Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 136

FMEP
Is this partisan "nonprofit organization that promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples" which publishes reports "containing analysis and commentary" a notable source when not referred to by independent sources, and a reliable source for I-P related topics that it be used for making third-party claims? 'Ankh '.Morpork  19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A reliable source can be an individual. AnkhMorpork has repeatedly removed an article by Nathan Brown. Brown is professor in international relations at George Washington University with a specialty on Middle East politics. Author or editor of such books as:
 * The Dynamics of Democratization: Dictatorship, Development, and Diffusion Johns Hopkins University Press 2011
 * Between Religion and Politics Carnegie Endowment 2010
 * The Struggle over Democratization in the Middle East Routledge 2009
 * Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords: Resuming Arab Palestine University of California Press 2003
 * Constitutions in a Nonconstitutional World: Arab Basic Laws & the Prospects for Accountable Government SUNY Press 2001
 * The Rule of Law in the Arab World: Courts in Egypt and the Gulf Cambridge University Press 1997
 * Peasant Politics in Modern Egypt Yale University Press 1990
 * He has repeatedly been published in peer-reviewed journals. I invite anybody to review this. this, and this and tell us if they think Professor Brown is a reliable source for the material repeatedly removed by AnkhMorpork as being by a "non-RS".  nableezy  - 19:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that rambling verbiage; I asked a query about the FMEP and your incoherent babbling about Nathan Brown is totally irrelevant. I await some independent and well-considered responses. 'Ankh '.Morpork  19:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you asked about an organization to back up your attempt to remove a renowned expert in the field whose analysis happens to dispute your favored narrative. The source you are removing is Brown, and people should understand what it is that you are trying to use this for.  nableezy  - 19:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop trolling this noticeboard. I asked a question whether the Foundation for Middle East Peace is a self-published source and yet you persist in making ludicrous allegations regarding my supposed motives and babbling about an unrelated discussion. I do not share your obsession with "Mr Nathan Brown" and am posing a general query about this group - kindly refrain from injecting your personal theories and assuming conspiratorial meaning and motive in my question. 'Ankh '.Morpork  20:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a source depends on its context, and the context here is you repeatedly removing a renowned expert in the field to remove anything that disputes that "Palestinians are bad people" narrative that you have spent the majority of your time promoting.  nableezy  - 20:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * THIS IS A GENERAL QUERY AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "NATHAN BROWN". I would like to know whether this is a self-published source that can be used for third party claims. That is all. 'Ankh '.Morpork  20:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * RS/N is used to determine if a particular source is reliable for a particular fact. And the particulars here, made evident by your recent edits, is your attempt to remove what one source called an authoritative study on the topic you are removing it from.  nableezy  - 20:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AnkhMorpork, Nableezy has a point. Please see the instructions at the top of this noticeboard about how to post here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. You challenged the FMEP on the Yanun page three months ago, and got nowhere, because it is self-evidently a research and policy organ of recognized status in Washington. It is a significant middle of the line Wahington think tank that has been widely praised by numerous policy wonks and American state department officials for the quality of its reportage. Trying to dismiss its annual reports as 'self-published' is pointless. It publishes papers from top American foreign policy experts and academic analysts of the Middle East. The quality of their work speaks for itself. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at their frontpage, and it shows us everything we need to know about this foundation. It's interests clearly aren't to promote peace in the Middle East and act non-partisanly, and it's a completely one-sided organization. On their homepage, 9/9 links in their middle column all deal with Israel in a negative light or attacking settlements. 6/6 latest additions also all deal with Israel or their elected government in a negative light. Both of their "special reports" tabs also deal with Israel, although I can't see the content, since it says that the content doesn't exist. On their left tab, they have a section with maps of Israel from 1947-2012, to allegedly show "the growth of Israel’s occupation and settlement project from the 1967 War to the present," a section called "Settlement database," a section called "Settlement freeze," a section with a report they write about settlements, and then an events section. And that's it.

To deny that there aren't other issues in the Middle East regarding conflicts and peace is silly - what about that "thing" going on in Syria, where tens of thousands have been killed? Or that "thing" in Iraq? Etc etc. Not a single thing on their frontpage about it. OK, so even if they don't focus on the rest of the Middle East, fine. But their focus on Israel is solely to attack it or issue reports about settlements. They also fund Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, which is a one-sided anti-Israel organization.

