Sax" instead of "Sacks" as he is "planning on a doing a bunch of sax samples, tenor, soprano, and probably have at least a couple sax players come into the studio for the next record".[8]"

From the humorous tone of the article ("...Daddy Fat Sacks had passed away in a horrible chicken-ring accident. Distraught, Big Boi bought 50 sliders and returned home, where, after eating 30 burgers in one grief-fueled sitting..."), lack of any sources elsewhere online to corroborate this information, and TMT's established penchant for inserting bizarre, humorous anecdotes into their news stories (further reading: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/david-bowie-says-buy-station-station-again-and-ill-bring-back-tin-machine, http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/doom-heads-europe-little-tapas-brings-ghostface-london-get-fishscale-and-chips), I think it is safe to infer that this is not a reliable source.


 * Tiny Mix Tapes is a notable music webzine. It's been accepted by Metacritic as a review source, and I can cite one example in which it's been accepted in a discussion regarding its reliability (WP:Peer review/May 2008#Ghosts I-IV) As that discussion pointed out, 3rd party sources have referenced Tiny Mix Tapes as a source of information . Also, the article in question is from their interview with Big Boi, and since other sources have mentioned the White Castle bit, what other doubt could there be about this article? Dan56 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Full stripping of unsourced articles
Hi, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it usually works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled and we commit to improve the content over time. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of local myth, for example, have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have all their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the content otherwise looks reasonable then I think such stripping on a large scale would be disruptive. However, there is a lot of unsourced cruft and speculation out there, especially in less-visited articles; if the text already suffers from other flaws (ie. It doesn't look plausible or neutral) then I won't be shedding any tears. Is this activity confined to a particular subject area?
 * Sadly, we're not going to build a better encyclopædia by leaving flawed articles with long-term tags. It would be nice if those favouring deletion could put more effort into finding sources first, but removing unsourced content will often be better than the status quo. If any other person really mourns the lost text they always have the option of going back and find a source for it. I realise some may not like making that effort, but building a high-quality encyclopædia inevitably takes more work than just building a big pile of text. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that stripping entire articles is a bit drastic, although you're right--a strict interpretation of the policy is removing all unsourced content, even if all the content is deleted. I've found that articles that are poorly sourced need improvement in all areas, so the solution is for editors to dedicate themselves to these articles.  I've also found that those of us who are committed to doing that are few and far between on this project.  The temporary solution is tags, which should alert the reader that the article they're about to read is crap.  My advice is be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and work on these articles to bring them to a higher quality. Christine (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We occasionally have to strip libelous content very quickly, especially when there's a complaint, and it's good to have a policy that allows for that in these situations. But it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing. – Quadell (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all helpful, thank you. Quadell, or anyone else, do you have a policy page link that suggests something along the lines of "it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing"? The articles I'm thinking of are around myth/folklore, no BLP or liable involved, in an local area I know absolutely diddly squat about. I'm not sure when uber-zeal becomes 'disruptive editing'. Cheers Span (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would challenge any assumption that simply putting up a label saying "this content is flawed" - without actually fixing the content - is inevitably better than removing the flaw. Tagging has its place, but it's not a substitute for solving the problem; removing unsourced content is a solution. (Adding a source would be a better solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What's missing is the time dimension. The addition of tags establishes a start-date for a good-faith cleanup. Straight-away slash and burn doesn't do that. Of course, it is still better than having to use AfD: there's a preserved history. Is there an easy way to bot-notify all prior contributors to an article that it's been put on notice? LeadSongDog come howl!  13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My personal rule of thumb for articles I'm involved with editing is that if someone adds uncited material and I can't supply a citation for it myself, I give it six months tagged as needing a citation before I remove it. (Assuming, of course, that there's no BLP or other issue that requires immediate removal.) That's long enough to give other users plenty of time to fix it if they can, but short enough that it doesn't turn into indefinite retention. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So it seems from the above there would be support for an editor whose main role was working through non-BLP articles, stripping out all long standing unsourced text (say extant 6 months+), reducing the content to basic lead information. Is that so? Span (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say "no" on two counts. First is the removal of "all unsourced text". This suggests that all text must be sourced, which is not the case. Second, this suggests that the editor would be removing content without even a cursory search for sources, and while such removal is acceptable (I'm not opposed to it), it's not preferred (I don't support it). cmadler (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the content has been tagged for 6 months and nobody else has found a source, then taking it at face value I could hardly object. However, I would be concerned about pointiness, and if the deletion is selective in any way - maybe it only covers certain types of content or certain articles - I would be concerned about a hidden agenda (or, at least, an agenda which hasn't been mentioned in this thread).
 * I would prefer that sources were added, or if an agreeable source can't be found then I would prefer that the text be changed to fit what sources do say - however this can be quite slow work. Those who care about WP:V cannot work as quickly as those who just want to put lots of text into blank spaces. bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Depending on the article, it's very possible that no one is actually working on it. I've got articles in my watchlist that have had  templates for years.  But no one is actively working on these articles.  The fact is that we simply don't have enough editors to try to fix everything.  Fortunately, we don't don't have a deadline.


 * A common practice is to 'draw a line' in the sand as far as new content goes. So if someone adds something new to the article without a source, I'll usually try to find a source and add it myself.  If I can't find one, I'll add a  tag to it.  If, after a few months or year or whatever, no one has added a source, I'll remove the statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles". No, this is incorrect. WP:V only requires that material be capable of being sourced, not that it be sourced. IOW, verifiable is not the same thing as being verified. For example, if I were to write that '"Germany is a nation in Europe", the only requirement is that a source exist somewhere in the world that supports this material. I don't need to necessarily need to cite it because it extremely unlikely to be challenged. If someone is blanking material simply for not being cited, I would explain to them the difference being verifable and verified. Ask them which material in particular they think is actually wrong and why. If they can't actually indentify which material is wrong and why, it sounds like the editor is being WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE. If they cannot be reasoned with, I would report them to WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V requires that ""all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". If the content had previously been tagged by somebody else, I think that's a pretty clear challenge. Hypothetically, if anybody were deleting really obvious stuff like "Germany is a country in Europe" or "The sky is blue", that would be disruptive, but it's unlikely that the deletion is of such extremely obvious content. Hard to say without more case detail - who is deleting what?
 * Requiring a would-be deleter to demonstrate that content seems wrong is, I think, putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. We can't build a high-quality encyclopædia by giving a free pass to any content which passes a "meh, it looks plausible" test. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Lots of articles have or  templates.  That doesn't mean that anything specifically is wrong.  If there's a particular issue with material, then the  can be used.  If someone is deleting out unsourced but valid material soley for the lack of sources, they they either don't understand our policy on verifiability and/or are being disruptive.  As for burden of proof, see WP:PRESERVE.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We still seem to be arguing about subtly different things (for instance, I had in mind things like cn tags rather than a whole-article tag). I would like to emphasise, again, that it's difficult to have a detailed discussion without knowing the details of the case.
 * As an aside, WP:V contains neither the words "capable" nor "verifiable". If we're going to haggle over policy detail, I think it's best to stick to wording that's actually in the policy. For instance, "that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". That's good, clear wording and I cannot fathom how somebody might conclude that it's "incorrect'" to remove unsourced content. bobrayner (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A few points:
 * I was responding to the original question which was about "Full stripping of unsourced articles".
 * Sorry, I guess I should have used the term "verifiability" rather than "verifiable". Either way, my point's the same.
 * You need to read the entire policy as a whole. I see this a lot, editors inadvertently focusing on a couple of select phrases while missing the big picture.  To put a fine point on it: Only material that has been challenged (or is likely to be challenged) actually require cites.  If you find material that is both unsourced and you honestly believe is wrong, that's one thing.  But challenging material simply for the sake of challenging is WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE and that's what the OP seems to be about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob, you're right that verifiable doesn't appear in the policy. The reason for this is that the word was changed to attributable as part of a (failed) attempt to merge WP:V and NOR into a single policy called WP:Attribution.
 * But Quest is 100% right: the policy requires that it be possible to supply a citation.  That is the plain meaning of the -able suffix, and it is the meaning that the community uses.  The policy does not require that anyone have already typed up the name of the source into the article.  And the only community-approved solution to the presence of verifiable encyclopedic material that is one of the four types that must have an inline citation is to boldly add the citations yourself, not to delete it on the grounds that the other editor didn't get it perfect on the first try.  (Non-encyclopedic material, such as errors and trivia, should be cleaned up in compliance with the last half of PRESERVE, which is titled "Problems that may justify removal".)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no cut and dried solution to dealing with an article that is virtually unsourced. One thing I advise is checking for copyvio - quite a few of these are just lifted from elsewhere. Checking isn't necessarily easy so you have to be careful you aren't looking at a copy of the article. If there's no obvious copyvio problem, then a general template may be the first step. If you are at all familiar with the material you may find some unsourceable stuff, or obvious OR or pov - not unusual in unsourced articles, but that's a different issue also. I try to add a couple of sources if it looks easy to do so and I'm interested in the article. Then there's the time scale. If the article looks like a real problem, 6 months, let alone a year, may be too long and I see no problem in removing anything obviously dubious earlier - but only if you try to source it first and fail. Having said all that, there are times (not many) when the best thing to do is turn it into a stub almost immediately (but do try to ask at an appropriate Wikiproject if there is one, or if others have edited it recently, definitely discuss it with them). Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your responses. Span (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For non-copyvio, non-libelous, purely unsourced-but-sourceable material, don't forget a full reading of WP:BURDEN which lays responsibility at the adding editor's feet, but also advises it has always been good practice [for a deleting editor] to try to find sources. In other words, no rampaging without good faith effort at sourcing. This is a hard pill for many eager deleters to swallow. --Lexein (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sovereign Independent
Is this site reliable for this addition to the Zeitgeist: The Movie article? In addition, another editor pointed out that it features articles like this, and I myself became a bit suspicious by the tone of their About Us page. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the other editor, and it looks like a conspiracy website, carrying 9/11 truth material. I'd say it's not RS - something which Nightscream has already decided, given that he's deleted the material added sourced to Sovereign Independent. Obviously, I support that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look reliable to me. I note that the web site devotes itself to the kinds of things mainstream sources refuse to print, which should set off alarm bells right away. Also, the article is written as an editorial. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Vsevolod, I had not removed it, I just summarized it. I did, however, just remove just now. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - sorry, my mistake - I was going by edit summaries. (And btw, thanks for signing for me a day or so ago...(>_<)...)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Lonely Planet
Is there a reason to consider Lonely Planet guides questionable sources? (See this edit's summary.) --Lambiam 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that for the material being cited (the meaning of the Armenian word Kaçkar), they would necessarily be seen as reliable. Travel guide writers aren't necessarily experts in the languages of the area they describe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have restored the Lonely Planet reference. In fact, we do not need an English language source for a simple translation. Anyone with an elementary understanding of Armenian can confirm that "Խաչ քար" means "cross stone". In general, there is no requirement that we use English language sources – it would create an unacceptable systematic bias. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. – In fact I have undone all of 's edits here and on the Georgian Wikipedia. This does not seem to be about sources but about some kind of ethnic pov-pushing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Petri Krohn, how well do you speak and read Armenian? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you ask. Is there some text you would like me to translate? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly, some of us don't have an 'elementary understanding' of how to write Kaçkar as "Խաչ քար". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a more relevant point. The article claims – now supported by the Lonely Planet source – that the Turkish name of the mountains, "Kaçkar" is derived from the Armenian name "Khachkar" (Խաչքար). This requires more than language skills, but I believe we can trust Lonely Planet on this part of the etymology. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is my take on this: Unless the source in question is patently not reliable, the editor who removes sourced content should bear the burden of bringing a better source. If they cannot do that, but just remove sourced content, in my opinion they are just destroying other people's contributions. Lonely Planet has good books and although they may not have the scholarship of secondary sources for language issues, they usually rely on such sources. Unless someone has a better source to prove the contrary or to prove the same, a reference from Lonely Planet should not be removed. Divide et Impera (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We should not use travel guides as sources for linguistics, history, etc. If there's no better source than LP becomes even more questionable. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lonely Planet's guides are not reliable sources at all. It's contents are based on user contributions to their website. It's for adventurers travelers that don't mind having to deal with some misinformation, and not for writing an encyclopedia.

