Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126

Vatican Newspaper in Vassula Ryden
Text: "In 1995, the Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a Notification on the True Life in God writings of Rydén which was also printed in L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper. The CDF stated that the 'attentive examination of the entire question' had brought up 'a number of basic elements that must be considered negative in the light of Catholic doctrine' as well as 'several doctrinal errors'. It also questioned the 'suspect nature of the ways in which these alleged revelations have occurred' and considers the fact that 'the aforementioned errors no longer appear in Ryden's later writings is a sign that the alleged heavenly messages are merely the result of private meditations'. The Notification concludes by requesting 'the intervention of the Bishops' to prevent the dissemination of Mrs Ryden's ideas in their dioceses and 'invites all the faithful not to regard Mrs Vassula Ryden's writings and speeches as supernatural'." This should be self-evident but apparently it's not. Is the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, reliable for statements by the Vatican featured in L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 1995, October, page 12 a reliable source for stating the existence of a notification from the Vatican. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your question takes some deciphering and there is no period after your proposed insertion. Sources are only usable for a specific quote. Is this the exact and complete sentence you wish to use in the article? Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry, I've corrected it. I've also added the full paragraph that comes after which contains some quotes, This exact text is is being cited to L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 1995, October, page 12. Editors are trying to argue that it is unreliable. The text is followed by a quote from the document. Also consider, a primary source for the notification:
 * Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, NOTIFICATION ON VASSULA RYDEN (6 October 1995), published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis AAS 88 (1996) 956–957; OR 23–24.10.1995; EV 14, 1956–1957; LE 5618.
 * I'm also using these secondary sources to give due weight (there are more but I have limited it down to these):
 * Stammer, Larry B.. "L.A. Cathedral Disinvites Christian Unity Event: Pastor decides not to allow conference after realizing the role of a self-proclaimed mystic.". January 10, 2006. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
 * Moberg, ed. Joanne M. Greer, David O. (1999). Research in the scientific study of religion. [Stamford (Conn.)]: [Jai press]. pp. 146. ISBN 0762304839.
 * Zaccaria, Francesco (2010). Participation and beliefs in popular religiosity : an empirical-theological exploration among Italian Catholics. Leiden: Brill. pp. 40. ISBN 9789004180963.
 * Hvidt, Niels Christian (2007). Christian prophecy: the post-biblical tradition. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 111-116. ISBN 0-19-531447-6.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me go a bit further than what I said at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. If the full text of the 1995 and 1996 Notifications was, indeed, published in L'Osservatore Romano or in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which I have not myself confirmed, but do not particularly doubt), I believe that those are reliable sources for those texts. I do not believe that either the full text of the 2004 Ratzinger letter or the 2007 Levada letter have been published in a reliable source. For reasons that I gave in that discussion in this edit, which I will not repeat here for the sake of brevity, I believe that regardless of the sourcing question neither the full text of those four documents nor extracts from them nor summaries of them, if sourced directly to the documents themselves, can be used in Wikipedia under WP:PRIMARY because it is essentially impossible to characterize them, summarize them, or extract from them without interpreting them, synthesizing them, or otherwise engaging in OR. I take no position on the proffered secondary sources (by which I mean to include not only those mentioned here, but also those already put into the article, and those mentioned in the DRN discussion) except to observe, first, that when one compares them to the four original Vatican documents that some of them certainly seem to take a much stronger interpretive position than seems to be warranted by the documents themselves without much authority or claimed expertise in making such judgments, second, that few of them do more than make passing reference to the question, and third, that some of them (especially, but not only, the two foreign language sources which refer to the 2007 letter) do not seem to be reliable. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Clarified by addition of underlined text —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Additional underlined clarification. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No interpretations are made of the documents. We merely state their existence and quote one of them. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The text of the 2007 letter is: "In a letter dated January 25, 2007, the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, William Cardinal Levada, following continued requests for clarifications on the writings and activities of Rydén, wrote to the Catholic hierarchy around the world stating that 'the Notification of 1995 remains valid as a doctrinal judgment' of the writings, which should be seen as her own personal meditations and that Catholics should not take part in prayer groups established by Ryden." The possible web references are, , , ,. Note that we are not making any interpretations of the document based on the secondary sources, merely stating it's existence and quoting a small piece of the letter. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not the text of the letter, but the text of some commentary (?) about the letter. Due to the confused use of quotation marks, it does not even include an accurate quote from the letter and suggests that things are being quoted when in fact they are being summarized or paraphrased. What that does do, however, is to illustrate part of my point about OR: By mentioning the doctrinal judgment bit of the 2007 letter (actual full text here) without going on to say that it also says that "a case by case prudential judgment is required in view of the real possibility of the faithful being able to read the writings in the light of the said clarifications" it gives the impression that the 1995 Notification's statement that, "no opportunity may be provided ... for the dissemination of her ideas," still stands. Which it may or may not, I have no idea, and that's my point. Anything less than quoting the full text of these documents is likely to slant them more in favor or more against allowing the use of Ryden's work, but because their meaning is anything but certain or apparent we cannot be sure which, if either, ox is being gored. Quoting the full text of all four documents would be WP:UNDUE and would also invite readers to make interpretations of the documents which non-experts are not qualified to make. As for the references you listed in your last post, just above, I'll leave it to the experts at this noticeboard to judge, but none of them appears to me to be a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Strikeout due to quotation marks being subsequently corrected by IRWolfie-. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The quote is a copy and paste from the words of the letter. The last comma was a typo by me when I copy pasted it here. I've corrected it. RSN isn't here to comment on issues of due weight, merely the reliability of the sources for the statements. Another editor said the statements were not reliably sourced and asked that I confirm they are reliably sourced here at RSN, that is why I have posted this here. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RS/N often comments on the capacity for a source to produce WEIGHT; but, rarely suggests the fine detail of appropriate WEIGHTing (believing that this is best done elsewhere). The sources look fine, L'Osservatore Romano demonstrates the fact, AAS is an appropriate PRIMARY (being a PRIMARY clearly backed by a secondary).  The other sources, in particularly the scholarly ones, indicate that this point occurs in WEIGHTy discourse.  I don't know what the problem is, but someone seems to have a unique relationship to policy when a fact attested in multiple high (and highest) quality reliable sources is questioned. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another secondary source covering the issuance of the Levada letter Vatican warnings affirmed by Levada; San Francisco Chronicle - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hotel information sourcing
For my own curiosity, because I might have wrongly dinged some one at DYK over this, when writing about a hotel, which if any of the following are reliable sources:


 * The hotel's site, their book page and their social media site for information about hotel's features? for the issues pertaining to hotel quality?
 * http://www.hotelscombined.co.uk/
 * http://www.fodors.com/ on pages like http://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/district-of-columbia/washington-dc/review-44182.html
 * http://hotels.lonelyplanet.com/
 * http://www.1stwashingtondchotels.com/
 * http://www.hotelopia.com/
 * http://www.worldrainbowhotels.com
 * http://www.worldhotels.com/
 * http://www.hrs.com/
 * http://www.infotel.co.uk/

Thanks. These sources were used in St. Gregory Luxury Hotels & Suites, The Churchill Hotel. Example of RS is using those types of sites for facts like "The hotel features elegant and urban décor, but also has the required contemporary amenities that their clients need" and "however it is a long walk." --LauraHale (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Fodors, Lonely Planet, Infotel and Worldhotel.com, especially the first two are generally very good for hotels. In looking at it Hotels Combined whilst sounding dubious does appear to be a very comprehensive source for hotels, I'd accept it. It is difficult finding encyclopedic information on a lot of them. Where possible I would avoid sites like Expedia and "worldrainbowhotels.com" and stick to solid sources where possible, I urge you TAP to research in google books first before web based stuff. Writing articles about hotels is an art, there's a fine line between them coming across as an advert or a tourist guide and being encyclopedic. What I would suggest is avoid talking about the room facilities and saying the hotel is a "short walk" from which makes it look as if you're trying to attract customers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the context of these articles, how are LonelyPlanet and Fodors different than Expedia? We're not talking print copies of either or travel guides inside the site for both: We're talking booking pages for both.  That is what bothers me with sourcing.  I'd be more trusting of a print copy of Lonely Planet. --LauraHale (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

They're professional sources, I agree though, book sources would be better than the booking webpages. Frommer's and Fodor's in particular are possibly the best sources for hotel articles. I strongly recommend that TAP always looks in google books first, this way he wold evade some of the more dubious websites unless he can't find anything in the books.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the book sources support this information and can alternatives be found? I think the better sources would be newspaper sources, academic papers, etc. because it not only solves the RS issues here but the notability issue.  this this seem to suggest not that trusted. Compare lonely planet with this for idea of hotel booking not as reliable. --LauraHale (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I held off replying to this but my response would have been that I don't think any of them are reliable. I don't see evidence that any of the sites verify the information (if there is such evidence, sorry!) I agree with Laura, serious newspaper reviews and printed guidebooks may be considered generally reliable; booking websites shouldn't be.
 * [Added:] The hotel website and social networking site can of course go in "external links". And rew D alby  15:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Per WP:EL, we don't put in multiple links controlled by the subject; so just their website, not their twitter and so on. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Orange Mike. Point taken. And rew D alby  08:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bath salts and cannibalism
Can I get some opinions on whether the sources used for the first incident in Bath_salts_(drug) are suitable, and whether or not this should be included in the article? I don't think so as there is no toxicology data, only hearsay of what one police officer alleges. As the source for the other incident (the miami cannibal attack) shows, it is not wise to include information in articles based on such poor quality information, and is better to wait until we have proper evidence either way. There are plenty of academic sources detailing the adverse side effects of substituted cathinones that can be included in the article without having to include specific cases such as this. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I should also note that there have been other cases like this surrounding designer drugs, such as this which turned out to be false and others mentioned in the mephedrone article. SmartSE (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you provide actual detailed citations, because we do ask for them, and having the citations against the claims remarkably speeds up our ability to comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Interfaithfamily.com

 * Source: http://www.interfaithfamily.com/arts_and_entertainment/popular_culture/Profile_of_Alicia_Silverstone--Daughter_of_Scottish_Mom_and_Jewish_Dad.shtml
 * Alicia Silverstone
 * Editor at Talk:Alicia_Silverstone wants to use that as a source for the statement that she is best known for "Clueless".  D r e a m Focus  20:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is already used as a source in the article.
 * No one is saying that it should be used to say she is "best known" for Clueless. We've already three other sources that specifically use the phrase "best known" which have been rejected as not having enough historical context and perspective to be reliable for determining what she is "best known" for. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated "how many sources do we need to make it clear that her role in Clueless is an extremely important role in her life, if not the single most important and notable activity of her entire life?" Does this source convey that?  What exactly do you want to add about her in Clueless that you want to reference this article for?   D r e a m Focus  21:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interfaithfamily lacks a weighty opinion regarding celebrity or actor's most important roles. Ivor Davis correspondingly seems to lack this capacity.  While the source may be reliable for Ivor Davis' view of Alicia Silverstone's celebrity; Ivor Davis' opinion lacks any WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I certainly am hesitant to use it alone, but that is not the intent. I'm not familiar with Davis, but he seems to have quite a bit of experience reporting on celebrities - over 35 years at the time of the publication of the Interfaithfamily article. It's a secondary source by a reliable, experienced celebrity journalist. I'll bring it up again when we're further along with finding sources for determining LEDE and WEIGHT concerns. Does anyone else know more about Davis or Interfaithfamily? --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have good reason to believe that Davis' has a WEIGHTy opinion, I'd caution you that the article in question doesn't have a byline date on it, so it is difficult to evaluate what time scope of Silverstone's career Davis was talking about. I'm glad to see that you're putting these concerns centrally, and Davis' opinion (if WEIGHTy) may balance out when you've surveyed other "celebrity expert" or "actor expert" opinions.   Good luck! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of a date concerns me as well, but it's easy to determine when it was written: The article starts with commentary about her role "in the daring new movie" Love's Labour's Lost (2000 film), a movie released in the US in June 2000. --Ronz (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Published July 2000: http://www.interfaithfamily.com/past_issues_by_year/2000.shtml --Ronz (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings from E-mail
I'm currently working as part of The X-Files Project and I'm trying to track down Nielsen ratings for various episodes. I emailed Nielsen Soundscan, to see if I could track down the information, and they responded that they could but it would cost. Furthermore, I'm not sure how I'd be able to cite this information since it would probably be coming from an email. What are the thoughts here?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  18:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Personal correspondence is never citeable for wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was some sort of digital or paper source, would it be permissible?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  18:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has to be something that was formally published. This can be a book, a website, a radio/TV broadcast, etc. It has to be possible for another editor to locate, although that does not have to be easy. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:Published has more information on what's required. In general, though, Wikipedia uses the original meaning:  something is published when it has been made available to the general public.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that USA Today, among other sources, printed the full Nielsen ratings for every network show throughout the run of The X-Files. It may take some time in the library to find sources for all the ratings, but they were all presumably published. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Scrapbookpages.com" - Holocaust revisionism website, spammed in around 100 articles
Hi. I've explained what's the problem with it at Talk:The Holocaust and folks there agreed about how "it clearly doesn't meet WP:RS requirements" but sent me over here regarding my proposal to blacklist the whole thing. --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, yep, I think it needs to be blacklisted. It'd also be nice if someone got a bot to go through and remove all instances of the site being cited, replacing the ref tags with CN if there are no other references for the statement (shame I don't know any programming).  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a candidate for large scale clean up. Whether we can use bots on these tasks is something we could discuss on the talk page. I don't know if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked into external links blocking it was way too technical for me, someone else could take carriage there? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to post a request to add it to the blacklist at the Wikipedia Blacklist page MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. Then someone will used their administrators magic wand to fix the problem.   D r e a m Focus  00:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted at the spam blacklist. Going through dealing with mostly WP:ELNO uses. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, it is done. 3 files listed for FFD, a bunch of prods for non-not articles or unsourced blps, and a hell of a lot of ELNO and unreliable sources deleted, with a few paragraphs of direct quotes from unreliable sources gone too. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for wading in and performing the dirty work! I got two myself but you did majority, by far. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It helps to go back and double check. Some people don't take an edit summary with WP:ELNO #2 in it seriously.  Othertimes the Bots rescue orphaned named refs. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
Hi, all. This source, an official publication of the Worshipful Company of Gold and Silver Wyre Drawers, is currently being used at Paul McCartney (a current FAC) in support of the statement "Sir Paul McCartney's agent was Hubert Chesshyre, LVO, Clarenceux King of Arms" (The above is in connection with his knighting in 1997 the granting of McCartney's coat of arms in 2002). User:GabeMc, who is leading the charge at the article's Featured article candidacy, expressed some concern that it might not meet WP:RS, so I thought I'd check here to get some outside input. Evanh2008 (talk 06:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FAC requires higher standards than mere reliability, FAC requires high quality reliable sources. Robert Lampitt  (2004) "College of Arms Visits" Wyre Drawer: NEWSLETTER OF THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF GOLD AND SILVER WYRE DRAWERS 7:Autumn pp.6–7 does not in any way support the contention that Hubert Chesshyre was Paul McCartney's agent.  I would suggest that this indicates that a thorough and interrogatory spot-checking would be required for this FAC.  (On top of that, Wyre Drawer is not known as a source for heraldry or the stations of the British aristocracy, it fails the HQ part of the HQRS test). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article's refs have been spot-checked pretty thoroughly, believe me. The aforementioned Wyre Drawer journal citation was added by me just a couple hours ago, as I figured it was better than no source at all. Thanks for your input! Evanh2008 (talk 07:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't reliably support BLP claims, they need to be removed. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a major problem here is terminology; in particular, the definition of "agent" in this context. The RS I posted lists McCartney as a "client" of Chesshyre. As I know next to nothing about the British heraldry system, I don't know whether or not that means that Chesshyre was McCartney's "agent". I'm also seeing sources all over the internet, some reliable and some not, that indicate Chesshyre was the person who officially granted McCartney the arms. Again, I don't know if the formal definition for someone who grants arms is "agent". I feel I should also point out that the statement has been in the article for numerous years, as far as I know unchallenged. If it's a major problem, I'm sure someone at the FAC will mention it shortly. Evanh2008 (talk 07:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the material in question until proper sourcing can be found. ~ GabeMc   (talk)  08:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Agent" and "client" are just wrong, I'd say: it's like saying the tax inspector who decides what the government's going to take out of your pockets is your agent. One of the members of the College of Arms handles each individual request for arms. From what I've seen of this process (from the archive of an organization that applied for arms c. 1950) the contribution this person makes is hands-on but not "notable": a bit of genealogical research, a bit of back-and-forth discussion about appropriate "charges" (i.e. imagery) and mottoes, and the eventual design of a nice coat of arms. But maybe every tiny thing about Paul McCartney is notable. And rew D alby  08:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to question the importance of this tidbit. Who cares who his agent/client/whatever was?  This isn't Brian Epstein we're talking about.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Jockbio.com
Is jockbio.com a reliable source for these statements in LeBron James: "The two moved around frequently as Gloria was never able to land steady work, and her taste in men was often questionable, with one of them, Eddie Jackson, going to prison in 1990 for aggravated cocaine trafficking." —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good; writers seem to be professional journalists, or at least experienced amateurs, see http://www.jockbio.com/HTML/whoweare.html and there is an editing process. The example you give is ideal to check them out a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1CVPy67FUw seems to be a copy or copied from. The original source appears to be this New York Times article which would seem to be the best source to use. The information is not libelous and has a good source which it is paraphrased from. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

3 Questions about “Reliable Sources”
The following questions are general in scope - but they contain specific examples just for clarification. I am not sure whether I should have posted this post on Policy board regarding what Reliable Sources are, but if I would have, then I may expect the question on whether I had a feedback from this board about the subject, so i’ll start here. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(I have modified this user's contributions to meet RS/N's stylistic requirements) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous or Unknown Authors
/a/ The first question relates to what mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources about “the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)”. The Q. is: if an article is published by an unknown person, is it acceptable as a reference? SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A work possessing an unknown, pseudonymous, presumed, purported, anonymous or corporate author only affects the reliability of the source to the extent that the author impacts on the reliability of the source. In particular, unknown, pseudonymous, presumed, purported and anonymous authors are generally not eligible for the Expert exemption to Self-published sources as the author does not have a traceable demonstration of "expertise."  The other factors of reliability: publisher, work, field, all have impacts on reliability, which are not necessarily undercut by the author being anonymous or unknown. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some sources, such as most Japanese newspapers, or The Economist, for example, often don't identify the authors of their articles. Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the publisher is reliable, e.g., an article in the New York Timese, then the article is reliable. The NYT eg hires and supervisors journalists, there is fact checking, and the newspaper publishes retractions of errors.  TFD (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

[n.a.] (2011-12) "Proofs of Hitler's survival" (and other works) Uncensored (NZ: Gordon & Gotch)
/b/ Does the following source meet RS policy: a NZ based journal “Uncensored”, http://uncensored.co.nz/ Distributer: Gordon & Gotch, which in its hard copy issue 26 of De.2011 published the following articles: Proofs of Hitler’s survival, the Illuminati Breeding Program, Israel sabotaged Fukushima - Japan not hit by 9.0 quake, Aliens in Egypt, Voodoo...