It's clear where the foundation's line lays. They are one-sided and biased, and are obsessed with Israeli settlements, leading them to publish tons of reports on them and dedicate all their resources to it, while not focusing on anything on the Palestinian side to bring peace. In fact, I wouldn't even call them pro-Palestinian, as I don't see anything on their website to indicate that - they're just obsessed with Israel and settlements. And while that's perfectly OK for an organization to have, it doesn't make them into a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. It makes them a biased advocacy organization. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have said that you think CAMERA can be used if attributed. Yet FMEP is one-sided and biased and a biased advocacy organization whose frontpage shows [you (note I wont be so presumptuous to speak for everybody else)] everything [you] need to know. FMEP hosts sources which may or may not be reliable. When they host a paper by Nathan Brown on textbooks used in PNA schools that paper is reliable as it is authored by an expert in the field. But please try to find a more consistent approach in your evaluation of sources. That would be awesome. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never said such a thing. I wrote "as far as I'm aware." Please refrain from twisting my words. That's just not awesome. If what I wrote isn't the case, which you said afterwards, then there really isn't any contradiction. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  01:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will someone please explain the context of what types of wordings are being sourced to this disputed source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Their personal reports that "contain analysis and commentary" on I-P topics. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  08:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is still too general. Please give real examples relevant to the discussion above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor does not want to specify the context, because they are going to try to use this discussion as a pretext for deletion of material cited to this source irrespective of context. Dlv999 (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * it seems to me that they are a think-tank/blog status organization. no editorial board/oversight, etc. - they are committed to a particular line. so, as usual, they can be used for their own opinion, but not for facts. if they produce a report that is picked up in RS, then fine. but otherwise.... no. why are they different than an academic research institute like ngo monitor. jcpa, etc.? Soosim (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is any WP community consensus that there is such a thing as a "think tank/blog" status. Think tanks are quite different from blogs, and think tanks and blogs both have wide ranging reputations for reliability. To repeat: please see the procedure at the top of this noticeboard. For sensible discussions, context should be clear. Broad generalizations are often very misleading.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the context is simple. AnkhMorpork had repeatedly attempted to delete a paper by Nathan Brown on textbooks used in schools run by the Palestinian National Authority. That paper had been hosted on FMEP, though I cant find it there now. Nathan Brown is a well known and respected academic specializing in Middle East politics, and he has written extensively on the subject of Palestinian textbooks. AnkhMorpork, on the basis of FMEP being a supposedly "non-RS", repeatedly removed that paper, absurdly calling it a primary source because it wasnt repeated by a newspaper. Note how he is asking for views on their personal reports. Of course he wont tell you what those personal reports are, because if somebody brought an academic paper authored by somebody of Nathan Brown's stature they would be laughed out of this noticeboard. So instead of actually answering the repeated request to specify what source is being challenged, you get these obfuscations as seen above. That is the context of this request, and it is plainly evident to anybody who looks at this, this and this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew, the personal reports I was referring includes their "Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories containing analysis, commentary, maps, and other data on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." which are self-published. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  16:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the NYTimes self-published? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AnkhMorpork unless I am missing something I do not think this source (FMEP) is what we normally call self-published on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By that, I mean not referred to by independent main-stream sourcing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  17:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you were re-defining the words to mean other things than everyone would understand? So this whole conversation is meaningless?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, what fun. "Crowd-sourcing" the reliability of publications. 1. Nathan Brown is a renowned scholar, and everything he writes should be considered reliable. I'm pretty sure his initial paper was published in Teaching About Terrorism, a book issued by the Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish Education (a bit on the background of that organization is here ). That FMEP also hosted his paper is neither here nor there. If you don't have access to a library with Brown's paper, email him; he's a good egg, sure he'd send you a copy. Should every paper/scrap of data hosted by FMEP be treated as ipso facto reliable? No. The group had a good reputation for care in its data, but it's always best to consider scholarly writing or factual claims on their merits. Their maps on the growth of settlements are widely accepted as accurate. An effort to exclude all publications/information that appears on its website on the grounds of "unreliable" should be treated as the transparent bit of gamesmanship that it is.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good overview from Brown on Palestinian education and misconceptions about textbooks from 2001 (I suspect, but don't know, that it's largely the same as the paper in CAJE and that used to be hosted at FMEP). . The paper was prepared for the Adam Institute's (Jerusalem) 2001 conference on "Attitudes towards the past in conflict resolution."Dan Murphy (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There were 2 papers by Brown about this, Democracy, History, and the contest over the Palestinian Curriculum was the second. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, your devotion to Nathan Brown is very endearing but nobody in this thread has yet questioned his credentials, and it is on a different issue that I seek clarification. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  18:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What issue then? Is this author the one you do not want used on WP or not? If he is then you can not separate him from the material he wrote. You appear to be avoiding issues and trying to score on technicalities? If you can define your case properly there can be a proper discussion, otherwise we are going nowhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, I have no interest in Nathan Brown. The amount of psychic powers claimed in this thread make his namesake, Sylvia appear almost mundane in comparison. My question relates to FMEP's personal data and publications regarding settlements that have not been referred to or corroborated by independent sources. Can the herd please stop bleating "Baaaarown, Baaaarown" and attempt to address the actual query. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered, both in the abstract (see below) and with a request that you specify which personal data and which article it is used in. You havent answered that request yet. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Either name a specific publication/news article/book/etc... you're seeking an opinion on (I rather doubt you have anything specific in mind) or stop your bleating. You have yet to mention any specific source, or any specific wikipedia article, or any specific edit. Short of these things, general advice is to treat FMEP as reliable as most researchers and reporters do.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So you leap from professing to know my exact intention to supposing that in fact there's none at all? Can the herd stop bolting from one direction to the other, and instead stand still and ruminate on what's being said. The settlement content for the settlement articles is the ambit of my query; I could name a specific statistic for a specific article if it would make any difference. Seeing as you imply it might, please clarify in which context you would consider FMEP unreliable. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please identify something specific. Which settlement content? What specific statistic? As I've said, the organization has a good reputation for accuracy and integrity. That said, I can imagine a host of reasons why a specific citation connected to FMEP in some way or another might be problematic (out of date, something that was subsequently proven by further research to be wrong, an opinion piece hosted at their site written by an individual who has a poor track record for accuracy or honesty are a few possibles off the top of my head). But in general, their work has stood the test of time as high-quality. Professionals consider a range of issues when deciding to trust or use research. The first step for considering a specific piece of work is considering the reputation of the organization or organizations to which it's attached. That first step has already been taken in this case (verdict: pretty good reputation among professionals). The second step )"what about the specific document in question?") can not be taken until the document is identified. So what document would you like an opinion on?Dan Murphy (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask a specific question about what source, for what purpose, in what article if you'd like a specific answer. As to the general question of "should FMEP be treated as a reliable source" the answer is: "In most cases, yes."Dan Murphy (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This source fails under questionable sources category as it have quite clear some set goals and thus conflict of interest concerning those goals according to WP:RS.So it general it couldn't be used as reliable source in Wikipedia but of course there maybe some special cases for example if used in article about itself or quoted in secondary sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike the organization's stated goals that you say constitute a "conflict of interest" that makes it "unreliable" are the following: "The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) is a nonprofit organization that promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples." So, yes, they support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is such a main-stream general starting point as to be banal (putting them, as it does, in a tent that includes Bibi, Abu Mazen, Ronald Reagan, the Dali Lama, Bruce Springsteen, and a majority of scholars of the Middle East, from across the ideological spectrum). I have never seen the organizations work credibly called into question. I am unaware of major falsehoods and fabrications ever being uncovered in any of their research. They are serious people, doing serious work, who take their reputations for fairness and accuracy seriously. An argument, with actual facts being brought to bear, would need to be made to demonstrate the outside Wikipedia consensus on this organization is wrong. What a madhouse!Dan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And all the work that they do is to promote peace and a 2 state solution, which is done by obsessing over settlements and bashing Israel. In this way, they are exactly like Netanyahu and Reagan etc, who bash Israel and settlements in order to create a 2 state solution.  