And yes, we need a reliable source for that translation. It's not uncommon for misconceptions to appear in what some place's names means or where did they come from. --damiens.rf 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Dougweller & damiens:Of course better sources exist, but how would wikipedia be improved if we'll have to wait that someone brings scholars citations? Secondary sources in history and geography are niche and relatively expensive products. A minority of people have access to those publications and the wikipedia improving process will subsequently get delayed. And why could people delete valid contributions just because they are sourced by LP? As I stated above, LP can safely be deemed a tertiary source, to be used if there are no other sources that say otherwise. Furthermore, LP is owned by the BBC, which is RS. Do we have to remove references from BBC altogether now?
 * I would expect that someone become fastidious when an article is about to reach B or Good Article status, but what is the point to stay there and remove referenced content when the article is just a stub or start with 2-3 references?
 * It is easy to remove material, much more complicated to find a book and source the contribution. It seems like allowing people to delete perfectly valid contributions will give free hand to all of those who don't add content, but simply delete what doesn't please them. Let's not forget that content is the most valuable piece in wikipedia: let's preserve it with more care. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have a deadline. --damiens.rf 22:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Damiens.rf that Lonely Planet is not a reliable source for a translation. To me this is a simple issue--if an editor does not speak or read Armenian, I don't believe they can evaluate the google translation. A much better source for this kind of translation would be a dictionary, and I expect that most major uni libraries would have one at hand. I disagree that BBC's ownership of LP has anything to do with either's reliability, our policies do not base RS decisions on who owns the source. The notion that the editor removing badly sourced content bears the burden of finding a better source is not supported by any policy of which I am aware, in fact, we have WP:BURDEN which puts that burden on the editor wishing to restore content. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a dictionary would be a much better source. And not only does the BBC's ownership not have anything to do with this issue, I'd also note that there are parts of the BBC website that I would consider a reliable source and other parts that I would not want to see used. (I know we are not talking about the website, but I'm just pointing out that the BBC name doesn't automatically give everything using it an imprimatur of reliability). I try to find sources whenever I can, but I will remove stuff that is both dubious and badly sourced where appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your input. You managed to convince me that a dictionary would be a more suitable source that Lonely Planet. Divide et Impera (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

MarksFriggin.com
Can this site be considered reliable for paraphrasing and quotes of Howard Stern and guests on the Howard Stern Radio Show? It summarizes shows daily, it's commercial, so accuracy is in Mark Mercer's interest, Stern expressed approval of it as "a rundown of the show that is absolutely staggering", "it's almost a transcript" on January 25, 2006, and it has been cited by several news publications and listed (minorly) in two books. --Lexein (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. Still looking for an assessment. Thanks.--Lexein (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say no, since it's clearly a fan site. Where do we need quotes from Stern's show? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, it's just another media outlet, and primary source, where Stern or guests say things about themselves - that's what I'm talking about, and Marksfriggin provides (secondary source) independent verification of what was said. That's my meaning. --Lexein (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would we need quotes? Stern may like it, but the guests? There are BLP issues here and I'm not happy about using a fan site, even if Stern or others do like it. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quotes are occasionally useful when guests or Stern talk about projects they're in; useful stuff in Production sections of film, TV, and book articles. (I'm not talking about gossip, only primary source stuff). Hm, what BLP issues? I'm talking about quoting (or paraphrasing) what Stern and guests directly say about themselves, not what one says about another, or gossip. Where I've spotchecked Marksfriggin against recorded audio of the show, his quotes or paraphrases have been dead on. It's like quoting/paraphrasing people on any TV/radio/podcast show where audio is recorded. What's the difference, as you see it? Believe me, I'm not a reckless editor: I would only seek to use Marksfriggin narrowly where it supports a person's statement not documented elsewhere in the media, and not for controversial subjects or where BLP would be an issue. --Lexein (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have access to recorded video, I would suggest citing the source directly. Spot checking to verify the web site is kind of ORish. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

problematic source
This subject is of a controversial nature. John Corapi is a Roman Catholic priest, but more of a televangelist personality. Over the years he has made some grandiose claims such as being able to bench press 400+ pounds as a teenager in the 1960s, holding a black belt in karate, being a Golden Gloves Boxer while in High School, serving as a Green Beret in Vietnam, being an accountant, millionaire, drug addict, etc. Most of the claims are trivial and easily debunked as there are no reliable sources. For example, he is not listed by the Golden Gloves Association and the nearest venue where he could have participated was 100+ miles either way. However, his actual Army service record shows no Special Forces training, no helicopter crash, no Vietnam service, etc. The Army has no record of any Special Forces Team being "completely wiped out", either. Yet, Corapi gave an interview to an author including these claims and more (visions of the Virgin Mary, Mother Theresa asking him to speak instead of her, being ordained by the Pope, etc.). Are we to write falsehoods as truth because the source is "reliable"? The work is not particularly scholarly and contains no footnotes or end notes or any other sources. The main focus of the book is a medical malpractice lawsuit with which Corapi was involved. My instinct says, use it to source the specifics of the lawsuit, but not the fantasies that the author repeated without fact-checking. Am I off base here?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, you mention a particular book. What is the name of the book? Who is the author? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My, bad. The book is Coronary by Stephen Klaidman: --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The sheer number of these claims seems to move them into the realm of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". That said, this published book does seem to be the best source we have so far, and the fact he makes these claims is certainly highly relevant to the article, just leaving them out would not be helpful. So I'd recommend writing "In interviews for the book Coronary, Corapi states that ...". Don't specify that these claims are grandiose, just write them. Klaidman seems to be a former NYTimes and Washington Post reporter, so I'd believe Corapi did in fact make these statements to him. If we have similarly reliable sources that say the statements are or aren't true, we can add that too. Otherwise we should leave it as his statement for the book. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would the following be a reliable source for refuting the claims? I wouldn't use Corapi's actual service record (which is the linked document and source for Bendell's refutation); just Bendell's commentary about halfway down the page. I've been uncomfortable with using this site due to its look and layout, but see that POW Network is used as a source in at least 20 other articles. Bendell does layout the "translation" of the military record very well. For example: According to an analysis of Corapi's military records by retired Special Forces Officer Don Bendell, Corapi attended Basic Training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina in 1967; Administrative schools at Fort McClellan, Alabama and Fort Knox, Kentucky and went on to serve as a clerk-typist in west Germany. Corapi mustered out of the Army in January, 1970 as a Stenographer. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No! That's a personal web page clearly made to attack Corapi. Even if we have an article about the author of the page. For highly controversial statements attacking a living person like the ones made on that page, we need highly respectable sources, not personal web pages. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd feel even stronger recommending that if I knew exactly how Klaidman phrases these statements in the book. Are they stated as facts: "Corapi was a Golden Gloves Boxer" or as statements from an interview subject "Corapi says he was a Golden Gloves Boxer" Corapi: "I was a Golden Gloves Boxer"? I'd like to hope it's the latter, in other words that Klaidman doesn't vouch for the truth of these statements either, merely that Corapi made them. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Boxing thing comes from an older version of Corapi's bio(since deleted) Here is the quote from the book: "He signed a commitment to serve in the Special Forces, but in a helicopter accident in the Canal Zone he he reinjured a shoulder that he'd originally hurt playing football and ended up in Heidelberg as an administrative assistant."  Corapi's actual military records show no training of any type beyond the Army's "secreterial school", no orders to Panama, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood, then, didn't you write that these claims came from an interview given to the author the Coronary book? I thought that meant they were published in the book. If they're not backed up by a reliable source of some kind (at least stating that Corapi made the claims), we shouldn't write them. If all the book says is that he served in the Canal Zone and was injured in a helicopter accident, I wouldn't hesitate to write that, that's not an extraordinary claim like being a Golden Gloves champion, a millionaire, and a Green Beret. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, these claims came from him, in sermons, on his website, etc. Most of them have been debunked and the story has devolved over the years.  For example, originally he was telling people that he was a Green Beret who served in Vietnam and his whole unit was wiped out and that he was spat upon in the airport, etc.  When people looked into his history and saw he was a clerk-typist in Germany, his biography changed on his website to say he was a Vietnam-era vet and went through Special Forces training.  As more of the story gets out he changes it.  For example, there is no record of him ever selling real estate in Los Angeles, where he claims he made millions.  He's built his career on lies, unfortunately there is this one source where he makes these claims that is not self-published or a blog/forum/taped sermon, etc.  I wanted to leave it out, just saying he was a clerk in Germany; other editors want to include the whole sordid mess to show his pattern of lying/deceit, etc.  Then we have a follower or two who want to say he sailed the seven seas and wears a chestfull of medals but it was all top secret.  I guess my point is, the canal zone/injury is complete fiction; this makes me distrust the source with regard to pretty much anything else other than the medical malpractice lawsuit where Corapi got a few million, such as him being a millionaire realestate agent to the stars, drug dealer, pulled over in a ferari with enough dope to send him to prison for 40 years, and seeing visions of the Virgin Mary.  Interesting to note, every chapter in the book has footnotes/endnotes, except the chapter on Corapi.  The article is heating up because Corapi's order found him guilty of misconduct (living with a prostitute, sexually harassing female employee, drugs, and having millions of dollars in cars, boats, etc while supposedly taking a ow of poverty) and he is trying to walk away from the priesthood.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sales of Mein Kampf in Egypt
Another editor recently added the following sentence to the article on Mein Kampf in the Arabic language: "Regarding the Arabic version of the book, an employee of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house said, 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd.'" The source they cited was this AFP article from 2007. The issue I have is that it isn't clear to me that the employee quoted in the source is talking about Mein Kampf itself, or the fair more broadly. The relevant passage from the source is: "The fair also has its darker sides, with anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion and of course plenty of editions of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' for sale. 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd,' said Mahmud Abdallah of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house." That publishing house does publish Mein Kampf, but the word "It" (in "It makes up a big part...") is grammatically ambiguous IMO, as the employee could be talking about Mein Kampf, or they could be talking about the fair itself.

So, my question is whether or not that AFP article is reliable for saying that the employee of the Dar al-Kitab publishing house was saying that the Arabic version of Mein Kampf is "a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd." Thanks. ← George talk 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned on the talk page over there, the writer sandwiched the quote in between lines about Mein Kampf. It is more than reasonable to read "it" as "Mein Kampf" in this scenario.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A mention of our "Sales of Mein Kampf in Egypt" debate here may well be helpful to bring in the recourses of other editors. However I would prefer not to continue the debate over two forums. So I would respectfully suggest we invite interested parties to join us on the relevant talk page and move on from there. Thanks Prunesqualor   billets_doux  00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't really a RSN issue, I don't think (no one is questioning that AFP is reliable, it's just that some users are trying to put their own spin on the AFP content), but I've weighed in at the article's talk page. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roscelese. I don't doubt that AFP is a reliable source, I'm just not sure if it's reliable for the sentence being cited to it. If anyone is interested in weighing in, the discussion is here. Outside input is always welcome. ← George talk 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Article in Malayala Manorama
Citation used:

Article: Technopark, Trivandrum

Statement: As of financial year 2010-11, Technopark accounts for about 47% of IT exports from Kerala.

Talk page: Talk:Technopark,_Trivandrum

Malayala Manorama is the highest circulated regional language newspaper, with more than 19 lakh copies a day, with edition from all major cities in Kerala and major metros Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and also Baharain and Dubai. The article in question is a researched article by their business editor, and gives precise numbers.

Is it a reliable reference? DileepKS(talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A regional news paper report can be used for reference in wikipedia articles. However if there is a better reference, we should not stick on the newspaper reports. Here in the article in question, we have OFFICIAL REPORT from GOVERNMENT PLANNING BOARD. Hence need not use a regional newspaper reference. Also, the 2011 export figures are not announced by the government yet. The regional newspaper might have speculated the figures from uncites sources. So, need not rely on regional newpaper since an official report is available. And wait till the government announces the IT exports for 2011. Please see the figures reported by various news papers. Even a newspaper "Hindu" is contradicting with "Hindu business".

Even the report from Hindu (the reference you provided) is not matching with the IT exports published by Kerala IT mission. Since we have the information from Kerala Planning board, which says 75% of the software exports of the state is from Technopark, why are you insisting to go with inconsistent newspaper reports? The report from the government planning board supersedes all news paper reports. I hope you too concur and go in harmony with this. --Samaleks (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I could not understand the newspaper citation, as it was in the local language. But, going through the article and its talk page it is advisable to use the report from the Government regarding the state's IT exports. Please wait till new export figures are officially announced by the government. Local newspaper report may not be accurate to the last decimal all times. So, going by the context of the article, use the citation from government. --Freknsay (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for violence in Bihar, India
The following is a paragraph from Yadav "Bindeshwar Pathak wrote in 1992 of "the violence that has now become an existential reality in Bihar", much of which has centred on issues regarding land and has pitted caste against caste. The roots of this violence can be traced to around 1970. There have been numerous massacres on both sides and it has become politicised by the involvement of Naxalite groups. Yadav landowners have been involved in this violence and have, for example, been assisted by Maoist groups in their caste war against the Rajputs. Suruchi Thapar-Bjorkert has said that "[with the rise of] backward-caste leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav, caste has entered into the legitimate domain of mainstream politics", and quotes Arvind Narayan Das, who believes that "they feel that they rule Bihar as a caste, [with] even the weakest Yadav flexing muscle physically and metaphorically.""

keeps removing it from the article on the grounds, amongst other things, that the sources are not RS. To make those sources easier to pick out, they are:



The Das quote also appears in this book, although I have been unable to locate Das's original book (it is on p. 506 of a work written by him and published in 2000 but I cannot find that work at GBooks).

