Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 133

BBC
Sigh. As usual I'm here because a tendentious user won't accept an archetypically reliable source. Is the BBC reliable for the statements removed here? The user in question claims we need a primary source because news media are all biased, which is so exactly the opposite of how WP works that it's laughable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're absolutely right in thinking that BBC is a reliable source. We neither prefer primary sources, nor do we require the secondary sources we use to say what primary sources they have used. I've reverted the edit in question and welcomed the new user. --Six words (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote should be specifically ascribed to the person being quoted. If it is part of an article, then it is likely far too long to avoid plagiarism problems as well.  It is a tad long to not be a copyright violation, unfortuneately, without a very clear attribution.  Collect (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment on whether the material needs to be paraphrased - I can't quite tell which quotes Collect is referring to - but as to the reliability question, yes, news pieces from the BBC generally meet our reliability threshold. MastCell Talk 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The material seems to be quoting 'BBC News', rather than a named author. I'd say that it certainly needs paraphrasing, and ascribing to the opinion of the BBC, but as a source it seems perfectly reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a reliable source. I agree that paraphrasing would be preferable to quotefarming. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think quotes are best over superficial change of copyright-protected text - (communal consensus) Copy-paste.Moxy (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case the words need to be specifically attributed in the text to the person who wrote them. Simple.  We either attribute quotes, or violate copyright.  And excessive length of a quote is also against practise. Collect (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't 'attribute the text to the person who wrote it'. The source doesn't say who wrote it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The "quote" does not appear in the cite. Not even remotely in the cite.   This represents a problem.   This suggests that the cite does not support the quote as given.  I checked a few google hits -- and guess what they cite? Wikipedia.,  etc. etc.  In short -- we appear to be quoting Wikipedia in the Wikipedia article.  I suggest that since there is no reliable source for the quote as such, that it likely should be excised, no?   The BBC article could possibly be used for "But some commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated."  which is in the BBC article.  Collect (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've figured out what the problem is. The material now in quotes was originally added by an IP here - presumably intended as a summary of the BBC article. Someone has noticed that it is largely a copy and paste, and rather than paraphrase it, has enclosed the lot in quotes. What is needed is for the material to be properly paraphrased, and then attributed to the BBC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Paraphrased. The BBC is an excellent source for this sort of thing, and it doesn't take much work to use it properly.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Best Things On Earth Request For Comment
This is a request for comment on using the website 'Best Things On Earth' (www.btoe.com) on these pages:


 * Colin Larkin (writer)

I wish to include a link in the 'infobox' section of the article. Since it states in the lead section that:

Colin Larkin is a British entrepreneur and writer. He was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by The Times as "the standard against which all others must be judged". He is the CEO and editor-in-chief of 'Best Things On Earth' an online multi-media rating site.

This fact can be verified at www.btoe.com in the 'About Us' section.


 * All Time Top 1000 Albums

I wish to include a link to the "How It Works" section of btoe.com (www.btoe.com/how-it-works) in the article All Time Top 1000 Albums since it states in the Colin Larkin (writer) article that:

By 2007, Larkin had begun work on a new website whose original inspiration had come from the All Time Top 1000 Albums, called 1000Greatest.com. This would later become the multi-media rating site and app, Best Things On Earth.

In addition, details of how the book All Time Top 1000 Albums and the above website, share a common 'how it works' history are included in the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, since it states that:

In 1998, the second edition published by Virgin Books used the continuing votes received over the previous four years. As a result of the publicity garnered by the encyclopaedia and the first edition, Larkin was able to ask for votes during his numerous radio broadcasts for BBC GLR, now BBC London 94.9. He collected 100,000 votes and the 2nd edition sold 38,000 copies. In 1999 Virgin published a smaller pocket edition, followed by a 3rd edition published in 2000, by which time the ongoing poll had reached over 200,000 votes cast....By 2005 the book had run its course and the large number of websites using the Virgin All Time Top 1000 Albums' lists demonstrated that the Internet reflected current opinion more rapidly than any printed book could. In 2008 Larkin co-founded a company to launch a website '1000Greatest.com', which invited the public to express their opinions on Albums, Movies, Novels and Singles. This later became "Best Things On Earth" (or Btoe.com), which would allow users to suggest any topic and vote for the best example of that topic.

This can also be verified in the 'About Us' section of www.btoe.com and the 'How It Works Section'. Thanks for your consideration. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that said link is currently blacklisted for spam abuse and that requester writes for the site. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Washington Irving
is Washington Irving, a scholar to classic islamic history ? he wrote this book : "Washington Irving (1897), Mahomet and his Successors & Spanish Legends, Volume III, New York & London G.P, Putnam's Sons" and in this book he claim that aisha and ali were enemy together.--Espiral (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a good source. Nineteenth-century history books are generally iffy anyway where better research is available, and Irving wasn't even a scholar of this subject. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

AllCinema.net
There are currently 625 articles using AllCinema.net as a reference. However, based on a Google Translator reading their disclaimer page, they do not appear to provide any gauntnesses on the integrity, accuracy, or safety of the information. The even stated that some of the information is based on hearsay (伝聞情報が含まれることから). As such, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source to cite information from. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The New York Times has a disclaimer page, too. The presence of a disclaimer page does not prove that they don't engage in fact-checking.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Using the same search on the IMDb, there are many many wiki citations that use the IMDb. This page alone leads to a lot of them. The text of the WP:RS specifically mentions IMDb, and I would be happy to present arguments that that sentence should be reviewed and modified to allow the IMDb to be used to substantiate that a film exists, its date, cast, crew, and plot summary information. I do realize that this may have been suggested many times before, but here it is again. (08:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC))
 * AllCinema.net looks crazy dangerous to me by comparison. ( Martin | talk • contribs 08:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC))
 * AllCinema.net doesn't publish the origin of the data they are using, but it doesn't appear to be user-generated content, and from inspection, there are some clear differences from the Kinema Jumpo database and the Japanese Movie Database. If the information is in doubt, it could be cross-checked against those sources. Anyway despite your faith in it, IMDB is pathetic on Japanese content. For example, if you know who Rentaro Mikuni is this photograph on IMDB is worth a laugh. You won't find mistakes that bad at AllCinema.net. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau
This is in reference to several discussions that I have seen and not any one particular article. Are BBB ratings considered reliable enough to reference in an article? The page for Better Business Bureau has a neutrality flag. Andrewman327 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Their ratings should be reliable, yeah. The only issue I can think of is if they ascribe any ratings to companies that have not officially gone to them to get rated. An example would be with films, where people get concerned when a film is labeled as Unrated, when that could just be because the film director decided not to get a rating because the rating would be biased against them. The documentary Bully comes to mind in that regard. The BBB also has this issue (along with past corruption issues), so some companies choose not to go to them to get ratings and they get castigated for it, even when they might have legitimate reasons not to go to the BBB.


 * But that's neither here nor there. In short, yes, it should be perfectly reliable and certainly important enough to include. Silver  seren C 00:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason for the 'neutrality flag' on the Better Business Bureau article page was because the lede failed to reflect the article body in that it made no reference to the controversies the bureau has been involved in - though that seems to have been rectified to some extent. More to the point, the bureau is actually almost useless as a reference for anything it might usefully be cited for. Contrary to the impression that a lot of 'citations' have given, the bureau doesn't actually evaluate businesses - see for example the disclaimer at the bottom of this example: "BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing service". The only thing they are 'accredited' for is "a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints".  On that basis, I'd suggest that they are possibly 'reliable', but only for a statement that they have got a vague assurance regarding something which is presumably a legal requirement anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, that's very helpful.


 * While there might be exceptions, I struggle to think of a situation where a BBB rating would be relevant or appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Far more often, I suspect that their rating would be used to slant an article one way or the other.
 * On the one hand, a high BBB rating could be used to try to suppress criticism of a company, under the misguided cover of providing spurious 'balance'. As AndyTheGrump notes, BBB ratings are based substantially on how well a company handles complaints raised through the BBB.  This is only a narrow view of a company's customer service processes, and offers no information whatsoever about a company's ability to successfully or correctly carry out their core business.  (The BBB cannot assess complaints handled successfully by the company before they were escalated to the BBB, nor can it enumerate the complaints that were never brought because a company does a good job, for instance.)  It doesn't address discriminatory hiring and firing practices, nor workplace safety, nor adherence to environmental regulations, nor their interactions with other businesses.
 * On the flip side, a low BBB rating could be used to 'punish' a business in our articles, perhaps largely because they didn't pay their bribe membership fee to the BBB. Unless there is something particularly noteworthy about an organization or article subject's interaction with the BBB, I'm not sure there's any reason to bring the BBB into our articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Israel's Tribes Today (2005) — Steven M. Collins
Hi, is the much talked book, Israel's Tribes Today (2005) by Steven M. Collins a good source to be used on articles concerning Asian history? 117.207.55.94 (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not even close. It's pure fringe blither. The author is not an expert in the topic and the book has not undergone any sort of scholarly review. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

ferdinand porsche
ferdinand porsche was born in liberec czech republic which makes him a czech NOT austrian-german like your page states. he might of lived in austria and germany later in his life but he was czech. just wanted to point out your error. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is lifenews.com considered a reliable source?
Today I reverted (twice) an addition to the PepsiCo article which made statements backed up by text at lifenews.com. Could I please get some input here as to what others feel about that site as a source? Thanks in advance. GFHandel &#9836; 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * lifenews.com is probably reliable for the views of "pro-life" advocates. But this does not look like a notable criticism of PepsiCo. If mainstream media sources beyond the "pro-life movement" have reported on this criticism, then it can be included using those sources, and this source could optionally go in there too. Otherwise, leave the whole point out, for notability and balance reasons more than for verifiability. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My guess is that lifenews.com is probably not RS for this issue. History2007 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LifeNews consistently subordinates facts to propaganda in the pursuit of its (stated) agenda. It's only reliable in the sense of verifiability for the views of people with that agenda, and for due weight purposes it cannot be admitted at all. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable in this context, but seek a better one; it is borderline. The site in question is both an advocacy site and a news aggregator; the statement in question is a report of criticism of Pepsi, which exists. I would be careful of using descriptors in the source, since that implies fact, and the source is not impartial; they are assumed to overstate the importance of protests. I would also add that, even if the reports are WP:RS, if the only news source is lifenews, the section would be excluded by WP:UNDUE , even if it is not disputed that the protests happened.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

CPT
Is the description accompanying this photograph a sufficiently reliable source for making an in-article assertion that the photograph depicts what its publishers claim it depicts? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but this seems a moot question given that the article also cites two reliable books to support this (Loewenstein's book is essentially an extended essay about his views towards Israel, but it can be assumed to be factually accurate for statements such as this given that it was published by a prestigious university press). If any reliable sources dispute this photo's authenticity, that should also be noted. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically this. It's not a reliable source on its own, but sources that are reliable accept it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm intentionally limiting this question to the first source. Loewenstein's book asserts that there was similar graffiti, but it's synthetic to make the claim that the picture depicts an example of it. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Loewenstein's book asserts that the Christian Peacemaker Teams released an image of graffiti that said "Gas the Arabs." This is a photo by the Christian Peacemaker Teams of graffiti that says "Gas the Arabs." (Additionally, Loewenstein specifies Hebron, and independent sources confirm that the Abu Heikel family, whose house CPT says is the one graffitied here, lives in Hebron.) I fail to see the problem. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Loewenstein's book directly supports the photo citation. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Loewenstein's book only supports the contention that such graffiti existed, and that pictures of it were taken. It's synthesis to claim that this particular picture is the one Loewenstein was refering to, and Loewenstein's text doesn't support the assertion that the graffiti was perpetrated by settlers. Anyway, wrong forum. RS/N is to establish the reliability of sources, not whether sources are being used correctly in-article. Come visit us at the article talk page if that's what you want to discuss. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless we have a very good reason (like another source) to actively believe that Loewenstein was describing a different instance of the same graffiti, nothing prevents us from assuming that the graffiti that fits the exact description and whose details are corroborated by secondary sources is the one Loewenstein described with that description and those details. Even if there is proven to be a second house with the same graffiti and that's the one Loewenstein describes, I'm not even sure that would rule out the use of the photo. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you really just unhat this section so that you could make an irrelevent comment to point at from the article's talk page? Oh, yeah, you did. That's kinda sleezy. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the criteria for RS on Wikipedia is context and whether "sources are being used correctly in-article" is part of context.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whine if you like - you cannot close your own discussion (because isn't it funny how the discussion just coincidentally turned out the exact result you wanted even when the other two participants said the exact opposite?) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thatgrapejuice

 * Source: Website http://thatgrapejuice.net/  (music review website)

Just 103 Wikipedia pages link to thatgrapejuice.net Also see http://website.informer.com/thatgrapejuice.net


 * Article Misha B  (UK/singer)


 * Use in article: various

In February 2012, it was announced that Bryan had signed a record deal with the Relentless Records. []

She began writing poetry, moved on to rapping and then progressed to singing. [ ]

That Grape Juice said that she boasted 'originality in abundance'.[ ]

Home Run was released for digital download on July 15 in the UK, landing in at 11 at the end of its debut week[ ]

she performed an acoustic version of the song live...... on the 17 July 2012, for Ustream [ ]

I believe its reliable in context, but is it still just a blog...what is the relaxed independent opinion ...Zoebuggie☺ whispers 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It is “the UK’s #1 Urban blog”. As describes in its "About us", so no. Not RS. Problems with these sites is, even if there may be some editoria oversite and possible fact checking (and we really don't know), more than likely the author wouldn't pass criteria for use as a blog can be written by just about anyone in the business or out.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion and the New Atheism: A Critical Appraisal
Hi,

Does the fact that this book was published by Brill Publishers and got a good review in this journal make it a reilable source to be used in articles related to New Atheism and its criticism? How about articles about New Atheist. For example the book discusses largely about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and their works. Can I use the stuff mentioned in the book in those articles? Thank you.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The book counts as a reliable source. It appears to be academic in nature and written from a serious point of view.  That does not mean that it should be the only source referenced in an article, or that it is necessarily right.  But it certainly passes the WP:IRS guidelines.
 * Not so fast there guys. Yes, the Book appears to be a legitimate publication from a notable academic in the field, published by a company with editorial oversite and fact checking, but we don't do blanket assesments. You have not provide context with what claim it is supporting. Without that there can be no straight answer. If you make a claim not supported by the information or you attempt to lift fact or stitch together facts from bits or words...no. Please be more specific with questions please.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not finished reading the book. So far, I am trying to rephrase what the book said about what Dawkins mentions in the movie Expelled. The book is saying this:

"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"

The question is given the credits of this book, can I use what is mentioned in the Richard Dawkins article.--216.31.211.11 (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are going to use commentary on a quote mine like Expelled? I hope not.    Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I just pointed out on the talk page of the article, the book is a collection of individual essays. The particular essay in question was witten by Steve Fuller, both a willing participant in Expelled and an ID proponent, and hence fails the "third-party" criterion of "reliable, third-party, published source". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on what I have read here it would at least be suitable for a "Further reading" section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Slate article about Republican tax policy
Source: This article in Slate Magazine

Article: Republican Party (United States) (see this talk thread)

Content: Basically the whole thing. The fact that Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ have all stated support for raising taxes on those who pay no income taxes. Secondarily, the statement that this position is the new GOP orthodoxy. ("Which it is.")