C'mon, the stated aim of an organization doesn't make it true. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I have never seen the quality of their facts and basic research called into question. It is generally accepted as top-shelf work by professionals. There is an implied assertion by the pro-settlement editors on this thread that their evil support for a two-state solution (horrors!) somehow negates the reliability of research that is generally accepted by professionals outside Wikipedia as reliable. And that's a crazy assertion. It's basically about manipulating tortuous internal Wikipedia "crowd-sourcing" logic to disqualify facts (not opinions) that some would prefer didn't exist.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting more and more ridiculous by the byte. FMEP hosts a number of things, some may be reliable, some may not be. If somebody actually has a specific article that they would like to challenge then by all means, bring it here. What wont happen is that a collection of involved users banding together to force a game a pretend "consensus" at RS/N that it is a "questionable source" or "unreliable". Bring the actual source that you would like to challenge and exactly what it is being cited for. Otherwise this is just a waste of time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, any pro-active "foundation" or organization with an open unapologetic one way PR and spin agenda cannot possible be a source for WP:RS. At best, perhaps, if it is part of actual events themselves in the real world it can be pointed to as saying "According to publications from foundation XYZ that says such and such and so and so" or it could be used in a "See also" section in an article. But it's certainly not a neutral reliable source regardless if it is from CAMERA, FMEP or any other such set-up that has an obvious propaganda purpose. This is unlike newspapers and the media, that while they may have prejudices focus mostly on reporting events rather than spending their time raising funds and being paid off by donors who call all the shots in foundations. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, that is nonsense. FMEP and CAMERA are not in any way analogous. Again, FMEP hosts a number of things. Some of those things may be reliable, and some may not be. And sources are not "neutral". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That level of generalization is useless. See the procedure at the top of the page of this noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is something that needs to be established with reference to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. That FMEP fails in that regard has nothing at all to do with a perceived bias among a perceived "band" of editors. If anything, the energies being invested here to try and demonstrate that there is a group of editors "banding together" for anything more likely than not is the result of a real and destructive bias on the part of those editors trying to impute bias to other editors with whom they don't see eye to eye and whom they'd much rather see banned from the Project than have to actually deal with the substance of their arguments. Enough with the red herrings. Is RMEP a partisan think tank operating with a defined political agenda? Yes. Is the material it publishes peer-reviewed? No. Is there an editorial board that monitors FMEP.org's output? No. Is some of the stuff published at FMEP.org reliable? Possibly; if the author of the material is an expert in the field, then there are circumstances in which the material can be used with attribution and in consideration of WP:UNDUE. Can FMEP in general be considered a reliable source for facts in the same way that we consider the New York Times and the National Geographic Society reliable sources for facts? No, it cannot; at best, it can be considered a reliable source for its own opinions.—Biosketch (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of that simply is not true. Geoffrey Aronson, an expert on Israeli settlements, is editor of the Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There has been exactly zero evidence that this organization is anything that several people have claimed, only the usual cries from those who will regularly cite JCPA or MEMRI as though it were second nature that any source that, gasp, reports on Israeli violations of international law is "biased" and "not-neutral" and "unreliable". And people still havent given an example of a specific source and where it is used. When FMEP reports that the population of settlers in Beit El grew by 28% between 2000 and 2007 thats a fact. Not an opinion. And there has been zero evidence given that this fact is anything other than accurate. But no, even recording that fact makes an organization a biased propaganda outlet. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * nableezy - it is only fact if the proof is from some reliable agency - gov't or otherwise. they are not reliable for population growth statistics (unless they are quoting from somewhere else, in which case, the 'somewhere else' might be the RS - or not.) Soosim (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally an example we can actually comment on in a way relevant to this noticeboard: I notice that The New York Times cites statistics from "Geoffrey Aronson, director of research and publications and an expert on Israeli settlements at the Foundation for Middle East Peace in Washington". This implies that the statistics Nableezy points to have a reputation for reliability in a recognized third party publication. Whether Wikipedian private opinions agree or disagree with the NYT is beside the point. BTW, WP does not necessarily see government figures as perfect for all uses either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note http://www.fmep.org/reports with some well known people apparently vouching for this data.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is simply another of the multitude of NGO's that espouse a distinct position, and cannot be relied upon to objectively present material pertaining to I-P matters. There does not appear to be any editorial overview and they openly declare their Middle East "vision" on their website. They should not be used for I-P issues unless where referred to by a reliable third party source. Opportunidaddy (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I have no knowledge of these matters but just following the links here this particular organization seems to be widely recognized as a source for statistics? Recognition matters for RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew, the organization has a very, very good reputation for accuracy in its statistics and factual reporting. Their settlement and general historical data are treated as rock solid on these matters by every news organization that covers Israel and Palestine (including my own). Their work is frequently cited by scholars . This discussion is quite frankly astonishing.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your view, Dan, but what is not clear is whether you have a very, very good reputation for accuracy in factual reporting. For instance, how would you reconcile this edit summary with your recent comment? The general standards that have been applied to sources relating to I-P topics have been to exclude those with an obvious political standpoint and a conflict of interest in line with "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." A host of pro-Israel NGO are avoided for this reason (without any inaccuracies proven) as you well know, and some consistency is expected. And this is without considering FMEP's editorial overview. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are an anonymous propagandist playing a game, using Wikipedia's weak standards against it. If one uses the standards of the real world of research and accountability, one sees that no case has been made at all. Almost every individual or organization on the planet has a point of view. How they manage their point of view while conducting research and how they conduct the research itself is what matters. "General standards?" I know not "general standards." This organization does reliable work in general. Others do as well. And still others do not.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, a quote from policy. Lets go through that. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." First, a poor reputation for checking facts. Has such a reputation been established? Im sure any of the large number of sources citing FMEP would like to know. Second, meaningful editorial control. The NYTimes called the editor of the Settlement Report an expert on Israeli settlements. Last, an apparent conflict of interest. What pray tell is FMEP's conflict of interest? I had no idea they were an involved party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or that they had some sort of fiduciary responsibility to one of those parties. But perhaps you can enlighten us. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FMEP is clearly a partisan advocacy source, with a defined political agenda. It does not have the kind of editorial oversight that a peer-reviewed journal, university publishing house, or even a popular newspaper would have. It is reliable only for its own opinion, not for facts. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely unsupported assertions without basis in Wikipedia policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