There are at least two recent talk page threads regarding this, here and here. Only the latter of those raises the RS issue

I am fed up of arguing about RS with MangoWong and so am bringing it to the wider community. I am afraid that there are likely to be a lot more of them coming here. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My impression is that Sitush could have made an effort to defend his/her sources on the article talk page before bringing it here. All of these sources look off topic for the Yadav aricle, and the material looks all cherry picked and an exercise in giant generalizations from individual incidents. I had tried to get Sitush around to defending his/her sources and material, but find myself here now. If someone is going to bring things here before defending them on the article talk page....-MangoWong (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be a dispute about the reliability of any individual source (most of the sources cited state the opinion of their authors and are automatically reliable for that), but a WP:SYNT or WP:UNDUE dispute. Wrong noticeboard for that issue. Frankly, something like WP:INDIA can probably help you more, because most other Wikipedians have no idea whether such-and-such Indian is worth citing in that article or not. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well FuFoFuEd. There's a technical issue too here. Sitush seems to want to use a quote from a certain A. N. Das. I did try to investigate who this guy is, but could not find much. I had requested Sitush to establish whether this Das was a professor and what his field was. Sitush seems to be refusing to do that. I had also investigated the other sources and material and.... Let's leave that since you have said that this may not be the most useful venue. Does it fall upon me to establish that Das is a professor and establish his competence on the issue?-MangoWong (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop wriggling, Mango. You queried the reliability of all the sources. It is quite likely that every time you do so in future then I will raise the matter here because there is no talking to you, is there? You simply do not understand the policies but perhaps this way you will learn (with my apologies for wasting the time of everyone else). We have confirmation that they are reliable for the purpose used, so now we can go back to the talk page and sort out your other issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Das at GScholar (note the N. and sometimes even Nayaran). Not that it matters, since the paragraph specifically says that it is Thapar-Bjorkert who quotes Das, and Thapar-Bjorkert is reliable per the analysis of FuFoFuEd. This guy was in fact an academic but it is not necessary for people to be professors etc to be reliable - you are misunderstanding WP:RS and, as FuFoFuEd says below (& I have said before to you) there is a competence issue of sorts. Numerous people keep trying to explain, across numerous articles, but you will not listen. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, from now on, you would be attacking my competence in anything I do or say. So that you can do things like these, put in rubbish refs like , and falsely claim that I deleted links from the Dennis Rader article , even when I did not. No buddy, I am not going to let you do it. And FuFoFuEd did not seem to have said anything about the reliability of the sources for that article.  Per WP:BURDEN I think you still have to establish WTH this A. N. Das is.-MangoWong (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Steele
recently removed a fair amount of content from Edgar Steele in this series of edits. Much of it relates to claimed unreliability of the website of The Spokesman-Review. I raised the matter on their talkpage here, as a subsidiary point to something else. Is The Spokesman-Review RS? - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it is. There's a paper edition and editorial staff, appears to be reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The links are dead now, but that's not a reason to remove them. MangoWong did not seem to have removed any text, only footnotes in that diff. Btw, The Spokesman-Review has an article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked three of the spokeman links, none were dead, but one was malformed. I agree, however, that that removing a deadlink is not the best practice, better to tag it a such and give others a chance to fix them, if you cannot yourself. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's ok, thanks. I can fix deadlinks etc but there is so much flak flying around regarding MW that I thought it best to get some sort of input on their claim of the paper being a dubious source before taking things any further. I have quite a long list of problematic edits to go through, unfortunately, and am likely to be pestering various noticeboards in order to deflect warring etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not have strong views about Spokesman-Review. I had deleted it only because it looked like a second rate source to me. I have searched the archives of WP:RSN for it and could not find a single mention. Another thing is that the Spokesman-Review appears to be operating its net version of the paper through blogs. Looking into its web address, I spied a …../blog/…. Even then, as I said, I do not have any strong views on this particular source. I had invited discussion on this on the article talk page . But my invitation has been removed inexplicably. I still can’t understand why that comment was removed. ?????? (Any guesses???)  I think this issue could/should have been discussed on the article talk page first. Anyway, it does give more confidence to get opinions from the RSN. I have no problem if the Spokesman Review be reinstated. However, I have also deleted a number of other links from that article. I am not very sure, but maybe someone seems to think that all of the sources should be reinstated. Since we are already here, it might be worthwhile if I could get a review of those sources/links too . My reasons for deleting them can be found in my individual edit summaries. Some of them looked like advocacy groups and some of them seemed irrelevant in the sense that they were linked, but were not saying anything that the article says. And why are folks talking about me removing deadlinks? I myself do not like to remove deadlinks unless I see some other problem with them. One may note that Sitush may seem to keep saying funny/sinister looking things about me. I am having a content dispute with Sitush on some other articles. So, one may look at comments from both of us in that light…..MangoWong (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you should spend some time investigating a source before you just delete it expecting others to defend it. Most if not all newspapers have blogs today, blogs written by very staff of the newspaper, and usually just as reliable as the rest of the newspaper; see Blog and WP:SPS. As for www.splcenter.org, see Southern Poverty Law Center. If you continue in this "delete first" manner, you'll likely find yourself in trouble for WP:COMPETENCE issues if nothing else. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Although you seem to critique me a bit too strongly, I take your comments seriously and am likely to go easy on blogs etc. from now on. I used to have a "shoot at sight" type attitude towards blogs. But I will relax it now. Thanks.-MangoWong (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Side note: I just noticed the deletion of your comment now: it looks like I made a mistake; either that, or the server somehow messed up, but that usually only happens when edits are within one minute of each other. Apologies, then, since It was likely me messing up. I'm going to re-add your comment now. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Official websites of football clubs as exclusive sources in articles on said clubs
I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, so I'll try for here.

Several teams (examples include Barca, Madrid, and Inter) use the official club websites as sources, and have done so for years.

Not only that, but they have turned those 'official' sources into exclusive sources for some sections of the articles. In seasons past I have inserted match results into articles using non-official sources, only to see them changed. The official sources are also the only ones that are allowed to be used for transfers. In both cases, these official sources might be slower or contain less information than reliable third party sources, and yet the other sources get shut out.

Should we continue to use 'official' club websites at all? They are not neutral third party sources by a long shot. True, they're only used to source raw numerical information in most cases, but there are other sources, reliable third party sources, that can be used.

If we do decide to continue to use the 'official' sources, is there consensus for disallowing their exclusivity?

Thoughts?  S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on an article talk page? It would help to know what the reverter's concern was about the use of non-official sources. I consider a website to be a reliable source for factual information about that website, so I see no problem with the use of 'official' club websites for such information. But prima facie I see no reason not to use unofficial stats, at least until the official ones are available. Brmull (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This affects most of the top flight clubs (that is to say, almost all of the ones that actually source match results). I don't remember the reason that was given back during the 2010-11 season, but I do remember that it came across as being bullshit.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that the official sites should not be used for fetching information for the article. Offical sites of the football clubs may contain peacock terms to describe the club and may contain exaggerated contents. Care should be taken in maintaining the NPOV. Unofficial sites can also be used, if it is a valid source. Discussing in the article talk page is a better idea, as the scenario differs in each article. --Freknsay (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would argue that independent reliable sources are preferable to "official" sources. As Freknsay pointed out, official sites may use peacock terms, but beyond that, "official" sources may go so far as to include or omit informaiton based on the light in which it portrays the club. FYI, we've been having a related debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football (that's American football). cmadler (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For something like match results, its not a huge deal -- both sources are likely to be accurate. However, a reliable third-party source such as a newspaper is preferable both as a matter of principle and as a practical matter (the club has an incentive to lie about an embarrassing result (granted few clubs would be foolish enough to try that) and a newspaper's very raison d'être is being accurate about these things, and general failure to do so would imperil its existence, which isn't true of the club. However, an unreliable third-party site auch as a fan blog is, in my personal opinion, worse than the club's official site. Herostratus (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about fan blogs, we're talking about BBC sports and those sorts of sites.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the club website should be the only reliable source, by definition. In the last two or three months I've seen a couple of arguments along the lines of "Doesn't belong in the article until it's on the club's website" which is pretty frustrating when there are other seemingly reliable - and far more independent - sources on a topic. bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An WP:Independent source is almost always preferable to a source that is closely connected to the subject. Good sources should not be banned merely because someone likes to use a fan club as a source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Birthday Massacre
I've been looking at The Birthday Massacre, making some minor edits, and I am struck by the plethora of video interviews used as references--besides tons of MySpace and other websites. I've placed a refimprove tag on the article, but there is so much of it (and so little other referencing) that going in to edit is a gargantuan task. Does anyone have any suggestion, or is anyone feeling the spirit move them? Drmies (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there are multiple references to the same information in many places. Avoiding this alone will cut down the numbers substantially. --Freknsay (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Publisher" on a Weebly site
This is really about a "further reading" section, but this is the closest noticeboard that I can find, as the issue does deal with reliable sourcing.

I've started removing Weebly blogs when they fail appropriate guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:ELNO, and so on. I removed one book from Corset and Neo-Victorian whose publisher site was a Weebly page. The "publisher" happens to be the sole author, meaning these books are self-published. Since the book is not about the author, they cannot be used under WP:SELFPUB. According to WP:Further reading one of the considerations to be taken when adding a book is whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source. This book does not meet WP:RS. The only purpose for including it would be to advertise this and other rather expensive books by this author, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

The book in question is "Waisted Curves" from Aegis & Owl Publishing/Sarah Chrisman.

