Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132

[Mother Jones and Rolling Stone articles as RS sources in a BLP for a contentious claim
multilevel marketing.

Are the first two sources "reliable sources" in the context of a BLP? My belief is that opinion articles named Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them Back and Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney are opinion articles about the current political campaign and are not valid sources in a WP:BLP.

The first one is subtitled quite unsubtly '''Mormon country is rife with miracle-cure peddlers whose get-rich-quick schemes have boomed in the recession. One of the biggest beneficiaries of their campaign largesse? Mitt Romney. and Utahns have a joke about multilevel-marketing companies: MLM really stands for "Mormons Losing Money."'''  which I suggest indicates that it is not an "investigative article" as one editor has claimed.

The second is subtitled They're trying to buy a presidency - and they expect a big payoff on their investment and has But now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that upended decades of limits on campaign donations, financing a presidential race is the exclusive domain of the kind of megadonor whose portfolios make Mitt Romney look middle-class. which also looks a teensy bit like an opinion article and not one which presents "facts".

Forbes is the only WP:RS source for that edit that I find -- it does call the firm a "pyramid selloing organization" (not to be confused with "pyramid scheme, to be sure) and does not use the term "MLM" and then paints a picture of a person who shut down the original MLM, hired chemists, got 9 patents in the field, and does not load the people at the bottom with more than a $30 cost.  Thus Forbes is a valid source for the claim - but I suggest the other two do not meet the RS and BLP policy requirements.   And since the claim has been disputed in print by the company, it is clear that NPOV requires balancing claims even if SPS, which the other editor seems also to dispute.  I am not connected in any way at all to VanderSloot, the company or anything else here, directly or indirectly -- but I do tend to take the use of opinion articles for statements of "fact" to be a serious problem. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not opinion articles. They're investigative journalism.  This has been explained to you in the other venues to which you have brought this issue.  (In other words, have a look at WP:FORUMSHOPPING.)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Investigative journalism, over the years, has been notoriously the locus of writers cutting ethical corners for their causes. Mother Jones is not, by any standard whatsoever, a neutral source: when I went to the first article, I got a popup from the magazine asking me to make a donation to "[h]elp us fact-check the right wing... before Election Day." I submit that they have to be treated as a hostile source, albeit one that as a rule does good work. Nonetheless I would never give them a pass as a presumed reliable source.


 * It would help a lot if we knew for whose biography this was intended as a source. If we're talking Romney, then I would say the few raw facts of who exactly made donations to his campaign are about all that I would accept this article to corroborate. Other than that, it's something of a smear job: MLM in general and Nu Skin in particular are several steps below ethically questionable, but the connection to Romney is tenuous.


 * I see some problems with the Rolling Stones article as well. For example, it makes a tie between Steven Webster and the Deepwater Horizon disaster that is true on one level but which is also plainly intended to imply a responsibility which I would have to question, Webster's company having been absorbed by Transocean long before the accident. RS isn't as overtly political as MJ but this does not strike me as an entirely neutral article. But again, I need a better picture of the context before I can give a more complete answer. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Individual sources do not have to be "neutral"; in fact there's a reasonable argument that no source is ever neutral. Neutrality is important at the level of Wikipedia articles, per NPOV -- our articles should reflect the presentation of a topic in existing sources, which have different points of view.  Simply put, "reliable" does not equate to "neutral".  As for your dismissal of investigative journalism (on the basis of "cutting ethical corners", no less), I'd be surprised to learn that this is a widely held view here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources which are not neutral, however, are limited as to the scope of how they can be used. As I think should be clear, I would tend to trust MJ and RS for raw factual reporting; the analysis is another matter. Also, my more abstract problem is that there is no clear line between investigative journalism and advocacy. MJ has always straddled that border, and therefore I find in necessary to be cautious with material published there. Why don't you tell us what the context of this is and then I can give a better answer, and leave off the exaggeration of my qualms. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Investigative journalism, over the years, has been notoriously the locus of writers cutting ethical corners for their causes."
 * Lamentable perhaps, but what does that have to do with Mother Jones? At best it's irrelevant and at worst it's a veiled accusation that Mother Jones' Washington Bureau correspondent Stephanie Mencimer (the author of the article in question) was guilty of cutting ethical corners. That's a big charge. It's also completely unsubstantiated as far as I can tell. Mother Jones has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WPs entry says: "Mother Jones has been nominated for 23 National Magazine Awards and has won six times, including for General Excellence in 2001,[2] 2008,[3] and 2010.[2] In addition, Mother Jones also won the Online News Association Award for Online Topical Reporting in 2010[4] and the Utne Reader Independent Press Award for General Excellence in 2011.[5] That said, the source may lean liberal, but that does not in any way preclude citing it. Many well-respected and widely cited journalistic sources lean to the right or left; Wall Street Journal comes to mind as a good example on the other side of the political spectrum, and there are many others.


 * Furthermore, Mencimer's article has been cited by several other reputable sources, for example the excellent investigative piece that appeared in Harper's Magazine, which is also highly respected. Not only that but she is cited in dozens of articles throughout Wikipedia.


 * Lastly, the only detail in question -- that Melaleuca is an MLM -- is common knowledge and the company has been referred to as such by numerous reliable sources across the spectrum, including the FTC, MLM experts, journalists, and even the company's own executives. Like Nome said above, all of this has been explained to Collect already by several editors in multiple venues (i.e., multiple talk page threads and the BLP noticeboard). and now he is simply forum shopping. The entire premise of Collect's thread title is flawed. The simple statement of fact that Melaleuca is an MLM is not contentious; it is more than amply supported, and Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones is clearly a WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the little detail about the pop-up ad has no bearing on WP:RS or WP:NPOV in this case. Mencimer's article originally appeared in the print edition of the magazine, which doesn't contain pop up ads, and no pop-ad comes up with the direct link to the article in question. It's a red herring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect: "Forbes is the only WP:RS source for that edit that I find"
 * You know that's not true. I provided multiple sources already and you know it. Playing the game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT still? Rhode Island Red (talk)

Ugh. What article is this? What content is being cited to these two sources? And why do I get the feeling that everyone who's posted in this thread so far is involved in this dispute? Look, guys, the point of posting at RSN is to get outside advice, not to fill up this noticeboard with partisan bickering. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. Just wanted to make sure that a few misstatements didn't distort the issue. Thanks for looking into it. The article in question is Frank Vandersloot and Collect was initially challenging the notion that Vandersloot's company "Melaleuca" is a MLM company. After he raising the objection, he was presented with a long list of sources that confirm the fact. At least 4 other editors have looked into this since Collect raised his objection and all agree that the sources leave no room for doubt about the validity of using the MLM designation. For some reason though, Collect is still insisting that Forbe's magazine is the only source that refers to Melaleuca (indirectly) as an MLM. Seems to me that the challenge about the reliability of Mother Jones is a red herring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * O-Kay. I have to agree with RiR, and I would add that the concurrence of Forbes and MJ pretty well cinches this. I also see a lot of other sites which monitor MLM companies, and they come to the same conclusion. I don't see a reason to exclude the MJ article on that basis. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the horrible formatting of this notice (Which sould contain both the claim as written and the actual reference being used in a form that can be easily accessed) this request seems to simply ask, are sources "reliable sources" in the context of a BLP? Well, why wouldn't they be? How does a BLP article change RS of a source? No, what should be asked is simply "are the claims being made referenced with RS per BLP policy?" Since there is no claim that I can find in this discussion and it does appear to be a continued dispute I am closing this as malformed and a dispute to be settled on talk page or through DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification regarding a primary source
The Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief and Civil Monetary Penalties Under the Commodities Exchange Act, filed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to the Illinois Eastern Division District Court. It is used for the BP article to state the fact the complaint was filed against BP Products North America, Inc., a subsidiary of BP plc, and its traders. The quote:

"The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused BP Products North America (subsidiary of BP plc; former Amoco Oil Company) traders with conspiring the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004."

The company name was replaced with "BP" with edit summary: "reverted per WP:SECONDARY... we don't prefer court documents." This is true that secondary sources talking mainly (although not entirely) about BP. However, the question is if the complaint filed to court is reliable source about the defendant name in this context. The relevant policy says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." By my understanding, the defendant's exact name is that kind of straightforward fact that could be verified by the court file. However, comments on this issue are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a link to the edit. Without seeing that one cannot know whether your edit is correct.  In general however, we are allowed to make limited use of primary sources and this seems to one of them - providing a more accurate description of the defendant.  TFD (talk)


 * This is not a matter for RSN. The issue is one of tone, weight and balance, not the reliability of sources: should a US court case be primarily attributed to BP, the multinational corporation, or to BP's US-based subsidiary? My take on it is that the naming of the subsidiary should be, uh, subsidiary to the main company. Here's my suggested version:
 * "The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused several BP traders and BP's US-based operations (BP subsidiary BP Products North America Inc., formerly Amoco) with conspiring to fix the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004."


 * As you can see it is a minor issue, one that is suitably covered at Talk:BP, (IMO a too-long header). All of the sources are being discussed; none are being thrown out entirely. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of RSN. It may be a minor issue, but it is the principle issue as the edit summary "reverted per WP:SECONDARY... we don't prefer court documents." makes it clear that reliability of the court document was contested. So, it is the general question if the filed complaint is reliable source for defendant name or nor. My request has nothing to do with discussion about tone or weight and these issues should be discussed at the article's talk page, not here. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For an actual person, court documents are not ok. For a corporation, there is no set policy I can see. WP:BLPPRIMARY says: "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." WP:BLPGROUP provides some guidance on whether BLP issues apply to groups; for a company like BP, I would think not. But the issues with primary sources still exist for court records. They have to be interpreted and summarized, something we are not supposed to do. They have also not been through a notability filter, unlike secondary tertiary sources. Churn and change (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is clear about living persons. My question is about interpredation of WP:PRIMARY statement: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."  The question is if the defendant's (corporation) exact name is that kind of straightforward fact that could be verified by the complaint filed to the court.  By my understanding it is, but any comment explaining implementation of this principle is welcome. Beagel (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods vs. Rolling Stone Magazine
The article Smithfield Foods currently contains material and quotes from Jeff Tietz sourced to this article in Rolling Stone Magazine, including the specific line "Jeff Tietz writes that the waste, a mixture of excrement, urine, blood, afterbirths and stillborn pigs, drugs and other chemicals, overflows when it rains, and the liners can be punctured by rocks." I can find no indication that Tietz is a Reliable Source for this specific topic. Furthermore, the article Tietz penned reads like something between an Op-Ed column and a deliberate attack piece. While company articles are not considered as sensitive as BLPs, we still have standards for content that apply to all articles on Wikipedia. The question for this noticeboard is whether or not Tietz and his article can be considered RS for Smithfield Foods? Thanks for your time and attention, Doc  Tropics  17:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliability normally relates to the publication, rather than the author. Usually signed articles in news publications will contain opinions.  Essentially the problem with the article is neutrality not sourcing, and I will look at the talk page discussion.  TFD (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Such wording in any article pushes it utterly into the "opinion" category, and opinions are not "facts." Use of opinions as "fact" is a major problem on many articles. Collect (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We can include opinion, provided it is attributed. In other words, the fact we are including is "XYZ says ABCD" not ABCD itself. Churn and change (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Social Media Manager for Smithfield Foods (User:Kkirkham) has arrived at Smithfield Foods, and has asked Doc Tropics to make edits for him. Kkirkham only recently acknowledged being the Social Media Manager; before that, he said he was an employee who had come here to learn about his employer. Kirkham tried to add two bulleted lists to the top of the article to move material the company doesn't like lower down, an old trick that PR people have acknowledged using. Doc Tropics is acting at Kirkham's request, has tried to remove criticism, and has added the POV tag, also at Kirkham's request.


 * The source Doc Tropics wants to remove is a five-page investigative piece from 2006 by Jeff Tietz for Rolling Stone – "Boss Hog" – a detailed article that includes some key facts about the company, and identifies the key criticism often made against it (the article focuses on environmental pollution, but also deals with the treatment of animals and workers). It's a valuable source for the article because it clearly outlines the issues, and there are no grounds within the policies for removing it.


 * This particular article won the Genesis Award in 2006. The writer, Jeff Tietz, has been nominated four times for a National Magazine Award, once for the Pushcart Prize, and has once been a Livingstone Journalism Award finalist. In addition to Rolling Stone, the articles that won or were nominated for awards appeared in The New Yorker and Harper's.  SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Have there been responses to Tietz's article? Have editors made good-faith attempts to locate and include them? Churn and change (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of Doc Tropics and Kkirkham having looked for responses. I think that is not what they are there for; the aim seems to be to remove the criticism, not add responses to it. I have more than once asked the Smithfield Foods rep to identify anything inaccurate in our article, so that I can fix it or find responses, but he hasn't done so.


 * I can only repeat that the Tietz piece is a valid piece of investigative journalism written by an experienced journalist, and that it highlights issues that are often highlighted about Smithfield Foods (the environmental issues in particular). We should not remove investigative journalism at the request of paid advocates or their supporters. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. We should always remove inappropriate content from articles, no matter who requests it. The goal is to produce fair and balanced articles, not to "stick it to them" because we can. A major concern at this point is that Slim Virgin is acting as custodian of the article, despite her well-known position as an animal rights activist. She has reverted every single edit I made attempting to bring more balance to the article. There is a strong appearance that SV has taken ownership of the article and insists on maintaining unbalanced negative content. In short, she is part of the problem. The only question for this board though, is the article "Boss Hog" a reliable source for the article "Smithfield foods"? So far the responses here have tended towards the negative and I am leaning towards its removal. Thanks for your time and attention. Doc  Tropics  23:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but that is incorrect. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize accurately the subject. "Fair and balanced" are not standards for use. What is fair? Fair is to accurately use sources to make claims. Balance is ony towards what is mainstream in academic circles on the subject. We do not elevate every opinion or side, regardless of how small.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let me tend toward the positive, then. Rolling Stone is a respected, award-winning, reliable, in our meaning of the word, mass media source. The cited sentence seems like a clear statement of fact, rather than opinion. The is no "I guess", or "I have heard" or "it might". I can find no justification for Collect's thesis that it must be an opinion. Since it does seem to be contentious, we should probably cite it to Rolling Stone - this is done. I fully support Slim Virgin here. --GRuban (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, reply to Churn and change) It appears as though the article has been referenced by a handful of "animal rights" or "healthy living" type books, and Smithfield found it important enough to responded to it here. Given the author's credentials and the fact that the article was published in Rolling Stone and it received or was nominated for various awards, it seems reliable/important enough for at least inclusion of opinion on some details and of fact on others. Location (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make clear, in response to Doc Tropics comments, that I am not an animal rights activist, or any other kind of activist (on or off Wikipedia). I'm here as a Wikipedian. I didn't write the Smithfield article. I've made just 68 edits to it in over five years. I didn't originally add Teitz as a source; it was added here, though I may have been the editor who added Tietz's description of the lagoons. I'm also not the article's "custodian," but I don't want Smithfield Foods to become that custodian either, whether directly or by proxy. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I found one source here ("An Analysis of Pork Production in Virginia: Production vs. Protection" inside the page) which covers both Tietz's article and Smithfield's response. You could probably use that as the source (its basic conclusion seems to be Smithfield is bad for the environment but acting to restrict them would be bad for Virginia's economy). The paper, best I can see, is not published in a journal, but it has been published in a fairly notable college's main site on "Environmental Studies->Student involvement' indicating significant vetting and an editorial-check process. Incidentally seems like Smithfield's response was also published in Rolling Stone as a "Letter to the editor" in 2007. One more: Google book, p. 106. Still another, focusing on Mexican hog production, but refers to this as well: A faculty member's report I think these sources should be used instead of Rolling Stone, a magazine non-neutral for political views, and not much of an RS for environmental facts (yes, I know it has die-hard fans, so I guess I will avoid getting into that argument). Churn and change (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The first article you mentioned looks like an unpublished student paper. There's no need to find alternative sources to Rolling Stone. It's a reliable source and we don't remove investigative journalism just because companies don't like it. Of course they don't like it. We can add Smithfield's response if it touches on issues that we include in the article. If it doesn't we can add it to the Tietz footnote for now, and develop the article so that we cover the issues Smithfield responded to. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that I posted a request on the talk page to the Smithfield rep to identify the errors in the article so they can be fixed (he says there are "many falsehoods" in it), but Doc Tropics has advised him not to respond.  SlimVirgin (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a bit concerned as to AGF on the company rep claim. Unless KKirkham proves KKirkham is who KKirkham says KKirkham is, I think we should avoid references to a Smithfield rep. Churn and change (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is off track
The concern of this noticeboard is in regards to reliable sources only. While there are certainly many things that can be discussed about the subject, much of this belongs on the talkpage or Dispute Resolution Noticeboards. A question has been asked and Slim Vigin supplied the correct answer. There are three criteria for relaible sources:


 * the piece of work itself (the article, book),
 * the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
 * and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

The next consideration is context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. The article "Boss Hog" is not an opinion piece, but straight journalism, regardless of its strong wording. The author is a known and award winning journalist, Jeff Tietz. The cited source publication is Rollingstone, which has full editorial oversite with fact checking.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

http://publicintelligence.net/
This was raised before at. "Public Intelligence is an international, collaborative research project aimed at aggregating the collective work of independent researchers around the globe who wish to defend the public’s right to access information. We operate upon a single maxim: equal access to information is a human right. We believe that limits to the average citizen’s ability to access information have created information asymmetries which threaten to destabilize democratic rule around the world. Through the control of information, governments, religions, corporations, and a select group of individuals have been able to manipulate public perception into accepting coercive agendas which are ultimately designed to limit the sovereignty and freedom of populations worldwide." So it's an aggregator of sorts. We use it for a number of articles., including List of Bilderberg participants where I think we need a better source.