blocked sock
 * excuse me propaganda groups ar terrible sources for info on the topic that they propagandise about. who sets the standards? nobody! If the info is relevant then other proper sources will have talked about it in a proper manner with context. this source is not to be trusted as wp:rs says. Dave Eggersly (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that this is one blocked editor responding to another with the opposite POV. I guess that says something about where this discussion and the several related ones that started at the same time are at.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use this noticeboard properly

 * This is at least the second time User:AnkhMorpork has brought a general source on the Israel-Palestine issue here to question, followed by a number of his partisan friends saying it was no good. S/he also did it for Washington Report on Middle East Affairs ("WRMEA" at this diff). Within 21 hours five known Israel partisans criticized the source; two more joined within another 24 hours. These are bogus discussions and in no way influence Wikipedia policy per the above which reads: 'While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. So where sources have long been considered WP:RS, let's not play these games to knock them out of being considered WP:RS on the articles you are working on. CarolMooreDC 07:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * oh carol. Soosim (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Johann Hari: authorship of online erotica
I've had an edit reversed on Johann Hari's article. This is what I wrote:

Hari has also been accused of using the same pseudonym he used on Wikipedia (David Rose) to write "gay incest porn" online, which used some racist stereotypes.

Comments
This was reversed on the grounds that a blog should not be acceptable for an article about a living person. My understanding of the rules is that it depends on the blog: if it's written by a professional and is subject to editorial control, then it's just as good as a newspapaer article. I think that these two sources pass the test, although I admit that the Blottr source is less respectable than the Telegraph one.

I have tried to find more sources, but unfortunately a lot are described as "blogs". Conservative Home ran the story, but used this blog as the source. I can't say that I'd heard of "Jack of Kent" and thought that this would fall into the unacceptable category, but this post was examined during in the Leveson Inquiry, which suggests that it has some national significance in the debate about irresponsible journalists.

The details on the erotica are printed at the end of this article by Christine Odone. I can't find the actual article on Google, and suspect that there's a good reason for that.

Are these sources sufficient to justify an edit to the article on Johann Hari to mention his authorship of online erotica? Epa101 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:NEWSBLOG which says "use with caution." That Christine Odone piece you are quoting is worrisome for Wikipedia, indicating a failure of the BLP policy (she is claiming harm). I don't feel particularly inclined to agree the Telegraph piece, from somebody who sports a description of himself as a "blood-crazed ferret" as a badge at the top, and uses as his source still another blog (Jack of Kent, who is "David Allen Green," New Statesman's legal-issues blogger). Churn and change (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The two sources you list are also described as "blogs", and two blogs are insufficient for an extremely negative item about a LP. If this is verified, eventually a reliable source will print something about it. Until then, we need to avoid adding this content to the article. Wikipedia has never been the place to break news or be on the cutting edge. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree in general with KillerChihuahua, but I wonder what to think (in general, not necessarily in this case) of blogs officially hosted by newspapers. Can they count as op/ed sections of newspaper? I'd say yes, but I don't know what is the standard take on this. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  15:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they are almost always only useful as attributed opinions of the authors, such as "Jane Blogger wrote on date that she thought opinion." KillerChihuahua ?!? 08:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They are acceptable as they are not self-published and are written by professionals. That's stated here and here. However, I was not aware of the WP:NEWSBLOG point. That is relevant in moderating their use. Epa101 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC) What I think is a more tricky area of policy is the Jack of Kent blog. He says on it that he posts in a purely personal capacity and not as part of the New Statesman, so I can understand that this undermines its claims as a reliable source. However, this was the blog that was central to identifying Hari's disruption on Wikipedia and use of "David Rose" as a pseudonym. This was mentioned when he appeared as a witness before the Leveson Inquiry. I would argue that his blog is relevant to this particular subject, since it was central to the whole story, and that his follow-up post (on the subject of erotica) is relevant. Epa101 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A source does not get to be reliable just because its author is involved in the story. The other blogs are sourced from Jack of Kent's blog, who is no expert. None of the blogs are RSes. Churn and change (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's much support for this change. Case closed. Epa101 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Negative ex-whatever sources
A good number of organizations have websites run by ex-members which are extremely negative to the organization. I assume they can be cited in a controversy or criticism section as expressing their own views. They would seem to be primary sources talking about themselves. However, on ECyD the ReGAIN site is cited generalizing what was probably the case in a few limited circumstances a while back. Unfortunately, no date is given but by several other aspects, it would look like the situation they are explaining is about 8-15 years ago. "ECyD was accused by some critics in the past of over zealous recruitment of youth. They claimed that the Challenge and Conquest clubs were aimed at recruiting members into ECyD and are separated by gender to emphasize discernment of vocation at a young age. The same critics also claim that the clubs focus on members who have qualities that will attract other girls and boys into the clubs." The header ends with a summary of this and a citation. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There are some serious WP:UNDUE-type issues with repeating material self published by disgruntled people who've left an organisation in the article on that organisation. Except in some unusual circumstances, for the criticism to be considered notable it needs to be reported on in a reliable secondary source, which can then be used as a reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is hard to make a general rule for all such cases. But it is important for any case to try to work out whether a source has a reputation for fact checking and reliability. We should be cautious about citing any information published by individuals on their personal webspaces, especially if it is not for information about them personally. Does anyone else cite the websites involved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that they are cited much except by a blog (this site is very static) that is also disgruntled ex-members. Several other claims they make are also reported in publications that would be reliable sources but not this one at least. Therefore, I removed this an one or two other things linked from the same website or related pages. This website is still lsited as a critique site in Regnum_Christi (sites critical of Regnum Christi) but not as a reference. Ps. ECyD is the youth wing of Regnum Christi. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Rap Radar
As several editors of hip hop articles are repeatedly using this as a source, I thought I would bring it up here. Personally, I'm not too sure, as its page here is just a redirect to some other magazine where the editor of this site works. Also, the links meant to give information about the site ("About RR" and "Who We Are") display nothing. However, I need some further consensus. <font color="Green">I Am Rufus  &bull; <font colour="Blue" face="Garamond"> Conversation is a beautiful thing.  08:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we'd need to know something about the site in order to have a sense for whether there's some editorial control. Or, absent that, we'd have to show that the site is accepted as an authority by other publications. We need something to go on. Otherwise, it's a questionable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors site for use in Batman: Arkham City
I'm interesting in using this site in the above article to verify voice actors. The only other option I have found is IMDB which we don't use, and the game credits themselves give on a list of cast but not what they actually did (Because that's logical). I had a look around the above site and it doesn't appear to be user edited, and seems credible from appearance, but I can't see any kind of credential that confirms why it would be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on their FAQ, it sounds like a fan site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about:

'''I think you made a mistake, your voice actor credit is wrong for this specific character? '''

Our site is not perfect but ''unlike user submitted sites like imdb, wikipedia or tv.com our sources come from official voice actor websites, resumes, DVD credits and other legitimate sources. ''

We do make mistakes sometimes. If you feel strongly that we made a credit mistake we would be more than happy to correct it, but only if you provide a legitimate source. We're sorry that we can't just take your word for it. We need actual proof. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And after contacting them they sent this:

Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.

Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:

http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Batman-Arkham-Asylum/

The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.

Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.

We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.

- BTVA Admin Team
 * To myself at least, that seems like reliable source and they mark the ones that have been verified either via actual credits or contact with people involved. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Revista Academica
The Revista Academica para el Estudio de las Religiones is used in the Criticism section of this article: La Luz del Mundo, a religious minority. I am pretty certain the source is highly biased and lacks academic integrity. It has written contentious material about La Luz del Mundo which it calls "Mexico's most secretive religious sect." No other scholar that has written about La Luz del Mundo uses it a source. It has been discussed in the talk page, and two editors concluded it was not reliable. However, another editor still thinks it is reliable and constantly reverts edits. A request for comment has been placed but it has been slow in the coming, perhaps because most of it is in Spanish. This is the only thing that is in English. So is this source reliable?
 * A monograph off print of an academic journal. Top-quality source. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding Itsmejudith, but did you read the links provided? The journal is not peer reviewed by the a wider academic community. It exists mainly to promote a particular point of view. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "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." Could you please elaborate more on your response? Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of the journal article in question was being used in the article? Is it the "most secretive religious sect" appellation? And how does this conclusion square the rest of the scholarly discourse on La Luz del Mundo? If it's a marginal view, or not supported by additional explanation, evidence, or alternative views, then I'm not sure what value that quote would have on its own. The Blue Canoe  20:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be a genuine academic journal. The editors are qualified academics. Of course there may be other academic views, and the usual solution would be to include both. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All of that is discussed here Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo, please have a look at it. Regarding the editors, one was arrested for his involvement in an international ring of human trafficking of children, and another one is wanted is wanted by Mexican authorities for the same thing. The source has accused La Luz del Mundo of being a destructive cult with the potential to commit suicide, scholars have denounced this as religious intolerance. Please have a look at the talk page and if possible respond to the request for comments. Thank you. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is discussed throughout the whole talk page, but the link provided provides links to other sections of the talk page where it has been discussed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is pretty strange for an academic journal to put the words "Britney Spears" in its metadata, and some of the content from the article in question reads like a tabloid. On the other hand, the editorial board appears to have legit credentials. Maybe a good litmus would be to see whether libraries or academic databases like JSTOR subscribe to this journal. Alternately, see what other, more established scholars have to say about it. That would be my suggestion. Sorry I don't have time to look into it in greater depth. The Blue Canoe  22:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the source's 2 editors is in jail and the other fled the country (Mexico). As discussed in the article talk page, several Mexican journalists have reported his alleged ties with a child kidnapping ring tied to a religious group. JSTOR does not, from what I have found, subscribe to Revista Academica. The only scholar that has cited it is a very brief reference in a Columbian PHD dissertation, the reference only made mention of one opinion from the source. Personally, I think it espouses conspiracy theories that deal with an alleged secret paramilitary force in the church and some sort of government conspiracy. Like TheBlueCanoe said, it reads in parts like a tabloid. Fordx12 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it seems like a minefield with accusations and counter accusations flying everywhere. You need further comments from editors who are completely uninvolved in the area. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I made the request for comment, however no one has responded to it yet. Any suggestions or aid would be appreciated.

It also seems there is no peer reviewing even within the source itself. The source itself states that: "The content of the articles published in the Revista Académica para el Estudio de las Religiones, is the sole responsibility of their respective authors and does not necessarily reflect the view of the Editorial Board nor that of the other collaborators." Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

LetsSingIt
This LetsSingIt link; http://artists.letssingit.com/stooshe-lyrics-black-heart-487gp1p was added to Black Heart (song) as a source for the song being part of the R&B genre. LetsSingIt appears to be a news/lyrics site and I have my doubts about it's reliability and weather that page can be edited by anyone. I'm hoping someone with more musical knowledge than I might be able to help. The editor who added the link said it was reliable and I notice that it is used in a few music articles on here (mostly in pages of artists and songs I've never heard of). Myself and another user are planning to take the Black Heart article to GAN at some point, so a definite answer on this would be great. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  00:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this site may pass muster. Anyone can contribute, but there appears to be a thorough vetting process. If you click on the add-song link on the Stooshe page, it takes you to a window that says this: "The artist Stooshe has currently no moderator, so submitted material will be reviewed by other members in the review corner. If you would like to become the moderator for the artist Stooshe yourself, signup here. Read more about moderating in the help section. Tip! To make sure your submitted material will pass the review process, make sure you filled all fields properly. Please read the instructions in the help section." That's quite reassuring. TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ansel Faraj
Are these sources reliable or independent enough in the article about Ansel Faraj? Notes: Please check the article and comment. Thank you. Give me a tb if you deem it necessary. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0157607/bio
 * H O L L I N S W O R T H P R O D U C T I O N S.
 * http://www.kinokultura.com
 * 1) I previously BLP-PRODed it for not having any reference whatsoever.
 * 2) There were links to Facebook and blogspot.com which I deleted recently.


 * IMDB consists of user-submitted material - it isn't WP:RS. The Hollinsworth Productions website is clearly not a third-party source. The link to kinokultura.com gives no information whatsoever on Ansel Faraj. I can see no way that any of these sources can be cited to establish that Faraj meets the notability requirements as laid down in WP:CREATIVE. We'd need evidence from reputable independent third-party sources that Faraj has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work", "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", or otherwise meets the notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. BTW, seeing that this article may not meet the standards of requirement, I have nominated the article for deletion. It's the right step, I guess? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

New article rejected for lack of references
I've had a new article rejected twice for 'lack of references' - I've provided links to two internationally-published books which reference the subject of the article. There's little or no other online references to the subject. The subject shares the same name as another already on Wikipedia, so this is effectively the first reference to this new subject, and I feel the Wiki is required to not only document the subject I'm writing about, but also to differentiate the subject from the one already referenced on Wikipedia.

I can't seem to get the message across to the reviewers that in order to have some online references to a subject, someone has to write the first one...... and I feel that I'm writing this first reference.