The argument of Verifiability not the Truth :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability is maintained: the journal itself is traceable, its aritcles are written by professional journalists, it makes lot of refrences and it is verifiable by all means. But the question is: can such a source be used for inclusion in a serious and scientific article, (for example about the cause of the tsunami which hit Japan after the quack?). In my experience with Wikipedia, some editors bring such low quality sources (including rumor-spreading tabloids) to use in a serious article, claiming that their source meets RS requirements. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Uncensored is unreliable. It is a pseudonymous unedited blog.  It lacks an editorial policy and editorial board.  There is no indication that editorial fact checking occurs, this is mainly visible because it is a conspiracy theory wordpress blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a clear answer about "Unsensored" as a blog. However, in its paper format journal, it claims editors (Johnathan Eisen) and assistent editor (K.Smith) and a set of treaceable Contributing editors as well as an established Publisher...etc. From what you kindly presented above, I undersytand that - as a blog - it is below the standard of acceptance, and not any reliable source. But as a journal it meets Wikip[edia current guidelines and can be classified as reliable! For example, an article about Fukushima's disaster can (according to W/RS)  mention that "some observers insist that Israel Sabotaged Fukushima" refrerring to a prominent and professional journalist (a former editor of Japan Times Weekly) writing an article about Israel sabotaging Fukushima (signed by Richard Walker, page 10 od issue26, Dec.2011). Such a reference sounds as if being acceptable refrence in Wikipedia. The reason of my enquiry is that there is a disputed sentence on the Soka Gakkai page which used a certain blog as a reference. That blog admits - from the very start - that the information given in it constiture a rumor not a definite occurrence. You have kindly mentioned that Uncensored blog is unreliable (of course, I agree wholeheartedly), but to use the rationale given: the writers of its articles are professional journalists and confirm to be convinced that the information they are presenting is reliable, or sense making. On the contrary to this, in the case of Riverside Press' blog: the journalist states (to the effect) that he is presenting a rumor. One editor says that this is a reliable source, regardless. I disagree and I will use this part of my enquiry here to include in the subject of the Riverside Press blog (and which has not been unanswered yet by any Wikipedia editor - in any of its presented points).SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as a magazine Uncensored is a FRINGE conspiracy theory piece of garbage, which is why it is unreliable. If you wanted to ask about a particular unrelated blog, then you should ask about that particular blog in a specifically titled section. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weekly World News has strong editorial control and says it publishes 'Nothing but the truth' but that still doesn't maker their reported sightings of Bat Boy reliable. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not a reliable source because it (obviously) does not use fact-checking. However it may re-publish or link to articles that have been published in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If we apply the criteria for Verifiability not the Truth, then various nonsensical articles can acquire the robe of "reliability" as a source, because Wikipedia does not require a proof for the truth or falsehood in what is mentioned there. If an article is published by a well established widely known journal (which may even have professional writers) then some editors would argue that it is a reliable source. As for an article which from the start says it is publishing a rumor, I think it should not be used as an acceptable source unless the information specifies that it is dealing with the rumor and this is consistent with : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP#Scholarship in its section Questionable Sources,SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mixing up what is necessary with what is sufficient. That they have an editorial process is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Editors may dispute that they are reliable and if they are deemed by consensus not to be then they do not satisfy our requirements. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Academic works versus Journalistic works in Soka Gakkai
/c/ The last question emerged when a Wikipedia editor judged the reliability of a certain source (being a verifiable University web-published abstract of an academic work) - as inferior in quality to a rumor based tabloid newspaper. I have no complaint against the editor involved because he seems to rely on one of Wikipedia rules, justifying his rejection of an academic work nas a reference and also downgrading it to below the degree of tabloid news (despite not reading it). SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstracts of academic works are insufficient to cite in humanities articles such as Soka Gakkai. Abstracts should never be cited in humanities or social science articles on wikipedia, as abstracts of academic works are not themselves works, and are not representative of the work itself due to their summary nature.  This is because a work must be read in full.  Academic works are generally of a higher standard, and are therefore preferred to cite, over journalistic works.  Fifelfoo (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Juliana Kiyo Finucane (2009) When "bodhisattvas of the earth" become global citizens: Soka Gakkai in comparative perspective. PhD Thesis Syracuse University in Soka Gakkai
The source which I wanted to use in Soka Gakkai page is this one: http://surface.syr.edu/rel_etd/7/. It is an abstract of an academic work included in the library of Syracuse University. The work itself is classified as a PhD Theses. In his evaluation, editor John Carter rejects reference to this source because the work is a PhD theses, (apparently not acceptable in Wikipedia guidelines): “The ...source, from a Syracuse university thesis or dissertation, is unfortunately probably even less likely to meet WP:RS standards than even tabloid newspapers.” This statement is found in the Talk page (point 40: Necessity of neutral editing) of Soka Gakkai.

My question here is the following: is it acceptable in Wikipedia guidelines, that I would write the following sentence in the article that: “ An Abstract of an academic work at Syracuse University Department of Religion  http://surface.syr.edu/rel_etd/7/ states the following: xyz...” (citing here exact words from the internet-published Abstract).

According to the verifiability requirement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability the cited reference is a reliable source which directly supports the information correctly worded in the article. Please note that the mentioned reliable source of Syracuse University contains information about a local academic work and its degree of credibility as a source is here unreasonably undermnined by a judgement that its quality is less acceptable as a tabloid newspaper. I request also guidance on whather my 3 Q should belong here or can be submitted somewhere else. Regards SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Juliana Kiyo Finucane (2009) When "bodhisattvas of the earth" become global citizens: Soka Gakkai in comparative perspective. PhD Thesis Syracuse University. is a reliable source for Soka Gakkai. It is an accepted PhD thesis in a relevant scholarly discipline from a University capable of supervising such theses.  The abstract to this thesis is not reliable.  The thesis needs to be read in full by editors who wish to rely on it for content, and the thesis ought to contribute significantly to the representation of Soka Gakkai's accommodation to transnational proselytizing behaviours expected of them by secular societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be able to get a copy off someone with ProQuest via WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request Fifelfoo (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While I accept that Abstracts of academical works should not be used as refrences, I will search for references confirming accomodation of the SGI to society accepted and widely supported behaviour of introducing its philosophy based on Interfaith dialogue. Appreciate your knowledge and explanation.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes."  TFD (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

CounterPunch
Greetings. Can you establish if CounterPunch and its editor Alexander Cockburn are a reliable source? I am asking for the article Political activities of the Koch family and specifically this diff:"'In 1981 he was placed in charge of the estate of Claude Lambe and thereby also inherited control of the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.'" It's obviously a left-leaning source, no argument from me there. But left leaning doesn't mean the article author, Pam Martens in this case, and CounterPunch facts, as overseen by Mr. Cockburn, can or can't be used in Wikipedia. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Our article (CounterPunch) says that their style is "muckraking with a radical attitude." I've never heard of "muckraking" being consistent with having an interest in actual content.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? muckraking is inherently interested in content. No comment as to the source, which I don't know. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, that's their own humorous self-definition. And you are quoting a Wikipedia page as a source!!! What's more, it is a page bearing banners stating that the "neutrality of this article is disputed". You should have your reliable-sources-board sword broken over your knee. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, after a little research, I'm quoting CounterPunch as to their editorial motto. Please provide evidence that their editorial policy does involve fact-checking, preferably from a reliable third-party source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you quoted Wikipedia as your source, and of course I knew it was their motto, hence the phrase "that's their own humorous self-definition". Please provide evidence that... you are not being evasive. Paul B (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a reputable magazine of the type that mainly carries analysis and essays, sometimes investigative journalism. It is often reliable, but this particular investigative journalism piece presents problems. It is trying to go deep into secretive issues, doesn't cite all its sources and could contain errors. The author's credentials "having worked on Wall Street" don't make her an expert. Corroborate from other sources if possible. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Itsmejudith, thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately in this article things like Bloomberg News have been challenged. No way can I introduce a new source like a Forbes blog. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Richard Keeble's Ethics for Journalists, Routledge, 2009, p. 253, "...Peace News... is an outstanding publication and worth highlighting. Its international coverage is particularly impressive....  So too websites such as ... www.counterpunch.org (investigative journalism site run by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair)...."   Note that most news sources, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, have editorial policies and present opinion pieces, but their articles are reliable sources for facts.  TFD (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Forbes piece is signed so WP:NEWSBLOG would seem to apply. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those superlatives going to peacenews not to counterpunch also you source say that such sources linked to extreme left such source can't be used as a WP:RS for facts in Wikipedia.--Shrike (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The "fact" that someone "inherited control" is rather opinionish. The "fact" is that someone was named executor of an estate, which is pretty non-noteworthy as a matter of course. Most probated estates have executors. The rest of the "article", moreover, is clearly in the nature of personal opinions, and only citable, at best, as opinions of that person. As a "news source" - it ain't.  And Wikipedia has, in the past, determined that opinion pieces,no matter where published, are opinion pieces, citable for (get this) opinions. Cheers. (We already have one opinion piece that the Koch brothers live in Florida - so much for using them for facts ) Collect (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again, Itsmejudith. I re-added the Charles Lambe foundation to the article with two new sources. Here is a diff. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(Defamatory remarks removed) RolandR (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignore the above rant. I found the connection mentioned in the Guardian and The New Yorker. Even if it means including less detail, use sources of that quality. It seems that some of the research was done by Greenpeace, whose stable web pages on the topic may be reliable, although opinions here may differ.Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I used Common Cause and Forbes. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and New Yorker would be better if you have a moment to look them up. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would they be better? Sorry for the colloquialism but in my experience the Guardian isn't necessarily so but it can be a rag (it isn't The New York Times for example, which can make mistakes but certainly has fact checking in place). Common Cause may be leftist but they are a strong source for this and other material. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If the fact is about living person Counterpunch shouldn't be used it is really on the same level as WorldNetDaily in general WP:UNDUE concern should be taken in consideration if the source will be used.--Shrike (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike, can you provide a source that supports your opinion. It is ironic that editors are challenging the validity of a source yet providing no sources for their opinions.  Collect says, "The "fact" is that someone was named executor of an estate".  Collect is agreeing with what the source says, but disagreeing with the edit made.  TFD (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WorldNetDaily? What a crock. WND is complete rubbish. CounterPunch is a little more like Mother Jones, an investigative leftist magazine, respected for its journalism. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed incendiary comments.-SusanLesch (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Now introducing Greenpeace as a new source. They are the people who tallied donations from Lambe foundation. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Susan. The UK broadsheets are on a par reputation wise with the NYT, Washington Post and other newspapers of record. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed incendiary comments.-SusanLesch (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mother Jones is reliable source because it have board of directors about 20 people ,they won numerious National Magazine Award, I just don't understand how can they be compared to the Counterpunch--Shrike (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see all these, right and left, as belonging to a big catch-all category of "current affairs magazines". They are in principle problematic for us, however well-established, and however distinguished their contributors, because they mainly publish opinion pieces and essays. We have to work case by case and have regard to the credentials of individual writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews is reliable.
I dislike digging up old discussions but, sometimes they're pisspoor in the process, and 'faith' people put in them.

Here, I am referring to past discussion regarding Wikinews. The legitimacy of Wikinews as a news source in this case seems to have been challenged purely on the basis of introducing material certain individuals disliked.

The reference to Wikinews remains in the Modern Whig Party article. Yet, nobody has done us the courtesy of removing the grossly incorrect "self-published" slur from Wikinews, and a woefully out-of-date discussion was pulled up as a feeble attempt to dismiss the credibility of Wikinews.

I don't expect any apology from Wikipedians, but I do expect an acknowledgement that the project now operates&mdash; somewhat to its detriment&mdash;a fully-independent peer-review process. We far exceed the checks and balances employed by over 90% of the mainstream media; we publish corrections and retractions whenever they're, rarely, required. We far-exceed the requirements Google lays down, and have appeared in their news index for several years now.

Why is Wikinews still not recognised as a reliable source? Will someone please fix Wikinews, or give an honest answer why there is negative discrimination against a sister project that has gone above-and-beyond to be more credible than Wikipedia? --Brian McNeil /talk 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it isn't reliable; they do not have an effective editorial policy. Lebowitz got an SPS exemption.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to assert that but fail to back it up.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Definition of Wiki: (anonymous) user generated content. If Wikinews is accepted as reliable source, then one would also wonder why Wikipedia shouldn't cite itself by the same standard. Jim101 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * William: Self published sources are not acceptable. I've outlined Wikinews' current editorial policy, and to the extent it has been recently commented upon, it was treated as an Self-published source.  Wikinews has been rejected in multiple RFCs and multiple times here. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times must you be told that it's not self-published? There is an extensive peer-review process before anything is published.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please go read WP:V and WP:RS. Wikinews does not have a peer-review process that meets the standards of reliability for fact checking.  You seem to have a large IDHT problem and problem with consensus.  You ought frankly to know where this kind of disruptive conduct leads. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you keep repeating that assertion without backing it up. You have the IDNHT issue because you fail to explain why it is inadequate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I just looked over the news article approve process at Wikinews, so basically anyone can write a news article, and anyone has reviewer status can promote articles as legit news. Then I headed over to the reviewer approval process, it looks like there are no professional journalism trainings or work experience required to achieve the reviewer status (you don't even need to disclose your own name, just a vague notion of "understanding the project"). So the way I see it, a news becomes news at Wikinews when an equivalent of a GA review is conducted by a reviewer. The last time I checked Wikipedia does not cite its own GA articles as sources, and now we have to make an exception for Wikinews? Jim101 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I could find nothing indicating that the reviews there is really any more reliable than Wikipedia would be if all articles that were created at WP:AFC. Burden of proof would appear to lie on those who assert that it is a reliable source, anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing on Wikinews as accredited reporters that report original stories. No one's arguing for synthesis articles to be used as sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo edited the relevant page to reflect his own POV. However, as it clearly said beforehand, this explains appropriate use.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The accreditation process is still weak. No training required, experience only composed of Wikinews contributions (do you guys ever asked for real world training/work experiences to vet something such as this?). Once accredited, this guideline and the news review process mentioned above seems is the only thing that regulates the article content. So basically, in Wikipedia term, original reporting is equivalent to an Admin using his/her real world identity to write a Good Article. It will only held the article accountable to the writer so that s/he will not intentionally insert bad information, but that is still a leap of logic to conclude that that Wikinews is a reputable professional news agency because of the previous assertion. Jim101 (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For an original report, all notes (including e-mail transcripts) are listed on the talk page. All accredited reporters have access to the primary material (through scoop e-mail) to affirm its authenticity. It's similar to the OTRS process for images on Commons.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By your argument, then, what is the difference between, say, BBC, and a private blog that copy-paste BBC in terms of reliability? Then again a well written GA article in Wikipedia will also have traceable/accurate sources via its of references (URLs, ISBN, etc.). The point is not determine whether that Wikinews is reporting the truth (see Truth), it is whether that Wikinews is a reputable news agency in order for it to be used as a news sources in Wikipedia. If Wikinews demonstrated that it is a professional news agency, or Wikinews was recognized for its excellent work in journalism, then I will reconsider your argument. Jim101 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikinews should have two journalists at the 2012 Summer Paralympics with press passes issued by the International Paralympic Committee. This indicates a degree of professionalism. --LauraHale (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough on the use of Wikinews as source in the topic of 2012 Summer Paralympics. Is there any other cases that we were discussing? Jim101 (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference in your example is that BBC is the originator of the work as Wikinews is in its original works. The only issue that matters is verifiability and that's why self-published sources can be used when appropriate. Nevertheless, Wikinews is recognized by Google News as a reputable news source. In regard to your Wikipedia comparison, the difference is that Wikipedia does not have original work. Wikipedia articles are not suitable to be used as sources not because they are unreliable but because they use outside sources that should be used instead.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The press passes and listing on Google news count for nothing when establishing reliability. Neither can be construed as an "endorsement" in any sense of the word. For example, WND has been recognized by Google News as a "reputable" news source, and are given press passes to major political events, despite the fact that they are unacceptable as a source by our policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making generalizations. WND can be used when discussing the opinion of the writer. Similarly, because of the transparency of the process, original works from Wikinews should be considered just as reliable as the permissions on images.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your contention that "original works from Wikinews should be considered just as reliable as the permissions on images" is logically absurd and is not supported by WP policy. My statement stands: The press passes and listing on Google news count for nothing when establishing reliability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it logically absurd? I feel the generalizations you are making about sources are logically absurd. And repeating yourself does not dispute that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And even if it was not supported by WP policy, I call IAR because verifiability and reliability in regards to wikinews original work is very clear. You're stepping in the way of improving WP.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should link to OTRS on Commons to better explain the analogy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is false, apples and oranges, and I still don't see any real, substantial, concrete evidence at all that Wikinews should be considered a reliable source according to WP policy. Come back when you have some, and stop by a charm school along the way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The analogy is not false. I am trying to explain to you how the system works in a similar scenario, but you can't see. The bottom line is that Wikinews is a reliable source because, as said above, the process is open and easily verifiable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is, no, because it's a Wiki. Britmax (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a false generalization, which adds nothing to this particular discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Anyone can edit it, so on any given day, even if it's reverted in seconds, the information in it could be wrong. Is that too simple for you? Britmax (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you, pray tell, ever heard of Flagged Revisions? You can drop the "it's a wiki" argument right there.

As to "oooh, you have to have qualifications". Did Woodward and Bernstein have journalism qualifications? No. Did Walter Cronkite? No. Claiming Wikinews' reviewers require such is moving your goalposts and clearly discrimination through wilful ignorance.

As to your policies? WP:V is not relevant - it applies to the verifiability of your own content, so you can strike that from your arguments.

Wikinews clearly meets the criteria laid out in WP:RS, except for those who, with apparent glee, twist the meaning to exclude it.

The only policy point on Wikipedia that supports the arguments put against considering Wikinews a reliable source is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fifelfoo, you actually owe William an apology; you waded into this discussion in complete ignorance of the editorial policy in place at Wikinews, and from that point on you've scrabbled around to avoid retracting a blatantly incorrect assertion.

