Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118

Mass Effect 3 IGN Review/Jessica Chobot
The source in question is a review from the gaming website IGN for a game called Mass Effect 3:
 * Moriarty, Colin. "The Last Effect". 12 March 2012..

and in regards to its use on the Mass Effect 3 WP page. Jessica Chobot, an IGN employee, worked on this game and IGN subsequently published a glowing review. Neither on the current WP page or in IGN's review is there any mention of her involvement as an IGN employee. When reading the Mass Effect 3 WP page under the Reception heading, the first review mentioned is that of IGN's. I find her role in the game as a conflict of interest (see WP:QS) that brings into question the validity of IGN as a source used for the reception of this game. Is this a valid reason to remove the IGN review as a reliable source on the Mass Effect 3 WP page? Here is a link to the current Talk page on this issue.  Redredryder (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems simple enough. The talk page is asking for a reliable source that says as much. Here. The Escapist (magazine)'s article http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/firstperson/9390-Jessica-Chobot-and-Mass-Effect-3 focuses on the issue. Is that good enough as a reliable source about a controversy about a living person? I'm not sure, but I'd tend to say so, since it has won plenty of awards, and this is firmly inside the site's focus, and it's not that controversial an issue. So I'd add a sentence to the footnote about the review. Not more than a sentence, since it's not that big a controversy. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All that said, are we now saying that IGN is no longer an RS for its review of this game (which, BTW, is not unlike the other reviews as far as content and such). On the talk page this is what was proposed, that IGN be removed as an RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend that at all. It's still a major review from a major gaming review site, the fact that it is associated with controversy isn't a reason to not link to the review, it's a reason to mention the controversy. --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

THE ORIGINS OF THE RUMANIANS, BY ANDRÉ DU NAY
André du Nay looks like an unreliable author. His name is, according to his own account, a pseudonym: so we don't know his real identity to be able to to assess his competence on historical issues.

Gábor Vékony, an accredited historian, refers to this specific work of him and claims that "it has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information":.

I want a confirmation that I am acting correctly eliminating this sourceRomorinian (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Romorinian is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Iaaasi.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an important point, and another important point is that we don't know what specific article we're talking about and why this book is being cited. However, as a preliminary thought towards an answer, the book "The origins of the Rumanians" looks like self-publication by an author whose expertise is unproven. The preface by Robert A. Hall Jr. is not enough to validate the book -- it's merely a polite letter. And rew D alby  10:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Andre Du Nay is "entrance requirement" at the ELTE (MA level).


 * Scholars as (cited):"Hasdeu, Densusuşianu, Philippide, Puşcariu, Rosetti, Tamás Lajos, Gáldi László, André du Nay " Fakirbakir (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at the Talk:Origin of the Romanians, we need to clearly establish who this Dunay András/André Du nay is and how reliable he is. Fakirbakir, you seem to know more about him. Can you list here what you know about his education, credentials and work? If he is indeed a qualified linguist, than we should only quote him for linguistics and not history or archaeology. But if he is not even a linguist with the right credentials, the references to his work have to be removed, as it was done with Grumeza at Roman Dacia and other articles. Gábor Vékony seems to have very valid observations on his competence. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ex-Jehovah's Witness Barbara Grizzuti Harrison in JW article
There is a dispute at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs over the acceptability of late US author and journalist Barbara Grizzuti Harrison as an additional source for a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly exhibit a dread of demon activity. The statement is contained in her 1978 book, Visions of Glory, which combined a history of Jehovah's Witnesses with a memoir of her time as a member of the religion's headquarters staff and subsequent defection.

User:AuthorityTam has objected to inclusion on the following grounds: (a) Under the guideline WP:NOTRELIABLE Grizzuti Harrison is a “questionable source”. Her book is a memoir and she was not an objective academic because she was an “unabashedly anti-JW activist”. As a questionable source, she is making a “contentious claim” that disparages “every last adherent” of the religion; (b) her statement about fear of demons was based on observations made more than 50 years ago; (c) Her statement about demons is polemic and unencyclopedic because of a metaphorical reference to exorcising personal demons.

I contend:

(a) Grizzuti Harrison was a highly respected author, essayist and journalist whose work has been used by publications including The New York Times, The New Republic, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, Ladies' Home Journal and Mother Jones magazine. She has interviewed Mario Cuomo, Alessandra Mussolini and Barbara Bush among others. She gained wholly complimentary obituaries in the New York Times (which described Visions of Glory as a mix of autobiography and "detailed historical research") and LA Times. Wikipedia notes that her background as a JW informed her insights, and she was consequently "often asked to write about movements that were perceived to be cults; she described families affected by the Unification Church and the Northeast Kingdom Community Church, and reported on the U.S. government's deadly standoff with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas." Her book certainly contains criticism of her former religion, but there is no evidence that she was an “anti-JW activist”. (b) The WP:NOTRELIABLE guideline defines a questionable source as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." Grizzuti Harrison’s book was published by Simon & Schuster and Robert Hale Ltd. It was praised by the NYT for its depth of her research on Jehovah's Witnesses. Her work was used by newspapers and periodicals that do clearly have a concern for both editorial oversight and fact checking and evidently saw no COI in her status as an ex-JW. (c) Visions of Glory is cited by sociologist Andrew Holden (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, Routledge, 2002) professor of history and religious studies M. James Penton (Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses, University of Toronto Press, 1985), Methodist minister Robert Crompton (Counting the Days to Armageddon: Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Second Presence of Christ, James Clarke & Co, 1996), professor James A. Beverley (Crisis of Allegiance: A Study of Dissent Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, Welch, 1986) and Robert Jewett & John Shelton Lawrence (Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil, Wm Eerdmans, 2004).

Objections about the currency and accuracy of her observations are invalid. The WP article already cites three RS on the point, and as I point out on the article talk page, a Google search shows widespread discussion online and in print about the continuing JW fixation with demon attacks and harassment. The widespread publication of Grizzuti Harrison’s work in mainstream publications weighs against claims that she was a polemicist.

Her statement on demons is a brief one, but in the face of strident objections by one editor that the claim re JWs and demons is a fiction, her inclusion is helpful, particularly as it also addresses the apparent conflict between what JW publications say about demons and what commentators observe about the actual behaviour of adherents. BlackCab (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, from reading the paragraph in question, that the statement points to the authors'opinion, not to a fact. As such, expert or not, Grizzuti is reliable enough. In addition, her inclusion or exclusion would not change the text much since two other authors expressed the same opinion.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's an adequate source for the statement actually being made in the article, which is not "all JW have this dread of demons" but "These three people, named WP:INTEXT, say something about JW and demons". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I dont necessarily have an issue with the author having a personal opinion, I dont necessarily think it is notable however, especially considering that the statement is more than questionable and in contradiction with official JW's beliefs. I think the entire paragraph is POV pushing and needs to be removed, but at the very least rebuttal material from WT should be added to balance the POV pushing so that Wikipedia doesn't appear to "take sides" on a very questionable statement. Willietell (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the paragraph is beyond the scope of this page. Briefly though, as stated at the article's Talk page, there is no contradiction between what JWs officially believe, and observations of their actual behaviour. The official JW view is now also presented.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Google Scholar a reliable source?
An editor at Crime Classification Manual wishes to cite a Google Scholar citation search for the assertion The volume has been cited over 300 times in the scholarly literature. I doubt that Google Scholar is a reliable source, but the editor in question has further claimed that Google Scholar is a reliable WP:SECONDARY source with an active editorial staff and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I thought it was a search engine, but apparently they have had dinner with a member of Google Scholar's editorial staff. I do not think this is enough to make GS a reliable source. In passing, I note that the assertion would consitute original research, but my question is about the source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That does smack of original research, although I don't think that it crosses the line. Google Scholar is primarily compiled by automated processes regardless of the size of the staff and their expertise. The numbers are computer generated.  Although you will get multiple hits for the same citation, the numbers are a good clue as to relative number of citations made to a given work.  As such, in discussions about articles, I would say that it is appropriate to use the Google Scholar numbers for evidence.  As to using them in an article for specific counts, I would say that that was inappropriate. However, if Google Scholar shows a high citation rate, a relative statement in an article could appropriately be supported, having nothing to do with editorial staff or fact-checking, but having to do with controlled input procedures and well constructed algorithms. Thus "heavily cited" in the text with Google Scholar as a primary source, since they complied the numbers and that is what is being cited, would, I think, be acceptable in a footnote. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it's reliable, if no other source chooses to mention anything like this, then it's probably not WP:DUE and thus should probably be omitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation counts are not everyday bread and butter. I don't see how WP:DUE comes into this. A single source can be objective. --Bejnar (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of objectivity. It's a question of whether it's important enough to bother mentioning.  If it's not important enough for our sources to mention, then it's not important enough for us to mention, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Using Google Scholar to draw the conclusion of the citation count for a work in "the scholarly literature" is original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I don't think it can be used in that fashion. My experience with Google Scholar shows the search results often includes decidedly non-scholarly results such as popular books and fringe websites, so that the statement is not necessarily true. I also agree with WhatamIdoing that regardless of whether or not it is "reliable", if no secondary source has mentioned the number of Google Scholar citations, it probably is undue to mention it. Yobol (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Search engines, of which Google Scholar is but one, are not reliable sources. Yobol is absolutely correct - it frequently returns sources which are not scholarly, and also frequently returns false positives. Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The major problem is a subtle one of undue weight and a sort of implicit synthesis. By making a declaration about the number of times a particular work has been cited, we are implicitly suggesting that the number of citations is somehow particularly noteworthy in the given instance.  It's a contextless number&mdash;we don't know whether 300 cites in Google Scholar is a lot or a little for a textbook, compared to other similar works.  We don't know anything about the quality of the articles or skill of the researchers that cite this work.  We don't know, for that matter, if the citations are favorable; in principle a large number of citations could be generated by extensive criticism of a work.  Without appropriate secondary sources, we don't know how to interpret the number of citations in any meaningful way, and it's not reasonable to expect our general, non-expert audience to be able to make that interpretation (correctly and meaningfully) themselves.  By itself, the number of Google Scholar hits is a bit of useless puffery. TenOfAllTrades(talk)
 * Just to agree that Google Scholar turns up some really whacky stuff, the antithesis of scholarship. And of course TenOfAllTrades is is absolutely right. There's no context to the number that makes usable. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question most directly, Google Scholar is not even a source, much less a reliable one. It's a search engine. It can lead you to reliable sources. A high number of results using Google Scholar is a good indication that the subject is well covered in reliable sources. But then you have to take the next step of digging in to those sources to see how the subject is treated in them, and to be sure that those sources are truly reliable. It's clear that not all Google Scholar results are reliable academic sources. First Light (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly Google Scholar like Google Books is a search engine, searching a pool of "sources", which are potentially or on average more reliable than a random web search. Hence when looking for sources it might make sense to use Goggle scholar rather than a general web search. However you need to take a look at the results and judge each on its own based on the general criteria for sources (correctness of content, consistence with domian knowledge, reputation of author and publisher, peer and/or edorial review processes, published reviews, etc.).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Count / Word Count of Literary Texts from Sources such as Amazon, Publishers, Project Gutenberg.. etc
This is complex matter so I am going to make the first of several inquiries. List of longest novels has been decimated and probably will go up for AfD unless certain sources are deemed reliable. Most of my arguments will be in succession; noting cross references and their publishers of what should be considered non-controversial statements.

Question #1: Specific to Amazon.com

I was under the impression that page counts from Amazon listings (which come from the publisher) are typically allowable sources. In a previous discussion, David Eppstein wrote: "...I think in general corporate material about their own products counts as WP:SELFPUB: useful for non-controversial factual information (how many pages the book has, what year it was published)..." during a discussion about Amazon's product description being a source. The length of certain books on said list have used this and other sources to back their claim. Currently the page does not use 'word count', but assuming a favorable result on page count I'll continue appropriately.

Observation: Les Misérables

A public domain work. Has several different publications. One from Signet Classics has 1488 pages according to Amazon. Can this product description be used to cite its page count on an article? The same material comes from the publisher which is actually no different in its claim on the Penguin Books Signet webpage at 1488 pages. I was told that sources are unreliable despite making no more claim then the length of their publication. Last I checked Penguin is a reputable book publisher and it serves no purpose to give false information about page count. The instance of the product description is devoid of advertising and states other key information about the product such as its publication date as noted by the ISBN and publisher independently as: Signet Classics; Unabridged Version edition (March 3, 1987). This is independently verifiable and touted by other third parties; mostly sellers of such works. Page count is not the same as an advertising claim; its a statement of fact to the physical description of the book; much like the ISBN number is registered to the work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Les Misérables was written in French. The word count of a translation might differ considerably and surely wouldn't be relevant, would it?
 * Aside from that, the use of amazon.com paginations to extract an estimated word count would be original research and unreliable, while using the raw page numbers to compare lengths of books would often give very misleading results. There are too many variables.
 * Dates on amazon.com are extremely unreliable for older books. Never, never trust them.
 * ISBNs are assigned by publishers: they are not independent sources of anything. If other sellers give the same data as amazon.com, that data is probably not independent either but drawn from the same ultimate source. Essentially, no one in the publishing and bookselling business has a strong interest in getting these details right. They often are right, of course, but also often wrong.
 * I'm really sorry to be so negative. And rew D alby  20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just clarify. I do not care about word count. Or arriving at a word count and Amazon has nothing to do with word counts. I am specifically asking about Page Count. I am not sure if with fake product descriptions and matters of law; but I would be hard pressed to find a book with fake page counts. All I want to confirm is that the product description; specifically page count; can be cited. Even directly coming from the publisher on something that doesn't make a claim, but is a reflection of a physical matter shouldn't be so difficult to cite. Anyone who owns a copy of the book can flip through and verify such a simple matter. Might as well dispute that a meter stick measures a meter without having a third party verify and cite a source stating that said meter stick is a meter. Its like stating the file size of an ebook which is measure in Kilobytes needs a third party to confirm its file size when acquiring it has the memory allocation required listed as well, kilobytes. I don't see how page counts are a contentious material requiring an independent third party to make specific reference to 'Yep, the Signet Classic edition is 1488 pages.' Its just silly to me to require a report on a books page count and specifically the books page count and saying how they arrived at said page count independent of the publisher. I doubt I'd find a single source which relates to that matter specifically; and such an unreasonable burden of proof on any date or event (even self-evident ones) on Wikipedia would be ludicrous. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, look, I agree that the question this list raises is interesting (which are the longest novels?) but unless it has been surveyed by some publication before us, we can hardly answer it without original research, including research on the definition. Page counts are not reliable for this purpose: you would be answering the question "Which editions of novels have the most pages?" and I doubt whether the answer to that is useful or notable. But I'd be really happy for others to give a view here, and I won't insist further. And rew D alby  09:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The list has existed since 2004; it used to list both page counts and word counts of estimations from various sources. Word counts can come later; publishers often list those as well, but not all of them do. All have page counts and if we can't trust the publisher's page count then I doubt this list will ever survive. Page counts are all I am interested in for now, pure and simple. The rest can come later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Andrew Dalby. Page counts do not reliably show the precise length of a novel for this purpose. Only word (or character) count would. But you would need third-party sources even for that, not the Original Research that your own original research on amazon qualifies as, in both cases. If page or word count were both reliable and notable as a gauge of "longest novel", then it would be very easy to find third-party reliable sources that have done that research and given the results. Use those sources instead. First Light (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * From an editorial standpoint, I'm inclined to agree with Andrew Dalby's point about the relative value (or lack thereof) of page counts. The page count has only a passing relationship to the word count of a novel (though it could be argued that the largests examples of both are really only of interest to individuals wishing to settle bar bets).  The page count is governed by the publisher's choices about paper weight, page size, font, margins, binding method, and so forth.  To take one of America's more editor-resistant mass-market writers, Tom Clancy, his novel Executive Orders is variously reported at 874 pages (from our article), 704 pages (hardcover, Amazon), or 1376 pages (mass market paperbound, Amazon).  There's nearly a factor of two between the different editions.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * True, but mass market paperback is a typical standard while hardcover, large print and abridged/unabridged works vary largely. To manipulate and distort these truths would be wrong. Page count is terrible; but easy enough to source and provided with appropriate disclaimers and obvious issues of said criteria; it would at least be factual to claim that the mass market paper back of say Signet Classics 1488 has a page count in relation to the mass market paperback of Executive Orders. The size of the paper is: 4.33 x 6.85in (Les Miserables) versus 4.31 x 6.89in (Executive Orders) where as the Tom Clancy hard cover is 9.3 x 6.3 inches. Mass market paperback is fairly consistent and Penguin Books both put out these works; so while it is not a perfect measurement a conclusion can be drawn that the Signet Classics which is the unabridged Les Miserables is longer and visibly thicker then Executive Order; specifically 1/3rd of an inch thicker. Now, the difficult part. What is the WORD COUNT of Tom Clancy's Executive Order? 458,453 according to Perma Bound. Les Miserables was 530,982.  The figure on the page for this edition had an approximation of 530,000 words from another library and several sources agreed to this value. Though they arrive at the word counts in the same way as anyone with an Ebook copy that hits the 'Word Count' function of the text. Also before anyone calls out the page number discrepancy; pages left intentionally blank, and unrelated information are left out from the text, but still counted by a publisher. The Signet Classic had pages up to xxi for the introduction and 1463 for the text, plus 4 extra for 1488 pages. Tom Clancy's runs for 1358 pages according to the Ebook.  Word count of the texts do line up as well. For something so easily verified by machine; it is a shame that the word count function cannot be used; some people wrote it off as Original Research, but then again anything seems to constitute original research or that it is unreliable. Noted properly I doubt any of this is contentious material. It seems like the facts are not being disputed its the perception of equality in regards to the material source. Wouldn't that fall under proper disclosure of said source and its materials; because all things when shown in the same format shouldn't be contentious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While mass market paperbacks tend to be the same page size, their contents are not reliably the same number of words per page. Different publishers make different choices of typeface, typesize, and margins; one five-hundred-page paperback can be quite different from another five-hundred-page paperback in the length of its prose.  Some of Neal Stephenson's paperbacks use aggressively small fonts and margins to try to rein in page count, for instance.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * TLDR: Can I use page counts and page size of the publisher or a seller? If not what can I use to obtain valid sources for word count and/or page count? Why can't the word count function on ebook or plain text count? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