Comments, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1353 (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2012‎ (UTC)


 * It is a bit hard to answer you unless you give the real example. Can you please give links to the article you are talking about and/or discussions you have had about it?
 * On the other hand, please note that WP aims to summarise things that have already been published somewhere else, not in WP itself. Please consider WP:CIRCULAR. This is what our policies such as WP:V and WP:RS are referring to when they mention "third party" sources. A third party source means a source other than WP itself, and other than the WP editor wanting to add things. WP does not try to publish anything truly original, but of course there are many other wikis and websites that allow people to get their original ideas published.
 * Third point: please remember to WP:SIGN your posts on talkpages and noticeboards.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One can find User:Andrew Lancaster's article at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hiding_Place. Also, as an aside (and I apologize for taking up space here), it is a shame that he has not been Welcomed on his Talk Page. I made up for it by sending him a pot of tea. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * George, thanks for sending him a pot of tea, but he is not Andrew Lancaster. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Musicfan1353, what you need are sources that comment upon the band that is the subject of your article. They do not need to be online sources (old dead tree paper sources such as music industry magazines from the 70s would be fine), but they do need to talk about the band in some depth.  The two sources that you already cite support the fact that the band made a recording... but that is not really enough to establish notability (all it takes to hold recording sessions is someone willing to pay for the studio time).  Have you seen our WP:BAND notability guideline? Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

E-novine on Boris Malagurski
1. I'm curious whether this link can be considered as reliable reference :


 * http://www.e-novine.com/kultura/kultura-tema/49715-Lai-utnja-video-trake.html

It's an article in E-novine (meaning "E-newspaper" in Serbian), a self-published online (non print, non broadcasting) website that posted a text directly from a personal blog, as noted at the bottom of the text ("Tekst preuzet sa bloga Zijada Burgića", meaning "Text taken from the blog of Zijad Burgic").

2. Several editors are attempting to use this news story as reliable for the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains (Boris Malagurski's film) articles on Wikipedia. In a dispute resolution case regarding the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles, User:Psychonaut noted that "Whether or not the E-novine article can be used as a source is not at all clear-cut; in general it seems that the site may be a reliable source, but in this particular case it simply reproduced a blog post, so there are arguments both for and against its inclusion here."

3. For those who don't understand Serbo-Croatian, the Srebrenica Genocide Blog (which is banned from Wikipedia), quickly provided a translation, followed by the Bosnian genocide blog - here.

The disputed article makes several false claims that attest to the unreliable nature of the article, and the source itself. An example is saying that Malagurski's "The Weight of Chains" was shown on Russian state television, without providing a source for such claims. I checked, the only Malagurski film that was shown on Russian television is "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?", and that was on RT. The article says that Malagurski appeared on CBC, Canada's national broadcasting network, without any evidence. I checked with the CBC, he never appeared on that channel. If they mixed up CBC and CTV, since Malagurski did appear once or twice on CTV, then it shows how accurate they are. It also uses words and phrases like "(wow!?)" and slander (there are three libel law suits pending against the website, two filed by director Emir Kusturica and one by Stojan Drčelić), etc.

The Wikipedia E-novine article itself is very poorly written, mostly using references from their own website, and a few NGO websites and blogs. The founder's article on Wikipedia has, as the only two references, his own blog. I think this "news site" is highly unreliable, especially the article that is in question here, where they simply pasted a text from a blog. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. It doesn't sound like the sort of source that we should be using. TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Very neutral way of informing others of the situation UrbanVillager. Please enlighten me, which website isn't self-published? The work is not a news story, but a review for a movie. UrbanVillager has staunchly opposed any criticism of Malagurski or his films to be included and, as you can see, has even resorted to personally nitpicking little details of the review that bug him and brought up nonsense like the founder's Wiki article. I've already commented numerous times on the double standard that UrbanVillager applies to sources he agrees with and those that he doesn't. Editors should review the discussions at Talk:Boris_Malagurski and Talk:Boris_Malagurski to get the full picture. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Producer, this isn't a dispute resolution noticeboard or a discussion about anyone's editing on Wikipedia, we discussed a source and concluded that it's not reliable and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Please, no personal attacks; comment on the content, not on the editors. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that the point of this discussion was to get a second opinion. Producer, you've already expressed your opinion on the matter, no need to repeat it. And no need to bring in other editors who have also already expressed their opinion, as you claim, back in February. I wanted to get some second opinions and I got one from TimidGuy. If there are any other uninvolved parties willing to express their opinions on the disputed source, I'd love to hear them. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk)
 * So we're supposed to let non-involved users judge the source's reliability solely by your interpretation of the source? And suppress their ability to hear the arguments of others and the discussions at article talkpages? Sounds fair. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 16:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that UrbanVillager is the sock/meat-puppet of Boris Malagurski who has been consistently trying his best to promote himself and his works in English Wikipedia articles, cf. Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski. That also includes whitewashing or misconstruing all criticism. There isn't a lot of such criticism because he and his work aren't generally very notable, but that's no reason to make each BM-related article a hagiography. The e-novine article has its share of problems, but the main reason this is here is that BM is apparently excellent at wikilawyering. If this report is discarded in principle because it was submitted with unclean hands, nobody will shed a tear. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Joy, I'm not sure why Producer brought you here to discuss some sockpuppet investigation that ended with AGK's conclusion that "No clear evidence is given anywhere in this investigation". In any case, this is a place to get second opinions about a source, not to discuss the user who asked for the second opinion. We received the second opinion of an uninvolved editor with experience in these kinds of things, thanks to User:TimidGuy for his views, I encourage others to express their opinions as well, and it's time to move on to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

2-viruses.com
This source is being cited in Blekko, for (diff). --Lexein (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ecigarettes365.com
This was brought to my attention on Teahouse/Questions. A few days ago, User:Owen Engle inserted content citing ecigarette365.com to the "Health concerns" section of the Electronic cigarette article. The ecigarette365.com citation is an online survey conducted by a site that reviews electronic cigarettes. The source is neither reliable nor independent, and does not meet the guideline for medical sources, which requires reputable peer reviewed scientific journals and textbooks.

I removed the paragraph, but was quickly reverted by User:Owen Engle, who claimed that it "makes no health claims". This is false. The source, which was added to the Health Concerns section, does make a health claim (it alleges that "90% of participants that are using an e-cigarette feel better") and does fall under Wikipedia's guidelines for medical sources. My position is that ecigarettes365.com is not a reliable source for the Health cocnerns section of Electronic cigarettes. I welcome outside opinions, any assistance and comments are appreciated.--<font color="#87A96B">xanchester <font color="#A40000">(t)  17:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * not reliable in general let alone for higher standards of MEDRES. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Completely unreliable for any conceivable purpose here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Torban.org, polyhymnion.org, turovsky.org edit war
There's a developing edit war between me and another editor regarding the reliability of the torban.org website.