Should it be used for anything? If so, how? Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry this did not get answered for you before Doug Weller. No. This should not be used on Wikipedia as a source of any kind. Besides being a tertiary source, aggregating information from "independent researches" (yeah...Wikipedia editors are "independent researchers") it is also "an attempt to compile and defend public information using software and methods which are open source and available to the public at large". It is a self published source as defined:"This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is anything of value it can be traced back to its original publisher, author etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource as a source?
Some time ago, after searching for sources, I deleted the section Zhang Xianzhong which had an old fact tag (as of today, 3 years old). It was restored today with no sources and I removed it again. It's been restored again, with wikisource as one source and something which says it is sourced from the "CDC forum" as the other. In fact, if you look at the talk page there are general complaints about the sourcing of this article. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points:


 * Wikisource is an amazing resource in general. There are so many useful things there.


 * You can go and edit Wikisource yourself right now and change what Isaac Newton said (maybe add something about Cheese as well..).


 * So Wikisource is no more reliable than Wikipedia itself, and certainly not WP:RS. It is useful as a look-up resource but not WP:RS given that it may have changed in the last day... or whoever dowloaded material there may have obtained it from a less than reliable website. Who knows where the material came from. And the volume of the material is often so large that it is not at all clear if people check all of these ancient documents there line by line. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Speaking generally, I think that wikisource should be viewed with extreme suspicion as a reliable source. Several years ago there was a user here who specialized in obscure Buddhist topics.  He wrote in an overwrought and incomprehensible style.  Eventually he was indeffed on original research and WP:COMPETENCE grounds.  At the time he was also active at wikisource, where he produced similarly florid translations of Sanskrit and Classical Tibetan works.  Essentially he was creating translations of dubious quality and faithfulness to the original - translations that few people are qualified to verify - and then using them to cite his original research on wikipedia.  I've had a sour taste in my mouth for wikisource since then.  This sort of circular loop makes it way too easy to game our content policies.  Skinwalker (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We seem to be having a heated agreement on this one. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this quite extraordinary. Why is someone questioning a source that is a well-known piece written in Qing Dynasty as a legitimate source? Hzh (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to use a WP:Secondary source. Then all the discussion goes away. History2007 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That account is not a primary source. It was written about a hundred years later about the event. Hzh (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then by itself it is old, and is still necessary to use "modern scholarship". History2007 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can understand what you said - you cannot quote in wiki something written by ancient historians like Herodotus or Sima Qian? Hzh (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can quote that Becher wrote on Phlogiston in a historical context, but many things may have happened since then. And if your only Becher source is Wikisource that is a no-no, because Wikisource content may have been downloaded from some web site of unknown quality. So just find a 2003 book by a well known publisher and use that as a summary. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That wasn't what you said, you are now trying to shift the argument to reliability of wikisource. You claimed that only "modern scholarship" on old history is to be used.  So let me try to get this right - the great majority of pages on Chinese history relies on ancient texts like Hanshu, Zizhi Tongjian or Shiji, you are saying that if you can't find sources with "modern scholarship" on those, they must be deleted?  Hzh (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My objection was two fold: the lack of modern scholarship and the use of Wikisource. So as a start, forget Wikisource. Then add modern scholarship that cites the 1600 or 1700 source, and add a link to a book that includes the 1700 source. A 1753 source may have been shown to be a forgery in 1983 paper or a 1755 source saying something different may have been found in 1985. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I want you to state categorically if this is what you mean - ancient texts like Hanshu, Zizhi Tongjian or Shiji (or those by Roman, Greek historians, or old Muslim historians, etc.) cannot be used on wiki as a source, and that those without "modern scholarship" must be deleted? You can happily delete away thousands of pages on Chinese history if this is what you mean. The reliability of wikisource here is entirely a red herring.  Show that this source used is actually incorrect.Hzh (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Step 1: Forget Wikisource. I will not discuss it any more.

Step 2: if you have no modern scholarship that supports a 1753 source you quote, I would tag it and if you find no modern scholarship then delete it. I would do that for physics as well as history if it is 2 pages or 200,000 pages makes no difference. You need modern scholarship that supports ancient sources, as well as a reference to the ancient sources. That is my view. Now I will stop and type no more on this. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the wiki guideline on this, the requirement for modern scholarship and all that? (You went from secondary source to modern scholarship without any explanation).  If it is only your personal opinion, what validity does it actually have?  If a person quote Herodotus with link to the quote, that is not allowable without "modern scholarship"? Do you actually think that there is "modern scholarship" on every bit of ancient history?  Most of those are simply repeated verbatim without any analysis, why do you think that is somehow more valid that the actual source itself? Hzh (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See here, then search for "Try to cite present scholarly consensus". Also WP:SCHOLARSHIP, etc. The whole page should be read. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are evading the issue. No modern scholarship stated, certainly nothing about not using ancient texts as a source.  And it says "scholarly consensus WHEN AVAILABLE, recognizing that this is OFTEN ABSENT" (indicating that it isn't actually an absolute requirement).  What consensus can there be anyway when a lot of modern writers simply repeat what's written in ancient texts?   It looks like a lot of what you said actually aren't in the wiki guidelines, and they are just your personal opinions. Hzh (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why Hzh won't or can't provide a source, but I am not going to argue with him on my talk page which is what he is trying to do. As I said there, if it's well known, then it should be easy to find a source. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did provide a source, but you chose to involve other people questioning wikisource's validity, without actually giving any reason why you think that source is false. Hzh (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let us forget Wikisource. Just find a few good source say from 1999 to 2012 and use those. That is all. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see there are now three sources. (open-lit.com),  (a Google book), and  (sourced to something that translates as a forum). I don't read Chinese and web translators aren't enough for me to see what these are. We can use foreign language sources, but they need to give at least the same information we'd expect for English sources, eg full title of a book, author, date of publication, page number, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what your point is. Look at the reference - there is the title, the author, and year of publication, page number, everything you want is there. If your complaint is that the it isn't in English, then say so. I don't think it is right for me to translate a book title, but I will do it if this is what you want.
 * Going back to the deletion - you claimed that you have tried to find sources but can't, now you are actually admitting that you can't read Chinese, the fact is that there are plenty of sources in Chinese, so you complaint is, in essence, if it isn't in English, it doesn't exist? China has a very long history, a lot of Chinese historical material are rarely discussed by non-Chinese scholars, so as far as you are concerned, none of them exist?  I find the sheer arrogance simply astounding.  There are in fact sources in English, for example here something written by John Derbyshire - see page 180-181, but John Derbyshire is a political polemicist, and I don't really want to use him as a source on history. Hzh (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, foreign language sources are fine but they must be reliable and fully cited (so that a Wikipedian reading that language can verify them just as we can verify an English source).
 * On the main topic of discussion here, our practice is well established. We can of course cite primary sources, but we as Wikipedians do not evaluate them and interpret them in modern terms. That's why citing primary sources is never enough for us. We always need modern secondary sources, and we start from them. That's one big way in which Wikipedia pages differ from academic articles, which often start from primary source material. They are doing it for us, you might say! And rew D alby  08:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm getting tired of Hzh's attacks on me and claims that I am saying things I'm not saying or supporting. What I originally reverted had an old fact tag and one source which still doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. Hzh restored it saying it was well known, which is not a good reason to restore uncited material. And if it is well known, then there will be modern secondary sources, that's what 'well known' means. I agree we shouldn't use the material by white supremacist John Derbyshire. And yes, I'd like the book title, etc in English as well for both. We ask for translations to verify ("When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy") so translating a book title, etc seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked you specific questions about your rationale for deletion (like whether you doubt that the poem was strongly associated with Zhang), you refused to answer them. You made points which don't make sense (like complaining that the book doesn't have author or book title when it clearly does), saying that you tried to find references when it appears that you only look for English reference (yes, you can delete half the pages on Chinese history if that is your rationale).  You claimed that the Chinese website is a forum when it isn't (it actually gave a fairly good account of the poem), so it would appear that you deleted something without any clear understanding on what the sources are.  You questioned whether a well-known piece in wikisource is reliable, I have found you a separate source for that piece (and if the text of the book is available on different sites that should tell you that it is in fact legitimate, and your original point about whether wikisource is legitimate or not is a red herring.)  You haven't been able to support your deletion with anything apart from not knowing Chinese and can't check the content of the links given in the page, and that isn't a good reason at all. Hzh (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying here that histories written by ancient historians are primary sources? Then that would lead to the problem of sourcing.  A lot of Chinese histories aren't discussed by Western historians, and modern Chinese historians often simply quote the ancient historical records verbatim anyway, so the only information are in fact from those ancient historical texts.  Since you are saying that those should not be accepted by themselves in wiki,  you will have huge problem with wiki pages on Chinese history because a large number of them are simply translations of ancient texts, even greater number contain huge chunks of the translations. Hzh (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You were haranguing me on my talk page after I took this to RSN and expecting almost instance responses. I used Google books search to look for sources, don't blame me if it doesn't turn anything up. The translation at the bottom says "The source: CDC Forum " and you still have given no rationale as to why whose actual  source seems to be the section that translates as forum and looks like a forum, . It doesn't appear to meet our criteria but I'm happy to listen to an argument saying it is. I'm not sure why you are saying that the source isn't a forum, have I misunderstood what it says at the bottom of the page? And again, my deletion was of unsourced material, you have added those sources since I deleted the original entry and yours, so please don't suggest that I've deleted the current version, I and others are discussing not my deletion but your sources. Our policy on primary sources of course applies no matter what the language, but that is a slightly different dispute and right now let's just try to clarify what the sources are before getting into that. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the result from Google books if you search for the Seven Kill Stele in Chinese - Seven Kill Stele, that is hardly no hits. Here I find in Google Books in English reference to the Kill Stele, again, that's not nothing.  If you search for Zhang Xianzhong in English you get these hits Zhang Xianzhong, and one of these you'd find description of him cutting off feet here which presumably was what you wanted the citation for.  So the claim that nothing can be found on Google book is patently false. I asked you which bit was the one you had problem with, the cutting off of feet or the Seven Kill Stele but you refused to answer.  Since I can easily find references to both in Google Books, the issue is certainly not with the existence of sources, whether they be in Chinese or English. The point is that I asked you for explanations, but you either refused, or gave answers that don't actually explain anything, and are actually false.  Hzh (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going out, but I found nothing, and please don't suggest I'm lying. A better search, or even a search from another country (odd as that might seem it seems to be the case) can turn up stuff. But I tried. If you asked me something on my talk page I might well have ignored it because it felt like you were haranguing me and I'd already told you I'd raised it here. I'll look at your searches sometime in the next 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a false narrative, I asked what the problem is in the very beginning, and if you haven't noticed, this discussion is titled "Wikisource as a source?", nothing about the questions I asked, and you never answered my questions here. Just in case that you might complain you can't see the links in Google Books, here are the only two in English on the Seven Kill Stele worth mentioning (the others are probably unrelated, but it doesn't mean that there are only two there since this is a translated term and the search result can be different if you use different translations) - 1) Civilizing Chengdu: Chinese urban reform, 1895-1937, 2) The journal of Asian studies, Volume 41 - this one doesn't display the relevant page, but this is the snippet given - "In a major research essay, Hu Shaoxi disputes the common view that Zhang Xianzhong depopulated Sichuan. Many accounts exaggerated the number killed, created a nonexistent massacre, doctored the famous stele of "seven kills," ignored ...".  It's brief, but that the stele is described as "famous" in an academic article showed it is indeed something well-known. I hope this settles it, and I see no further point in continuing this discussion with you, I will just make some improvement to the page when I have the time.  Hzh (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of being called a liar, however you pretty it up, 'false narrative' means lie. There has been no need for all this aggression, all you were asked for is sources that meet our criteria. It was a reasonable request and per policy, no matter what you think. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hzh, the concept of primary source is complicated in the real world, and Wikipedia uses it a bit strangely, which makes it twice as complicated. One of the reasons we use it strangely is because different academic fields have slightly different ideas about the concept, and we have to use the same rules for everything from archaeology to zoology. To answer your questions:


 * All those old sources are primary sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
 * You are permitted to use primary sources (carefully). Sometimes, in fact, the primary source is the best possible source.

You might find it useful to read WP:USEPRIMARY to get a summary of how we use these words and what the consequences are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it confuses more than it clarifies. In there its says that a book written 150 years after a 200 years old event is a secondary source, but the text referred to in this discussion was written about 100 years after the event, so it is not actually contemporary to something that happened.  It also says historical reports are secondary sources.  Unless I missed it, it doesn't say anything old are necessarily primary.  For example, Sima Qian's Shiji is an account of the history of China from the thousands of years ago to his day, Sima Qian used old records and books and a variety of sources including interviews, some of these you might consider primary sources, but surely his accounts of older history are secondary?  He checked his sources and assessed their accuracy and validity, analyzed, and commented on the subjects he wrote on, and that, according to the link you gave, is what is done in a secondary source, and not primary.  If something old is considered primary, then the legitimate question would be - how old is old? Hzh (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:HISTRS works purporting to be "histories" before the Rankean methodological revolution are not acceptable sources for history in almost all circumstances, and works published after the Rankean methodological revolution faded out of date. In relation to history, almost all "old" works are primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to press on this point, but the link doesn't say what you said. I'm quite happy to accept if historians do think historical writings by ancient historians (pre-mid 19th century?) are primary sources, but it doesn't say that in the link. Hzh (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's already in WP:PRIMARY as well; "Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have different understanding of what "historical documents" means there. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we are getting somewhere, it's actually in the notes: "ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings;", so presumably that would include Herodotus or Sima Qian. Doesn't answer the question of how old is old though, and doesn't necessarily support the previous assertion that pre-Ranke would be considered primary.  Hzh (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo has a good point actually. And as a side note, given that source language has been an issue, how about asking a few of these people: Translators_available to take a look at the sources - specially if modern sources are found. There are a few people on that list. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't treat Sima Qian any differently than we do Herodotus. We can (with attribution of course) report what they say appropriately, but we can't use them for a statement of historical fact... [message of 12:20, 12 September 2012‎ Dougweller probably] - oops, where is signbot when you want it? Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A few people have effectively said the same thing now about old sources. So unless Hzh is aiming for the Nobel prize in persistence or something like that here, should just accept that and move on. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that there are plenty of people who will assert something to be rules in wiki, but when challenged, can't produce the evidence, which appears to be the case here. In any case, there never was any attempt to present what's written by historians (ancient or modern) as solid fact, I normally say "according to..." "it was said that...", "XYZ claimed that..." etc.  Hzh (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for you to explain how " whose actual source seems to be the section that translates as forum and looks like a forum, " meets our criteria as a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'm still waiting for you to explain all the other things I raised, which you have steadfastly refused to answer, or make claims which turned out to be untrue, or make false narrative of what happened. If you are interested, I missed the part at the end of that article, it was published as an article by a news website, but apparently from a forum, but not the forum you claimed.  Presumably they checked the content and thought it fine to be published.  Now that's sorted, will you now come clean? (I thought the whole thing is settled, there are valid sources, you were mistaken, end of story, but if you want to take the discussion further, I am happy to obliged.) Hzh (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, on second thought, I think this is the end of discussion, given that as I already indicated a couple of times that there is nothing more to be discussed on the issue, and any further discussion will be about you or me which is neither appropriate nor worthwhile. Hzh (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a forum, I zapped it. As for Hzh's accusations against you Dougweller, there are 3 steps: 1. shrug shoulders, 2. shrug shoulders 3. forget about it. You can not take those seriously. I would not. History2007 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you still insist it is a primary source. No matter how many people said it, they (and you) still need to give a link that says what they (or you) claim to be true. So far I can only find something on ancient work, and an 18th century piece is not ancient. Hzh (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not just me who says that, it is all those other users, as you have noted yourself, and they have provided links. History2007 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are going round in circles. As I already noted, the links don't say what they claimed they say. You have to provide evidence, there is no point in giving links that doesn't corroborate what they (or you) say.  This is the end of the discussion because I don't see people providing actual evidence, just opinions. Hzh (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. This needs to end now. Here is the overview of this thread and some clarifications.

"[S]elf-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated"
 *  Wikisource  is an unacceptable source to use on Wikipedia for the same reason Wikipedia is an unacceptable source. Per WP:USERGENERATED which states:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available
 *  Foreign language sources Foreign language sources may only be used on the English Wikipedia when no other English source is available of equal quality per WP:NOENG which states:


 * When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.
 * When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.

Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.


 *  Primary Sources  ::: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.