As might irk the Wikipedia fundamentalists in this argument, the University of Wollongong and University of Southern Indiana have both deemed the Wikinews peer review process of such a quality as to be worthwhile assigning writing for Wikinews as degree-level coursework.

So, what new arguments can I expect? Or just a rehash of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Brian McNeil /talk 12:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is pretty clear the current consensus here is that wikinews is unacceptable as a source. If you want to change that you would need to set up a WP:RfC on the subject. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if that might attract attention from contributors who will listen to reason, it has to be worth a try. The 'consensus' I see above is "we're ignorant of the workings of Wikinews, and proud of it". --Brian McNeil /talk 12:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not doing yourself any favourite by attacking anyone who disagree with you as ignorant idiot. The only arguments I'm hearing from this entire discussion from your side is that reviewed Wikinews news article is reporting the truth, and that Wikinews has a process for news to be reviewed, and that Wikinews has a presence on the internet (guess what, I can use the same arguments about Wikipedia's feature articles, which Wikipedia does not cite). Yet your main assertion that a bunch untrained volunteers with open-ended editing policies can exhibit the same quality control as other news agencies that employs professionals is still not proven. Repeating the line "Wikinews clearly meets the criteria laid out in WP:RS because we deserve it" and framing the discussion as a form of discrimination against Wikinews is hardly the way to seek reason among people. Jim101 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I started by seeking reason, it was not what was forthcoming. I'm a short-tempered, curmudgeonly old git who lacks the time, or patience, to "put a posh frock" on my arguments. I hope you can back up your assertions that we are "a bunch [of] untrained volunteers with open-ended editing policies". Journalism is a craft, one gains experience through practice. And, articles are subject to archival since serving as a record of what was known as the time is one of the most important functions of any news source. --Brian McNeil /talk 13:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have civility and WP:IDHT behavioural problems? ("I started by seeking reason, it was not what was forthcoming. I'm a short-tempered, curmudgeonly old git who lacks the time, or patience, to "put a posh frock" on my arguments."). Not our problem.  The editorial standards present at Wikinews do not represent the threshold requirements for reliability on wikipedia.  Wikinews has been repeatedly rejected here, at IRS and generally.  I would suggest that unless you want to revisit the RFC process, which you may, that you ought to cease your revisiting conduct, because as you yourself note it leads you into civility and collegiality conduct problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you save lectures about civility for WP:EQ?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents. A wiki can perhaps have fact checking and be in a sense reliable for certain purposes outside Wikipedia. But we are ourselves making a wiki, and so we need to use different types of sources in order to avoid circular citations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get that, Andrew. Wikinews does news, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, thus they are "different". The software platform has no bearing on reliability. The perfect example of a circular reference is in this article, which cites two supposedly reliable sources which (according to Hislop) cribbed from Wikipedia. Here's the version before the older of those sources, complete with citation needed template. --Brian McNeil /talk 14:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The software platform has bearings on reliability. User-generated content is not reliable under wikipedia policy. period.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pointless
The above discussion, and prior one it revives, is an exercise in futility. Whilst it is most tempting to pour scorn on some of the ignorance displayed, ask oneself this: whose fault is this ignorance? In order to fully appreciate the reliability of modern Wikinews materials, one would need to take a fairly detailed study, likely involving weeks of watching the project function day-to-day. That's a most unreasonable thing to ask anybody to do and I cannot for a second blame those commenting above for having not done it. The requirement, therefore, would be to write in advance a highly detailed (and frank) description of the process, the requirements behind privs and trust (including not just the exact word but how we interpret it in practice), and plenty of links to examples - including links to older stuff that was once acceptable, but would not be released today. In fact, particularly including links to older stuff that was once acceptable, but would not be released today. I'd suggest abandoning this discussion until somebody, or several somebodies, has the time (and it will take time) to put this together. The onus to do this is, of course, upon those of us who are on Wikinews regularly; Brian, William, Laura, myself. The onus to supply both evidence and explanation is not, nor should it be, upon the Wikipedia community. It is very much the fault of us advocates of Wikinews that our opponents lack information we ourselves have. After all, perhaps one of the key problems Wikinews faces is not so much producing a quality product, but communicating to the wider world that the low quantity is a reflection of a conscious decision to go for very high quality. A further point I'd like to make is that there is little point dicsussing Wikinews synthesis articles, as Wikipedians drawing upon them in their researches can readily cite the sources these articles (at least, until sources vanish behind paywalls). The body of interest is OR; a more difficult matter by far to examine as there are certainly scarcely-tangible concepts to look at. Thankfully, our business here is building an encyclopedia. There is no rush to include this material; we are not constrained by tight, newslike deadlines. Which brings me neatly back to the initial point: Abandon this dicussion until such time as we Wikinewsies are actually ready to put forward a coherent case. There is no hurry or urgency to do so. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We are on the defensive. Fifelfoo is trying to find new ways to remove Wikinews from Wikipedia. Fifelfoo's purges are doing more harm than good because he doesn't judge on a case by case basis. His poorly judged removals and additions of "fact tags" does not improve Wikipedia, and I don't want him to do that to a reliable source like Wikinews.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But Wikinews is not a reliable source. The fact that you think that it showing up in Google news means it's a reliable source certainly doesn't convince me that you understand what we see as a reliable source. Hopefully it's a worthwhile exercise but it doesn't replace reliable news sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that that was a reason. I merely stated it as a fact. My argument is that verifiability is so apparent on wikinews, original works are very reliable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is exactly the same kind of reliable source wikipedia is. I.e. not adequate for use as a source in wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As we've said above. Wikipedia is not original work.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is exactly the same kind of original work as Wikinews. And if ever wikinews produces kinds of analysis that would be considered original research in wikipedia or uses kinds of sources kinds that would not be considered reliable verifiable sources that would make wikinews less reliable, not more.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no analysis. Original work in this context refers to reporting based on primary sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * William, your ad hominem argument is futile and tiresome. Your attempts at substantive argument have failed on their merits.  You have entered a clear territory where you are refusing to heed consensus in disruptive fashions by constantly revisiting a resolved point.  Please stop.  If we have a large scale problem with wikinews being illegitimately used, for instance as a source or citation, rather than as an external link or inter-wiki link, then the encyclopaedia has to deal with this.  Your conduct in terms of other occasions where editors have made large scale uses of illegitimate sources could be improved, but you appear to be attempting to work outside of the pillar of verifiability.  Again, please stop. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the ad hominem? I am judging your actions and you are not refuting me.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ad hominem" means making an argument regarding the person. Your arguments are grounded in me and my actions, and not in wikipedia's policy or long standing consensuses.  "I am judging your actions," this is the ad hominem. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As in a personal attack. Your actions are not people.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that William S Saturn appears to be a regular contributor to Wikinews makes this particularly egregious. This is basically tantamount to constructing one's own sources and then basing an article on them. This goes directly contrary to several core policies (WP:COI, WP:SELFPUB, WP:RS) and the pillar of WP:V. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not self-published; there is a peer review process and what I write are not opinion pieces but factual reports. Moreover, rather than labeling the ways I fill in holes in articles as "egregious", I should be "lauded" for outputting quality content.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look of course it is great that you write good articles at wikinews, but I also write good peer reviewed articles at wikipedia without trying to use them as sources in other wikipedia articles. If there ever was a slippery slope in wikipedia this is it. User generated content is not reliable no matter how many other users have peer reviewed it. It is the very definition of reliability and verifiability that you want to change. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not generated from a user; it's generated from a source itself. If notability for something has already been established and there's holes in the article, why not use a wikinews report verifiably from the primary source to fill in non-contentious holes?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is that even supposed to mean? Wikipedia articles also use sources, but they are still written by users. Furthermore if wikinews just summarise other sources, then wikipedia shsould of ourse use those sources and not a second hand summary by an unqualified wiki-volunteer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you're getting into synthesis, which we've already agreed is not appropriate for sourcing. I am talking about original works adapted from primary sources. With scoop, the "reporters notes" page, this is all highly verifiability and thus reliable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is far, far more to the argument that "Wikinews is a reliable source" than merely a listing in Google News. Introducing independent review, identifying the key points which any article must pass on, and the development of the review process over time, take it far beyond "just enough to get a Google News listing".
 * That the documentation of the policy, and its application, has taken a back seat to it's application is only to be expected on a smaller project. I cite an example above where, to this day, Wikipedia is wrong, and a victim of - perhaps careless - application of the demand for reliable sources. Nobody has done the work to verify that Ian Hislop is "the most sued man"; it was written on Wikipedia, and tagged as requiring a citation. A lazy journalist from the Independent (which you do accept as a reliable source) copied the phrasing, word-for-word, from Wikipedia and you now cite that as a source. I would argue that Wikinews would not have made the same mistake as that "lazy journalist".
 * I have requested someone who currently has no opinion on the matter turn this into a more neutral RfC. I'm challenged on that too, with the assumption that I know every nook and cranny of Wikipedia where such might be placed. I do not, and have no real intention of spending the time finding them. I am going to, politely, ask Fifelfoo to desist from exploiting xyr more intimate knowledge of Wikipedia to predjudice people against Wikinews until such time as this becomes a proper RfC (wherever such belongs).
 * I find the overly dogmatic attitude of some people who've shouted the loudest about Wikinews not being reliable infuriating. I invite these people to look at articles published on Wikinews, particularly those that initially fail to pass peer review first time around. I'm more than happy to email copies of David Blackall's paper, written following two semesters with journalism students from the UoW being tasked with contributing to the project, and being presented at the Australia and New Zealand Communication Association 2012 conference in Adelaide, to any who wish to look at academia's assessment of Wikinews. Both David and Dr Chad Tew of the University of Southern Indiana value Wikinews' peer review process as equivalent to, if not more strict than, that which 'real-world journalists' will face in a 'real-world news room'.
 * On the basis that two universisties, on two different continents, see the value in our work, and its reliability, is it any wonder that I - and others from Wikinews - are close to losing our tempers? --Brian McNeil /talk 21:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is completely besides the point. Wikinews is not written by journalists and there is no responsible editor, nor a professional standard of peer review. Regardless of how many universities think it is doing well it cannot be a reliable source under current policy. Any selfpublished source is inadmissible as a reliable source for any other statement than the opinion of the author - and in that case only if the author is notable. Professionally published news articles can also be cited as reliable sources even though journalists often use wikipedia articles as sources - this just means that we have to exclude those journalists who use wikipedia  - and in the same way we will have to become better at excluding professional journalists who use wikinews. Because sources created by amateur volunteers are not reliable sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, a RFC will not actually fix the problem. What you need is a proposal to amend the verifiability policy to make an exception which says that Wikinews is deemed by the community to be a reliable source even though it does not meet the definition of a reliable source set out in that policy. Sources either are reliable sources or they are not reliable sources based on that policy. Even if everyone who has weighed in on this discussion had slapped their foreheads and exclaimed, "Wow! How could I have been so dense? Wikinews is really a reliable source even though it doesn't come close to meeting the definition of a reliable source set out in policy. My !vote is that it is a reliable source." it still wouldn't be a reliable source because the established consensus of the Wikipedia community as a whole is that only sources coming within WP:V are reliable sources. The policy policy says how to go about changing policy. You can lose your tempers or hold your breath and kick the floor until your faces turn blue, but until you do that — and good luck with that if you do (you'll need it) — you're just wasting your breath. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the basic point made by everyone above that we don't recognise wikis as reliable.,moreover, I don't see Wikinews as anywhere near the quality of the main international news media. There are two news stories that are covered by all the media today: the Bob Diamond statements and the Higgs boson. Where is the Wikinews coverage of these? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with quality of work?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like an Open Wiki. Open Wikis are not considered reliable sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's already been brought up. If you wish to add something meaningful then please do so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did. Open Wikis are not considered reliable sources.  Period.  If you don't dispute this, I don't see why this discussion is continuing.  I'll give you a chance to point out any flaws in my response.  If you cannot, I'm closing this thread.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already been disputed above. Other things are being discussed here right now.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, everyone but you is saying the same thing. Wikis aren't reliable for Wikpedia purposes. Wikis aren't RS. We don't accept wikis. Wikinews is a worthy effort but can't be used as a source in Wikipedia. Not reliable. That is the consensus of this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus is wrong because they are looking at the issue too superficially. The goal is WP:V, and the original works on Wikinews are easily verifiable and thus reliable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have now demonstrated that it is not just the pillar WP>V you don't understand but also WP:CONSENSUS. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Because consensus is always right?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because consensus is the only way in which what is right can be determined on wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you address what I actually wrote above rather than discuss the concept of consensus? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @William S. Saturn: You have failed to demonstrate how Wikinews satisfies the requirements set out in WP:V. "Other things" are off-topic. I agree that further discussion is unlikely to be productive, and that this thread be terminated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not failed. I said it very clearly above. No one has disputed it yet.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This just needs to be closed, but if you like you can tell us one major story that Wikinews is covering better than Xinhua or al Jazeera. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be closed. Users need to actually dispute my comments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Undisputed claims and unanswered questions that seemed to be overlooked or misunderstood:
 * For an original report, all notes (including e-mail transcripts) are listed on the talk page. All accredited reporters have access to the primary material (through scoop e-mail) to affirm its authenticity. It's similar to the OTRS process for images on Commons
 * WND can be used when discussing the opinion of the writer. Similarly, because of the transparency of the process, original works from Wikinews should be considered just as reliable as the permissions on images.
 * It's not generated from a user; it's generated from a source itself. If notability for something has already been established and there's holes in the article, why not use a wikinews report verifiably from the primary source to fill in non-contentious holes?
 * There's no analysis. Original work in this context refers to reporting based on primary sources
 * Again, you're getting into synthesis, which we've already agreed is not appropriate for sourcing. I am talking about original works adapted from primary sources. With scoop, the "reporters notes" page, this is all highly verifiability and thus reliable
 * The consensus is wrong because they are looking at the issue too superficially. The goal is WP:V, and the original works on Wikinews are easily verifiable and thus reliable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for QFA's edit summary comment: "Please accept that concensus has not gone your way and move on". If consensus is correct then the above should easily be disputed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Give it up already. Anon users giving credit to anon users does not create a reliable source. Wikinews is not a reliable source. You can yell IDHT at everyone else as much as you want, but I hope you realize you're in a room with acoustics that create an incredible echo. --Onorem♠Dil 23:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Need a 2nd opinion
An editor recently removed this reference the Nisshin Maru article. Could someone weigh in on this source. Reliable or not? Thanks Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ecorazzi is an unedited gossip blog with no editorial policy. It purports to be "edited" by its "journalists," both of them, who have no expertise.  Given that the purpose of ecorazzi is explicitly "gossip" I would suggest that they have no fact checking policy.  This is bourne out of the blog post you cite being a verbatim copy of a press release.  It is unreliable for the claims as there is no fact checking policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Citing Lancet Letter Authors
Would appreciate some input on the reliability of a source used in the Insite article.

The last paragraph of the Research section cites a letter to Lancet, printed in its pages here, critiquing a Lancet study on the Vancouver Supervised Injecting Facility which claimed that it had reduced overdose deaths within a 500 meter radius around Insite by 35%. On the following page of Lancet here, the Lancet study's authors reply to the critique. What is in dispute is the use of a more recent documented comment by the Lancet study's critics here whereby they demonstrate that the Lancet study's authors are evidenced as incorrect in their Lancet reply to the original criticisms.

It should be noted that the media release by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada derives from an Australian media release here - (See 'Serious Errors in Vancouver Injecting Room Study') by one of the critics whose letter is published in Lancet. This establishes, in my view, the reliability of the source, and the gravity and correctness of the reply is, I believe, self-evident. See Diff Minphie (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph you mention seems to rely on primary sources and press releases or articles which wouldn't satisfy WP:MEDRS and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles to arbitrate. Note that the journalistic catch phrase "Lancet study" just means a study (generally by researchers unconnected to the journal) which was accepted for publication in The Lancet. ICMJE guidelines stress the ethical responsibility of peer review journals to facilitate post-publication reviewing in the form of Letters, where appropriate accompanied by Authors' Replies. Hope this helps, —MistyMorn (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Letters to the editor should generally be avoided, and are certainly not useable for anything more than a statement with WP:INTEXT attribution: "Alice Expert writes that the Moon is made of green cheese".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The debate about Insite's 35% reduction in overdoses in its immediately surrounding area, as to whether it is due to the presence of Insite or due to the ongoing policing of the immediate area around Insite which reduced drug use in that same area by 46%, has most certainly been described with attribution, as can be seen in the last paragraph of the research section.