I removed the book, and was reverted and told my edit was unconstructive. I removed the book again, pointing to appropriate guidelines on the reverting user's talk page, and he reverted me again, calling me a single purpose account (even though I've been here since 2006 and have worked on a variety of articles). Could we get some consensus here? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Um... First, WP:RS does not ban self-published books... it merely limits their use. Second, WP:Further reading does not require that the books, websites, etc. listed pass WP:RS.  Third WP:EL explicitly allows "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The same applies to print sources under "Further reading".
 * As for WP:NOTPROMOTION... you say that the only purpose in including it is advertising... Hmmm... is that just your opinion, or do we have some evidence to suggest that the editor who added the book to the "further reading" section has some sort of connection to the author? Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And this book does not fall in the limits of when self-published works are allowed (the book is not the subject of the article giving information about itself). The book also does not fall into any of the other examples for appropriate books that the "Reliable" section gives (such as historical documents).  WP:ELNO #5 excludes "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising."  My rational behind removing weebly sites (which are technically blogs) is #11, excludes blogs and personal websites except those by a recognized authority.
 * I would like to be clear that I am not accusing Andy Dingly (who reverted me) of having any connection to the author or using the site for advertising. However, its placement (by whoever) matches the MO of other advertisment based additions I've seen in the past.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Already addressed here: User_talk:Andy_Dingley
 * The editor is carrying out a 'bot-like bulk edit removing any content that pattern-matches a URL indicating that a web site (of any content quality) has been hosted through Weebly. This claims justification through the no-blogs policy of WP:ELNO.
 * The page here Neo-Victorian is one of four pages that cited this book. It's a relevant text on some aspects of neo-Victorian life, specifically the wearing of corsets and "traditional" Victorian costume in everyday life. I consider it an appropriate cite on two of these pages, including Corset itself. However I don't see it as sufficiently relevant to the historical aspects of costume, so I haven't re-added it to Victorian fashion or Victoriana, from where it was also removed.
 * If this book cite didn't include a URL, there would have been no issue here. The editor is auto-removing on the basis of the URL, not on the basis of content. It is simple camouflage to start changing their story after the fact.
 * This book is self-published. That is not the same thing as WP:SELFPUB. If the book has relevant content (and I've read it, the editor in question here hasn't) then it is a reasonable cite (and if it doesn't, then it isn't). This is nothing to do with the publisher's chosen web platform. Nor is the publisher's site a "blog", as WP:ELNO quite reasonably cautions against.
 * Finally, the idea that a book is unsuitable under Further reading because it's "too expensive" is simply farcical. Particularly when this is not a terribly expensive book, and for a hand-bound book these days it's positively a bargain. Some readers (and with probably quite a large overlap to neo-Victorians) simply appreciate quality and judge this by slightly more subtle means than regexing a URL string. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that those article do not cite the book at all, it's just advertised in the further reading section. It's inaccurate to the point of misrepresentation to say that they are citations.  And you are twisting my words: I said that it was inappropriate to advertise these books which happen to be expensive -- we're not here to make a profit for others.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, the entire point of an "External Links" or "Further Reading" section is to list books and websites that weren't used as cited sources (in fact, if we used them as citations, we are not supposed to list them again under FR or EL). Is your objection to listing the book itself, or are you really objecting to the inclusion of a link to a website that sells the book ... if the latter, what if the book were listed without including the URL link? Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But external links and suggested further reading materials are supposed to be held to similar standards to reliable sources, with exceptions being offical pages, historical documents, stuff by the article's subject, etc. This book is none of those.  The only difference between this and linking to my friend's Star Trek fansite in the Star Trek article (for example, it's not happened) is that my friend wouldn't be making money off of its inclusion.
 * I came across this book because I'm sorting through inappropriate linking to the Weebly site. However, even if the link to Weebly was removed, this book is essentially a print version of a random Neo-Victorian fashion fansite.  Just because the author is charging more than a most fansites does not change that.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  'This book is none of those.' 
 * You know nothing of this book, nor of the subject matter of the articles connected to it. All you have done is to reduce editing to a scripting process, assuming that anything and everything using a particular web platform is "bad" and must be expunged. How do you think that "decisions" made on such a robotic basis are really defensible? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, you are wrong here... external links are not held to similar standards as reliable sources... WP:EL explicitly states that it includes "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Thus, the bar for ELs is set at knowledgeable sources, not at reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To Andy: So, was the book written lauded and hailed during the Victorian era? ("historically important publications") Or are the articles are about the book itself? ("creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article")  Or is it a "seminal, but now outdated, scientific paper"?  Or is it somehow by Neo-Victorian fashion itself? ("Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves").  No, it does not qualify as any of those things.  And it fails as either a citable source (self-published and not written by the subject of the articles) and as an external link (advertising, not a selfpublished work by a recognized authority).  How is it defensible to include it?
 * To Blueboar: WP:ELNO #5 excludes self-published sources except those by recognized authorities (the author of this book is not a recognized authority on the subject), and #11 excludes links that are full of advertising (this link in particular is nothing but "buy these books!"). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We just had a similar discussion on DRN, turns out that See also entries are not required to be sourceable in the same way as material in the article body, and I would argue the same holds for external links. WP:ELNO is a guideline, not a policy. I believe that that appropriate criteria is whether the link is would be reasonable interest to readers of the article. I have not looked at the link targets, so I cannot comment on the relative spamminess of the links. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The page (linked here) is just an advertisement for the book and other books. I'd think that was spammy enough to get Vikings chanting.  And again, I've pointed out that the book does not meet the other qualifications that WP:Further reading gives (historically important works, seminal but outdated scientific works, creative or primary works that the article is the subject of); and it fails WP:ELNO #5 and #11.  While they are guidelines instead of policies, reasoning based on the guidelines is more in line with overall site concensus than going against guidelines because an editor feels my actions are "robotic" based on ill-investigated assumptions that lead him to call me an SPA (again, despite working on a variety of topics here for five years).  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do hear the vikings singing, and I'll have spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam, but easy on the eggs. I'm not sure this is the right venue, however. Do we have a spam related noticeboard? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the original reason behind this was that the book is being included in two Further Reading sections, and the closest thing for that was this board. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is the book relevant? It's a relevant text on some aspects of neo-Victorian life, specifically the wearing of corsets and "traditional" Victorian costume in everyday life., same as it was further up the page, same as it was when you first deleted it.
 * "the original reason" was that you dislike Weebly as a web platform (check your contributions history). Since then you've changed your reason every time you post to a different page looking for support. Now you still haven't heard the answer you wanted, so you've switched to edit-warring.
 * This book is a good source in relation to neo-Victorian costume. I wouldn't see it as adequately valuable for Victorian fashion. (you do realise there's a difference?) If other editors think that it's not relevant to the articles it's still in, then I'd have to recognise that we work by consensus here, but I'm not hearing that anyone else (Has anyone else actually read it?) thinks this. Your "reasons" though flip around every time you post. Incidentally, if you think that I'm just "Soft on Spam", then take a look at my contribs history. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the book being referenced, or the web site where the book is being sold? We do not have to include a link to the latter to reference the former. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons to include the web site - whether you're not going to buy the book, or whether your are. This is a rare book, so few people will have bought a copy. The web site gives them some idea of the content, if they're not going to have it. As it's self-published, this is also the only source to buy the book, if you do want to buy it.
 * As an aside, the "standard reference" for women's costume, especially for this time, would be Norah Waugh's book. This is out of print, rare, highly sought after, and sells S/H for around six times what this "rather expensive" hand-bound book does. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The book is not being referenced in either article, and it is inaccurate misrepresentation to pretend otherwise. It is only in a "further reading" list.  The whole thing is bookspam, which is just one more reason (not a different reason, but an additional reason) not to include it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know -- any cite of any book is liable to possibly lead people to buy it, if it's in print, so is inherently promotional. I guess one question would be, is the book a piece of crap that a person who doesn't really know what he's talking about wrote off the top of his head and mimeographed, or is it any good, or at least arguably any good? If it's any good, why not include it? If there are better books that the plaintiff can point to, that's different and we can talk about including them instead (or maybe in addition, unless it's a matter of the list being too long). Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that (as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread) the book IS NOT BEING CITED. It is only being included on the grounds of "if you're interested in this topic, you should buy this book."  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NOT BEING CITED (in the Wikipedia article) is not by itself a sufficient reason to remove a book from WP:FURTHER. The question to ask here is whether this book is a good reference on the topic(s) at hand. I decline WP:COMPETENCE to answer that part, but those who apparently know about this should focus the discussion on that issue. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian, although I happen to agree with you, we are SOL because Wikipedia does not have a coherent policy on this issue, unfortunately. In the absence of a policy pretty much anything goes in the "Further Reading" section provided that the author/publisher is not also an editor of the article. Brmull (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about linking to the book, we're talking about linking to a web site promoting the book. What requires us to provide a link to where the book is sold, rather than simply listing the book without a link. There seems to be nothing of informational value on the web site in regard to the article topics, and including the link seems to violate the guideline WP:LINKSPAM. I would propose that we simply list the book, and drop the link.
 * Also, FuFoFuEd raises a good point, I would also suggest that unless an editor has the book itself in hand, adding the book as a further reading entry is inappropriate, as without having read it, there's no way an editor could have evaluated whether or not it has value. For all I know, the book could be excellent, or a steaming pile. Or do we judge book's by their covers? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it's cited/referenced/recommended by other reliable works (potentially more accessible) is a good criteria. (See section below for a counterexample.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Other works that mentioned the book are not in the article. The only information the mention of the book is adding to the article is "you can buy this," which is advertising, plain and simple.  The only information the book would be adding to the article is "Sarah Chrisman wore a corset and people thought she was weird or neat."  The website (which I've provided links to twice in this discussion) does not give any information about the subject appropriate subjects except that you can buy this book  (about this woman's day to day life while she happened to wear Victorian fashion) and other completely unrelated books.
 * According to the site: "Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live a Victorian life in modern-day surroundings? What is it really like to wear a corset twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week?  How do modern people react to finding a "time-traveler" in their midst?  Waisted Curves: My Transformation Into A Victorian Lady is the fascinating, true account of a twenty-first century woman learning to live a Victorian life."
 * It is not a scholarly source about neo-victorian fashion, but an autobiography. It is not a reference work, but entertainment.  We might as well link to Star Trek fanfiction in articles about individual planets and stars.  The articles are not about the author, so it is inappropriate (for these reasons as well) to include this book.  That I have to point this out makes me wonder how many people in this discussion have actually looked at the link (again, here it is).
 * This is partly why I began to remove Weebly sites: I've found in the past that like many self-published sources they are often either promotional when they aren't unreliable (in the case of other links I've removed) or uninformative (as was the case here as well).
 * As for it being self-published, that means there was no editorial oversight, noone worried about taking the fall for an inaccurate book being published. That is the another rationale I've seen behind removing self-published works.  Despite the (pointless) accusation of me constantly changing my reasons, listing multiple reasons does not mean that I am changing my reasons, but elaborating on past ones and adding additional ones.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "unless an editor has the book itself in hand"
 * As mentioned before, unfortunately I don't have it to hand right this moment, as when I bought it some time ago it was as a gift for someone else. However as someone who does have a certain degree of real-world interest in neo-Victorian fashion and Steampunk (I organise festivals about it, I sew, I even sew corsets), I would hope that my opnion might count for something more than just pattern-matching the URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that I'm not just pattern matching the URL, as I've already shown you. It matched the MO of other inappropriate links in other articles I've worked on over the years.
 * You may want to read User:Misza13/Nobody cares about your credentials, Credentials are irrelevant, and Ignore all credentials. Your personal interest means squat diddly, and it is pompous to assume that you having enjoyed the book justifies spamming a work sold as an autobiography, not a reference work, which has no editorial oversight.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at the link. It starts off with a paragraph about how well made the publisher's book are, then the rest of the page is selling the book itself and other books. "Now available, exclusively from Aegis & Owl Press! Order your copy today, hand-bound in your choice of cloth, silk or leather!" We should not be linking to a page whose obvious purpose is to sell the book (and other books, as I said). Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is my concern as well. Andy Dingley, I am glad to hear that you have had the book in hand. I still believe that linking to the sale site for the book is inappropriate, since there's basically no information on that site about the topic. Ian.thomson has a point that the work is basically autobiographical and that none of our own experiences and knowledge are reliable source, even if the thought is expressed more harshly than one would wish in a cooperative effort. That being said, I think a link to the book alone is allowable under our policies and guidelines. But I would ask if there are not better resources we could point to, perhaps this, which do provide direct access to a significant amount of data on the topic? I found that particularly interesting as I did not realize that I was engaging in a neo-victorian activity by shaving with my grandfather's straight razor these last 35 years... --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Found something: The book was originally added by the user Sorcha Ban, whose only actions were to add the book repeatedly. As we see here, "Sorcha" is another username for the author. This was a case of spam by a real SPA, nothing more. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere. If the book was added by someone who is connected to the author or the publisher it's definitely not appropriate, and this evidence you presented is pretty convincing. Brmull (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed this issue ended up at WP:AN3, and glad it was declined there. As I've said, a link to a sales site is inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is an army publication a reliable source?
I'm having a bit of a problem at User talk:Nathan2055/Archive 1. I'm not sure whether army publications are a reliable source in this case. Thanks, Nathan2055talk-review 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of Army publication? Assuming this is not a NPOV/notability issue, are we talking about publication from the unit itself, or publications from Center of Military History or the Pentagon? If it is from the unit itself, then it is a limited used primary source. If it is the latter two cases then it is definitely reliable (if you discount the POV issues). Jim101 (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is: it depends. Please provide adequate details as requested at the top of this page. (I can give you an example where the answer is "no, not really".) FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The publications are from other sources (Institute of Heraldry, US Army Center of Military History, Fort Drum Garrison Website, Bagram Airbase, etc.). I think that it's reliable. Thanks, Nathan2055talk-review 17:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fourth United States Army only cites gov't publications, it seems. If it's not from the same battalion/unit/squadron, what have you, gov't documents qualify -- Secondary does not mean independent. Also, credible gov't organizations (as opposed to private groups claiming to be part of the gov't) usually effectively auto-qualify for notability (or so I was told when I used to tag new articles for deletion).

Johannes von Ronge
I'm not really sure where to post this issue, but it seems to relate to the reliability of sources, so I'll try here. If it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) The article on Johannes von Ronge has his name wrong according to every source I can find that hasn't scraped its information from WP. See, for example, many sources from Google Books: . See also all the entries in Worldcat: . According to all those sources, his name is Ronge, not Von Ronge, and there is no umlaut over the o. The German Wikipedia also has him listed as Johannes Ronge. It appears that there have been several attempts to fix this, to no avail. Can someone provide some guidance here and make a definitive determination as to his correct name, and if it's currently incorrect, provide a fix? TIA 75.13.69.146 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is certainly a determined attempt to make this fellow into Johannes von Rönge, and a parallel attempt to make his wife into Berthe von Rönge. Berthe suffers from lesser notability and so it is difficult to find sources with a correct name.  All the reliable sources I found call her husband Johannes Ronge.  All these articles  sources have been removed in the current version.  This includes several  two encyclopedia articles available in Wikisource.  His brother-in-law Carl Schurz calls him Johannes Ronge when he writes about him.  This remake effort even extends to fabrications in Wikisource.  When I checked the sources for the Whittier and Rossetti poems there, they both called him Johannes Ronge, in one case this source was an original manuscript.  I corrected the article, maybe twice, and fixed Wikisource once.  I don't plan to make another attempt.  I appreciate the attention the problem is getting. From my point of view, this is just sophisticated vandalism. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 8 and 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, how to we fix it? If no one here knows, we can take it up at the move board. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not an easy fix. A move is not the thing to do as I think the old Johannes Ronge article and the Johannes von Ronge article have interesting things.  There are two new links to Google books.  It seems all the worthwhile changes have been made by 75.13.69.146.  If they could be copied, along with the two new refs, to Johannes Ronge, which I have recovered with minor updates, then we could turn Johannes von Ronge back into a redirect.  Preserving histories is a lost cause at this point.  There are just two parallel ones.  The talk page is still OK that I can see. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think where involvement by an administrator is necessary is to protect the page from vandalism, as it seems to be a target, but that would exclude IP edits, although suggestions could still be left by an IP on the talk page for desirable edits. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can move all of the data to Johannes Ronge, and then it will be on my watch page, be interesting to see who does what with it. If it gets to be problematic, page protect wouldn't be a problem. But if we wanted to preserve histories, we could I suppose merge the data, move the Johannes von Ronge to Johannes Ronge (old fork), blank the page with a note linking back to Johannes Ronge, and explain the mess on Johannes von Ronge's talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