 *  Using older sources  There is such a thing as community consensus when dealing with issues that may not be covered within Wikipedia policy. There is consesus on the use of older sources which states that newer sources are preferred and should be used if possible to augment the older source., are some of the consensus discussions. A more recent discussion took place just last month, and if you do not wish to take my word, please do the search as I feel there has been enough guidence provided. We guide, we do not instruct.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled Star Trek sequel
News reports are abound showing that the film will be called Star Trek into Darkness. However, as they all seem to be repeating what was reported on what is in essence a fan blog, can they be considered reliable sources? Discussion here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say TrekMovie is reliable enough for us to say in the article: "Well-known fan blog TrekMovie claims the title of the film will be Star Trek Into Darkness." I would not, however, say the source was reliable enough for us to warrant an actual page move (particularly as the article has repeatedly been involved in "page move wars"). Better to wait for an official confirmation from the studio for that (which is probably imminent). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A good fan blog is still a fan blog. I'm sure Paramount is capable of announcing the titles of its movies; even if the fan blog is correct at the current time it still amounts to speculation since Paramount could alter to the title at any point up to announcing it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just like Revenge of the Jedi was changed into Return of the Jedi!  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But the source is more than just a fan blog. That is somehow downplaying the source to make it seem less reliable. Its considered a reliable news source. The site has been used countless times before on other articles, and it's downright not neutral to form this thread by calling it simply a fan blog. Precedent says that the source is reliable based on its use in other articles. JOJ  Hutton  21:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It really is just a fan blog. It has previously bandied around the word "confirmed" and then found to be wrong. There's no fact-checking or accountability. It's just a blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative
An editor at this page is making the claim that the author of a source must meet WP:N in order for the source to meet WP:RS. The argument is just getting silly so I figured I'd come here to put this to rest. Note that I have no opinion as to whether the source in question meets WP:RS. I just want it clarified that an author need not pass WP:N in order for the source to be considered reliable. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've made the argument on the Talk:Genesis creation narrative that WP:N is just as much dependent on WP:RS as WP:RS depends on WP:N. I argue that in order for a source to be meet WP:RS, there must be some indication to its WP:N, not just limited to an author passing WP:N. If an author doesn't meet WP:N, then at least the publishing house should. If neither the author or the publishing house doesn't meet WP:N, then some WP:INDEPENDENT source should meet WP:N if its going to vouch for the resource in question. This is my argument. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  05:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A source being produced by a notable publishing company, for example, can be useful in determining if a source is reliable. But there is no requirement in WP:RS for the author, company, or anything else to have an article here in order for the source to be suitable. Numerous reliable journals exist, for example, that do not have their own articles. VQuakr (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you determine if a source is reliable, if there is no WP:N to support or vouch for it? Then wikipedia will be riddled with pages like: Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins (2nd nomination). I would really appreciate an admins input in this matter, because I'm tired of bantering with non-admins. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  05:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An admin's input carries no more weight than any other user's. I of course welcome any admin's input, but it wont come in the form of a decree that will get you (or me) what you want. "Tired of bantering with non-admins" is a troubling attitude. Again, what you're attempting is a policy change that should be discussed at WT:N, WT:RS, or both. If you get the policy changed, more power to you. In the meanwhile, you can't unilaterally decide that a source can't be used based on its author's lack of notability. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about a specific source here? Otherwise this is probably NOT within the scope of RSN. — raeky  t  06:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jasonasosa, this is complete nonsense. There is no reason why a completely non-notable author, publisher or company cannot produce a fully reliable source. The qualifications for reliable source status have to to do with quality of the source, the editorial processes used to produce it and the reputation of the source amongst experts in the relevant field. How notable any particular person or organisation that are involved in its production is entirely irrelevant. - Nick Thorne  talk  06:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not asking for a policy change. I'm not even saying that it is absolutely necessary for an author to meet WP:N. I'm saying that in order for a source to be reliable, it must be vouched for by someone or something that is WP:N whether it be a wp:notable publishing house, or a wp:notable wp:independent source. What is the bottom line that makes a source reliable? The WP:RS policy states "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability" and a part of verifying something is determining its Verifiability just as much as ensuring that there is no Verifiability. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. In any case this is not the place to be having this discussion.  Take it to WP:RS if you want to make this change of policy.  Good luck with that. -  Nick Thorne  talk  06:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I too have suggested that numerous times. It's clear that we're dealing with a minority of one here and can move on. Jasonasosa has been told how he can proceed. I think we can all move on. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Jasonasosa, the policy on Notability says that it is notability that determines whether a subject is suitable for its own article. Notability and Reliability are not the same thing. Someone could be very notable, like Donald Trump, and very unreliable, like Donald Trump. I wouldn't use anything that guy prints as a reliable source for anything except wiping my butt. :) However, he is incredibly notable. Conversely, there may be a professor at a local community college that has spent his entire life cataloging the life cycle of the common beetle, and he has toiled in a life of academic obscurity, but he may be the world's foremost beetle entymologist, recognized by his unquestionable research and the fact that not one person has found anything worth challenging in his papers and statements. Such a person would be an imminently reliable source on beetles, but may know next to nothing about Donald Trump. Apparently when one can sing off key and talk like a hick, or tell the cops you have sent your kid into space, or happen to have been homeless and have a great voice, you are noteworthy enough for an article in Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean you are reliable as a source of good information. -- Avanu (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point about Donald Trump! ;)  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When comes down to it... I just think its funny that everyone is now running to create these articles [(John Feinberg page created today)] and [(John Sailhamer page created today)] to ensure their wp:notability. I mean if it weren't a big deal, why go through all the effort. So call it rubbish all you want, but the fact remains that WP:N plays a key role in WP:RS whether you all care to accept that or not. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jason, in the end the determination of whether someone is notable is actually a matter of editorial discretion. We have nice looking guidelines and they work 90% of the time, but the exact threshold is often just based on where people feel like drawing the line. The same is true of reliability in a source. Perez Hilton is a well-known gossip columnist. He's arrogant and petty and won't hesitate to ruin a person's life if he dislikes them. He also happens to often portray things accurately. He *could* be a RS for some things (actually because his site is the form of a blog, most of the time it is simply ignored here), but his comments are accurate mostly depending on his point of view or bias at that moment, so its really not that reliable. But you need to understand that a person's Wikipedia Notability has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are considered reliable. Nothing at all. Zero. Consider how many news stories are written by some up and coming news writer or a person just getting a start. The story gets vetted by a well-known news organization, sure, but the author is not notable at all. And in the case of my beetle lover above, he is an expert, but people aren't usually clamoring to get bug nerds on national TV. Reliability and Notability and subjective concepts and the two aren't always tied together. You'll find more problems than you solve if you insist on making Reliability dependent on Notability. -- Avanu (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Blog
Can this blog be used, only to cite the location of the filming for the music video? It is not being used to present the blogger's point of view or etc. but merely to name the location which was Brooklyn. Till 07:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Are Medal of Honor Citations reliable?
When some national hero is awarded a Medal of Honor, an official citation is made describing the heroic acts of the hero. Maybe he/she risked his/her life to kill many enemies, or to save some friends, whatever. The question is, are the facts described on those citations reliable to be used, say, in a biography? Or do we risk in turning it into an hagiography?

The curious can read a lot of such citations in the Home Of Heroes website. --damiens.rf 18:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen inflated prose on medal citations, sometimes politically motivated. No such citation should be automatically considered a reliable source. It should instead by attributed: "His/her medal citation reads..." Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. While the citation may be quoted, with inline citation, you need a third party source.  TFD (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * listing of books that can be read.Moxy (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the citations are reliable, so long as they are attributed WP:INTEXT as being what the citation says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As noted by other editors above, the citations must be placed in context when used. However, it's worth noting that modern-day nominations for the Medal of Honor go through an in-depth fact checking process to determine whether the recipient qualified for the medal and the nature of the events, and the citation is very carefully written (the same kind of process applies to the Victoria Cross). As such, it's reasonable to assume that the citations for recent medals are accurate accounts of the individual's actions unless there is evidence that they are not (journalists and historians tend to closely examine the events around the award of high level military honours, and highlight any discrepancies or ommissions). Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the facts in a citation, such as date of birth, positions held, and so on, should not need attribution, unless they are controversial. The opinions and adjectives there will need attribution. Churn and change (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE and reposted WP:SELFSOURCE inserted into Sandra Fluke
Just FYI, tendentious editor keeps re-inserting questionable material, re-arguing settled points. Resolved to delete questionable material by consensus on Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, re-appears on Sandra Fluke, and even though WP:BLP, WP:RS are identical (and portable), demands re-do. Consensus also exists on that page for removal, but editor refuses to comply. Need outside and uninvolved comment from editors with expertise on WP:RS.

Controversy over WP:SELFSOURCE and probably untrue WP:BLP material being added to [Article]Sandra Fluke article. [Source]Original material was at the “meet the PILS scholars” page on Georgetown Law’s website, that posts information that students submit and update about themselves. Checked for length and copyediting, by press office, not for accuracy. The current page is [Source, original][], but since Fluke is no longer a student there, no longer up. The text can be found. It is directly quoted (one version; as most self-source pages do, it changed gradually) at [Source, current][] as follows "“Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative,” her Public Interest Law Scholars (PILS) profile explains. “While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.”". Problem is, that several websites copy and paste this information, and this is being sourced as confirming it.

For instance (and confirming original source) "Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence" is suspect. [Incorrect name, which labels source and re-postings]First, the "Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence" is not what the group is called. If you search "Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence" you will get the puff blurb Fluke wrote for the publicity department when she entered Georgetown, and re-posts of the blurb Fluke wrote, mostly in personal tweets or far-left or far-right personal blogs. Nothing but Fluke, no references to the work the Taskforce does. If you search for "Manhattan Borough President's Domestic Violence Taskforce" or "Manhattan Borough President" "Domestic Violence Taskforce" you will find the Taskforce, its publications, news, updates, members, but (almost) no mention of Fluke (one or two attack blogs "corrected" the blurb). This obviously speaks to the lack of fact-checking on the press/alumni office blurb (which we already knew) that it did not get the name right, but also directs readers to the correct research sources. [Primary sources indicate untrue]If you look up the MBP DVTF, it has 50 members, and they don't change that much year to year. If you have a connection that interfaces with the NYPL databases, member rosters are published; a search of the ones overlapping Fluke's first job out of college do NOT include Fluke on any roster. If you can't access the public records, then pull up any of the dozen or so publications of the MBP DVTF; most are released as pdfs. Again, each has a page somewhere thanking everyone who contributed to this or that project, from members to the person who got the coffee; again, no publication from that time mentions Fluke in any way; a virtual impossiblity for someone who actually WAS a member. A number of Sanctuary for Families executives, even down to mid-level (Fluke never became any kind of key employee there, as discussed) directors WERE members, but not Fluke.

"While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for…" is also problematic, and only sourced to the same press office self-submitted blurb, though re-posted with the rest. If she says she was involved, fine, there were lots of opportunities that involved signing petitions, but "Co-founded"? [Primary sources indicate untrue]Problem is, this was actually founded by NY State Sen George Winner, from Upstate. No mention of Fluke in any reports on this or the foundational paperwork. Multiple newspaper references to the work of the Coalition, all mention Winner and other significant promoters and participants, none mention Fluke.

Sanctuary for Families is a HUGE charity in New York, and Fluke was hired to an entry-level job (her only job) straight out of college, and she left after a few years to enter Law school. They list all their key employees, and she was never one of them, going back to 2004 (the last time one left). Sanctuary, the organization, WAS involved, as were a few of their senior executives, in both, just not Fluke. The exaggeration of “co-founded” and being a “member” may just be the kind of resume inflation one would expect of a recent graduate with little experience; she might have helped someone who helped someone and conflated her involvement (not the worst thing for an inexperienced recent graduate to do), but there is no WP:RS that any of it is true, and much in primary sources that indicate that it is not. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's TLDR. Can you please post a one paragraph summary of what the issue is? (focused only on the questions around the reliability of sources being used/proposed for use in the article, and not all the other stuff). Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * [Simple explanation] Simple. Source is a self-submitted student profile website of the press office of Georgetown Law School. Might be considered reliable for Law School (aka internal) information, if uncontroversial, but is being used as WP:RS for prior accomplishments, and those accomplishments contradict the primary sources, are therefore unlikely or extreme exaggeration. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Georgetown University student profile is only cited once in the article, to support what seems like an uncontroversial statement that "While at Georgetown University Law Center, she worked on issues that involved domestic violence and human trafficking". All the other references are to what appear to be reliable secondary sources. I'd suggest discussing this on the article's talk page in the first instance. Your POV editing of the article is of concern. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the case carefully. As stated, the original profile no longer is online, and can't be used. As stated, the re-postings on websites aren't really secondary reliable sources, and as stated, just cut and paste from the student profile, whether they properly cite or not. The discussion on Talk is voluminous. Your unrelated-to-this-discussion comments are both wrong and inappropriate; please consider removing them, and if you do, feel free to remove this response.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

[Problem of WP:SELFSOURCE being reposted]The Georgetown University student profile is dead, and cannot be used any more for anything (should really be deleted, not a source for anything now). It has been the sole source for the above information. All references being used to support inclusion of the two suspect charges now are website postings that cut and paste the original Georgetown University student profile [](changed since orig posting to say "served"), []. [], whereas this [] and the other dead link do not support two controversial claims, though it is used to cite them (it DOES have a link, now dead, to the no longer available GT profile page)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Other link being used to support the questionable assertions is dead, but should be [], and has no reference to the questionable assertions, though reader comments quote a related Wikipedia article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Biography.com
Hi peeps, a question for you. Is Biography.com (a part of the A&E network) a reliable source for BLPs? Is this article on Elizabeth Warren OK to use as a source in the Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia article? FurrySings (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not signed by its author - which may be a problem, but A&E written material is a full step above using their programmes as sources - where some have been found to have inaccuracies. Likely good enough for non-contentious claims to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy databases
References (added 15th Sept.):
 * 1.^ Richard Tylman. Born - 1546 in United-Kingdom. Died - 1584. Genealogy Place - The Ultimate Genealogy Search Engine 2009.
 * 3.^ Richard Tylman of Faversham. The will of Thomas Cobb. Rootsweb genealogy.
 * 6.^ a b Richard Tylman (1546 - 1584) 2012 Ancestry.com. Source: Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812, London, England.
 * 7.^ Richard Tylman and Ellen. 2012 Ancestry.com.
 * 8.^ a b Thomas Cobb's daughter, who married one Richard Tylman of Faversham. Cobbes Eleventh Generation. 2012 Ancestry.com.
 * 9.^ William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614). Ancestry Archive 2012.
 * 10.^ Richard Tylman (1569–1614). Ancestry.com 2012.
 * 11.^ Richard Tylman born 1569; Tylman family. Ancestry Archive, 2003.