These three website are interconnected: http://torban.org, http://polyhumnion.org and http://turovsky.org. The polyhymnion site is owned by musician Roman Turovsky-Savchuk of New York, and it lists him as copyright owner. The torban and turovsky sites are using the same servers: DNS5.DOTEASY.COM and DNS6.DOTEASY.COM. The polyhymnion site links to the torban site here. The turovsky site links to the polyhymnion site here. Veteran editor User:Galassi silently changed a polyhymnion URL to a torban URL of the same title here at the Lute page. The style of all three websites is very similar, as if they were coded by the same webmaster.

User:Galassi has inserted various torban.org webpages into various articles, used as references or external links. I pulled these out but Galassi considers them to be okay.
 * 14 April 2008: Galassi added an external link to Eduard Drach: http://www.torban.org/pisni/drach.html
 * 7 December 2008: Galassi added the main page of http://torban.org to Kobza
 * 21 February 2009: Galassi added two external links to Julian Kytasty: http://torban.org/kytasty and http://torban.org/bandura-downtown
 * 23 February 2009: Galassi added a reference to Hatikvah: http://torban.org/torban4b.html
 * 14 March 2009: Galassi added http://torban.org/torban3b.html and http://torban.org/torban3c.html to Torban
 * 29 March 2009: Galassi added a reference to the Roman Turovsky-Savchuk article: http://www.torban.org/bandura-downtown/opus.html
 * 20 August 2009: Galassi added an external link to Cossack Mamay: http://www.torban.org/mamai/mamai1.html
 * 13 November 2009: Galassi added http://www.torban.org/torban1.html to Little Russia
 * 4 February 2010: Galassi added the main page of http://torban.org to Torban
 * 22 May 2012: Galassi again added http://www.torban.org/torban1.html to Little Russia

These webpages are problematic because they have no author listed. Many on torban.org appear to be hosting images copied from elsewhere, very likely scanned from books and copied from other webpages without permission from the copyright holders. I don't know if the text is original or if it is copied; either way it fails WP:RS because there is no author. I think this is a self-published website and as such it is not reliable.

Galassi is a valuable veteran editor who was warned about copyrighted material in 2006 by Will Beback. His friend User:Torban helped write some of the related articles and helped put the above webpages into Wikipedia. Another such editor is User:Lute88 who editor Torban said he was related to. I think Galassi should be enjoined to stop adding unreliable sources, especially ones that have dubious copyright status and no listed author. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. The copyright warning by Will Beback is irrelevant here, as it wasn't connected to any websites in question.

2. The torban.org is a scholarly overview of the history of Ukrainian music written by several notable individuals who have wiki entries, and it is reliable as such. 3. torban.org and polyhymnion.org host official pages of several notable individuals. 4. http://www.torban.org/mamai/mamai1.html is an important ethnomusicological iconography resource, which is apparently not in the complainer's competence.--Galassi (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding your point No. 4, the webpage is a bunch of pictures with no explanatory text. How is that scholarly? No matter who "wrote" it, that is, assembled the images into pages, there is no author listed, so it is not reliable. Because there is no text, nothing textual can be derived from it for the purpose of telling the Wikipedia reader about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While websites published by experts in their field may pass rs, I do not see in the website who hosts it or what degree of control they exercise over the content. TFD (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada
This source has been discussed before on at least three occasions: Archive 20, Archive 37 and Archive 51.

There is an ongoing discussion here on whether EI can be used for "facts", and there is a disagreement as to what the outcome of the earlier discussions was. Therefore, let's assess if EI is reliable for a bland fact that doesn't express an opinion on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, for example a statement that a well-known NGO said something.

My own take on this is that EI seems to fulfil criteria discussed in WP:V. This is evidenced in at least two ways, firstly as an editor argues in the Archive 20 discussion, the Financial Times and ITV expressly endorse EI for professionalism (WP:V says "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Secondly, sources that are known to be reliable refer to EI: The Guardian, The Guardian 2, BBC, BBC 2, Le Monde, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Der Spiegel. (Spiegel describes EI as a "highly partisan alternative news network").

Summing up, it seems to me EI isn't as good as the BBC, but for a bland fact should be OK much like FOX News. We use partisan news sources all the time.--Dailycare (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare brings three archives.
 * One of them is essentially a response by a blocked user named PalestineRemembered, who is arguing that this blatantly anti-Israel website be allowed. There is no further discussion past his comment.
 * Another is essentially a discussion between two editors that lasts about 5 lines with no outcome.
 * The last one is a very long and comprehensive discussion that features various editors chiming in. The result can be seen there as being an activist website with a clear bias (their title includes the word Intifada...) and unreliable.  I don't see why we need to bring this up again, just because one person would rather choose an archive that has one comment by a user named PalestineRemembered arguing for its inclusion and reject a more comprehensive discussion.