afterelton.com/user/19
This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post, [http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight] the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of WP:SPA to the related Wikipedia discussion. - please read the extensive chat discussions related to wikipedia before commenting, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to be user-generated content, which isn't allowed. That pages's author is refered to as a "user" by the site, not "author" or "writer." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the author is identified by the site as an "editor", and this does appear to be a professional blog. What's going on in the comments section does not affect whether the source is reliable. Brmull (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to his page, he is a published novelist that became an editor for After Elton in 2005. That doesn't sound like a "user" to me. Silver  seren C 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally the WP article we're talking about is Luke Evans (actor). Brmull (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. Michael Jensen is not a particularly successful author - "Frontiers" ranks at #1,174,130 which is not exactly indicative of a major author.  'Firelands" is not as popular.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what that has to do with anything. We're not discussing writing an article about Michael Jensen. Silver  seren C 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that we're not quoting the writer's opinion, we're quoting the comment he received from Evans' publisher, which is notable. Silver  seren C 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to our own article (AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com), "Michael Jensen has been the editor in chief of AfterElton.com since November 2005". AfterElton is owned by Logo whose parent is Viacom. So the question here isn't really about "user generated content" as suggested earlier, it is about a piece written by the editor-in-chief of a Viacom-owned website, quoting the BLP subject's publicist. While there are good reasons to handle all issues relating to labelling someone's sexuality with care, this issue has been needlessly turned into a polemical dispute. I think both sides need to step back. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Those thinking about wading into this should be aware of the frighteningly big debate at BLP/N. This doesn't mean you shouldn't get involved, but bring a flack jacket if you do.BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question to this Noticeboard was if this blog is a RS for a quote from Evan's publicist, and I think it is. Brmull (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether afterelton.com is generally reliable, it is certainly reliable for simply passing on what the publicist has said. The quote does not appear to have been twisted or edited in any way. Delicious carbuncle is right to advise would-be polemicists on both sides to roll up their banners. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have purposefully not read the article or the talk page discussions yet. The site seems reliable to me for a limited purpose, although I note that the blog mentions WP, so extreme care should be taken to avoid a loop there. But as SilverSeren and DC note, the author seems to have been an editor there since 2005 (In 2005, I became editor of AfterElton.com and one of the contributing editors for The Big Gay Picture.). The site does not appear to be open to just anyone, they appear to have a staff, and the author's statements seem neutrally presented. I think Viacom's ownership is, however, irrelevant, but Logo seems directly involved in the site, and that seems to support the notion of general reliability.
 * That being said, we need to observe WP:BLPGOSSIP. The one thing I think we can/need to use this article for is the statement of Evans's management. We have the advocate and walesonline directly, so while we can cite the source in question to say that the advocate and walesonline said what they said, that does not really add anything beyond what they said. The rest of the article, including the issue of Evans's possible bisexuality, seems to be purely speculation on the authors part, and I do not think the author is notable enough that we should include his opinions or speculations in a BLP. Clearly referencing anything in the comments is right out. I'm not aware of any policy that says we cannot link to a page that has reader comments, even for a BLP, so I do not think that is a valid objection (but if there is such a policy, please let me know). But using this to reference Evans's management's statement seems fine to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The one thing I think we can/need to use this article for is the statement of Evans's management." That's exactly what it was being used for before it was removed. The consensus seems to be for including it as a source for the publicist's statement, so I'll put it back in. AlbionBT (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments here were prompted by what I saw as a distorted portrayal of the source in question. While there seems to be consensus here that the source is reliable, that should not be taken as an endorsement to include the content in the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about how this website meets our general reliability requirements. WP:RS says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece of information presented here is clearly found within "editorial commentary." IMO this website cannot be treated as a reliable source for news reporting and should be treated as a source of editorial commentary. Can someone explain to me why that wouldn't be the case?Griswaldo (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How so if the reference is limited to what Evans's management said when contacted by the author? The author directly quotes statement from Evans's management, and if we reference that quotation, I see no issue with reliability. Do we have any reason to suppose that the author is misquoting Evans's management? The statement itself does not seem controversial to me, since all the quote contains is a "no comment" statement, and a statement that Evans once did talk about his personal life, which was already known from the interview in another source. As I said, I do not support inclusion of any of the speculation and opinions of the author, but the quotation itself seems fine. And I concur with DC that just because the source is reliable for this one statement, that does not mean it must be included in the article, that's an issue for another venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail in race-related matters
I have edited an article about Anjem Choudary, I included some detail from the Daily Mail, another editor on the article talk page Talk:Anjem_Choudary insists the Daily cannot be used. Is the Daily Mail an acceptable source on wikipedia? Other editor is reverting claiming justification under BLP that Daily Mail cannot be used --Hemshaw (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the article being used, and to support what content? Generally, it is my present view that the Daily Mail is a reliable source; it is published, and has editorial oversight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Daily Mail is published, and yes, has editorial oversight. It also has a reputation for making crap up. A tabloid newspaper, with pretensions to be otherwise. I'd be very wary of using it as a source for anything contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article states that the publication is the second most purchased paper in th UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no automatic correlation between popularity and truth. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope opposition to this source is not because the paper is right of center, as indiciated in the wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also per the article Tabloid, the meaning is meant for the size of the paper used. How does that impact the reliability of the content? The tabloid article list the Chicago Sun-Times and the San Francisco Examiner as prominent tabloids in the United States. Does this mean that their content is less then reliable? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an intersting word. It has two distinct, but historically connected meanings. The second sentence of the lead of Tabloid says ""tabloid journalism", which tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, and TV and celebrity gossip is commonly associated with tabloid sized newspapers". That's what's being discussed here, a greater interest in popular (not necessarily accurate) content, rather than factual, in depth news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tabloid is frequently shorthand for a paper that reports on stuff we don't consider important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So this example is something that "we don't consider important"? Sure the way it is presented maybe be more glammed up, but that doesn't mean that within it isn't some useful information that can be used to support content within a wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If something is 'important', it will also be reported in sources with a better reputation for objectivity. Why use a tabloid (in the 'sensationalist' sense) when you can find better ones? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for presenting that example. I have big problems even with the headline, especially the first and fourth words. It unnecessarily sensationalises stuff. I also wonder what the third paragraph (and do note the tabloid rule that one paragraph equals one sentence) has to do with this item as news. It provides added colour, but is also blatantly guiding the reader in how to think about this. It's a lot more than news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The passage supported is "When younger he was known as 'Andy' and was proud of his Pakistani origin". I would question whether a newspaper, especially one that is middle market, is a good source for  a WP:BLP for events that happened thirty years ago.  And something that does not make the quality papers is probably not weighty enough for inclusion.  TFD (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of others, here is the 'Daily Mail' source being cited: . Rabble-rousing bigotry of the worst sort, full of weasel-words and insinuations - so entirely consistant with the Daily Mail's usual standards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, swilling and leering are not really objective words. I also love the line "He also mixed with hook-handed demagogue Abu Hamza..." That's a gem, straight out of the tabloid journalism textbook. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that the Daily Mail is right-wing; you'd get few left-wing British wikipedians seriously challenging The Times as RS. It's that the Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid, whatever else its pretentions might be. Best to be avoided if at all possible.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS the Daily Mail is RS. There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers. The claim that it has more libel cases than other papers is inaccurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's reliable. Like I said, editors wish it wasn't, because it covers subjects they don't feel worthy of an encyclopedia.  That said, it is sensationalist, and shouldn't be used for controversial BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Peregrine, you seem to be saying some people don't like it because it covers sensationalist topics, which you yourself admit it doesn't cover so reliably.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Peregrine Fisher's point is that the Daily Mail falls under our policy as a reliable source, but that it is also sensationalist. As such we should not use it for BLPs for anything that is controversially. I agree with that, and I agree with Andy the Grump evaluation of this particular article. I note that the article contains a wide variety of statements that are inflammatory and the tone is very far from objective. For the purposes suggested by the OP, I think this article does not meet our standards of reliability, and we shouldn't use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the approach we should be taking. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail where it comes to anything contentious about BLPs and even more so if we can't find a reliable source saying the same thing. (I'll also note that I wouldn't trust some of its stuff on Atlantis, etc either, someone there seems in love with that sort of cult archaeology stuff). There are times even with the most reliable sources that we have to take a more finely grained approach and focus on a specific article or writer. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Mail doesn't make everything up, of course. It's just that if you can't source something controversial in the Mail to somewhere better, you should always be a little concerned, especially where it concerns immigration or science.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Second most purchased paper in the UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content." Ha! You clearly don't read the Daily Mail or live in the UK. Span (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a very good source for what the Daily Mail has said and that is about it. Even then, its notability is debatable if it doesn't appear anywhere else. To reiterate a point made above, very few Wikipedia editors will argue against quality right wing British Newspapers like the Times and the Daily Telegraph, who tend to check facts and separate leaders and columns from news. The Mail may stay the right side of the law and the now obviously flawed watchdogs most of the time, but their position on race and other issues is well known. For the benefit of US editors it is usually said that in the US newspapers strive for neutrality and TV news is often partisan and that in the UK it is the other way around (not entirely true but it is useful), so imagine the Daily Mail as having the same veracity as say an opinion piece on Fox News. Although that may be unfair to Fox.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope the above statement by Spanglej is not a personal attack, for now I shall assume good faith.
 * Perusing these page particularly, I have seen multiple attacks against Fox News, and Wall Street Journal, and other right of center leaning in their opinion content, stating that they are not reliable sources within their news content. Those attacks very much are, IMHO, part of IDONTLIKEIT.
 * Imagine if editors were out to say that the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and New York Times were not reliable sources because their commentary/editorial content were left of center. The community would not stand for it; so it shocks me when it is allowed to continue against right of center reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for this board is to determine a consensus of editors whether a source is a reliable source. One does not need to source whether a source is a reliable source. Here we are to look at a source, match it up against the guideline of what makes up a reliable source, and form the consensus.
 * Would it matter if Blog X had hundreds of other blogs saying that it is a reliable source, or one strongly political leaning journalism professor?
 * No, not really.
 * That being said, on contentious BLP articles it's always best to find multiple reliable sources on contentious content. Therefore, the question that should be raised in the article in question's talk page is, is the content supported by more than one reliable source, that isn't a reproduction of the same source (i.e. multiple papers posting an AP article)?
 * If the answer is yes, then it should be kept; if the answer is no, then per BLP the content should be flagged, or removed until it can otherwise be supported by multiple reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are merely asserting that the Mail meets WP:RS? Fair enough, that is your opinion - which seems to be in the minority here. The material being cited is contentious, and the reliability of the source is questionable. WP:BLP policy is clear - in such circumstances, the material should not be included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, I can't help but notice that you seem to be making an issue of whether a source leans right or left. POV of a source is not generally an issue of reliability, as it is expected that source will have a point of view. People sometime try to make an issue of it in the case of Fox, WSJ, or NPR, but those arguments generally bear little weight outside of those areas in source that are opinion pieces, and in those cases generally the problem is solved by attribution. In BLPs the bar for reliability of sources is very high, and in this case the article in the Daily Mail simply does not meet that bar, at least in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others. The language of the article in question is clearly inflammatory, and thus inappropriate for a BLP. If the information is truly important, it will have been covered in other sources, and I suggest you hunt such down. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand BLP policy, and please re-read my last posting. I stated quiet clearly, that per BLP policy that contentious content should be supported by multiple reliable sources to ensure accuracy.
 * That does not mean that the Daily Mail is any less a reliable sources even if the wording is inflammatory or sensationalized; even if this opinion is in the minority.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Mail website. WP's Daily Mail article shows a recent front page. My attempts to view nationalenquirer.com in the usual way are greeted with the retort from 209.81.89.177 that "The content of this website is not available in your area", but I can read its headlines this way; it's closer to the Mail than is the New York or even the London Times. Yes, the Mail does energetically pursue such issues of our times as which celeb is dating which other celeb, and which hairstyles they are sporting, and which swimsuits they have worn where; for all I know, it may be a reliable source for this area. However, for celeb-unrelated matters, see this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that in this particular area (race/immigration) the Mail has been shown to pervert its sources to suit its political ideals, so it should not be considered a reliable source for this type of reporting. Since the tidbit in the article in question is precisely one of this kind, it follows that another, less politically biased source must be found. (And heaven forbid we cite any of their columnists as sources of facts, see Melanie Phillips, for a sample). FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is perfectly fine for factual matters. I know some "dontlikeit" but the fact is that the number of libel suits against it is similar to the other UK papers -- even The Times errs. As for adjectives used? All the UK papers use stronger adjectives than Wikipedia likes. Opinion columns should be treated like opinion columns from any source, of course.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the Mail is not 'fine for factual matters'. They frequently report things as facts that aren't. Hoary has already linked this . Have you read it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy. It depends a lot what the facts are about. See the article in New Statesman linked by Hoary at the end of his post above for some shocking examples of "fact reporting" in the Mail in the area of immigration. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not directly related to the area under discussion at hand here, but the Mail's Phillips on evolution: "For many, the claim that evolution enabled life to cross the species barrier so that humans are merely the last link in the evolutionary chain remains a step too far -- not least because, by the standards science itself sets, it fails the test of evidence. It is merely a theory. To go even further, as some scientists do, and make the leap from evolutionary theory to the claim that this somehow explains the origin of life itself clearly fails the test of logic. [...] Scientific knowledge may have dealt a serious blow to religious belief, but science does not fill the gaps in our understanding of existence. It does not explain the irreducible complexity of certain cells for example, which cannot have been formed by simple organisms coming together." Note the "subtle" writing that starts with "For many" but then 99% endorses that view, leaving 1% for plausible deniability of merely being "journalistic" reporting of others' ideas. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The DM has come up UMPTEEN times before, to be more specific there are 24 results if you search in the archives of this page. So we have a consensus. The DM is sometimes OK, for some things. Usually not the best source for contentious matters. This is contentious, and a BLP question. Newspapers are never OK for tittle-tattle, and what someone's nickname was in their university days is tittle-tattle if anything is. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are more substantive matters sourced from DM like his drinking and dating habits. The only thing that makes these issues substantive is the ideology he later espoused condemning them fiercely. In a different biography, I'd wholeheartedly agree to remove them without second thought. By the way, substantively the same content is addressed by the other tabloid below, and reproduced in a non-tabloid article that unfortunately has its own issue. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The London Evening Standard
The article in question now quotes only the Evening Standard for the questionable stuff. At the time of the article this was a struggling tabloid that belonged to the same Daily Mail and General Trust, sold for £1 to Lebedev soon thereafter. It does not strike me as more reliable that the Mail itself for this story. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari
Ironically, the only non-tabloid source here is Johann Hari's quote in the Independent. But then, he's not exactly squeaky clean either, being known for changing quotes from his interviewees. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And the concern is less than theoretical. One of Hari's other terrorism-wannabe interviewees complained about it:. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, seems to have copied stuff from the Daily Mail before. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifehacker
Is Lifehacker considered a reliable source for software? Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't read it, but based on its reasonably well sourced Wikipedia article, I would say yes. Did they publish something specific you find questionable? FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't find anything questionable. I just used it as a reference in a software article that I started. The website is referred to as a blog so I wasn't sure about reliability. Joe Chill (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lifehacker is fairly respected among software engineers. Many refer to it daily. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in lead from Lynne McTaggart
The lead to Transcendental Meditation movement includes the following phrase: "with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests." The source for that is a book titled The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne McTaggart.