Are the following genealogy databases reliable sources: Genealogy Place, Rootsweb, Ancestry.com, Ancestry Archive? TFD (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Ancestry.com, it seems to have been reviewed in an academic work at least once and I see it being used as a source in a number of other works (ex., ). I think it is reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We need links to the wikipedia page where the question arises and to the database pages that would be cited. And rew D alby  15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Links to the article are at the top of this discussion thread and it links out to various online databases. TFD (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right of course, and I intended to delete my comment. And rew D alby  17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * These are public databases. According to the policy, such sources are considered self-published if the content was "user-generated", except materials "originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users". Hence, if there is moderation/verification of data by database staff, the content qualifies as RS. As a practical matter, the content of biological databases (for example) is widely used in scientific research, and it can be used here. Speaking about Richard Tylman, it seems that using genealogy databases involves cross-verification of data, i.e. the different records in genealogy trees must be mutually consistent. That makes data significantly more reliable. As a side note, reliability of data in certain databases, such as Protein Data Bank, originates from credentials of individual users because authorship of every record was clearly defined. Therefore, certain user-generated databases are RS, and the policy should be corrected. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * User-generated sites on genealogical trees would not be RS. The others, such as ancestry.com, probably are. The main issue is ensuring the person referred to in the source is indeed the subject of the citation. If this can be established beyond reasonable doubt, I think the site can be used if there is no other source with the information. All of the above sites are useful for researching people, even if they cannot be used as sources. So I would say we should just include both links (call it convenience link if you want to). For state records, there is no link to include, and rootsweb is pretty much the only choice. Churn and change (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that Ancestory.com is on the edge of being WP:RS. But as you said there is the identification issue: a big ticket item. In many mailing lists, the whole issue of "name and identity establishment" is a serious issue, and there are specific algorithms for that. I am not sure how well a Wikiuser can handle those when using that system. History2007 (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what aspect of Ancestry.Com is being used as a source. Is it it the innumerable & often unreferenced family trees that often co-mingle different people's information from different generations?...Then no.  Is it is any unreferenced content without reliable source/s to back it up?...Then no.  If it is an authored piece, written by a recognized geneaology expert that comes complete with cited references?...Then maybe.
 * For instance, in the case of the Tylman article, Ref#3 has one line about 'The will of Thomas Cobb indicates he had a daughter, given nameunknown, who married one Richard Tylman of Faversham' but this section of rootsweb/Ancestry.Com is edited by a "M. Cobb" and provides few sources for the asserted facts.  Ref#6, however, is an apparent link to published historical records...I say "apparent" simply because it is behind a subscription-only firewall.  Ref#8  repeats verbatim much of the same information as Ref#3.  Without footnotes or inline citations, I personally find much of the information posted on Ancestry.Com, while well-meaning and possibly also well-sourced, to not be all that useful as stand-alone research though it can indeed be a useful jumping-off point for further research. Shearonink (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Payment requirements do not effect RS, however, these sites are really tertiary sources, aggregating information from other places and do not own any of the documents but simply host them on their site for personal research purposes. The site itself does not appear to have editorial oversite or Fact checking and would fail for those reasons. Reliability of the author may be something that could be proven I suppose and even an article being hosted could be varified...I suppose.... in theory, but using these sites would be questionable without the needed oversite.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tertiary sources are those which aggregate and summarize secondary and primary sources; examples are obituaries and encyclopedias (WP:TERTIARY). Ancestry.com seems more a collection of primary sources (US Census records, immigration records etc) with search features. They have some sites where the search is just of these records, and other sites where the search includes user-generated content. The records themselves have been scanned and converted to ASCII/PDF text with OCR software. That introduces errors especially with old census records with close writing. The scanned image of the original source itself should be usable as a primary source, assuming it is not a search that includes user-generated content, wherever primary sources are acceptable. Churn and change (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets not get ahead of ourselves as "Seems to be" isn't enough clarity for use. The same is true of Google books, but we can't assume an error was made beforehand. We assume the documentation is accurate. The problem I see is that the documents are not from these sites, they arenot even hosting them in many cases but supply the search. When the documents are on the servers of these sites they are still not the actual primary source and we only use ONE source and I don't think it would be ancestry.com but the US census etc. So why use these sites as the reference? Again, eve if not user generated there seem to be some problems that cannot be justified for exclusive use when, even if the documents were found with these sites, they are not the actual source.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These sites host some of the documents and link to others. For US census records, the sites host an OCR-version of the scanned records (so you see the OCR interpretation of the handwritten stuff), and link to the original scanned version. The original scanned version with the US govt. archives is in the census writer's handwriting, and often both that and the ancestry.com version together help one decode what is written than either alone. No, the issue is not the same as Google books—Google books weren't handwritten to begin with. For state records, often theirs is the only scanned copy available. The state government (at least in California) has the birth/death/marriage state-level records in paper form, and one has to go through a few hoops to access them. The secretary of state's official website, in fact, mentions rootsweb.com as the place to go for the online version. Churn and change (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The genealogy links used in the article aren't reliable sources. They're just teasers of random information to get people to sign up. We can't even be sure what exactly what they represent. For example this one, "Born on 1569 to Nycholas Tylman and Jane Benson. He passed away on 1614". We can't tell if it is derived from a primary source, we can't tell if it is derived from a secondary source, we can't even tell if it's derived from some random crappy family tree. For example, this 'ref' actually shows that the info comes from an FTW file that someone uploaded to the website - someones family tree, named "Tillman Gedcom.FTW". So no, these refs aren't reliable. If you don't know exactly where your information is coming from, don't add it into Wikipedia.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times here. Ancestry.com is a big website with many types of source. Genealogy databases (except for certain aspects such as the scanned newspapers to be found in ancestry.com for example) are clearly primary sources, with all the dangers that these hold. The original research and synthesis come not from the data itself, but from deciding that this is the same "George M. Stratton" or "Richard Tylman" that the bio is about. Unfortunately these errors are very, very easy to make, as I know from having used the ancestry myself, which is precisely why editorially oversight (in the form of a published reliable source) is necessary. This long, but very excellent post on another page, explains much better than I could why the use of such sources are for the most part inappropriate, except perhaps as confirmation of facts made by reliable published sources. I urge everybody to read it; amongst other things the editor explains in detail how the census records, birth/death records are frequently highly unreliable sources of who was where, when, how old they were etc, and expert knowledge beyond simply verifying the handwriting is required. As a result, it seems clear that such primary documents are rarely appropriate sources for use in WP. Slp1 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are user-uploaded family trees which are not moderated or edited by anyone. For the normals reasons, such sources are not normally an RS for anything.
 * There are scanned books and nespapers, which can be helpful, but of course those scanned books are the sources, and in such cases ancestry.com can be mentioned as the URL or convenience link.
 * There are copies or indexes of primary records such as births, baptisms, censuses, etc. Using primary sources is something to be careful about and such cases might require very specific discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The California Secretary of State Office officially mentions and links to "Rootsweb" from its "birth, death and marriage records" site. Unusually for a bureaucracy there are no caveats in the statement: "In addition, the genealogy website RootsWeb has recently made the statewide index to deaths, 1940 to 1997, available online." I think for such records we should be able to take "Rootsweb" as a primary source. Churn and change (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To see the issue, please check the original US census record (from article George M. Stratton) here: Then go to the ancestry.com OCR page: . You can see why having both is much better than either alone. The handwritten version is hard to read unless one has an idea of what the writing roughly is. The OCR version provides this. The OCR version has an error (the street name isn't Buevenne, it is actually Benvenue, as the pull down menu here:  makes clear). Note that this isn't really WP:SYNTH, once both records are looked at together, there is no interpretation or analysis or synthesis required; the handwriting automatically becomes clear. If one has decided the primary source is acceptable for whatever reason (maybe just basic facts are being introduced), then, yes these sites should be added as a second link (call it convenience link if you want). In cases such as state records, well, if the decision is to include the primary record, then sites such as rootsweb are the only source around; the state government itself says so. And, yes, I am talking of the pure primary source sections of the sites. Churn and change (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the references above. None of the links show historical documents. TFD (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of George M. Stratton, his name matches; the names of his daughters and son match; the place matches; and his age, wife's age and ages of daughters match. The only thing picked up his son's approximate age, and that also matches the age found in other part-reliable secondary sources. The primary source in that case augments a secondary source which is a local newspaper, which, while nonobjectionable per policy, is still not that great a source. I agree census records, just like all primary sources, should be used with caution, and probably not for more than name and age and maybe address circa that year. But to get back to the original question, I don't think the genealogical records are acceptable for the Richard Tylman article, either to argue for keeping the article or for deleting it. There is a lengthy discussion on the article's AfD. Churn and change (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The chances are that you are right about George M. Stratton, but the problem is that you may be wrong. In the course of my researches I've several times been led down completely false alleys based on names, ages/names of children etc. But to augment a reliable secondary source, it is probably okay; though as a caveat I haven't looked to see the quality of these in this case. However, I don't agree with parts of the rest of your post. As EEng pointed out in their post,  and as I (and other reliable sources can confirm)  not even a name or age are intrinsically reliable from these records.  Neighbours sometimes gave the information to the census takers, and time and again people lie about things, including their age, to make themselves younger or older for one reason or another.  And that's always assuming one can be 100% that the right individual has  been identified.  So, yes, I agree that these genealogical records are not reliable sources for Richard Tylman, either for notability or for content.  A professional historian, knowledgeable about the period and their records, and writing in a reliable source, is needed to disentangle this information. --Slp1 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * [The discussion on George M. Stratton I think we should transfer to that article's talk page; since the primary source is supporting a secondary source, there aren't generic policy/guideline issues to discuss.] I see two objections you are pointing out: that the census taker may have made a mistake and that people might have given wrong information. The second is the same issue as WP:SELFSOURCE which we do allow under specific circumstances (I agree it does lead to low-quality articles, nevertheless it's allowed, assuming a set of conditions holds). The first is an issue that doesn't go away with secondary or tertiary sources either. Mistakes are always possible. Secondary sources which correct primary-source mistakes probably make some of their own. I think the right way to look at it is as accumulating a mass of evidence with this as one piece. If all pieces agree, we can be surer there was no mistake. Yes, I understand that in a census record (a primary source) there is no vetting, cross-checking, peer review or editorial oversight at all, and so mistakes are more likely. But the idea behind using a primary source to back up a secondary source is to account for mistakes in either. My original posting was that when a census record is used as a primary source this way, it makes sense to link to both ancestry.com's OCR version and the original version from the US archives department website. That helps the reader and future editors. Churn and change (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are actually multiple issues with using these kinds of primary sources and I mentioned only two as examples, to show why and how these records may be inaccurate and can be misrepresented. That's why a reliable secondary source with fact-checking is needed: a historian or scholar who is able to analyze the document, interpret the data, draw conclusions about whether the right individual has been identified, whether there are inconsistencies or inaccuracies and how to resolve them etc.  This is precisely the kind of original research and synthesis that we do not allow WP editors to do.  Yes, secondary sources may make mistakes too, but the chances and implications are several degrees lower than allowing WP editors to do this.  That's why secondary sources have long been by far the preferred sources on WP, and original research of this sort is forbidden. --Slp1 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that (in fact, I dislike the WP:SELFSOURCE exception; even the most credible people are fallible when it comes to their own bios, at times based on their old memories; and that is without considering lying). I also agree the links above are not acceptable. The only additional point I have to make, since the original question was more general and did not have the links, is that, once a well-thought-out decision is made to include a census record as a primary source supplementing other sources, it is a good idea to include both the original archive and ancestry.com's OCR version. That holds for other primary records such as California death records too. From your postings, I assume you are neutral on that. Churn and change (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how the genealogy search engines are built, they are also commonly used in Wikipedia for a variety of reasons including the cross-verification of data already present somewhere else. Please remember, the period in question is the Elizabethan England of the Tudor Dynasty... nobody can benefit from tampering with these records online for some abstract benefit of theirs. In this particular instance, different search engines were used expressly to confirm the bits and pieces of information about Richard Tylman (Tillman) including his family history and business dealings already mentioned in reliable third party sources, such as the PDF theses on the Faversham economic history by Paul Wilkinson, PhD, as well as the 1774 history of the town by Edward Jacob made available by the University of Wisconsin. I have no idea why the AfD nominator (who started this thread hoping to win his controversial argument elsewhere) chose to withhold the info about other references from the opening statement (above) as if the genealogy websites were the only references used in the creation of this article... The opposite is true. Generally speaking... with the rapid development of massive online databases created by libraries for free – thanks to advancements in digital technology mostly – it seems to me that an increasingly disproportionate amount of info already available to us, is actually being picked up by historians for their own academic benefit. However, I see no reason why we would want to limit the Wikipedia's ability to make use of what’s out there including the records of “Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812, London, England” digitized at Ancestry.com. After all, our mandate is the collection of encyclopedic data in a continuous manner over a period of time, not some ultimate truth confirmed by the highest third-party authority out there. Poeticbent talk  19:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this noticeboard is to evaluate individual sources, not all sources used in an article. The genealogical website sources used in this article are all postings by amateurs.  Your first source for example gives details of Richard Tylman's birth, marriage, family and death.  Whether or not the Richard Tylman you found at ancestry.com is the same person as the Richard Tillman in an article is better covered at NORN.  TFD (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Top of the Pops episode guides
Hello. I have the ability to add fully tabled episode lists for Top of the Pops to Wikipedia Here's an example from my sandbox. However! I have one problem which makes me uncertain of whether to proceed - verifiability. My source of information was copied 6 years ago from two BBC databases that no longer exist online, even in archive form. These are the | BBC Progamme Catalogue and the database that once appeared on the now defunct | Top of the Pops website - the site itself still works but clicking on the relevant link produces an error. While there are a few websites that give some information about random episodes and I would reference these appropriately. However, there will be literally hundreds of episodes that will not have a reference. Should I give up hope now, or should I add the lists and see if anyone else can provide sources? Currently, apart from in my sandbox, there is no information on wikipedia for the 2000+ episodes of Top of the Pops Peteb16 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources don't have to exist online. If a library has a reference copy of the database, then you can cite that. Videos can be their oan sources for what they include, but there has to be a possibility or someone accessing them, even if it would be difficult

Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One would assume the BBC still holds these records somewhere. The BBC Catalogue must still exist in offline form. As for videos, most of the BBCs early recordings of this show were wiped as the reuse value of the tape itself was presumed to be worth more than what was on it. Most were also broadcast live and never saw the inside of a video recorder. I will go with the former suggestion and cite the BBC Catalogue as a source. Thank you Itsmejudith! Peteb16 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Steeler Nation Criticism

 * Source:
 * Article: Steeler Nation
 * Item: "Whitetrash America's" and "Hillbilly"
 * Please feel free to read & comment here. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cizmar seems marginally competent to make judgements about contemporary american sports sociology. It is an op-ed not a news piece, and should be attributed to Cizmar not his paper. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tadeusz Sulimirski & Rahul Sankrityayan
Hi, I wish to know that whether Tadeusz Sulimirski & Rahul Sankrityayan meet the criteria of being recognized as WP:RS? Please give a conclusive answer! Articles for both of them are @ Wikipedia for scrutiny! — 117.212.46.55 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliability is relative to what the sources are going to be used for. So please define the proposed use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok! I would like to use Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), as a reliable source on a number of articles related to history, and Rahul Sankrityayan as a reliable source only for history of India — after confirming from here, to avoid WP:Edit War. The use would be limited to articles related to history (practical use of WP:Balance is likely to be involved) — 117.200.50.151 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A quote from Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), "The evidence of both the ancient authors and the archaeological remains point to a massive migration of Sacian (Sakas)/Massagetan ("great" Jat) tribes from the Syr Daria Delta (Central Asia) by the middle of the second century B.C. Some of the Syr Darian tribes; they also invaded North India." I would be using the author's conclusion on articles related to history, as I am sure that he met WP:BIO & WP:Prof, but discussing it to avoid the possibility of WP:Edit War! — 117.200.50.151 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * After a very quick first look the first person seems to be a regular academic working in the field you want to talk about. I am wondering if there is any controversy about his theories which explains your concern? The second person at least according to his WP article is a travel writer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So, it's a 'YES for Tadeusz Sulimirski.


 * But, I request for a conclusive reply for Rahul Sankrityayan! I am not able to conclude your answer that whether he fits the criteria for WP:RS on articles related to history of India! 117.200.50.151 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Though, the article @ Wikipedia clearly states that Rahul Sankrityayan has served as Professor of Indology in 1937-38 & 1947-48 @ University of Leningrad, but still I want to get the approval from here; so please give me a conclusive answer! — 117.200.59.19 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This forum is not like a court and can not give conclusive final answers, especially if only one person replies to you. It is a place to discuss what is best for WP. Anyway, you have not yet explained any real examples of edits that would use this source. Until now my questions are aimed at trying to get more information from you in order to help more forum participants comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andrew, you query whether there is any controversy regarding Sulimirski's theories. Well, in the context of the Indo-Aryan migration theory, there most certainly is controversy and Sulimirski is firmly set in one camp. Worse, it is in the context of this theory that the IP appears to wish to use Sulimirski. My take is that he can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers. It might have been helpful if the IP had made a note of this thread on related article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush, in case you haven't read the above mentioned comments carefully, please note that I have quoted — "(practical use of WP:Balance is likely to be involved)"! — 117.200.50.104 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I guess, that's exactly what your conclusion is — Tadeusz Sulimirski's research can well be used as a reference, but people should welcome WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity. — 117.200.50.104 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I had read them carefully, thanks. He is reliable for his opinion, and no more. My point was in relation to a comment by Andrew L, querying whether Sulimirski's opinion is controversial. It helps to be as explicit as possible regarding the background when forming queries here. As it seems that you are aware of the balance issue, I look forward to seeing your proposals for display of the alternative theories at Talk:Jat people etc. All entirely in the spirit of the policy to which you refer, of course. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush, my intention to make that edit request to an article's talk page was definitely to provide the admins or reviewers a factual information, for the coverage of history of the Massagetaean invasion in India — I have actively participated in the discussion & now I would like to leave things upto the sincerity of the admins or reviewers working on that article, after a fair conclusion by Qwyrxian. Sitush, I have been very explicit — even mentioned the book's name & even mentioned the quote from the book, that I have suggested @ edit request! But fella, can you be more specifically explicit about concerns over the reliability of Tadeusz Sulimirski? Sitush, till there is a world wide consensus over the Origin-Antiquity-Migration of Aryans,Scythians, etc. — it's fair to proceed by blend of WP:NPOV & WP:Balance? The scope of the use of Tadeusz Sulimirski's books is not limited limited to a single ethnic group, but the coverage has been much wider — if the admins or reviewers of the articles pages are aware of WP:POV & WP:Balance & WP:OWN & the fact that @ Wikipedia people should attempt to avoid rendering judgement themselves, and for the most part defer to the judgement of reliable sources. Respecting this platform, I would like to make a general note to people that while making edits on hot topics like Origin-Antiquity-Migration of Aryans or Scythians or Massagetae etc. — please always be prepared to welcome WP:Balance, and not enforce any source as a compelling source, even after getting approval from here. Thanks! — 117.207.56.161 (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so there is some controversy. This does not mean we can not or should not mention an author. Could I ask editors above or anyone familiar with the debate to please give comments about if/how the authors are cited by the historical profession.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andrew, Sitush's quoted above, "My (Sitush's) take is that he (Tadeusz Sulimirski) can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers." — that's clearly a request for the use of WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity, nothing more than that. And, that's fair enough! As far as, Sitush's concern over the Indo-Aryan migration theory is — Tadeusz Sulimirski's views are shared world wide & are widely accepted. Tadeusz Sulimirski research far outweighs any other claims — he maintains that there is certainly & most definitely have been inward migrations towards India. Still, I don't mind using WP:Balance, as this is still a debated issue — but the show must go on; with a blend of WP:NPOV + WP:Balance! Guess, we need more participants here to nail the consensus over Tadeusz Sulimirski - welcome! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this debate now limited to the use of Tadeusz Sulimirski — as a compelling source or to welcome the use of WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity? My take is that no source can be treated as a compelling source as far as Wikipedia is concerned — so can we conclude with a YES over Tadeusz Sulimirski research & look forward to Happy Editing ! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment on this. From my investigatons, these two authors research is a little dated and has been surpased by more up to date research. Therefore the case maybe that they may fall into the case of WP:Reliable. Saying that, I am convinced that the Jatt and many other Punjabi people such as Rajput's, Kamboj's, Tarkhans etc are of Scythian origin. Thanks S H 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that 117.207.62.240 asked a number of people he considers authoritative to make some sort of determination. Do you mind if I call you James instead of a number?(I'm watching "Lost" right now). James, you have received replies in this discussion that you persistently ignore. You appear to be seeking what WP does not give, encyclopedia-wide approval of an author. Presumably, if I read between the lines correctly, you would then cite this approval against any editors questioning the reliability of the author in any article. WP does not do that, generally speaking. WP is like the Ottoman Empire. All authority is handed over to the administrators. There are so many of these that the company cannot possibly police them all. If one becomes notoriously unpopular or violates the policies in a more publicised way, the Sultan chops off his or her head; that is, his priviledges are revoked and he is blocked, sometimes forever. Meanwhile he has nearly unlimited power to decide what can go in the article. That is what is wrong with WP. It is not the people's encyclopedia and is not democratic unless by chance an editor or article escapes attention. That's right. Whether any of the policies you cite are implemented wholly, partially, or not at all is a matter of arbitrary decision by supposedly independent administrators (they are not). This totalitarianism is handled at the article level, not at the policy level. I can give you a further few hints. Articles of the east are dominated by the views of the German administrators. Articles that involve Britain are firmly in the control of the British administrators. Articles on the Balkans ... shall I go on? You aren't politically naive, I hope, James. As you were told above, what anyone will be allowed to say depends on the particular context. To you I would say, you expect too much from WP. What you are discovering here is your limitations on it. Don't believe everything you read, James. I'm going now. Why don't you get a login so I do not have to call you James? So, no need to yank my chain again. I'm very busy right now. Ciao.Branigan 16:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I received the following request from an anonymous person on my Talk Page: "Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)." My answer to this request is as follows: I had never heard of either of these two men until I received this request. For this reason I am not in a position to comment. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sikh, for the conclusive comments — WP:RS. I too have observed that, Botteville. [Inserted later to cease any doubt: Botteville, please note that, I have been very explicit — properly mentioned Tadeusz Sulimirski's book name & even mentioned the quote from the book & firmly stated that I would be using Tadeusz Sulimirski's conslusion in that very quote. Botteville, as far as Rahul Sankrityayan is concerned, I have firmly quoted that the use would only specifically limited to articles written on history of India. — 117.212.44.121 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)] Ok! John Hill, articles for both of them are @ Wikipedia for scrutiny anyways, in case you get some free time, please go through'em! Tadeusz Sulimirski's firmly set in the camp that maintains — there are certainly & most definitely have been inward migrations towards India, that's a widely accepted view & far outweighs proposed Indigenous claims! I guess, I can safely say that the consensus has headed in favor of — Tadeusz Sulimirski as a source on Wikipedia! Comments from Wikipedians — welcome! — 117.207.59.62 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * S H concludes as YES to — Rahul Sankrityayan, as a source on articles specifically related to Indian history (ONLY — as asked). Comments from Wikipedians — welcome! — 117.207.59.62 (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone thinks otherwise on reliability of Rahul Sankrityayan as a source on articles specifically related to Indian history — please comment! — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus (so far): it's a 'YES for both — Tadeusz Sulimirski ( Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), on articles specifically related to history) & Rahul Sankrityayan (article specifically related to history of India, only). — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It is a lot of shouting and touting by a couple of IPs. Aside from anything else, you have misread what Sikh History said: SH is well aware of how Wikipedia works and their response both acknowledges the datedness of the author and also the element that is SH's personal opinion. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The response has clearly been more in favor of the use as a reference, then why it's not a YES Sitush? Have you changed your mind over Tadeusz Sulimirski (as you have commented only over him as follows — "My (Sitush's) take is that he (Tadeusz Sulimirski) can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers."). People can see that SH's personal opinion is WP:Reliable, if in case you haven't fully read his statement & saw only what you wanted to saw & concluding only what you are saying without any concrete stuff (that's WP:NPOV, one you're fully aware of theoratically), & he said a little dated (not even little dated or over dated or outdated, lol!). SH even further goes on to write some text in favor of the quote from the book (what more people expect a participant to do!). I respect your rights here, but why don't you firmly declare any or both of them as unreliable with some rock solid stuff (that only you've discovered out of some where & rather than any of the guyz above), so that people can have a healthy debate with you, but if you're not even going to do that, then what's the point? Let it be a YES, or be bold to ask people to stop using Tadeusz Sulimirski as a ref on Wikipedia's articles related to history (subject's mentioned) & not to use Rahul Sankrityayan as ref on Indian history subject, fair enough fella, b'coz you're the only arguing, even after your request has been considered & it's been declared that even after getting a consensus-wise YES, the sources would not be used as a compelling source, to respect the authors of the pages as follows — WP:NPOV & WP:Balance, again firmly saying this, so please cooperate as dare to take a stand on the either side! — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush, if one has a quick look over all of your comments, they appear somewhat "self-contradictory". You put comments & disappear from the discussion section for a while. It's not in good spirit to avoid following up discussions. Seems, it was not a good idea to keep visiting the cyber-cafe, to see if you've followed up, for the 5 last days! Anyone authoritative who would like to nail things here, please conclude over the realiabilty of — Tadeusz Sulimirski's book, The Sarmatians (1970) and Rahul Sankrityayan (specifically only for history of India). — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