 * My question is whether the debate between the authors of a Lancet study and its critics, where subsequent letters by both have been reproduced in Lancet itself, and where there are media releases addressing these two letters and further public debate by the two parties in the media, constitutes the use of primary sources. These appear to me secondary sources on the original debate as per Wikipedia's own definition, "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Where the discussion about the Lancet study is continued in the media by the very same authors/critics it would seem to me to be clearly secondary. There may be someone who is conversant with the 'common law' of Wikipedia, ie what has been accepted elsewhere, who might wish to comment. Minphie (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they're not for the purposes of wikipedia. I'd suggest reading WP:MEDRS and contemplating it.  Supervised injecting rooms, being a medical topic, fall under it.  In relation to "what constitutes a secondary source in scholarly debate," in relation to medical findings, secondary sources are sources that review multiple original ideas and opinions along side multiple studies.  Non-peer reviewed letters are not such a source.  Wait until a subsequent scholar contextualises all this guff in a review article regarding supervised injecting sites.  Because all the participants in the debate are doing in their letters is generating new medical primary sources, new original opinions, they're not seating these original opinions in a context of an appropriate scholarly review of these opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Geni.com for Brian Haberlin birth info
Is this profile reliable for the birth info it may provide to the Brian Haberlin article. Nightscream (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and "remove immediately" for the BLP article. It is an Open wiki without adequate editorial control.  Compare to the editorial control exercised over authoritative sources such as BDM offices or BDM columns in a newspaper. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote from former CIA official in Governance of the Gaza Strip
In Governance of the Gaza Strip, this article in newsmax.com has a quote from former CIA director James Woolsey which says, remarking on the then future possibility of a quick election in Egypt last year, ''“Right, and that's what happened in Gaza,” Woolsey said. “Hamas called for immediate elections, and we got one vote, one man – and it's now a theocratic dictatorship.” This quote is being used to [write in the infobox that Gaza Strip is governed by a De facto'' [[Theocratic]] dictatorship. Setting aside newsmax's, uhh, poor reputation as a source, is the quote from this person sufficient to include that "fact" in the infobox as though it were a fact?  nableezy  - 06:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. James Woolsey's off-hand comments are not sufficient for the political science or sociology of politics issue of the link between democratic voting in Gaza and the theoretical construct of theocratic dictatorships.  Woolsey lacks WEIGHT in political science, as do off-hand comments. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Another source has been offered for the claim. This paper by one Efraim Inbar at an Israeli think tank says the following:"free elections in the Palestinian territories, pushed by a misguided American foreign policy, led to the hardly-legitimate Palestinian presidency of Mahmoud Abbas and a Hamas dictatorship in Gaza."Is that source sufficient to make the unattributed statement of fact that Gaza is governed under a dictatorship?  nableezy  - 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is an Israeli think tank's non-peer reviewed in house publication any more scholarly than a Palestinian journal of public opinion? Mideast Security and Policy Studies lacks peer review.  Efraim Inbar knows damn well where they need to publish in order to influence scholarly debate, and he hasn't.  Efraim is the director of BESA, the publisher of his paper, so this is effectively an SPS, and the "Expert" argument means jack, because this is an expert deliberately avoiding scholarly presses.  I don't see any indication that Efraim's self published opinion is weighty enough to claim that Hamas is a dictatorship governing Gaza.  That's an extraordinary political science claim, and throw away references in non-peer reviewed papers are not the exceptional sources required. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor
Is this http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/3953-pressure-mounts-on-jewish-charity  a RS for this claim? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_National_Fund&diff=500719400&oldid=500691286 the page is The Jewish National Fund. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its stated clearly "we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability" .So its not reliable--Shrike (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly per Shrike. In relation to Middle East issues, if a news source won't back its publications it isn't a great sign.  Their about page notes that their efforts are to present primary sources and specialist opinion.  WEIGHTy opinion in relation to Middle East issues is even more difficult; I'd suggest that only Expert exemptions would really apply to opinion, but I'd question why a real Expert in our sense would be publishing their opinion in Middle East Monitor (its unlikely they'd do so). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A new twist on academic refspam
has started adding a bunch of refs to a book which is not yet published. It's hard to say if they're reasonable because I can't read the source. I'll start reverting now, but is it fair to say that anything is not a RS prior to its publication if there's no publicly available preprints? a13ean (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, not RS until verifiable. The publisher maintains an embargo until publication date. After that the book is verifiable, even if Amazon can't get it immediately. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it isn't published it isn't a work and it can't be cited. Otherwise I'd cite all those great books I'm going to get around to writing, having reviewed by scholarly presses' readers, and published.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Using non-peered reviewed sources for genetics
In our article on the Melungeons an IP has inserted a variety of non-peer reviewed sources.. I'm also unhappy about statements such as "backs these results as well" where all we have is a chart which says nothing about backing up something (although this is of course an OR issue). Note also that the accusation of 'vandalism' seems to be 'I don't agree with it'. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah. The reliable material on Melungeons and other science subjects is remarkably secondary science papers.  "Latest comprehensive study published by University College London on Portugal Y-Haplogroups. By Beleza, et al., 2006. Contributors: Universidade de Porto, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Oxford University" is miscited and probably primary in terms of science.  Eupedia isn't appropriate for the claims.  23andme.com isn't adequately cited (but probably isn't).  "The News article from New Scientist life also backed up this finding in the December 2008 issue by Ewen Callaway " is miscited and probably inappropriate.  "…dn16200-spanish-inquisition-left-genetic-legacy-in-iberia" is inadequately cited and probably inappropriate.  www.ourfamilyorigins.com is inadequate.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23andMe is fundamentally and grossly unacceptable.  www.familytreedna.com doesn't appear adequate.  www.worldfamilies.net nope.  www.ourfamilyorigins.com/cv/dna.htma may be partly reliable (for the "made available online" bit) but not the rest.  I'd suggest the rest of the uses of this source are inadequate.  Not really acceptable sourcing; and the citations are incomprehensible or incomplete. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The diff looks like WP:ADVERT.For example: This helps confirms that through DNA testing in both Melungeon and Portugesse (Latest comprehensive study published by University College London on Portugal Y-Haplogroups. By Beleza, et al., 2006. Contributors: Universidade de Porto, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Oxford University.) people, the stories of Portugesse ancestry could be confirmed. This Information had also been backed up by leading DNA Genetics company "23 and me" (In 2008, Time magazine named the 23 and me's saliva-based DNA-testing service "Invention of the Year", In 2007 Google, whose co-founder Sergey Brin is married to the co-founder of 23andMe Anne Wojcicki, invested $3,900,000 in the company, along with Genentech, New Enterprise Associates and Mohr Davidow Ventures). Inappropriately sourced and blatantly unencyclopedic. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For completeness I think it should be mentioned that I already mentioned on Doug's talk page, after he asked my opinion, that I find it a little strange (maybe I am missing something) that the complaints being discussed here do not seem to apply to the latest version of what is being edit warred about. I can agree that 23andMe publicity material, and so on, but it is not apparent to me in the latest edits? If I misunderstand I am sorry, but shouldn't the scope of the discussion home in on only the latest edits? It confuses the issues somewhat. Can we try to define the concern a bit more clearly? My attempt:
 * Is Doug's latest concern just about the JOGG for example? (That seems to be the only source now being cited, or at least the one which actually published the study. Doug mentions peer review, and although JOGG has a review process the JOGG is not an academic journal, and I know some people say that only true academic journals should be said to have a "peer review".) On the other hand, it's articles do get cited every now and then by un-doubted academic journals. So the JOGG is a well-known debating point on this noticeboard, and I think it comes down to saying it is a borderline source for anything technical. This in turn would mean that editors should look at whether the claims being made are highly technical, or controversial etc. A possible concern some might raise is that this particular study was concerning autosomal DNA and a whole population, so it is not the classic type of Y DNA study that has been used for a decade by genealogists as a relatively straightforward tool. Another approach might be to check if, as sometimes happens, the article has been cited by any "big names". (The AP news story which was added does at least give an impression of notability. Notability can sometimes be a reason to mention a popular theory even if it is not considered mainstream.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you say, JOGG needs to be used carefully. But I am more concerned about using this company, this which looks like a copyvio link in any case and is also raw data which we should not be using), and this. The IP is also interpeting data, which we shouldn't be doing, particularly with material about genetics. Too often I see this happening - someone will take an article which could be a reliable source but instead of referring to the conclusions they extract data from it and use that to make their argument. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle what you say makes sense, for sure, and I apologize for not spending more time on this, but I am still not certain if it is clear just what the practical details are. As mentioned I could not see many of these sources in recent reverts when I checked. What I can see quickly...
 * The first source is a testing company which is the market leader in the types of genetics tests that genealogists use. They also host some genealogy projects run by genealogists on their webspace (or a lot of such groups have at least got links there). Can you make it clear how it is being cited? I can't think of many occasions where the company or the projects it hosts are going to be considered good sources, but there might be cases. It's raw testing as such would I think qualify as having a reputation for accuracy, but normally raw data is not what we use (primary, and often requiring non obvious interpretation). Their press releases (occasional) might sometimes verge on the notable, but can probably normally better be traced back to other publications.
 * The second one is one I do not know, but looks like a private website set-up to keep a record of results. Again, not sure if it is being cited, but does not look like a source we would normally use for most types of things.
 * The third one you name is a website which again hosts volunteer projects, and I think also some forums and the like. (In this case not for commercial gain.) Once again, I do not see how it is being cited, so it would be best to make that clear. There might be something I am missing, but in general it is not a website I think editors writing on these subjects in WP would normally use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies Doug. I just noticed I had misunderstood who made which edits I was looking at. LOL. Yes it is clear in diffs like this: . I throw my voice behind you here. This is not like one of the cases you and I sometimes handle where there are valid concerns being badly expressed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reported the IP for editwarring and I note what may be a legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started to take a look at this page and have tagged some OR concerns regarding one particular paragraph. Presumably that entire paragraph mainly refers back to this very primary source, now presumably incorporated into Estes et al 2011 (ref 4). I feel that this article (PDF) is a useful RS which provides an interesting perspective and could help reinforce the sourcing. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a blog, but is this an exception?
A blog called Corporette has made an article about an fictional character's clothing, which would be useful as critical commentry in articles of the surrounding area. This would give the reader better understanding of what the character wears, as well as much more on the ways she dresses. The article is written by Ashley Faus- who has an extenstive CV in comenting on fashion. It would be used in the character article of Megan Hunt, and the episodes she wore the clothes in, as this would provide much needed criticl commentry (Reception) for episodes of the program, as Body of Proof hardly ever has reception by critics. Althuough this source may be unreliable due to the blog factor, I believe it is reliable, as it has been writen by an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field" and the "information in question is really worth reporting" (WP:BLOGS). Anyway, please comment either way, Thanks. :) — M.Mario  (T/C) 17:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any expertise in literary, film or television criticism—no expert exemption. The costume and mise en scène of a fictional characters' role in a fictional television programme are not the expertise of semi-professional fashion bloggers writing a pure puff/advertorial.  It isn't reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MM, do you have anything to back up your remark that Ashley Faus, and specifically the blog, would have a reputation for fact checking amongst relevant authorities?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A possible Semitic civilization in ancient Zimbabwe
Article: "A possible Semitic origin for ancient Zimbabwe" - Mankind Quarterly, Spring/Summer 2012 ... May well be relevant to Great Zimbabwe?

I understand that this site is a 'platform' where one can present a case that a particular publication qualifies as a 'reliable source' according to Wikipedia criteria. In other words, I do realize that this is not the place for discussing the nature and contents of the article - (but, if necessary, it may be read at http://DLMcN.com/anczimb.html ). In addition, I have added "Great Zimbabwe" to the list in "WikiProject Alternative Views", and some of the points mentioned in the associated Talk-File there might be worth looking at, in order to give a more complete picture of the controversy... (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alternative_Views - see "Great Zimbabwe").

>> It was certainly not a smooth, straightforward process which eventually led to the publication of the above-mentioned article. The interval between the initial submission - and the printing and distribution, was about 14 months ... (much, much longer than the normal time-lag with non-peer-reviewed publications!) Various changes and additions to the text were necessary in order to satisfy the referees and the editors.

Owing to its very recent appearance, that "Mankind Quarterly" essay has not been cited in other publications. However, older versions of the text certainly have been cited (and indeed recopied) in various Internet sites, and also in Ian Kluckow's book "A History of the Great Zimbabwe Mystery" (edited by Jerold Richert). --DLMcN (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Potentially unreliable sources, which states "a short list of journals which should be used with extreme caution include... Mankind Quarterly", as well as our own article on the journal, which notes that it has been called "a cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal", "scientific racism's keepers of the flame", a journal with a "racist orientation", an "infamous racist journal", and the "journal of 'scientific racism'". So I don't think that it can be considered a reliable source for such an exceptional claim. RolandR (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - By all means treat the article "with caution", but at the same time please judge it by its contents, because it might well throw important light on the subject. Or, putting it differently, surely it cannot be mandatory for Wikipedia to reject every single "Mankind Quarterly" article, unconditionally?--DLMcN (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want to argue that the article author has a distinguished record of mainstream publication? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I gather that DLMcN is the author. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am indeed the author, which can perhaps be regarded as a 'complication' - except that DougWeller did nevertheless suggest that I should still submit the article for consideration. Anyway to answer Judith's question (necessarily, in a modest way - i.e., cutting out the word "distinguished"!) - I have certainly published a number of scientific papers, and have recently had another one (on History) accepted by "Comparative Civilizations Review".--DLMcN (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually said that I didn't think your article was a reliable source but that if you disagreed, this was the place to disagree. And it is my opinion that your article may fit Mankind Quarterly's 'profile', ie it argues that it wasn't Africans that build Great Zimbabwe, which would be a desirable viewpoint for a journal with a racist orientation. Everyone should note that the article already presents the view that the Lemba were responsible for building it. In fact, I note that you added (and partly Semitic) to an edit which had said "Van Warmelo's observations and interviews also support a distinct identity." That is cited text, does  van Warmelo actually say "and partly Semitic"? Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

... Yes, van Warmelo definitely does say that^. The editor of Mankind Quarterly, incidentally, did seem keen to try and discover and present the truth, as far as that is possible. --DLMcN (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Dr D L McNaughton is a South African meteorologist and astronomer working at Dubai Airport in the Meteorological Office." http://alhafeez.org/rashid/eclpart4.htm . No. His musings on this topic, published in a racist journal, don't pass muster. You're welcome.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it passed muster in Mankind Quarterly, it has already been disqualified as reliable. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, FRINGE content, from a non-expert in a FRINGE journal should not be used to support claims regarding an archaeological site. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Initially, it did seem strange that the Wikipedia 'Jury' should be able to condemn an article without even reading it - but, believe it or not, I actually find some consolation from that fact! - i.e., my reaction would have been different if one of you had highlighted serious flaws and errors in the text. Putting it differently, I am genuinely anxious to ascertain the truth regarding Ancient Zimbabwe, and would therefore welcome specific comments and even criticisms of my attempts to examine the evidence.


 * OK - I appreciate that Wikipedia does not regard that^ as its function. However, looking now at the other side of the controversy - it would be constructive, helpful and illuminating if Wikipedia could explain in more detail exactly what are the arguments which (allegedly) justify the "Shona" theory. Is that a permissible suggestion within the Wikipedia context? --DLMcN (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You might benefit from looking generally at Felipe Fernández-Armesto's Millenium, Bantam Press, 1995 on African empires. Eurocentrism is written all over this area, or more generally, the idea that Africans never built civilizations off their own bat. It has four excellent synthetic pages precisely on Mwene Mutapa's empire (pp.185-8). No mention of Islam, which is not an argument. But the point is, the existence of impressive ruins in Africa does not immediately suggest that outsiders, or people from a 'higher civilisation' must have been responsible.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I read your article. Interesting to see that a racist journal published an article that claims the credit for the incredible genius behind Great Zimbabwe may not have been that merely of black people but was... ta-da... black Jewish people. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the editor DLMcN appears to be canvassing favourable editors on this issue:. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the article. I noticed that the main thrust was to say that DNA evidence supported a theory now considered discredited. The people one would expect to get such a paper published in an academic journal are genetics researchers, not someone who's simply read the secondary sources. The genetics findings are already published in two papers. You present no arguments why the Lemba rather than the Shona speakers of the area were responsible for the building of Great Zimbabwe. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To quickly respond to that - I've become indirectly involved in this but only to help inform DLMcN about how and where to raise his queries. I have no association with him, other than he saw my name as a member of the WP:Alternative theory Project and wanted to know how to link the project to this page. I made responses on my talk page and on the project page, advising him on policy.  His approach to me was not 'canvassing' and my responses have been entirely free of any favouritism towards his cause.


 * As a result of his query I looked at his article and did a little light copy-editing on the page, though the topic is something I know nothing about and have never had a personal interest in. Though IRWolfie finds it hard to AGF, it seems to me that DLMcN has been open and appropriate about the fact that he authored the article. So I think we can set that aside, noted as a matter to be aware of. In addition the journal is listed as one which can be referenced but only with extreme caution applied. Putting these two points together my own view is that some reference to the alternative theory would add to the information value of the page providing


 * 1) it is clearly reported to be an alternative view which is not currently accepted by mainstream academia, and