All the discussion above about the suitability of page counts should be moved to the talk page in question, as this page is for discussing source reliability only. To answer the question asked, I believe that Amazon and publishers' listings are reliable for page counts. Things like publishers' blurbs on the content or importance of the book are of course wholly unreliable. There is also another source for page counts that has apparently not been mentioned: library catalogues. If you go to the catalogue of an eminent library, say the Library of Congress, you will find that many listings of books show the number of pages. If that's not a first rate third party source I don't know what is. Zerotalk 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Zero; I had not realized that the Library of Congress listed page counts either and I do agree with Amazon being only marginally useful for specific needs as its main job is to sell rather then educate. If by extension knowing I can dig up word counts as listed by publishers will go a long way to correctly citing and sourcing the list. I think I can take it from here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

disputed date of birth
Hi - Is this considered a reliable source http://www.allmovie.com/artist/p125316 - is a reliable source WP:RS for a disputed date of birth? You really  can  22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Allmovie is accepted as a reliable source for film information, but it is relatively untested as a source for biographical content. The acid test is if other reliable sources use it this capacity, and the New York Times uses Allmovie as a source for their biography of her: . In view of that, if no-one is actually challenging the source then I'd let it stand; if they are then you probably need an independent source to corroborate Allmovie's date. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems user created to me and its possible to log on and submit changes ... It seems there is a dispute about her dob - BLPN - so using that as a stand alone when a dispute exists seems weak? You  really  can  22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's user created like IMDB (Holden's biography seems to be authored), but there is a facility to submit corrections: Rovi places a very high value on information from our users. We make every effort to review corrections and additional information submissions ... It can, at times, take a bit of time for your submitted information to appear on our sites as we need to validate the information provided. Please include your information source in your submission. It certianly looks like there is editorial oversight, so I wouldn't rule it out as a RS. That said, if information is correct then it is usually available elsewhere, so if there is a dispute over conflicting information then I think it is reasonable to request a second source to corroborate Allmovie's claim.  It's not unusual for actresses to have more than one birthdate, since there is an obvious incentive for them to lie about their age. If there are multiple sources for conflicting dates you can always do what we do on the Audrey Tautou page and simply list them both. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is this article in USA Today that puts her age as 29 on December 18, 2001; that narrows the year down to 1972 more or less. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your investigation. You  really  can  13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Off the Grid News
Actually, I want to use the following as an example of the response to the topic. So, I have two questions: 1] Is this a decent source, and 2] even if this is not considered a reliable source of information, is it acceptable as an example of responses?

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/03/19/obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnational-defense-resources-preparedness%E2%80%9D-executive-order-minor-change-or-prelude-to-martial-law/ Kdammers (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. It certainly doesn't look like a reliable source, since it's a highly-opinionated piece that some would brand as "crackpot" or "paranoid".
 * 2. As to an acceptable sample response: we prefer responses from sources which, while not reliable, are notable: Little Green Footballs, Stormfront, breitbart.com, and the like, while not reliable sources, are notable nonetheless. Off the Grid News/offthegridnews.com doesn't seem to qualify. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Orangemike has it exactly right... the webpage is reliable for an attributed statement as to the opinion of the person or group that owns the website ... but that leaves the open question as to whether Wikipedia should mention that person or group's opinion in the first place. This is governed by WP:Undue weight, and not WP:RS.  There are likely to be other sources that better fit your needs. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Anchor baby / Double-Tongued Dictionary
There is a dispute going on at Anchor baby over the acceptablility of an online source called the Double-Tongued Dictionary ("DTD"). In addition to whether the DTD itself is fundamentally a self-published source (and thus unusable per WP:SPS), there is controversy over whether a response by the DTD's author to a reader comment is or is not an unusable blog post. See Talk:Anchor_baby and Talk:Anchor_baby. The dispute here is primarily between the users and, though some other people (including myself and one or more IP's) have chimed in. The content implications of this dispute may include whether the term "anchor baby" is significantly used to refer to US-born children of any immigrant, or just to children of illegal immigrants; whether users of "anchor baby" tend to be opposed to all US immigration (not just illegal immigration); and possibly also whether "anchor baby" should be definitively and unquestionably tagged as an offensive, pejorative expression. Although the argument has remained mostly a content dispute, there have been some suggestions of possible ulterior motives and/or violations of AGF. To me, it doesn't appear likely that Factchecker and Cuchullain are going to be able to come to any fundamental agreement on their own, so more people need to get involved in order to have any hope of establishing or maintaining a credible consensus. — Rich wales 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Rich. I think the only part of this that's relevant for discussion here is whether the Double-Tongued Dictionary is a reliable source. I have always argued that it is. This same issue was discussed at length at this noticeboard here as well as on the talk page. The consensus that emerged was that Grant Barrett, the editor of the DTD, is a reliable source, particularly in the study of emerging terms and slang, such as this. To recap a bit, he edited the Official Dictionary of Unofficial English, published by McGraw-Hill, and the Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang, published, obviously, by Oxford. He is vice president of the American Dialect Society and is on the editorial board of, and has been published in, the society's university-published academic journal, American Speech. He also belongs to the Dictionary Society of North America and the Linguistic Society of America. The Double-Tongued Dictionary has received a Laurence Urdang Award from the Dictionary Society of North America for its work on new words. It is regularly described and cited in other sources, for instance these books. I believe that both Grant and the Double-Tongued Dictionary are reliable sources. I further believe that the comment from Barrett on the Dictionary website falls into the realm of self-published sources we can use, as it was written by an establish authority in this field, and only clarifies the entry itself; it doesnt contradict anything in other reliable sources.Cúchullain t/ c 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't commented on the reliability per se of the DTD since March 11, at which time I acknowledged the consensus Cuchulainn describes, although I'd point out that it is clearly self-published and shouldn't be held out to other editors as having "editorial oversight" when in fact a single person is responsible for compiling, editing, and writing the site. Barrett's forum comments especially should not be represented to others in this way.

But, it should be clear, that was not my main issue with the prior state of the article; rather, it was the manner in which the material was attributed and weighted with respect to the AHD definition. The version of the article that existed before I started editing stated the DTD definition, and only the DTD definition, was listed. Immediately after it was the textual reference to the blog comment post, which reference, itself, was OR as it involved a WP editor scooping primary source materials, the two blog comments, and synthesizing them into original secondary source analysis. The reference footnote contained a quote of the DTD definition, with the rather sensational forum-comment by the blog author appended to the definition using an ellipsis—as if the author had himself decided to include his response in the definition. (The response itself also wasn't really identified as a forum comment.)

The AHD definition... the actual established dictionary with the large institutional infrastructure and staff, meanwhile, was mentioned in passing, only as substantiation for the fact that it was revised after an immigration advocacy group and website spoke out against the failure to identify the term as offensive. The AHD definition said nothing about the term being a mask, or opposition to illegal immigration, being a "mask" to hide the "racism and xenophobia" of the person who uses that term or opposes immigration. Only Barrett said that, and only in his self-published website's forum space. Even Barrett didn't say it in his definition. He could have, but he didn't. This is telling.

So we had what any will agree is a rather contentious claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This means you want the best source available. This means you don't bury the best source — the one with an institutional presence and history and likely a substantial number of staff with credentials similar to Barrett's — in a side note about a press release or op-ed by an advocacy org exec, while also going out of your way to quote the most extreme forum-space opinion of someone whom I somehow doubt is even the second-best source on the subject.

That's multiple sourcing and attribution problems combined to make very significant wp:v and weight problems in the core of the article. So I changed it. Anyone care to try and defend the prior version against any of the above complaints? I somewhat doubt it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to continue the rehash the content dispute. In terms of the reliable source issue, I guess I'll repeat, again, what I said in that comment you quote from me and elsewhere: no one has argued that the AHD is unreliable or that the DTD should be given more weight than it. The point here is that Barrett is an established authority in this field and the DTD is a reliable source, and should not be removed or downplayed. Cúchullain t/ c 04:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Has somebody argued that DTD should be removed or downplayed? Was there a reason to post about the baseline reliability of DTD in the first place?  What is your point?  (If it's to waste my time with frivolous and off-point argumentation, you're succeeding handily.)


 * And why — after I went to the trouble of dispelling your apparent confusion and painstakingly detailing the actual reliable source dispute that's at play here — do you not even devote one word to discussing it? Is this an exercise in propping up straw men and then knocking them down?


 * It's one thing to say, this guy is an expert and thus when he publishes topical material in the relevant field that can be cited to with a bit of caution. It's another thing entirely to say that we can liberally mine the interwebs for any haymaking, politically partisan comments he makes in connection with his work in that field, and dress that up with our own personal professional Wikipedia-editor secondary-source prose, OR style, and present it as authoritative in an article that isn't about the person being cited.  If this guy Tweets or posts to his Facebook page that anyone who's ever said the words "anchor baby" is a mouth-breathing redneck and a virulent racist, shall we include that too and paste it into the definition, for the benefit of our dear readers, who might not know that they need to look beyond Barrett's actual, stated definition, in order to get the real story?


 * Simply saying something on the internet is not "publishing", expert-in-the-field or not. For a highly contentious claim you're supposed to look for the highest-quality sourcing available—not to look outside the mainstream and bend the rules on self-published sources, which are already to be used with caution, for the purpose of representing the most contentious and extreme viewpoint that's out there (and one that can only be attributed to a single person).  As an administrator you should not need me to explain this basic policy to you.  General-topic articles are not supposed to be coatracks for the marginal political rhetoric of the most outspoken guy-in-the-field one can find.  That can be cited ad nauseam in an article about the person propounding the extreme view.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 11:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * oh, calm down. My initial comment wasn't directed at you, but at the underlying dispute regarding Barrett's reliability which was evidently the reason this was brought up here. Yes, someone has argued that the DTD should be removed and/or downplayed. For the last several months, if not longer, the article has been beset by an one or more anonymous editors trying to discredit or downplay that source, evidently as an effort to push their point of view into the article. I didn't respond to your statements regarding the use of the AHD or making it clear that the reader comment is a reader comment because I don't disagree with you. Several editors were in fact in the middle of discussion about how to better integrate the AHD entry into the article when you started making your swath of edits.
 * I believe the issue about clarifying Barrett's reader comment as such has already been resolved. I do think that, considering Barrett's background in this field, the comment can at least be used to clarify his own entry. That is, that he really meant immigrants when he said immigrants, not only illegal immigrants. This doesn't contradict what appears in this or other sources; in fact the AHD offers an even broader stance, saying it's used for any noncitizen, not even just immigrants. I don't believe this can be construed as contentious.Cúchullain t/ c 15:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. And do you also think it's not contentious to say that opposition to illegal immigration, like use of the pejorative term in question, is merely a sign of racism and xenophobia?  Speak into the microphone, please; this is the third time I've invite you to address that point on this talkpage alone, and somehow you've managed to stay utterly silent on it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Factchecker, it would be best if this topic focused on analyzing the source.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am analyzing the source. Explain your comment further? Otherwise it just looks like you're not paying attention. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, no, I don't think opposition to illegal immigration equates to racism and xenophobia. But it doesn't matter what I think anyway. In terms of the actual source itself, I believe the comment should be fine for quoting Barrett's opinion on use of the term (And he doesn't say that, either, for what it's worth). Beyond that, as I say, in the very least it should be fine for clarifying that Barrett really meant immigrant when he said immigrant.Cúchullain t/ c 00:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give a straight answer. I didn't ask you whether YOU think it equates to racism and xenophobia.  I asked whether you admit that it's a contentious claim to make.  That having been admitted (and I don't see how you could deny it), the next question is, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, why would it be acceptable to bend the rules on SPS in order to use questionable, low-quality source material (again, a non-published BLOG COMMENT) to express a highly contentious viewpoint that you can't seem to find good, mainstream sourcing for? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with directly quoting an expert, even from his blog, as long as the statement is attributed specifically to that expert.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be fine,* except that the claim is not within his ambit of expertise. Being a lexicographer doesn't make him qualified to judge who is (or is not) "racis[t]" or "xenophob[ic]", and one strains to imagine how his lexicographical expertise could possibly allow him to perform some kind of Vulcan mind-meld and identify people who are secretly racist and xenophobic and only oppose illegal immigration for that reason.  Clearly, we're talking about his axe-grinding political opinion, which is not rooted in his professional expertise.