thepeerage.com
Why is www.thepeerage.com considered a reliable source? It is researched by someone who does so as a hobby - Darryl Lundy. It has no peer review of its content. It is essentially this person's home-based website. However, it is used extensively by editors making contributions on European royalty. However, on the several occasions when I have checked its attributions for historical occurrence, it is in direct contrast to viable, peer-reviewed histories. That would most likely be because the website, www.thepeerage.com, is run by one person who is not an expert on the topic nor does he even profess to have any education in the subject that he researches. Why is it included as a secondary source for so many articles? Shouldn't it be removed as a source for these articles? Does anyone agree with this? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lundy does cite his sources which are reliable such as Cokayne's "The Complete Peerage", etc. By rendering virtually every single online source unreliable, there will be no further contributions on European royalty articles. Very few people will go out and spend 50 dollars on a book just to add a citation and even fewer will drive to a public library looking up information which is already freely available on the 'Net. I would suggest that editors citing Lundy's website add the source which he himself used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a good idea: editors shouldn't cite references they haven't seen (except for where an editor in good standing can personally vouch for the reference, and even then it's not ideal). Based on what's at http://www.thepeerage.com/info.htm, this isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia's as it's author cheerfully admits to cobbling together information from various books and databases as a hobby and making educated guesses in instances where his sources were contradictory. That said, if reliable sources reference this database it's probably usable. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "thepeerage.com" appears to be used in quite a few reliable sources per GoogleScholar - thus unless a claim is contentius, I consider it an RS - one of the very few cases where an SPS reaches that level. Collect (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a close look at those hits. It seems to me that most them are genealogy websites, random webpages, and things published by a mysterious 'eM Publications'. I searched GoogleBooks for that publisher and found they are selling Wikipedia articles. See also Republishers. I don't see how the 'thepeerage' is a 'reliable source', it's just a personal website that happens to cite it's sources. That doesn't mean we should remove it wholesale from articles - it's better than nothing.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Elsevier one is not a Wikipedia article - it appears the source is widely used as RS on Wikipedia articles, especially for royal genealogies. As long as the claim is not contentious, I would accept it as a source. Collect (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least one of the papers (from Google scholar) which cites thepeerage.com also cites Wikipedia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.07.026 So either the paper is suspect or what they are citing is so tangential to their main focus, they probably don't care. Churn and change (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Medical Hypotheses the journal that that article was published in, is explicitly not peer reviewed and isn't competent in the field of biographical history or genealogy. I wouldn't trust that article for anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess this is deviating from the topic, but their webpage at Elsevier says they have internal and external review. Their editorial board listed here has some well-known names. Not saying you are wrong (the journal does say they take what other publications won't or don't), but there is the question of what criteria to use to reject the journal. Do you want to bring this up as a separate section? Churn and change (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given nobody's suggesting using that source, I think we can rest on our laurels of extensive past discussions unless someone has another use case. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "thepeerage.com" is, however, used in a large number of Wikipedia articles. seems to show that it is widely accepted for non-cententious genealogical claims, to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But people have been tagging it. See Ancestry charts of the current British Royal Family and Christopher Chancellor. In other cases it has been removed, or is in "External links." This is in just the first page of results. I sampled randomly and still found it in external links or tagged. See Sir Edward Crosbie. I think it is widely used and widely disputed. Churn and change (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any complaints that Lundy is often seriously wrong, but the correct answer is to both wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (thepeerage) and also indicate the RS(s) cited there in support of the cited assertion, as shown here. If someone seriously doubts that Lundy got it right, they can always check Burke's (or whichever authority Lundy cited). This should be sufficient for articles other than BLPs. For current live people, better sources should be sought. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the editors at a specific article reach that consensus, then that's that. But if there is a dispute and it is brought here, the answer has to be to use the authoritative secondary source Lundy cites. A no-peer-review, no-editorial-check, nonexpert, self-published site isn't a reliable source. Whether a source is an RS doesn't depend, in theory, on whether it is available and accessible, but I can see the practical objections to these expensive books. This particular book you mention is available widely in libraries, so not using it doesn't seem ok from any perspective. Churn and change (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, WP is perpetually a work-in-progress. Rather than see editors leaving assertions uncited, it is constructive to capture where they came from and work towards eventually checking the original publication as the article matures. This is a practical intermediate step, and certainly better than trusting an unsupported assertion that Lundy's not reliable. I wouldn't accept him at FAR, but to rule him out for stub- or start-class articles is just selfdefeating. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

MicrobeWiki
The name is a red flag, but I note that the site is curated. I don't know that we have any policies governing curated wiki sites.

If it is not an acceptable reference, I see a number of articles, such as Ehrlichia canis, Micrococcus, Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus and others, which need editing.

The issue arose because an article in the DYK queue Nostoc commune, uses it as a reference, and it is being challenged.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The site is not curated; some specific pages are. "Microbial biorealm" and "Viral biorealm" are encyclopedias and hence tertiary sources. "Microbial mythology" is a secondary source, experts evaluating and interpreting primary sources, with editorial oversight. But I think reliability isn't a yes/no thing. There are degrees to it. For a DYK review, I guess the curated pages should be good enough. For an FA article, probably not. Churn and change (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They have curated pages that qualify as sources with editorial oversight. But I have another concern. A quick comparison of mentioned Ehrlichia canis here and on MicrobeWiki shows that someone tried to closely paraphrase MicrobeWiki, frequently without knowing the subject and transformed correct phrases (from Microbewiki) to nonsense. For example, the phrase "The cell walls of E. canis is unrecognizable because of typical receptors like Toll-like receptors 2 and 4. (MicrobeWiki)" in Ehrlichia canis is wrong and does not make any sense. One would make a much better job simply by copy-paste phrases from MicrobeWiki, but I am not sure about their copyright status (see here, the materials "from other sources" on their site are images).My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Churn and change - Thanks for the feedback, and the correction. Yes, I should have said some pages are curated, not the entire site.
 * @ My very best wishes - yes, the original issue was an editor making a mash of the source, with concerns about plagiarism and misstatements. I don't know the subject matter well enough to contribute, but was interested in the status as an RS.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I found what it was about. Bad edits in Ehrlichia canis were made by an IP who did just a few edits. Not everything he did was really wrong; I selected the worst passage. Looking at Nostoc commune, I do not see anything obviously wrong (I am not a microbiologist). So, let's not blame editor who did good work there. Speaking about MicrobeWiki, I am not sure if copy-paste from their site would be a copyright violation, given their copyright conditions (see above). Once again, one can use their curated pages as source, and the quality of their other pages is comparable with similar wikipedia pages or better. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

EPA lawyer quotation from Daily Beast
A phrase that was deleted from the BP intro said "BP has been criticized for its political influence". In my attempt to justify its reinsertion, I found the following quotation helpful. It's from EPA lawyer Jeanne Pascal, who headed a 12 year investigation to see whether BP should be debarred from operating in the US based on its safety/accidents record. A quotation printed in Daily Beast/Newsweek would help support the phrase, but the reliability of this source has come under question at the talk page. (Thanks in advance.) But Pascal quickly ran into the oil-company equivalent of “too big to fail”—and knew that her threat was essentially empty. Although this is not widely known, BP has been one of the biggest suppliers of fuel to the Pentagon If she pushed debarment too hard, Pascal was sure the Pentagon would simply invoke a national-security exception that would allow BP to continue to sell it oil. “When a major economic and political giant" tells you it has direct access to the White House, it’s very intimidating,” says Pascal. SOURCE  petrarchan47  t  c  
 * I assume you are referring to this article? That is an opinion piece. There are a few issues here: First, your statement lacks a subject and would probably get tagged with the template. If you then add "Jeanne Pascal criticized . . ." there would be the question of why what Jeanne Pascal, a retired senior attorney at EPA, has to say matters for the article. Aren't there weightier opinions, if include opinion you must? Finally, 'The Daily Beast' is not a particularly credible news magazine (not at the level of New York Times, LA Times and established newspapers). The question of an entire publication as an RS is rarely a yes/no one. I would say straight, non-controversial news items can be sourced from the 'The Daily Beast' but definitely not an opinion piece on environmental issues. There are plenty of far-more credible, and even academic and scholarly, sources available on the issue; so there is the question of why include an opinion piece from a less-credible source? Churn and change (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the piece says "from Newsweek" at the top. So the article was published at Newsweek first. The statement I am trying to support is "BP has been criticized for its political influence". Jeanne Pascal is notable by herself based on her 12 year investigation into BP, she was the head of it. I thought perhaps that Newsweek and Pascal's notability would make for RS. This is not the only RS I am using for support, but I thought it important because Pascal is quoted as saying that BP's influence goes directly the White House. This was my basis for claiming her notability.   petrarchan47  t  c   18:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the author Michael Isikoff wrote this piece for Newsweek (it's cross-published at Daily Beast, which is now owned by Newsweek). At the end of the article you can see his credentials.  petrarchan47  t  c   18:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it is Newsweek you should cite as your source. Here is the citation (you can add your URL as a WP:Convenience link):


 * Isikoff, M., & Hirsh, M. (2010). "Slick operator." Newsweek, 155(20):36–38. 5/17/2010.


 * You still have the other issues of person's notability and this being an opinion piece. You have to discuss those with the editors at the article's talk page. Something gets to be notable based on the credibility of the person saying it, not based on how far-reaching or scandalous the accusation is. But that discussion needs context and is best carried out elsewhere. But to answer your original question, Newsweek is not a publication automatically marked a non-RS. Churn and change (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you.   petrarchan47  t  c   20:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, the article titled "Slick Operator" was written by respected and credentialed reporters. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff and Newsweek senior editor Michael Hersh are the writing team. The article is a superb source; reliable in every way. The article's subtitle is "How British oil giant BP used all the political muscle money can buy to fend off regulators and influence investigations into corporate neglect." Isikoff and Hersh criticize BP for political influence. The phrase removed from the article should be restored to it, using Isikoff and Hersh as the source.
 * As well, the article titled "Furious Growth and Cost Cuts Led To BP Accidents Past and Present" is a reliable source. The article represents a PBS Frontline investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is MPA Media a reliable publisher?
I am wanting to get verification that periodicals published by MPA media could be considered to be reliable sources.


 * MPA Media currently publishes the following online publications:


 * 1) Dynamic Chiropractic
 * 2) Canada
 * 3) Acupuncture Today
 * 4) Massage Today
 * 5) Chiropractic Nutritional Wellness
 * 6) To Your Health


 * Here is MPA's editorial policy


 * Thank you very much! -Stillwaterising (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They don't appear to be peer-reviewed, but do look to be similar to other business/trade specialty news publications, in this case the business fields being alternative medicine. Such publications tend to be substantially aggregators of press releases, rather than serious academic publications. They might be useful in a very limited way, but it would depend on the statements to be supported. They certainly should not be considered as wp:MEDRS to support medical assertions, but they'd be fine for "John Smith teaches dynamic chiropractic at XYZ University". LeadSongDog come howl!  14:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a duplicate of a post above, and the answer is still the same: the article in questions is not a WP:MEDRS... a13ean (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disco Demolition Night
Please see the RfC regarding racism and homophobia. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Hollywood Story by Joel Waldo Finler
An editor has contested that The Hollywood Story by Joel Waldo Finler is not reliable for sourcing theatrical box-office rental. The data is located at pages 356–363 and is available on Google book preview, and the author has souced the figures from the Motion Pictures Alamanac and Variety Magazine. He has given no reason why he considers the source "not reliable" but I see nothing wrong with it. Please note that Google Books gives an incorrect author summary, but it can be seen here he is an accomplished writer on film with a good publication record on the subject. The figures are used in box-office charts such as 1958 in film. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This title was published by the Wallflower Press which today is owned by the University of Columbia Press. That alone makes it an RS by our guideline. The data being sourced is, however, not adjusted for inflation (see page 363). The author presents excellent reasons for the problems with comparisons across years, nevertheless that is what most people expect to see when they look at the numbers. The list as it stands is as good as having some of the numbers in dollars, some in euros, some in pounds, and some in zloties. Converting is not an easy task, even assuming Canada can be approximated out. Which year do you use for conversion? The year the film was released, the years it ran, the years it grossed the most? Another issue is people are used to seeing box-office receipt numbers, not gross rentals; that conversion can't be done without knowing the expenditure half of the accounting sheet. Churn and change (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The rental figures are not being used to compare the earnings across multiple years, just to document what they earned at that time, so inflation adjustment is not necessary (for instance, the box-office chart for 2001 in film presents the box-office grosses at their 2001 value). There is currently an RFC over the use of the rentals at Talk:1960_in_film if you would care to comment on the broader issue of rentals vs b.o., but what I specifically need to know in regards to this source, is if the book is reliable in the context it is used at 1958 in film and at 1960 in film in purveying the rental earnings of the top films in any particular year? Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I answered that one. What, specifically, is the objection to its being an RS? If you look at WP:Attribution you will see: " In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; . . ." Your source is #1 in this list. If you go to WP:SCHOLARSHIP you will see: "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars." The University of Columbia Press is, rather obviously, a well-regarded academic press. The material you are using isn't data that can become outdated, nor is there a question of a neutral point of view. Churn and change (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Article in Medical Acupuncture (journal) and how it may be used in Acupuncture
I made some bold edits to Acupuncture that were reverted because the statements made "need a source that strictly complies with WP:MEDRS" (see Talk:Acupuncture). I contend that:
 * Medical Acupuncture is a reliable peer-reviewed medical journal. It's editorial policy is here.
 * The article "Myofascial Meridians as Anatomical Evidence of Acupuncture Channels" by Peter T. Dorsher, (2009). is an analysis, comparison, and synthesis of other sources and therefore should be considered to be a secondary source. It contains no direct scientific observation.
 * The textbook Anatomy Trains by Thomas W. Myers (2008), used as source in above article, is published by Elsevier Health Sciences, a leading pubisher in medical an anatomical textbooks, should be considered a reliable source.
 * Dorsher (2009) meets the requirements as per WP:Medrs to allow its conclusions (such as "The strong correspondence of the distributions of the acupuncture and myofascial meridians provides an independent, anatomic line of evidence that acupuncture Principal Meridians likely exist in the myofascial layer of the human body") can be used as evidence of a physical correlate of acupuncture meridians.