Comment: Obviously the title and byline are sensationalistic and probably POV. It has been contended that this source is opinion and therefore not reliable for its facts. I disagree and believe that it's analysis, not opinion, but even if it's opinion, the facts are reliable because they're supported by quotes and hyperlinks are provided to the original reporting. Have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss (talk • contribs)


 * Well, the author David Weigel is notable, for starters. That ramps up the importance of the article. I think it should be usable with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I said on the TP, attribute the claims to the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand why attribution might be necessary for the statement that the position is the new GOP orthodoxy, but why is it necessary for the fact that Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ have all stated their support? In that regard the source is simply compiling other reliable sources; there's nothing "opinion" about it. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably isn't neccessary in that context, but (if I recall correctly) that's not what was said in the edit you originally proposed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not an opinion piece or news blog. Its a straight news story. As long as the claim is made with proper context this may be used to source a fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is most assuredly not a news story. It's an analysis, fraught with Weigel's own interpretations. Whether it is citeable is debatable (it absolutely needs to be attributed to him, specifically, but I'd tend to believe that it can be included), but calling it straight news is flat-out wrong.  Horologium  (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, we can discuss that issue on the talk page. --Nstrauss (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the statements by Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, and the WSJ: some (Binkernet, Horologium, TheTimesAreAChanging) have stated emphatically that attribution is required, but unless I'm mistaken I haven't seen an explanation as to why. Can someone please take a stab at an argument? --Nstrauss (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that this is pretty standard political analysis. It isn't academic political science, it's political commentary. We would normally attribute. There is also the WP:RECENT dimension. After a year, will this point seem so important, so incontestable, so challenging? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that analysis pieces like this one are perhaps not the same as news reporting but they still shouldn't be put in the same hopper as opinion articles. Typically there's some factual content that I believe has been vetted by editors as well as some synthetic commentary or analysis content. If the factual content is well sourced then why should it not be citable without attribution? (Re WP:RECENT, that's an argument that should probably be raised on the talk page, as it doesn't bear on the reliability of the Slate source.) --Nstrauss (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First glance. Second glance. Third glance. It is an "opinion article" as used on Wikipedia. Opinions should always be ascribed to the person or group holding the opinion, and not stated as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice.  Wikipedia101.  Collect (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not a blog. It is not an "opinion piece". It is not an editorial or Op-ed. It is not an analytical piece disseminating a report, a graph or a document. The article is: "Republicans for Tax Hikes - Republicans have finally found a group they want to tax: poor people." By David Weigel. Weigel is a Political reporter for Slate. The section is found in the Home/Politics section (I believe that means it was featured ). I can't even find anything that would suggest Slate is a partisan publication. This is a straight political report. It may be used to reference fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not always. The inclusion of the word "rarely" at WP:NEWSORG implies that there are exceptions to the rule. Plus, there are evidently some people who disagree with your assessment that this is an opinion article. And even if this is an opinion article the statements by the candidates and the WSJ are of course facts, not opinions. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Factual elements of a reliable source opinion piece can be stated without attribution, unless the fact is challenged elsewhere. In the latter case one would return to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The material is, however, opinion in the case at hand, and this is not one of the "rare exceptions." As always, where opinions are involved at all, best practice is to always cite tham as opinions and not cite them as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a intrinsically difficult area. I'm just listening to Paul Mason on [Newsnight]]. It's intended as serious commentary. In the Guardian [Timothy Garton Ash's columns are on the level of scholarship. Gary Younge's work is serious reportage. Zoe Williams is serious when commenting on government policy. Marina Hyde is only maintaining a slight distance from gossip column territory. Hadley Freeman is an airhead. It's a continuum and the paper gives you no help in drawing lines in the sand. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect, I must be missing something. How is this opinion? I read it. I checked out the author and the publication. It isn't Huff post or the Guardian. Is it partisan? How are you arriving at the conclusion that the piece should be treated with attribution as with an opinion piece?
 * 1. It is a signed opinion piece in the Politics section. It is not a list of facts, but interpretations by the writer. 2. Weigel writes opinion columns such as Can canvassers from David Koch’s Tea Party group beat Democrats on the ground?,  Today on the Great, Pointless "Crippling Candidate Gaffe" Beat ,  Meet the Guy Who's Re-Weighting Polls to Show Romney Way Ahead of Obama  and the like.  If you do not see these as "opinions" rather than "facts" I fear for the future of Wikipedia.   3.  He posts specific and clear opinion in those opinion columns like Can we trust a president who merely says he's "in close consultation with the Israelis on these issues because it affects them deeply"? I don't know if we can.,  Well, either Romney is betraying Ryan's great idea ("we need this debate, and we will win this debate"), or voters aren't hearing enough of it. ,  If you want more 1980 mythbusting delivered to your door, consult Nate Cohn. , So, I'm not surprised to see many conservative talkers calling on Romney to stand by the comments etc.  4. the article in question says For decades, the "lucky ducky" number, the percentage of Americans that pay no taxes, never rose above 30 percent. The Bush tax cuts pushed it over 30 percent, but not too far over. Then, in 2008 and 2009, the economy collapsed. The government responded with, among other things, new tax deductions.   making clear that in his opinion the Bush tax cuts caused the increase in the "lucky ducky" number - which is a matter of opinion and not of fact found in reliable sources. Thus the author routinely writes opinion columns, this is an opinion column, hence must be treated as an opinion column - the opinions should be ascribed to the author and not presented in Wikipedia's voice.  Simple, and not especially onerous I should think. Collect (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It is not a signed opinion piece and NOWHERE on that article does it state that. IN FACT the bottum of the article clearly shows his title: David Weigel is a Slate political reporter. It is not an opinion or an analysis, but the reporting of an interview from the Wall Street Journal in this case. You are however, making an interpretation without demonstration and are using an opinion of what you think. The titles of article are not an indicator of being an editorial or opinion. And I checked and they are as well articles not editorials. Stick to the facts and not what we think. The context is accurate to what is written.

This article is a Relibale Source to reference these facts and I find nothing showing the author as an editorial writer for Slate.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Arab Nyheter at Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)
The passage in question is 'According to Arab Nyheter news agency "Al Jazeera has reported that Saudi security authorities arrested a suspect bird, who worked for Israeli intelligence (Mossad) and was flying in Saudi airspace to gather information on the country." [18]'

Is Arab Nyheter a reliable source for reproducing faithfully what Al Jazeera might have said? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard essay
Is the essay at RS for stating that Murray Rothbard directly connects Bismarckism to "right wing socialism" in an essay, or is an editor correct in stating
 * "However, when he uses the actual term "right-wing socialism" is he is referring to moderate "real" socialism, such as the revisionist wing of the SPD in Germany, Fabians in the UK etc. He nowhere says Bismarckism, for example, is "right-wing socialism."

The quote from Rothbard directly is:
 * Historians have long recognized the affinity, and the welding together, of Right-wing socialism with Conservatism in Italy and Germany, where the fusion was embodied first in Bismarckism and then in Fascism and National Socialism: the latter fulfilling the Conservative program of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, theocracy, and a right-wing collectivism that retained and even cemented the rule of the old privileged classes.

The Rothbard essay is also printed in several books - so the site used (Mises) is not the issue, only whether the Roghbard opinion belongs in an article on "Right wing socialism" or not at all. Collect (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure why this is here (I speak as the other user discussing this issue). No one at that page is saying the source should not be used or has disputed that the source is good for a claim that Rothbard connects Bismarckism, and other things of the genuine right, as traditionally understood, to "right-wing socialism". The issue is about whether Rothbard is saying Bismarckism is "right-wing socialism"; and whether Rothbard is using the phrase "right-wing socialism" to refer to something different - ie the right-wing, relatively speaking, of the socialist movement proper (which he says, yes, can find common ground with conservatism) - from the term as defined and used elsewhere on the WP page itself, where it's presented as referring directly to the inherent quasi-socialism of the conservative right wing (as viewed through the eyes of the libertarian right). The problem is not an RS one, but a wider problem of a compound term with multiple uses and meanings, which depend on who's using it.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Pray be accurate - your position was that Rothbard made no connection, whilst I submit that using his precise words, he does make a direct and explicit connection, and that he is absolutely RS for ascribing his own words to him. And further that when one says something is a combination of the direct topic and another topic that the information may be used in the article about the first topic.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rothbard explains what he means, "Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within Socialism: one was the Right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of Conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the Left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism: but especially the smashing of the State apparatus to achieve the "withering away of the State" and the "end of the exploitation of man by man."" TFD (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Pray be accurate - your position was that Rothbard made no connection". Really? What, I wonder, did I mean by saying, in my first post raising the topic on the page:
 * "the Rothbard piece ... follows the broad libertarian point of saying that socialism, paternalist/traditional conservatism and fascism are all cut from a similarly collectivist and statist cloth"
 * Or here, in a follow-up:
 * "I didn't say the source couldn't be used or that fusions or even simply closely related things cannot be referred to, nor did I deny that he was making a connection between what he calls right-wing socialism and other things including conservatism"
 * There it is, in black and white, TWICE. As it is in black and white that Rothbard said, "The affinity between Right Socialism and the new Conservatism became very close" ... "the Fabians collaborated closely with Tories". That is, he defines them as, and starts from the premise that they are, discrete concepts and groups, but argues they have become increasingly close. He does not define Right-wing socialism per se as Conservatism. Sorry, but this calls into question your whole reading of both others' arguments and sources on this page. Not a topic for RSN, but quite a problem.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of BioMed Central
Hi. I added a fact with verifiability into the green coffee article. Specifically: Japanese researchers, studying green coffee bean extract consumption in mice, concluded that it "is possibly effective against weight gain and fat accumulation by inhibition of fat absorption and activation of fat metabolism in the liver." This content was removed by another editor, claiming to violate WP:MEDRS. To my eye, the source (BioMed Central) appears reliable and it apparently publishes hundreds of peer-reviewed, open-access journals, including the one in question "BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine". I have re-added the material above, but would like to hear other editors' opinions on the matter. Additional context... The green coffee article is small and a popular sub-topic seems to be the purported health impact of consuming it. There are several other studies represented and cited in the article. Thanks! --Ds13 (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine is an open-access journal which charges researchers around $2000 for every single article they publish. Institutions which are "support members" get a discount of 15%, and some prestigious institutions are support members. So the researchers have to shell out money from their budget to publish. Their impact factor, per their own website, is 2.24 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmccomplementalternmed/about). In a list of top 60 free or partly free journals: here, they don't make the list (the list is based on more than impact factor, and you can probably quibble about the way they rate; nevertheless it is a rough guide). In the not-all-that-accepted-by-mainstream field of "Integrative and complementary medicine", they are ranked sixth by this site: http://openbiomed.info/2011/07/integrative-complementary/ I can pull up more official numbers and figures, but this seems at best a medium-quality journal in a low-rated field. Yes, the field has its fans, but it just isn't mainstream. As to your specific question, I don't believe a source being an RS is a yes/no thing. There are degrees to reliability, and you can use these indicators to evaluate how reliable this source is compared to the rest in the article, and those potentially available for use in the article. Churn and change (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the journal or publisher, the article is not reliable for medical claims as it is a PRIMARY medical source making therapeutic claims. SECONDARY medical sources, being systematic reviews of experimental publications are necessary to make therapeutic claims on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BioMedCentral is not actually a source; it is a portal for academic journals. The source you are actually citing is BMC Comp and Alt. Med. and is a PRIMARY SOURCE, not a secondary source. It's prestige as a journal is not great, but not negligible, but nevertheless, as a primary source, there may be contradictory studies, we wouldn't know from this paper.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A journal is neither a primary nor a secondary source. That determination depends on the article. Primary sources are discouraged for a variety of reasons—incomprehensibility to lay people, possible cherry picking giving undue weight to minority or fringe views, unconfirmed conclusions which could be statistical flukes or experimental errors—and so on. I am not able to see any blanket ban on primary sources for anything in the med-rs guidelines, but may be I missed it. Churn and change (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that you could NEVER use a primary source, but the study would have to be not just a good study, but worthy of being mentioned by name in the article (for instance, the discovery of the structure of DNA, widely held to be a seminal paper), and attributed.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While the exclusion of primary sources for making therapeutic claims sounds good, is it actually mentioned in the WP:MEDRS guideline? Churn and change (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Second sentence of the lede (a therapeutic claim being a medical claim), second sentence of Assess evidence quality. This kind of cherry picking is why we have MEDRS in the first place. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How does one get from there to the categorical statement primary sources are not acceptable for therapeutic claims? WP:MEDRS has lengthy guidelines on when and where primary sources can be used for medical claims. Editors should research the claim to see if it is cherry picked; reach a consensus on whether what is cited is obvious from the source; and ensure it has sufficient coverage to be worthy of inclusion. I also don't see anything special about "therapeutic claims" in the guidelines; they are the same as any other medical claim, which means pretty much anything pulled from a medical journal. WP has the WP:MEDICAL disclaimer in place of explicit policy on treatment claims. Churn and change (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback. Note that I'm not attempting to make a therapeutic claim. My claim was that research was done, published, and that the researchers concluded something. To my mind, a medical or therapeutic claim looks like "Substance X may help you lose weight.*ref*", while a non-medical claim would be "Researcher Y studied Substance X and concluded that it may help you lose weight.*ref*". A worthwhile distinction? Applicability of WP:MEDRS aside, the primary source issue is the more important principle. Noted. --Ds13 (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This, "is possibly effective against weight gain and fat accumulation by inhibition of fat absorption and activation of fat metabolism in the liver." is a therapeutic claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, can't see your distinction. EVERY research article available on the BioMedCentral portal has research that has been done. There are thousands of research articles, most making points of extraordinary specificity, and alternate views of a larger argument. If you want to add what the medical literature claims to Wikipedia, you might want to include "review" in your search, to get review or compilation articles instead. Determining what scientific consensus actually is for Wikipedia purposes is a little more complex. Good luck.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Source in Restaurant Stakeout
I noticed this posting on the Realityblurred website was used as a source to add content into Restaurant Stakeout regarding whether it is really "reality" or not. However, I am highly skeptical as to whether it is reliable source and wanted some other feedback. Thanks, SassyLilNugget (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not really. This is just a very elaborate fan site from a credentialed journalist as an indepentent review of these shows. It appears to have no real editorial oversite or fact checking judging by its disclaimer: "disclaimer: "The materials on realityblurred.com's web site are provided "as is.". This is self published material: "[R]eality blurred is produced, owned, and operated by Andy Dehnart, at least until someone offers me enough money to sell out." The most the contents of this site could be used for is in referencing information about Andy Dehnart. --Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Voice of Russia
There is a problem at the Battle of Aleppo (2012) article wether VoR is reliable source or not.

Two users (User:I7laseral and User:Sopher99) claimed that the VoR is not a reliable source. This was the VoR's article that was problematic -.

Now, they claim it's not reliable because some "non-neutral" words were used in the article, namely "merceneries". However, number of sources reported that there are actually number of merceneries involved in the Syrian civil war. Check the Free Syrian Army article and foreign combatants. Croatian and Serb merceneries are fighting within ranks of the FSA for example. This was confrimed by high-ranking Croatian general. Thefore a word "mercenery" was used for a reason.

Now, as for Voice of Russia, it is a government owned multi-language broadcasting service. Just to make a note, BBC is government-owned as well, which doesn't mean it's not reliable. VoR is being broadcasted in 33 languages and it was established in 1929 (83 years ago). VoR is member of the European Broadcasting Union and the International Committee on Digital Radio Mondiale. So it is very prestigious broadcasting service.

--Wüstenfuchs 17:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

-Voice of Russia is a propaganda news-source (or rather one which filters out facts to support the Russian government's view). -The other thing that I had a problem with was the use of "liberate". (by the way there are no mercenaries in Syria, there are foreign fighters (but not hired)) -Voice of Russia constantly takes the Syrian government claim's as fact, as oppose to normal RS which just takes claims form both sides as unverified until witnessed by their own reporters. Sopher99 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not propaganda news at all. The term liberate is just a term. And no, VoR doesn't constantly takes claims as fact at all. They made their own report. Also there are merceneries, Croatian general and military circles in Belgrade (in Serbia) confrimed there is a lot of Croatian and Serbian veterans in Syria fighting for money. Snipers are braging to earn $2,000 daily due to "rich foreign donators". Who are does foreigners I can't say, I can only assume they ment Saudi Arabia or Qatar (see the Free Syrian Army article). --Wüstenfuchs 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So the Syrian army weren't killing rebels they were only singling out the dozen mercenaries in the whole of Syria? Thats a laugh. Sopher99 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. VoR: "Dozens of insurgents and mercenaries have been killed or wounded." --Wüstenfuchs 18:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can be clear here: VoR should not be used if there are more neutral sources that cover the same material, for the same reason we prefer sources from the NYT, WSJ, or the like over those from the Adbusters or the Washington Times. a13ean (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no any. They are the only one to discuss the subject. --Wüstenfuchs 18:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, the relevant points are probably not worthy of mention. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. For example the Guardian published an article about high number of foreign fighters and way they entering the country. That is very relevant for the article. VoR published this article about plans of the Syrian Army which is relevant for the article as well. The number of newspaper publishing certain story doesn't influence importance of an event. Also, the number of foreign journalists in Aleppo is very small and one report therfore doesn't mean the whole case is irrelevant. --Wüstenfuchs 20:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the number of sources that verify something does impact upon importance in the Wikipedia sense. I have no idea how many journalists are there nor how one quantifies "very small", but the usual suspects generally have the bigger issues covered, eg: Reuters and AP, as do the major newspapers/TV etc. VoR is far from being reliable in this context: you need something better. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Damaging rewrites?

 * Note: I posted this at one of the relevant wikiproject talkpages, and someone suggested I should also mention it here.

I'm concerned about these edits - the user seems to be completely rewriting large chunks of numerous articles (usually character and plot sections), often eradicating references, eg and eg.2. There are also potential WP:TONE problems. Can someone look into this, or take and describe it better wherever needed? (It looks extensive, and I have no experience in this topic area). Thanks. —Quiddity (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by P.J.Cohen
I'm in huge disagreement with my fellow Croatians about this book.

Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by Philip J. Cohen, Texas A&M University Press, Nov 1, 1996

I do not think that this book shall be ever used as a valid scholar reference. There are several roadblocks which this book does hit
 * the author is not historian
 * the book title is an accusation
 * there are serious doubts who was the book true author
 * Neutrality is a sacred Wikipedia credo

Let us start with: http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/product-reviews/0890967601/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/176-8108485-2189606?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Cohen's ghost-writer?, April 7, 2012 By John P. Maher (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History (Eugenia & Hugh M. Stewart '26 Series on Eastern Europe) (Paperback) In today's New World Order we too have "brilliant outsiders" to the field of Balkan studies writing "long awaited" books. One of these is said to have produced a revolutionary account of Serbia's Secret War This is Dr Philip Cohen MD, a dermatologist. He has no credentials in Balkan studies.

"This book," as we are told by the Series Editor, Stjepan (Stipe) Mestrovic, scion of the famed Yugoslav clan, is "the second in a series on Eastern European Studies. The first was by Serbophobe Norman Cigar (no joke). Dr Cohen has, we are to believe, mastered in the brief span of a couple years, the skill of writing a reasonable facsimile of academic historians' prose and has metabolized reams of Balkan chronicles. Already in 1992 our dermatologist served as expert on the Clinton-Gore transition team. What godfather planted him there? Dr Cohen's Balkanological achievements are the more remarkable for his inability to read Serbo-Croatian. To overcome this handicap Dr Cohen "headed," one reviewer tells us, "a team of translators." Tell me, please: How does one go about "heading a team of translators", especially when one is not a translator? The identity of the translators nor is unknown as is the location of the archive in which the translations have been deposited Typographically, too, Cohen book's has over-generous margins and spacing that increase the bulk of the book by about a third over a normally produced book. School kids call it "padding".