 * (This is all leaving aside the question of whether WP:SPS actually allows that we can take any forum comment, line of IRC chat, tweet, RSS feed, email message, etc., from someone, call it "self-published" even though it isn't really published at all, and cite to it.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [For the record, I have removed the disputed material.] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as the text is written, can be accessed, and is verifiably the person writing it, then no problem exists with citing it. The source would be primary, which Wikipedia does not restrict from using (Wikipedia does, however, restrict users from interpreting it). A professional lexicographer's opinion on the use of a term is reliable and is certainly within his "ambit of expertise".
 * Again, claiming that the source has an "axe-griding political opinion" is your personal conclusion and not appropriate (unless you can reliably cite it). Given the circumstance, the correct step to take would be to directly quote the professional. Example:
 * According to [name of the author], "The term anchor baby] is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration, especially those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia."
 * In any case, this professional lexicographer's claim is logical because these kind of terms are indeed generally used by racists and xenophobes. Your subtle accusations of political agendas and your actions towards removing this information indicates to me that you may have some sort of conflict of interest over this subject (please read WP:COI). That being said, I will not edit the article or respond to your questions in the talk page as I am simply providing a comment (which is what the person posting this topic asked). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * MarshalN20, that is not logical at all. Do not make such interpretations because doing so would be original research. It is not up to you to make connections between the two sentences. It is also funny how you accuse others of making accusations when you yourself make accusations. 71.255.83.250 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marshall. Barrett's comment isn't an "axe-grinding political opinion", it's his opinion on how the term in question is used. Barrett is certainly qualified to comment on this – political terms are in fact one of his areas of expertise. So long as we properly cite the comment and note where it came from, make it clear that it's Barrett's statement and not Wikipedia's, and indicate what he said correctly, there's no problem with using this. Ironically, the passage was much clearer on all those accounts before Factchecker started fiddling with it. The revised version made it sound more impertinent and political than the quote itself.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that the part of the comment indicating that the term doesn't apply only to illegal immigrants has been left in. I think that's the most relevant part.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [/me breathes a weary sigh] Before I decide how much time (if any) I should spend refuting the semi-competent policy arguments advanced by you and Marshall above, could you please clarify whether you insist that the article reflect Barrett's comments about what he purports to be the racism and/or xenophobia of people who oppose illegal immigration and/or use the delightful term at issue? Somehow it seems you still have not answered this question. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should Barrett's quote be given any weight at all? I cannot find it in any other reliable sources. Also, the second part of the Barrett quote is not directly connected. It does not use a conjunction such as "because". He is just saying a stereotype. Can we really interpret such relations without committing original research? 198.151.130.88 (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to : Once again, noncitizen is not broader than immigrant. One does not fully encompass the other. Not all immigrants are noncitizens and not all noncitizens are immigrants. I already explained this to you. For example, an immigrant who becomes a naturalized citizen is not a noncitizen and a citizen who is not an immigrant and loses his citizenship is a noncitizen that is not an immigrant. 198.151.130.88 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Centrify, whatever the case may be, the tone of your message conveys a really negative atmosphere and I suggest you read what you write prior to posting it (unless your objective is indeed to be rude).
 * Again, the question here is about the source. The source is indeed reliable if (and only if) it is used to cite direct comments from an expert and attributed directly to that expert. Cuchullain does not have to answer your tendentious question about the article itself in this noticeboard (I wouldn't even answer it in the article's talk page, which would be the appropriate place to discuss such a matter).
 * In response to the IP, it has been established that Barret is an expert. An expert opinion is nothing more than that. I still don't quite understand what the big problem seems to be over including the information; but this is not the place to discuss this matter. PRegards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 05:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Barrett is not an expert on whether people who oppose illegal immigration do so for good reasons, or, instead, simply to "mask" their "racism and xenophobia" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Thus, per SPS, his opinion can't be used for that highly contentious, non-lexicographical claim.  Anyone who wishes to include such a claim in the article will need to find a source that meets the normal requirements of WP:RS.  You won't find any such source... and that should tell you something.  Before going out on a limb and, e.g., accusing me of a COI, lecturing me on TE, etc., you (or Cuchulainn) might consider reviewing WP:TRUTH and stopping to ask yourselves why the claim you wish a WP article to reflect can't be found anywhere in mainstream publication space. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 11:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If you really want a list of various reliable commentators connecting the use of the term to racism and xenophobia, it will be pretty easy to do. This has no bearing on the Barrett comment itself, however. The fact remains that Barrett is an established lexicographer uniquely qualified to speak about emerging, political terms such as this. For this reason, I feel his comment is valuable to the article. Quoting him directly is not making a contentious claim; it's, well, quoting.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And I, an uninvolved editor, agree with Cuchullain's reasoning. Unless anyone else from this noticeboard would like to express their opinion on the subject, I believe the original question has already been answered (several times). It keeps surprising me that you think racists and xenophobes wouldn't use the term "anchor-baby". It's almost as naive as those who claim "nigger" is not a racist word. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, why is the quote from the comments section being used rather than from other reliable sources? If you can find Barrett's quote reported in reliable sources, it should be used over the comments section source. It also needs to be in enough reliable sources to be given any weight in the article. 198.151.130.89 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Barack Obama and African American empowerment" (Manning Marable and Kristen Clarke) source is quite reliable. The quote from the comments section of Barret's website is attributable to Barret (there is no doubt that the person making the comment is Barret), and therefore it can be cited directly to him. To determine the reliability of a source requires analysis. It's not a simple "yes/no" response. For example, the person "Campbell" from the same website cannot be reliably quoted. Regards.-- MarshalN20  | T al k 23:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you both persist in arguing against positions I'm not taking—while going off on silly non-sequiturs (e.g. "It keeps surprising that you think..."), misrepresenting sources, and otherwise ignoring the question I'm clearly, in plain English, asking you to address—but since it seems neither of you disagrees with me, I can safely conclude my involvement in this verbal exchange with confidence that this issue won't resurface. It will be very disappointing, however, if the passage of time reveals that one or both of you was planning to make edits based on policy rationales you made no attempt to explain or defend here. Cheers and kind regards. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 01:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * MarshalN20, where do you see the Barrett quote in that source? 198.151.130.89 (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "No, you’re wrong, Campbell. As one can plainly see in the citations above, such as in the third one, it is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration, especially those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia. by Grant Barrett 09 Nov 07, 0123 GMT". Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the "Barack Obama and African American empowerment" source. 198.151.130.90 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Page 77): "Further, the racialized language that casts Latinas as having 'anchor babies' in order to stave off deportation and attempt to guarantee their own ability to remain in the United States bears a striking resemblance to the racist rethoric that characterizes African American women as having children to obtain welfare benefits. This racialized and racist language should be shocking to those concerned about America's racial history." Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the actual Barrett quote. Using that source is a separate idea. This discussion is about the Barrett quote and the Double-Toungued dictionary. 198.151.130.90 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You were disputing the credibility of Barret's statement, and this second source demonstrates support for Barret's claim. Given its relation to the Barret quote, it is therefore relevant to this discussion (not "a separate idea"). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Use of the two sources is not mutually inclusive. Using the information from that source without quoting Barrett has nothing to do with the Barrett comment. Therefore, that source is not relevant to this discussion. 198.151.130.90 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim was that Barret's statement was unfounded, and this other source demonstrates otherwise. That's all there is to it. Dragging out this discussion won't make you correct. The original question (regarding Barret's reliability and source) has already been answered. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that Barrett's statement was unfounded. I did not say anything about conflicting sources. If you want to discuss another source, you can do that on the article talk page. I was discussing the weight of the quotation. If there is not enough weight for the quotation, then the reliability would no longer matter. Also, the reliability of one source does not affect the reliability of another source. For example, if source A and source B say the same thing, but source A is reliable, while B is not, then source A could be used, but not source B. 198.151.130.91 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am done discussing this thing with you. The question has already been answered. Unless anyone else from the board would like to comment on this matter, then the matter is settled.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have failed to address questions regarding the source. 198.151.130.91 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque
This piece was originally published by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, and later in the Jerusalem Post clearly marked as "Analysis" and attributed to the JCPA.

It is currently being used extensively as an RS to support unattributed factual statements on the Rachel's Tomb page. My opinion is that as a piece of analysis (essentially a one sided advocacy of the Israeli establishment position) it is not suitable for this purpose. (From WP:RS, " 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 does represent a significant published opinion on the topic and information should be included on the basis of attributing to the opinions of the author and the JCPA (as it was presented when published in the Jerusalem Post). Dlv999 (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It does seem like attribution would be good if no corroborating sources are available. TimidGuy (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It obviously needs attribution in the text as the position of one of the sides in a dispute. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Rockpool Publishing
Anyone know anything about Rockpool publishing? I've a specific question about this book in particular for doula. Don't know what I think about a book on doulas also published by a company that publishes astrology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It gives the impression of being a work of advocacy, so I'd be wary of citing it. If it is widely referred to its current appearance in the external lins might be OK as long as it is described correctly. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it in "Further" with something from Da Capo Press. Authors are academics, should be better.  Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the author is certainly an expert, so the book should be acceptable. Lots of crap is published by publishers who also publish authoritative works; it's how they stay in business. IMO most editors put too much weight on the publisher when trying to determine reliability. I've seen POV editors use the publisher as their main argument whilst trying to sneak in obvious non-RS sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Interviews and film critic personal websites
http://www.emanuellevy.com/comment/gran-torino-interview-with-clint-eastwood-2/ is the website of a film critic, Emanuel Levy. I want to use the interviews of the Gran Torino actors and staff in the Gran Torino article. Is that fine? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. See WP:SPS. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we use a Google books snippet as a source when a caveat is visible?
At Kurdish people a snippet is being used to support the statement "the Kurds are an Iranian people". The problem I have with this is that The link is just a snippet and it is clear that there is a caveat that might be relavant and thus we would need to add. Anyone adding something needs to have read more of the source than just a snippet. Unless we can find out what the caveat is and decide if it needs to be added, I don't think this source belongs here. I added a 'verify source' template and posted the above to the article talk page. The template was removed with the talk page comment "He says: "ethnically the Kurds are an Iranian people" so it really doesn't matter what he said after that. We have a clear sentence and quoted his exact words." My view is that this isn't acceptable - snippets can be used out of context and in this case I'm being told that although there is a context we don't have to consider it. That's not how I understand our verification policy. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the situation is as you describe it, then I think your concern is an obvious and correct one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even with the full text, I would be wary about citing an ethno-anthropological claim to an Art History text. I'm not sure it's reliable for the given text. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference is doubly problematic. First, there's clearly a huge qualifier sitting right of the edge of the excerpt, notwithstanding the piece of it that's already visible. Second, we're working from a book on rugs, not ethnography. I'd also note with all of the sources for this statement (and I think the qualifier that was omitted was likely to to have gone into exactly this point) the matter of exactly what the source meant by "Iranian people" is important, since "Iranian" categorizes people by language, ethnic identity, and nationality if not other properties not immediately obvious. Since none of the sources is entirely visible (one of the others is behind a paywall and the last has no URL) I'm dubious about synthesizing them into agreement. Mangoe (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to note that we almost never cite Google Books (snippets or otherwise) as a source. We should always cite the book itself as a source.  This is an important distinction, because the question is whether we can have confidence that the cited source says what we think it says.  It is analogous to using a web reprint of a document from a dubious website: can we have confidence that it is an authentic copy of the original (reliable) source?  I think this is an excellent case for using the verify source template. Jakew (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true but naming a source is better than not naming one. Let's not discourage people from saying where they really got things. People who use extracts should mention it, and I do not think we help Wikipedia by pushing this underground. Wikipedia is full of unsourced things which no one even brings to RSN. Once someone actually tries to get an imperfect source, they are most times making a marginal improvement that can be built upon. Very occasionally, a snippet view or some other partial extract might even be relatively uncontroversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm been caught by Google snippets. They are very very dangerous. You certainly cannot use it without more of the source. There is something simple you can do, though. Place a query at WP:REX and there is a very good chance someone will come up the rest of the relevant text. The reliability of the source is a separate issue. Zerotalk 10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mangoe's point is interesting. The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development, By Wadie Jwaideh says "they are by no means a purely Iranian people." |iranian+people&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l6tpT7D1KOek0AXvhKmBCQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=Kurds%20iranic|iranian%20people&f=false Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia,  By John A. Shoup says "an Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups..." And |iranian+people&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqtpT5qmKcWs0QWuxtH8CA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=Kurds%20iranic|iranian%20people&f=false Historical dictionary of Iraq  By Edmund Ghareeb, Beth Dougherty discusses other possible origins concluding they are of mixed origins. Which just reinforces the importance of not using this snipped. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Having one of these days, where I've written this post twice only for it to get deleted. While this snippet is particularly dangerous, I wouldn't say the same for all snippets and they need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Particularly if all the context is within the snippet or if it's a simple statement of fact then it should be enough. If part of the context is missing then there are ways around that; with a correctly targeted search term, Google Books Search will return more of the page than snippet view does - but it does making some educated guesses at what words are likely to appear in the bits you can't see. I don't have much to go on in this case but I guessed that "one" would appear somewhere further down the page and it turned out to be the next word after "lingustic" - I could probably make some more guesses and get the full paragraph but it may substantial time that I don't think is worth it in this case as it's not that reliable a source for the claim being made. In a recent BLP case however I was able to draw facts about their life out in context and it was proven to be accurate a couple of days later when another editor was able to examine a physical copy of the source. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. When I wrote that I've been caught by snippets, I meant that I have quoted a snippet that any reasonable person would consider to be a plain statement of fact whose context was clear, only to discover that the full source contained a severe caveat that was not visible in the snippet. In one case the overall meaning of the full text was the precise opposite of what the snippet appeared to say. Zerotalk 13:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree there. In the general case, while you might get lucky and find that the source actually supports the claim that you want to make, you can't rely on it.  If you can't access the source to a significantly greater degree than is possible using Google Books Snippet view, you shouldn't be using it. Kahastok talk 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite convinced by that. And this probably is a reliable source, Robert D. Biggs is an academioc in a relevant field. As a side note, we've suddenly had two more editors warring over this, one of them having also decided to start our article on the Median Empire with the sentence "it was a kurdish dynasty" - which of course is nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it may be a relevant claim about the Kurdish claim and I have no doubt the the source is a reliable one for some claims about the Kurdish people. So I'll have to concede that my wording wasn't ideal, the intent was that anything further likely to be discovered would only work against the claim that they were purely an Iranian people. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we trying to say something that isn't worth saying anyway? Has anybody found any peoples yet that are "purely" anything? What's the definition of an Iranian people, and how would the claim that a people is Iranian be proved? On the other hand, we know and can show that the Kurdish language is an Iranian language.
 * OK, well, I've just looked at Iranian peoples and the definition given is linguistic anyway. So all those who speak Kurdish form an Iranian people by our reliable definition. And rew D alby  10:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that the article in question isn't looking at things from a linguistic perspective, and the controversial abbreviated passage gives hints that it intends be understood as saying "they speak an Iranian language but in other respects they aren't Iranian", so it probably would be best to qualify the bald statement in the same manner. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, the ref link is a search result with the search terms embedded in the URL. Googling the phrase you want to use in an article is the worst kind of research. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Conservapedia as a Self Source in an article about Conservapedia
Conservapedia is generally regarded as an unreliable source. WP:SELFSOURCE says that Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. It goes on to give five requirements.

I'm arguing that quoting/citing Conservapedia as a self source in an article about Conservapedia should be allowed. As a particular example of what I'm getting at, I'd like to directly cite their Counterexamples to Relativity article to textually back a claim in the Conservapedia article on their criticism of the Theory of Relativity.

Conservapedia is a text. I think that quoting and referring to Conservapedia in an article about Conservapedia falls under information about themselves clause in WP:SELFSOURCE. An unreliable source as a text can either be used or it cannot be used. Of course, Conservapedia articles can't be used in an article about the Theory of Relativity. But I think they should be allowed as quotes/citations/evidence to back claims in an article about Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article already cites Conservapedia and I think rightly so. The alternative is to strip these citations from the article and rely entirely on secondary RSs. I think that makes for a weaker less verifiable rather than a stronger article.

For example, the Ted Kaczynski article cites the Unabomber Manifesto and both must be considered unreliable sources. But quoting/citing from an unreliable source as a text in an article about the author/text is different than citing it as an RS in another article.

Yes, Conservapedia is fluid but Wikipedia has mechanisms in its citations to handle that; that's a separate issue. It is always possible to quote/date rather than cite. Citations can include access dates.

This is pretty fundamental but at the same time it is not particularly radical. Still, if this interpretation is the consensus, I think the WP:SELFSOURCE should be clarified.--Olsonist (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It already seems clear to me. We surely can use Conservapedia as a source in the article about Conservapedia itself. The page you would be quoting is part of Conservapedia, and the text you are quoting will remain accessible anyway in Conservapedia's history. Isn't that OK? And rew D alby  09:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just some links for background. The article is Conservapedia. My discussion with Olsonist is on Talk:Conservapedia in the sections 'Noted the first paragraph need something' and 'Moral relativism' and at User talk:Dmcq. The site is Conservapedia main page and the articles on the site are Counterexamples to relativity and Moral relativism. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dmcq. Context is important. While Andrew Dalby is right in a general way, not all self-sourcing is OK. The most obvious problem is in cases where such sourcing uses material which is self-serving, in a context in which readers might not be able to get a neutral impression out of it. But there can be other issues. From looking at that talk, I am also not really sure Dmcq and Olsonist are discussing something to do with WP:RS?
 * There seems to be discussion about whether certain examples are WP:DUE, and especially in a WP:LEAD.
 * There is also a concern about WP:SYNTH being expressed because the listing of examples is apparently being done in such a way to lead readers to a conclusion.
 * Neither of these potentially valid concerns are what we theoretically discuss here on RSN.
 * I also see a more relevant concern about WP:PRIMARY, but I do not see Dmcq saying that this is a decisive concern. But to make it clear, primary sources can be used when it makes sense to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I (we) think that WP:RSN is the closest forum to the problem.
 * I think that Dmcq's reservation is that Conservapedia is an unreliable source (agree) and therefore it can't be used at all, even as a self source (disagree). I think that is going too far and that it's possible to use quotes and cites from Conservapedia to illustrate their position. Care must be taken and WP:SELFSOURCE provides requirements. A good illustrating example would go a long way towards clarity.
 * As for self-serving, the quotes aren't being used to convince the reader of their point but rather to inform the reader that they said that. The balancing act is to do that and still maintain an NPOV but that's a separate issue from using an unreliable source.--Olsonist (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned by the WP:OR and WP:UNDUE potential here, but the quotations should properly be cited to Conservapedia itself and not to secondary sources. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would have thought yes my main concern in the particular case was more about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because of citing and arguing from the Conservapedia Moral relativism page that isn't referenced in the secondary source in the New Scientist article, only the counterexamples page is. However I do wonder about SELFSOURCE too. I would prefer only pages explicitly referenced at most be referenced. My concern about article references within Conservapedia in general is that it is a wiki but I am happy to consider the Counterexamples to Relativity and Moral relativism articles as expressing something that comes under SELFSOURCE because of the very great interest the founder shows in the idea and the way anyone disagreeing with his main views gets quickly banned. So I am interested in exactly what is WP:SELFSOURCE saying. I interpret 'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves' as just meaning we may cite them for straightforward information about them like who set it up, what they say their aims are, their policies, that sort of stuff and sourcing anything extra from them would need good justification. Whilst their article is about moral relativism our article here is not actually claiming anything about relativity or morality but illustrating Conservapedia's general stance. I've been happy with a number of citations to articles in Conservapedia where they are mentioned in secondary sources and I think they contribute something though I have some misgivings about their adherence to guidelines so a better guide about that would be good. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW we don't actually quote Conservapedia on this, the quote is in the New Scientist citation and we summarize that. Dmcq (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The New Scientist reference in the lead paragraph is a separate problem. I didn't add that reference and I think that using it isn't even OR, that it's just wrong. It's a good secondary source for the Conflict with scientific views section but as a reference for that clause it's misleading. In fact that whole sentence needs to be gone over with a wrecking ball and a fine toothed comb. As I've argued on the Talk page, the phrase criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism is NOT what Conservapedia is saying. They're saying the theory of relativity is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism. These are NOT the same.


 * WP:SELFSOURCE is the real issue. Dmcq is saying we may cite them for straightforward information about them like who set it up. I'm saying we can cite them for their words to show their POV, etc. He's being more narrow. I'm being more broad. What you do with that quote is still limited by all sorts of other constraints.--Olsonist (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that Conservapedia should be cited directly (that's why I'm here) but reliable secondary sources are ALWAYS good. I think you're saying that if an Article about ABC is that ABC said XYZ then the cite should be to XYZ and if world renowned authority IJK has written the definitive tome on the ABC then IJK can be cited in addition but not in lieu.