 * 2) DLMcN does not introduce the text directly on the points where his own work is referenced, but makes the proposals on the talk-page, for other non-involved editors to critcally assess. I have seen that Dougweller has been helping and advising him, and I would be happy to lend a hand on that myself if it helps, to ensure that policies are appropriately applied. This is not because I am favourable to his views, but because an editor has asked for help in the article he is working on, and I am happy to give it if I can --   Zac   Δ talk! 17:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you're acting in good faith, Zac, but not every alternative theory ought to be presented. This one is pseudo-history, and close to racist pseudo-history, at that, and in no way notable. We cannot put every crackpot idea in. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Judth, let's refrain from assuming that because a theory is alternative it's "crack-pot". WP does have a place for fringe views, and it was notable enough to be published in a journal deemed acceptable so long as extreme caution is exercised. From what I understand (via the alternative views project) it's since 1972 that the Shona theory predominated, largely due to the work of one influential author.  So long as we put the relationship of this theory into proper relationship with that then we are adhering to the policies of WP:FRINGE. --   Zac   Δ talk! 17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's just assume that the theory is appropriate to include. Our sources for the theory are: Until a reliable source comes up for it, we can't cite it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A self-published site on a personal website of someone who is not a recognized authority in the field (fails WP:RS on multiple counts)
 * Mankind Quarterly (we don't cite Klan publications, so I don't see why we'd cite this).
 * That's because Klan publications are completely disreputable, but this journal is not completely disreputable; it is one to be used with extreme caution. I'm not ignoring the concerns but let's not forget that our article on the journals says "The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to physical and cultural anthropology and is currently published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, etc. The journal aims to unify anthropology with biology."
 * Note that Robert Gayre is listed as a founder of the journal. It is Gayre's views which are currently dominating mainstream opinion and the ones that are being opposed in the said article. Hence it's illogical to suggest that reference to this article necessitates racial bias in this issue.
 * The article was not self-published. The author was taken seriously enough to have his work published in a peer-reviewed journal which is dedicated to that field of study.  If he were a recognised authority then his views would be mainstream and we wouldn't be talking about how to incorporate reference under the rules that dictate WP:Fringe policies. The point this board established is that the source is listed - not as one to be rejected, but as one to be used with extreme caution. --   Zac   Δ talk! 20:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken there. Gayre's views aren't and weren't mainstream. They are representative of a current in scientific racism that flourished until WW2. The article under discussion tries to resurrect them, in a racist pseudo-journal. When I say "crackpot" I am being generous. "Racist" is nearer the mark. He does not have any peer-reviewed publications yet. He says he has one in press. That wouldn't make him anywhere near an expert on this topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right - the article is resurrecting Gayre's theory not opposing it, which is what I thought added some credence. But still, I'd hesitate to use the terms you use. --  Zac   Δ talk! 00:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gayre's views are not mainstream. But neither are the views of the article by McNaughton. Mankind quarterly is completely disreputable as a source on anthropology and history. It is perhaps a reliable source on the current ideas of the US racialist right wing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Produce evidence (from real reliable sources) that this source is peer-reviewed or reliable for anything except as an example of extreme kookiness. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Mankind quarterly is not a reliable source for science, especially not for African anthropology or history. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A "journal" with an evidently strongly racist platform is not a reliable source for science. Now, if the theory can be shown to be notable in its own right, probably independently of the Manking Journal itself, then it might qualify as an acceptable source for an article relating to the theory or some similar more focused article than Great Zimbabwe itself. Beyond a possible article for the theory itself, the source might be acceptable as a source for, for instance, people involved in arguing the theory. Knowing the context in which the source is to be used is crucial. But I cannot see this source being in and of itself sufficient basis for the inclusion on any of the more central articles on Great Zimbabwe and its history or culture, or similar articles. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was routed to this conversation, which I was previously unaware of, by a nice little prod on my talk page from DLMcN, whom I have had the pleasure of editing alongside on subjects like this before: I am sorry to see this has been interpreted by some above as "canvassing favourable editors", but never mind. I have to say I am surprised by some of the opinions here, which seem to me to be biased against DLMcN, the article and Mankind Quarterly, and actually appear to have a far stronger racial agenda than that which David is purported to have. I was taken aback by the sarcastic input of Dweller, an editor I have known for a long time whom I know to strongly sound, but the tone taken by Bali ultimate frankly shocked me ("No. His musings on this topic, published in a racist journal, don't pass muster. You're welcome.") Nishidani at least appeared to want to be constructive, offering a source on pre-colonial African empires which I think we would do well to include.
 * I admit that I am no expert on the journal Mankind Quarterly, but a quick glance at our page on it gives me a good summary of why other editors appear hesitant. It appears to be that some contributors to this conversation consider the article's appearance in Mankind Quarterly as grounds enough to disqualify it as a reliable source. While I agree that many articles published in such a journal are likely to be somewhat spurious, I do not believe that this is grounds to simply abrogate legitimacy from them all without individual consideration of their content. I quote here our page on potentially unreliable sources, which includes Mankind Quarterly in its list of scholarly journals that "should be used with extreme caution". This is not the same as "should not be used at all". DLMcN's article, while it may trigger alarm bells for some of the more racially-conscious members of our community because it dares to question the credited achievements of the pre-colonial Shona nation, appears to me to be well-sourced, neutrally-presented and good enough to be cited – so long as it is made clear that this is not the mainstream theory.
 * The article itself does not claim this theory to be the mainstream, actually giving the modern scientific consensus (that Shona speakers created Ancient Zimbabwe) twice, in the section "Trying to identify the builders" and in the article's conclusion. This is not "racist pseudo-history ... in no way notable ... [a] crackpot idea" (in Judith's words above); it's an alternative to the mainstream which some people find uncomfortable, essentially on racial grounds (the same racial grounds, incidentally, that DLMcN is accused of having in writing the article). I would not be so receptive to DLMcN's article if it were unsourced and blatantly racist (it is neither). Certainly I think that he has been perfectly forthright here about his authorship of the article and has done his damnedest to have it assessed through proper Wikipedia process, going through the talk page with other editors then bringing it here, rather than simply adding it to articles surreptitiously with the forlorn hope that nobody would notice.
 * I would understand the vehement opposition displayed above if DLMcN were proposing to dedicate the entire Great Zimbabwe article to these views, but he is not trying to do that. He has simply written an article summarising a widely-published, albeit rather old, theory, and attempted to have the views contained therein represented. Some of us are interested in knowing the truth about pre-colonial Zimbabwe, which, ultimately, barring some kind of wondrous future scientific advance, will forever remain a mystery. It is unfortunate that some seem more preoccupied with discrediting various aspects of the article's publication rather than providing critical analysis to it with a view to adjudging its suitability. I don't believe for a minute that my input here will not draw a hail of accusations of being biased myself, but I still feel I should comment, as it does not appear to me that justice is presently being done. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, with scholarly topics, it is not our job to review articles and judge their suitability. We rely on the academic peer-review process for that, or at least rigorous academic editorial review. This article has received no such review. Second, nor is it noteworthy, as it has never been cited or even commented upon in the scholarly literature. There is therefore nothing to discuss. End of story. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The question of reliability is only a side issue here. The real show stopper is whether the theory is notable, which would depend not on the respectability of the journal in which it was published, but rather on the number of mentions of the study in other reliable sources. Fringe theories that have not generated attention do not merit inclusion at all per WP:FRINGE.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand how you (Dominus) can say it is not noteworthy as it has not been cited, as it has only very recently been published. The text contained therein has been cited in Ian Kluckow's A History of the Great Zimbabwe Mystery, in any case, so this claim is spurious at best. Regarding your other point, the article did receive peer review when it was submitted to Mankind Quarterly, with several changes and additions made before it was published. I presume you are alluding here to this peer review being somehow illegitimate. —Cliftonian (talk)</b></b> 02:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Edit: Fifelfoo posted on my talk page suggesting that I indicate that this could be interpreted as representing a conflict of interest (he hinted that I might somehow have been involved in the article's peer review at the journal, which I was not). I would like to qualify my comment regarding the article's peer review by saying that it was based purely on DLMcN's opening comment at the top of this section, and nothing else. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I said the book has never been cited or mentioned in the scholarly literature, and it hasn't. Lucknow's book doesn't even come close to being scholarly. And yes, the "peer-review" conducted by Mankind Quarterly is a sham. If you disagree, the burden is on YOU to prove otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not feel I can comment extensively on Kluckow's book, which I have not read, though I do feel you are probably right that it would not pass as "scholarly", so I apologise for previously misinterpreting this point. I still maintain that it is somewhat fallacious to expect numerous citations for such a recently-published work, however. Regarding Mankind Quarterly's peer review, I don't feel that either of us can prove its legitimacy either way. Certainly I don't know quite what evidence you could expect anybody here to present on this matter that would not be immediately dismissed as a conflict of interest. The article appears balanced to me, though of course this is just my opinion. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The information can be used in Lemba_people where it is relevant. The article is an appropriate source for speculative theories about the Lemba people. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it can't, until it has been cited or subtantially commented on by the relevant scholarly community. See: Fringe_theories Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's start over. We have an article in a racist magazine that's not considered a reliable source, and a copy of that article on the author's personal site (the author, even if he developed the idea, is not a recognized authority in the field). Neither of those meets WP:RS by default. That's what this board is about. You cannot take the peer review from the magazine, and then the lack of racism from the author's personal website and go "tada! Reliable source!" You cannot ignore that Mankind Quarterly is dedicated to scientific racism, and you cannot get Wikipedia to accept MQ as a source. You cannot make Wikipedia accept personal websites as sources either. There is no need for this conversation to go any further. Anything beyond that is off-topic and does not belong here. It does not matter where the article could be used because the article cannot be used, end of story. Please, everybody, drop the stick and back away from the horse. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm happy with that. I'm sorry I made a fuss. I still think the article is solid, but I acknowledge the conversation is going nowhere, essentially for the reasons you described, so I agree it's probably best we drop it now. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 03:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy to drop the subject now. I would like to thank all contributers - even if I did wonder whether some of them were perhaps violating the Wikipedia "Ad Hominem" code. I am not going to register a formal complaint about that - but instead of hurling personal insults at one another, surely it is better to focus on hard facts and evidence? --DLMcN (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bogdanor
Is [The Top 200 Chomsky Lies by Paul Bogdanor a reliable source for this edit at [[United States and state terrorism]]? RolandR (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I notice that there was once a Wikipedia article on Bogdanor which was deleted at AFD.  Doesn't say much about the notability of his opinions... Zerotalk 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not even a question, WP:BLPSPS rules out such a source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blogs count towards notability?
Are articles on websites GigaOM, Tubefilter and Tubemogul reliable, and do they contribute towards the notability of a subject?

I am sceptical of them contributing towards the notability of a subject, as they cover Web television stuff, whether it is well established or not. And they mostly seem like opinion pieces. They are owned/involve the same people as the ones that made Streamy Awards, which was created to promote the industry.

Imo, they also seem to cover lots of trivial things, which would only interest people in that industry.--Otterathome (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blogs do not count as reliable sources unless they are by recognized authorities in the field (easy way to check that is to see if we have an article about the blog's author). So, they wouldn't count towards notability, either.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is John Lott a reliable source here?
In the article Women's suffrage in the United States and editor has been deleting a section sourced mainly from Lott and the Washington Times. The first deletion is I think the editor not logged in (no accusation of any wrongdoing here, I've done this before) with the edit summary "rm speculation, passive verbs and John Lott is not a significant historian or political scientist". I reinstated it, attributing part of it to Lott, with an edit summary saying " removing verbs you don't like hardly make it clear a whole section has been removed, Lott has good academic credentials". It's been deleted again with a new reason, "polemical article in polemical newspaper is a poor RS for controversial claims". I don't see either of these arguments as good reasons to remove this, but I am happy to be shown I'm wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two sources cited in this section:
 * Lott, John R. Jr. "Women's suffrage over time." Washington Times, November 27, 2007. [n.p.]
 * "Where There's Life There's Hope." Life, November 15, 1906.
 * The second is a clear primary, and via the advice at WP:HISTRS I would suggest it be removed. Argumentative use of primaries is OR.
 * The first is more complex. Lott has published in Journal of Political Economy on this topic (Lott, John R Jr.; Kenny, Larry "How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" Journal of Political Economy [n.v.; n.i.], 1999, [n.p.].).  The question is, why are we citing a non-peer reviewed publication when a peer reviewed publication exists.  Lott's speculations on women's sufferage in the Washington Times hasn't suffered the scrutiny of political economists.  Lott and Kenny's findings have.  Replace with Lott and Kenny 1999; and if the content isn't found there, remove it—Lott knows how to get peer reviewed papers published, if the claims exist only in the Washington Post, then they're obviously not capable of withstanding the peer scrutiny process. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree but the statements are plausible. Women's suffrage is likely to have favoured prohibition. Since Lott is published elsewhere on this topic, my instinct is uncontroversial and reliable. This is not carte Blanche to Lott or Washington Times on history. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And maybe minor, I'd be a lot happier if it had been the Washington Post. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lott emphatically does not have good academic credentials. If he can't get it past a peer review, it is inherently questionable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Our article on him says "He has previously held research positions at academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the non-academic conservative American Enterprise Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA". Are we now saying that anyone with similar credentials can't be used unless they have published in a peer reviewed source? Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Encarta - no longer availble on line, so how do we verify it?
Evidently Encarta has been gone for a while. It's been used recently for this edit which puzzles me as it isn't online (although I did note the editor today using a source he clearly hadn't read). So what do we do about anything sourced to Encarta? Especially when it looks dodgy? Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there's archive.org. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously in this case it can be checked out, but ordinarily I would suggest any source that is not verifiable from the time of its addition should be pulled. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember having an encarta CD when I was younger. Is it possible that someone could be using the CD to access it? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds likely. The CD shipped with Windows in the 1990s. Tertiary source, not RS, but not dreadful and an editor might find it useful to consult for ideas. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Itsmejudith here. Encarta is problematic, but not highly so.  Its use should be depreciated, but not worried about.  If you come across an editor inserting Encarta, chat with them about the desirability of using secondary sources, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Encarta is not a good source, but acceptable in doubt (like Britannica or any other encyclopedia formally would). Being available online is not a necessary criterion for in general and hence not for Encarta in particular. There plenty of Encarta CDs and the webarchive mentioned above, so in doubt Encarta needs to be treated like a book being out of print.

However if some editors adds problematic or dodgy material sourced on Encarta, I would revert that until a better source is provided. For serious content dispute it is certainly not acceptable to base your argument/desired content solely on Encarta.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if editors are using the CD version then it's the CD that needs to be cited, preferably with the version number and any other relevant citation details. At least the CD is verifiable to some degree; citing a dead website is incorrect referencing. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but cited a dead website is possible if the site was still alive at the time the citation was introduced or if the content in question is available in an archive (of course in that case a link to the archived version should be provided).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right. However, when an editor manages to find an url that doesn't work and uses that as a source, it does look as though they may have just copied it from somewhere else without checking it. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If a link dies that's a fairly common problem, we don't pull the source, but if an editor is referencing claims with dead links then obviously the information is not coming from the cited location. If it's coming from an archive or CD then those should be sourced directly as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic

 * Source. Lange, Karen (September 2007). "Tales From the Bog". National Geographic 212 (3): 80-93.
 * Article. Bog body
 * Content. "An article in a German archaeology journal called "Imaginary People" concluded that many of the cases (my comment: of an archaeologist named Dr. Alfred Dieck) were fabricated."
 * I have no strong views on the assertion itself. My concern is that as the content stands, we lack the name of the German journal, page references etc. or the author of the original conclusion. National Geographic is not a specialist archaeological journal itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Locate the German source. These are original and extraordinary theoretical claims in archaeology.  The correct place to find original and extraordinary theoretical claims in archaeology is a peer reviewed archaeological journal.  Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fifelfoo, but National Geographic is a RS in its own right. While it's obviously not a specialist archaeological journal and is aimed squarely at the mass market, it does have a very long track record of publishing articles on archaeological topics and can be assumed to hire writers who know what they're talking about and undertake fact checking. Given that a claim like this is potentially libelous, it can also be assumed that National Geographic's lawyers would have required confirmation before giving this article the OK to publish. But yeah, citing the original journal article would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick's right, I was being a bit hard. Even when you find the German source I'd suggest leaving the National Geographic cite as further reading. The difference between a source for a claim, and a reference to a source for ordinary readers to follow up. A good reason to use the further reading section, when the article doesn't rely on a citation but a citation may help readers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alfred Dieck is dead so libel is not a concern. Roger (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The source in question seems to be this one: VAN DER SANDEN, Wijnand A. B.; EISENBEISS, Sabine:  Imaginäre Menschen: Alfred Dieck und die Moorleichen in Nordwesteuropa. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt,, 2006, vol. 36, no1, pp. 111-122

You might also check out Alfred_Dieck (the source is used there as well) and corresponding German Interwiki. Apparently several German TV documentation covered the subject as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers guys - will take the source back over to the article! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Riverdale Press blogspot
Does this page meet RS standards or not? It seems to be from a "blogspot" of the Riverdale Press, which appears to be itself an at least basically reliable local newspaper in the area. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RS for what? Someguy1221 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question, actually. I've asked the editor who added material based on it, User:Catflap08, to indicate exactly what he wants sourced from this article. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well what I can see is that ceratain articles form the Riverdale Press are available online also for people to comment on them ... in my eyes not a blog as such which is more like a diary.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, I think the Riverdale Press blog might actually meet WP:USERG standards, which specifically indicates that "news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I am not myself sure how to actually determine from the newspaper's "blog" site whether it actually meets those standards myself, because I actually haven't dealt with such sources before. But if it is, as it appears to be, a form of online edition of that newspaper, it probably would meet RS standards. I have sought outside input at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have posted a Response to the comment provided by John on the Dispute Resolution Board but was informed that the issue is about Reliable Sources, discussed on this Noticeboard. For this reason I'll repost it here:


 * The comment above does not help in resolving whether a blog can be used asa reliable source. Guy Macon says blogs are not reliable sources. John Carter says he is not sure. I request other Wikipedia editors to examine the matter, because it belongs to clarifying Wikipedia guidelines. To initiate an examination of whether a blogspot - and in particular the mentioned one - meets the guidelines I’d like to present the following points:


 * 1/ Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person” . The mentioned source in dispute is a blog, with a defaming rumor involving a living person (the teacher).


 * 2/ In Citing Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sourcesources we find: “the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia”. Here we have an information about “controversy about proselytizing” supported by a blog which defines the information as a mere rumor. I disagree with the editors (involved in supporting the blog) on accepting a rumor as a reference in Wikipedia article, whether it is on a blog or on a rumor spreading -self confessed tabloid.


 * 3/ There is a problem of Anonymity, included in the blog. The blog indicates statements of individuals who “did not want to be named” and created a string of personal comments - similar to chat groups comments - with many identifying themselves as “ Anonymous”. Question to all Wikipedia Editors: Is a blog reporting a rumor and including anonymous contributors to the information, is this a reliable source? John mentions that blogs are acceptable if : “these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field”. In the examined case, the writer confesses of writing a rumor and the other contributors to that blog are not professionals, as they signed with “anonymous”.


 * 4/ The rumor-based information (contained in that disputed reference) was copied by another similar source. If a person repeats a lie or a rumor many times, that does not make it reliable. The other source which “copied and pasted” the same rumor meets also the same quality of lack of credibility.


 * 5/ If the opinion of other editors is to accept the disputed blog (and the second source which copied the rumor from that blog) then I suggest the following: the accurate citation by the editor(s) of the sentence should include that “there was a rumor about proselytizing”, and then add the blog as a reference. If the word rumor is not added to the citation, then the citation is misleading as it falsely claims that it is about proselytizing while it is about a rumor of a single incident of alleged proselytizing (and which was disputed by other individuals involved in the matter, as the blog itself mentions).


 * 6/ Question: is a web-article which is written by an anonymous person (or group of unknown people) - is this source regarded as acceptable in Wikipedia.
 * General question, general answer: We evaluate reliability partly on the basis of the author (Is expert? Has published reliably on subject? etc.) partly on the publisher/website (Academic? Strong on fact-checking? etc.). So, if the piece is anonymous, all depends on the evaluation of the publisher/website. And rew D alby  09:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7/  The title of this thread was chosen by John as " Riverdale Press Blog", however the dispute is not just on that questionable reference. There are 2 matters here not just one included in the title. All rasied matters should be addressed, not only the Rivedale Press Blog. I don't know whether I have to extend the second matter to a different thread, as initially I included both matters in one post (at the Dispute resolution Board). I'll continue then here with the other matter which was not addressed.


 * The disputed sentence referes to a claim of controversy using the words “religious tolerance”. This matter is in particular of a very important weight and I request its full examination of by Wikipedia Editors: the disputed sentence starts with a claim of “controversy regarding religious tolerance”. To support this claim, a source citing a complaint by a certain individual (about age discrimination and religious intolerance) in a case which went to the court. The reference does not mention that the Court dismissed the case, and brought the information as valid, while it is not. The Court did not rule about any breach of religious tolerance referred to in that misleading source. The answer of the editor involved who introduced the misleading claim was that the Court's decision was weak, and he reinstalled the misleading refrence again. I do not know about Wikipedia rules concerning criticising a Court’s decision as weak - as a justification of including a misleading information in the article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from point 6 above, and which was answerd by Andrew Dalby - none of the other points were discussed or answered. It seems that a general question gets a general answer quickly, so if this is the case I may as well generalise my questions, which remain unanswered. Originally, my matter was posted as a "Disputed sentence" which had 2 (two, not one only) disputed use of references as explained on the Dispute Resolution Board. It was moved here and unfairly given the title Riverdale Press Blogspot, changing thus the focus of the original matter - to just one subject.