There is a laudatory foreword from the pen of David Riesman, not a dermatologist, but Professor Emeritus of the Harvard University Department of Sociology and author of the best-seller, The Lonely Crowd. Like Dr Cohen, Professor Riesman, is unfettered by a preparation in Balkan studies Riesman even, Mestroviæ tells us, skipped sociology, for he "came to Sociology from Law ." Lawyer-sociologist-Balkanologist Riesman writes that Serbia is a country in which " illiterates could rise to leadership and even to the monarchy." That sounds like late medieval Western Europe. Dr Riesman may have had in mind the likes of Milos Obrenovic, but leaves the impression that his illiteracy was the fruit of autochthonous Serb culture, when it was really the necessary consequence of Islamic precept, the Turkish Kanun i Raya -- "Law for the Slaves." Muslim policy towards infidels was--and still is--take Sudan, for example--identical to the English Penal Laws in Ireland, but it seems to have slipped Mr Riesman's mind that 14th century Serbia's Tsar Dusan Silni stood out among contemporary West European monarchs in that Dusan "the Mighty" knew how to read and write. In a wee oversight Dr Riesman has omitted Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from whom Goethe learnt, unlike Dr Cohen, to read Serbian. To cap it all off, "Serbia's Secret War" is not Cohen's book, but was ghost-written by someone whose native language is non-English, which any competent linguist can immediately see by key words of phrases that no English-speaker could ever have written. Could it possibly been Stjepan Mestrovic?

From: Balkan Holocausts?:Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia by David Bruce Macdonald, Manchester University Press, Apr 19, 2003, p. 138 A similar view was taken by Philip J. Cohen in his controversial pro-Croatian revisionism of Serbian history.

From: Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s by Norman Naimark, Holly Case; Stanford University Press, Feb 19, 2003 p. 222 Two studies that explore important topics, but in which censorial zeal trumps balanced scholarship, are Branimir Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide ... and Philip J Cohen, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History ...

From: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/084.shtml Cohen is a hack, a ringer, a front man. He is a paid “presstitute”, a literary whore for Croatian neo-Ustasha propaganda. It is a case of a medical doctor writing “history” on the side as a hobby. From: http://balkaninstitut.academia.edu/MiroslavSvircevic/Papers/1620686/Philip_J._Cohen_Serbias_secret_war_Propaganda_and_the_deceit_of_history_Texas_A_and_M_University_Press_1996 Even a cursory reading of Cohen's book, which heavily draws on the Croatian pamphlet of Tomislav Vukovic (alias Ljubica Stefan) and Edo Bojovic Pregled srpskog antisemitizma (An review of Serbian anti-Semitism, Zagreb 1992) reveals quite clearly that it is just another obscure piece of ideological denigration. --Juraj Budak (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't believe you are using Carl Savich's right-wing blog serbianna.com as a basis for criticising Cohen... lol. And anonymous "customers" on Amazon? Please... Can we keep this to criticism by academics? In my research I came across a post on the blog of Dr Marko Attila Hoare (a former member of the faculty of history at Cambridge University and the author of 'Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia' published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, which is used widely on WP articles about the Balkans). And he supports Cohen and his book, debunks the 'ghost writer' conspiracy theory and actually states he stayed with Cohen for a couple of days helping him with his manuscript. He notes he is not a professional historian but says that despite this the book is 'very good'. I have linked the blog post here . And the only credible disinterested quote you have noted above is that of MacDonald, and it's a passing mention that the book is controversial. Controversial to whom? The Serbian Institute is unlikely to be able to avoid bias itself, being made up of Serbs. And I'm not Croatian.

Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The book is published by a University Press, which more or less makes it citable on Wikipedia. We don't get a neutral point of view by just citing neutral books on political topics; there are few, if any, such. We get NPOV by citing reliable, non-neutral sources, covering all views on the topic separately.

Churn and change (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Churn and change: this book was published by a well-regarded scholarly press, and so meets Wikipedia's requirements of a reliable source. If other reliable sources (including professional reviews published by newspapers, scholarly journals, etc) have criticised the book and/or provide different perspectives of events, this should be taken into account when making use of it. However, hostile Amazon.com customer reviews and comments on various websites obviously do not rule this out as a usable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Did we forget to search rs/n's archives? for as I said there: doi: 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300 is an appropriate review in an appropriate scholarly journal. They note he has not historical postgraduate training. I think this paragraph is sufficient, "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased. The tone is set at the outset in the "Series Editors Statement," where Stejpan G. Mestrovic indicates that "respected Western fact-gathering organizations have concluded that the overwhelming majority of atrocities and one hundred percent of the genocide in the current Balkan War [Bosnian Civil War?] were committed by Serbs" (p. xiii). I find, and I think many readers will perceive the same, that the intent of this book is to punish Serbia and the Serbs for their alleged past and current crimes against the non-Serbs of the region. No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs." "Nowhere in Serbia's Secret War is there any discussion either by Mestrovic or Cohen of the intellectual validity of the transference of a past epoch (e.g., World War II) onto the present as this book largely does. Without such a dialogue, however, this book or any other like it, may degenerate into unreasonable conspiratorial history. Historiography, especially that of the modern Balkans, is well populated with studies exemplifying such trends by people who have an axe to grind; these works contribute little to our understanding of complex past events and their impact upon the present. Although it habitually is, history should not be employed as a weapon. Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than to chronicle and elucidate fairly. It is to be hoped that its shortcomings will stimulate others to try harder and to do better." The criticism levelled that this is pre-Rankean history is so methodologically harsh that I would call it a condemnation. I would say that it is unreliable, and refer readers to WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) eighteen days, seriously?  Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No 'we' didn't forget to search RSN archives, and we could all do without the dismissive and exasperated tone. The single review you produced (not the consensus of several editors that this noticeboard says can generally be relied upon), which you provided when I brought this book to RSN 18 days ago has been questioned by several editors, including myself. This questioning has been on the basis of the support given to Cohen by a former member of the Cambridge history faculty (Dr Marko Hoare) who has stated the book is 'very good', and who has debunked the conspiracy theories and right-wing Serbian blogs listed above. Now two other regular contributors to RSN have suggested it is OK and taken a different view from yours. We have editors other than yourself expressing a view, and I'm not seeing a consensus here that it isn't reliable. I believe it at least requires more discussion than your dismissive comments above, and I encourage all editors that regularly contribute here to make their views known (and why). Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're trying to elevate Hoare in a blog post above a review in a peer reviewed journal? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians are not expected to do original research when checking credibility of sources either. The explanation of guidelines says WP:Attribution: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." Texas A&M is a fairly well-known university; what its press publishes has gone through scholarly vetting and can be cited in WP. As a first cut, we apply the general guidelines and they say a book published by a university press like Texas A&M is admissible as an RS. A higher bar can be applied only if there are so many better sources that including this, and its rebuttals, make the article way too long. Per the guidelines, those sources all have to be scholarly articles or books. Lack of space in the article would be a valid argument for excluding an RS and including only higher-quality RSes; perceived inaccuracy would not be. If you think the stuff is all wrong, you should get references which say so and include that as well. That is how we get to NPOV, not by making right and wrong judgments for ourselves, and using that as a first filter. If including all that makes the article unwieldy, fine, you have a valid argument to make on the article's talk page as an issue specific to that topic. WP:SCHOLARSHIP mentions "well-regarded academic presses" as reliable. Proving Texas A&M's university press is not well-regarded is a high bar. I am not disagreeing with you on the contents of the book or its correctness; here we need to assess issues using general guidelines, not by using subject knowledge to decide correctness. Churn and change (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fifelfoo, no I'm not. I'm pointing out that Hoare, who is a topic-specific published academic, takes a different view of the book. Given he is reliably published on the subject, his blog comments are also reliable. That's what the policy says. The motivation for editors trying to get rid of this book from WP is highly suspect if you follow the talk pages on Ante Pavelic and Pavle Djurisic. Unable to find WP:RS that challenge Cohen, editors have resorted to this. It's incredibly transparent. I agree that Texas A&M is reliable unless proved otherwise. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are serious objections to the book content and the most notable is the one that the author has no academic credibility in Balkans studies then that it's a commissioned propaganda book. The author (Cohen) was decorated by Croatian late president Tudjman for this 'achievement'. The book 'reviewers' are exclusively Croats, the book borrows too much from the similar books written by Croats. Peacemaker67 simply parrots the phrases like 'the conspiracy theories and right-wing Serbian blogs'. We are here to weigh all objections to the book quality. Some of them too serious to be overseen especially those listed by Serbian scholar Dr. Miroslav Svircevic. As to the Proving Texas A&M's university press is not well-regarded is a high bar.: Who published book makes no contribution to this discussion nor tells us about the book author and his academic achievements. The bar was apparently very low, otherwise the book would be rejected. The publisher is, just as any company, interested primarily in profit. Both me and Peacemaker67 are Croats. My primary intentions are purely academic with no idea of re-writing history of Ustashe. Pavelic and his Ustashe brought only shame, misery, and suffering to Croats. I'm the one who is not fighting Serbs on Wikipedia, and, in Croatia, not voting Pavelic's HOP. A very bad thing is that the most notable authors (WWII, Ustashe and Independent State of Croatia) like Martin Broszat, Mehachem Shelach, Slavko Goldstein, and Bogdan Krizman are replaced by this propagandist and the likes.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed out that I am not a Croat, if you don't stop stating this as a fact in the face of my statements to the contrary, I will ask an admin to intervene. I'm Australian and have no genealogical or ideological links to the Balkans, I have a professional interest as a result of spending 6 months there during the 90's. Juraj, by his own admission, is here to stop what he perceives is 'the rewriting of history' Your list of most notable authors is quite strange, I mainly use Ramet, Tomasevich, Milazzo, Roberts, Hoare, Lemkin, etc in Balkans articles I edit. None of them are rewriting history. Broszat isn't even published in English. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Carrying over the debate here is rather pointless. I agree with Fifelfoo's comments: this book does not appear to be considered reliable by experts in this field, and so it should not be used as a reference for anything other than its author's opinion and/or the book's own contents. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Budak brought an Amazon review, criticism from Serbianna (a Serb nationalist blog), and a review from the Balkan Institute of SANU. Not at all convincing. The peer review brought by Fifelfoo states explicitly that "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 10:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and then goes on to say "....but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs" before concluding that it's a shoddy book. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But that is cherry picked. If a UP publishes a book, you can be pretty certain there are reliable academics praising it. I looked and found a positive review by Charles Ingrao, history prof. at Purdue University. There is this review slamming Cohen: |. The book is in the Pentagon's digital library on 'Confict in the Balkans.'  It is in the bibliography of Richard Holbrooke's To End a War; unlikely he included it just to criticize it. Holbrooke wasn't an academic but was clearly an influential figure. In his book The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995, p.30, James J. Sadkovich, once an associate professor at the American University in Bulgaria(|), cites figures (not opinions) from the book.  In a footnote in Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s some authors (couldn't make out which ones) state the Cohen book has important points but is unbalanced by a missionary zeal. A report by a research team at Purdue, headed by Sabrina Ramet, cites Cohen as an account of "Nedic's government written from a critical perspective." (I think Ingrao influenced the report; nevertheless it is an independent source since Ingrao wasn't part of the team and the citation is a direct one). If anybody needs the  behind-paywall articles, please ask either at my talk page or at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. This is why we have guidelines. Cohen's facts can be included; his opinion should be attributed, since it doesn't seem the mainstream view. If adding the opinion and its rebuttal makes the article unwieldy, it can be dropped if the other cited material is higher quality. But it cannot be ruled out based on our ideas of whether it is right. Churn and change (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So just so it's clear, if Cohen states something as a fact, we should cite him, if he is interpreting facts or giving his opinion, we should cite and attribute the opinion in-text. Where his opinion and conflicting opinions are presented, if they are too unwieldy we should consider using other mainstream sources? Have I got this right? Do we have a consensus for this view from RSN?
 * I guess so, but it seems hard to believe that there aren't better sources for the facts of these events which could be used instead. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are for most things, but for some specific events this book is the key source. I certainly don't use his opinions much at all, just factual stuff he presents. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken Churn and change's advice and asked for access to the review by Ingrao in Nationalities Papers, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1997. Here are some relevant bits:

"His well-written, heavily footnoted narration details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis, both before and immediately after the April 1941 German invasion." and Cohen's final task is to explain how Serbia could have been so successful in selling its twentieth-century heroic myths to the international community.... Except for this last theme (which includes an expose on the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society that MiloSevic founded in 1987) much of the evidence presented in this book is already well-known to scholars—which is precisely why this book had to be written. It is because of the "widespread acquiescence of Western intellectuals" (p. xv) that these myths have continued to enjoy currency among politicians, the press, and the general public. The author does a credible job of filling this void. Admittedly there are occasions when he overplays the evidence in driving home his point, such as in exaggerating the popularity of Serbian pre-war fascist parties (which garnered a paltry 1% of the vote against Stojadinovic's government list and Macek's united opposition) or in minimizing the popular Serb opposition to the March 1941 Tripartite Pact. Nonetheless, this reviewer was impressed by both the book's factual accuracy (including superbly detailed maps) and balanced judgments, if disappointed that it took a physician to fill the void left by the historian's guild. This provides a counterpoint to the review referenced by Fifelfoo, and was part of the case made by Churn and change which concluded that WP policy means that Cohen can be used for facts and opinions (with in-text attribution of the opinions). In several other fora, including at Talk:Chetniks here User:Antidiskriminator has now declared that this discussion in fact means that Cohen is not considered reliable. That was not my impression. Can we get some clarification? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A propaganda pamphlet It is clear, from the book title, what were the author's (who is the author?) intentions. A number of fundamental questions must be answered at the beginning. The book was written by a man without any background in the WWI and Balkans studies. Moreover, he is handicapped by lacking knowledge of the Serbo-Croatian language. The English language used in the book shows the style and the vocabulary of an non-native English writer. I convinced myself in it after comparing the first and the last editions of the same book where are pages with rewordings apparently aimed to fix earlier bad language work. So, which way this book was written and who really wrote it? Now, let us ignore who wrote this book. The book was, initially, published by a respected publisher. We scholars are poor people, heavily relying on publishers help which regularly ends with the copyright transfer from the author to the publisher. We are lucky if we got some money coming from the book sale. In this case, the book copyright holds the author (or "author") and the book is on sale at $4 for the new print. Who really pays for its four printing, manufactured in the USA, copyright 1996 by Philip J. Cohen?  Let us marginalize question who pays for manufacturing it in the USA. How about the content? Cohen (or someone else) is heavily at disagreement with the WWII and the Holocaust studies. The Serbs are portrayed as a people who embraced their conqueror, the German Nazis, as a God-sent ally, whose common goal was to exterminate the Jews. Many of the Nazis' orders and proclamations, translated into Serbo-Croatian,  in the occupied Jugoslavia Cohen interpreted as the Serbs' proclamations and orders. His accusations thrown against the Serbs cannot find a ground in the mainstream Holocaust studies nor even in memoirs of those who survived the Holocaust in Jugoslavia. Just read Eichmann Trial testimonies (Saltz, Arnon), or Gutman's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, entry Serbia, Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews, etc. Alleged suffering of the Jews in the Kingdom of Jugoslavia and under Serbian rule rejects Alexander Arnon saying that only latent anti-Semitism was present in Croatia, out of all regions of Jugoslavia. H. Saltz was a military officer and physician in Belgrade. --Sunil of India (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day Sunil. I'm afraid most of what you have said strays into WP:OR. Your characterisation of the book in respect of being at odds with WWII and Holocaust studies is not consistent with either of the scholarly reviews provided here. Your allusions to possible ghost writing have been contradicted by a former Cambridge history don who assisted Cohen with the manuscript. Your comments about Cohen's lack of Serbo-Croat language skills has also been addressed by Hoare. Memoirs and testimony are generally WP:PRIMARY. Can you elaborate on what WP policy basis you believe this book does not meet the requirements of WP:RS? Perhaps if you were to take Churn and change's comments as a starting point. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sunil of India for this valuable comment. I did believe that this book was published by that publisher. Now I see it is a self-published book. The Google book search is clear. It says: Copyright © 1996 by Philip J. Cohen; Manufactured in the United States of America; All rights reserved; Fourth printing, 1996--Juraj Budak (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, get a clue. The copyright resides with the author, not the publisher. That doesn't make it a self-published book. The title page says Texas A&M University Press, College Station, as noted by the RSN editors above. Strangely enough, Texas is in the US. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day RSNers, I know you don't usually do this, but given the contention Cohen has caused here and at related article talkpages, could we please have a formal close of this discussion by one of the RSN editors who provided their opinion? I respect the fact that the consensus was not resounding, but this will go on for ever unless we get some formal advice recorded and the matter closed. That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have expressed a strong and firm view on the text in question, and adhere to my view. As such I am unfit to judge where consensus lies on this issue as I have already been persuaded. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On another note, Hajo Funke of the Free University of Berlin and Alexander Rhotert (currently head of OSCE in BiH) have made extensive use of Cohen's work and they support the Iron Cross event too (Unter unseren Augen: Ethnische Reinheit: die Politik des Regime Milosevic, p.52)
 * They used Cohen as source for Iron Cross assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * More about propaganda I'm surprised seeing C. Ingrao as a reviewer of this book. Ingrao is a good medievalist with no exposure to the 20eth century studies. When a reviewer gives too much accolades to the author and his book, it means only no honesty and no professionalism. Pretending to be a neutral and a professional reviewer, Ingrao just pointed at some weakness and continued writing nonsense. Needless to say that this pamphlet was 'translated' into Croatian and published in Croatia.--Sunil of India (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The source makes it reliable. Note that there is a difference between whether the facts in a source are reliable and whether or not the opinions expressed are generally accepted.  Facts and opinions are different things.  TFD (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Party Reliable Sources for 'Criticism' Purposes
Hi,

I am wondering what type of sources qualify for third-party reliable sources when it comes to criticism of a figure. For example in Criticism of Muhammad, the opinion of 20th century Christian missionaries are allowed in the article even though one might think of the two faiths as competitors. My question then is whether I can use a pro-intelligent design's opinion for criticism of a pro-Darwinism. To be specific, take for example Steve Fuller who is a professor of sociology and happens to be a fan of intelligent design. In the book "Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal" published by Brill he writes the following about Richard Dawkins on page 65:

"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"

I would like to know if the sole fact that Steve Fuller is a pro-ID and has voluntarilly interviewed in the documentory Expelled, makes his criticism unreliable. Thank you.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What one article does is not an excuse to do so on a different article. This is a broad stroke question asking for a blanket answer. We don't do blanket answers on RS/N. This is a matter of local consensus at the article. Please discuss with editors there and collaborate towards a consensus. Thank you and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am actually not asking for blanket answer. I am targetting two specific cases:

1. Do you find the criticisms posed by a 20th century missionary on Muhammad a reliable third-party source?

2. Do you find Steve Fuller's criticism of Richard Dawkins a reliable third-party source? --24.94.18.234 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is probably a discussion for WP:NPOVN.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

xin.msn.com
Xinmsn is an online source largely used in articles about Singapore TV serials, movies and such. Is it a reliable source? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't put the link in the header. And if you don't have a content question it is not really possible to help a whole lot, but at a glance I see nothing wrong with that website, but you would need a specific article or link being used for a specific statement.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, kinda sorry about that, this is my first time posting here, so i don't really know the dos and donts. My question is, is xinmsn to be trusted? Can the info be generated by any average Joe? Because it don't really look professional and trustable, yeah.... Usually the content this source supports are things like semi gossip and stuff like that, you know, celebrity news. Don't really think its an rs. But if others say so....Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The site itself is only a host site it seems which aggregates information form numerous news sources. I random check of various article shows that many are attributed to the news source not an author so it may have some effect on RS. But if the article is from a well qualified news agency of note with a good reputation, I see no reason the stories themselves can't be used but we only use one source and this really isn't it. Like Yahoo news hosting a story from the Associated press. A good thing to do would be to trace any article use on the site back to the source for varifiability etc. But I persoanly wuld use it as the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the current top story on the site . If you used this it would not be cited to xin.msn but would use the url as the link. The story's source is Francis Whittaker and MSN.com. A check of the name shows the author to be credentialed. Francis Whittaker - International Content Editor at MSN London, United Kingdom | Writing and Editing Current: MSN International Editorial Solutions & MSN Ireland, International Content Editor at MSN, Writer at Freelance Past: MSN EMEA and MSN Ireland, Content Editor at MSN, Great British Food and Speciality Food Magazines, Editorial intern at Aceville Publications Ltd. --Amadscientist (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come by so suddenly, but I believe Bonkers The Clown intended to ask about this source in the context of the website's entertainment portal. This source (or at least the Chinese section) was used in the article It Takes Two (Singaporean TV series). This source would also be useful in verifying content in Singaporean television drama-related articles, if it is deemed reliable enough.--Lionratz (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Nalwa as a source for Hari Singh Nalwa
Is a reliable source for historical information in Hari Singh Nalwa. The article subject is controversial and the author not merely shares the name but heads the Hari Singh Nalwa Foundation Trust. A profile of her can be found here.