 * But I don't understand the WP:OR issue here. Can you expand?--Olsonist (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The list of articles starting with "Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include" should be thrown out. All of the examples violate WP:SYNTH because none of them comment on Conservapedia's ideology. The original research is the selection of which articles show Conservapedia's ideology; the synthesis is saying that all of these are examples of the site's ideology. In fact, I will do so. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH says that "A and B, therefore C" which is not happening here. No conclusion is being made; no synthesis; the examples stand on their own. The way you are defining synthesis all lists, indeed all paragraphs of multiple sentences must have a single set of sources.--Olsonist (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the list is all from Conservapedia. There is no cross pollenation of sources. C said X, Y, Z. C also said X, Y or X, Z. Again, the examples stand on their own.
 * About the OR, your complaint is about the selection of which articles. That would mean an editor's choice of any illustrating example. That's certainly not in WP:OR.--Olsonist (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be better if SYNTH was dealt with at WP:NORN. I do not believe there is SYNTH here because all the statements are directly supported by secondary sources talking about the leanings of Conservapedia. What the concern here is about is the use of citations into Conservapedia which aren't referenced by a secondary source to talk about anything except very direct things about Conservapedia like who founded it and what it says its policies are. I can see a couple of quotes which are just supported by secondary sources which quoted them, I'll stick in the primary source in Conservapedia as well since people seem to want that but I definitely wouldn't want to just have the links into Conservapedia for them unsupported by secondary sources. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think WP:SYNTH can be a problem when people give a bunch of examples. Olsonist says "WP:SYNTH says that "A and B, therefore C" which is not happening here." But Olsonist also says "I'm saying we can cite them for their words to show their POV, etc." There is a fuzzy line that can be cross whereby an editor is clearly trying to say that a list of carefully selected examples shows something which is not actually stated by any third party publication outside Wikipedia. This needs to be considered by editors and is not really an RSN issue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to the more formal question, as now defined, for this noticeboard: can primary sources be used to show what those primary sources say. The answer is clearly yes, as per Andrew Dalby. This is of course in the context of all the other doubts that might arise such notability, or whether there is a sort of implicit synthesis happening. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have a good example from the quotes of the problem. Secondary sources about the Conservative Bible Project say 'free of corruption from liberal untruths' which is a direct quote from the Conservapedia About page . They do not however directly reference that page.The Comnservative Bible Project page says 'Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.' I do not think we are entitled to put in the second quote about their Bible Projet and I think we are entitled to put in the first quote. I think SELFSORCE would allow the second quote. Do people think the second quote is allowable in the article or not? Do you think the first quote is allowable and should it be cited to the page that has it even when not directly referenced? Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One can use Conservapedia as a source in instances outlined in the guideline. One can't just quote the first portion, while ignoring the caveats. The relevant ones listed below:


 * 1) the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
 * 3) there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
 * 1) there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;


 * If one is challenged by other editors, and the material does not fit into the caveats, it should not be used. An editor could gain consensus by showing the material is not "unduly self-serving", "does not involve claims about third parties" or "there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity", but that does not seem to fit here. This is better discussed on the article Talk page because of the reasons listed above. Dave Dial (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't challenging any of that. I was challenging the interpretation of 'be used as sources of information about themselves' and how far that extended. Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think DD2K's listing gives the 3 normal boundaries with regards to WP:RS? There could be other concerns such as WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH, but for WP:RS, apart from those 3 concerns, it is OK to quote sources when those sources are the subject, as long as editors can agree that it is done in a relevant and balanced way. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely it can't be okay to trawl through Conservapedia and stick in references to whatever strikes one's fancy? I would have thought secondary sources would be needed for anything that wasn't obviously top level obvious. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not. We do not have to put everything that can be reliably sourced in an article. When we use unreliable sources as a primary source for their own opinions we should indeed use them in ways that make clear, balanced, and notable points. But this is something for editors to judge with more than just an eye on what policy allows.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the 'notable' in what you said is the point. I would dispute that a page that isn't mentioned in a secondary source is notable and only admit a few non-notable pages under SELFSOURCE. However it seems you would admit any page. The problem is people say notability only applies to the overall topic and not individual sections. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument about relying on a secondary source before using a primary source is (in my mind) similar to Binksternet's argument that selection of which articles is OR. I respectfully disagree but I see the similarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonist (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 March 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Yes I do think what you want to do is OR. I am rather surprised though that people here seem so cavalier about citing most any old article out of Conservapedia provided it isn't overtly promotional just because the article is about the site. Dmcq (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so for the OR issue I'll post something over at NOR.--Olsonist (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, potentially the selection of a quote from a large source like this could be accused of being OR. I am not saying that is the case here, but it might be worth discussing. What is "original" or "non obvious" is the question you'll need to try to develop a consensus about. It seems like both of you are in any case making good efforts to find such a consensus, which is great.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've opened up a section on WP:NORN.--Olsonist (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Stuff We Like
This is being used to verify Michael Bay's announcement of the character development of the new 2013 Ninja Turtles film. Can this site be deemed as a reliable source? Sarujo (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The about page mentions fixed staff, so it is apparently not based on un-moderated user contributions from anonymous netizens. That is a good sign. A second key question is whether it has a good reputation, and are worth citing. They claim to be widely cited, but maybe some quick checks can be done to see whether they are widely cited by notable publications on the web?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source appears congruent to the topic, so it is in context, and the content is "labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users", so I would say yes. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bhau Kalchuri - Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher)
This book (Bhau Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Manifestation, 1986) is a major source for Meher Baba and also for many of the articles related to him. It is also a minor source for many others, and has even found its way into articles on general religious topics. See the following list, which is not exhaustive:


 * 101 Names of God
 * Avatar's Abode
 * Azar Kayvan
 * Beloved God Prayer
 * Beyond Words
 * Charles Purdom
 * Chilla-nashini
 * Discourses (Meher Baba)
 * Don't Worry, Be Happy
 * Francis Brabazon
 * Gabriel Pascal
 * God Speaks
 * Guru
 * Hazrat Babajan
 * Higher consciousness
 * Jai Baba
 * Kitty Davy
 * List of avatar claimants
 * Mandali
 * Mani Irani
 * Meher Baba's Flag
 * Meherabad
 * Meredith Starr
 * New Life (Meher Baba)
 * O Parvardigar
 * Perfect Master (Meher Baba)
 * Prayer of Repentance
 * Quentin Tod
 * Qutb
 * Religious ecstasy
 * Samadhi of Meher Baba
 * Seven Names of God Prayer
 * Sheriar Mundegar Irani
 * Shireen Sheriar Irani
 * Silence Day
 * Spirit
 * Spiritual practice
 * Subtle body
 * Sufism Reoriented
 * Upasni Maharaj

Kalchuri became a devotee of Meher Baba in 1952, and he remains the Chairman of Avatar Meher Baba Trust (see also here). The entire book is available online here. According to the first page, on his deathbed in 1969 Meher Baba asked Kalchuri to write the book. Since he only met Meher Baba in 1952, for the early years Kalchuri had to rely largely on the diaries of devotees. He compiled and edited in Hindi, using sources that were written in Gujarati, including Behli J. Irani's unpublished biography, and the diaries of Dr. Ghani, Ramju Abdulla, F.H. Dadachanji, and Kishan Singh. Kalchuri's Hindi was subsequently translated into English by an Indian (Feram Workingboxwala), and afterwards edited by Lawrence Reiter. In his preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17, Reiter says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning".

The publisher, Manifestation, appears to be one of the imprints of organisations related to Meher Baba (see here). I have heard that Meher Prabhu was initially funded by donations from devotees. The book is known to contain factual errors, as well as devotional interpretations (see Volume 5, Page 1609 as an example of the latter: "These comforting words were a consolation to his lovers. They had no idea yet that, in any event, the whole burden of humanity's suffering fell on Baba's slender shoulders, as he possessed universal mind.") One example of a factual error is at Volume 5, page 1612 where Rom Landau is described as Italian, whereas he was in fact born in Poland of Polish-German parents.

The book is clearly not academic or critical, but a hagiography by a devotee, written largely for devotees, allegedly at the request of the biographical subject, and almost certainly published by a devotee press. In his recent conclusion to another RS query, Fifelfoo said that such devotional works "do not even approach" the Wikipedia threshold for reliable sources. Since each case should be treated on its own merits, I submit this particular source for community discussion. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Fifelfoo. Books about NRMs and their leaders by devotees published by "in-house" imprints affiliated with the NRM and which have not established a reputation for reliability and editorial control are really just SPS. They can be used solely for the purpose of describing themselves, not third parties, so long as they are not overly self-serving, but that's about it. Some very limited use of this source is probably OK in the Meher Baba article, but this source would appear to be used far beyond the narrow limits of WP:ABOUTSELF Fladrif (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While the press, work and author provide a very strong indication against the reliability of this work for historical articles, historical biography, sociology of religion or elements of Sufi, Hindu or Islamic theology; I would suggest attempting to see if this work has been the object of independent scholarly book reviews, for example, in scholarly journals, before finally dismissing it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo, have you found any scholarly references to Kalchuri? I had a look at Google Scholar and there didn't appear to be anything substantial there. If neither you nor anyone else can find such references, then isn't it time to close this discussion and do something about the articles that use Kalchuri as a source? Simon Kidd (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly my scholarly time is taken up elsewhere right now. If you have thoroughly searched scholar, I would suggest this is a sufficient step to act on contingently.  If someone in future discovers appropriate reviews, bring it back to RS/N for discussion.  Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't what stuff is actually expected. I checked some references on the internet and here are the results:

I wonder if these links are of some use to your discussion. Thanks, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
 * www.bahaistudies.net/asma/sufism_reoriented2.pdf
 * ambppct.org/meherbaba/Book_Files/AMBBibRevExt.pdf
 * Thanks. That second one is a particularly useful resource. In the context of the present discussion, however, I think it only underlines the fact that Meher Prabhu (and most other sources on Meher Baba) are written and published by devotees. I don't see anything to indicate that they are reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good observation. I will report more sources, if I find them. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC).


 * I don’t know how many articles on NRMs and religious figures are currently held on Wikipedia, but there are surely serious consequences for many of those articles following the ruling recently posted by Fifelfoo elsewhere on this RS/N:


 *  “… self-published texts regarding the history, biography and sociology of a new religious movement, and devotionally-published texts regarding devotion to a new religious movement [are not] reliable for the history of new religious movements or the biography of new religious movement figures as both sequences of literature fail the self-published sources criteria: they are published by presses that are immediately involved and do not display the review required for the establishment of a secondary source.” 


 * I do not personally agree with the above inflexible ruling. If articles are well-written, referenced, and can be cross-checked as factually correct, then a deficiency of reviews for the published sources should not be an obstacle. The important factors when editing/writing an article on NRMs are that it is not devotee-oriented or biased (nor intended to promote the subject), that it is open to correction and improvement, and that it is a serious attempt to be objective using all available published sources, including critical. But then, I have “unfamiliarity with wikipedia culture.” Though I did have the opportunity to observe what “wikipedia culture” can actually amount to elsewhere on this RS/N—hence the comment I was obliged to make on personal agendas, fanaticism, and pedantry gone mad.


 * Due to the large number of articles whose notability hinges on the association with the subject of Meher Baba and the devotionally-published texts used, this is an important test case. With numerous Wikipedia articles on NRMs and religious figures, we all know that there are double-standards and inconsistencies in the administration and interpretation of policy. Can the ruling posted by Fifelfoo be effectively applied in this instance, and are the editors of those articles willing to comply and assist?


 * Simon Kidd, if you require assistance please state what is required. I will try to help. --Stephen Castro (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with Stephen Castro's position, which is basically the common sense one originally formulated by DGG when considering a self-published source. This position has, however, already been rejected by Fifelfoo and others, although I am not sure if they are aware of the consequences for NRM articles, many of which may have to be deleted if their interpretation of Wikipedia policy is taken to its logical conclusion. For comparison, by the way, have a look at the online Britannica article on Meher Baba:


 * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/373157/Meher-Baba


 * Thanks for the offer of assistance, Stephen Castro. Whether I need it or not may depend on the outcome of this further discussion! Simon Kidd (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I’ve just read the Britannica Online concise biography of Meher Baba. No mention of anything critical! Yes, the article is neutral, to the point, and informative. I note that there are around 50 or so references to Bhau Kalchuri’s Meher Prabhu in the current Wikipedia article on Meher Baba. There are also other texts used in that article which could come under the description of devotionally-published. I would have thought that the constructive way forward would be for the editors of that article to first locate alternative published sources for the Kalchuri references. Certainly, Charles Purdom and Tom Hopkinson were originally not devotionally-published. Both were prominent devotees, but first editions of their books are from recognised publishers. Then there is Marvin Harper’s Gurus, Swamis, & Avataras. I think flexibility should be the keynote here. I believe alternative, and reliable sources (in the Wikipedia sense), can be found. Kalchuri’s multi-volume work Meher Prabhu has had an increasing tendency to be used as the authorized version. I can see why—though hagiographic and devotee-oriented in content the multi-volume work is a useful resource which can also be found online with a search feature. I made use of Kalchuri in two articles on Wikipedia, and I will certainly refer to Meher Prabhu outside of Wikipedia. I will leave the next step to you, Simon Kidd. The Meher Baba article currently has GA status (surely, now in question) and there is no template on the article to indicate that editorial attention is required. --Stephen Castro (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added the Primary Sources template. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that LM has been independently called into question on the Help Desk. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm with Fifelfoo here. And that Britannica.com article? That's a terrible article and raises issues (well more issues) about using Britannica.com as a reliable source. It reads as though it was written by a devotee, and who knows, maybe it was? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My concern is this: If a Wikipedia policy is precise then differing interpretations should not exist. One should merely need to draw attention to that policy in order to settle any dispute. Why, then, are there instances of double-standards and inconsistencies in the administration of policy on Wikipedia? It is surely due to the continuing interpretation, and not the establishment and recognition, of policy. If the ruling by Fifelfoo is applied globally across Wikipedia as accepted policy, then I for one would have no objection. There would be a clear-cut policy that every editor would need to adhere to. That is why I believe that this RS/N re Kalchuri’s Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher) is an important test case. Given the ruling by Fifelfoo elsewhere on this RS/N, Kalchuri’s Meher Prabhu is currently not a reliable source. It may well be in the future, but not for now. There is no stigma applied to either an author or a book for not being a reliable source—it just means not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense of that term. Wikipedia is no authority, but rather a novelty, and innovative, online encyclopaedia that gives the opportunity for accepted articles to gain high search engine rankings—hence its appeal, and perhaps its problem. Having read through the Meher Baba article it is quite clear that alternative references could be effortlessly used to replace those of Kalchuri, and without affecting the integrity of the article or its GA status. There are a number of devotionally-published texts currently used as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles; it would make it easier to edit those articles if a precedent was clearly established. To have an article awarded GA status whilst based largely on devotionally-published texts that are not currently reliable sources (again, it must be stated in the Wikipedia sense) surely sends out the wrong signal. --Stephen Castro (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What is a devotee? How broad a brush do you apply? Is it a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something: "a devotee of Chinese calligraphy". Or a strong believer in a particular religion or god: "devotees thronged the temple". (General Sporting Terms) (Non-sporting Hobbies / Other Non-sporting Hobbies) a person ardently enthusiastic about or devoted to something, such as a sport or pastime (Christianity. Ecclesiastical Terms) a zealous follower of a religion. I just googled these in a few minutes. My point is are you limiting a person to just one hat? Can Kalchuri be also the university educated man as well, writing a book, that is chock full of dates and times and quotes, factoids if you like. Are any of you " very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something". We all are. We are all devoted to something. Is that a bad thing? If you did apply a harder line across Wikipedia, would Wikipedia be a lesser thing? I think so. I think by limiting a person(s) with a rigid label,Devotee, you lessen him and us. Also LM is used for factoids, not any POV that may exist. I'm not involved on the Meher Baba site anymore, except a few comments. But I have used LM for factoids --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Something to consider re the above discussion. 1/ Hagiography is the study of saints. Meher Baba was not and is not a saint. To be a saint you need a religious organization to make it so. It does not apply. 2/ To be considered a devotee of a religion you have to have a religion. Religions have clerical hierarchies. Meher Baba has none. Meher Baba went to great lengths to NOT found a religion. There are no organized behaviours, rituals, no Churchs. Anything done is buy personal choice, and may or not be done by anyone, without any pressure. Without a religion the devotee issue loses a lot of emphasis. It becomes like many other very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something writing. Meher Baba has no religion. Therefore Kalchuri as a Devotee in the religious sense is void --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

HTC, this is not the place to discuss semantics. The purpose of RS/N is for non-involved editors to determine the reliability or otherwise of sources, in the Wikipedia sense of "reliable", and there is a policy governing this. I have addressed your semantic points on the Meher Baba Talk Page, and also clarified the issue concerning reliability. Simon Kidd (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Simon, this is exactly the place to study Semantics, the study of meaning. What else is this? I dont edit the Meher Baba page. I have entered this discussion after you, therefore I am more 'non involved' than you are. As you could not refute my logic regarding Hagiography, religion and devotee of a religion these arguments of yours are void Simon. Next. You did not address my points there on Meher Baba talk. You took another course altogether, publishers. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If this noticeboard is for "non-involved editors", Simon Kidd and Stephen Castro should not be commenting here (beyond initially introducing the issue). The very creation of this discussion arises from the rejection of their primary concern, i.e. Kevin Shepherd as RS and this makes them both very directly "involved". Hoverfish Talk 12:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference check
I came across a user who was blocked for making legal threats. He said on his talk page that a quote attributed to him was fabricated. I don't know if this is true or not, so can someone check the source to see if it is a reliable one? The source is ref #32 on the London mayoral election, 2012 (sorry, I don't know how to copy refs) Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As used the source is reliable. The subject's public rebuttal (where he claims that the quote was fabricated) is also mentioned in the article. Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is La Nación, which appears to be a reliable source as it is used in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree,La Nación in of itself is a reliable source. However, as it is not in English, the source should be used keeping in mind WP:NOENG. Personally, I would like to see the sentence translated into English, not just paraphrased, I think readers would get more out of it . --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

iPad (3rd Generation) source reliability and original research dispute
This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.