 * Now, to trigger the discussion onwards, I am asking Editors the following 2 general Q below (which constitute the essence of relevant points I explained in details above - without repeating them here):/1/ Is a blog which acknolwedges that the information given on it is a mere rumor, is this blog accepted as a refrence to the wording of a sentence which makes of the rumor a fact, misleading thus readers about its low credibility. And: /2/ Is it acceptable to use a refrence about a specific legal matter (one side accusing another in a court case) and which the legal system rejected its credibility (and twice dismissed the court cases about it) - is it acceptable to use that refrence speaking only about the accusation of one side (ignoring the court's dismissal of the accusation) as a supportive refrencein a sentence virtually defaming the accused, misleading thus readers about the rejection of the whole matter by the court. I wonder whether the last question here requires a separate section - because the title given to this thread deals with one refrence only without addressing the totality of the matter as put above and as originally put on the Dispute Resolution Board.


 * can I also emphasise here that the problem is not just about the misleading refrences but about the wording of the sentence. Even if a refrence may be considered as reliable, the problem remains in the wording of the information in the article, which does not support the full contents of the refrences.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all I believe that the Riverdale site is no Blog as such. This is an online version of the Riverdale Press. On a side note a Pulitzer prize awarded newspaper. The site just gives the opportunity for users to comment on articles published. I would also like to say that Safwan is in no position to brand the incidents published in the Ocweekly as rumours. Even without the riverdale reference (which I took out a week ago) or the OCWeekly reference the sentence would remain the same. The lack of religious tolerance and issues on proselytising are issues brought up again and again, whether it be academics, journalists, ex-members or still active critical members. Safwan does not like the sentence full stop. As for the ongoings at Soka University the court ruling was not about if SGI is engaged in proselytising or not but on which grounds the sacking of the employee was legal or not. Proselytising to my knowledge is not forbidden in most western countries at least– its just a pain in the neck. Yet again I must emphasise that Wikipedia is not about judging, but to mention relevant information for the reader. Denying those critical issues would indeed be against Wikipedia ethos and purpose. I would also like to mention this, a draft version on a future guideline concerning religious issues, although still a draft what it underlines is that critical issues have and should be mentioned and there is no need to say things like “ but SGI states that ...” when information critical of SGI is published. It has been brought up by another user within the SGI-talk. To be honest the reader does not care actually as the article should solely describe what SGI is about how it sees itself and goals it follows. The critical issues have their own right. Yet again its not about judging, but give an idea about a religious group – and even though some may not like that, but mentioning those issues critical are important. Safwan has to acknowledge that there are people in this world who know the faith he is practising quite well, may it be due to own experience or by interest. We are talking about religious issues and what some people hold dear – and they have every right to so – is simply not equal to those who do not share that interpretation of a certain faith may it be on philosophical, organisational or academic grounds. And even though this a very private opinion Safwan, your eagerness to get rid of those critical issues perfectly underlines the old criticism of SGI as being unable to accept and tolerate those views that simply do not buy in on how SGI portrays itself. And yet again a private opinion, Safwan, you know perfectly well in which way other faiths, Buddhist or not, indeed Nichiren-Buddhist or not are being portrayed behind closed doors. So denying the obvious will just result in making the not obvious to be more visible. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The question was asked above as to what information is being sourced from the Riverdale Press blog. I'm not sure that I see an answer to that question. It would help the others who might review this thread to have a clearer idea as to what specific content is being sourced from that site. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, something has been achieved here - but just partly, not completely: the disputed source (of Riversdale Press Blogspot presenting a rumor about a teacher) - this was removed from the disputed sentence (on Soka Gakkai page, Perception and Criticism):

“There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[75] and proselytizing[76][77][78]practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[79]”


 * However, the same subject of the same rumor about that teacher was copied by this source: ([77] in the sentence above: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600
 * This brings the subject of my enquiry again to this Board. Is a description of a "rumor" acceptable as a reference implicating it as a "truth", that is: implicating the teacher involved in wrongdoing based solely on rumors. The sentence above is about ‘proselytizing’ while the source is about a 'rumor concerning proselytizing'.

If this reference is maintained in the disputed sentence then this is a case of presenting a rumor as a fact on Wikipedia pages.


 * The other subject is not dealt with by any editor,: it is the first part of the disputed sentence which claims that controversy about ‘religious tolerance’ is supported by this information:[75]: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ . This source presents an information (dated March 2011) about an alleged discrimination claimed by a staff (discrimination based on the complaining staff's age and also religious beliefs) - submitted in a legal case to the court system. The court dismissed the case in April 2011. This means that the allegation of religious intolerance (which the editor involved put in the disputed sentence) -, does not support reality of the case upon which the editor relied. If the court dismissed the case, the question here to Wikipedia editors, on whether : an information speaking half the truth and ignoring the decision of the court in the matter - is it acceptable within Wikipedia practice. In other words, is it acceprtable to publishes that "X was accused" in a court case, deliberately avoiding and ignoring the fact that "the accusation against X was invalid".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The court did not decide wether SGI is proselytising or not. Actually I am tempted to reinsert the Riverdale quote - both are examples where prsoelytising became an issue - in both cases not the focus. The Cult watch article describes also what happened in that school. At any rate I slowly getting the impression the editor tries to withold information. The article on SGI is NINE pages long. What I finally would like to know if the editor wants the word proselytising not to appear in the article? The idea that this was a rumor soley is being voiced by the editor in question --- both newspaper articles report on issues - as newspapers do.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)I would also like to know finally disclosing on what basis he believes the Riverdale Press and OC Weekly are to be regarded unreliable sources? They are newspapers - as anyone can see.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please try to cooperate and acknowledge that Wikipedia editors have not voiced their views about the 2 matters presented here. I have explained the matters in details here (and also: in "Two Unresolved Matters"). Going into circles is not helpful. Giving nonsensical arguments is not helpful (such as: "The article on SGI is NINE pages", shouting the number 9 to validate your points).


 * Again I am asking Wikipedia editors the 2 questions: /1/ is it acceptable for an editor to give information relying on a source - which speaks about an accusation to someone (or organisation) - but without mentioning that the claimed accusatin was in a court case which was dismissed by the legal system. This is a matter about Wikipedia rules and gudelines - it is a general question regarding a sentence giving a false claim the impression as being a true claim - which can mislead the reader- is acceptable by Wikipedia.


 * The second question is also general: it is about using a refrence which presents a rumor about someone, a rumor by confesstion of the writer of the blog - not any final or true fact. Rumor spreading sources - in this particular matter - was used in a sentence, treating the rumor as a confirmed fact against the person involved. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia? ( For confirmation of my impartial approach please understand the following: I have no objection at all to that sentence about proselytizing. It should not be deleted, not at all, because it has other acceptable by Wikipedia sources (I will examine their contents in the future), so these acceptable sources can remain in the same sentence. But the other 2 sources which are specifically dealing with a rumor - are the subject of objection). My 2 questions are of general nature.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Two Unresolved Matters
For some strange reason, when I wanted to add a comment to the Riverside Press Blogspot thread, each time I clicked on 'edit' an unrelated page titled Paul McCatney appeared instead. As this can be a glitch somewhere, I will submit here a related but new entry as I could not continue on the original thread. The questions here are general in nature. (All specific details can be found in the unaccessible for me Riverside Press Blogspot).

The essence of the dispute here is not about criticizing SGI. It is about what I consider as violations to Wikipedia guidelines and rules through a sentence which is inconsistent with the references it claims as support - and I am asking Wikipedia editors to present their general views, which should apply to any instituation, organisation, subject, article etc...

I am asking Wikipedia editors to voice a final decision on /1/ whether a reference presenting a case being a false accusation of a certain institution (which was made by a staff (who claimed being subjected to age and religious discrimination) - whether this false claim and which was rejected by the court twice, is to be used as a reference in Wikipedia - in a sentence of accusation implying that the false claim is still valid. This is the essence of the first disputed matter regarding “religious tolerance”, a claim which does not fit the source (and does not fit reality) and this is not about SGI. It is about Wikipedia guidelines. If Wikipedia rules that such a situation is accepted then this is not about SGI it is about how Wikipedia responsible editors decided.

I have no objection whatsoever to criticising SGI - in fact it was only me who introduced the word Criticism to the title of that section, because criticism also help impartial reader to understand the true identity of the organisation involved. I suggested that a reference based on a false claim be deleted - but that further criticism of SGI (about Religious Tolerance) remains as it is presented and actually taking place in a further sentence in the article. No problem with that. The problem is about using a false claim as a reference - even if the deliverer of the news about the false claim was reliable. This is not about the source itself but about using the source's article in conflicting way with the information of the disputed sentence.

The second problem: /2/ is in regard to using a rumor as a valid reliable source. Again this is not about SGI, it is about Wikipedia guidelines. Is the blog - which was used as a reference - and which its own text, own words, own information state that it is discussing a rumor - is this particular situation allowed in Wikipedia practice?. The mentioned blogspot stated - more than once - in its wording that it is dealing with a rumor. Again this is a question related to Wikipedia rules, it has absolutely nothing to do with SGI. The mentioned source - whether it is reliable, or a questionable blog - it does not matter - has developed a stroy based on a rumor by its own confession and detailed explanation. If - in essence - using a rumor (even in a reliable container of a blog or article) is accepted - then this is what will characterise Wikipedia, not SGI or any mentioned other organisation or subject or person.

Let’s also stop using on this page personal refrence to individual names of editors and personal opinions and judgements: (Safwan  does not like this, Safwan thinks, .......). I suggested a middle-way solution to the dispute: namely to keep the criticising sentence (about proselytizing) as it is, but with dismissal of rumor-based two references in it. Thank you.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * * After a technical glitch which disabled me from adding comments on Riversdale Press Blogspot thread, I initiated this question: Two Unresolved matters. Now that I could post again on the original thread, I will also post the same info here as it is related to anyone who would like to comment here on this current thread:


 * OK, something has been achieved here - but just partly, not completely: the disputed source (of Riversdale Press Blogspot presenting a rumor about a teacher) - this was removed from the disputed sentence (on Soka Gakkai page, Perception and Criticism):

“There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[75] and proselytizing[76][77][78]practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[79]”


 * However, the same subject of the same rumor about that teacher was copied by this source: ([77] in the sentence above: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600
 * This brings the subject of my enquiry again to this Board. Is a description of a "rumor" acceptable as a reference implicating it as a "truth", that is: implicating the teacher involved in wrongdoing based solely on rumors. The sentence above is about ‘proselytizing’ while the source is about a 'rumor concerning proselytizing'.

If this reference is maintained in the disputed sentence then this is a case of presenting a rumor as a fact on Wikipedia pages.


 * The other subject is not dealt with by any editor,: it is the first part of the disputed sentence which claims that controversy about ‘religious tolerance’ is supported by this information:[75]: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ . This source presents an information (dated March 2011) about an alleged discrimination claimed by a staff (discrimination based on the complaining staff's age and also religious beliefs) - submitted in a legal case to the court system. The court dismissed the case in April 2011. This means that the allegation of religious intolerance (which the editor involved put in the disputed sentence) -, does not support reality of the case upon which the editor relied. If the court dismissed the case, the question here to Wikipedia editors, on whether : an information speaking half the truth and ignoring the decision of the court in the matter - is it acceptable within Wikipedia practice. In other words, is it acceprtable to publishes that "X was accused" in a court case, deliberately avoiding and ignoring the fact that "the accusation against X was invalid".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again I am asking Wikipedia editors the 2 questions: /1/ is it acceptable for an editor to give information relying on a source - which speaks about an accusation to someone (or organisation) - but without mentioning that the claimed accusatin was in a court case which was dismissed by the legal system. This is a matter about Wikipedia rules and gudelines - it is a general question regarding a sentence giving a false claim the impression as being a true claim - which can mislead the reader- is acceptable by Wikipedia.


 * The second question is also general: it is about using a refrence which presents a rumor about someone, a rumor by confesstion of the writer of the blog - not any final or true fact. Rumor spreading sources - in this particular matter - was used in a sentence, treating the rumor as a confirmed fact against the person involved. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia? My 2 questions are of general nature. I understand that the questions posed may not relate to this particular Board. I sincerely appreciate direction as where else I can submit them as the matters are important. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source.
 * If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc.
 * If it's an online source, please link to it.

2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. 3. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes.

Genealogy of Evil?
I am looking for views on whether A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism, from Nazism to Islamic Jihad by David Patterson is WP:RS.

The book is currently being used to source a variety of statements:
 * Nazi relations with the Arab world "In 1932, immediately before Hitler's rise to power, Hitler was given the name Abu Ali in Syria, and Muhammad Haidar in Egypt" and "In 1941 the Mufti orchestrated a coup d'état, with Nazi support and financing, led by Rashid Ali al-Gaylani."
 * 1941 Iraqi coup d'état " The Mufti Amin al-Husayni was one of the orchestrators of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani's coup d'état, with Nazi support and financing."
 * 1947 Aleppo pogrom "The Jews of Aleppo had suffered previous pogroms in 1853 and 1875"
 * Arab nationalism "In 1941 Rashid Ali al-Gaylani staged a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad, Iraq. The Mufti Amin al-Husayni of Palestine was one of those who, together with pro-German Iraqi officers, obtained finances and support from Nazi Germany."
 * Haj Amin al-Husseini "Al-Husseini was involved in the organization and recruitment of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions of the Waffen SS and other units. The largest was the 13th Handschar division of 21,065 men, which conducted operations against Communist partisans in the Balkans from February 1944."

Having read parts of this book, it appears to be a polemical work with an extreme POV. Whilst it has a reputable publisher, this review questions it in the strongest possible terms:
 * "Indeed, the flaws of Genealogy of Evil are so extensive and visible that regrettably one cannot but ask serious questions as to how it possibly got through the Cambridge University Press vetting process. The limited truths—that some influence was wielded by Nazism over certain Islamic extremists, and that exterminationist anti-Semitism continues to motivate many of them—do not disguise the overwhelmingly propagandistic nature of this book. Its appalling abuse of interpretive method, and Patterson’s transparent promotion of an analytically blinkered political and religious agenda, have no place in anything with pretensions to academic work."

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The review is by an appropriate scholarly expert. This review in DOMES: Digest of Middle East Studies rips the book a new oriface from the first line, "A strongly normatively characterized analysis of two political phenomena…  Patterson, an academic specialist on Holocaust studies (University of Texas, Dallas) and apparently a subscriber to the foundational school of Islamic studies, holds onto the “pre-modern” acceptance of absolute values. Hence, for him there is such a thing as “evil,” which of course presumes the existence of the obverse ancient Greek goal of achievement of “the Good.” The nature of evil itself, however, is treated with scant examination, but is a necessary condition for purposes of the thesis here to understand and appreciate extreme violence and genocide."  I would say that these hostile scholarly reviews invalidate the work's capacity to maintain a weighty opinion.  I would also say that the hostility of the scholarly reviews to the work's factual basis constitutes an definitive attack on the capacity of the work to be used for fact on wikipedia reliably.  (This opinion would change based on the preponderance of scholarly reviews of the work proffering a different opinion). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense. The "hostility", at most, might require us place less emphasis on its theories, but not its facts, as you strangely proclaim. This is an book written by an academic in its field and published by an academic publishing house.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Just you have provided one review from a student newspaper that is "hostile" towards this book, it doesn't mean that the book is automatically non-RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Response - Two negative reviews doesn't make a book non-RS
The book may be polemical, but that doesn't mean that the specific facts it cites aren't accurate. Using two hostile reviews as an excuse to remove all mentions of this book in Wikipedia seems a little disengenous. You have neglected to mention that the book itself is written by a recognized expert - David Patterson has published over 30 books, holds a chair at a major university and that the book is published by a University Publising company. This more than meets the requirements of RS - and this doesn't change just because two people do not agree with the book. Numerous other books written by experts that have subsequently been criticized by other experts are cited in Wikipedia.

Let's also take a look at the two reviews cited. The first is by Jonathan Leader Maynard, who is described as "reading for a DPhil in Political Theory at University College, Oxford." (i.e. he is a student). The second is by someone named "Sanford R. Silverberg" but there is little information on him. No offence, but trying to use these two reviews as evidence that the book is not RS is a bit of a stretch. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Hi Hyperion, you say he is a "a recognized expert" - the link to his personal page at his university says his areas of specialization are "Holocaust, anti-Semtism, Jewish literature, Jewish history, modern Jewish thought". None of those have anything to do with the quotes his latest book is being used to support (i.e. those typed out above). Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's taken about 5 years to get the article on Haj Amin al-Husseini sourced adequately, comprehensive, and approaching WP:NPOV. For a good part of that, the problem was edit-warring by POV-warriors who saw in him the Arab incarnation of Hitlerian evils (see the Novick quote at the end of the page), who used poor sources, or generic sources of quality that quoted poor sources. Patterson is an example of the latter. He knows nothing of al-Husseini scholarship, and inadvertently picked up a poor source. al-Husseini is the most intensively studied figure in that area: specialist books and articles abound, by distinguished Israeli, Arab, and Western historians. There is simply no need to use tertiary sources as her that happen, through oversight, to ignore the best scholarship and rely on bad sources written with a polemical thesis. The only reason I have not removed it yet is because it's published by CUP. But Patterson is simply not acceptable for this page, because he himself has used a notoriously unreliable source.  I hope it is not discourteous, Hyperion, but I have, I believe, fixed the problem on the al-Husseini page in the meantime by replacing Patterson there with an excellent Yugoslavian historian's work, which has more details. Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still respectively disagree with you regarding Patterson's reliability. However, the new source you cited seems to be reliable as well, so using it as the citation shouldn't be a problem.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Supportive reviews
It seems that at least two sources have reviewed this book and have praised it - Jeffrey Herf, University of Maryland, College Park and, Alexander Zvielli in The Jerusalem Post.