I am particularly concerned about POV pushing - the man is some sort of Sikh hero and it does not go down well with Muslims. The source is used extensively in the article. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah...and? Why is it important to you that one religion is offended by a figure from another religion? It is not POV pushing on the part of the author. POV pushing would be a concern over an editor....say, coming to the RS/N and making a statement like you just did. There is no claim for context.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While the author may, in fact, have no history background... the fact that she may be a relation and linked to the foundation....just gave the person themselves a little more context to being reliable for the information. I would still use it with caution and not for large chunks of discussion, but it seems to be fine for sourcing on this figure. Talk page will determine inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Amadscientist, I've undone your closure of this. As far as I know, this noticeboard is not set up so that one person answers and the matter is done. By definition, noticeboards are for multiple people to comment.
 * For example, I'd like to point out that your statement doesn't make sense. You say that "being linked to the foundation....gave the person...more context to being reliable for the information." Perhaps you're misunderstanding Sitush, but the point is that the author of the book in question is the head of a Foundation whose purpose is to say positive, great things about the subject of the book. That almost certainly makes it unreliable except for very basic facts. For example, if Microsoft publishes a book, it's not a reliable source for anything other than very clear internal info, like number of employees, the name of the head of the company, it's yearly profits, etc. It wouldn't be reliable for claims about much of its history, how good it is compared to other companies, etc.  So, I have to say that we should strongly consider removing the source for only the most uncontrversial information. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You may note that I made it clear that the source has limited use, however, yes...the book was made more reliable than just having been written by a random author that is not a historian. Assumption that the book just says nice things is just that, an assumption, but the fact is the author has some link to a foundation involved with the historic figure and this is as appropriate a use as any other religious foundation writing a similar book. It isn't going to be something that should be used for large chunks but still has value. (By the way, I re-thought the closure and came back to re-open, although yes, the closures with these types of issues are done often) This looks like a religious fight, but have at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush please elaborate on:


 * (1) Who you do you believe is POV pushing. Explain how you believe the author has violated this Wikipedia policy. Are they posting their published book information on Wikipedia?


 * (2) How is this subject "controversial"?


 * (3) Define "Sikh hero" and how that relates to an RS.


 * (4) Explain why "this man" does not go down well with Muslims and how that relates to RS.


 * (5) As an "expert" in this area, are you aware that many Sikhs share the same name?


 * (6) And finaly, please give the claim being made that this is being used as a reference for.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The author cannot infract WP policies and I really do not understand where you are coming from with this because I've never suggested that the author was editing the article. Perhaps you have not bothered to refer to it? The POV pushing, if any, comes from WP contributors selecting certain sources to reflect a POV. This has been common on Indic history and caste articles, and also on those relating to current events. There is evidence on the article talk page that such issues have been raised over a period of many months, if not years. Hence, it is a controversial subject. Similarly, I do not understand what you are getting at with your third or fourth points - they seem to be some sort of irrelevant debate concerning semantics. I do not claim to be an "expert" in Sikh history, although I have a fair amount of experience in Indic articles and their POV/sourcing issues. The endogamous nature of many Indic communities gives rise to potential issues when it comes to reliability: a lot of "bigging up" of history goes on, whether written down or transmitted orally, and in fact I rather think that the majority do so. Alas, many British Raj authors took those community histories as fact, and those authors too are regularly considered to be unreliable. Nalwa clearly has a close association with the subject, is probably herself a Sikh, represents an advocacy group that promotes the subject of our article, etc: these are all substantial alarm signals. Although she is not a trained historian nor, it seems, translator (she relies a lot on Persian texts etc), she is, of course, theoretically a valid source for her own interpretation ... but that does not mean much at all here. Your comment that "While the author may, in fact, have no history background... the fact that she may be a relation and linked to the foundation....just gave the person themselves a little more context to being reliable for the information." is almost the exact opposite of how we usually evaluate. As for your sixth point, well, it is being used for numerous claims, although slightly fewer than 24 hours ago because I have removed some copyvios (I'll reinstate in non-copyvio form if appropriate but am not wasting my time doing so until the reliability is ascertained). - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Amateur research, not reliable for history unless there are a number of positive reviews by academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a work of avocation, a coffee table hagiography of a likely ancestor written by a neuroscientist. The book has not been reviewed in any of India's myriad major English language newspapers, let alone in an academic history journal.  The publisher, Manohar, does publish academic books, but, in light of this, they also publish low brow fluff.  Not reliable, pending scholarly reviews that attest to the contrary.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is a problem with many Indian historical figures because of the lack of contemporaneous written records and because they tend to be written as hagiographies. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is better to stick to works by reliable historians, even if that means less content. I seriously doubt that anything written in this book will be useful for an encyclopedic article (except, perhaps, for a section titled "Folklore"). --regentspark (comment) 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, no this is not a "coffee table hagiography" and that point of view simply dismisses the book with undue personal opinion. Second, the publisher claims to publish scholarly work[ so the fact that you call other publications fluff, again has no bearing on this book. Many publisher put out both academic and "fluff". This is not a history book and I see no claim of such anywhere. It is a biography from a clearly defined author who has a direct connection to the figure. That doesn't mean we dismiss it out of hand. I have scanned through the book and find the claim that it is a "work of avocation" to be a little off base. Yes, the author is described as writing with "unconcealed pride", but oddly enough that is in a review by [[Khushwant Singh]] who is considered an authority on Sikh history and is indeed a "peer review". I am not sure if what you are looking for is Western peer reviews to accept this or multiple reviews. The fact is an RS has several criteria and we don't just toss them all out and say "Oh no, you can't use that. It says good things about the figure", well it also says neutral and negative things. He wasn't a saint, and no one is treating him that way. Yes, this book has a weakened RS claim because the author is not known for work in the field of either history or biography, but this isn't a fraud or a fringe idea we are talking about. The association with the Foundation itself doesn't seem to mean much. Seriously, how does this effect RS? Are we saying by association with a charitable foundation it is somehow of less value? This just seems to be excuse making to exclude. This is surely not the strongest RS I have ever seen, but it can't be blown off because of the things being mentioned, it just lowers it's strength and use is a matter of consensus. There seems to be little reasoning using the criteria for RS. The author seems to be an expert on this figure and that cannot be denied, they simply are not a historian and I don't think that works completely against them, just weakens the case for RS, not destroys it. The publisher is not a pay to publish or a vanity press and the work itself cannot be dismissed as fringe, innacurate or unduly self serving (it isn't about themself). The weakest part of the book is the author and lack of multiple peer reviews. As I said, this can't be used for large chunks of information but it also cannot be dismissed. It just isn't a very strong RS, but does not actualy fail criteria.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I find your post a tad confusing. For example, I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be used for large chunks of information but it also cannot be dismissed". Are you saying that we can only use information in proportion to the "strength" of a reliable source? I've probably misunderstood your statement because that doesn't make any sense (to me) at all. The point to focus on is whether the information in a book is reliable or not. Generally, if the author of the book is an expert in the field, i.e., is the author of several peer reviewed articles and books in that field, then the information is reliable. If, on the other hand, the author is writing a book because he is a fan of the subject or the head of a foundation dedicated to promoting the subject, then, unless the author is also an expert in the field (see peer reviewed above), the source is unreliable. We can't cherry pick from the source based on whether the source is weak or strong. --regentspark (comment) 00:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? That contradicts Identifying reliable sources which states: "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings...Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." First, you have to demonstrate that the author is not "authoritative in relation to the subject" and that simply hasn't been done. There is nothing in the guideline about being connected to a foundation. Next: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." And: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals" Then there is this: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims." One other thing the guideline states: --Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)"Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field."


 * In short, this is still a source that has not been demonstrated to be unreliable because of the author. Just not being an academic in the field does not exclude them. Yes, in a manner of speaking (and to some, outright) we do use sources in proportion to their strength and frankly I am a little confused by you not understanding that. No offense. Lets play devils advocate and say we dismiss the author themself, OK, but that only effects one part of criteria for RS it does not immediatly make it useless. But we have not yet demonstrated that the author is not an authority on this subject, just that they are not a historian. Weaker than an author who is a historian with multiple peer reviews, but not something that can dismiss the book. As stated the book is a weak RS, and may well be best to attribute it to the author and possibly even a stricter use determined by consensus on the article talkpage, where an argument can be made that perhaps the book should be used only for a short passage with a direct context to the book itself. But this is an argument for the article talkpage where a consensus for inclusion or exclusion would be made.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different question from whether the source is reliable or not. If all we're doing is attributing statements to the author (I take it that's what you mean by "direct context to the book itself"), then the question is not whether the book is a reliable source but whether the author's opinions are noteworthy for inclusion. All we then have is a source that verifies that the author said what we're saying he said (and yes, it is reliable for that particular claim). Personally (and this is re your first paragraph), I don't see the need for explicit inclusion of "foundations" in our RS description. The fact that the head of a group set up to promote an individual has written the book immediately classifies it under promotional material. If that individual is not known as a historian, then I don't see how the source can be considered reliable. And, like I say above and I'll say it again, if the author has explicitly cited other material in support of his or her claims, then we should go to the original source for verification, not use this one. If the work is largely uncited, then we should treat it as a mere opinion piece and the book as a reliable source for the opinion, nothing else. --regentspark (comment) 02:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from on this RegentsPark, but I disagree entirely on whether or not it is promotional from having connection to a foundation. Its not promotional to write a biography of someone dead for a hundred years. If it isn't in the guidelines or policy then there is clearly a grey area here. I don't see how it isn't relaible to some extent. We are not here to make blanket judgements and that sounds a little like one. Direct context means if you attribute the claim directly to the publication and author: "According to author 'X' in her book entitled 'Y' the figure is said to have 'Z'." And many, mant historians use text from ancient sources that we do not say that the ancient source is the reference. As I understand it, sited material could well be seen as the primary work and the historian is making analytical interpretations and are just attributed as such. What you are talking about is two sources and we only need one. Yes, but this is in regards to news sources primarily. We don't use Huff post if the AP is the actual source. But even that is not always done if the secondary source is expanding on the content. As I said this isn't a yes or no answer. It just isn't. There are many uses of different sources on different levels. Primary sources can still be used in a limited way. Opinion can still be used in a limited way. As I have also said there has been no real demonstration that the author is making claims that are flase, fringe or innacurate. The only thing demonstrated is that they are a historian but not that they are not an expert in the filed of this subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input so far, folks. I note that most of you have experience of dealing with the slippery ground that is Indic sourcing. To throw something into the pot, the guideline to which Amadscientist refers states, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." What follows is somewhat speculative but plausible. Nalwa is head of a trust that promotes the memory of what is likely to be an ancestor, given the effects of endogamy. I cannot determine how many people are actively involved in administering the trust but it could well just be her, given this notice of their website's "author". She has academic clout as a neuroscientist and she has an interest in a subject that is very marketable among Sikhs. With no offence intended, it is apparent to anyone who regularly edits Indic caste/history articles that ancestor hero worship is a feature of Indic life that is not replicated to the same degree in, say, Europe. Someone in her position would probably have no trouble getting a book of putative research on any subject published. While her publisher is not lulu.com etc nor her own website, she is no more authoritative on the subject matter than, say, royalark.net (deemed unreliable here) but has the kudos of unrelated (excuse the pun) academic stature. The book could thus well be construed as being self-published, and the profits go to the Trust. It is certainly not yet much cited and not independent of the subject matter, and her efforts regarding Hari Singh Nalwa seem not to have been published by reliable third parties. Perhaps at some time in the future this will change but we do not deal in "maybes" here. If we accept your rationale, Amadscientist, then this noticeboard might as well cease to exist since everything could be dealt with by WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN. Now there's an idea that would likely go down like a lead balloon ... - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I bow out completely here let me just say that the above is not accurate as far as I can tell for an accusation of self publishing as the listed publisher is Manohar Publications (May 1, 2010). I would also note that some of the the above is pretty outrageous to claim here and could well boarder on BLP issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Amadscientist, I know from a message that you left on the talk page of yesterday that you are on meds for gout. I sympathise with that, coming from a long line of sufferers. Nonetheless, you seem to have been hitting quite a few problems at various places in at least the last day or so. Please will you either stop stirring the pot with unfounded remarks regarding the nature of my comments here or take it to an appropriate noticeboard for possible censure. You have claimed that my opening remarks were inappropriate/somehow a breach of WP:CIV/intended to cause offence etc, you pre-emptively close this thread and now you are accusing me of making outrageous claims. "Put up or shut up" and "put your money where your mouth is" are UK phrases but hopefully you understand them. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this, the author is a seventh-generation descendant of the subject. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that we have established they are related. May I respectfully (I don't wish to add fuel to a fire) request you demonstrate though policy/guidelines how this relates to RS?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, I and others have already done so. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no one has demonstrated this as part of any guideline or policy. Your answer would really be more of a demonstration of WP:IDHT. But thanks for not answering the question posed to you in a civil manner. Done here. My opinion is stated.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to try one more time, Amadscientist if you want. The author is the head of a foundation dedicated to praising the subject of the book. Furthermore, the author is a relative. And even furthermore, we know that, in general, it is extremely important in a large number of Indic cultures to demonstrate that one's ancestors have a high status, even in cases where that may be a minority or simply ignored point in scholarly research. So, we have no reason to trust the author. Second, the publisher does not list the author as one of their regular authors--that makes me wonder if this is a book they actually stand behind, or if it was published in some other way. Third, we have no evidence that anyone else in the field has taken note of the book, reviewed, cited it, or otherwise considered it to be relevant. Thus, in conclusion, we have no reason to assume that the book is reliable. At best, we have a blank. Now, you (Amadscientist) seem to be asserting that in cases where we don't have clear evidence, we should default to assuming a source is reliable. While this is certainly a believable position, it is not one that I have ever heard expressed before on WP, and certainly not one that has a consensus/following. In fact, the general rule, as best as I understand it, is that if there is a lack of evidence showing that something is reliable, along with some circumstantial/indirect reason to believe the author/publisher/work is not reliable, well, in that case, we err on the side of caution, and don't use the work. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The author is a Trustee of a registered charity, the goal of which they claim as: "established to commemorate the memory of Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa". I don't think it is accurate to say "praising the subject..." It is just to memorialize. Being related to the subject really isn't a problem at all. "[I]n general, it is extremely important in a large number of Indic cultures to demonstrate that one's ancestors have a high status, even in cases where that may be a minority or simply ignored point in scholarly research." This is not a matter of RS but of perception of a culture. Americans do the same thing. How many times have you heard: "My ancestors came here on the Mayflower". People are always going to use a social perception as a means of raising themselves and our own English culture does the same thing, perhaps on a different level, but again it is about the information in the book and we don't even know for sure if there is anything of concern that effects the information. This is speculation based on "What we know about that culture" and again isn't a criteria for RS...but for a local consensus at the article talk page for inclusion or exclusion.


 * "We have no evidence that anyone else in the field has taken note of the book, reviewed, cited it, or otherwise considered it to be relevant". Yes, this part I agree with, but read what our guidelines say about this: "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." (bolding for easy visual reading) Our guidelines don't exclude the possiblity that it may be used, just that it be used with caution.