This is what the source says:

''Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling. Many of the studies have been published in impressive Journals, such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures. A recent study, the National Demonstration Project in Washington DC, conducted over two months in 1993, showed that when the local Super Radiance group increased to 4000, violent crime, which had been steadily increasing during the first five months of the year, begun to fall, to 24 per cent, and continued to drop until the end of the experiment. As soon as the group disbanded, the crime rate rose again. The study demonstrated that the effect couldn’t have been due to such variables as weather, the police or any special anti-crime campaign.''

The source says nothing about the TM movement beyond this single sentence, gives no evidence, quotes, citations or anything to support this passing assertion which is taken out of context. Given that the assertion is unsupported and taken out of context, is this book a reliable source, as used? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether the statement is reliably sourced, and I think that's dubious, it should be removed from the lede because it is not discussed further in the article. The reader has no idea what this ominous-sounding statement is referring to. Brmull (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I may have been the editor who wrote that. The material can certainly be expanded on in the text if that's the problem.
 * ...the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests...
 * ...with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.
 * That's a reasonably close paraphrase. I don't see any assertion that McTaggart is not a reliable source. I'm not sure why this noticeboard was chosen, but I don't see the sourcing problem.   Will Beback    talk    09:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead should be a brief introductory to the article. This information fails to meet that criteria. I think its unconvincing. --Freknsay (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's no reason to delete text, just to move it.   Will Beback    talk    20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly a book that purports to give "a compelling presentation of the theory that there is a measurable life force in the universe" strikes me as unreliable for any purpose outside an article about itself or its author, Lynne McTaggart. Or maybe Jedis exist? FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * An article in the Sunday Times described the book as "a triumph of pseudoscience" and clarified that "about the only thing experts agree on is that quantum effects do not support homeopathy, extrasensory perception or any of the other nonsense in The Field." If there are any worthy facts in that book, I'm sure other more reliable sources have them as well. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a Google News search for "Maharishi" and "scam" easily find less dubious and less vague sources you could cite instead (Statesman Journal) "Many TM teachers and students claim the technique has changed their lives, yet some scientists, scholars and former TM practitioners criticize TM as a deceitful money-making scam." FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular sentence is unreliable because it is an anomaly. The paragraph is about something entirely different and that isolated phrase is an unsubstantiated statement by the author. Thus,the source is unreliable in the way it is being used. As, I think, Brmulls says, the sentence is just left dangling there. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't require reliable sources to have footnotes. I've never heard of the theory that a passage in a source can be unreliable because it is an "anomaly". Are you saying that no one else ever accused the Maharishi of having interest in personal gain? If so, that's incorrect. That's one of the reasons why the Beatles and the Kaplan brothers broke with him.    Will Beback    talk    20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

McTaggart is also used as a source in another TM-related article, TM-Sidhi program If we're going to consider tossing out McTaggart than this passage should probably go too.  Will Beback   talk    20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to "Super Radiance", author Lynne McTaggert wrote in her 2003 book, The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, says that despite ridicule "largely because of the Maharishi's own personal interests, the sheer weight of the data is compelling." She also said that "Many of the studies have been published in impressive journals such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures".
 * Undoubtedly a good idea. It's ironic that a slightly negative opinion of hers was cited in opening statement here. Overall, she's endorsing much of this pseudoscience. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

They are two different articles and the source is used in differently in each, so I suggest we stick with the subject at hand. This thread is about an unsubstantiated single sentence in the lead of the TMM article. As far as I can read, most people feel it is not appropriately placed.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same topic, the same source, even the same paragraph. As for whether there is sufficient material in the body of the article to support inclusion in the lead, that can be fixed by adding more material to the article.   Will Beback    talk    22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, the assertion is only supported by a passing comment in a dependent clause without any further evidence. In regard to Super Radiance, the supporting material in the source covers a page and a half and references a number of studies. In one case the assertion is taken out of context and is unsupported; in the other, there's the sort of evidence and corroboration that one looks for in a secondary source. The material on Super Radiance is also clearly set in the larger context of a discussion of a unified field, and the chapter goes on to corroborate the TM-related assertions with similar studies. Based on the feedback of uninvolved editors, it appears that this source isn't compliant in this context in the TM movement article. You'd need support here from uninvolved editors to remove it from the TM-Sidhi article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that the consensus of those who participated in the discussion is that the sentence in question does not belong in the lead of the article. I will therefore remove it, and thanks to everyone who took the time to help with this. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just don't remove it from the article. Find an appropriate location for it. There's no consensus that the source itself is unreliable.   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Further input invited on the general issue
Similar instances arise here at RSN, and I'd appreciate clarification on the general issue: Is a passing, unsupported assertion in a book a reliable source? The above is a good example. The source says: "Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling." This is the ONLY mention of the TM organization in the book. There are no facts or examples or quotes or evidence of any kind to support the assertions regarding the TM organization. In instances like this, in which the source is being used in Wikipedia to state the assertion as fact, is the book a reliable source for the particular assertion? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

afterelton.com/user/19
This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post, [http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight] the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of WP:SPA to the related Wikipedia discussion. - please read the extensive chat discussions related to wikipedia before commenting, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to be user-generated content, which isn't allowed. That pages's author is refered to as a "user" by the site, not "author" or "writer." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the author is identified by the site as an "editor", and this does appear to be a professional blog. What's going on in the comments section does not affect whether the source is reliable. Brmull (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to his page, he is a published novelist that became an editor for After Elton in 2005. That doesn't sound like a "user" to me. Silver  seren C 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally the WP article we're talking about is Luke Evans (actor). Brmull (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. Michael Jensen is not a particularly successful author - "Frontiers" ranks at #1,174,130 which is not exactly indicative of a major author.  'Firelands" is not as popular.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what that has to do with anything. We're not discussing writing an article about Michael Jensen. Silver  seren C 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that we're not quoting the writer's opinion, we're quoting the comment he received from Evans' publisher, which is notable. Silver  seren C 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to our own article (AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com), "Michael Jensen has been the editor in chief of AfterElton.com since November 2005". AfterElton is owned by Logo whose parent is Viacom. So the question here isn't really about "user generated content" as suggested earlier, it is about a piece written by the editor-in-chief of a Viacom-owned website, quoting the BLP subject's publicist. While there are good reasons to handle all issues relating to labelling someone's sexuality with care, this issue has been needlessly turned into a polemical dispute. I think both sides need to step back. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Those thinking about wading into this should be aware of the frighteningly big debate at BLP/N. This doesn't mean you shouldn't get involved, but bring a flack jacket if you do.BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question to this Noticeboard was if this blog is a RS for a quote from Evan's publicist, and I think it is. Brmull (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether afterelton.com is generally reliable, it is certainly reliable for simply passing on what the publicist has said. The quote does not appear to have been twisted or edited in any way. Delicious carbuncle is right to advise would-be polemicists on both sides to roll up their banners. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have purposefully not read the article or the talk page discussions yet. The site seems reliable to me for a limited purpose, although I note that the blog mentions WP, so extreme care should be taken to avoid a loop there. But as SilverSeren and DC note, the author seems to have been an editor there since 2005 (In 2005, I became editor of AfterElton.com and one of the contributing editors for The Big Gay Picture.). The site does not appear to be open to just anyone, they appear to have a staff, and the author's statements seem neutrally presented. I think Viacom's ownership is, however, irrelevant, but Logo seems directly involved in the site, and that seems to support the notion of general reliability.
 * That being said, we need to observe WP:BLPGOSSIP. The one thing I think we can/need to use this article for is the statement of Evans's management. We have the advocate and walesonline directly, so while we can cite the source in question to say that the advocate and walesonline said what they said, that does not really add anything beyond what they said. The rest of the article, including the issue of Evans's possible bisexuality, seems to be purely speculation on the authors part, and I do not think the author is notable enough that we should include his opinions or speculations in a BLP. Clearly referencing anything in the comments is right out. I'm not aware of any policy that says we cannot link to a page that has reader comments, even for a BLP, so I do not think that is a valid objection (but if there is such a policy, please let me know). But using this to reference Evans's management's statement seems fine to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The one thing I think we can/need to use this article for is the statement of Evans's management." That's exactly what it was being used for before it was removed. The consensus seems to be for including it as a source for the publicist's statement, so I'll put it back in. AlbionBT (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments here were prompted by what I saw as a distorted portrayal of the source in question. While there seems to be consensus here that the source is reliable, that should not be taken as an endorsement to include the content in the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about how this website meets our general reliability requirements. WP:RS says: " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The piece of information presented here is clearly found within "editorial commentary." IMO this website cannot be treated as a reliable source for news reporting and should be treated as a source of editorial commentary. Can someone explain to me why that wouldn't be the case?Griswaldo (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How so if the reference is limited to what Evans's management said when contacted by the author? The author directly quotes statement from Evans's management, and if we reference that quotation, I see no issue with reliability. Do we have any reason to suppose that the author is misquoting Evans's management? The statement itself does not seem controversial to me, since all the quote contains is a "no comment" statement, and a statement that Evans once did talk about his personal life, which was already known from the interview in another source. As I said, I do not support inclusion of any of the speculation and opinions of the author, but the quotation itself seems fine. And I concur with DC that just because the source is reliable for this one statement, that does not mean it must be included in the article, that's an issue for another venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Soap operas
Would Soapdom.com be considered a reliable source for information on soap operas. --Nk3play2 my buzz 08:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific edit you want to do? I have some serious concerns about the editorial control just looking at the founder's page. She has given herself a bunch of titles including Queen, CEO and SVP. Is this real, or is she playing businesswoman? Also her filmography doesn't jibe with her IMDB page. Maybe this is all supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but I would say the site is possibly reliable for interviews, doubtful for anything else. Brmull (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dog breed website
An RfC has been initiated raising the question of whether or not a given dog-fancier web site is an acceptable source for dog-oriented WP articles. Editors with experience in RS issues would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

sterling submachine gun
9X19mm is .380 ACP or .380 auto (in Europe - 9mm kurz - kurz means short) 9X21mm is 9mm Parabellum (9mm Luger) Ask anyone who knows firearms.
 * How bout, "No". 9mm Luger/9mm Parabellum are 9X19mm, whereas.380 ACP or 9mm Kurtz is actually 9X17mm.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What source are you objecting too?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

More then two weeks no any review yet?
I had asked the editors to give their opinion about as under contents but I am still waiting for it.Can you spare the time to make any review please?. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Urdutoday.com a website or forum/blog?.I would like to bring this matter to the experienced editors to decide that,that Urdutoday.com is a website or a just forum.In my opinion it is a standard website consist of editorial board,chief editor and administrator,see,http://www.urdutoday.com/content/terms-and-conditions in enlish and urdu.Please be fair clear and bold to give your opinion regardless any language. Please see Talk:page or article discussion Ehsan Sehgal.I hope editors who know the Urdu may take part in this discussion.If it is not a website,can be used as a external link?.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the key phrase: Material sent by any member will be checked by our team of editors and it can take 2 weeks long for final publishing. Its content is still user submitted even though there is a level of editorial oversight, in much the same way IMDB is and we don't accept that as a RS. Unless there are areas of the site that are published strictly by professional staff I'd have to say it isn't a RS. Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What are the specific statements and references to be assessed? And where doe Ehsan Sehgal want to use it? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As the matter of fact,User:Biker Biker has rejected urdutoday as a reliable source,therefore, article of the subject has been edited by multiple editors,and some sections and many phrases have been removed from the article, in result,the article's contents are not accord with,what should be.
 * Well,fine,that you have paid attention to my request.Dear User:Nuujinn my question is not a particular statement or reference,but whole website,urdutoday.com,that its contents (submissions) are,or can be referenced as reliable source or not?.