Just for the record, Cambridge University Press (which published the book) seems to have no problem in promoting this book on their website. 
 * Hi Hyperion, you have quoted the editorial references that the author/publisher uses to promote the book, likely "connected" (i.e. solicited) reviews. That doesn't prove anything - every popular book on Amazon has the same. Look at the same for From Time Immemorial, known to be one of the most intellectually dishonest books on the subject, and definitely not RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Three points:
 * 1) The author of "From Time Immemorial" was not a full professor at a recognized university and the book was not published by a University publishing company (unlike a Geneology of Evil, where both of the above are in the affirmative)
 * 2) There is extensive research from recognized sources that debunks "From Time Immemorial". In contrast, there is a grand total of one negative review (from a student newspaper) and one selectively quoted review.
 * 3) These reviews may be solicited, but that doesn't mean that aren't accurate or valid.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Selective quoting of Sandford Silverberg
It seems that you have selectively quoted Sandford Silverberg (above). According to his review on Amazon.com, Silverberg goes on to state that "The substance of Patterson's work reifies those who project a similar political agenda, but will be subject to strong criticism from those whose expertise is Nazi-Muslim relations. Nevertheless, this comment aside, there is a rich trove of material for others to mine and insert into the historical record and controversy that has raged on for some decades, but one that certainly is currently in vogue." -Sanford R. Silverburg, Digest of Middles East Studies".(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC))


 * "there is a rich trove of material for others to mine." We are an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of original genealogy studies.  If you wish to conduct a genealogy based on someone else's work, feel free to publish elsewhere.  We don't rely on half-baked works, because we don't want unformed dough, we want the research to be fully risen. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What does your above rant have to do with the issue at hand (i.e. whether this book should be considered non-RS based on two negative (actually one negative and one selectively quoted) reviews? I've noted that this book was written by a University professor, published by a University press, and has been both positively reviewed by at least two sources. I think I've made my case that this book can be considered RS, and that the rush to remove any reference of this book in Wikipedia is at best premature, and at worst, disingenuous.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Hi Hyperionsteel, thanks for your contribution. I don't think that the term "rant" is fair against Fifefoo's post - we could all be accused of that. Nor do I think suggestions of disingenuity are appropriate - the clearly linked edit summaries were intended to bring in any editors who disagree. Therefore I am glad you are here, so we can debate this properly above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the term rant because Fifelfoo's above statement didn't address the point I was trying to make (i.e. that Silverberg's review of the book was selectively quoted). Instead, he makes bizarre comments about my supposed desire to engage in "geneological studies" using "unformed dough" as opposed to "research [that is] fully risen." I'm not sure what Fifelfoo's point was, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Silverberg's review (selectively quoted or not) can be cited as definitive evidence that this book is (or is not) RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Also, I used the terms "premature" and "disingenuous" because you immediately removed information from about five Wikipedia pages based on these two reviews (I have since reverted them). Removing so much material sourced from this book because of the two reviews you cited seems premature to me, but I admit it was my cynicism talking when I used the word "disingenuous."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC))


 * I stand by my assessment. The DOMES review tears this book a new oriface.  The fact that Hyperionsteel may be deeply unfamiliar with reading academic reviews is frankly beside the point.  I haven't read a more hostile review of a work in quite some time, particularly the section where it is suggested that the work is not of any use except for potentially further primary research. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to your opinion about the new oriface. Many books receive hostile reviews (especially when dealing with sensitive topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). However (and I'm repeating myself), just because a book has received a hostile (or even an very hostile) review by a student in a student-run newspaper, it doesn't automatically mean that the book is non-RS. The book was written by a full University professor, published by a University press, is actively promoted on the University press' website, and has receieved at least two positive (and one mixed) reviews from RS sources. Also, and no offence intended, you did selectively quote Silverberg's review in your above justification.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Domes is a peer reviewed journal published by Wiley-Blackwell, mate. And I didn't quote it selectively, which is an offensive euphemism and an accusation of misconduct.  When you extended the quoted material, I demonstrated that the material you chose to quote to support the validity of the work in fact undermines it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Silverberg is stating that while the book's conclusion "has yet to be firmly established" and that "the substance of Patterson's work reifies those who project a similar political agenda," he acknowledges that the book contains "a rich trove of material for others to mine and insert into the historical record and controversy." How does this further undermine the book? In fact, Silverberg is stating that the facts cited in the book are accurate, but that Silverberg's conclusion based on those facts isn't well-supported (i.e. your claim that this review undermines the book's "factual basis" is clearly disputable, if not incorrect.)


 * Also, I've read the full review, and while it is certainly critical of Patterson's conclusions, it is hardly the "hostile" attack that you make it out to be and certainly does not provide the book with any kind of perforation or aperture that it didn't have before this review was published. I've seen reviews of books that are far more "hostile" than this one. In any event, nobody is arguing that the book is perfect or that it does not contain flaws, but the point is that it does meet (as I have cited above) the requirements for RS in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Fox news as an reliable third-party source for July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
A source dispute has arisen at July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. For lack of civil discussion, I thought it could bring some more stable discussion if more voices was heard. Source in question is a fox news article. The diff in question tries to remove the use of this source when other neutral sources exist. Two sources, (Guardian and mediaite) both identifies Fox to be an partisan source and is the reason behind this action. Thanks. Belorn (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * can you please cite the source in question; your diff provides no indication of what the source under discussion is. Similarly can you directly point to (hopefully quote here) the contentious claims.  The source appears to support 10-20 claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets go through the claims:
 * ...one had an AK-47 and another an RPG-7
 * Article says: WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.
 * In this capacity it is not clear if the reporter is reporting or analysing. If the latter his article serves as a primary source for the claim.
 * The second airstrike using 30 mm fire was directed at Chmagh and two other unarmed men as they were attempting to help Chmagh into their van.
 * Article says: Another point of contention comes later in the video when U.S. Apache helicopters open fire on two men in a van who had arrived at the courtyard to carry away one of the wounded. 
 * Article doesn't actually back up the statement.
 * ...and another was carrying an AK-47 or AKM assault rifle.
 * Not clear how this draws on the article, which doesn't mention AKM assault rifles.
 *  The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle.
 * Article says:  However, the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.
 * Journalist is clearly reporting what the military says. Article is definitely a secondary source for this claim.
 * Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"
 * Article says: "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said.
 * Article is quoting Assange verbatim, so is clearly acting as a secondary source in this capacity.
 * Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command stated that the airstrike video "gives you a limited perspective, [it] only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs. "Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat."
 * Article says: "It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs. "Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said. 
 * Article quoting a military spokesman. Secondary source.
 * There are a few issues with the source, but for the most part where the reporter is quoting either Wikileaks or the military then it is acting in a secondary source capacity. It is ok to use for those quotes, just try to refrain from using any parts where the journalist interjects any of his own analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please cite the source you are discussing. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for an extensive and clam responses. I will contemplate a bit, and later do a edit based on those comments. I am/was under impression that sources independent of content should be replaced when there are better alternatives, with the goal that good sources can bubble up and make the content more trustworthy. So my goal was not to do any direct changes to the content, but rather just improve what sources back up that content, initiated by a talk comment that questioned the use of Fox news as source in this article. Is that still something worth pursuing? Belorn (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is always worth improving source quality, but remember when improving sources to read them in full. New sources may indicate that current sections of the article aren't weighted correctly, or even correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO the article goes too far towards conducting its own investigation. Stick more closely to the accounts in the mainstream media. If CNN (to give just one example) doesn't mention a point of detail, then you should wonder whether that point is notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble seeing the point of the two links intending to say that Fox News is biased. The Guardian link clearly identifies the Fox News piece as "an opinion piece on the Fox News site."  The Mediaite link is about a commentator, not a reporter.
 * None of these two links are about the Fox News reporter who wrote the Baghdad story. Note, too, that both of these links cover different POVs.  That's pretty common for newspapers and TV.
 * If we were to toss out an entire publisher because they also include commentary then we'd have very few references from newspapers.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You take up an interesting viewpoint, so lets look into it. News papers is considered by Wikipedia RS to have editorial oversight on content they publish, but with some limitations in regards to Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces.
 * Doing a second search, I found this guardian columnists article talking about the fox news agenda, and mostly in regard to Bill O'Reilly. I do not think Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) actions should be viewed as outside the editorial oversight of Fox news. On other hand, is that enough to prove neutrality issues between Fox news and Wikileaks? I would regards it as so, but I would like to hear more opinions on this.
 * What affective editorial control Fox news had in regards to the original two links I found should be questioned. The guardian link do point (implicitly) towards the view that it was an opinion piece outside the the control of Fox news. Belorn (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Guardian comment that you just linked is an opinion piece published by The Guardian. The "comment is free" section is notorious for its radical off-the-wall commentary.  That doesn't mean those opinion writers are speaking for The Guardian.  Nor does it mean that The Guardian editors agree with anything they're saying.  It does not matter that they have editorial control.  They want differing opinions on their comment pages.
 * The same goes for Bill O'Reilly, who is *not* speaking for Fox News. His opinions are his alone.
 * And the same goes for the commentators that you're citing -- none of whom had anything to do with the *news* article that you're trying to get rid of.
 * Other news channels have their own paid political commentators, too. Their opinions do not necessarily agree with the position of the entire news channel.  It is not intended to reflect on their news reporting.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is any possible simple answer to your point Randy. No rule will tell us what to do in all cases. Both Fox and the Guardian are big news organizations with fact checking, so useable. Both can be described as partisan, especially on their blogs, but then again WP does not forbid us to use partisan sources, just to be careful to report them in a balanced way. If a comment from Fox is notable but potentially going to be argued as being partisan, then seek consensus. A simple way to get consensus in many cases is just to atttribute anything that a reasonable MIGHT think is partisan (According to Fox...).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is attributed to Fox News. But, technically, that shouldn't be necessary this time.  The reference is summarizing what named sources are saying.  Nobody is being confused about this being the military's position, and nobody argues that their spokesman is not being quoted accurately.  Had this been done right, we'd be saying "according to a military spokesman..." and then quote or summarize that.
 * This targeting of Fox News is a bit more absurd than usual.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no "targeting" of Fox News. The path to this point is well described above, where a complain was made on the talk, sources to support it was clear (at least initially), no one contested those sources (See diff response) but just responded by edit warring, and the rest can be seen here. It is a gray zone what to do now. I think the bias is clearly there, and that reader will trust the Wikipedia article less because that source is used.
 * But to go there, that would likely require an RFC and I do not think that its worth it yet. Maybe no consensus is the best way to go for now.
 * I have followed up the first response, excellently made by Fifelfoo. In areas where the source article does not actually support the claims, it should either be removed or the Wikipedia article should change to mirror what it says. I have removed the source where other sources disagree with Fox news, (like was the 2 men shot in the van, or as they were attempting to help Chmagh into their van). Since this is mid edit, more edits might be made. Belorn (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course there is targeting of Fox News. It's been going on for years.  The complaint you refer to came in from an intemperate anonymous editor whose edit summary says "Fox News isn't reliable source" and then calls the elected government of Iraq a "a puppet regime" even though the insurgents in this case had also opposed Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq.  You said your concern is that people trust what this article says, but who can trust any article written like that?  I certainly don't.
 * Your edit summary for the diffs says the Fox News article is a primary source, which is clearly not true.
 * Your nitpicking about the men in a van, as not being inside the van at the time they were shot, is an overreach. I take it as merely a description of the men, as compared to the other men who'd been on foot.  I can't see this as being anything other than a weak attempt to diminish Fox News.
 * I still don't know why you pick on Fox News's use of partisan commentators when other RS news organizations (NYT, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) do this, too. You need to explain that.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My 2 pennies: The others have imho a better reputation and are less known for (subtly) fudging stuff. However this may not matter in a specific case.However personally i wouldn't touch Fox News with a stick and there is usually a more reliable and accurate source available anyway.

Alien abduction sources
I've removed some sources from a couple of articles about alien abductions (here and here, among other places) because many of them are fringe, and all of them fail WP:RS. Yogiadept, who inserted them, disagrees, so I'm going to list them here to get other opinions if these are appropriate for our "information control system to keep the public misinformed and under educated about real events happening in the world".


 * UFO Magazine, hosted on Squarespace.com, a blog
 * "Summation of evidence," which starts off with "The UFO Phenomenon is real", part of a personal website.
 * Stories (1) and supposedly declassified so-called military documents (1, 2), hosted on the Computer UFO Network.
 * Youtube videos, including:
 * UFOs and Nuclear Base Shut Down 1 of 5, a WP:COPYVIO of the Larry King Show taken out of context and including commentary from Exopolitics.org.uk, a UFO entheusiast site
 * A purported interview with a supposed UFO witness (and part 2 and 3), hosted by the "UFOsamongus2 channel"


 * A self-published book on Scribd
 * More purported interviews with supposed UFO witnesses, hosted by Konsulting.com, a personal website run by "a father/son partnership" "hoping to provide an outlet for some UFO publications."
 * This essay from the Mutual UFO Network, that Yogiadept called a "local paper" and a "MUFON Report online," like it was a legitimate news agency.
 * Another purported interview, hosted on a Wordpress blog that describes itself as "a major resource to a global audience for UFO cases," dedicated "to bring a higher level of awareness regarding government knowledge, involvement and cover-up of these historic events."
 * A paper from the Omaha UFO Study group, which regards MUFON as reliable.
 * What Lurks Beyond: The Paranormal in your Backyard, by Jason Offutt, which takes various paranormal claims at face value, because the author "wanted to prove that the paranormal is not just in remote mountains of the Pacific Northwest, the lochs of Scotland, in some secret lab in Roswell, New Mexico, or deep in the jungles of South America."

Yogiadept has quit using Gods, Demons, and Space Chariots and Gods and Devils from Outer Space, books advocating theories about Ancient astronauts, but I welcome any comments on those as well.

Fnord, everybody. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * None of them come even close to meeting the requirements of WP:RS. None have undergone any serious form of editorial review or fact checking. None of them are quoted or cited in serious scholarly discussions on the topic. All appear to be notable only in-universe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All obviously way out on the fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From the same user; Aetherius Society looks like if you removed everything cited to Aetherius.org, there'd be hardly any article left. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear God, I'm going after that one with the pooper scooper next. I'm looking for some reliable sources out there on that group (which I kinda get the impression he's a member of), and I believe that we probably can have a (highly reworked) article.  The group appears to meet WP:NOTE ultimately.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The society is notable, but the level of detail cited to primary sources is, in my opinion, excessive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You may want to look over The Silence Group. Don't know how notable the topic is, but the use of bold quotes makes it seem like the encyclopedia is screaming a conspiratorial rant at the reader. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in it's current sources or on Google Books. Prodding that, too.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mental_Transmission
 * The Cosmic Concept
 * The Next Master
 * Shape Power
 * The Nine Freedoms
 * George King (Aetherius Society)
 * Mary King (The Magdala Centre/The Aetherius Society)
 * Bit of a walled garden here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bit of a walled garden here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns
So far I've found obvious copyvio (and a bit of pov editing) at three articles and left him warnings. I haven't cleaned up Baltic Sea UFO yet as RL intervenes but I will soon. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That one's fixed and recent material added, but I haven't done more checking for copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've merged most of the above articles to more appropriate venues, usually Aetherius Society. I've reverted the George King article to the state it was in before Yogiadept got ahold of it, and readded some of the acceptable edits that were there, with some more NPOV phrasing.  It could be That one I have gotten that involved in fixing the Aetherius Society article beyond gathering some Google books on the talk page.  I have not checked for copyright violation, but I'm not worried about George King so much as the AS article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of the stuff in the AS article (which reads as though it was written by the society, and I suspect that anyone named yogiadept may have a coi), doesn't belong in it. I've removed some stuff that wasn't linked to any reliable sources to show significance. Still needs a lot of pruning plus adding material from reliable sources -- right now the vast majority of the sources are the society itself. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Soraya Tarzi
An editor has been adding multiple sources to this article. I'm not sure who added a web page for the "Milton Keynes & Northampton Communists" but I removed that, plus a very large number of links to articles by this person (and this website). I'm now questioning this blog and this website of photographs. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Response
I would love better cites but, when I came across this article Soraya Tarzi, it had very few cites, especially for when the Queen, ripped off her veil in public in Afghanistan during a tribal meeting. Talk about brave! One cite might good but four cites from different POVs is better and more belivable.

Please see the article's edit summary history where I repeatedly express my concerns about the cites.

Also, in the talk page of the article under the first section, I address my concerns about POV of some of the sources early on. I say:


 * I added some need citation tags and will hunt for the original verifiable sources for the biography but it looks to be a needle in a hay stack. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the need citation tags and found cites but I am worried about POV and circular citations. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The History of Afghanistan By Meredith L. Runion and A History of Women in Afghanistan: Lessons Learnt for the Future or Yesterdays and Tomorrow: Women in Afghanistan By Dr. Huma Ahmed-Ghosh seem to be non-circular cites. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Cites
I added the communist's cite because I was worried about POV of the sources too close to the subject. Even communists in England are saying the monarch/queen was a notable person for women's liberation. When or where have you ever seen that?

The critic, Madeeha Syed, is from the region and the citation to a January 29, 2012 Urdu newspaper article she wrote was deleted, in addition to her website. Both newspaper article and website confirm her position on the text. Also, she and the Urdu newspaper are used as cites in four other Wikipedia articles (Although in full disclosure, only cultural articles).

Since I was very concerned about POV, I added multiple cites to support the text under the theory that if a professor in California, a US federal analyst, communists in England, and Muslims in the region are saying the same thing then at least one of the groups must have done original research to support the text. Which group is the best to support the text is anyone’s guess.

Solution
Dear Dougweller, Please see the above where I discuss my concerns about the cites and POV. Also, the critic's newspaper article. Furthermore, I would love to collaborate with you on this article so we can make a good article with great cites. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have worked very hard on this and that's appreciated, but we must follow WP:RS. I look at

Madeeha Syed's website which says "Madeeha has been a published music journalist/pop culture critic since 2005. She began commenting on fashion in 2008 but considers music to be her first and dominating love in the sphere of journalism." I note that she is working on the music of Pakistan. She might well be a reliable source for music and fashion in Pakistan, but I don't see how she qualifies as a reliable source for history. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Dougweller, Thanks for the compliment.


 * Let us agree that Madeeha Syed of Pakistan is a better cite to fashion and music and her Dawn newspaper article was her first foray into history reporting. The text of her newspaper article parrallels the text of A History of Women in Afghanistan. So, let us remove the cite in the article.


 * But, then we are left with needles in a haystack.


 * The text of Queen Of The Dessert: Soraya Tarzi, Queen of Afghanistan parallels the text of A History of Women in Afghanistan but website has the pictures of the royal family and is (seems) not be associated with the Tarzi Family. So, it is closer to a third-party source.


 * If that website is removed then The Tarzi Family & The Tarzi Family Historical Society would be the source of the pictures of the royal family. This is too close to the person in the article.


 * I believe in multiple cites for the report that the person of the article tore her veil off during a tribal meeting. The above cites are strong but, because the negative connotation of that act in today's Afghanistan is too great, without multiple sources that statement might not be believable.


 * But, I guess I am being too cautious about the biography of a dead person.


 * Referenece


 * Please tell me your thoughts in this matter. My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Unedited blogs are not appropriate sources for history, refer to WP:HISTRS for the appropriate sources for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Fifelfoo, Thanks. Please feel free to add more or different cites. Let us work together to make a good article with great cites. Also, I found a better cite for the mention of her descendant. See below.