 * "Now, you (Amadscientist) seem to be asserting that in cases where we don't have clear evidence, we should default to assuming a source is reliable" No, not really. What I am saying is that this is not a matter of Yes or No. There are different levels of acceptable usage. However, on wikipedia I do believe the custom is to err on the side of the freer usage. That is the point of Wikipedia, the free flow of information and has indeed been used when there is doubt...not when there is no evidence. The point I am making is simple. The source has not actually been demonstrated to be completely useless. It is not a matter of being self published, although there is a claim of such. This should be proven or demonstrated, not guessed at or assumed. The foundational work of the author troubles some, but again, not a matter of guideline for RS but a matter of local consensus. This is far from a perfect RS. It has issues, but look at Jimbo Wales article. I see a WMF press release and another from Wikipedia that links directly to pages, not to a secondary journalistic source. I also see his personal blog used as reference. Why is this acceptable? Because he is the figure. So...why can't this be used in relation to a mention of the relative? Why can't it be used to mention some of her work on the foundation? Why can't it mention some of her opinion on her ancestor? It can. There is no reason it cannot. Wikipedia does not censor and being something that may offend another group is not a reason for exclusion. The same is true of a perception of a cultural attempt to raise her status. As I said it has limited use. But there is no complete ban of its use on Wikipedia to source with attribution to claims about the person who has a direct link. And may perhaps even have some limited use in other areas, but that is a matter of local consensus. I am not saying that everyone must accept this for any use. I am saying it cannot be completely dismissed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No-one is trying to censor. Why you think that is the case is beyond me. The book can and should go in a Further Reading section. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't trying imply such, just a mention along with other guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Three specific and a general question regarding primary sources
General

Can primary sources generally be used for descriptive purposes?

A "The first statistical study was comprised of 338 individuals who sought treatment at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Out-patient Clinic between November 1923 and November 1924. . . . [list of all statistics]. A second study consisted of cases I treated myself. 41 male patients . . . 31 female patients. . . . [list of all statistics]. These findings speak for themselves. Since 1925 clinical experience--including the many hundreds of cases I personally evaluated in the course of two years at my Sexual Guidance Center for Working People and Office Employees in Vienna and, after 1930, at centers in Germany--has demonstrated that there is no neurosis without a disturbance of the genital function." (from: 39-42) This can be embedded in a context based on reliable, secondary literature.
 * 1a. Source: Reich, Wilhelm (1980) [1927] Genitality in the Theory and Therapy of Neurosis German title: Die Funktion Des Orgasmus. FSG ed.: ISBN 0374516413.
 * 2a. Orgastic potency
 * 3a. For example: can a section be added to the article discussing research methodologies based on Reich's own work (primary source)? A quote from the book of information that could be incorporated:

B
 * 1b Source The Discovery of the Orgone: Vol. 1, The Function of the Orgasm (1942) [1940, Die Entdeckung des Orgons Erster Teil..] ISBN 1986 0374502048 FSG ed.
 * 2b. Orgastic potency
 * 3b. The section "forms of orgastic impotence" from the archive, can this be included, when intended as a further description of the theory (omitting medical advice, etc.)?

C
 * 1c these journal articles
 * 2c Orgastic potency
 * 3c One editor noted these concern "primary" sources, implying they cannot be used to discuss the status of the concept orgastic potency. Is that the case? (this question does not concern whether they are new enough in relation to WP:MEDRS).--Gulpen (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For A and B, Sections and content should not be based off only primary sources:
 * WP:FRINGE: Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research.
 * WP:FRINGE: The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources.
 * WP:PRIMARY: Policy: 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.


 * On C The Journal articles from of the American Psychoanalytic Association are't reliable for the current status, how could they be? 2 are 40 years old and the other is 70 years old. Plus, American psychoanalytic assocation. Also, Psychoanalysis is a fringe subject, so the journal is not reliable for saying what is mainstream.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Gulpen, it's fine to use Reich as a primary source in articles about him or his ideas; in fact, it's important to do so. The only restriction is that the articles as a whole should be framed by high-quality secondary sources, because Reich's ideas are regarded as fringe ideas (for example, they are not taught in universities, except as cultural history). Any interpretation of the ideas (their meaning and influence) should be left to secondary sources, and the tone of the article should adopt the tone of the secondary sources. Also, care has to be taken not to hand over too much of the article to Reich's words. In other words, the articles should aim to educate the reader about the ideas, but should not appear to promote them. Excessive use of primary sources can appear promotional, and can also risk getting things wrong, which is why secondary sources should provide the framework.
 * IRWolfie, psychoanalysis is not a fringe subject. It's taught in universities and practiced widely by psychiatrists. The American Psychoanalytic Association is fine as a source in appropriate articles. I agree that their articles from 1936 can't be used to discuss the current status of an idea (Gulpen, was that what you meant to ask?), but more recent articles could be used. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fringe because it is not the mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The electoral commission
A user has tried to insert into the BNP article a more up to date membership total, the source used is the ellectorial commisions BNP submited membership accounts. It has been susgested that this is not RS, so is it RS or not? There is no eividacen this has been challenged ir that any one has said the number are fraudualnt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The commission I think just takes the annual accounts it doesn't validate numbers.  So the commission is a reliable source, but the BNP accounts may not be Snowded  TALK 15:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "We verify that those we regulate comply with the rules and we take undertake fair, thorough and proportionate investigations so that voters can be confident that those who fail to comply are held to account." from thier website.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * could be, but remember the BNP have been playing all sorts of games with their accounts and the recent donation/legacy which saved their bacon is problematic. Its far from clear that membership figures fall within that - I couldn't see anything specific when I checked. Snowded  TALK 15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Electoral Commission posts parties' returns on its website. It does not edit them. It does not guarantee their accuracy. It does not check them, unless there is a suspicion of fraud, and even then, it will be only be able to carry out a minimal forensic audit of finances. Given the thousands of organisations that are registered, it is not feasible for the EC to check every detail of a party's return; it relies on the responsible party official to file honestly. The rules the EC verifies are for the regualtions for registration and financial accountability only (e.g. to prevent parties appearing as others, to check electoral spending). Emeraude (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Electoral Commission is clearly referring to party finances, and makes no claim to verifying the membership numbers which the chairman has chosen to present. Curiously the auditors qualified the accounts, which means that even self-reported financial information is unreliable.  Unsubstantiated, self-serving first party statements are never reliable.  Instead we should use the membership numbers published in The Independent.  TFD (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What source does the independant use, also the independant source is 2 years out of date.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is not relevant here. This discussion is concerned with whether or not the Electoral Commission is a RS, as you should know seeing as you started this thread. Emeraude (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not know where The Independent got their data, but it does not matter because they are a reliable source. TFD (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

War of Words: Washington Tackles the Yugoslav Conflict

 * Would be considered a reliable source on Yugoslavia-related topics?


 * Bio details:As a result of the war in Bosnia, Danielle Sremac's career accelerated, By 1994, the Serbian Unity Congress was functioning as a front for Radovan Karadzic throught the appointment of Sremac.


 * Review of War of Words: Washington Tackles the Yugoslav Conflict: (Personally, I find the way the Srebenica massacre (outright denialism) is treated among other topics very questionable.)-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide some context for this question? (eg, is there a discussion of this source in relation to one or more specific articles?). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no particular discussion, but I noticed its use in some articles and after a first reading I considered its reliability disputable and I started this discussion to get other opinions.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that it's professionally published, it passes the threshold of being a reliable source. The fact that it was published by a generally (though not exclusively) scholarly press adds further weight to this. If you have no specific concerns about material cited to the book, there isn't much to discuss here, and any such discussions should take place on the relevant article talk pages in the first instance. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The book is actually published by Praeger publishers, an imprint different from Greenwood publishers. Both imprints are from the company ABC-CLIO. Note that the author is not a full-fledged academic (has a Master's not a PhD). That said, the source is an RS since the publisher is credible and so is the author. However, you would do well to read the reviews: Iordanova, D. (2001). "Shifting narratives: Representation and mediation of the Balkan conflicts". Journal of Communication, 51(4):826–831. doi= 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02908.x If you need the article, please ask at WP:RX or at my talk page. The review you posted is not from a credible author or publisher; the Iordanova one gives a nuanced view of the book, and would help editors decide when to cite directly, when to attribute, and when to exclude material from it. Churn and change (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Scanned official letters being used as sources
At, a bit of a pov magnet, in January Rosclese removed material with the edit summary " (let's start cleaning up a few of the unreliable sources - it's also possible that some of the reliable sources are misrepresented, but this is a start)". Yesterday Gun Powder Ma restored it saying " care to state your reasons for removing large chunks of referenced material?" which is a bit puzzling since she did. I reverted him with the edit summary "probably because of the sources, eg a scanned pdf which we clearly can't use, someone who claims Obama is a Muslim, over-reliance on Emerson's website, etc" and he restored it again, saying "ou are invited to present this in more detail per WP:BRD on talk page" which I'd say is wrong because from my viewpoint BRD began with his current restoration (which could be argued of course) and I clearly said that you can't use scanned letters. The source for these letters is Steven Emerson's website. I'm not sure of the copyright status of letters from members of the House of Congress but I've always understood we don't use scanned copies of letters from non-official sites, am I right? There are also other clearer copyvio links, eg which is a segment from an MSNBC show. But that's not an RSN issue. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These are primary sources. There is little chance that they are forged, but they shouldn't be the sole basis for assertions in dealing with highly sensitive topics. If this correspondence is essentially unpublished it shouldn't be mentioned. If it had little or no media impact then it isn't a notable element of the book's reception. If it did have media coverage, use that. Is it on-topic anyway for this article about a book, or could there be some coat-racking going on? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Nezavisimaya Gazeta reliable?
This article from Novaya Gazeta Nezavisimaya Gazeta claims that Russia is providing intelligence support to Syria in the ongoing Syrian civil war. I have not find any RS supporting this claim, and I'm not sure if this Novaya Gazeta article is reliable or not. There is a mediation going on for the Syrian civil war article and a person has been using this source, which is written in Russian. If you can help, please respond soon, the parties involved in the mediation would appreciate it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nezavisimaya Gazeta is a well-known publication that has been mentioned previously here as a Russian media source that is actually reliable. The OP first tried to dismiss the article out of hand because it wasn't in English, but after it was pointed out that we do, in fact, use non-English sources, the filibuster seems to have been moved here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The guy said "judging by reports probably Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Novaya Gazeta, and Vedomosti as well", meaning he's not sure. The fact that no other RS has reported Russia giving Syria intelligence support makes that NG article suspicious. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for internet related topics. Search Engine Optimization
search engine optimization Sources cited on this website does not stick with traditional idea of credible sources. There's an excessive weight in repeating the point of view of Eric Goldman and Matt Cutts not just in this article, but many internet marketing articles in general.

There are sources like SEOMoz.com and V7n.com and I'm uncertain if they meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources.

Please provide input regarding reliable sources for matters like search engine optimization and internet marketing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Primary source at Aurangzeb
Aurangzeb is a very well-studied historical character, a Mughal Emperor, and there are many modern sources that can be used to create a great article. However, the article has been subject to substantial sock activity. I am not even going to try to phrase this neutrally because, frankly, it is a crazy situation. But someone insists that is a reliable source for all sorts of statements made at Aurangzeb and I would appreciate confirmation.

Jadunath Sarkar was a respected historian but the source is merely a translation without commentary, other than an introduction. The work that is translated is a biography and was written in the time of Aurangzeb by a courtier, as was traditional for emperors of the period. Aurangzeb is known to have had control of the content and it is inevitably hagiographic. It contains masses of flowery prose and is practically a ghost-written autobiography. It received a brief mention elsewhere recently in this thread. While primary sources have their uses, it is my opinion that given the origins and the available modern historiography, we should rely on the latter. If the latter refers to the 17th-century source then that is fine but the source itself is not reliable for anything other than an in-context direct quotation - and that would carry little weight.

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that his greatest work of fiction would be his autobiography. That is certainly true of works produced in the Mughal period, in my opinion. BTW, the link is as per the article and thus is scribd.com: obviously, that is inappropriate and I'll be fixing it should consensus go against me here. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The source is translation and annotation by the author Jadunath Sarkar (established, Knighted, academic author/scholar etc..) who had not only translated but also annotated (commented) and provided notes appropriately in this book. The primary/original author Saqi Mustad Khan wrote it after the death of Aurangzeb, and the publishers is the The Asiatic Society. Modern or old shall not be a constrain to the reliability of source. In-fact the more older can be considered more reliable.


 * As an involved editor in this discussion I would like to say: Please specify if you are inquiring, if it is a primary source or reliable source to use in article and please do not misinterpret the board, we are here to discuss the reliability of the source but not the sock and any one is free to report any sock at SPI but not here and if you are really busy, please let me know to whom you doubt as a sock, I really like hunting socks :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would like to update the board that; the usage of the source is primarily for his (Aurangzeb's) childhood and early education, which is extensively covered in this source, rather most of the books/sources covered mostly his (Aurangzeb's) warfare and administrative work and do not provide detail timeline. Thus I believe this source is most appropriate to cite his (Aurangzeb's) early life, and can be supported with any secondary and third party source. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is used in several academic research works and journals here etc.. The book details at Worldcat.org are available here. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, though authors and scholars are highly respected, but there phrases shall not be considered as the policy of WP, and kindly rather than taking it personally think it in other way and say "I'll fix it if the source is proved reliable". Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it's used, the issue is how we use it. I don't think we can use it to assert fact. If we use it at all it should be suitably attributed and clarified, but we should be looking for independent sources. Also, I don't think 1947 is long ago for the book to be out of copyright - scribd.com has a lot of copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a reliable source for anything. The source is primary and is old (the book was written during Aurangzeb's reign and the translation dates to 1947). If there is anything of value in the book, then there has been ample time for other historians to comment on, analyze, or authenticate the assertions in the book and that's where we should be looking for sources. And this applies to everything in the book including any assertion of facts. --regentspark (comment) 12:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sitush and RegentsPark. This is a court biography written after Aurengzeb's death to document the part of the reign not covered by the traditional Namah, whose recording Aurengzeb stopped in the second decade of his reign.  It is not reliable for any Wikipedia information, not even for the Emperor's grades in elementary school, a manifestly primary source.  Mughal rule, one of the most prolific areas of Indian historiography, has many modern historical sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Source reliability regarding history and biblical analysis
On Talk:Jesus Seeking opinions on sources I posed a question to obtain opinions, and I though I should also ask here given that people here are really familiar with sourcing issues:


 * Bart Ehrman: 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press


 * Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61 (statement is about himself vs others)


 * Michael Grant Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 Rigel Publications


 * Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9  William B. Eerdmans Publishers


 * James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) ISBN 052104460X  Cambridge University Press


 * Richard A. Burridge Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 William B. Eerdmans Publishers


 * Graham Stanton in The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press