On my request,User:LadyofShalott and User:Drmies have helped me a great to expanding the article,but it still needed more,that's why I need the reliability of urdutoday.com,sothat it can be used as a reliable source,if not then,can it be used as a external links?. Please take a look at article Ehsan Sehgal discussion page,then may you reach the final opinion.Once again thanks for your kind attention. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. It appears that they have some editorial oversight, so in that respect they might qualify. On the other hand, I see something like th isand it seems more like a social networking site, and thus not reliable. And I take it that you are Ehsan Sehgal (otherwise you're in violation of our username policy), working on an article about yourself (which we strongly recommend against). On the site there is this short bio, but the author is "admin", which could be anyone really, and most reliable sources give the name of the author of the piece. Also, see, , and , which are reproductions of material that one would assume have some form of copyright, and we're not supposed to link to copyright violations. So on the whole, I would say it does not in general appear to be reliable or high quality. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

and I have asked that.Just a short reply to your this point that"violation of username policy",I am not expertise,but what I know a little,that,well it is strongly discouraged,but not forbidden.
 * That's amazing,ok,first of all,that,that noticeboard is to assess the reliability of the sources,

I think mostly websites have many sections,as like,Culture,Literature,Article,Poetry,Politics, religion,discussion page,blogs,forums and etc,similarly,many daily newspapers include that all. Your assessment is weak and poor,you did not see the homepage,Urdutoday.com, with this Urdu poetry, Article,Literature,Afsana (in english) and 11 sections,(in urdu).
 * As you say,urdytoday.com seems more like a social working site.this


 * You say,"On the site there is this short bio, but the author is "admin", which could be anyone really, and most reliable sources give the name of the author of the piece."

and see also this,http://www.urdutoday.com/users/c-editor name and photo of chief editor. and see this,http://www.urdutoday.com/content/terms-and-conditions, specially this sentence, "Material sent by any member will be checked by our team of editors and it can take 2 weeks long for final publishing."
 * I say,in daily newspapers,editors and reporters mostly do not mention their names in news and writings,but those are considered as reliable sources.Ok,leave it,and see this,http://www.urdutoday.com/content/premiumpaid-membership ,here is the name of administrator,

Tell me please what is the more reliability,and high quality of any website,you are looking for and searching?. you should not ignore intirely the reliability of urdutoday.com. I am looking towards other editors opinion in this regard.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found this one too,see,http://www.urdutoday.com/content/administration-structure-new-urdutoday .I have problem with this page,I find at home page but here happing error,I try again. see,       http://www.urdutoday.com/users/c-editor                                                                      Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In regard to the username policy, there's nothing wrong with your using Ehsan Sehgal if you are Ehsan Sehgal. But if you are him, and you're working on Ehsan Sehgal, you would seem to have a conflict of interest. In regard to sourcing, I cannot give you any further assessment because I do not know what statements you wish to source, or what part of the web site you wish to use as a reference. I disagree with your assessment in regard to daily newspapers, as most editors and reporters do use their names, that's what a byline is. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no any objection,but what you have referred Byline it does not cite any references or sources,thus not reliable,and you did not see Anonymity this also needs additional citations for verification.I have not said that all editors don't use their name.In our part of the world mostly do not use name in news items and editorials,though in exclusive news they do.Anyway thanks for your review I am learning much in this regard.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My question is obvious,reliability of urdutoday.com.In regard to daily newspapers you disagree,

problematic sources
Some sources are problematic not due to offensive, or restricted material but due to its technical content and information, while most people who use these sites are mature and know the difference between right and wrong, there is the small population that who giving specific content would be like giving a 4 year old a loaded gun, while the kid can use it, is it really safe or sane to give it to them? Should some posts be excluded from sourcing or citing information as part of its content? A classic example would be "How to split the world in two halfs like a knife through a apple" as referenced in the book Tesla a man out of time by margaret cheney Is it right to make reference and links to tesla's theory when writting about new types of high explosives, even though the linked subjects are necessary in the explination, description (process) or danger, even with all contents for each subject being freely available? Crackpot1234 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Er.....if it is in the article, and the source is reliable, then the content should be sourced to the source. There isn;t a get-out on that one.  I'm not sure that Nicolai Tesla really did come up with what you might call a practical solution for blowing the world to bits, but I believe we feature the chemical formula for it in the article on LSD, and one of the sources probably tells you how to make it in your  kitchen. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands
David Tatham (1 June 2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 9780955898501. http://books.google.com/books?id=0D0VNAAACAAJ. Retrieved 17 March 2011.

Is extensively used in this article. The work, however, is clearly and absolutely "self-published." Seeking a library to borrow it from finds one copy in Germany and one in South Africa, which means that they are the only two in the world AFAICT.

I suggest it is not a "reliable source" as a result, but would appreciate input from others here or at the article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6136120 "published by editor" its an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I know it and you know it, but one editor insists it is RS and not self-published at all . The review makes clear that he compiled a group of autobiographies and the like, and even had to have some "embellished"  .  One editor gave me a 3RR notice after 1RR  and I would prefer to have others also point out to him that his views may be errant here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When the publisher matches the author name, that is a definite red flag. Not RS, unless someone claims that the SPS is from a recognized expert in the field, which is one of the exceptions of SPS (if memory serves me at this time)(and even then to be used with caution). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish it to be noted that I was not made aware of this thread and only found out by a comment he placed on another users talk page see .  Tatham is the editor, there are a myriad of contributors and it is not a self-published source.  The book was the result of a project to create a definitive biography of the people of the Falkland Islands.  Its well researched, impeccable for its fact checking and has a number of noted contributors.  I got my copy from the Falkland Islands Government Office in London.  For the record I didn't give a 3RR notice and I'm still waiting for the editor who started this thread to name his sources and have asked him to do so three times now.
 * Further read the very review you cite A remarkable compilation of facts that will not only act as a reference volume for all time but one from which a great deal of instruction and even entertainment may be derived.
 * Further I don't accept this is the accepted definition of an SPS as it is neither a personal web page or a book which the author paid to have published. It reflects neither criteria and anyway per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Tatham read history at Wadham College Oxford and has had written a number of articles on Falkland Islands history, is chairman of the Falkland Islands Association, a founder member of the South Georgia Association, Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund and was governor of the Falkland Islands from 1992-1995.  The work meets the requirement of a WP:RS and should not be excluded as the editor demands. Rather than providing the sources for his own edit, he is trying to negate a well researched reference work that is absolutely invaluable for anyone writing on Falkland Islands history.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I wrote in the article's talk page, David Tatham is the chair of the editorial board of that book not its author. And the book is a reliable source, reviewed by the Polar Record Journal as linked above. Apcbg (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The review makes clear that it is self-published. That the articles were autobiographies of islanders which were then "embellished." The work is unavailable for a number of reasons, and is not used as a cite by anyone per Google Scholar. It is available if I travel to Germany or South Africa . The "editorial board" exists only with regard to the book - making use of it as somehow increasing his notability rather outre. The editor of a book is perforce the head of the "editorial board" for the book. So scratch that one. . By the way, being Her Majesty's Governor does not make one an historian of any great repute. As for the 3RR notice:
 * ===3RR===
 * Do I have to resort to a formal 3RR warning for an established editor? You did not even read my talk page reply before reverting. Siding with editors who resort to disruptive editing to get their own way, will only encourage them to continue in the same vein. The wording reflects the source and is neutral in content. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a 3RR notice by any standards I have ever seen. I take it that the big "3RR" at the top refers to the three main railroads in the Falklands? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading history does not make you an expert, nor does holding a govenment possition make you an expert. Where did these artciels appear? As editor Mt Latham published his own book, its an SPS. Also a review does ot establish its RS, nor thats its not SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands is very much a niche topic in the English language and as such sources are rather difficult to obtain. It has taken me years to track down the 1960 copy of Mary Cawkell's The Falkland Islands for example. But on this occasion that claim is utter nonsense, the work is readily available albeit expensive. You don't have to go to Germany or South Africa, there is a copy in the British Library, which means you can obtain a copy from any public library upon request. You simply fill in an inter-library loan request, the fee is around £25. Similarly there is more to Tatham's qualifications that his service as the Falkland Islands Governor, yet you seem hell bent on ignoring that to launch attacks on his integrity and credibility. Really you have lost your sense of perspective when you have to resort to such hyperbole in order to rubbish a source in this manner. Finally, that was not intended as a 3RR warning, if you take it as such that is your problem not mine. Pointedly I was trying to initiate a discussion and to stop your edit warring to impose a change claiming a consensus that doesn't in fact exist. The alleged consensus you refer to was disruptive editors who have plagued the page for months, including the prodigious use of sock puppets and these are the editors you've chosen to back. You have seriously lost the perspective here. As regards Tathams use in reliable 3rd party sources, cited here, Google Scholar turns up plenty , ,,, it is regularly cited in works related to the Falkland Islands. It is a WP:RS and should not be excluded as demanded. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Contributors include, for example Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon). Those are just a brief sample. This is a reliable source. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Board of Editors" != "contributors." "Oxford graduate" != notable historian  "Published by self" = "self-published."  "3RR" != "three railroads in the Falklands."   Stating a source which is self-published is self-published is not an attack on anyone's "integrity and credibility."   The project name is "Wikipedia" and editors are expected to know that articles must meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Attacking the messager is quite rarely a good idea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Would WP policies and guidelines include WP:RS seeing as the last time I looked Websters was not considered an authority on the history of the Falkland Islands. But you named it as the source of your edits.  I've just named a list of contributors who are all noted academics, the book is a reliable source and meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines but you don't wish to listen when this is pointed out to you.  You try and pick at minor points, but this doesn't detract from the main point that it is a reliable source cited in reliable third party citations.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I repeatedly stated Websters is good for noting that "claimed" has several distinct meanings, and that the use to which it was being put (Vernet claimed a settlement was burned) was better answered by using the common word "said."    Please avoid such straw man arguments.   The "contributors" are listed as a board of editors, and the review states specifically that the subjects of the book wrote their own biographies.   Meanwhile, you state you found some actual third-party reliable sources for verifying some of the material?  And you can show that D. Tatham is not D. Tatham the publisher?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you what the source was for your edit and you said "Websters" repeatedly. My comments reflected your reply to my request to name a source for your edit, no strawman, just an accurate reflection of your conduct today.  I've shown this to be a reliable source, repeatedly used by 3rd parties in citations above and don't feel the need to repeat myself.  The source meets the requirements of wikipedia policy and guidelines. Your conduct is now bordering on hounding.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I stated exactly as follows:
 * Consensus. And Webster. Vernet may have filed a "claim" (formal claim) against a government, but he "said" the settlement was destroyed. [8] note that the "statement" is different from "Something claimed in a formal or legal manner, especially a tract of public land staked out by a miner or homesteader." Understand the difference? 
 * Which I regarded as a civil answer.
 * Your response was precisely:
 *  Which SOURCE says that? Which SOURCE did you use?
 * To which I replied civilly:
 * Webster. Your source is not available for anyone to check, is self-published, and not written by an expert on Falkland history - it was based on solicited autobiographies from islanders. I think you will note the outcome of the RS/N discussion. Cheers
 * Which I rather feel was cordially worded. I do not see how any of my posts can conceivably be treated as "hounding" by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where and in which source is the statement "Vernet said" and which historical work did you base your edit on? Your reply was "Websters".  Could you also go back and add the sly little digs with the  emoticon and your remarks about your "magic 8 ball".  You claim to have gone out of your way to be civil, when clearly you haven't.  As for hounding you follow me to a friends talk page when I ask for a little sanity and every time I edit you're there within seconds.  You ask again for material already provided and some of your arguments are frankly ridiculous.  Yes you're hounding me and I'm rapidly tiring of it.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommend you stop dodging the question, which is - is this a collection of autobiographies published by the chap who collected them? If they were 'embellished', do we even know if the contributors approve of their contributions? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which question I am supposedly dodging? I do not believe the question of "embellishment" has arisen. I've already answered a number of allegations including the claim it was only available in Germany and South Africa, not readily available and not used in 3rd party citations - all false.  I've even seen it claimed that its use in 3rd party citations detracts from its use as a WP:RS.
 * The book is a collection of essays, some are written by the descendants of individuals as it was in part an attempt to capture history that was only available orally. Where content was short the article was asked to be expanded by 3rd parties and yes approval was obtained. The biographies of noted people like Vernet are the work of scholars such as Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe who are acknoweldged experts on Falkland Islands history and on Vernet in particular.  It has a list of noted academic contributors, an editorial board that vetted content and peer review before publication.  It is regularly cited by 3rd parties and the reviews cited above note the accuracy of its content. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The review uses the word "embellish" and this was stated above. The library search I made only showed one library in Germany and one in South Africa having it - I never said it was only available there, and the price on Amazon is from outside sources offering it for over $200 a copy, not from Amazon.com a total of a single seller at this point). The review made no claim of the book being "peer reviewed" by the way, and no outside cites are found in academic papers according to Google Scholar, so it is not "regularly cited" by a mile. . Meanwhile, the issue of self-published is now fully established as correct. Cheers. I leave this in the hands of the others here lest you post more errant claims about my posts. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK a review of this thread

A) Availability in libraries. See  Copy is available in the British Library, any public libary in the UK can obtain a loan via a BL request. B) Availability: see ,. It is available new and second hand from Amazon UK and it seems Amazon US. Its covering a niche topic so the fact it is only available from specialists is not significant. C) It is claimed again that it is not widely cited in 3rd party sources. See, Google Scholar turns up plenty , ,,, .  I would point out that constructing an academic search with the format '"David Tatham" Falkland Islands' would bring up significantly less hits as most academics use Turabian and would only use the Author's initial. Note again this is a niche topic and you would not expect a huge number of hits anyway. D) The editorial process is described in the book itself, I have accurately transcribed how it was compiled. In particular I addressed the claim of "embellishment" and noted that the biographies were peer reviewed.  In addition, academic reviews cited to claim it as an "SPS" acknowledge the accuracy of the content. E) It is neither a personal website, nor did David Tatham pay for the book to be published. This is the criteria for WP:SPS. It was published by the editorial board led by Tatham, if we apply this new criteria then we exclude many academic journals as "SPS". F) Although David Tatham led an editorial board, the contributors on articles of noted individuals are noted academics I can name any on request. Tatham did not write the article on Vernet I quoted, that was compiled by the noted experts in the field Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe. G) David Tatham is noted for being published in 3rd party sources for this project  Note ready availability in numerous libraries. H) Tatham has other qualifications for having expertise on the Falkland Islands. Tatham read history at Wadham College Oxford and has had written a number of articles on Falkland Islands history, is chairman of the Falkland Islands Association, a founder member of the South Georgia Association, Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund and was governor of the Falkland Islands from 1992-1995. I) Re-inforcing the point that Tatham was the editor, other noted contributors include as a sample Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon).