I would also contend that similar statements derived from these sources could be used in Meridian (Chinese medicine) and in other articles related to this topic. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't turn up in Pubmed, which makes me wonder about the journal.
 * The primary problem here isn't whether this is a "reliable source", but whether this is giving WP:DUE weight to this one author's view. So either you can take this to WP:NPOVN, or you might find it useful to think of it this way:  if you got together every single published author who had written even the smallest statement on this subject, from the most pro-anatomy author of the world through the most virulently anti-anatomy authors, and you lined them up, in order, from most to least, where would Dorsher fall in the line?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The argument here is about whether Dorsher's article constitutes a primary or a secondary source - and clearly, it's primary. It's not a comparison and synthesis of other sources, but a study ("The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the distributions of the anatomically based myofascial meridians are similar to those of the acupuncture Principal Meridians.") His method consisted in comparing acupuncture meridians with Myers' "myofascial meridians" by using some special kind of software ("With Adobe Photoshop Elements software (Adobe Systems Inc, San Jose, CA), the distributions of corresponding acupuncture meridians were applied to the same human figure outlines used in Myers’ text to allow direct side-by-side comparisons of the acupuncture and myofascial meridians"). The result of his study is that "In 8 (89%) of 9 comparisons, there was substantial overlap in the distributions of the ... myofascial meridians with those of the acupuncture Principal Meridian distributions..."
 * Since this is a primary source, it's not suitable for being used as evidence for the far-reaching statement that science found a physical correlate of acupuncture meridians. We have secondary sources in the article already, but they all state the opposite. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Bump - I am looking for verification that the sources named above can be considered to be reliable. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider "Medical Acupuncture" to be a reliable source. It is published for and by physicians who practice acupuncture, and is peer reviewed. We should discuss how it can or cannot be used on the article talk page, but such articles can be used as sources as long as the editor does not attempt to make a definitive medical or scientific claim.Herbxue (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That definitely sounds like a primary source to me (it's an original experiment), and primary sources should not be used to de-bunk secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. At the most, you could say that one guy with Photoshop software (Photoshop?  Really?  And the cheap, US$60 consumer-grade version at that?) said that these things overlap.  And even then, I'm not convinced that mentioning one guy's opinion is WP:DUE.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of the article, but the question for this board is "is the source reliable?", not "how good is this source?". I have long complained about an article by Matuk, used heavily as a source in the acupuncture and TCM articles, written by an illustrator that has opinions about TCM's relationship with anatomy. That one is considered "secondary" because she looks at western anatomical illustrations and she looks at Chinese meridian illustrations, but ultimately she states her own opinions, which have become statements in the article. If that is an acceptable secondary source, surely someone doing the same thing (comparing pictures and making observations about them) is also an acceptable source. Can it be used to justify a claim that meridians have an anatomical basis? No, of course not. But can it be mentioned or incorporated into the article in some way? Yes.Herbxue (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix New Times blog

 * http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/12/tempe_church_labeled_hate_grou.php source
 * http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/author.php?author_id=1348 author page
 * [Faithful Word Baptist Church] article
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithful_Word_Baptist_Church#cite_note-PNT-5 source being used on the article
 * [Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church#removal of unsourced BLP problem] talk page discussion, no consensus about wp:reliability

It is my position that the phoenixnewtimes source is a blog with intemperate language and is nowhere close to wp:reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But if you want a reliable source stating the SPLC has labeled the Faithful Word Baptist Church a hate group here is one: . Churn and change (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a regional newsweekly. You should treat it like any other weekly print publication that advertises the latest concerts, movies, and clubs with 85,000 print copies distributed every week, because that's what it is.  Its news blogs (not any "community member" blogs) are probably fact-checked just as much as the local daily newspaper's.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Phoenix New Times is a weekly. Its blog section is, well, a blog. The blog section is not distributed with the print copy, nor is it subject to the same editorial oversight as the weekly. Churn and change (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We have the SPLC listing the Faithful Word Baptist Church as an anti-gay hate group and the Phoenix New Times reporting this. As we have the original source to confirm the validity of the information I'm not sure why this is an issue. Or is there some other issue? Insomesia (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a real issue; they should just cite the SPLC site. However, the Phoenix New Times is not reporting it; a blog on it is and that shouldn't be included. Churn and change (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSBLOG is the relevant guideline. This piece is by a named journalist and can be regarded as roughly equivalent to a piece in the print copy. We do have to be very careful when a BLP issue is involved, and I would hope we could find better sources than this. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm the editor who found the Phoenix New Times "blog" article (a week ago, I expressed on the article's talk page that I have no objection to tossing that citation out if other editors think it doesn't mean RS requirements, but I think the nominator just wants to make certain one way or the other if other editors oppose its removal). Seeing it being discussed here makes me curious about the original source it was intended to replace... I went searching for other source citations when the original citation was removed (it was an article from "The Dallas Voice", an LGBT news source). You can see that conversation here: Talk Page Thread

Here is the original source article in question: http://www.dallasvoice.com/hate-group-count-tops-1000-1066213.html

Curiosity has now gotten the better of me, and I'd be interested to know what the RSN board thinks of the original citation. Would it have been considered an RS, or not an RS, for the assertion that the FWBC was listed as a hate group by the SPLC? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very disappointing that a LGBT news source was removed chiefly because it was an LGBT affiliated one. There is zero evidence that this source is not perfectly acceptable for reporting SPLC listing the Faithful Word Baptist Church as an anti-gay hate group. They state in a correction in the article X, Y and Z are groups whose anti-gay activities SPLC looked into but whose homophobia did not rise to the level of hate group. it then lists the groups that are including Faithful Word Baptist Church. Please note I don't expect this discussion to resolve anything as this is about the 20th circular round I'm aware of countering the hate group label for these groups. Insomesia (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiLeaks Cablegate documents
I'm having problems with someone who seems to be arguing that the U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks should not be used as citations for biographies of living persons. What is the policy of Wikipedia on using the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks?
 * I've blocked this editor for using Wikileaks cables to add negative material to articles about living people. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The analysis of primary sources in relation to their political and historical importance and meaning is a job for specialist scholars. Particularly given the provenance of the documentation, expert analysis is required to determine if the documents are in fact the documents they purport to be.  While scholars are free to make these judgements based on their expert understandings (and some of the better news magazines or papers likewise), wikipedians while encyclopaedia editors are incapable of doing this, as it would constitute original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A splendid example of why Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. Collect (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Chart ranks

 * Article: 1960 in film
 * The source: The Numbers – 1960 index

An editor is using the list of box-office grosses to establish a chart order. While I don't dispute that the source is reliable for the financial data itself (it is used to source box-office on many film articles) I challenge its use as a source for the ranks. The source only lists the box-office for a few films from 1960, and omits many successful ones; the source does not chart these grosses either, so I do not think the source is reliable for sourcing the positions in the chart since it does not back up the claim. Further views appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What would you prefer? To list them in a random order?  The "ranks" given here could be produced easily and without violating any policy simply by converting that table to a sortable table.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The ranks cannot be produced easily: you cannot list the top ten films of the year from partial data. For instance, if we were unable to source the box-office figures for Star Wars, it would be incorrect for us to rank Saturday Night fever as the number 1 film of 1977. The chart produces two claims: box-office figures and ranks, but the source only backs up the box-office figures. If the source doesn't rank the films then Wikipedia should not be ranking the films based on the source. The source lists the films and their grosses chronologically by release so there are clearly sensible alternatives to inventing a fictious ranking. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't list grosses chronologically. There is no release date for 7 out of 19 films, and so the source arbitrarily lists them with a release date of January 1. Once could add a footnote stating the rankings are for films in the list only. Incidentally, is there a reason to believe some film was missed? Churn and change (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The historic film charts on the film articles generally rank films by theatrical rental as opposed to box-office gross; the theatrical rental was the standard metric up until the 1980s, and was roughly half the gross. In many cases the actual gross was not known, but in some cases trackers like The Numbers will list the gorss when it is known. The problem in this case is that an editor is replacing the rental chart (where the top 10 is known and sourced) with a box-office chart that is compiled from available data. If you take 1950 as an example—for convenience since I can link to it on Google preview—the top 5 five films of the year charted by theatrical rental (according to Peter Kramer who is a university lecturer in film studies) were Cinderella, King Solomon's Mines, Annie Get Your Gun, Cheaper By the Dozen, and Born Yesterday. However, only the top three films have their grosses listed at the The Numbers 1950 entry. It does not list grosses for Cheaper by the Dozen and Born Yesterday, so it would be a fabrication to compile a list of top ten films and assign ranks, when clearly two of the year's top 5 films are not included; there are many other discrepencies between Kramer and The Numbers where The Numbers does not list the grosses of highly successful films that appear in Kramers' charts, so I think a chart that assigns ranks in this manner is misrepresenting the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kramer's book, as mentioned elsewhere, is published by WallFlower, now part of University of Columbia Press, and hence a high-quality reference. The "Nash Information services" reference is also an RS (it has been cited in books), but I agree with you the Kramer book is a stronger reference. The two sources, however, seem to be talking of two different things, rentals and grosses, so they don't quite contradict. So, on the first question of which to include, well, that is up to the editors of the article and should be discussed there. These days most people read about, and hence understand better, gross figures, so there is an argument for including that. Your point is for the older movies rentals are more reliable, which is also a valid argument. We can't debate that issue here though. On the second issue of including the ranked list, yes, you do have a reasonable argument certain entries are likely missing from the Numbers.com list, and hence no ranking should be done. You should present the argument on the article's talk page and try to convince the other editors. If that fails, I guess you have to go to dispute resolution. Churn and change (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this isn't the place to make decisions about the article's content, just to determine what the sources can and cannot be used for. I would prefer to use gross figures too since they are a more familiar metric, but I believe ultimately you are limited to the form the data is available in. I have actually filed an RFC to try and address the broader scope of the dispute, but an appraisal of how the source can be used will be useful in a discussion, so thanks for your time. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:BLPSPS for Rip Esselstyn article
There is an ongoing discussion concerning the use of sources for this BLP on the talk page for the article Rip Esselstyn and it was suggested to post here. I am referring to this rule: WP:BLPSPS

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)" "(from the see below section) -- "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published."

Article: Rip Esselstyn

Source: a. The Engine 2 Diet by Rip Esselstyn. Published by Hachette Book Group USA
 * http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/authors_Rip-Esselstyn-(1505944)_Bibliography.aspx

b. Esselstyn's official website which contains his biography.
 * http://engine2diet.com/about/rip-esselstyn/

c. Content:

1. In the background section, the use of the line: "In 2009, he joined Whole Foods Market as a Healthy Eating Partner and is currently on the Board of Directors for The Wellness Foundation, EarthSave’s Meals For Health Program, and the AllergyKids Foundation." Appears in the website biography.

2. The Awards Section. Appears in both the book and the website biography.

I am willing to tweak and rework these points but would like this clarification first.

Thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not (no longer?) on the boards of either the Wellness Foundation or the AllergyKids Foundation. That makes the whole bio suspect as an RS. For things such as awards, can't you search and cite the awarding organization instead? Not a requirement, but leads to better-quality articles. Churn and change (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough re: website (I'll remove that line) but what about the book? The only citation from the book would be the awards. As for citing from the organizations, the events happened in the 80s, 90s, and 2001 and thus online sources are harder to find though I've seen a few scattered. The RS cited in the article itself refer in general to the fact that he was a pro-triathlete and some say "champion" so I could rewrite to simply include those. Also this topic is referred to in general in the film Forks Over Knives and so I could refer to that.


 * I posted here more as a clarification for myself as to the use of Official Websites and the book. WP:BLPSPS implies that I can use the book and thus I want this clarified since I've seen a number of BLP articles that make these kind of citations. Thanks for your feedback.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hachette is a well-known publisher and so, yes, his book (even though not an autobio) can be sourced for facts. The documentary can be sourced if it refers directly to the subject; otherwise you probably will land in WP:SYNTH. Churn and change (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's "legal" to use his official website for information about himself. If you have reason to believe that his official website might be out of date, then you may also use WP:Editorial discretion to omit the outdated information.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for the clarification. For now I'll just keep the article as is and restore the book reference only. Thanks WhatamIdoing for the tip about WP:Editorial discretion as I was not familiar with it. At this point, I think the book itself will suffice. If either of you have any other BLP related suggestions let me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So, sourcing his own book to say he won a major triathlon 7 times is ok? This is using a primary, unreliable reference to source about third parties.  This should be sourced by a secondary sources. Bgwhite (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, ummm, it isn't that cut-and-dry. Try writing and publishing something like this through Hachette books and you will quickly realize why WP does indeed allow self-sourced (autobiographical) statements in books published via well-known publishers. Granted, relying on autobiographical statements isn't the best way to do this, but is often quicker and better than nothing at all. Churn and change (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

IMEMC
I would like to know if the International Middle East Media Center is a reliable source for this edit to Israeli settler violence. 24.177.122.56 (talk)
 * The IMEMC website contains a disclaimer that says "As an all-volunteer organization, the International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) does not have the means to guarantee the accuracy of news or opinions posted to the newswire." - as such, it is obviously not  a reliable source for ANY facts, certainly not for contentious information such as the edit you mention. If that incident really happened, it would be covered by mainstream news sources. Dixy flyer (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can these publishers be considered reliable?
Hello, I am writing regarding the Criticisms section of the article "Andrew Cohen (Spiritual Teacher)." The allegations mentioned in the section are based on three books, the use of which as reference may be problematic with regards to WP's BLP policy, for the following reasons: 1. Two of the books, by Tarlo and by Yenner, are published by Epigraph, a self-publishing company with few, if any, restrictions as to who can publish a book. 2. The third book, by van der Braak, is published by Monkfish Publishing, that owns Epigraph. Both companies are owned by a disgruntled former student of Cohen's and can therefore not be considered as a valid source of objective criticism against Cohen. Please advise. Full disclosure: I am a student of Cohen's and a major contributor to this article, yet strongly committed to COI, NPOV and BLP policies. I welcome criticism of Cohen's teaching, especially philosophical differences, provided they are are done constructively, honestly, and in the spirit of mutual exploration and are solidly referenced.Igal01 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE, the existence of Tarlo's book and her web site can not be excluded. Detailed statements in the book about others may be questioned, hwever. Given that the article is "not based primarily on such sources" they can go in and Tarlo's statements about herself will be ok. Similar things about the others. As I said on the talk page there, there was also a magazine article, etc. that can be linked. History2007 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN?
≤In reference to this discussion at WP:DRN, I believe there are two issues a neutral 3rd party comment could help with.

Firstly, The following source is used to justify a claim made in Argentina's modern sovereignty dispute that the population was expelled:

The issue I have with the particular claim made, is that the claim is cited to a document referred to as the Akehurst Memorandum, which referrences the historian Goebel. If you refer to the Google books link (I have the original text this is just a convenient way to share it), rather than confirming the claim made by López, it confirms the claim currently cited in the article ie the claim made by López fails verification. See Self-determination for the current text.

This isn't disputed, however, I have two editors arguing that checking the claim made by an author against his cited sources is WP:OR and WP:SYN and we should simply use the source attributing the claim to López. The argument is this is needed as a "rebuttal" to claims made in neutral academic sources, Goebel included, to present the Argentine POV. Am I wrong in suggesting we shouldn't use this source to verify that claim, since the source asserts a claim not made by the original author but one that is attributed to that author. Hope that makes sense.

Secondly, the same editors assert that it is a reliable source for the following claim:

On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British.

The argument here is that the title of the work shows the reasearch is based on British sources egro the statement is supported by reference to the same dicussion in López (the one that fails verification). The attributed source, Goebel, refers only to the garrison. Am I wrong in suggesting that given the source is making a claim not supported by its citation it is unreliable for that particular claim? Thank you in advance. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If I've got this right, López does analyze British sources, and does conclude that the population was expelled. It's just that you have also analyzed the same British sources, and concluded that López's conclusion is obviously unwarranted.  Do I have that right?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an academic publisher. Likely to be an appropriate source. Have you read the whole book? It would seem that it could be a good source, but which statements it could support would be a matter for serious consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The other editors would be justified about their OR and SYNTH objections; we should not critically evaluate sources ourselves via cross-checking against their primary sources. As User:Itsmejudith points out the publisher is reliable, publishing scholarly and academic works. The source is RS. If the author's contentions are not mainstream, they will need attribution, and possibly rebuttal. Churn and change (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a neutral 3rd party opinion so I will try and restrict myself to responding to questions posed.

In answer to WhatamIdoing. Goebel is not a British source but American, an academic at Yale University.

Reference

QuoteOn April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... Emphasis added

Reference

QuoteGoebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833

The statement attributed to Goebel is not made by Goebel. Goebel is well known as a source in the Falkland Islands dispute, so falsely attributing a claim to him is very strange. Anyone familiar with the subject would know that Goebel doesn't make this claim. For reference there was a garrison and a settlement but only the garrison left. So no, I didn't analyse the same British sources and come to a different conclusion, being familiar with the cited source the claim struck me as odd and when I checked I found it did not reflect Goebel.

Goebel is a WP:SECONDARY source, I can if requested give you the two WP:PRIMARY sources, eye witness reports which corroborate both Goebel and the source below. The two reports both Argentine and British corroborate one another as well.

Another neutral source

Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis.

Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina Empahsis added

Neutral academic works usually debunk this claim made by Argentina. Hence in answer to Churn, the view is not mainstream but is being used here to criticise the mainstream view. I would be grateful if you could expand as to why you consider this WP:OR and WP:SYN. I'm not doing any research and drawing conclusions, there I would agree with you it is inded WP:OR. However, I really don't see fact checking as WP:OR but I'm quite willing to be re-educated. In my own writing I always try to cross-check facts against multiple sources to ensure I represent the range of opinions in the literature.