The specific statements made by each source are on the talk page there, as well as the clarification that there are no opposing sources at all that dispute what these sources say. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The specific question can be summed up as follows: Most of those authors are biblical scholars, but they write about the scholarly consensus among all scholars of antiquity (including, say, classical historians). Does their reliability extend to the scholarly consensus among the wider community, or do they cease to be reliable for the scholarly consensus among more than just biblical scholars? Huon (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your post there, but I think the summation of the issue at hand there is that "conformity to sources" need to be maintained and what these scholars say can not be modified. So if they say "scholars" that can not be modified, or if they say "scholars of antiquity" that can not be modified. By the way, it must be clarified that biblical scholarship is distinct from theology and as the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies states it includes archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology. So these authors are fully immersed in the field and know who writes what. Moreover, there are no opposing sources, i.e. we have seen not even one source that disputes the statements made by these sources on the issue. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I almost agree. There are different degrees of authority; for example, Grant is a general ancient historian writing a large number of no-scholarly-popular books on all subjects in the general area. He does it well, and I've read quite a number of them, but he's not a  specialist in this field & does not claim he is; the book is from a non-academic press. And although Ehrman is a famous specialist, this particular book is a rather popular one from a non-academic press also. Price teaches at an extremely non-traditional seminary about which we need an article --but the book in question is published by a mainline Evangelical press--I would expect some idiosyncrasies.  Van Voorst is a good academic with a known very conservative POV--the book is from a very good specialist mainstream press.  and so on.
 * But there's a bigger problem: from any scholar who has written many books over a period of time, especially for different audiences, it is quite simple to cherry-pick quotations. Views develop, and quotations have to be seen in context of the person;s's entire work, of the development of their work, of their specific intent for the work--were they for example writing a textbook to provide a synthesis, or an argumentative monograph. The exact context is necessary, to see if they were proposing a string of the usual alternative hypotheses, or their own actual opinion which they may very well know does not have consensus. To descend to the utterly trivial, I say things differently when I am telling a newcomer the consensus or arguing an AfD or proposing a new guideline or opposing a troll,  and what I think now about many issues is not what I thought 4 years ago.   DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article currently says: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."
 * Bart Ehrman says: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" (p. 285 of his book given above)
 * Van Voorst says on the theory of non-existence: "Biblical scholars and classical historians regard it as effectively refuted." (p. 16 of his book)
 * Grant says: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (p. 200 of his book)
 * I haven't checked the other sources; most of them aren't available online. Anyway, these aren't just the respective authors' opinions on the historicity of Jesus; in every case they speak explicitly about the consensus, just as they should to allow us per WP:RS/AC to write about the consensus. Of course the academic consensus can change, but there's no indication that it did. If Ehrman, Van Voorst and the others were cherry-picking to arrive at their conclusions about the consensus, I'd expect someone would have called them out on it, but there's no evidence of that, either. Huon (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quotes are stating per WP:RS/AC that "scholars of antiquity support viewpoint X", as a method of "counting people on either side of the issue" not as an opinion on the subject. And again, we have seen no single source that disputes what these people write, as a look on the page Christ myth theory also indicates. As a side note, the Christ myth theory page only includes the names of "less than a handful of living scholars" (perhaps 2 or 3 depending on who is considered a scholar) who would be outside the "virtually all" characterization. And none of them dispute what Van Voorst or Ehrman wrote. If someone writes "virtually all scientists hold that there is no global warming" there would be screams among the opposition, unless the opposition had already conceded. In fact no scholar disputes that count, as far as all literature searches indicate. Someone would have "called them out on that", as you said. History2007 (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The general issue has been discussed here many times. It is certainly true that scholars from a very wide range of backgrounds have said that in some sense, there was indeed a person at the root of the traditional accounts, though there seems complete disagreement about the extent to which the accounts give an accurate description. The sources listed, as I mentioned, cover a wide range of sources, and therefore the accumulation of them is reasonable evidence to that effect. The attempts to say that this is not the scholarly consensus are grasping at straws. That is not to say the consensus is right; I personally have no way of knowing, nor do they in any absolute sense other than --for some of them -- that of faith. . Some might think the consensus wrong, but it is the consensus nevertheless.   DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I have given up on the article itself, since the discussion on the talk page generates more heat than light, I would like to hear your opinion on my specific qualm: the wording as it stands implies (or could be taken to imply by a reasonable reader) that a large number of scholars from all fields of "scholarship of antiquity" have studied the matter and agree with the issue. In reality the discussion of the issue has almost exclusively come from the specific field of historical-critical biblical scholarship. Very few scholars outside that discipline have entered the discussion. Those who have by and large agree with historicity of course, that's not what I'm arguing.
 * The question of potential bias and lack of methodological rigour automatically presents itself, as acknowledged by scholars inside and outside the field. The wording we choose should neither try to answer this question, nor hide it. I am worried by a general tendency on pages touching on Historical Jesus research to cite biblical scholars claiming the support of unspecified "historians" as fact rather than attributed opinion. It is fine to let biblical scholars speak about a consensus in their own field, not to propagandise its academic respectability, when sources both inside and outside the field cast doubt on it.
 * In this vein, I proposed changing the wording "scholars of antiquity" to "biblical scholars". I believe this is more accurate, although perhaps we should add the qualification "historical-critical" so as not to invite the lay reader to conclude that this might be religious propaganda. To that we could add a short description of the kinds of scholars who have entered the discussion. Conformance to sources is not an issue, since the quoted sources all use their own widely differing wordings, which support the wording I am proposing.
 * I'd like to have a more general discussion about sources in field X being allowed in support of an alleged consensus among neighbouring fields. I suspect this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion, but maybe someone can point me in the right direction? Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DGG is both logical and correct. That is the scholarly consensus, regardless of what people at large (or any of us) may think of it. And I agree with his characterization of not accepting it as the scholarly consensus as "grasping at straws". Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity (1982) - Weer Rajendra Rishi
Hi, I want to know that whether the book India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity (1982) by Weer Rajendra Rishi meets the criteria of WP:RS, mentioned the fact that Rishi has been awarded with the Padma Shri by the President of India, for his contributions in the field of linguistics? Checking-in here, because notability doesn't itself guarantee reliability, and book covers some serious hot-topics, e.g. ! 117.200.53.160 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ummm, allow me me be very specific here. I want to make a few edits to article Getae, Massagetae and {Jat people (edit request)}, and what I'm asking is that is it just to trust Rishi with the linguistic etymology of ancient Getae. 117.207.55.168 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You would want to look for evidence that Rishi's work on this specific subject has been used and reviewed favourably by experts (in Greek or Indo-European etymology). The award is interesting but "linguistics" is quite vague and we don't know what academic criteria were applied. And rew D alby  09:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, searching google highlights that his work has been appeared in significant authors' books. I am not that deep an expert on this subject, but that's why I wanted to know that if the Prez himself is involved to notify him for his distinguished contribution, does that make him stand strong? Anyways, I want to know your (& guyz around's) view-point over him? 117.207.54.216 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very useful, thank you. It shows that his work on Romani is taken seriously by several major scholars (including a 14-page review by Terrence Kaufman in a linguistic journal) and all that would be a good reason for the President to nominate him. In turn this explains his interest in the Jats. What he says on their origin and name might well be interesting, and if he's linking the name with Getae and Massagetae one can see where he might be coming from. I would say he stands strong enough to be quoted, but, as you observe, these are very contentious areas and it would be best to quote with in-line attribution. Does that help? And rew D alby  15:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Yes Andrew, and thanks for the advice! 117.200.61.207 (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com
At User:Albacore/Mike Capel I have a draft for the article Mike Capel. I want to use ancestory.com to reference his mother and father's names as well as his the name of his wife. The two references I would use are from here. Albacore (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular source has cropped up here quite a bit - see these search results. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think to use Ancestry.com would very much depend on the source of the information... if it's user contributed, probably not usable, if it's an official record, like death certificate, social security death record, military record, birth record from state archives or something then it's probably valid as a wp:primary only source... What specific source off of Ancestry.com do you propose to use? — raeky  t  17:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources you mention are primary sources and should be used with care. Some, such as self-reported information for censuses, are practically self-published data. (I guess there is a legal obligation to be accurate on a census survey, but has anybody ever been prosecuted for providing wrong information even intentionally on a census form? There is also the question of the reliability of the census-takers themselves.) You have to establish the person referred to in the source is the one who is the article's subject (this is true of any source, but typically in these primary records this gets harder because of lack of contextual information). If the information is available partially on a secondary source, these primary sources may be used to fill in the gaps, with care. If not, you are out of luck. You can assume the ancestry.com public records are credible replicas of the originals. Churn and change (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... but it could be original research to conclude that any one particular birth certificate, for example, is in fact for the person being considered. There are a lot of Michael Capes. This has all been dealt with before, per the search results noted above. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No source, primary or secondary, will ever say "this reference is about xyz who is the subject of the article abcd in Wikipedia." We always infer that connection from context, such as full name, dates, places and other contextual information (in this case, an example would be parents' names). Whether such inference rises to the level of WP:OR depends on the specific case in question and should be left to a discussion among the editors of the article. With something like a birth certificate, the contextual link may be weaker, but there is no general rule forbidding establishing such a link if that can be done in an obvious way. Churn and change (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And in the case of secondary sources, it is within the capacity of the encyclopaedist to reasonably make such an encyclopaedic interpretation. This is not the case with primary sources regarding historical biography where encyclopaedists are not adequately trained (and we do not certify any editor as anything but an encyclopaedist).  Again, this has been previously discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy and guidelines really don't say anything such. What they say is a primary source can be used to back up a secondary source, if the interpretations involved are obvious ones to a reasonably educated person. There is also wording that primary sources should be used with care. There are no blanket rules for "historical biography," a policy category seemingly created on this board, and it is not within the scope of this noticeboard to create rules. One has to look at these case by case. Churn and change (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Albacore, firstly, you have done a great job at expanding that article. Congratulations! Second, I concur with others here that using primary public document sources, such as those hosted on ancestry.com, should not be used, except possibly to augment a secondary source. The danger of OR and in even error based on erroneous assumptions about identification of the right person and about accuracy of the data/collection are just too great to be left to WP editors. This is most especially the case where we are talking about a living person, as we are here. WP's BLP policy specifically forbids the use of public records such as this per WP:BLPPRIMARY. All this to say the answer is no. Slp1 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fifelfoo and other comments. I will just add that there can be times when primary sources are suitable, but this is clearly not one. This is, just to make it clear, because original interpretation is required in this case, in order to use the source. It is not "2+2=4". (I say this as a keen amateur genealogist.) This is NOT intended to mean that I think Albacore is wrong. He is very likely correct, but that is not the point. As soon as we do anything ground breaking we should do it somewhere else and not on WP, which simply aims to summarize what other sources have already published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Need feedback on "REHUPA"
Hi RSN people. Just following up on a past discussion about the Conan chronologies article.

Right now, the article is relying on two authors published at self published websites:
 * Joe Marek
 * William Galen Gray

I tried removing them on that basis, but someone reverted based on the fact that they were both published in REHUPA.

REHUPA is the "Robert E. Howard United Press Association". Their website describes them "an amateur press association dedicated to the study of author Robert E. Howard. The purpose of this site is to provide a forum for members to present their work to the public, as well as to serve as a source of reliable information about the life and writings of REH.

My questions:
 * 1) Are Joe Marek and William Galen Gray and those respective websites reliable sources?
 * 2) Is REHUPA a reliable source for information about Howard and his creative works, namely Conan the Barbarian?
 * 3) Is REHUPA considered sufficiently independent enough from Conan/Howard to count towards the WP:GNG?

The more direct the answers, the better. I've been surprised with how contentious this issue is, and the feedback has been somewhat off topic to this point. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Those three web sites seem far less than serious or reliable to me. The topic is not exactly scholarly in any case, but still these are web sites I would not believe at all, and do not pass WP:RS in my view. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fan sites. Even the "Robert E. Howard United Press Association" is described as a "Fan discussion group includes biography, images, and information". Not RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the relevant thing to check is whether the fan sites have any kind of moderation, or can users just post whatever they want? It sounds like the latter? Another question might be whether the fan sites are ever cited by any better sources as authorities on anything, but I guess this is unlikely in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle
At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented say are as follows: Are those sources sufficient for the statement that the incident became known as the Lydda death march? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On a visit home in 1948, Habash was caught in the Jewish attack on Lydda and, along with his family, forced to leave the city in the mass expulsion that came to be known as the Lydda Death March.
 * On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the Lydda Death March.
 * Please note that the first source came out this year and is using language that was in the article until today.
 * So is this enough to say something "became known as" a term that barely appears in histories of the time? This event happened in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There's a grand total of 7 books in google that even mention the term, out of how many written about that war? Hundreds? Thousands? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Oxford Companion" source is sufficient in itself. It is well accredited via publisher and via editor (see here). Paul Chamberlin (see here) is also a reliable author on this subject. These are very good sources. If you want to show that Holmes (or co-author) and Chamberlin are wrong, Google Books won't help you much; you'd have to look for the primary evidence: reports of the incident in newspapers, magazines and memoirs of that time. If none of those mention the phrase, you can feel you're getting somewhere. Meanwhile the statement in our article is well-supported. And rew D alby  08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Glucojasinogen might be a real condition and it has two academical sources supporting it by now, so it would be a tendentious editing to dispute it. See Apollo's talk page discussion: after two generations of Wikipedia-inspired Chinese Whispers, people will one day look back at these times of ours and date the beginning of the permanent loss of reliable knowledge in the world to the founding of Wikipedia. Go Wikipediocracy.com! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this discussion is here. There is no dispute that these sources are reliable for the assertion that it was also known as the "Lydda death march". There is also no dispute - as far as I know - that "death march" is not the most common description of the events . The dispute is merely about the POV and UNDUE emphasis and utilization of the term that is far less common. This is a talk page discussion (where there was no consensus for inclusion), not a RS/N discussion. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article isnt titled Lydda death march, so the argument that it isnt the most common description falls flat. As nobody disputes that the source is reliable for this material (which until recently being edit-warred out of the article had been included for literally years) Ill bring this to NPOV/N now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the most common description, or even a common one. I really find it hard to believe a wikipedia article should say it "became known as X" when it's quite obvious that it hasn't. Doesn't WP:FRINGE apply here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but I fail to see how that is clear. We have two reliable sources, both published by a top-tier academic press, that specifically say that it became known as X, and then we have you, a random person on the internet, saying that no it is not known as X. Which one of those takes precedence on Wikipedia? If you would like to argue that WP:FRINGE applies to material cited to two books published by Oxford University Press by all means, feel free. I would love to see that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When you have hundreds of books written about a subject and a very small percentage call an event by a specific term, it's quite obvious that event did not "become known as" that term. Perhaps you are right and wikipedia policy allows editors to give prominence to the rare term. I hope not, but we'll see. The fact is that anyone who can use google can see it did not "become known as the Lydda Death March". I doubt that is not clear to you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not a random person on the internet, I'm a specific person on the internet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject isnt the 1948 War, or even the 1948 Palestinian exodus, it is specifically the expulsion of the Palestinian residents from these specific towns. How many hundreds of books are about that subject? A book written by a university professor with specific expertise on the Middle East and published by OUP is not, under any definition (including Wikipedia's) "fringe". Unless a reliable source disputes that this is a common name for the events described in that article, then what we have, despite your attempts at denigrating the sources, is a well-sourced alternative name with no sources disputing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of the sources you provided deal exclusively with this event. The event is mentioned in thousands of books (see for example this) only a handful of which even use the term "Lydda Death March" or even call it a "death march" in general. So yes, a source can be considered fringe when it makes a claim few if any out of thousands of other mainstream historians make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are any of this sources giving any name at all to the event? For example, 1949 by Segev describes the expulsion, but never gives any name for the event. Neither does Palestine, 1948 by Gelber. You cant use a source that gives no name at all to say that a name given by another source is incorrect. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So Segev and Gelber and Morris and Pappe and Karsh and Shlaim and the rest of those guys just missed the memo telling them what this event "became known as" but an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky whom you've never heard of before searching for the term got it right?
 * If it "became known as" something, you'd expect more than 1% of scholars to use that term. Like I said on the talk page, I don't have a problem saying some scholars refer to it by a certain term, but giving the reader the impression this is what people call it now is wrong, even if you have a source saying so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr Nice Guy, just trying to follow your logic, aren't you raising your own personal arguments against something which has been agreed to be reliably sourced? Or are you saying that the hundreds or thousands of publications about this subject actually specifically say that this event DID NOT come to be known as "X"? If they do not specifically say that, then aren't you trying to make an original argument based on WP:synthesis? (In other words, your argument appears to be: lots of publications do not mention X, so even though they do not explicitly disagree with X, this is proof that X is not widely accepted to be true.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm using WP:COMMONSENSE. We're talking about a topic with a huge amount of scholarship. We have two sources that make a claim and thousands of others that while not explicitly contradicting it (and why would they, it's very uncommon claim and not made by a major figure in the field) they contradict it in practice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your own words make it appear to me that this is what normally is referred to on WP as original research. Common sense is something that gets claimed when we are talking about 1+1=2 or the sky is blue, and the amount of disagreement apparent (according to both sides in this discussion) between both reliable sources and wikipedians makes it clear this is is not such a case, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

PZ Myers on Stuart Pivar's Lifecode
An IP has been repeatedly removing Myers's contemptuous assessment of Pivar's "Lifecode" theories, as related in his blog Pharyngula (link), asserting that Myers is not an acceptable source by our standards. I personally would tend to disagree: he's a scientist writing in his own field, and (for instance) his blog is commended by Nature. My one qualm about this is his notoriously confrontational manner, which leads me personally to devalue the intensity of his condemnations. But at any rate we need some resolution to this edit war. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to the blog, the material from the blog was covered by a book (Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk) and Wired which were deleted as sources at the same time.Novangelis (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, I deleted Pigliucci only once, not repeatedly (and once by accident, being new to the system of where references are) due to the lack of direct quotation etc., but when that excision was reverted, I did *not* revert those reversions since, of course, U. of Chicago Press is a reputable reliable source. The wired.com is not even relevant to the issue since lawsuits are not relevant to any real presentation of a scientific theory.  So those two issues are totally distinct, besides that the word «crackpot» is libellous.  So if this discussion is to continue, these issues must be kept separate.  And separate from the issue of a science blog, not subject to fact checking or peer review, being deemed a reliable source for contentious material about a living person.  The sarcastic tone would be enough to motivate a responsible editor to search for a better source, but would not be enough to justify immediate removal.  My claim is that this particular immediate removal of contentious material about a living person is justified by the clear lack of a reputable publisher's fact-checking department or a reputable scientific peer-review system to stand behind that blog.  No matter how many awards it has won, or how *convenient* it is for some editors to rely on a source which bypasses accepted scholarly procedures, especially when said source agrees with their own judgements.173.70.4.26 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Some excerpts from the policy page that pre-empts other Wiki-decisions
 * Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. [...] Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;
 * Questionable sources


 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.

Hence, as I see it, the determining question is whether pzmyers's blog is subject to the kind of editorial oversight which includes either the peer-review (before publication) of a reputable academic journal or the fact-checking dept. (again, before publication) of a reputable journal such as The New Yorker. It is irrelevant that PZ Myers has a following, is widely regarded as ...etc., or is a reputable biologist with refereed publications to his credit. It is also irrelevant whether there exists any convenient alternative for debunkers to rely on in their mission of debunking... I am starting to get the feeling that PZ Myers, Massimo Pigliucci, and some of the watchers of this article have a sense of mission.173.70.4.26 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it can be successfully argued that Myers's blog meets this standard. To begin with, the claim that his credentials as a biologist are irrelevant is in contradiction to the "professionals in the field" standard. Quite the contrary: those credentials establish that he is a professional in the field. Second, the statement in question is not a source about a living person, but is rather an analysis of a scientific claim, for which the nature of the theory's author is irrelevant. Third, it's not an extraordinary claim to say that the lifecode thesis is widely out of step with our understanding of developmental and evolutionaryMangoe (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That part of the policy was included by an accident, a cut-and-paste error.173.70.4.26 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds like you are stating that you failed to quote mine the policy to suit your position, not a good look. The part of the policy you apparently did not want to include is entirely germane to this discussion, see below. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  04:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * biology, to the point of being nonsensical. And to go back a response, there's nothing wrong with Myers's description of the theory as "crackpottery"— which, by the way, he does not do in this particular article anyway. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, now as to the claim that his credentials as a professional biologist are irrelevant. This is a simple point of logic.  The policy clearly says (note, there is a logical conjunction coming up here, so the fulfillment of the first condition is irrelevant if the second condition fails)  «professional in the field [...] *and* and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.»  In a reputable journal or news outlet, fact checkers vet the contributions *before* publication.  Is that the case here?  Somewhere else, in a longer, more discursive discussion of reliability in general, the wiki page on something or other asks the editor to consider whether the journal ever issues corrections.  Is that the case here?  Because of the special issues involving contentious material about living persons, the burden of proof is on the original poster, not me.173.70.4.26 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article on the blog in question:
 * ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only blog network and virtual community. It was created by Seed Media Group in 2006 to enhance the public understanding of science. As of February 2009, ScienceBlogs hosted 75 blogs dedicated to various fields of research. Each blog has its own theme, specialty, and author(s) and is not subject to editorial control.