The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according the that article nonetheless but that does not discredits my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.

Sources in question

 * Source claims LTE is not 4G
 * Source mentioning the requirements of 4G which LTE does not fit while quoting from the International Transmission Union which is the organisation that standardised mobile technology and there respective classifications
 * Another source stating that LTE is not 4G by referencing requirements standardised by the ITU
 * Primary Apple source claiming 4G is LTE by labelling their device as 4G LTE compatible

Disputed article
iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.

Previous discussions
Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page

Disputed text
All references to LTE being 4G in the iPad 3 article, this includes content in the infobox and prose.

YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please have a quick look at the top of this page, and follow the instructions, particularly regarding full citations of objects linked or referenced (templates are not required). If you follow the instructions and use bullet points the issue will be easier to follow. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have cleared up my noticeboard request, hope that helps users deciding the reliability of the sources provided and to resolve the contradicting claims. If anyone needs me to clarify anything, please don't hesitate to ask. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's taking quite a while to a get response here, not to rush anyone if they're in the process of researching sources in regards to this issue but I will move this dispute/case to the Original research board by the end of this month if a response to issue has not been submitted as I believe that board would be more appropriate. I actually believe the sources I have submitted here are well within the expected level of reliability on Wikipedia but posting this issue here was the advice from an experience editor from the Dispute Resolution Board. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

RS for a DYK article
I have recently created Prisons in Bahrain and nominated it for DYK where Roscelese told me to drop a line here since no results came up when he searched it. So I'd like to get RSN input on these sources:
 * 1) Bahrain Center for Human Rights
 * 2) Report of Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry
 * 3) Human Rights Watch

And since we are at it, I'd also like to get evaluation of Al-Wasat (Bahraini newspaper) as a RS on good article nominate Bloody Thursday (2011).  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, particular regarding citing the exact source and usage, not just referring to organisations. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The section about "Detention of juveniles" is completely sourced from 3 articles (, and ) from BCHR (cited 4 times).
 * 2) Parts of the section "Mistreatment" before 2011 is sourced from 3 HRW reports, and  (cited 3 times).
 * 3) The whole article, except "Detention of juveniles" has references from BICI report (cited 12 times).  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's sort of an odd article -- representing a single point of view. It almost seems like it should be titled "Prison abuses in Bahrain." It gives the impression of advocacy. I'm not sure what to say about sources. In some contexts, they might be fine. But the overall context here raises questions. I'd be curious what others think. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point and I've added a new section about Government denials. Please note that BICI is a government commission (i.e. it was established by the King and fully financed from the government - pages 1 and 9) and has mentioned systematic torture in their 500-pages report (the government acknowledged their mistakes). Of course I'd have added more material about prison conditions, number of prisoners.. etc if there was enough transparency to make them available to public. I'm open to any suggestions/recommendations.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was just checking Google News archives. There's been a fair amount of coverage of the situation in international media. Maybe add a few sources. The added section looks good. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Using self-published sources for the article Tau (2π)
I would appreciate some input from the reliable sources community concerning the acceptability of certain sources in the article Tau (2π), and how this impinges on the scope of the article. There is some question about whether it is acceptable to write this article entirely from primary sources that are (almost) entirely self-published. In particular, there is the issue of the title itself. While advocating that 2&pi; be used as the fundamental measure of the circle constant (see turn (geometry)) is not a new thing, fairly recently it has been rebranded as "tau" in some (self-published) sources. There is a discussion on the issue of the title and scope of the article underway at Talk:Tau (2π). I would appreciate any input that the community may offer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the article even notable? It seems like WP:ONEEVENT news coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is some history here. The article already survived an AfD.  Although I argued (I felt very convincingly) that for mathematical topics, we need mathematical sources&mdash;and that means properly peer reviewed sources&mdash;the fact that "tau day" showed up in some human interest stories was taken as evidence enough for the closing admin to consider the topic sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article.  (To his credit, the admin left a great deal of latitude in the final form that the article should take.)  It seems to me that the available sources on which the AfD was closed as keep were exclusively devoted to "tau day" (not a very encyclopedic topic&mdash;more of a college prank).  Unfortunately, you can't base an article about a mathematical constant on human interest news stories about a college prank.  So that has led to the infiltration of some of these questionable sources.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have started an RfC that is relevant to this discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's quite a bizarre article. I totally get the point of the debate between which constant provides the most meaning. On the other hand, the bit about MIT seems to be little more than whimsy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Siegel - Primary Sources
There is a disagreement of what consitutes a primary source. I contend that the article Bernie_Siegel consists mostly of primary sources since it lists the opinions of different people and sources it to the original persons comment. Two Examples:
 * 1. Literary critic Anatole Broyard, writing in The New York Times, describes him as... is sourced to the statement by Anatole Broyard.
 * 2. In 1988, Siegel's Love, Medicine & Miracles ranked #9 on The New York Times Best Seller list list of hardcover nonfiction books. is sourced to the NYT best seller list.

Both these cases appear to be primary sources as they are in one case an opinion sourced to the individual, and in the other case the creator of the rankings. Is this the correct interpretation? Related: Talk:Bernie_Siegel Talk:Bernie_SiegelIRWolfie- (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. 1 is a secondary source about Siegel: an opinion from a reliable newspaper, sourced and attributed in-line. That's best practice.
 * No. 2 is a primary source, but not in any way controversial.
 * They are both quite OK. And rew D alby  20:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For your number 1 it's also a primary source since it's the original source of the opinion, no other source contains it. WP:PRIMARY has it as a note that opinion pieces within a source are primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To some extent, the issue of whether these are primary sources is a red herring. The issue is whether they are reliable sources. I don't see how #2 can be considered an unreliable source. That would be like saying that we can't cite to the Oscars website for evidence that an award or nomination was made. As for #1, an opinion about a writer from a literary critic is perfectly reliable as long as it's not undue or we are omitting other points of view.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In the situation of an oscars nomination we don't need to. The oscar's website is primary for the claim and we easily can and should augment it with secondary sources. In the linked user talk discussion some have the interpetation that it would only be a primary source if Bernie Siegel published it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you don't want this stuff and are hunting, here and elsewhere, for a reason to exclude it. Could I possibly be right? And rew D alby  20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind it staying. I don't plan on removing it. I think the article has an over-reliance on primary sources though, and we should be diversifying from that by including more secondary sources to veryify content as well as keeping the primary sources. I'm also not "hunting" anywhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you lost me: if Siegel published what? As for the Oscars analogy, it's apt, and I don't think we have to augment it with a "secondary" source. Not that it's all that important for the purpose of this discussion, but you really need to look at the policy reasons behind using primary sources with caution. In some cases, e.g., court records, the material often requires interpretation of the sources (see "Policy" paragraph on WP:PRIMARY). In other cases, WP:BLPPRIMARY becomes an issue. In still other cases, the source we are citing is not deemed reliable (the example of a witness to an accident). I don't see how any of those considerations applies here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the article completely consists of these primary sources, so it is hard to know where the due weight is. It's hard to get the others on the talk page to recoqnise the issue as they deny that the sources are primary. They also have commented that the only primary sources that could exist would be those written by Bernie Siegel himself. BLPPRIMARY appears to recommend using primary sources to augment secondary sources. My question at this stage isn't one of due weight though, my question is, are the two examples I mentioned primary or not primary (for future reference). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My adding of a primary sources tag is being reverted by someone who contends that the only primary sources in the article would be those which are written by the individual who is the target of the article itself: Talk:Bernie_Siegel "There can be no better source for the statement that a particular book was on the NY Times' Best-sellers list than the New York Times itself. This is not a "Primary source"; that would be Siegel's own blog saying this. ". The article is a BLP, so I fail to see why WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply which states: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the conclusion - nothing wrong with citing to the NYT. The fact that the article is a BLP is irrelevant to this issue. The comment about Siegel's blog actually would relate to WP:BLPSPS. I think you should let this go.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see where mentions from primary sources would be acceptable such as mentioning this list but my question is more broad. My issue is where an article consists entirely of text sourced to primary sources; such as a mention in the lede that the "Mind Body Spirit magazine ranked him #25 on their 2012 list". Have a look at the article, pretty much everything in it is sourced similarly. This seems undesirable to me, and the preference should be for secondary sources to be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As a general statement, "the preference should be for secondary sources", especially with BLPs, you are right. But in that case it's probably a matter for BLP discussion, not for this board. Would others agree? And rew D alby  09:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like the New York Times Bestseller List is a secondary source for bestsellers and not original research. The NY Times does the research: "Rankings reflect sales reported by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles. The sales venues for print books include independent book retailers; national, regional and local chains; online and multimedia entertainment retailers; supermarkets, university, gift and discount department stores; and newsstands." The fact that they put their name to the list in an official sounding way doesn't change the fact that they are merely listing the bestselling books at bookstores, based on their research. The NY Times is a reliable source for that research. Secondary Source. First Light (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit summary contains claims that some editors don't know what a primary source is. I've generally found that to be true.  (Actually, some editors haven't even figured out what a self-published source is, and that's much easier.  I've suggested at WT:V that we link to self-publishing to help solve this problem in the long-term.) If you're interested in learning more about what constitutes a primary source and when they are appropriate to use, you might like to read WP:USEPRIMARY.  In this particular case, the WP:PRIMARYNEWS subsection might interest you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch
Can an article on Quackwatch be considered a WP:RS for criticism of Bernie Siegel an alt-med practicioner? This article appears to be self-published, however the author is a well known critic of bogus medicine and is medically qualified. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the author of the piece is an acknowledged expert in the field, I wouldn't be in a hurry to list a website by that name as a reference; it rather undercuts credibility. Nor does the relevant passage characterize Siegel quackingly, though it does refute the medical efficacy of his theories--there is a distinction. Footnote 52 of the article links to the specific study description, though I don't see that it names Siegel. And it does concede that 'the program may have beneficial effects on quality of life', despite little or no apparent difference in longevity for cancer patients. For what it's worth, Siegel disassociated himself from the study afterwards , which raises more questions than it answers. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quackwatch is generally considered reliable for discussion of alt med topics. It would probably be reliable for a critique of this theory/papers but in-text attribution may be called for. Siegel is named as author of the study (Siegel BS). That he tries to disassociate himself from a paper he was an author of is probably useful information for the reader as well. Yobol (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know it was considered reliable, and I missed Siegel's name as a study author. Time for new glasses, or at least sharper research skills. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a follow up question--bear with me, since I'm clearly not versed in the medical arts--is a study sampling with fewer than 150 participants considered credible? I'm accustomed to news reports referring to findings with thousands of test subjects, and those are sometimes described as inconclusive. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what claim is being made. The study failed to support Siegel's hypothesis, therefore his claims remain unupported by medical evidence. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @IP 99: Smaller sample sizes for study populations is not unusual at all for psychology/psychiatry populations that do not deal with medications. Most news reporting dealing with very large numbers of subjects are funded by drug companies and can be expensive to conduct, and so not likely to get similar numbers in other situations. Yobol (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You choose your study size based on the expected effect size. If you expect 100% of cancer patients doing talk therapy to be cured (your experimental/intervention group), and 100% of cancer patients not doing talk therapy to die (your control group), then you could probably demonstrate this with about six patients total.  If, on the other hand, you expect 51% of treated patients to live and 50% of untreated patients to live, then you would need a much larger group to identify such a small difference (at least several hundred).  The minimum necessary size is normally calculated by a statistician very early in the planning process for the study.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quackwatch is an opinionated attack site - if you want to cite what such a place has to say then its reliable for that. As a NPOV external its worthless. You  really  can  14:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If one has the time to root through it, the discussion on QW as a reliable source is fascinating . My take is that even if it's deemed acceptable in some circumstances, it makes no claim to neutrality, and that it represents the findings of an individual specialist, and not a body of experts, be noted if it's used as a source. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've used the QW article, plus two additional sources from the Journal of Oncology and the Journal of chronic diseases in the article. Please change as you feel appropriate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quackwatch is an opinionated attack site against alternative medicine - users that oppose alternative medicine like to use Quackwatch presented as if NPOV in the manner of a partisan attack. You  really  can  15:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If QW is deemed non-neutral, similar content can be found in this publication on page 195, as well as this article from a medical journal . 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should go without saying, but our sources do not need to comply with WP:NPOV, our treatment of the content from said sources do. We use "biased" sources all the time, and the the consensus from past discussions here on RSN is that despite the biases, QW, while probably not an ideal source, is reliable generally on alt med topics.  If we can find similar/duplicate content without outside of QW, it may be alright to not use it, but let's not try to pretend because it is biased it cannot be used. Yobol (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yobol is correct. There is no requirement that sources be neutral.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Age
The article on polonium cites this article from the Australian newspaper The Age to support a statistic that polonium from tobacco causes 11,700 lung cancer deaths worldwide. The newspaper article cites "internal tobacco company documents" as a source for this, but does not give any statistics. The basis for that figure seems very shaky, even the article. The composition of the article also displays a clear anti-tobacco bias. How reliable should this source be considered? TV4Fun (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the source is reliable. It might be appropriate to attribute the assertion. But I think the best course would be to get the study published in the American Journal of Public Health. All of the info in the article seems to be based on this study. Let me know on my Talk page if you'd like me to get it for you. TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Age is a broadsheet Australian newspaper, and that's an article published over a journalist's byline in the context of Australian libel law—so it is pretty good as a source. Monique Muggli etal American Journal of Public Health is a superior source, and available. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Newspaper articles don't comply with WP:MEDRS for statistics like this, but it appears that this is essentially a cosmetic complaint, because the actual information seems to be correct and possible to support from much stronger sources.
 * As for the "clear anti-tobacco bias", you're making a WP:GEVAL mental error. A "neutral" article in Wikipedia terms is one that accurately reflects the dominant expert opinion as being the dominant expert opinion, not one that treats all sides of a dispute equally.  Since our reliable sources are anti-tobacco, the Wikipedia must be, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Disneydreaming
Is http://www.disneydreaming.com/ a reliable source? From past experience I want to say no, but I thought I'd ask people who might be able to figure it out better than I. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a gossip-oriented fansite; don't see any evidence that would lead me to deem it a RS. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a commercial site - though I am aghast at their interpretation of "fair use" for copyrighted material. Absent a reason to go further, I would not assume it to be RS. Collect (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. A brand-new young editor added information to Disney's Friends for Change using this as a source. (The recording that it was sourcing had not yet come out.) I reverted it outright then, mostly because of the source. A more experienced editor added information back in (better formatted this time) but still used the same source (though the recording has been released at this point). - Purplewowies (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Facebook as a Source
In the above discussion (now moved to archive), I quoted what Mr Syed Shah Gulam Afzal Biyabani, Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board had to say about Qadyanis / Ahmadiyas. Can this source be cited in the article on Ahmadiyas? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
 * A Facebook page could only be a self-published source. It might be usable as a source for the person's opinion, under certain conditions.  Is there a good reason to believe that the Facebook page is indeed that of the stated person, and that his opinion on this topic is worth quoting as such?  If the opinion ias noteworthy, has it been reported on in independent sources?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the contents of the posting are available on other websites as can be seen in the archive link. The person's opinion matters a lot because he is the chairman of Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

MiracleHunter.Com
Copied from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Our_Lady_of_Akita

User History2007 is challenging the validity of MiracleHunter.com as a source of reference for the Catholic Church's position on the article Our Lady of Akita.

Under Vatican Approval in the Talk Page, History2007 claims MiracleHunter.com is full of errors and is non-WP. I asked him what errors are on the site, he didn't explain. He instead claims the site is non-WP because "Who operates miraclehunter.com? Any clue from the website? None." and "What evidence is there that the operator is not making things up? None."

In reply, I quoted the site: "Michael O'Neill, creator of MiracleHunter.com, will be presenting a paper at the 2012 MSA Conference." (from the homepage) and I told him about the Church documents referenced on the Akita page of MiracleHunter.com, which I have referenced in the article.