In answer to Itsmejudith, yes I have read it a long time ago. Like most POV sources, and it is a POV source, its use requires careful thought and in particular attribution of claims. López is not a neutral academic but a former Argentine ambassador, who was involved in the pursuit of Argentina's sovereignty claim. When it comes to WP:WEIGHT I think it falls down in that the claim isn't verified by the cite and it contradicts mainsteam opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the fact-checking you are doing is OR. On WP edits are not done or reviewed by experts and so we rely on secondary sources with our doing just basic 2+3=5 style fact checking. We depend on publishing houses to do thorough checks (through editorial oversight or peer review). Churn and change (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your second issue: On WP we present all facets, including minority views, but not the fringe views of a tiny minority. How many minority views can be included depends on, in practice, the length of the article. We take highest-quality sources first, write what they talk of, and then go down the ladder to other sources. This particular source is an RS; it is likely not a high-quality one, and maybe it doesn't represent mainstream opinion. In that case, if you really have sufficient higher-quality sources (which would be books and articles in and by even-better academic journals and publishers), you fill the article with those. I took a quick look at the article, this particular section has just two short paras. So, to the question of being a fringe claim. Maybe Argentina's stance is so off-the-chart we can equate it to a fringe-minority view and not mention it. May be so.  I searched and hit upon pretty fast the statement you reject: that Britain expelled Argentinians in 1833. The source is Risman, W. M. (1983). "The struggle for the Falklands." The Yale Law Journal, 93, 287.  Michael Risman is the Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Professor of Jurisprudence at Yale University and the page is 306. I am not going to argue Risman is right; the issue is likely highly nuanced with many credible sources having their own POVs. But that source does make any claim the view is fringe (a claim you have not made; I am just covering all possibilities) an exceptional claim needing exceptional evidence. The sources in the article don't seem enough; Mary Cawell together with publisher A. Nelson don't seem much of a source; Harper is a good source but her book is on "Scottish emigration" and touches on Falklands very briefly and in a different context. So, yes, I do think you have to include this view, if not from the RS you mentioned then from the RS I did, and include rebuttals from other sources. If you have trouble accessing the source, send me a message, or ask on the WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request board. Churn and change (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WCM: You aren't a political historian on wikipedia—you're an encyclopaedia editor, stop engaging in original historical research. Per Itsmejudith, the publisher is a scholarly publisher which says it submits manuscripts to external review prior to acceptance. That's a good sign. I'd suggest the only way to not accept this text as being part of the scholarly literature is if reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals (with an appropriate journal coverage area) tear it to pieces. So off to the book reviews:  JLAS noted the book existed, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X00011998, but it is their policy to do this with all books received. No review I could find. So the next step is what do other scholars say regarding the work in the literature, do they give it any attention? If many scholars tear it apart when writing on the topic, then that's a sign it probably isn't acceptable (unless other scholars use it with praise in scholarly publications). Treat as a scholarly work unless criticised with vitriol in other scholar's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Verification of source citations is common sense, and is a violation of neither OR nor SYN. How the hell would we ever decide which sources are reliable and which ones are not if personal judgement never came into play? Policy forbids us from including OR in an article, but it does not prevent us from using OR to decide what sources are best to use. And Firefloo, no one is talking about using personal judgements about facts that are clearly in dispute. Rather, WCM is suggesting discarding a source because it is obviously, blatantly, and completely false on a very key point. Just because a publisher is generally reliable doesn't mean that everything they publish is RS. And that said, it appears that Lopez's work is academically insignificant, being cited by all of one person, ever. And who is Lopez, anyway? As far as I can tell, he is Argentinian, and has only written this one book. Aside from that, I can't find any scholarly works, or even a website. Is he a professional historian, or just a random guy who wrote a couple of books? In the forward to the book, he is referred to as "Ambassador Oliveri Lopez", although this book is the only place on the entire internet where Lopez is referred to as such. So who is he? And finally, do any scholars whose reliability is not in dispute echo the claim that Argentinians were expelled from the island? If this really is the case of a single unknown author making an extraordinary claim, then that would qualify as insignificant in my book. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One can use OR and SYN as criteria when one wants to add sources. But an edit that removes a source somebody else added, based on a claim of having found an inconsistency against its primary sources, is OR and SYN. What is obvious and blatant to an expert isn't so to lay people. And often these words are just bandied around to stop debate. Churn and change (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If a minor scholarly view-point is only represented in one single text, you can dismiss it under WEIGHT and NPOV—regardless of the reliability issues. If a minor scholarly view-point is still of significance, then you can include it, at the very end, and attribute it appropriately, "In the scholarly publication X, the former minister for wallaby reduction issues depicted Y as Z."  Neither of these impacts on the sources' reliability for a scholarly claim.  There are plenty of scholarly perspectives that we routinely ignore for good and proper encyclopaedic reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you are responding to my earlier post. Yes, I agree, though I would use the term 'fringe' rather than 'minor' on what gets excluded. But see my post on why this isn't obviously a fringe viewpoint. I think the appropriate thing is to attribute and add the opposing viewpoint. If you go to the article you will see the subject is Argentina's claim on Falkland, specifically their claim that Argentinians were expelled from Falklands in 1833. Maybe the claim is indeed fringe, but at least one Yale professor thinks not and has published stating so in the Yale Law Journal. The "obvious, blatant, completely false" string of adjectives I discount. Churn and change (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If a strand of analysis is minor to one or two academics (or a larger number, say, in Napoleonic war studies), such that it has no impact in the wider literature it is legitimate to not include such minor studies. If another source makes the point better, then purely editorial decisions regarding source quality or source clarity should lead to the dismissal of a source (even if that source is scholarly in nature in terms of reliability).  There are plenty of reasons to ignore sources other than on reliability grounds, but, the source indicated in this thread is actually fairly reliable due to possessing an academic publisher of an appropriate kind. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to separate the point a source makes and the source itself. The source may be ill-cited, but the point itself may be repeated in other sources. That makes the point a minority view worthy of inclusion but not the source (which I think is the case here; I am basing that on the fact that I got to another source claiming the same thing in just a few minutes of search; maybe I got lucky, but somehow I don't think so). As to "impact on the wider literature" that seems the definition of 'fringe.' Churn and change (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly! A source may be unreliable (as the review demonstrates below, this one is unreliable due to hostile reviews in peer reviewed journals of an appropriate topic).  A claim may be put both in reliable and unreliable sources.  A claim may be put in multiple reliable sources, but editors may choose to use one instead of another due to WEIGHT or the expressive and argumentative qualities of Source A over Source B even if both are equally reliable.  Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How, pray tell, do you know this truth: "because it is obviously, blatantly, and completely false on a very key point." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reiterating what was suggested, rather than suggesting it myself (you'll find in my post its an attributed suggestion). The page on which the claim is made is not available when I look through Google books, so I can't hunt down the citation entirely on my own unless I feel like finding a library that has the book (my own does not, unfortunately). Back to the fringe claims, on top of the fact that all of one person cites the Lopez book, I've also been unable to find any scholarly reviews of his book. It seems to be a work that's entirely ignored by the rest of the historical community. In any event, if Goebel really did make this claim in a secondary work, then we should be citing Goebel, and not a book that claims to be echoing him. As to the issue of fringeness, why not just include the Yale Law Journal, attributed, and leave out Lopez? And finally, I answered one of my own questions: Lopez is a "Permanent Representative of Argentina to the Committee of Representatives of the Latin American Integration Association", whatever that means. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a review here behind a very-expensive paywall. There are some scattered citations in Spanish and French (Qubec). I agree—the Yale article is what should be used. I suspect there are more since I came across it pretty fast. As to the author being Argentinian, the other source cited in that article is from a Britisher of Falklands origin, so I guess they want true balance. Somehow I don't quite feel like going in and editing the stuff. Churn and change (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have access to this work. Peter Beck, an appropriately qualified academic, tears the work in question to shreds, "Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…" "The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. [A concrete example follows of this error]" "Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book" "This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake…"  "readers would learn far more from the writings of the Argentine historian, Carlos Escude', whose research on the islands' title deeds led him to conclude that 'Who is right and who is wrong is not an obvious matter' (Buenos Aires Herald, 27 November 1985). This seems a far more balanced Argentine view than that articulated in Key to Enigma."  On the basis of this overtly hostile review, I would say that there are excellent reliability grounds for considering this work to not be reliable for history, due to the vicious criticism of its methodological, theoretical, interpretive and explanatory failures.  Also, this review suggests using Escude's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying to Someguy1221—None of what you have said affects the fact that Lynne Rienner Publishers is a scholarly publisher that sends manuscripts for external review. None of what you have said affects the fact that this particular text has not been dismissed by scholars, yet was published in a scholarly mode.  The reliability of the text is adequate, and at the low end of scholarly texts.  Your suggestion that the text's claims lie outside of the mainstream views (which you cite from appropriate scholarly sources) affects WEIGHTing, and may be cause to dismiss including a potentially reliably sourced minor scholarly claim for lack of impact.  Your suggestion that the text's claims have not been taken up in a field where these claims are regularly evaluated affects WEIGHTing, and may be cause to dismiss including a potentially reliably sourced minor scholarly claim for lack of impact.  In the humanities, citation frequencies are very, very, very low.  Works are frequently not cited because of the modality of publication.  Unlike, for example, the instrumentalist social sciences who attend to qualitative business issues, the humanities are not citation metrics fixated.  The standards (such as the the Australian ERA exercise) indicate that humanities fields base their qualitative judgement on esteem factors.  The fact that Lynne Rienner Publishers is a small, low esteem publisher may indicate that the source be WEIGHTed out of inclusion, but yet again does not impact on its reliability.  Secondary sources, such as a scholarly published work, are capable of processing and evaluating both primary sources and other secondary sources, there is no need to chase "Goebel," on a reliability basis—and regarding WEIGHT and FRINGE I think that you have already made excellent arguments evaluating whether the text should be used on WEIGHT or FRINGE grounds.  This is no reason not to cite Lopez (1995) on reliability grounds, but, again, are good reasons to dismiss or remove Lopez (1995) and its claims on WEIGHT grounds.  If you believe that there's a significant scholarly narrative covering this terrain, and if you believe another source with superior quality exists that exemplifies this better, then write it out of that source, and merely note this source also exists in the footnote regarding the write up. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, I seem to have kicked off quite a debate.
 * I noticed Churn is referring to a statement that the Argentinians were expelled in 1833. You have to be very careful in evaluating statements like that.  There were two separate populations in the Falklands at the time.  There was an established settlement that had been there since 1828 formed by Luis Vernet.  There was also a garrison and penal colony that had been there less than 3 months.  The garrison had mutinied, murdering their commander and that mutiny had been quelled by the ARA Sarandi with assistance from the British schooner Rapid.  The orders given to the captain of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio were to expel the Argentine authorities but not to molest the existing settlement.  The garrison was expelled but the settlement was encouraged to remain under a British flag.  As regards the settlement itself this had been established by Vernet after he sought permission from both Argentine and British authorities and he played the dangerous game of asking both to provide resources to protect his settlement.  The Argentine authorities at the time did not have the wherewithall to support him but the British could and did.  You will often see sources commenting that the Argentines were expelled referring to the authorities in the garrison but this is often confused with the settlement.  The source you mention is not incorrect but can be used in a misleading manner if not interpreted carefully - this is one of the pitfalls of working in a controversial area.
 * Just to make it plain, the Argentine Government claims the settlement was expelled to be replaced by British settlers, it is this claim that is criticised in the neutral historical sources.
 * There is also a problem to me that I'm not sure I've entirely put at rest. I didn't chase Goebel as I seem to have given the impression, its just that I'm very familiar with Goebel.  I saw in López a statement attributed to Goebel that I know he didn't make.  I'm not sure I follow the argument here, are you suggesting that if I'm aware that a source is falsely attributing a claim to a cite I should not act upon that knowledge.  I find it hard to accept that I'm just supposed to ignore my a priori knowledge and experience and accept an edit I know to be untrue.  I realise it is WP:V not WP:TRUTH on wikipedia but surely the statement fails verifiability per WP:V if Goebel makes no such statement?  I have a hard time seeing the flaw in my logic here. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Yale prof clearly says (p. 306): "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders. " That is rather clear. You may say that is wrong. Perhaps. I would say it isn't particularly neutral, but not a fringe POV (because of the credibility of the author and because I hit on it in just a few minutes of searching, meaning there are probably more articles stating the same thing out there). The statement can be added to the article with attribution. If you think it is wrong, you should do some research and dig up secondary sources of equal quality which say so and include them. You can possibly weight the anti- sentiment more if there are more sources on that side. You can't bar these based on your research and synthesis and expertise-based analysis of the source. Churn and change (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you refer to p.300 of the self-same reference, "Indeed, within three months, two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison", which chimes with what I point out. Its not that unusual for references to apparently be self-contradictory when the language us imprecise.  When referring to inhabitants does he mean garrison or settlement?  The author has phrased his comments in a manner open to interpretation.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have clear apriori knowledge that history will only begin when the proletariat abolishes the capitalist class as a class and then proceeds to abolish itself, while eliminating the value form. I don't edit wikipedia based on my apriori knowledge because WP:V rejects the concept that editors can know by themselves.  Similarly you have no capacity to read truth in Goebel.  Truth is irrelevant, because your truth, and my truth, and the truth of Fred up the road conflict with Jane's truth.  We reject editor's prior comprehensions of the truth and demand sourcing.  The flaw in your logic is your epistemology, as if you have the capacity as an encyclopaedia editor to make informed judgements about the truth value texts in comparison.  You don't have that capacity as an encyclopaedia editor—if you edit on that basis you will eventually be removed from this community.  If you wish to edit an encyclopaedia on the basis of the truth in your own mind, go find another project.  There are good reasons to reject reliable sources, many discussed above, none of which relate to editor's own comprehensions of "the truth."  There are good reasons to reject Lopez (1995) as reliable—but only because an appropriate scholar Peter Beck demolished any scholarly pretense that Lopez received from being published by a scholarly press in the article at doi:10.1080/00358539608454322 .   Notice how we had to rely on a reliable source to tell us to reject Lopez?  Notice how the critical elements of the rejection of Lopez were:
 * Beck's own reliability
 * Beck's work being a review of Lopez, not a similar work on the same topic
 * Beck's demolition of Lopez's methodology, not Beck's criticism of the content of Lopez.
 * We can feel free to reject Lopez's content because appropriate sources have told us that Lopez is faulty scholarship. And to reiterate, there were many reasons before the discovery of Peter Beck's review (doi:10.1080/00358539608454322) for not using Lopez—none of which were to do with reliability but were to do with WEIGHT, editorial judgement, etc.  Now that we have Beck's review we shouldn't use Lopez because we can demonstrate Lopez is unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again in wikipedia we have WP:V not WP:TRUTH. If I were to write an article, attributing a claim to Goebel but another editor checking my work found I had falsely attributed a statement that Goebel did not make, then that would be citation fraud or at best a genuine error to be corrected.  The article would fail verification.  This is nothing to do with my comprehension of what is or is not truth, Lopez's statement fails verification - ie its either citation fraud or a genuine error all the same.  Why do I have to accept a sourced claim from a book that fails verification, when its not acceptable in articles.  And again no I'm writing on the basis of the truth in my mind as you put it, I'm writing to reflect what sources say.  Simply put WP:COMMON would indicate that if you find a claim in a book that is in error, you shouldn't propagate that error.  I knew the statement was false but I checked the named source to confirm it and it was that I acted on.  You seem to be arguing that if I find a genuine error in a source then I cannot object to its use - is that really what you're arguing.
 * And in another way, the original author was in error he quoted the text as if this was Lopez's own research but as noted in the quote, Lopez claims this was in fact based on Goebel's research. The attribution of the statement was misleading.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you can form an opinion about the quality of a text based on your own fact-checking. But actually, the approach that I started with and Fifelfoo carried on with, is the best one for WP, especially when you want input from uninvolved editors. What are the external indicators of quality: publisher, author, reviews? If all those seem OK and the source is relevant, then it's worth discussing how to use it. At that point if you believe the source to be in error, then by all means point that out. It's moot in this case though, because Fifelfoo found a damning review (not balanced by any favourable ones) and I agree with him that that rules out any further consideration of its potential in WP history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is I did point out it was suspect, I did point out that Goebel should be referenced. (In fact, it turns out Lopez refers to another author Vieyra who in turn refers to another author Akehurst who refers to Goebel, so it may well be a classic case of Chinese whispers in sloppy research).  When I raised concerns I was accused of WP:OR and WP:SYN for basic fact checking and those same editors refused to discuss my concerns hiding behind those accusations.  Really I still don't see how checking facts is either.  I find the comments that I am not allowed to check claims made in a source for accuracy to be distinctly at odds with WP:V.  What is it that I'm missing here?  Lopez refers to Goebel but Goebel says something different.  How is that not failing WP:V?
 * No source is inherrently reliable. If a source that would typically be considered reliable is shown to NOT be reliable in a particular instance, then they are no longer a "reliable source". OR is in regards to content added to an article, not to determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. I would be best if the repudiation of accuracy in a particular source were also published in a reliable source, but that is not essential. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you referring to "any random source" as not inherently or de facto reliable? Agreed. But even established news sources make mistakes. This does not make them unreliable after that. We've recently seen authors and their articles go from reliable to unreliable (Jonah Lehrer), but not the host publications as a whole... --Lexein (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to newspapers, very rare instances of inaccuracy do not tarnish the overall reliability, simply the particular articles that are inaccurate. With regard to authors, rare and sporadic errors do not tarnish the overall reliability, just the particular errors. With regard to a specific book, a single erronious claim probably does not inherrently render the whole volume unusable just the specific claim that is shown to be inaccurate and any content built around or based on that inaccurate claim (unless for example it was the basis of the premise for the whole theory). Once regular or systemic errors rather than rare and sporatic, begin to appear, then the over reliableness of the newspaper/author/book then come into question. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the editors involved in the DR and ended up here after editor Churn and change left a comment on that section. I agree with Fifelfoo that the Lopez book can be safely ignored as a resource and with Churn and change that the Yale source (Risman, 1983) is a much more reliable one. I 'd also like to point out that there are several other sources stating the same that Lopez's book does, like Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship; Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989) - Cambridge University Press and The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute; Laver, Roberto C. (2001) - Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (both can be seen in the DR/N page along with the corresponding quotes) The issue here is not the source used to back the statement, rather than Wee will simply remove any mention of such statement because he believes it to be untrue. I and other editor have repeatedly pointed out that this behavior is WP:OR and WP:SYN, as have various editors here too. Luckily this is enough to put this discussion at rest and get back at improving the article that started the debate along several others. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See Laver doesn't support the claim that the population was expelled, his point is that the garrison was forcibly expelled.
 * See Bulmer-Thomas doesn't support the claim either.
 * I'm happy to take feedback but having read Risman, I consider his comments sufficiently ambiguous to not support the claim that Gaba p is wanting to make. I don't have a problem with the source reliability but it doesn't support the claim Gaba p is claiming.  It can be interpreted that way, equally it can be interpreted to mean the oppposite.
 * I also point out that despite the accusation being levelled at me, I haven't removed the Argentine claim from the article. I'm presenting it from a neutral perspective.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear god he just won't stop the WP:OR+WP:SYN. There are now at least three editors who think the statement should be included and properly sourced: Langus, Churn and change and me and two editors just here that told him he was incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN (not counting Langus and me who have told him that countless times now, which would make that four editors) He keeps rejecting sources based on his own WP:OR+WP:SYN and behaving as if he WP:OWNED several articles. He will never agree to add the statement "XXXX historian/author claims the settlers were expelled in 1833" without referring to the contradicting claim as a "documented fact" (thus disregarding the first one as just a claim), because he is convinced that the first one is not true. He will systematically delete any mention even resembling that first statement, unless the contradicting statement that they were not expelled is presented as the "truth" backed by "contemporary sources".
 * I ask the editors here: isn't the statement at least worth being mentioned (given that at least three sources back it up, not counting Lopez of course which has been discarded) or is Wee correct in wanting to completely obscure such a statement based on his own research of primary sources?
 * Also, regarding Carlos Escudé, I refer to this recent article of his where he states: "Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right." I would greatly appreciate the editors here speaking their mind on this topic. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Look no one disputes the garrison and Argentine authorities were expelled. Thats what the article says.  This isn't what you want to say and the sources you wish to use don't support you.  Trying to claim that editors are supporting you - look at DRN, NPOVN and at RSN they don't.  They support the edit that is there NOW.  The constant personal attacks really don't do you any favours.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the sentence I added: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British." I sourced this statement with Risman 1983 (presented by Churn and change) and Bulmer-Thomas 1989 who says:
 * "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833."; Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. p. 3.
 * I believe the statement to be properly sourced and relevant enough to be mentioned. Wee reverted it on sight, the edit was gone in less than 5 minutes. Gaba p (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're being deliberately mendacious with that edit. You're trying to use it to rubbish the historical record to boost a sovereignty claim by using ambiguous language that can be known interpreted in more than one way.  You would have known it was objectionable in the context of the article in that the Argentine claim is already mentioned.  Yesterday WP:DRN concluded your edit was not sustainable, mine was and this is simply WP:TE by moving your argumentative and confrontational approach to a new venue.  The garrison was expelled, the settlement wasn't.  Get over it, drop the stick.
 * Your entire approach to editing is flawed, you seek cites only to support forcing the Argentine POV into articles. No thats not how its done, you reflect the WP:WEIGHT of opinion in the literature and you report on the Argentine and British positions from a neutral perspective.  11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How am I using ambiguous language when I'm stating exactly which authors sustain the claim? You were told by two different editors here to stop the WP:OR+WP:SYN and yet you keep at it. This is not a fringe theory nor is it a minority claim, it's the claim of a country properly sourced by several authors and historians and thus needs to be mentioned. You can't just unilaterally decide it's an "untrue claim" and delete any mention of it from WP.
 * "The garrison was expelled, the settlement wasn't. Get over it, drop the stick." <-- perfect example of how Wee has already made up his mind about what happened in 1833 and is using his own believes to bias several articles. Once again: please stop. Gaba p (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to respond any further to your vexatious argument in multiple places. Your edit isn't appropriate to an article on self-determination for which the Falkland Islands is a footnote.  The edit warring and tag teaming has to stop.  You're welcome to have the last word as usual.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is now beyond the scope of this board. I strongly advise that each of you take two or three days off and think about how you will try and get consensus for the benefit of the encylopedia. If that is beyond you, then it will have to be DRN. Come back with any specific sourcing enquiries. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Judith, I agree it had nothing to do with RSN. I've just taken the self-same issue to DRN and it came down in my favour.  You and others confirmed my suspicion that Lopez was unreliable.  However, he's picked up a new stick and is now starting all over again.  He's following me from article to article and its getting wearing.  Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Slight tangent
Off on a slight tangent, you seem to criticise my use of Mary Cawkell on the basis this is a British source? I would suggest that basing criticism on nationality is a dangerous route to go down. Nevertheless I could switch to Gustafson just as easily, who is a neutral source, which has received considerable praise in peer reviews for the unbiased approach he takes to the subject see. Should I be switching to this as a source? Thanks in advance Wee Curry Monster talk 09:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