Case closed? Maybe I am more sensitive to these issues than some Wiki editors since I am a professional editor and am on the advisory board of three scientific journals (oh, well, none of them prestigious)173.70.4.26 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you are selectively reading the policy. I will repeat your excerpt from above, but will add emphasis for what is a key section you gloss over:
 * Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. [...] Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;

PZ Myers's blog clearly meets this criteria. End of discussion. Oh, and anyone can claim to be whatever they want on-line, I have no reason to doubt your claims, similarly I have no reason to believe them either. Such claims of expertise are irrelevant here and give your opinions no special weight. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  04:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * the words which immediately follow what you bolded explain why what I glossed over is insufficient.
 * «Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.»
 * You seem to be conceding that this blog is self-published, something with which I am inclined to agree since Seed Media Group provides none of the functions of an editorial nature that distinguish a publisher from a mere printer. If this blog is not self-published, then Mr. Pivar's books are not self-published either...but we are all agreed that they are. But, further, does it matter if one policy says «Use may be acceptable if 'A' holds true», when another part of the policy says «'B' must hold true.» and we are living in a situation in which 'B' is clearly false?173.70.4.26 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PZMyers's blog clearly fails to meet the other necessary criteria, which is why I suggested that the case was closed once the wiki article on ScienceBlogs itself explained that no editorial control was exerted.173.70.4.26 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not restructure other users' posts, especially as you did here by making one post look like two separate posts, breaking the logical sequence of the discussion and thus changing the meaning. This is rude and breaks the talk page guidelines. I have moved your comment to immediately follow mine, in sequence, where it belongs.

Since we are not talking about a BLP issue, your quoted section above is not relevant. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  05:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think just on the policy interpretation question 173.70.4.26 is indeed not fully correct. Please note that I am not stating that we should cite this particular blog on this particular occasion, only that policy does not absolutely forbid it. When policy does not forbid something, it becomes a responsibility to seek consensus in a common sense way, consistent with the spirit of the policy pages. The policy pages do give good guidelines about what kind of evidence can count as a good argument for using or not using a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although it is the norm, not all reliable sources need to have independent fact checking because (a) some individuals (and some raw information found in primary sources) are notable in themselves and occasionally worth sourcing for various editorial reasons, and (b) some individuals have their own demonstrable reputation for fact checking, which editors might consider strong enough to justify using them. For example a person whose blog is cited in notable and reliable sources can be argued on that basis to be worth citing.
 * I also agree with those who argue that reporting that a theory has been accused of being "crack pot" does not count as something forbidden because it is "libelous" to any living person who agrees with the theory.
 * Myers is a well established scientific expert, particularly in the area of debunking pseudo-scientific quackery. His blog is a fine reliable source for such analysis. He clearly meets the WP:SPS guidelines for commenting on those theories, and is in fact probably one of the finest available sources in common English. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider it a perfectly usable source: the published opinion of a recognized effort. All WP rules need interpretation, and trying to avoid using this is a very strained and unreasonable interpretation.  DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

use of textbook published by Palgrave Macmillan
In Right-wing politics the following edit has been challenged as not being from a reliable source:
 * Andrew Heywood states "some argue that the emergence of new political issues such as feminism, ecologism and animal rights, which simply do not fit in to the conventional spectrum, and the development of ’third way’ politics have rendered the ideas of left and right largely redundant."

The book is by an autjor noted for writing on the topic, and is published by Palgrave MacMillan which I thought was a reliable source. The claim is a direct quote, thus can not be somethng misinterpreted easily.

Is Palgrave MacMillan a publisher of "high school lesson plans" as one person averred, or is this a Wikipedia acceptable source for the use to which it is being placed? Many thanks. Collect (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both, is the short answer. While high school student stuff can often gloss over the details etc & I am not fond of it personally, in the Wikipedia sense the publisher is ok and the author is valid for his own opinion. It

would be nice if something more "academic" could be found but I see nothing wrong with this. Mind, I've not actually looked at the article and if the issue is with regard to weighting then perhaps the challenger could provide some balance? Presumably their objection is because they disagree with the content? - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sitush. One does not expect academic level analysis from such a source, but it should be usable for general purposes. The statement seems an unexceptionable summary, and a hs textbook level source for it is adequate.  DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Note the textbook synopsis is ''This is an accessible and comprehensive guide to the major concepts encountered in political analysis. Each is defined clearly and fully, and its significance for political argument and practice is explored'' It is not called a high school study guide, nor is it used as one. It is nearly three hundred pages long. This text is used as a reference in multiple works by other authors. It is used as a college text for students of Government. Googlescholar says it is cited by 167 - which is a non-trivial level of notability for a reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It clearly states on the back cover that it is written by a secondary school teacher for students as part of the Palgrave study guides series. If others cite it, could Collect please explain what they say about the author's view on the Right.  TFD (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: 'This is totally untrue and deliberately so. The back cover says no such thing.'' Emeraude (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the back cover that shows that it is written by a secondary school teacher for students as part of the Palgrave study guides series. TFD (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is definitely an A level book. In American tems, high school, not college. Sitush and DGG make good points, but it would be best to look for a textbook aimed at postgrads. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is cited in The Rise of 'New’ Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government? Andrew Jordan, Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel, Anthony Zito, 20 SEP 2005, Wiley; and in a slew of other papers and books.   "High school textbooks" do not get routinely cited in journal, last time I checked.   "Andrew Heywood" does not appear to be a high school teacher, by the way.   This "high school teacher" also wrote Political Ideologies, Fourth Edition: An Introduction , etc.   Over his career, Andrew has been both a college Vice Principal and Director of Studies and has over 20 years experience as a Head of Politics and a politics lecturer. He currently works as a freelance author and consultant.  Seems sufficient from here to establish him as versed in the field. Collect (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, please provide the page reference where Jordan, Wurzel and Zito explain Heywood's views on the Right. Heywood was a vice principal and director of studies at two secondary schools. It is not uncommon in the UK for secondary schools to be called "colleges".  See for example Eton College.)  Political Ideologies: An Introduction is also, as the title suggests, an introductory level textbook.  TFD (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rather misleading and one can surmise intentionally so. "It is not uncommon" means it's actually NOT common, and you should not make the assertion that Heywood's previous employment was in secondary education. Indeed, it was not, as just a casual browsing of Wikipedia would have revealed in a few seconds. He held senior posts at Orpington College, now part of Bromley College of Further & Higher Education which is affilitiated to the University of Greenwich, and at Croydon College which is a Further Education College and a University Centre, i.e. neither is a secondary school!. Have you some ulterior motive for trying by innuendo to belittle Heywood's experience? Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But in answer to your request for page ref: Political Studies, Volume 53, Issue 3, pages 477–496, October 2005. Emeraude (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked for the page reference where they explained Heywood's concept of the Right, not the pages on which that article appeared. I imagine they did not mention it at all, since the article is not about right-wing politics.  TFD (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As further evidence of Heywood's bona fides, one should consider his citations in Research Methods for Political Science: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches by By David E. McNabb, (M E Sharpe, 2nd edition, 2010) pages 5, 390, 405 and 415. Emeraude (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He obviously has bona fides, no one said he didn't, and this is top quality stuff as far as A Level textbooks go. But some people really need to read up on the UK education system before weighing in with so much certainty. The colleges mentioned are all Further education colleges, not university colleges. The equivalent would be senior high in the US, although they also do a lot of adult and vocational education of a pre-university type. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked for 40 years in the UK education system! (and I'm a political scientist, for what it's worth.) These colleges are not run-of-the-mill FE colleges (=US senior high) but are among a small group of colleges that combine further and higher education, albeit the latter under the auspices of universities. The issue is not whether the book under discussion is an A level text (and where is the evidence that it is?), but whether the author has credibility as a reliable source, regardless of who the book is aimed at. Given that he and this work specifically are cited by HE academics in peer-reviewed journals there can be no doubt of this. The repeated mistruths/misinformation through this discussion that Heywood is merely a school teacher, or FE teacher are unwarranted, but even if he works as a nursery (=kindergarten for US readers) nurse it makes no difference. The issue is this: is he an acknowledged practioner in the field of political studies? If cited by others, the answer is Yes. Emeraude (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't get this. You had qualified go-aheads from Sitush and DGG, yet you chose to ignore them and get into a pointless yes/no tussle about this textbook. OK, if you really, really want, it's an A Level textbook that the publishers also want to market to undergraduates. (Like Giddens' Sociology, but I don't think you are going to argue that he has the status of Giddens.) Heywood was at Orpington College when he wrote it, and he was an A Level Chief Examiner. Orpington was never a mixed-economy college, just an ordinary FE college doing Level 2 and Level 3 work. Croydon College, yes it runs a few degree courses, but not in Politics, and Heywood was VP there, which wouldn't allow him a great deal of time for teaching undergrads, would it? The simple fact is, this is a textbook, and whether it is Level 3 or Level 4 or crossover between them hardly matters. Good for non-controversial statements, like the statement it is to support. In the medium term, try and replace it with something more academic, e.g. a textbook aimed at postgrads. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sitush and DGG: the source in question is strong enough to support the statement in question.
 * I think this is also a good example of the problems with the anti-textbook brigade. That article also cites news reports, web magazines, non-profit organizations, authors' web pages, and other fairly weak sources, but the one we're really worried about is a well-regarded textbook?  This can't even be explained by the excuse that someone thinks Wikipedia is only permitted to include academically endorsed POVs.  I assume that the real problem here is that someone happens to disagree with the source.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume by the anti-textbook brigade you mean me. I agree with Sitush and DGG, but we cannot give carte blanche to introductory textbooks for contentious statements. If the other sources in the article are weak then that should be addressed separately. This thread is resolved anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Using lawsuit claims in magicJack article
There are two unresolved lawsuits mentioned in the magicJack article. Is a lawsuit a reliable source? Here's the material in question:

"On June 24, 2009, CANADIANMAGICJACK.CA LTD, filed a lawsuit against magicJack LP with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Vancouver Registry (No. S-094744). On September 21 2012, Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd was sued by NetTalk for damages in excess of $200,000,000 for patent infringement with the magickjack plus device.[1] [2]"

The only source given for the first is in the text: Registry (No. S-094744). There are two sources given for the second: Text of complaint and Demand for Jury Trial and the Palm Beach Post.

I guess the sorts of questions I have are: 1) Anyone can make any claim in a lawsuit. Should Wikipedia be repeating these claims? 2) Lawsuits involving large corporations are frequent. Need an article mention every lawsuit filed? 3) Should we be citing unresolved lawsuits, or lawsuits that have had little or no media attention? Also, the article mentions a third lawsuit that was resolved, with magicJack losing its defamation suit against Boing Boing. I can't find any coverage of that other than in blogs. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article and the source, I think the "blog" is a reliable report for an accepted commentator. It would be good to find something more official to supplement it.Have you looked? As for the other lawsuits, the article just says they were filed. Whether they are significant in terms of the company can be discussed.  DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably more of an NPOV issue - if there's no significant coverage elsewhere, then I don't think it belongs in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for this feedback. TimidGuy (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That a suit has been filed is a matter of fact i.e. it either has or it hasn't. If court records show the suit has been filed, that is clearly acceptable and reliable as a source. If it's important to the article, include it. What we must not do is use the fact of the filing as in any way backing one side or the other or suggesting that the complainant/repspondant actually has a case. As to significant coverage elsewhere, this is almost certainly going to be impossible to find. Why should there be any? The best that can be expected is a press report that a suit has been filed - which we can accept as I said - but it would be most unlikely, and almost certainly a contempt of court, for anything else to be printed. The press may print coverage of the trial/hearing as it progesses, and we can reflect that, but until then Wikipedia may report the filing, but should do no more. Emeraude (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why should it do that? This is an encyclopedia, we report significant things, not trivia, and certainly shouldn't be reporting lawsuits that haven't attracted much attention outside of an editor here. This is one reason we are chary about primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Response: I didn't say Wikipedia should do anything. I said it "may report the filing...". I also made no suggestion we should include trivia - I said, "If it's important to the article, include it" but I took and take no position on its importance or otherwise. Emeraude (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My search of Lexis/Nexis turns up just one news story about the patent-related lawsuit filed by magicJack against netTalk last April and the netTalk patent lawsuit against magicJack in September. My impression is that lawsuits involving large corporations are fairly common and that it doesn't make sense for a Wikipedia article to catalog them. TimidGuy (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org
The site religioustolerance.org appears to me to be a self-published amateur stie. It is being used to justify this claim, which has its own issues which I will discuss on the article talk page. Be that as it may, I question using this site as an authority. Mangoe (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While it's not a personal website... it is run and authored primarily by one person (who's academic credentials are not in the field of religious studies). So, yeah, I would call it an amateur self-published source.  It might be reliable... if it can be established that the main author (Bruce Robinson) is recognized as an "amateur expert".  Has he published in the field (other than on the website)?  Do others cite his writings in their work?  If not, then I would call it unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this statement of beliefs comes across to me as more of an advocacy group's mission statement. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the underlying question is whether the website actually represents the views of a group ... or just the views of Mr. Robinson. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See the archives. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the source is sufficient to support the weight of that claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Asâ, Oktan Keleş, İstanbul
An IP hopper is insisting that this be in the article Dhul-Qarnayn. Oktan Keles is a fringe Turkish author who thinks the Chinese 'pyramids' are Turkish. The book seems to be also called "Dream of a Recluse" and but I can't find anything in Google books. This is the publisher's page for him and his books and the book's page. I can't make much sense of the translation of the summary:" The devil wizard crew chief in Istanbul, Turkey. One of the best men around here do not planlamasa things. Latif, select the team for that matter. The task with the permission of your God. Crescent prayers with us. Organization of melamine. On top of that Latif Baba: - Your order on top of the head. This is a very dangerous Mayruk wizard. Contact Hz. Moses (pbuh) must be the Sceptre. On top of that Abi Ilhami: - Prayers are ASA. Remember, he realized that eye, hand grasped the scepter, and languages: Bismillah ... Swivel around whatever is in the name of magic. ..." Another page for the book is. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the Chines pyramids were built by Paris Hilton, although some scholars say Silver Stallone was also involved..... kidding. I reverted it anyway, it is pure fringe. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IP hopper replaced it again. I've removed it but they are complaining on my talk page that I'm spending too much time on this article. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Help requested on Supercouple page
On the WP page Supercouple, there is an IP editor who keeps re-inserting the claim that Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres were a "supercouple." I have reverted this three times (was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, posted about it on the talk page with no response, and the discussion started by me on the WP:Administrator's noticeboard was closed with directions to take the matter to the "appropriate discussion page"). I'm flabbergasted that such a statement is being allowed on the page, as I have never seen such a ludicrous statement here on Wikipedia. Heche and DeGeneres were not a "supercouple." That is just common sense. The source that the IP editor is using for this rubbish is a gay magazine that Heche gave an interview to in 2001 after she and DeGeneres split and Heche married a man. The interview uses the word "supercouple" once--it's an interview for crying out loud, obviously will exaggerate to promote Heche and is not a credible source in this circumstance. The definition of "supercouple" on this Wiki page is "a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." Heche and DeGeneres were neither of those things. At the time of their pairing, DeGeneres was a comedienne with her own TV sitcom and Heche was a completely unknown actress doing small parts in movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer. DeGeneres was wealthy; Heche was not (she even stated in court documents in 2008 "I have no money" to pay child support for her son during her divorce battle with ex-husband Coley Laffoon). DeGeneres and Heche did not "fascinate the public" but rather make the public dislike them, as Heche has stated on multiple occasions that she lost career opportunities due to this relationship. The mention of them is removed from the page at the time of my writing this, but it will probably be put back in yet again by that IP editor. So, I am requesting help to resolve this dispute. Sancap (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See here, where this was already discussed. And once again, this editor has brought this to the wrong noticeboard. The Advocate is absolutely a WP:Reliable source for this information. 118.96.148.43 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a rather silly term to begin with, a media creation. However, discussion here over public reaction to their relationship is beside the point. The bottom line as I see it: the issue is not whether the Advocate is a reliable source, but whether a single such designation by one published source is sufficient to consider its use acceptable for the encyclopedia. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some state that the term "supermodel" is rather silly as well. But regarding the Supercouple article, not only is the source reliable for this information, it is not a term that should be taken as seriously as Sancap has been taking it; no more than we take the term "supermodel" this seriously. Why he is so focused on this couple out of all the others in the article who only have one reliable source supporting them as a supercouple is something that I can only assume is personal against this couple or either of its members. 118.172.96.119 (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

William M. Branham
William M. Branham was a controversial Christian minister from the mid 20th century who has a comparatively small following around the world today. There are a few academic publications that examine Branham’s claims critically but most of the criticism of his claims (some of which are of a supernatural nature) are made by single ex followers who maintain self published personal web sites for this purpose, such as “Seek Ye the Truth” (John Collins) and "Believe the Sign" (Jeremy Bergen) I would appreciate some feedback on the validity of using these self published sources in the article on Branham. Rev107 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No they are not reliable sources. Researchers may use these sources, of course, and we can report their findings.  See WP:SELFPUB.  TFD (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * TFD, are you saying their findings/conclusions can be reported in the Wikipedia article on Branham? Rev107 (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No. A researcher may use their reports along with other sources in order to develop an analysis which is then published by a reliable book publisher.  We may then quote that book.  However we cannot do the research ourselves and cannot mention these sources.  Unlike professional researchers, we have no way of determining the validity of the claims and if no reliable source has reported them they are not important enough to be included.  Self-published works may also contain information that is defamatory.  TFD (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this need referencing?
I'm not sure which noticeboard exactly this should go in, but since it's about the referencing of the article, i'm putting it here. And it's not really a dispute resolution thing, because the two of us just have a disagreement on whether referencing is appropriate for the statement or not, so other opinions on whether it should be referenced would be helpful. The article in question is Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Yendor of yinn would like to add this information to the article. I wasn't entirely sure on its accuracy, so I removed it and asked for a reference. We have been discussing this here on my talk page. Yender feels like the information is common knowledge that doesn't have to be sourced and that, if necessary, a link to Australia's visa policies and ownership of the Coral Sea Islands would be enough.