Oct13 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Miraclehunter.com is a tertiary site, presenting a collection of letters with secondary sources cited. In the instance of Akita, a letter from Bishop Ito is cited to Fukushima, Francis Mutsuo. Akita: Mother of God as CoRedemptrix. Modern Miracles of Holy Eucharist, Publishing Company (July 1997); a letter from the Apostlic Nuncio in Tokyo is cited to Christian Order, December 1999, p. 610. These sources themselves should be verified and vetted as WP:RS or non-RS as the case may be. It cannot be permitted to use Miraclehunter.com directly, as it lacks editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well said. Sometime ago, I started a talk page discussion here for a list of the no-no self-publishers such as AuthorHouse, etc. I think we should make a list (per project probably) of these types of sites so one can just refer to them, instead of debating them. There are a few others like Miraclehunter and I have had to discuss them a few times. The list would save the effort. History2007 (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These are a serious problem, I come across them frequently. A list (with suitable caveats) would be a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I started that discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard a while ago. I will restart it on the talk page again. These really need a bot, and the bot will not be hard to write. It will just need to look up a list and leave a message, like the bot that Blevintron wrote quite recently. History2007 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gross misuse of source?
in Radical Right uses "courser" as a source to place the Tea Party movement in the category of "Radical Right". Note the person edit warring for this does not even indicate a page number for the claim. There is a reason for this elision, I fear, as the source specifically states:
 *  However tempting it may be to lump the Tea Party together with characterizations of earlier social movements of the “radical right,” a careful and objective comparison evinces few similarities

I submit that where a source not only does not label the TPM as "radical right" but specifically states that it "evinces few similarities" to "radical right" that a reliable source is being fully abused.   The source is reliable, the use of it to say the opposite of what the source clearly states is objectionable entirely. The edit warrior, ,  however states that "right wing populism" is a "synonym" for "radical right" thus allowing the placement of a current group in that category as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice by so making a section on the specific group in Radical Right. Consider if there were a "John Doe association" which someone said "opposed gay marriage" - would it then be proper to label it "homophobic" and place it in the articles thereon when the source used says "it is not homophobic"? Collect (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with user Collect, the source does not say the tea party are radical right at all. And looking at the preview of the article being cited it says the TP are neither racist or radical. If the source says they are not radical then they cannot be in the category of radical right. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Hi: It began with a discussion of the lede at Thomas Jefferson, which led to claims that The Smithsonian and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation websites, used in the body are not RS. Discussion is at Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 17 and Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 17 The body now reads:

"The Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, which presents detailed information about six slave families at Monticello. Presented at the National Museum of American History from 27 January to 14 October, it notes that evidence "strongly support[s] the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children." In her review of the exhibition, NPR reporter Karen Grigsby Bates noted that recent scholarship has been studying the lives of slaves. She also noted the consensus on Jefferson's likely paternity of at least one of Sally Hemings' children and the "heated dissent from a vocal minority," especially the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. The exhibit has been co-curated by the historians Rex Ellis from the National Museum of African American History and Culture of the Smithsonian, and Elizabeth Chew, a curator at Monticello."

Question: Are they RS? Thanks Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Museum exhibits are of varying quality. The Smithsonian seems to be a publisher of high quality museum exhibits.  In this case the exhibit appears to comprehend the scholarly community's opinion, as a tertiary source whose purpose is to communicate the scholarly consensus.  I would suggest that the exhibition, and its catalogue book, should be considered as high quality tertiary sources.  I would suggest that editors follow up the secondary sources referenced against the exhibit. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks.  I take it you find it fine RS as used. Questions about your last sentence.  What do you mean by "followup?"  If you could be more expansive, it would be appreciated.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather think the problems are using the opinions of an NPR reporter as being of parallel value to the direct Smithsonian statements. Especially the "heated dissent" comment which implies, IMO, that this is the only group voicing any dissent. And as always, determination of "fact" by vote is problematic - no one has any proof here, it is all matters of probabilities at most. Collect (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, why cite NPR at all, when the museum exhibit exists? Following up the sources the museum exhibit used: finding their footnotes and references and using those texts; is superior to grabbing NPR "reaction" stories. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can call them her opinions, as she is reporting on opinions, but I agree that that can be altered as the quote is not needed. (I think it was added, when it was suggested the Smithsonian was not RS). As for conclusions they've drawn, that is what we should convey. I don't think it suggests "fact," just their conclusions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is how it now reads:

"In 2012 the Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, which presents detailed information about six slave families at Monticello and their descendants. It is notable as the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the lives of slaves at Monticello. Presented at the National Museum of American History, the exhibit notes that evidence "strongly support[s] the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children.""

Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Change "father of Sally ..." to "father of at least one of Sally" and remove the useless opinions from the NPR cites - footnotes are not intended to hold material which ought not be placed in the article at the start.

"In 2012 the Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation collaborated on an exhibit, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, about six slave families at Monticello and their descendants. It is the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address Jefferson as slaveholder and the slaves at Monticello. Presented at the National Museum of American History, the exhibit notes that evidence supports a conclusion that Jefferson sired at least one of Sally Hemings' children."

Which conforms to the factual material actually in the cites, and not perpetuating opinion via footnotes which would be improper in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Smithsonian exhibit says "Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children." So, we can't report it that way. We could, if we delete "at least one" Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No source was removed - the "at least one" was found in a source given (Bates). Hence we certainly can use it.  As the lesser claim, it certainly is valid here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say any source was removed. I said, we can't misreport what the Smithsonian said "Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children." Bates was the reporter, whose "opinions" you deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the display, Bates wrote:
 * As a short video on black life at Monticello plays in the background, Ellis walks past scores of artifacts made on the premises by six enslaved families. Farm tools, wooden barrels, furniture and other implements were crafted by the Gillettes, the Herns, the Fossetts, the Grangers, the Hubbards and the Hemingses. The Hemings family is perhaps the best known of the black Monticellans, because most historians now believe there is a high probability that Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings' children.
 * Which rather implies this is what the display said as far as Bates was concerned. Note the "at least one" given as a direct statement of fact here apparently based on the exhibit proper. Now let's look at what the Smithsonian "online exhibition" states:
 * Documentary and genetic evidence leads most historians now to believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’s children.
 * Note that "all" is not present in the claim made. Thus the claim is far from inconsistent with "at least one" as Bates indicates.  The solid evidence is only given for A man with the Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808).  -- that is there is solid evidence for one of Hemings' children.  Not for all of them.   And the link given for "learn more" leads to
 *  Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children. 
 * Which can not be ignored as it is part of the exhibition material by link. Thus "at least one" is quite solid, and there is dispute about implying "all." Cheers.  Collect (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem then is that the sentence you constructed, ascribed that to the Smithsonian when what the Smithsonian says is "Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children." As for Bates, she does not say where she got that from and we cannot assume (although we could report it but you deleted that).  And it is inconsistent for Wikipedia to delete her "opinions" except the ones you find alright.  As for the TJHS report, it is actually covered in the preceding paragraph of the article, so no one is ignoring it, even if it is not the majority opinion. Moreover, the sentence you constructed is inconsistent with both the TJHS and TJF reports (the closest it comes to is the minority report from TJHS).  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Try accuracy. "The sentence (I) constructed" is directly from the NPR article which is cited. I doid no "construction" at all, and I ask you emend that claim.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry cannot. The last sentence is not in the NPR article and it's not even presented as so. Constructing sentences is what editors do, so if you are offended by that terminology, I can't imagine why.  I didn't ascribe malice, or anything like it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Australian Business Traveller: request review of status as 'unreliable source'
''My first time dipping a toe into the Wiki backwaters, so please bear with me! :)''

Dirk Beetstra has suggested that I post here regarding the current status of the 'Australian Business Traveller' website (of which I am editor) being placed on a list of 'unreliable sources'. Beetstra says "You could try to ask for a review, neutrally answering any questions which arise from that discussion, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard."

So here goes... for some reason, Australian Business Traveller (www.AusBT.com.au) seems to be on a list of unreliable sources. About a year back, which was around six months after AusBT launched, an observation was made by Bidgee (and I think it'd been deleted, as I can't find it) that AusBT did seem to be more than just a 'blog' (and thus, more authoritative) but there appeared to be a question over what the site actually was, as we're not a print publication (which carries with it some association of authority).

It should be noted that AusBT is a news-based online publication employing professional journalists. We're not a blog run by amateurs which trades on rumour.

The site regularly breaks stories related to travel and aviation, attends media conferences and press trips with airlines, and the content is on a par with comparative publications already in Wikipedia's link-approved 'reliable source' list such as Business Traveller, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australia, AAP and others.

AusBT has also been described by the oneworld airline alliance as "a leading independent business travel news website".

And I myself am a professional journalist of several decades' standing, having worked as a journalist and editor at The Sydney Morning Herald and ACP Magazines.

Are there any questions about AusBT, relevant to this status, which I might be able to answer or address, in an effort to see the site rated as a reliable source? Djsflynn (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds RS to me. Collect (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So, what's the timeframe for seeking comments before a call is made on AusBT being RS or not RS? Djsflynn (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks parallel: Leaked letter from Watch Tower Society to 13,000 congregations
A letter from the New York headquarters of the Watch Tower Society (WTS) has been sent to all bodies of elders at 13,000 US congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses detailing the basis for deciding whether a congregation elder, deacon (ministerial servant) or full-time preacher (pioneer) should be removed from that position for attending university. The letter has been uploaded to Sendspace by an anonymous Jehovah's Witness and is available for download here.

A section of the article Jehovah's Witness beliefs already covers the fact that Jehovah's Witness leadership strongly discourages university attendance over concerns that members may lose faith in God or become seduced by the immoral atmosphere on campus. This is firmly attested by Jehovah's Witness publications; this view is also supported by RS James Penton, who writes of the religion's "anti-university" spirit". I added a sentence that (after subsequent editing) read: "Elders, ministerial servants and pioneers may be deemed ineligible to serve the congregation if they, their wives, or their children undertake university education, and if higher education pursuits interfere with their congregational duties or is pursued for material gain." The sentence used that letter as its source; its usefulness is stating that the JW leadership is prepared to remove elders if they, or family members attend university unless they show respect for the pronouncements of the leadership and maintain meeting attendance and preaching quotas.

The letter, which gives every appearance of being genuine, and which is an appendix to a WTS elders' handbook, is addressed specifically to "all bodies of elders". In the US, this would necessarily mean distribution to more than 13,000 congregations. The Witnesses pride themselves on unity of teaching globally, so I would assume it has in fact been distributed to every one of the 100,000 congregations throughout the world.

My question now is this: has the letter been published to the satisfaction of WP:V? Two editors say "yes"; two say "no." The information page at Published defines "published" as "Information ... created for distribution and actually distributed with a transfer of ownership to [the public, or a group of people]. (emphasis mine). The letter would not be ordinarily accessible by lay members of a JW congregation; it is a direction by HQ to local elders, but I would argue that the letter has definitely been created with the intention of imparting directions to a sizeable "group of people". Again, so there is no mistake: it was never intended to be read by all JWs. Its intended audience was elder bodies within those 100,000 congregations. My best comparison is a letter written by corporate management to middle management but subsequently leaked to all staff. Decisions made about Wikileaks leaks will clearly have set precedents for such material.

I would appreciate some comments. Is this letter usable as a source or not? BlackCab (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The primary issue for Wikipedia is publication by a reliable source. As you have not shown it to be published by a "reliable source" it is not usable. Collect (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, three editors at the article's Talk already rejected the supposed "letter" (see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and here). I personally wrote at the article's Talk, "If the so-called "source" is actually encyclopedically useful, it will eventually become commented-upon in some actually-verifiable publication and then can be included here." Editor BlackCab aka LTSally is simply too impatient.--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for the statement is the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, a subsidiary of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the administrative headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses. That body issued the letter then distributed it. My question is whether, based on the WP definition of "published", it is usable here. The letter is now also available here. BlackCab (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a reliable source unless the WTS formally acknowledges it and makes it accessible, or a reliable source republishes it and vouches for its authenticity. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree... so far I would have to say it has not been reliably published. PDF scans of hard copy documents are always problematic.  Just looking at the PDF, we have no way to know if we are looking at a "true and authentic" scan of the actual letter, or something someone made up to look like the actual letter (ie a fake).  What we can do, however, is determine whether the venue (ie the webpage) that hosts the PDF is reliable... ie can we trust it to present a "true copy" of the actual letter or not?  Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we had a secondary source confirming the letter, then we would be in good shape. As it is, it's exactly the sort of primary source we are wary of. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'challenge' about the "supposed" letter and the "so-called" source are pretty weak, and there hasn't been any real contestation of the letter's authenticity per se. This is a separate issue to whether the leaked document can be considered published for Wikipedia's purposes. Reference to LTSally is not in any way relevant to this discussion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was one of those agreeing the letter not appaired to be a good source, but I also stated it was no reasonable doubt about it's authenticity, as it both in style and content, appairs to be in harmony of JWs believings. The interpretation, as it was used in the article, was imidiatly highly doubtful, and the interpretation was contested as well as the letter, so I suggested to use other sources to describe the topic. It was fair of BlackCab to ask for comments here, even though the answears probably didn't support her point of view. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not equipped to assess the provenance, validity or authenticity of documents -- we have to use the judgement of reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for that. We have a policy of using such sources so that we do not have to have this sort of debate.  Please note that I am not saying that I think these documents are or are not authentic, or that Grrahnbahr is or is not correct in their assessment of its authenticity.  I'm saying that it is not up to us but up to those reliable secondary sources to make that assessment.  Unless and until that happens we simply cannot use them.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the majority here, the letter cannot be shown to be genuine, whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion, as it cannot be proved to be legitimate, therefore does not meet WP:RS Willietell (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

flayrah
flayrah.com - Several pages use this blog as a source. Upon doing [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&noj=1&biw=1366&bih=680&q=%22flayrah.com%22&oq=%22flayrah.com%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...1939l5545l0l5685l11l10l0l0l0l2l343l1306l4j2j2j1l9l0.frgbld. some research], I find no evidence that it is in the least bit a reliable source. Additionally, most references to it were added by the owner of the site, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of numerous WP policies regarding advertisement. -badmachine 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Flayrah has been publishing news on furry fandom since January 2001; its founder also co-founded and chaired Midwest FurFest. I became editor in January 2010, after three years of publishing WikiFur News – and a brief stint at Wikinews, where I was awarded an original reporting barnstar for my coverage of furry conventions (Further Confusion; Anthrocon). I also founded WikiFur, served three years as staff at Anthrocon, maintain the ODP's furry categories, and serve on the advisory board for the Anthropomorphic Research Project.


 * In 2010, Flayrah published 300 stories from 31 contributors. In 2011 we published over 350 stories, from 42 contributors. We have also posted ~750 one-line 'newsbytes'. In July 2011, we joined Google News (stories); I'm not aware of any other non-profit fan news site/magazine which has been permitted to join. We are also syndicated by various furry sites.


 * Our most active contributor is Fred Patten, a recognized expert in the fields of science fiction, anime, manga and furry fandom. His furry-specific credentials include two decades editing Rowrbrazzle (the first furry APA), during which time he also provided reviews to a variety of furry fanzines. He was also editor of short story analogy Best In Show/Furry!, and a founder of the Cartoon/Fantasy Organization. In addition, Flayrah syndicates In-Fur-Nation, a furry news blog by Rod O'Riley, co-founder of the first furry convention, ConFurence.


 * Flayrah covers a variety of sub-topics, and was recently nominated for Best Anthropomorphic Magazine at the Ursa Major Awards (furry fandom's award for "excellence in the furry arts"), after a decision by the awarding organization that Flayrah counted as a news magazine, not merely a website. We have a clearly defined editorial review process, and apply corrections when they are (rarely) needed. All submissions are edited before publication, and opinion pieces are clearly tagged.


 * One story that badmachine proposes to remove is 2009 charity donations down; $490,000 raised this decade. The underlying figures were obtained from convention representatives and historical records dating back over a decade; each is linked to an online source, where available, so that data may be verified. We seek to apply this level of sourcing to each story, so that readers need not rely on the authority of the contributor or editor. GreenReaper (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You gave a history of the site but failed to state why it is notable. -badmachine 09:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "notable" does not appear in Identifying reliable sources. What matters is that the work, its creator, and its publisher must be reliable enough to verify the facts asserted. (Wikipedia's notability criteria is used to determine whether a topic should have a standalone article, not whether it is a reliable source. As there are few other reliable third-party sources in the field, it would be hard to create such an article, though perhaps not impossible.)


 * That said, I'd argue that Flayrah is notable within furry fandom (just as the Signpost is within the English Wikipedia), based on its syndication and recognition by other furry news outlets and magazines:
 * Aside from our presence on Google News, Flayrah provides a significant portion of reporting for the other major operating furry news outlet, Furry News Network (half of their front page, and a similar proportion of their archive).
 * Our stories are often read verbatim by furry podcast FurCast, where I was also interviewed less than a month ago [73:16 onwards].
 * We are the news provider for two of the top furry social networks by member count and longevity, Furry 4 Life (displayed on the front page) and FurNation (news tab, registration required).
 * In an interview by published furry author Phil Geusz in Anthro #28 (March/April 2010; a competitor for Best Anthropomorphic Magazine), I am called "the furry fandom’s leading online archivist and news source". [At that time I highlighted lack of opinion coverage as a weakness of Flayrah; since then we have published over 75 reviews and several interviews.]
 * In a more recent interview in Russian furry magazine Hugs, Flayrah is described by the interviewer as "one of the most popular furry news website[s]".
 * Flayrah is also close to meeting the first two criteria set out in Wikipedia's draft periodical notability guideline (one would be required), and has an ISSN (2163-730X) - though that by itself is not a significant achievement.