why are 3rd party sources the current default source for wikipedia's uses?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources

looking specifically for a historical wikilink that shows why this is.

when it comes to helpfulness for most people, secondary source is likely the way to go with 3rd party sources being the worst one. the longer the accuracy chain gets, and the more steps in the process, and the lower down you go, chance of mistakes and inaccuracies increase, among many many more significant and possibly less obvious reasons why 3rd party sources are the worst one to rely on.

maybe when it comes to wikipedia, 3rd party is the least worst for its purposes. it could likely be that 3rd party sources are the most available and for wikipedia's purposes (a website i rarely go for quality info), this makes sense. wikipedia had long been blocked via https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef as proof that there are 100x an order of a magnitude more helpful sites to get content from in every single topic.

im not looking for a comment, even a summed up one; im looking for a link to the verifiable source/content/talk of why this is, just out of curiosity and bewilderment.

Waveclaira (talk)


 * You may have misunderstood what we mean by "third party sources". They are basically the same as "secondary sources". For example, in American politics, the websites of the Republican Party and Democratic Party are primary sources, and they are also the two sides in the conflict. A book by a professor of political science is a secondary source, and also a third-party source. That's the kind of source we should generally be using for politics. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Right. "Third party" simply means that the source is (a) not just Wikipedia itself, and (b) not just the person editing Wikipedia, who is the only source for something. That is a pretty basic requirement most times. (There are of course exceptional situations, where a work around is required concerning a living person. But the basic principle is normally adhered to in one way or another.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Conan chronologies
I tried reverted back to the article to the original version from some auto-confirmed user who edit the sources are to make them reliable and notable, however, User:Shooterwalker (talk) believes they are unreliable, are the edis factual or is this user wanting start a talk about why they aren't sourceful, if they are resourceful, please notify the user--GoShow  (...............) 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Need an opinion on reliable sources at Conan chronologies
I posted something to the original research noticeboard, and got a few comments stating that the whole article might be of questionable notability. I got some passing support for cleaning up the original research, so I took that as enough reason to WP:BOLDly remove a lot of original research.

(The diff is here. I removed such gems as the editors' assertion that "a completely consistent timeline that would accommodate every existing Conan story is impossible for several reasons...", "The strongest point in favor of this chronology...", "it represents the ultimate expression of their tradition to date", and other opinions that evaluate the merits or weaknesses of the sources being mentioned.)

At least we're making progress. An editor restored some material, this time cited to sources. But none of the sources appear to be reliable. This includes:


 * Amra the Lion published by "a group of indie film makers in San Francisco"
 * Robert E. Howard, an angelfire fanpage about the author of the Conan series
 * The Barbarian Keep, another fanpage. (Note: it's not clear to me, but some of this stuff has been re-published by the estate of the author, which might lend it some credibility, but still makes it insufficiently independent.)

I'd appreciate some other opinions checking in on this. At this point, there's a mild edit war going on in removing/restoring these sources. No one is clearly in the wrong here or acting in bad faith. I just think we need a third opinion from someone who is accustomed to evaluating the reliability of sources, and can explain it properly to those editors. Or to me, if I'm missing something. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * an editor had restored the content with an edit summary Kindly note that the websites linked to are actually online versions of sources that in most instances previously appeared in print. The editor would need to actually cite those previously published sources and not personal blogs, unless the blogs are verified accounts of people who have been previously published in the area of Conan scholarship. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * and books self published through Lulu, dont count . -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking in. I've found this one a little frustrating, in part because some parts are obviously OR/RS to me, but also some of the confusion about what the original sources are. The current revision uses a few primary sources (which I guess are reliable to some degree, but only to describe what's in them, not to interpret them or provide an independent assessment of notability). The only two secondary/third-party sources are still
 * Two self-published websites (Joe Marek and William Galen Gray). Am I missing something about those two websites? Because they both look patently unreliable to me, nor do they have anything to establish that they're transcribing from a more reliable source.
 * "REHUPA". Its self description as an "Amateur Press Association" doesn't give me much comfort.
 * There's also a lot of editing going on at the page, so I'm doing my best to understand what's been fixed, and what hasn't. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the examples at all but just as a general comment about fan websites, a critical point to look for is how it is structured. Is it just made of un-moderated user content, or is there some sort of editing and sifting? If it passes that test then a stricter test is whether the website is ever cited anywhere else in a serious way, although I guess for a subject matter like this, things can get a bit circular. Anyway, not all fan websites are necessarily un-useable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the links. (Joe Marek and William Galen Gray). There's nothing that indicates any level of fact-checking or moderation, although I'm sure fans have come to talk about these websites a lot. And yeah, at best, I think we're looking at a circular/insular community that cites each other. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

K. K. Bhardwaj - writings on Hemu
I am about to attempt a clean up at Hemu, a biographical article concerning the 16th-century Indian emperor. Kanwal Kishore Bhardwaj is presently cited in the article and has written It is possible that he is the same K K Bhardwaj who has also written on a range of socio-political subjects, as indicated by this set of search results, in which case he would seem not to be a historian as such. This assessment is in fact stated in the foreword to his Hemu tome - see this page - but the writer of that foreword nonetheless commends his research.

I can't see that Bhardwaj's Hemu has been cited by others - see the GScholar results here and here. There are a lot of pseudo-academic "historians" published in India whose works we know not to be reliable but who are lauded by their friends etc. And the hero subjects they write on are usually inspired by aspects of nationalism and/or religious fervour. I guess the same applies the world over, but India is usually my thing. Can we treat Bhardwaj as reliable as a historian for matters relating to the life of Hemu? - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hellnotes as a reliable source? A Patch article?
I've had Hellnotes held up as a reliable source and I'm not entirely certain that the site would be considered a reliable source. The journal seems to have won a Bram Stoker Award in 2004 and been nominated, which makes me lean towards yes but I'm still slightly dodgy enough on it to where I thought it'd be best to ask. The reason is that it's been mentioned in relation to an AfD for Blood and Sunlight: A Maryland Vampire Story and while it would still be far too little to keep the article in question in my opinion, it would be good to know for future reference. I also want to ask whether a Patch article would be usable as a reliable source. I've never liked using the site as a reference, as it's one of those sites that a lot of people can submit to. The article in question also pertains to the same AfD and doesn't appear to be written by a staff writer. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

David B MacDonald re: Serbophobia
1. Source. 

2. Article. Anti-Serb sentiment

3. Content. "Anti-Serb sentiment or Serbophobia is a 'historic fear, hatred, and jealousy of Serbs', otherwise described as a 'historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs'. The use of the term has been controversial, as some sources state it is a myth used by Serb nationalists such as Dobrica Ćosić during the Yugoslav Wars in order to show an unbroken history of hatred and violence against Serbs by the Croats. Some controversy with the term 'Serbophobia' purportedly corresponds to its interplay with perceived historical revisionism practiced by the Milosevic government in the 1990s, and the contention that Serbian writers constructed the 'myth of Serbophobia,' as '...an anti-Semitism for Serbs, making them victims throughout history.'"

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ingrao produced a 2009 Review Article (a kind of historian's field review, or analysis of the current state of literature in a field) for the American Historical Review which is kind of the Nature of the American historical profession. The review article is located at doi:10.1086/ahr.114.4.947 and is behind a pay wall, so you should go ask the source supply people for a copy.  I have a copy of the AHR in one of the libraries I can access, so I might take a peek to see if it condemns this work.  If it doesn't, then it is a standard scholarly work and subject to the normal weighting concerns that any work is in an area of scholarly debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am new to this stuff, who are the source supply people? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request can often supply materials for genuine encyclopaedic purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've asked. I'll bring back if I am able to get access to a copy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I got access to a copy here (turns out it was freely available) but it only makes one mention of MacDonald as a footnote and is not critical of him. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Centre for Peace in the Balkans
1. Source. 

2. Article. Anti-Serb sentiment, but other articles as well.

3. Content. Varies, usually op-eds by a range of contributors, but also posts links to what are mostly reliable news sources. Obviously, if a news article is linked there, we can go to the actual news source, but I'm focused on the reliability of the op-eds, particularly the anonymous 'analysis' ones like this, but also the articles by Michael Parenti here and Diane Johnstone here.

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Opinion articles are only ever a reliable source about their author's opinion, and should not be used to reference statements of fact (per WP:RSOPINION). In regards to the use of this site for any purpose, does it have permission to have reproduced those opinion articles published elsewhere? Per WP:EL, sites which violate copyright should be avoided as links or references. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * About the unsigned "analysis" pieces: The web site belongs to a small Toronto NGO (The Centre for Peace in the Balkans) but its about page fails to list any identifiable individuals (like who's director or editor). So I think the unsigned pieces should be treated as anonymous WP:SPS. That is to say, useless as WP:RS for anything except the web site/NGO itself (which doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, so that part is moot). Tijfo098 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Kazakh National Pedagogical University
Is Kazakh National Pedagogical University's website a reliable source about old turkic inscriptions ?--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Philology" is listed as one of the university's research strengths, and Literary criticism and linguistics scientific research institute is one of their research organizations. But I can't find any publications listed at their site. Kdammers (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly I mean this sub domain of main site and here are the references used in articles . I think these references are enough to call the website RELIABLE. I want to be sure.--Arslanteginghazi (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"The user is claiming that the name Turan occurs in Turkish inscriptions based on the fringe website above. However, the website above contains much distortions that are not found in WP:RS journals and books. Even the inscriptions that are claimed to be "Turkic" have not been verified by any serious academic institution. Unfortunately the user above has been pushing Turkish nationalist fringe theory in Persian wikipedia. One of the people he is quoting is Amajolov which is part of the same institution (actually a major figure and head): Аманжолов А. С. Тюркская руническая графика (методическая разработка). А.-А., 1980., Аманжолов А. С. История и теория древнетюркского письма. Алматы, 2003. However, just to show the source is extremly fringe: http://s155239215.onlinehome. us/turkic/31Alphabet/Amanjolov/ AmanjolovBiographyEn.htm "In 1957 A.Amanjolov graduated the M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University (Institute of Eastern Languages at the Moscow State University) with a major in "Türkic philology ", remained for a post-graduate work, and in 1963 successfully completed master thesis with a theme "Verbal inflection in language of Ancient Türkic writing monuments" (under professor V.M.Nasilov). In 1957-1960, and also since 1964 he was doing research work in the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR. In June, 1966 the Ministry of higher and special education of the Kazakh SSR sent him to the Kazakh State Women Pedagogical Institute to the Faculty of the Kazakh Language, where he worked as a lecturer, docent, professor, and dean till September 1979. .Amanjolov is one of the leading professors of the al-Farabi Kazakh National University, in 1979-1995 he was a dean of the General Linguistics Faculty, and since April 1995 he works as a professor of the General Linguistics Faculty." But here is what thinks about Sumerians!! http://s155239215.onlinehome. us/turkic/31Alphabet/Amanjolov/AmanjolovSumerEn.htm "The above "Sumer"-Türkic matches, as we tried to demonstrate, form a certain system, explainable from the positions of historical phonetics of the Türkic languages. The cardinal phonetical laws of the Türkic languages, because of these matches, display an extremely complex development panorama from proto-Türkic language or a language condition (Sumerian written monuments from the boundary of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, excluding the monuments of the dead Sumerian language, a sacred language of Babilonian and Assyrian Semites down to present), via the ancient Türkic dialects, to the modern Türkic languages. The systematic character of the most ancient Sumerian coincidences allows to posit that a part of proto-Türks of the Central Asia migrated to Mesopotamia 31, settled there, and materially affected the language and accordingly the graphic logograms of proto-Sumerian written monuments."!!" So this factuly of Kazakh philology department (affiliated to the institution above) is claiming that Turks resided in the Middle 5000-6000 years ago. So he is saying Turks resided in the Middle as Sumerians..not really mainstream. Many of the former USSR countries are now ridden with nationalist propaganda which has not been taken seriously in Western academic circles. Any institution that has factuly claiming Turks have been in the Middle East 5000-6000 years ago is a fringe institution. I would also point out Kazakh faculty source was also dismissed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Issyk_kurgan&oldid=271420276 So there is a lot of nationalist fringe theories being proposed by academics in Kazakhistan (as well academic of other former USSR countries). So it is obvious that the website is fringe as any academic institution (with highest members) claiming Turks lived in the Middle East some 5000-6000 is not for Wikipedia but fringepedia.--Espiral (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Question on French language source
I'd be grateful for input at Reference_desk/Language. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replies should go here now. I read French and my assessment is that this is a mainstream online newspaper. Not just an aggregator but good for reporting about Mali. You asked whether it was good for establishing notability, what article does this apply to? Notability of what? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me then - it's for establishing the notability of Yaya Coulibaly. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good for that, and you have other sources to back it. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)