I am not sure about this. I feel questionable on whether Cato Island currently falls under this or, more specifically, whether Australia actually bothers to enforce anything in regards to non-Australian people visiting the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom. I would be much more comfortable with a source specifically stating that people need a visa to visit the Kingdom

What do you guys think? Silver seren C 05:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you unsure about whether the place is under Australian control, or about whether Australia requires visas for visitors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In terms of the specific place...both? More of, do they bother to enforce the visa thing. Since the Kingdom has a policy of allowing any visitors so long as they're gay. Silver  seren C 16:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * it most certainly requires a reliable, and third party source - it is a very controversial claim and nothing at all like "The sky is blue" or "Paris is the capital of France". If for some reason travellers based their plans on this claim, it would have immense real life consequenses.-- The Red Pen of Doom  17:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi guys the geographical area seems to be identical to the area of the Coral Sea Islands Territory which is a territory of the Commonwealth of Australia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Sea_Islands - as far as Australian Commonwealth Law goes here is the Coral Sea Islands act: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/csia1969158

As far as people visiting Australia they need to obtain a visa: "Unless you are an Australian or New Zealand citizen, you will need a visa to enter Australia. New Zealand passport holders can apply for a visa upon arrival in the country. All other passport holders must apply for a visa before leaving home. You can apply for a range of visas, including tourist visas and working holiday visas, at your nearest Australian Consulate. For more detailed information go to the Australian government Visas & Immigration website" http://www.australia.com/plan/before-you-go/planning-a-trip.aspx Here is another link http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/remote-offshore-territories/coral-sea-islands.html

Therefore, people trying to visit the Coral Sea Islands Territory (or the the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea) because they are homosexual will still need an Australian Visa (unless they are Australian citizens, obviously). Yendor of yinn (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just thinking about this more... I think we are attaching too much importance to the concept of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea. It is an unrecognised micronation which appears to have been created by someone on their webpage that got a lot of support. That original webpage is no longer available and all 'new' sources refer to the original webpage,i.e. no where else. Given that the Australian Commonwealth has recognised sovereignty over the Coral Sea Islands Territory Australian laws apply - including immigration and customs, e.g. visas. I think that not referring to this fact either specifically or generally may encourage people to visit to are not permitted to do so (Non-Australians without a Visa), i.e. they are breaking Australian and potentially International Law. Yendor of yinn (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Anything that is likely to be disputed needs a reliable, secondary source. As Red Pen stated, this is not at allundisputable fact like the sky is blue or the sun sets in the west. This needs a reference for many reasons.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amadscientist. This is basically accurate, but it's not indisputable. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a possible solution. Two separate statements, each referenced. One is that the all the micronation's claimed territory actually belongs Australia. If you can't find a reference for that, then make sure it is visible in maps accessible from the article. The second is that Australia requires visitors to have visas, from the source quoted above. That could go in a footnote. You don't need to go on to say "therefore the micronation is incorrect in saying that all LGBT people are welcome to go and live there". It should be pretty obvious, and we are not a tourism guide. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's practically a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. :/ Silver  seren C 17:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union
Article Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union has more than 3 reverts by an anonymous IP address...Posting a URL as a source to their commentary that I can not locate anywhere else nor find in publish and peer reviewed sources.. Here is the content added. According to the Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Pimen, "I must say with a full sense of responsibility that there has not been a single instance of anyone having been tried or detained for his religious beliefs in the Soviet Union. Moreover, Soviet laws do not provide for punishment for "religious beliefs". Believe it or not - religion is a personal matter in the Soviet Union.

Diffs
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.

Please confirm if the source posted is considered compliant with Wikipedia policy.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The translated text appears to be It's probably a reliable source for the quotation but I'm sure that most historians would discount Pimen I of Moscow as an accurate source for the true state of affairs. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Pimen I of Moscow, who was head of the main Christian church in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1990 might have said that because he and his church worked closely with the Communist authorities. However it is better to obtain a secondary source that explains his comments.  I notice that the article is based mostly on polemical books and articles from the Cold War period, which probably accounts for the tone used.  TFD (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per, and following, TFD, Pimen would have been reliable as an involved expert from 1971 to 1990 while this was current. Now that it is fading clearly into history he should be replaced with secondary sources published after 1990 by scholars.  History of religion is a big thing.  There's no need to use non-scholarly cold war polemical sources, and there's little need to use scholarly cold war polemical sources.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

According to admin Ed Johnson its undue weight ..Please post invalid sources here so that they can be exercised from the article..Also I recently added a bibliography I added secondary sources that (except for God created Lenin) were peer reviewed. This is hard to tell but I tried to use the valid sourcing criteria from WP:VS and use recent material, however that material also uses some of the older sources already in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Scholars are allowed (themselves) to interpret sources wikipedia must not use. That's why we rely upon scholars.  Scholars can evaluate bad sources, sort dross from seed, and make a good story out of bad lies.  Don't worry if scholars use "bad" sources.  Worry if scholars are reviewed poorly by other scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Pospielovsky wrote, scholars have gained access to previously hidden archives and are able to speak more freely with people inside the Soviet Union. Views on Gorbachev had also changed.  They can use this new information to verify previous writing and in some cases revise it.  They can also more accurately assess the sincerity of Pimen's comments.  TFD (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pospielovsky is throughout the newer stuff I have added in the biblio..,, , None of these sources term Pospielovsky as a problematic source so where are you getting that from? Since what he says in no way contradicts the history of places like Butovo firing range. Please show me, my attention is yours, what scholar or scholars are making these assertions? As for the passage on Pimen I can not find another source. And URLs in and by themselves I thought were invalid. Also why only one source from one time, if this was common knowledge where are other people, sources re-enforcing it. I can't find scholars (unless they're atheists ) that disregard the death of millions of people as disillusion. Hey these are wiki rules. I'm trying here and giving up my personal time for this, but what is just obvious to you (from the context of the sources I have provided) is not to me. That's why I am here asking for help. So far your ignoring what I've done, attacking, marginalizing commonly used sources and from appearances supporting an addition that is breaking multiple wiki policies (if only teasing the idea of it). To make what is a common theme of religious persecution in source after source somehow gel with your comments, it's just not happening, its like this webpage, anon source, to you two is equivalent, I just don't see that. I'd swear some of it if not most of what your saying I have already done in some way and it appears, you're just don't see that. That's very frustrating. This is like asking bureaucrats for help. Thanks for... whatever. Is this at your message board's ambiguous whim, as to what is reasonable and when or are we to actually use rules that are here already? I mean I came here to clarify policy about the validity of one addition and somehow this its now gut the whole thing? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "I can't find scholars (unless they're atheists that disregard the death of millions of people as disillusion." Interesting comment.  Do you think that religious persecution occurred because the Communists were atheists and that is what atheists do?  Do you think that Pospielovsky was right when he said that Gorbachev had a "radical atheist" agenda?  I guess you hate Ayn Rand.  No one said his writing was a "problematic source".  However it would be better to use more recent sources that have had access to the most current evidence rather than relying on samizdat sources, which were all that were available to him at the time (which btw is what he says).  TFD (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

High-quality scientiffic books as source
Hi, because of a discussion on talk:Hans Eysenck I have to ask here if some scientiffic releases about politic-science are reliabels sources.

The sources, partley in german, assert right-wing acitivitys of a psychologist.


 * Michael Billig, Andrew S. Winston (Hrsg.) (1979): Psychology, Racism & Fascism. scholar. online
 * H. J. Eysenck: Die Ungleichheit der Menschen. Orion-Heimreiter-Verlag, Kiel 1984, S. 245.
 * Jens Mecklenburg: Was tun gegen rechts. Espresso-Verlag, Berlin 2002, S. 456 f. scholar
 * Hans-Jürgen Eysenck: Freud – Retter oder Scharlatan? In: National-Zeitung Nr. 18 vom 27. April 1990, S. 7.
 * de:Siegfried Jäger: Der Singer-Diskurs sowie einige Bemerkungen zu seiner Funktion für die Stärkung rassistischer und rechtsextremer Diskurse in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Siegfried Jäger, Jobst Paul (Hrsg.): Von Menschen und Schweinen. Der Singer-Diskurs und seine Funktion für den Neo-Rassismus. Diss-Texte Nr. 13, Duisburg 1991, S. 7-30 scholar.
 * Leonie Knebel, Pit Marquardt: Der Versuch die Ungleichwertigkeit von Menschen zu beweisen. In: de:Michael Haller, Martin Niggeschmidt (Hrsg.): Der Mythos vom Niedergang der Intelligenz: Von Galton zu Sarrazin: Die Denkmuster und Denkfehler der Eugenik. Springer, Wiesbaden 2012. scholar online
 * Roger Griffin: The Nature of Fascism. St. Martins Press, New York 1991, online scholar
 * Peter Kratz: Die Götter des New Age: Im Schnittpunkt von „Neuem Denken“, Faschismus und Romantik. Elefanten Press Verlag, Berlin 1994, online scholar
 * Tomislav Sunic: Against Democracy and Equality - The European New Right. 3. Auflage. Arktos Media, 2011, S. 141 ff. online

Some other useres won't accept them because they try to deny any of Eysencks far-right publications. Now I have to ask you, if these high-quality-sources are really high-quality-sources. -- WSC ® 07:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I recognize Springer and St Martins, both reliable. The others I do not know.  DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not commenting on this thread as I'm involved, but would be grateful,for comments on any of the others (except for the books by Eysenck himself, because their status as primary sources is clear). Many thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Billig is an RS, though neutrality is suspect for pretty much everybody on this issue. I am surprised we need German references for Eysenck's take on race and intelligence; there is plenty written in English on that. I notice the Gibson book is not used as a reference at all in the article; it is used as a reference for a line which says "Gibson has written a biography of Eysenck." Hmmmm Churn and change (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gibson's biography was published in 1981. It's six years since I read it, but I don't recall it saying much about the race and intelligence hoohah.  That might account for the lack of references. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But the article is about Eysenck, not about race and intelligence. The article in its entirety ignores the Gibson book completely, probably, yes, because of a focus on the race and intelligence issue. Churn and change (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic pantheism
I am currently mediating a case between two users relating to the articles Naturalistic pantheism and pantheism. We have agreed to use this noticeboard to decide whether certain sources are reliable when discussion between the two parties does not lead to a solution. Currently, we are discussing whether the World Pantheist Movement (WPM) should have any coverage on the naturalistic pantheism article, and whether its beliefs can be described as naturalistic pantheism. We have agreed that the WPM can be included in the article is reliable sources identify its beliefs as naturalistic pantheism. A number of sources have been provided, but their reliability, and relevance to this specific issue, is disputed.

The sources under discussion are:
 * The WPM's official website. This identifies the WPM's beliefs as naturalistic pantheism, and could possibly be used as a self-published source about its own beliefs, but it has been argued that this could be too promotional to be reliable.
 * Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative by Jerome Arthur Stone (SUNY Press 2008, ISBN: 9780791477915, Google Books link) - This identifies the WPM's views as naturalism, but not as naturalistic pantheism (p. 10).
 * Encyclopedia of American Religions. 8th edition. 2009 - This identifies the WPM's beliefs as pantheism, but not naturalism.


 * I would like to add three other sources that will be cited:
 * Religion professor and Ph D Bron Taylor identifies it as naturalism on p 159 of Dark Green Religion Google Books link
 * Re notability: Jerome Stone The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative by Jerome Arthur Stone (SUNY Press 2008, ISBN: 9780791477915, Google Books link describes the World Pantheist Movement as "undoubtedly the world's largest religious naturalist organization" (p10).
 * The World Pantheist Movement's own Statement of Principles page Statement of Principles. This is not promotional at all but informational: it simply describes what the beliefs are and states that they are Naturalistic Pantheism.
 * It's significant to note that there are NO sources that challenge the fact that the World Pantheist Movement's beliefs are Naturalistic Pantheist, which demonstrates that the claim is uncontroversial and non-exceptional.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You could be accused of WP:SYNTH if you try to establish the WPM as a naturalistic pantheism movement on the basis of one ref establishing they are naturalistic and one ref establishing they are pantheists. I think you can use their website to say what they believe they are, even though it is a self-published primary source. But you will need other sources to establish that they are notable, so you might as well include all three refs. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Re WP:SYNTH neither Taylor nor Stone challenge the fact the the World Pantheist Movement is pantheist and both repeat the name and other quotes from the World Pantheist Movement site relating to pantheism. It's kind of redundant for them to say it's pantheist. Since the words pantheism and pantheist keep cropping up in what they say about it or quote from it - without challenge from Taylor or Stone - it's clear that they accept that it is pantheist as well as naturalistic and they don't regard the pantheism claim as controversial. --Naturalistic (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a major problem with WP:SYNTH. The WPM website does not qualify as a reliable source in any way. We don't describe subjects of articles as they protray themselves, but as how they are described in reliable independent secondary sources. Patching together fragments of multiple seconday sources, no mater how reliable they might be, to create a unified whole is the very definition of synthesis. Also, we don't care about what the sources don't say or what they don't refute, but about what they actually say. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS, which is a part of WP:V, states, "Self-published...sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..." Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dominus Vobisdu, you need to bear in mind this Wikipedia policy:
 * Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.
 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
 * 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.
 * I believe that the statement of Naturalistic Pantheism on http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm qualifies on all these counts as a usable source especially when combined with the other sources.
 * We are not talking about "patching together fragments of multiple secondary sources. BOTH the Taylor source Google Books link AND the Stone source Google Books linkacknowledge the naturalism and mention the pantheism, without challenging the pantheism, in passages that are quite short.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some notes: the two references describing the WPM as "naturalism" actually contradict one another. One calls them "religious naturalism", and the other calls them "nontheistic naturalists".  So that actually further complicates the effort to synthesize sources to establish their notability for this topic.  Also, in regards to self published sources, I would note that this topic, naturalistic pantheism, has nothing to do with their organization (although the Wikipedia page was created and edited by them since the beginning of its history).  The material about their organization IS unduly self serving (promoting their name and sourcing the home page of their website) and IS an exceptional claim as they promote their own definition of naturalistic pantheism.  The WPM has at best very questionable notability regarding the topic of naturalistic pantheism and there are dozens of expert sources that define the phrase that haven't yet been included on the current version of the page.  There are plenty of non experts on the internet that have their own version of a phrase like naturalistic pantheism.  Should they all be included in the naturalistic pantheism Wikipedia page?  Allisgod (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Stone reference alone is sufficient to establish that the World Pantheist Movement is naturalistic pantheist, as well as its notability in that regard. It is absolutely impossible to read the full Jerome Stone reference pages 10 and 11 Google Books link without concluding that he regards the World Pantheist Movement as both pantheist and naturalistic. No synthesis is required to establish that.
 * "Religious naturalism" is a novel term used since the late 70s which Stone's book is presenting and explaining. In the relevant section "Related views" he discusses religious humanism, process theology and pantheism.
 * On pages 10-11 he discusses the relationship between pantheism and religious naturalism. He states that pantheism and religious naturalism are "intersecting concepts." He adds "Those naturalists who identify God with the entire universe would qualify as pantheists by most definitions." He quotes a few pantheists who do so. He then mentions others who would not qualify as pantheists because they identify only a part of the universe as God.
 * He then moves on to the World Pantheist Movement, to which he devotes the longest part of this section on the relation between religious naturalism and Pantheism (22 lines versus a maximum of 3 for other naturalistic pantheists). He is mentioning the WPM as an example of naturalism that does "identify God with the entire universe." He describes it as "undoubtedly the world's largest religious naturalist organization."
 * Taylor's reference does not in any way contradict the above - Pantheism is very often classed as a form of non-theism in that it has no separate divinity, only the universe itself.
 * Including the World Pantheist Movement in the Naturalistic Pantheism article is not self-serving because the World Pantheist Movement is the largest Pantheist organization in the world so the fact that it is naturalistic pantheist is definitely of interest.
 * To say that Naturalistic Pantheism has nothing to do with the World Pantheist Movement is patently absurd. Three of the top five Google search results for Naturalistic Pantheism are World Pantheist Movement results. The World Pantheist Movement's definition (which includes reverence for the universe, acceptance of science and rejection of supernaturalism) is totally in line with the great majority of scholarly sources using the term.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above editor, this seems to be a fairly convincing source. If the World Pantheism Movement is actually cited in the publication by Jerome Stone, then I think this is credible. I don't see why the World Pantheism Movement shouldn't be added to naturalistic pantheism, if the organization defines themselves as naturalistic pantheist and it is supported by a source. ~DeusEstMachina (talk) 20:17, 02 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The group needs other sources to establish it as relevant, but its own description of itself should have weight. Our language regarding it should be neutral. If there is disagreement among other sources regarding its nature, we can mention that - it's normal. Its basic notability and relation to philosophy seems to be established.--Martin Berka (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to sum up the current proposal for sourcing the following statement: "The World Pantheist Movement promotes Naturalistic Pantheism, which it describes as including reverence for the universe, realism and strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method." The above approach avoids synthesis and complies with Wikipedia policies on RS. I believe it answers all of the objections from editors not directly involved in the particular dispute.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Source for the World Pantheist Movement's notability, naturalism and pantheism: Jerome Stone, Religious Naturalism Today p10-11 Google Books link It's been suggested that this does not establish the WPM as pantheist, but in fact it does so very clearly by including the World Pantheist Movement in the heart of a section on Pantheism, and as the longest example of a naturalistic pantheism.
 * Source for the specified aspects of Pantheism: World Pantheist website Statement of Principles. Acceptable under Wikipedia's policy on sources on themselves. Reliable Sources section. According to that policy the World Pantheist Movement can be used as a source about its own beliefs.