The start of this thread was misleading as to the availability of the book, how it was published, the compilation process. Nor it is extensively used for cites it is used for 4 of 126.

Further, WP:SPS (and I don't accept this is an SPS for the reasons stated above) has an exception for Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe certainly meet that criteria and David Tatham would as well. This work meets every requirement to be a WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not an ideal source but I'd support it's use in the article with some conditions.
 * Given the nature of the article and where controversial topics within the article are dealt with I think ideally only the best and most authoritative sources should be referenced.
 * This is a problematic source for a number of reasons and I don't think that it is wise to give it the same weight as an "academic" source and by all indications it was not intended as an academic text. This is evident in the absence of citations in the text and the solicitation in many instances of articles from people with personal connections to the subject matter rather than expertise.
 * Other difficulties with the text are that: 1) It hasn't been published by an academic press. 2) It has clearly been published by David Tatham, the editor of the collection, a major contributor to the collection and founder of one of the funding bodies for this and related projects. 3) The quality of the editorial board is mixed and, while not without expertise, they may lack authority in the historical areas that are contentious in the article. The board includes: David Tatham; Malcolm Barton who has published a book on the stamps of the Falkland Islands; Graham Bound, editor of a Falkland Islands newspaper; Jim McAdam, a published expert on the plant types in the Falkland Islands; Frank Mitchell, another philatelist; Ann Savours Shirley, a widely published authority on the history of polar expeditions; and Ronnie Spafford, an eccentric ex-soldier.
 * It should be kept in mind that the text in certain instances has been crafted to address and counter specific claims regarding the history of the islands as relevant to the Argentine claims of sovereignty. Given Tatham's http://www.falklands.info/factfile/fiassociationlatest.html own position] it would be naive to regard this as a disinterested source. This point is particular relevant for the contribution by Pascoe and Pepper which was presented to the U.N.'s decolonisation committee in the annual debate about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
 * Given that this is a collective work, involving diverse bodies and persons, I don't think that it meets the criteria of a self-published work.
 * The Dictionary does have a presence in the scholarly literature but it is extremely limited - at least two instances are by a contributor to the dictionary who is citing his own work. Also, given the diversity of the collection in terms of topics covered it would have been helpful if, say, Pascoe and Pepper's article had been cited.
 * If it's to be used I'd like a proper citation that contains the author of the article. This is necessary to judge the authority of any given article. I'd exclude all articles written by the subject of an article (not used in here in any case, I think). In fact, I'd ultimately favour establishing whether a given article in the collection meets acceptable rs standards rather than for the collection as a whole.
 * I think where this source is used to support a contentious historical point with implications for the sovereignty debate it should either be supported by another more authoritative source or, where the point is contested, alternative sources should be introduced to represent alternative points of view.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am mostly agreeing with Byrne up above, but would like to note additional concerns with WP:PRIMARY as an autobiography is. That being the case I do support its use in a more limited fashion within the article, so long as it is reasonably handled. I would like to say to Collect above that comments such as these, "The work is unavailable for a number of reasons, and is not used as a cite by anyone per Google Scholar. It is available if I travel to Germany or South Africa ." are not helpful. Not only have both been subsequently disproved, but your use of the grinning emoticon each time you make a point comes across poorly. I am not sure what you are doing to look for libraries, but a simple world cat search returns 508 libraries with possession of a copy.
 * More importantly, in the time since its original publication it appears this work has been republished by Polar Record which is a reliable source. It's current citation thus reads:
 * Tatham, D, and I.R Stone. "The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (including South Georgia): from Discovery Up to 1981." Polar Record. (2009): 384. Print.
 * AerobicFox (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More than 10% of the "work" was written by the editor. That much is "self-published."  The autobiographies were "embellished" which reduces any reliablilty further.   ThePolar Record use is for the review - it is not a reprint of the work -- in fact the review is on page 384 .  Sorry - this does not establish the work as being anything more than what ist is - a collection of embellished autobiographies supplemented by 50 biographies written by Tatham <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that AerobicFox, that is most helpful. So it is a reliable source .  In answer to the two latest comments, it use is limited in the article (4 of 126 inline citations).  Am I also right in thinking that where an article is written based on research from 3rd party sources, WP:PRIMARY would not be of consideration?  I am thinking specifically of the Vernet article that was written by Pepper and Pascoe.  Responding specifically to Byrne, if you could suggest a better way of formatting the cite to include the author names I would be most grateful.  Although I am an experienced editor I struggled to find the best way of doing it.  BTW Ironically the point that was supported is actually in favour of Argentina's sovereignty claim, repeating the Argentine position the settlement was destroyed in 1831. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Try this for the citation


 * AerobicFox - what makes you think Polar Journal reprinted the work? I think they just reviewed it. Regardless, If David Tatham didn't write the articles, and it is possible to cite the contributions as shown above, that makes it less problematic to my mind, particularly if the authors of the contributions have some kind of academic reputation. Since sources in this area seem so meagre, one probably should phrase it "Foo has opined that....." since there probably isn't a scholarly consensus on some of this stuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Polar Record is a Cambridge Journal. As stated above they have not republished this book. I.R. Stone wrote a largely positive review of the work which is available for free here.
 * For the citation, this is an example of the form I have used for a multi-authored text in an edited collection -


 * This produces:


 * FiachraByrne (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I would like to shift the focus from the eligibility of the collected work as an RS to that of the individual articles within the text that have been cited.
 * The claim is made above that Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are acknowledged experts in the field. Pascoe appears to be a language teacher and Pepper is a geologist. I cannot find any publications by these authors on the history of Falkland Islands in any peer reviewed journal or in book form - if we exclude this collection. They have written a long treatise on the history of the Falklands but this seems to be unpublished as of yet. There is also available online a rebuttal of pamphlet outlining the Argentinian case for sovereignty over the islands. As far as I can determine they have no established expertise. Moreover, it is clear that they are a biased source given that their contributions are aimed directly at supporting the British claims to sovereignty. I can find no evidence that they are acknowledged experts in the field.
 * Ditto for Tatham. His only publication in a peer reviewed journal that I can find is one recounting his experience of compiling the collection. He certainly has no publication record in academic formats relating to the history of the Falklands.
 * Unless there is some overwhelming argument for the inclusion of these sources due to their coverage, for instance, of aspects entirely ignored by other sources, I would tend to exclude them.
 * I wouldn't exclude all articles from this collected text, but there must be better sources available for historical treatments of the history of the islands than that which they provide.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable WP:SPS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  The book review in Polar Record said, "this is a very significant contribution towards any history of the Falkland Islands...."  It is similar to many of the local history books used throughout many articles.  However, neutrality provides a limit - we cannot assume that the opinions expressed in the book have any weight and should use better sources where they are available.  I would not use it for example as a source for the dispute between the UK and Argentina.  TFD (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Four Deuces's succinct evaluation.FiachraByrne (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In point of fact, it is being used to characterize a dispute between Vernet and the US government (akin to the UK/Argentina level of dispute). I suggest its biographical value exceeds it historical value as a resource - the primary author (over 10%) and editor is not an authority as far as historians are concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NO, again NO, it is not being used for that purpose. It was used for an uncontroversial fact that Vernet claimed the US destroyed the settlement, whereas the log of the Lexington reports significantly less.  Please get your facts straight.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with TFD. I would like to add that the review calls the book
 * "A remarkable compilation of facts that will not only act as a reference volume for all time but one from which a great deal of instruction and even entertainment may be derived. "
 * "Academics are prominent, from Britain and a large number of other countries, and some very famous names have thought the project sufficiently worthwhile to deserve support and in which to involve themselves. "(emphasis mine)
 * "All with interests in the Falkland Islands should have it in their libraries."
 * It seems fairly clear that Polar Express considers this a RS. Although there are instances—as have been noted above— in which is should be more carefully used.AerobicFox (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See, publisher is listed as POLAR RECORD in 2009 in this library catalogue. I believe AerobicFox was correct, unless you can tell me the library record is wrong?

Pepper and Pascoe are noted experts in the field, it is a field of mainly amateurs. Klaus Dodds is the only UK historian I'm aware of to have interest since the death of Professor Metford. Mary Cawkell is also a noted expert but an amateur and the only other English language history was written by Ian Strange a naturalist.

The citation is not used for any controversial claims and the reference work is particularly useful as it includes information you won't find elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum, its been claimed the above link is for the review. The review appeared in Polar Record 45, the link refers to the publication in 235. Its not the review. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The citation is wrong, but only because it lists D Tatham and I R Stone as the author of that book review instead of just Stone. The citation is clearly referring to the book review though since Stone is the reviewer, and he would not be listed as an author otherwise. I am not sure what the different no. is referring to, but both articles have a 384 which is in reference to what page they are on, so they are indeed the same. The use of this book for uncontroversial material is definitely okay. I think I may have found some other stuff relevant to this discussion, but must be going.AerobicFox (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has yet addressed the fact that this book is a collection of biographical essays and autobiographies. Who is the author of the essay which is cited as the source, Tatham or someone else? This has not yet been answered - nor has the question of whether or not the specific essay cited has been "embellished", and whether or not that "embellishment" has taken place with or without consent of the subject being treated.


 * In any case, clearly the author is also editor and not a recognized expert in the field. As other editors have pointed out above, this is a self-published source, prohibitively expensive for most editors to check, based on solicited essays and autobiographies, not peer-reviewed, not referenced in any outside citations. Polar Record is not a reprint and only constitutes a review. Note the link provided by Wee Curry Monster also refers to pp.384, which is the review and not the actual work. As for Pascoe and Pepper, they have no other publications on the islands' history, at least that I have found.


 * Tatham in my view fails WP:SPS outright and by definition WP:RS. It is clearly an attempt by an editor to support a contentious historical point withing the framework of the sovereignty dispute context. No other, more authoritative sources are provided. No other alternative sources are introduced or represented in the article's text. It is being used to characterize a historical fact reported differently by two entities, highlighting the difference between the two, with a subtext of lending credibility to one source and discrediting the other. This material is clearly being used for controversial use and should be excluded from the article in the manner used.Alex79818 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

1. See Talk:Falkland Islands the facts this is used to cite is neither contentious or disputed. 2. See this diff I fixed the problem of attribution. 3. You might care to look at, see also his contribution history and the SPI report (not filed by me by the way) Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818. Alex has been disrupting Falkland Islands articles since 2007, this is just another example of him using wikipedia's processes to be disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, it is not the facts which are in dispute, but the characterization of the facts, which lends a subtext of credibility to one report and not to the other, which is what the citation is being used for. Apart from the highly controversial context that this reference alludes to, Wee Curry Monster has still failed to identify the author of the essay in the book which he uses as a reference. The SPI against me was declined, and for good reason. Personal attacks seem to be a trademark move of this editor who consistently fails to [WP:AGF] and because of his behavior toward me and other editors in this discussion I've referred the matter to WQA. Feel free to comment regarding your interactions with this editor.Alex79818 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Right so now the facts aren't in dispute a moment ago they were. Regarding "characterised" btw it would be worth at this point bringing up the RFC previously initiated which concluded my edits were meticulously cited and NPOV where Alex and his friend were disruptive. Also I have identifed the authors see  (posted above ironically) which merely demonstrates Alex is so focused on disruption he fails to notice when he has actually got what he wanted (against my better judgement).
 * The SPI case is ongoing and has not been declined. Checkuser was declined as the sock puppets are IP addresses.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When you agree to changes it is courtesy to advise other users of this fact. You have not done so. The SPI case has had no activity for two days. The RFC hasn't even been up for a day and only regular editors have posted thus far. Your continued accusations and failure to WP:AGF will only lead to more dispute resolution activity on my part, and once again I am asking you to desist.Alex79818 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)