 * Reliable source examples states that "when a substantial body of material is available, the best material available is acceptable". Flayrah is the best secondary coverage available for furry fandom, beyond academia and mainstream news outlets (where coverage of the fandom is generally shallow, and often contains inaccuracies, sensationalism, or undue weight towards aspects such as fursuits). GreenReaper (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose what I'm trying to say is, it's hard to determine whether a review blog is a valid source just because it has been acknowledged among members of the particular sub-culture. -badmachine 15:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviews published in news-reporting media are a valid primary source for the opinions of the reviewer. Whether these are worth noting depends on the reviewer and the topic. Fred Patten's opinions are notable within his fields of expertise, as determined by independent third-parties like UC Riverside; his opinion about politics or car maintenance, less so. Reviews can also be used as a secondary source for assertions of fact — "What’s this about 'artist unknown', though? It’s Howard V. Brown!" — but this requires closer examination of the reviewer's credentials and the publisher's fact-checking ability.
 * You chose to link a provocative topic, perhaps thinking to discredit our output. Yet one of Flayrah's strengths is that it is able and willing to report in depth on controversial topics and media which are typically not mentioned to external reporters. One example is the ongoing debate about underage characters in furry cartoon pornography; work featuring them has been banned from conventions and a major furry website, yet also nominated for awards.
 * Representing Flayrah as a "review blog" is misleading. Our coverage includes summaries of research efforts, website user privacy issues, external media coverage roundups and a retrospective on the use of talking animals in World War 2 propaganda. We also broke a story concerning Anthrocon and the 2012 NHL Entry Draft which was taken up by at least ten other reliable sources of sporting news. GreenReaper (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

-badmachine 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The website appears to be used 9 times on wikipedia. I looked at all of them, and in nearly every case the use was for basic information that could be sourced to more reliable outlets such as conventional news publications or was redundant to another citation.  I would suggest deleting or replacing, whenever possible, the flayrah link with a more conventional news outlet.  While Fred Patten`s opinions might be notable, that doesn't validate an entire website he posts on; I would suggest that reliability, like notability, is not inherited.  In cases where he happens to be cited via posting on flayrah, it is Patten`s opinion that is relevant, reliable and noteworthy, not the website he happens to post it on.  I've started removing the more egregious and unnecessary citations.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed all redundant or inappropriate citations (if a website gives an award, the appropriate citation is to the website itself, not a news page), the only remaining issue I can see is the review of Grandville (graphic novel) found on flayrah, I'm creating a section on the talk page to address that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The awards had been cited to Flayrah because the Ursa Majors were tardy in getting their own website updated. This is an issue for the replacement on Mongrels (TV series); their front page will not contain the nominees after the award ceremony in May (they're likely to be at http://www.ursamajorawards.org/UMA_2011.htm but that page is not yet up). User:badmachine also removed references to Flayrah before posting here; in the charity case mentioned above, there is no other source with an equivalent analysis. I would like to know whether it can be used, as the alternatives are to either cite a handful of convention websites (which loses the big picture), or to do the analysis on Wikipedia itself (which will involve original research in the form of personal communication; several events either do not have websites or never announced final charity figures on them, and some are now defunct). GreenReaper (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the ursa major front page is less than ideal, but it works for now and should be migrated when appropriate (the best source is always the award-giving organization itself). If the lack of donations hasn't shown up in any other, more conventional locations, perhaps it's not particularly noteworthy; we are not a miscellaneous collection of information.  If the only sources are personal communication and a dubious website that aggregates them, perhaps the information is not worth mentioning.  If you are the author, editor or reviewer of most of the posts being linked to on wikipedia, that is an obvious conflict of interest and should be avoided.  My inclination is to say that it is not a reliable source, though the topic overall is fairly low on the notability and general interest scale, making it harder to tell what sort of serious attention it may get.  I've never thought that being cited by another source is of much use in determining reliability, unless that source is itself highly reliable (and even then, the citation would be to the citing source).  When the only real indication of reliability is the word of the person substantially creating the page (and integrating it in wikipedia articles) that argues against reliability.  Independent sources actually discussing the site would be much more helpful.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He is the owner of the site fyi -badmachine 22:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian Broadcasting Network and Talk:Krista Branch
Interesting discussion there about whether this is a good source for the material I removed here. Any opinions are welcome, either here or in article talk. --John (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess the 700Club is what it calls itself, more of a club than anything else. It is not scholarly or a mainstream news organization, and has a 40% chance of being WP:RS in my book. But then the topic is not scholarly either.... I do not think this specific news piece is a Jayson Blair class piece, but they do seem to be wearing rose colored glasses as they report it. Has this been reported elsewhere? That would clarify things anyway. Personally I do not buy it, but my opinion on that matters not, of course. History2007 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a reliable source for a limited claim like "Branch tells how her daughter's accident..." etc., but we shouldn't retell the story in detail based on just that one source. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, probably so. Anyway, I do not usually watch this page, was here by chance.... History2007 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The story wasn't retold in detail, though. Basically the material said the kid almost died, kid didn't die, kid could have had brain damage, kid didn't have brain damage, parents say it was because they prayed. Just because it's a Christian source doesn't mean its unreliable for such a basic description. All the religious editorializing was left out.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Broadcasting Network has come up once before on this noticeboard. In that discussion, one editor says "it's a tough call", a second editor says "it should never be used as a source for statements of fact, but only to represent its own opinion" and a third editor says it's reliable for news. This source in this case is a bio, not news. I'm not sure if that makes a difference, but I will at least note it. It seems to be that CBN may fall under questionable sources. The content in question is this: Branch had left the child briefly, not knowing her daughter had blocked the drain of the tub, which slowly filled up with water. When Branch found her daughter floating in the bathtub, she was certain the child was dead. Kenna Branch was resuscitated when EMTs arrived after the child had been without oxygen for eight to ten minutes. Although the paramedics expected Branch's daughter to suffer brain damage after being without oxygen for so long, a CT scan showed the child's brain activity to be normal. According to our article on Drowning, "the brain will die after approximately six minutes without oxygen" Assuming that our article is accurate, the claim that the child went without oxygen for eight to ten minutes or more seems like an exceptional claim. According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. I don't think that CBN qualifies as a high-quality source for a medical claim. Even if it did, we would need multiple high-quality sources. I recommend at least removing "for eight to ten minutes" and replace it with "several minutes". The claim that "Although the paramedics expected Branch's daughter to suffer brain damage after being without oxygen for so long" is problematic because it's dependent on the exceptional claim. I recommend removing that as well. Finally, it might also be a good idea to use in-text attribution ("According to the Christian Broadcasting Network..."). Alternatively, you can try to find multiple high quality sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That section of the article on drowning is actually uncited and tagged for possibly lacking in factual accuracy. As I understand it, brain cells begin to die after that period of time. However, the exact time this takes is variable see here: http://www.transweb.org/faq/q3.shtml. Specifically, in the cases of a child drowning, survival is possible even after 30 minutes. Basically, kids are more durable than adults so they can go without oxygen longer and still bounce right back.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that source says brain cells begin to die after a minute and that serious brain damage is likely after 3 minutes. The 30-minute exception is only when a child is suddenly plunged into very cold water.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, we should not be trying to source how many minutes the child was without oxygen, certainly not to The 700 Club. That's more than the source itself is trying to do, in my view. The point is, the Branch's attribute their child's survival to the power of prayer. The shorter version here is about right, maybe with the addition of something like "Branch tells how..." I think The 700 Club article is an adequete source for that. But, it's only one source, and it's still an open question whether or not this incident belongs in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the significant point is that the child survived without suffering serious brain damage.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * CBN is not a reliable source for facts and especially not medical claims. I'm not sure how I feel about whether the material can be included (ie. does BLP apply to the child? because CBN is not a BLP-compliant source) but if it is, it must be attributed copiously (ie. "Branch said the child had been without oxygen for eight to ten minutes," etc.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually is not making a medical claim. The source says the child was without oxygen for an estimated eight to ten minutes and that paramedics believed there would be brain damage, as that is the standard time-frame when brain damage occurs. No contentious medical claim was being made there. The lack of brain damage does not appear to be an exceptional claim either as cases of children in a cold drowning allow for that kind of recovery.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Orange County Register, Entertainment section

 * 1) This diff removed a source which was from the Orange County Register, Entertainment section with the edit comment [remove opinion piece:"we're sure..." "we're betting..." "it might just look like a blob", with errors of fact (readers led to think that Earhart was trying to land on Gardner)], which I thought would be the end of the story.
 * 2) Instead, the edit was reverted here.
 * 3) In the confounding context of a related discussion, this analysis was added.
 * 4) The original source already documented the July date, so the editor is claiming that the OCR is being used to source "Niku-7". I say that the article is an unreliable opinion piece and should not be used.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that the Orange County Register is a reliable source, and meets RS requirements set forth in WP:NEWSORG. Now if this was an opinion article, which it is not, such an article needs to be attributed and can only be used to verify the opinions of the author. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The OCR doesn't really qualify as a source, per se, as their reporter contributed nothing substantial to the story. The OCR reporter obtained almost all of the content from this CBS article/video: []. Except for the word "Nikumaroro", which doesn't appear in the CBS version. She got from this website: . The source for "Niku-7" is here: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't use the Huffington Post article. I'd source everything to tighar.org and CBS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sources possibly not RS
He is openly gay.

WP:BLPCAT requires specifically
 * Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Thus the questions are:
 * 1) Is an Instinct magazine blog which does not make the specific claim that a person is "openly gay" a reliable source for that claim?
 * 2) Is a "nickadams" blog a reliable source for the claim that he is "openly gay" when it does not make that claim?
 * 3) Is micajesse.com a reliable source for this?
 * 4) Is greginhollywood.com a reliable source?
 * 5) Is advocate.com a reliable source for this claim?  It describes him as "out" in a fairly bloggy post at best, IMO.
 * 6) Is bestgaynewyork.com a reliable source for staing that a person is "openly gay"?

The nickadams blog, if it is indeed his, does not make the overt claim, and is the only source used which I consider (per SPS) as valid for declaring him to be "openly gay" - but it does not do that. The second issue always present is whether "openly gay" is "relevant to (his) public life or notability" but the issue of whether these blogs and non-news sources are "reliable sources" is the primary question here. .  ThanksCollect (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't this beside the point: Unless, per WP:BLPCAT, "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability" it is irrelevant whether the sources are reliable or not - this doesn't belong in the article. On what grounds is it being argued that Adam's sexuality is relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hum - looking into this it seems to me that Adams' blog is a perfectly good source for his sexuality, and for the fact that he has made something of an issue about anti-gay discrimination. I'd think that WP:SELFSOURCE covers this -unless there are grounds for suggesting that this isn't his blog. As for whether it merits inclusion in the article, that is another debate - but I can't see any particular objection to including it, if Adams is making a public stand on the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your forum-shopping won't help you, Collect, since he's come out in pretty much every medium in which it's possible to come out. And to be frank, if you actually read his blog post and somehow didn't notice the four or so places where he mentioned that he was gay, you need to go to the optometrist. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not "forumshopping" to point out that non-RS sources can NOT be used in articles.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an abstract 'non-RS' source. Any source can be used for the opinion of its author - and Adams' blog is a perfectly good source for his opinion that he is gay. As to whether this merits mention in his bio, that is another issue - but not one for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy here. Adam's blog is perfectly reliable for the information it is used to support per WP sourcing policies. The words "overt" or "openly" do not have to appear in the source, if that is what is meant. There is no good reason to doubt that the blog is indeed his. There is no reasonable doubt that he has "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". Discuss relevance on the talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Has Adam;s actually written on his blog that he is gay? Or openly gay? Just because someone takes up a cause does not mean they are gay after all, or were the equal rights guys from the 60's all black? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Has Adam;s actually written on his blog that he is gay?" Yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this woody woodpecker sources good
I am trying to improve the woody woodpecker articles particularly his television show articles. I just wish to know if The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia! (see here http://lantz.goldenagecartoons.com/) is a valid source as the website states that its an unofficial website so surely all these sources on woody woodpecker articles should be removed. I thought I better ask before any militant inclusionists accuse me of "destroying valuable information".Dwanyewest (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a self-published fan site. A very nice one, but a SPS nonetheless. So, I was inclined to dismiss it out of hand, but we have to ask the second question per WP:SPS: Is the author is a recognized expert in the relevant field who has previously been published by independent reputable publishers? The answer, to my surprise, is "Yes". The author is Jon B. Cooke who is indeed a recognized expert on comic books, and has been extensively published by independent reputable publishers in the relevant field. So, the Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia is just fine as a reliable source for Woody Woodpecker and related articles. Fladrif (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nowrunning
I found the site Nowrunning.com, being used in many articles under the Indian cinema task force. The site, shows no signs of notability in any manner, getting 0 hits in the Google News Search. Hence, I wish to get a few opinions on whether the site can be used, in specific, for quoting reviews from the "critics" of the website, as well as for other reports, in articles related to Indian cinema.  Secret of success  ( talk ) 05:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would tell them: "now stop using it".... not RS at all. History2007 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look reliable for me. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  19:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark
Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark is a 51-minute award winning documentary by Al Jazeera English on the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising. I wonder if it can be used as a reliable source and if so what template can be used for citation (minutes need to be specified)? Also, does this apply to other documentaries published by reliable sources or do they need to be assessed individually?  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say a lot depends on the reaction by other news sources (negative reactions might argue against using it), but the citation template would be cite episode or cite video depending on if it is part of a larger series. If it's award-winning, that argues it could be used.  Normally I would expect this sort of thing to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good source to me. Bahrain's government didn't like it but they're not exactly objective here. And the documentary won a Foreign Press Association award. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there a way to specify minutes after the citation to avoid using the same reference multiple times? For example, when citing reports, you can use this template to show page(s) number.  Mohamed CJ  (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but looking at the Template:Cite video page, the very last parameter discussed at the bottom might let you. You'll probably have to play with it to figure it out.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English has garnered a rather good reputation as far as its reporting (and in particular its accuracy) is concerned. So in general you might use it as any (good) documentation on CNN, BBC or PBS. So much for generality as far as this concrete documentation of Bahrein is concerned, it seems ok to me to be used as a source. At least i didn't notice any fishy or odd things when browsing it and it received that journalistic awards as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in Aquatic ape hypothesis article (continued)
I would like to re-open the discussion. (Previous thread is here)

As it may involve a rare case of transition from pseudoscience to proto-science, the matter is a bit complicated. Please bear with me.

In brief, a few criticizing sources like blog posts by scientists John Hawks, Greg Laden, PZ Myers, as well as an amateur website are cited extensively in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis article, while their reliability is disputed.

This is in the context of another dispute -- a supportive e-book published by Bentham (made it equal to self-publishing), co-authored by scientists Phillip Tobias, Michael Crawford, Anna Gislen, Erika Schagatay, etc. is deemed unreliable and not permitted a mention.

A few thoughts:


 * There's a clear definition of what is RS and what's not. A self-published source is unreliable in principle, but can 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" (WP:SPS). The above-mentioned scientists are experts in human evolution, so the blogs and the e-book can be considered reliable (but not the amateur website).
 * I can further argue that the bloggers haven't published anything on AAH or water like the e-book authors did (see the reference list below), but I only demand a fair treatment on pro & con sources -- Either both reliable, or both non-reliable.


 * WP:DUE and WP:PARITY are used as reasons (or excuses) to avoid a fair treatment, however neither policy states so. WP:DUE says that competing views should be presented "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject", that means the quantity is to be skewed, not the quality / reliability. WP:PARITY says that we can use non-RS's to criticize a fringe theory only when no RS is available, but this is not true for AAH since there're numerous peer-reviewed sources available (see below).


 * The due weight applied the article is even questioned and may be out-dated. After a search in the published literature, there's a surprisingly large number of peer-reviewed sources in support of the AAH, mostly in the form of modern scientific research (e.g. underwater archaeology, shore-based diet, diving physiology) -- see here for a full reference list.
 * In comparison, the sources that traditionally used to reject the AAH (e.g. Langdon's 1997 paper, blog posts) are not that numerous as one thought, mostly consist of personal opinions from (paleo)anthropologists. Admittedly, the AAH is still dismissed in the (paleo)anthropology circle, and is far from mainstream, but it has generated non-negligible academic interest and activities in other fields. It can be said that the AAH has entered a proto-science stage.


 * My main point is: Some sources (questionably reliable and not really "numerous") are used to judge the AAH as fringe theory or pseudoscience, which permits one to expand the criticizing sources and remove the supportive literature, even converting RS into non-RS and vice versa. This in turn sustains the common belief that "AAH is pseudoscience", "It has no evidence" or "No scientist takes it seriously" and completes the cycle. I urge that we should re-evaluate the status of the AAH, and in particular the reliability status of the sources used.