 * Referenece

George Nafziger
Is this a reliable source for the Dhimmi article to state "Others opine that dhimmi imposed discrimination within Arab law and custom and inflicted severe hardship upon non-Muslim citizens"? It is used by the BBC.

Islam at War:A history, George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  21:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nafziger's doctorate and work is in military history, not social or economic history. Nafziger's opinion may be a mis-weighting—particularly as the Opinion of Others isn't inherently weighty.  Seek histories specifically of the dhimmi and non-muslims. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Allkpop
I am wondering if it is alright to use source articles from a popular blog/news site called Allkpop? The site started out as a blog site that later grew into a popular news portal for Korean pop music for non-Korean speaking people. However, I'm unsure because its reliability are still being put to question.

I'm unsure if using sources from this site on an article like the Wonder Girls is this is alright. But I believe that Allkpop is reliable here because JYP Entertainment, the group's management agency, are the ones who gave the information to the site. Also in the past, JYP Entertainment and its artists have been in touched with the site as these articles show1,2, and 3. It seems to be a good sign that they have a good relationship with this site and so they trust them enough to give details about Wonder Girls' new song. So is it alright to trust this site's reliability? Bleubeatle (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_125 says nope.
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121 very no due to BLP
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84 not answered (probably due to the date of the question).
 * I would follow these up by saying that gossip blogs are not suitable sources for BLP articles, or for any articles. I would strongly suggest other news sources (possibly in Korean). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I should've looked that up on the search bar before I posted it. Err..my bad.Bleubeatle (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries! You wouldn't expect k-pop to be a controversial sourcing area, but it is.  Just like (as below) you wouldn't expect heavy metal genres to be an area requiring the highest quality sources imaginable, but it is. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Metal Review
I could not seem to find a relevant discussion as to whether The Metal Review is a source that passes WP:RS but I was curious as to whether I could use this source. I would used it on both the relevant album page Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album) for album notability and the relevant band page for a musical style section Bring Me The Horizon. "'European, melodic death metal with black metal-styled vocals and a smattering of slow-and-heavy breakdowns.'" The kind of unbiased assessment of the band's heavy metal influences is very useful for the development of a musical style section. Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I can see metalreview.com gives all the appearances of a magazine with traditional editing, that merely happens to be published using blog software. They clearly divide user-generated content (ie: "comments") from edited content.  One of the problems is that these are reviews, specifically focused on the work.  The apparent depth of reviewing on this site is a good sign, in the sense that The Metal Review does appear to review "significant" works of metal only from a metal perspective.  What I'm not sure about is the notability or weight of the reviews—particularly on the ever controversial point of metal genres.  Sorry I can't be more indicative, but this isn't my strong suit. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Census data
This is less a question about whether this is appropriate and more about now to cite. I want to add in some information to a couple biographies using census data (1930 census mainly, possibly 1940 once it's fully up), but I'm neither sure how to cite it or what information to add. Of course the census itself and the city would be needed, and I would add the enumeration district and page number if needed; are the ward figures needed as well, or the website that has the census posted? Would there be anything else I'm forgetting that needs to be added? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give more detail, preferably as a concrete example. I don't understand which government's census you want to use for which claim on which article.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok; on Thurman Tucker, I'd at least like to add his parents in, since it was requested in the FAC. Found all family info in the U.S. census without a problem, it's just a question of whether or not adding that stuff is fine (I would only be using said data for these types of additions). Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 04:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the Census data online? If so could you provide a link to [those people you presume to be] the parents of [that person who you presume to be the person covered by our article] Thurman Tucker.  It would also help if you can demonstrate how you know these people to be _the_ parents of the Thurman Tucker who our article is about.  (FAC really ought to know better than this, could you please refer me to the FAC and why your, "Reliable secondary sources do not list his parents" rebuttal was rejected?) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trying to get the image uploaded of it, site's not cooperating right now. To answer the rest, there's only one Thurman Tucker listed as age 12 in Gordon Texas in 1930; can't get more exact than that with census data. FAC got promoted without it, was just something I noted. If I shouldn't be adding that in then I won't (obviously even if it was okay I'd limit it to non-BLPs, but that's neither here nor there). Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 05:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaaah. Okay, so there's one Tucker in Gordon Texas, and we have a copy of the census form for the Tuckers from 1930?  Easy.  I'd say that this is a reasonable use of a PRIMARY source, due to the simplicity of the connection and the fact that the source was produced by Tucker (or Tucker's parent) under the threat of State action if they lied.  I wouldn't expect this to be done regularly, or normally, or generally.  If there were multiple Tuckers and you didn't know for a damn fact they were in Gordon Texas during the census I'd suggest it was original genealogical research.  In future, I'd suggest that if it isn't held in the standard works regarding the subject, you tell FAC to go jump on a bike given that the article is complete and comprehensive according to the sourcing nature and adequately accounts for the WEIGHTY aspects of a subject's life.
 * Regarding the citation: The question is where and how the document is held, if it is held in US National Archives, etc. Even if you don't have a link to the document, if you have a link to the archival repository's documentary information, and the box and file number we can start there.  The citation would look like [US Department responsible at the time for producing the census] (1930) Census document of the Tucker Family, Household head XXXXX Tucker.  Held by [US Archival Authority Name] [US Archival office location] [Name of depositing authority (Usually the organisation or department that deposited the census data)] Series: [Series Name] [Series Number], Box: [Box Number] Item: [Item Number] File: [File Number] [if multiple pages, page number].  Or the equivalent.  Using citation templates will be a pain because archival sources are not standard, so I'd suggest we hand roll you a citation based on the most information you can provide about the document, how you came to acquire it, and who stored and deposited it. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably doesn't apply here, but it would also be important in other cases that the census information has been published (if it's on-line, of course, not a problem). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a fair deal of trust and faith in this case, but if we're talking about using "made available" PRIMARY sources for extrapolating self-identified ethnicity of dead persons, or "averaging" gender compositions, etc.; then I'm going to be firmly against. When it comes to naming the parents of a person when an editor who already FAC'd an article is going the extra mile, and we can clearly establish there's only one family of that name in the census region where we can establish the family lived by the use of other reliable secondary sources for that census, then I'm much more accepting.  The question is "how far is the bow bent" when a PRIMARY source from "made public" archives are in use?  Here the bow is barely strung at all, it is a reasonable, moderate use of a PRIMARY source under the direction of secondary sources that establish WEIGHT for the fact and the grounds for a moderate extrapolation of an individual specific fact.  In other cases it is like Odysseus murdering the suitors.  Fifelfoo (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

TheMetalForge
Ongoing debate/dispute about The Black Dahlia Murder (band)'s genre. Reliable sources (published/news) state the band is metalcore, and it seems to be mostly fans or the band itself (per press interviews) who want complete disassociation with "metalcore". Another user feels that http://www.themetalforge.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=161 is considered a reliable source to disassociate the band with the metalcore genre. In my view, this site not only fails WP:RS but also WP:NEWSBLOG. Additional input? --Danteferno (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No editorial policy, no editorial staff, no indication that "Simon" has Expertise in the meaning of WP:SPS. Not reliable for metal genres (an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary sources). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is being used as a source due to the interview contained within, and quotes from the band regarding the history of their genre classification. The use of the article is not to disassociate them entirely, but to specify the that "metalcore" properly refers to their earlier work ("Metalcore (early)"), as outlined by quotes from the band member in the interview, and consistent with the other sources, as well as consistent with the articles on the albums themselves. It is not being used in editorial context. Xombie (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what makes an artist competent to judge their own genre—if this has come up within the metal-genre-debate discussion before, could you indicate consensus that artists are competent to judge their own genre? I'm using the fairly clear model from literary criticism that regardless of authorial intention, it is the appreciation of the work that gives it its meanings and understandings in terms of genre. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

National Conference of Black Lawyers
Is this pdf linked to on the homepage of the National Conference of Black Lawyers a reliable source for the birthdate of Hugo Pinell? I cannot find his exact DOB in what would normally be considered "neutral" sources, however, it does correlate with his age noted in those sources. (I am not interested in citing the NCBL for any other information in the pdf.) Thanks! Location (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that the NBCL as a political advocacy body of long standing, official purpose, and obvious coherence would be suitably trustworthy for the date of birth for Pinell in a formally released document released under the organisation's name. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Location (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

idebate.org
I was instructed on talk for the spam blacklist to first start a discussion of this topic here. I hope that's correct. iDebate is an essential source for articles about university debating societies and international competitions. It recently absorbed the other major news source, as can be seen there. Unfortunately, it was blacklisted in 2007 because at the time it had only one editor, and she was believed to be spamming links. I'm not in any way affiliated with the site, but I think it's a valuable and reliable resource. For example, it hosts the up-to-date 8 list of past world champions and the current world rankings. I posit that these things are valuable to Wikipedia because they provide information vital to the existing articles on university debating societies such as the Yale Debate Association or Oxford Union. Because of flynn.debating's move to iDebate, and iDebate's current blacklisting, both those articles are out-of-date. Insofar as the world university debating championship is a major international institution with thousands of participants and much media attention in Europe and Asia, if not in the US, I think iDebate should be relabeled a reliable source. Wardpackard (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First, it must be recognized that we do not arbitrarily proclaim sources to be reliable or not; either they are reliable or they are not, based upon the definition of a reliable source set out in the verifiability policy and various supplemental guides. Second, the question, "Reliable for what?" must always be asked. iDebate.org might well be a reliable source for self-published information about that organization itself or its practices or activities, but it does not appear to be the kind of fact-checked source which can be used for information about third parties. Moreover, we prefer secondary sources over self-published ones whenever information is available in that manner and it would appear that most of the competitions actually held by IDEA itself are well covered in reliable news media accounts. To the extent that IDEA reports competition results from competitions held by clubs or organizations other than IDEA, it would not appear to be a reliable source for that information. Merely because third party information reported by iDebate is useful or important for Wikipedia articles is not enough, even if it is the only or best source for that information, unless iDebate meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source for third party information. It does not appear to do so. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that this classification is not arbitrary. I also completely disagree with your characterization of IDEA. To the best of my (pretty extensive) knowledge, it doesn't host any of the major competitions about which it provides vital information. For example, the World University Debating Championships, the European University Debating Championships, the North American Debating Championships, and a number of international conferences on debate pedagogy are all covered mainly by iDebate, but not in any way affiliated with IDEA. It's true that these events are covered by other sources, but for the most part those sources are blogs of considerably lower credibility than iDebate. When covered by the brick-and-mortar media, the coverage sources are usually university newspapers or media outlets in the host countries (i.e. not in English). The WP standard for a reliable source includes the following: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." To the debate community, iDebate certainly constitutes a respectable publication--thousands of people read it every day, and all of them have the ability to quickly and painlessly call factual errors to the attention of the editors. To the debate community, it is the most reliable source available. As far as "mainstream" goes, it seems to me this is a term that is inescapably arbitrary. It's true that iDebate is a specialized source for a certain value of specialized, but then so is ESPN. Insofar as Wikipedia has over fifty articles on university debate, and as iDebate is considerably more reliable than the sources currently used for many of those articles, I feel this really is a case of bureaucracy triumphing over sense. Wardpackard (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The iDebate website has different sections. We can't make a blanket ruling on it, but should judge case by case depending on what information it is to support. The blacklisting could be lifted. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully concur that we must judge case by case; as I said, "the question, 'Reliable for what?' must always be asked." @Wardpackard: Note that in "Material from reliable non-academic sources" (emphasis added) that "reliable" relates back to the preceding paragraph of WP:SOURCES which defines what "reliable" means in general. It also qualifies the subsequent reference to "respected mainstream publications". Therefore, the quoted phrase only really distinguishes between academic Wikipedia-reliable sources and other Wikipedia-reliable sources; it does not mean that "respected mainstream publications" are necessarily reliable. As for iDebate being a more reliable source than sources used in existing Wikipedia articles, it is entirely possible that those articles are not properly sourced and that the sources used there ought to be removed (and, indeed, if reliable sources cannot then be found to adequately source those articles, the articles themselves should then be deleted); but also see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bringing some of those instances up here at RS/N would be a good way to test whether iDebate might be reliable for some purposes. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Itsmejudith: I agree with that approach. @TransporterMan: Fair enough. For instance, the article on the World Universities Debating Championships currently cites just one source, a source that no longer exists due to its absorption into iDebate. Much of the history of the WUDC is summarized on iDebate, on the basis of old tournament packets which are not in general circulation in the present day. Obviously, some of this information may thus be dubious, but I see no reason why the article couldn't simply include a note on the somewhat problematic chain of transmission. Institutional lore ought to figure into an article about an institution, even if it may to a small degree be apocryphal. Similarly, I think it it would be useful to include in the same article a list of past champions, information available on the websites of some past hosts but aggregated by iDebate. (I obviously can't link to any of this because the site is blacklisted...) I think the logical consensus would be to lift the blacklist and let individual editors have the conversations about what is and is not acceptable. If I were to correct the woeful lack of citations on the WUDC page, there are a number of acceptable sources I could use, but not being able to use iDebate would leave a glaring hole. Wardpackard (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen
A question has arisen about the reliability and nature of a record by the California department of Consumer Affairs on the BLP noticeboard, relating to criminal convictions. Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimapia

 * See also - External links/Noticeboard Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've recently been commenting out references made to Wikimapia, because I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source.

The reason I don't think it qualifies is because it's user generated, and in past discussions 'user-generated' content hasn't been considered as 'reliable'.

What are the views of other people? (Please note that Wikimapia's use of Google Base Layer for it's dataset is a different issue entirly). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki does not cite wiki. There is a lack of appropriate review over edits to Wikimapia which means that we cannot consider it as a reliable source.  It may be valid for external links, you'd need to consult the external links people. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I already did that, see External links/Noticeboard, and got back a comment implying that it failed the criteria established by WP:EL. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * right, it has 5600+ potentially violating links. I'm proposing that this go to the large-scale clean-ups as a candidate.  I suggest that it be mooted for blacklisting in the meantime.  The blacklist is here. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The link for large scale cleanup requests being? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added it to the candidate list here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Large_scale_clean-ups; it would probably need to wait for one or two of the current clean-ups to clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For reference the usages are here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikimapia.org Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it a reliable source and so we should not use it as such by citing, etc. However, there may be very good reasons to link to it, just as a link to another WP page or a file on Commons. The problem is only if the link is to support some assertion. So, please do not blacklist it and please keep the bots in their kennels. Thincat (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't use bots, for instance, Wikimapia is a potential reliable source on Wikimapia. But in general, as Sfan00 IMG has demonstrated at WP:EL/N, it is an ELNO—and it certainly isn't like a link to a wikipedia or commons page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. I've been removing Wikimapia sources & ELs for many months, thinking that it was already ok to do so. Sorry if I have overstepped the mark by doing so. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some links I have seen may indeed be inappropriate&mdash;for example, one used to support a claim that two urban communities have now coalesced. I'm sure some thoughtful cleanup is useful. However, I do doubt the wisdom of blacklisting (if I understand it fully). Vast numbers of articles importantly link to http://toolserver.org/~geohack/ (an "unreliable" site"?) via geographical coordinates and this in turn links to "unreliable" sites such as http://www.wikimapia.org/ . If this is acceptable (and it is) then I do not see much sense in blocking a direct link. Thincat (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a fairly strong policy against supporting any single service via article specific external links. Why not add external links to google maps, open street map and open cycle map?  Users are mature enough to select their ISBN resolution service of choice, or their geolocation resolution service of choice.  We ought to supply the ISBN or geo code, and let users determine which service they prefer for themselves.  (Sfan00 IMG already made this precise argument in the EL/N discussion btw). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen the WP:EL/N discussion and don't really have a problem there. And I certainly think broad menus for ISBN and coord sources is a very good thing. However, if a book source is on Amazon but not Google Books we should link to the right place and such citations are ubiquitous. Can the same properly apply to mapping sites? Thincat (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to make an ELYES argument about additional information not available from other geolocators would be EL/N; but, I'd be very happy for you to report back here regarding the outcome of that one so it can be factored back into any large scale clean-up (which probably has to go ahead for reliability / prodding anyway). I am happy to go as far as "It isn't a reliable source," but I very much understand that external links do not have to meet wikipedia's reliability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks not be not a sourcing question at all, but one about ELs. I don't think we should have it in the candidate cleanups unless we see it frequently used as a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is used regularly as a source, Check the refs I've commented out in my contribs Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My removals - referred to above - have tended to be citations rather than ELs. Of course, most of my edits relate to India stuff and it may be some quirk that causes them to be used more often as sources in that sphere than perhaps happens elsewhere. Regardless, I doubt that it will take long to get things in order - if it takes a month or so then that is nothing compared to the time that most of these things have been sat there. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it does come under our remit. By the way, I don't know how to do the search for websites and what articles they appear in, as in the Answers in Genesis cleanup. Could we find an automated way to work out whether the web address appears in a section headed External links? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We may need to tout for toolsmiths. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... or give me a month to do it the hard way. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's that... there's that... but there's also the next 5000 unit external link problem. I can grep and sort non-Article space links from Article space links based on the current external links search, but I can't do much about where the object lies inside the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this article space only? - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, but the multiline output is less useful for group problem resolving over longer periods of time? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to provide an example of why Wikimapia should not be considered a reliable source: Recently, a small settlement (identified on no online maps, including Wikimapia) near Maarzaf, Syria, made the news as the site of the Al-Qubeir massacre. Within a day or so, there appeared on Wikimapia a polygon identifying a settlement at 35.17972°N, 36.55778°W as "Maarzaf Al-Qubair"; but about a day later another polygon appeared on Wikimapia at a somewhat different location, 35.17694°N, 36.51472°W, identifying a settlement as "Qubair Farm". (Both labels appear on Wikimapia to this day.) Which coordinates should we use on WP to identify the location of the settlement and event? Clearly the answer is "neither" unless some reliable and independent source is found to corroborate the actual location. Deor (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that Sfan00 IMG has been commenting out the references and links to wikimapia, but I have been removing them. I think it is difficult enough to go through so many articles once; I see no reason to do it twice, the first time commenting out and the second time deleting. Binksternet (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The intial commenting out rather than straightforward deletion is because in the past, 'deletions' have been challanged.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (Note) A previous disscusion on using coordinates from copyright sources was here -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Using_coordinates_from_copyrighted_map_sources Sfan00 IMG (talk)


 * Owing to certain comments in threads elsewhere, it appears that no consensus exists. I'm therfore reverting most of my attempted cleanup efforts, If other people feel WikiMapia links are not sutiable, please convince the rest of WikiPedia first.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)