Yours, Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, there's a reason that we ask people to provide full bibliographic citations at RSN, and this post makes a fine example. Who or what is "Bentham"?  Is that a person or Bentham Science Publishers?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's Bentham Science Publishers, more precisely the eBooks division. Another division (Bentham Open) is deemed a vanity press, but so far not eBook. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 06:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is an "e-book ... equal to self-publishing"? An e-book is just a book, but in another media. I agree with WhatamIdoing that this is a bit hard to follow. If Chakazul is asking whether published books are normally considered stronger sources than blogs, even blogs by scientists, I would tend to agree within reason. But of course I can only generalize with the information given so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of the issues here do not seem to be suitable for the RSN.
 * Blogs and websites are not used extensively in the current version of the page, 4 websites versus 12 articles and 13 books and the previous discussion of them on the RSN (linked above by Chakazul) seemed to indicate they were acceptable parity sources.
 * The Bentham publication, of which Chakazul is the author of one chapter, was briefly discussed previously on RSN (here). Bentham apparently has a pay-to-publish branch and is not particularly well respected for that reason.
 * Many sources explicitly call the AAH interesting but ultimately not widely accepted by the scientific community, ,.
 * The "full list" presented by Chakazul contains at least a couple sources that would require ignoring our policy on original research to include; for instance, there are several primary sources in that list, and .  There are a lot of questionable assumptions made in the list as well - for instance, is the fact that protohumans may have relied on fish and other aquatic sources of food support for the AAH?  Should this be discussed on the page?  What about if the source never mentions the AAH by name, never cites any of its prominent opponents and never uses the phrase "aquatic ape"?  Are four references by an advocate for water birthing, all published before the year 2000, relevanGt?  The list currently sits at 173 unlinked sources, at least a substantial portion of which are questionable.  I don't feel like going through all of them, particularly when the most relevant sources - review articles, broad scholarly books and textbooks and the like - either do not mention the AAH or mention it only to dismiss it as not widely accepted.  The fact that a minority of proponents thing the AAH is unjustly rejected does not mean that we rewrite the page solely from their perspective; that is why WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE exist.  I believe that it would be undue weight to portray the AAH as anything but a topic of popular interest and appeal with little real impact in the actual scholarly community.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I should raise the due weight issue elsewhere. What's relevant here is:
 * Those sources all mentioned that AAH is dismissed in one academic circle, NEVER the whole scientific community (my list proved the opposite). The above reply has carefully avoided this fact.
 * Throughout the history of the AAH article, it's infested with low quality sources -- amateur website, blog posts, unsourced claims, original synthesis, student-run journals -- all are extensively used by a few editors (in particular WLU and Mokele) to insert criticisms, even when many high quality sources are available. I've never seen such an unrestricted use of low quality sources in WP, even among articles about fringe theory. Policies like WP:DUE and WP:PARITY are highly misused here.
 * I agree with Andrew that some sources are stronger then others -- perhaps not a black-or-white (reliable-or-not) issue. It's reasonable that lo-quality sources should give way to hi-quality ones. If one point can only be found in lo-quality sources (e.g. a blog post claimed that AAH is pseudoscience while contradicted by published sources), it should not be mentioned at all. Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 05:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the "whole scientific community" hasn't dismissed the AAH. The whole scientific community has better things to do than look at every bit of questionable fluff that turns up. I'm not sure that most scientists would suggest that the AAH is pseudoscience - mostly because they are unlikely to possess the level of knowledge to make such an assessment. What is evident though is that those amongst the scientific community that do possess such knowledge (palaeoanthropologists) have dismissed it - not necessarily as 'pseudoscience', but as vague, lacking in useful content, and almost certainly wrong. It is a nice idea. Nice ideas are a poor substitute for evidence. Go away, find it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly paleoanthropology is not the only field that possesses the knowledge of human evolution -- others like archaeology (especially when close to the origin of Homo sapiens), evolutionary nutrition (e.g. paleo diet, the expensive tissue hypothesis), primatology, genetics, and other fields that deal with the current human phenotype.


 * So back to the question here, should published books / e-books be considered a stronger source than blog posts, as some here suggested? Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have been repeatedly pointed to the relevant passages in WP:FRINGE. If you wan't the policy changed, this isn't the appropriate place to propose it - and per WP:PARITY, the answer is clear - we can use reputable blogs as sources to counter the promotion of the (fringe, and rejected by all relevant scientific disciplines: or do you have a source that asserts otherwise?) AAH, sourced from 'published books' - anyone can publish a book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Website http://bcozz.multiply.com/journal/item/2191/Timeline
Can any editors assist in determining if the site http://bcozz.multiply.com/journal/item/2191/Timeline is a reliable source? There is a discussion at Talk:Dnepr M-72 but I don't feel like putting up with more personal attacks so I'd rather others took part. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * b-Cozz is well quoted within the English-speaking Soviet motorcycle community as a well respected source. Unfortunately you chose to be flippant in attempts to correct your vandalism to the M-72 (motorcycle) when you arbitarily renamed it without any concensus. Perhaps if you had been more open and respecting of other opinions at the time and less rude and condescending, you would not have been personally attacked. Pot calling kettle black comes to mind in your complaint. Jew not Zionist (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you tell us the titles, authors, dates, etc. of the publications which vouch for the reliability of bcozz.multiply.com? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * there are a few "official" feeds on multiply dot com that could be used for non-promotional content about themselves, but mostly its a PR tool / social network site and does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sri lanka
I believe two sentences on the sri lanka article constitutes self research and thus doesn't meets WP NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Post_independence_Sri_Lanka

in the 3rd paragraph, last three sentences states. "In 1987, the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was signed and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was deployed in northern Sri Lanka to stabilize the region by neutralising the LTTE.[120] The same year, the JVP launched its second insurrection in Southern Sri Lanka.[121] As their efforts did not become successful, IPKF was called back in 1990."

The provided source does not indicate that the failure for the IPKF was due a JVP insurrection. I'm not contesting that a JVP insurrection occurred, but its linkage to the failure of IPKF. On the same logic I can simply relate any other incident that occurred that year to the IPKF failure. I think WP as an encyclopedia shouldn't make assumption on ones 'pinons' we should simple state it as it is. The IPKF was engaged in military conflict with the LTTE however due the LTTE superior military capacity, the IPKF failed to realize its objective. Distributor108 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Sources at Web Sheriff
The Web Sheriff article reads like promotional material from the company itself. This is due in part to the nature of the sources being used, many of which reproduce PR copy from the business itself. Based on my reading of sources, I put forward a list of sources which I felt were inappropriate. , the primary contributor to the article disagreed with my evaluation of the sources. As such, I am asking the broader community for input on some of sources which I felt were least reliable:


 * 1) http://musiciancoaching.com/music-business/how-to-fight-music-piracy/
 * 2) http://musicnewsaustraliadotcom.blogspot.com/2012/01/web-sheriff-has-helped-everyone-from.html
 * 3) http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=312&articleId=39802
 * 4) http://allthingsd.com/20080218/ymca-piratebay/
 * 5) http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=27184&sectioncode=1
 * 6) http://torrentfreak.com/web-sheriff-takes-down-rlslog-090119/

By my estimation, none of these citation are reliable secondary sources. They are all either un-notable blog postings, or press releases based entirely on promotional material from Web Sheriff itself. If someone could clarify whether any of these sources are sufficiently reliable for article content, that would be appreciated. Thank you, aprock (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources as far as I know and I checked them carefully:


 * 1) http://musiciancoaching.com/music-business/how-to-fight-music-piracy/, blog (according to aprock) -  IMO: This is an independent interview by professional:  interviewer's in music industry resume
 * 2) http://musicnewsaustraliadotcom.blogspot.com/2012/01/web-sheriff-has-helped-everyone-from.html, blog (according to aprock) - IMO: info written and posted by musicnewsaustralia:  Music News Australia is a company specializing in covering the Australian and international music, film and entertainment business.
 * 3) http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=312&articleId=39802, press release (according to aprock) - IMO:  No. It's listed in Label and Publishing news &  posted by Celebrity Access Staff writers - directly above it is an advertisement labeled as such but does not refer to the Web Sheriff article below it.
 * 4) http://allthingsd.com/20080218/ymca-piratebay/, blog (according to aprock) - IMO: not blog: All Things Digital: online publication that specializes in technology and startup company news, analysis and coverage. Article by professional editor: John Paczkowski
 * 5) http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=27184&sectioncode=1, press release (according to aprock) - IMO: not press release per Music Week: "Music Week is the bible for anyone interested in the music industry in the UK."
 * 6) http://torrentfreak.com/web-sheriff-takes-down-rlslog-090119/, blog (according to aprock)- IMO: not blog: - source of latest breaking news) Used as source on GA article reviewed by an editor who has reviewed more than 594 GA articles
 * Thanks, Agadant (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After 13 editors (aprock was one of the most active) left after having unrestricted material and source deletion that ended on 09-08-11, four of these reliable sources were already there and not questioned or deleted as of when the editors left together after the !-1/2 month long siege on the article: #1, #3, #5, #6 That makes me feel very confident that they would have been deleted if there were any doubts about them. (I have added the other 2 since)  But aprock came back many months later to now question them and tag the article with NPOV and ADVERT both by reason of unreliable sourcing. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AnimeCons.com
< The Website in question

"A directory of anime convention related information, including guest lists, attendance figures, dates, and press releases. While the content of the convention directory is user submittable, all submissions are checked and verified against the convention's website, press releases, or other reliable source before being added to the directory. Because of this, information can occasionally be incomplete. Also hosts a video podcast about anime conventions."

But what makes this source reliable is a question raised over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Looking for feedback here as a-lot of articles we have reguarding conventions link to this website. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The information presented in the site is user submittable. The site does not have any editorial board, and there is no evidence of a rigorous fact-checking mechanism. It is not RS. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  22:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AnimeCons.com has received coverage from Anime News Network and Right Stuf's Anime Today podcast , and has been used as a source by Anime News Network .  I would say that being treated as reliable by a major anime retailer and a top anime news site is sufficient to establish that the site's staff-written news stories are reliable.  However, I don't think that the database is reliable, as the database is user submitted.  I would consider it similar to Anime News Network, where the staff-written news stories and articles are considered reliable, but where the user submitted database is not reliable. Calathan (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are the writers and what are their credibility? Is there any evidence that the articles submitted by the writers go through a fact-checking mechanism? Coverage in other reliable sources does not make one site reliable, see, for example, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_116. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  01:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would at the very least say that Patrick Delahanty, the site's founder, passes WP:SPS as an expert on anime conventions. WP:SPS seems to be written with researchers and print publications in mind, but I would still consider Anime Today a publication by a reliable source in the sense intended by WP:SPS (i.e. it doesn't matter that they are publishing his voice instead of written text, as it is still a reliable source giving him credibility as an expert).  One of the press releases about one of the podcasts also states that Delahanty is a founder of Anime Boston, a major anime convention, which means he has actually worked in the business of anime conventions (as opposed to just being a random person who decided to write about anime conventions).  I'm not really sure about the other people who write for the site. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings
"Islamic radicalisation during prison and jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist. French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism in prison" Do the following sources support this assertion. Have a look at the lead of the article to gauge its context. Thank you

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/europe/france-shooting-suspect/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9165091/Toulouse-shootings-the-making-of-a-French-jihadi-killer-with-a-double-life.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17481537 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/terrorist-mohamed-merah-found-his-inner-jihadi-in-prison/story-fnb64oi6-1226309644280 To access the entire source for the last link, you may have to google "terrorist mohamed merah found his inner jihadi in prison" and select the link for the Australian which should be the first one. Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the sources say "French investigators believe that Merah turned to Salafism."
 * However, I'm not sure if they say "jihadist familial connections were cited as factors in his becoming a radical jihadist".
 * In any case, are you sure this is the right place for this discussion? With attribution and correct quotation, these sources are certainly reliable.VR talk  00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Policy Journal
Hi,

Is this source reliable for this sentence: "After the war senior Israelis have acknowledged that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt"? It seems sufficient to read the last three paragraphs of this piece. (This is the homepage of the journal) --Dailycare (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The author is also the editor/publisher of this online journal, not to be confused with the prestigious journal Foreign Policy. I do not think that this journal can be used for anything other than the opinion of a particular author, not for a statement of fact, and only then if the author and his or her opinion is notable. The notability of the author and his or her opinions on the subject would be established by the extent to which it is cited in other, third party, reliable publications. I see little indication that Mr. Hammond, or his opinions, are notable in the least, based on the lack of coverage in anything other than his own websites and a handful of blogs. Fladrif (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are, however, reliable sources to show that several senior Israelis (notably Ezer Weizman)did indeed believe that there was no realistic threat from Egypt. I'm not at home at the moment, and do not have access to sources; but if necessary I could provide details in a few days. RolandR (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with reliability of the source its clearly have no editorial board and WP:SPS--Shrike (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, there is no requirement that periodicals have editorial boards. We want "editorial control", which can be supplied by a single person.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama
I have been accused of playing games and trolling and have been warned that I may be blocked for libel because I am not providing a source. I claim that I gave a reliable source and would like an opinion. My editing has been limited to talk pages. I have not edited articles.

Pergram, Chad. "Obama Struggles With Smoking 'Addiction' as He Praises Congress for New Tobacco Regulations." Fox News. FOX News Network, 12 June 2009. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. .

link to source

Article in which it is being used:

Obama talk page DD2K talk page

The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. "Asked if the president still smoked, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama has 'a struggle with nicotine addiction' every day.".

Relevant talk page discussion: Section from Obama talk page Closed Section of DD2K talk page129.2.64.165 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious trolling. The so-called source is a political attack piece, not journalism. See WP:SNOW for why wasting time discussing this sort of thing is disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your thoughtful response. I am sorry that you think it is disruptive.  I assure you, I am not trolling.  I wanted opinions from editors other than the people that watch the Barack Obama page.  129.2.64.165 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the source is reliable, however, the insertion of tying this in with his policies has been discussed and rejected by other editors on the talk page. I am not involved with editing that page, but I do agree with the consensus that has formed. Location (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I feel like because I am a minority, the consensus is already formed against me, although I feel like WP:Clue I have more valid reasoning. "disputes generally are, and should be, resolved in favor of whoever has the best reasoning."  What can I do to prevent the decision making to be based on majority viewpoint?129.2.64.165 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * More sources confirming Robert Gibb's quote:


 * 1
 * 2
 * "Obama Quits Smoking after 30 Years." Premier Drug Rehabilitation Providers. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. .


 * "Obama Struggles to Quit Smoking: White House." Barack Obama. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. .
 * There is also an article by the examiner, but that website is apparently blacklisted.129.2.64.165 (talk) 22:04, 31

March 2012 (UTC) In order to further contest this issue, should I post on the talk page of the Obama wiki-project? Or would that be considered canvassing?129.2.129.220 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would consider it pushing a fringe, irrelevant, POV issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As to whether the FOX source is reliable, I would say not. FOX does not have a great reputation in reporting on Obama, and the article itself starts out as an attack piece. As to the other sources, they are probably reliable, but not the best sources to use for this kind of information. Better sources suely exist.


 * As for using the sentence you quoted above in the Barack Obama article, that is a matter to be decided on the article talk page, not here. Remember that reliability and relevance/noteworthiness are two different issues. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the article, even if the source is very reliable. One also has to take into account that the information in the source you used is three years old, and that reliable sources have stated that since then, the situation has changed. Even if your source were totally reliable, it's relevance may have changed, even though it's reliability is still the same. That needs to be decided on the talk page, not here.


 * Your question about the decision-making process on talk pages is out of place on this noticeboard. We can only point you to WP:DR for guidance. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for your response. I was scared to continue editing on the discussion page because I was warned that without proper sources, I was libeling and nearly blocked.129.2.64.165 (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me say that this IP hopping ip didn't notify me he was bringing my edits and Talk page up on this board. As for the trolling portion, the ip is obviously trolling, and the edit he/she was warned about was this one, which I reverted. All one has to do is look at the link and obvious attempt to introduce a tabloid accusation into a WP:BLP from the Globe. Enough. Dave Dial (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Libya Herald
Can articles posted on Libya Herald be considered as reliable? It is one of the few english-source, private owned media from post-Gaddafi Libya at a time and their articles were mostly made of first source informations by their own editors at a place of event and especially usufull for articles about current situation in country. IT was suggested here that it is "nowhere near reliable" so I would like to settle this issue. Thanks EllsworthSK (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Libya Herald is biased is not an issue in determining reliability. Libya Herald is a newly formed online news site with a big dream, but as of now they don't meet the criteria mentioned in WP:SOURCES. What separates it from other news sources like The New York Times is that NYT has an editorial board, but Libya Herald does not have one. There is no evidence of "fact-checking and accuracy" in Libya Herald. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Their lack of published editorial board and also not signing their articles is truly one that was bothering me, however this is only current situation. Possibility is that in few days/weeks it can chage. However I would like to refer my question to "evidence of fact-checking and accuracy". When or what exactly classfies as such thing? Because it seems to be pretty vague requirement. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Despite the endless repetition of the claim on this noticeboard, neither SOURCES nor any other policy or guideline requires a source to have an editorial board. A published editorial board may or may not indicate an interest in fact-checking or accuracy.  (Poetry magazines have editorial boards, but that doesn't make their contents fact-checked, after all.)  The absence of an online page that names an editorial board means nothing.  The Mulberry Advance, for example, didn't have an "editorial board" because Kansas's smallest regular newspaper didn't have enough employees to have a "board".  Instead, they had what's known in the publishing business as "an editor".  One proper editor is sufficient to meet the policy requirements about "editorial control".  An entire board of editors is not necessary—and one person actually doing the job meets the requirements, whereas a [long list of made-up names and figureheads does not. A more reliable sign that a periodical does fact-checking and is interested in accuracy is whether they publish corrections.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)