If you want a taste of some of their blog posts, just check out this post, where the owner of the website rants at how upset he is that the White House allegedly uses "Israeli hummus" (despite being a conclusion drawn by this Haaretz writer, and not the White House itself). A terrible violation of human rights, one that is certainly a violation of the Geneva Conventions no doubt. What does this source that someone is disputing is reliable teaching us about hummus in the White House? "Middle Eastern” is an identity which Israel claims – whenever convenient – to appropriate the culture of local people whose land and rights it is busy violently stealing, while simultaneously attempting to erase and even outlaw their identities and history." Yeah, very reliable.--<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  22:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but your summary of the first discussion is not very accurate. I brought it up, as a now blocked (pro-Israeli) sock of User:Einsteindonut removed EI as a source on Cinema of Palestine. As Jethro correctly noted, another now blocked (pro-Palestinian) replied, but in addition also one of the "regulars"(?) (Ismejudith) at this page also replied. In short: that discussion should show us to always look to the arguments, and not some "fake" majority consensus in a sock-ridden field. Cheers,  Huldra (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're discussing an opinion blog piece, which is irrelevant to the question that DC has asked, which is about the reliability of their reporting of facts. As with most sources the site hosts different types of material, news is clearly separated from blogged opinions. You would not judge the quality of NYT factual reporting by reading an opinion blog hosted on their website, or a an op-ed or editorial. Dlv999 (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, however, doesn't write from a Palestinian point of view. We write from a neutral point of view. EI's goal is to serve as an anti-Israel platform, I wouldn't generalize about Palestinians in such a way, but this doesn't make them reliable for our standards. They have a clear agenda and are an activist group.  It's hardly different from CAMERA - will we now start differntiating between sections of CAMERA that have opinions, and other sections that have what one person believes to be a fact? Of course not.  They're not academic, not peer-reviewed, and selfpublished agenda activist biased organization, with no neutrality.   Our most comprehensive archive on the subject matter shows they are not a reliable source to use. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  22:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia terms, writing from a neutral POV means we represent all significant views, which would certainly include the Palestinian view on topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't know why you're bringing CAMERA into this, if you want to discuss CAMERA start a new section. Here we should be discussing the factual reports of EI according to the question that has been asked. Dlv999 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in making a new discussion on CAMERA, since we've already had a lengthy discussion on one. Just as we've already had a lengthy discussion on EI, and this discussion is simply redundant. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  23:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This site makes Arutz Sheva seems like the Gospel in comparison. ::It has the obvious flaw of being self-published, it has an obvious conflict of interest as it is "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin the EI creators feel is generally found in press accounts. and admits to rectifying "mainstream news stories that might not be balanced in their view." This is an archetypal questionable source and should only be used as a source for describing itself. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  23:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fairly misleading representation of your citations. the Jpost article describes EI as " very professional, user-friendly and well written", which is fairly significant given that Jpost is on the opposite side of the fence both nationally and politically. The IE link says that they have factual news reports, but also provide media analysis/critisism - you have quoted them describing their media criticism/analysis, whereas the question is regarding their news reporting. Dlv999 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

EI represents the Palestinian viewpoint and I see no problem with it being used.The Palestinian viewpoint is almost ignored in the west by main stream media so if we cannot use Palestinian sources then where are we to get information from for their point of view?Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are not the people who get to declare that EI somehow is the voice of the Palestinians. When reliable outlets like The New York Times bring up views or statements by Palestinians, and it's notable, we include it.  It doesn't mean we turn to a blog that's anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian and with a clear agenda in order to use them as reliable, just as we wouldn't turn to a pro-Israel website or blog to get facts from as reliable or report from.  New York Times, scholarly works, and other RS are neutral, so we can rely on them to use as references and conform to neutrality, even if they present one side or two sides in a story.  A site like EI is not neutral at all, and is unreliable to use as facts and declare them as the voice of the Palestinians to use in order to bring "neutrality" and present the Palestinian view, which could be presented through real neutral works.  --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  23:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That the Palestinian do not have many media outlets means that the ones that they do have must be used with limits of course but not the limit that you just do not like them.EI represents the Palestinian view point of view.Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC) blocked sock<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you extend the same philosophy to settler media outlets? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have settler media outlets been used in the BBC,Washington post,USAToday,NYT,Financial Times? EI has.Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock

AnkhMorpork, can you please explain for the class what self-published means? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, please, a snarky tone isn't going to help bring this discussion to a resolution.  02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * with a name like intifada this website has biased agenda and isnt reliable. It is stupid that people can even pretend that it is reliable.Dave Eggersly (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A RSN request requires: We don't have all three things here, and without it, this thread should be closed as a malformed RSN request. 02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The source--not just "electronicintifada.net" but an actual article posted there
 * 2) The Wikipedia article by title
 * 3) The content in context being considered at that article, using the source.


 * agreed that it is a malformed request. agreed that it is no more than a blog with personal opinions, for which, by the way, it can indeed be used. if barak romney wrote a piece there, then that article can be used to say that barak romney wrote 'x', etc. - but ei is not an RS news source for any facts. just like all the others we talk about: camera, ngo monitor, jcpa, 972, etc. - all very nice, important, well thought through, but just not the same as cnn, foxnews, the guardian, etc. Soosim (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are obviously going through one of those periodic waves of such demands being made by teams of editors that we make highly generalized statements about sources they do not like because of differing POV. It is not how this board should be used. And to repeat yet one more time, basically no source is always appropriate, virtually no source is purely neutral, and basically no source is always useless. RS is context sensitive. We need to discuss real cases. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The specific point that prodded me to open this thread is this, namely EI is used to source something that Btselem has said. This provides the three elements referred to by Zad68 above. --Dailycare (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Looking at the edit you mention, it is a deletion of a sourcing footnote by AnkhMorpork, but not a deletion of the material being sourced, which indeed had two sources, the other one being Btselem itself, which as you say is the source for EI in this case. So presumably Ankhmorpork does not contend that the material that was being sourced was wrong, and AM's intention was to delete mention of a source based on an argument that it is generally and absolutely unreliable, which is also what AM's comment seems to indicate. Recent activity on this noticeboard has been dominated by attempts of AM and a few other sympathetic editors, all with their own apparent POV, to get acceptance of the principle that a source can be proclaimed generally unacceptable just because it has an obvious POV. I do not believe the principle has been accepted. Having said that, the deletion of this footnote also does not appear to cause much damage, because the original source is still there. My first impression is that it would be best for both sides to not spend too much time on this particular footnote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I agree that the footnote in itself isn't enormously important, but what is important is that it's resolved whether EI can be reliable for a "bland" piece of news (this case being an example). That way several future threads here would be pre-empted. --Dailycare (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * dailycare - nothing's been resolved. ei is not reliable for reporting information from a non-profit. it is not RS. the non-profit sends out a press release to dozens of places. a blog picks it up and quotes it. so? not sufficient. ei is only reliable for a particular author's opinion. not for facts. Soosim (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dailycare if I understand correctly, what is "enormously important" here is not this unimportant specific case, but actually it is an effort to get a generalized judgement from this one example, which can then be used as a precedent in other more important cases. What I wanted to say above is that this way of working (and see Soosim's rejoinder) is directly against policy, because RS policy, and this noticeboard's standard procedure tell you clearly not to work that way. RS is context sensitive, and if there is a case that different editors judge differently, you have to try to find WP:CONSENSUS and not try to "win" on a technicality. My honest advice, is to bring your REAL "enormously important" specific examples here (AFTER you have tried to find compromise with all interested editors), so they can really be discussed. Do not go the path of the dark side and begin "wikilawyering". Please note by the way that I am sure you have good intentions. My advice is not intended to be seen as sarcastic. This kind of thing happens a lot and is a kind of natural reaction to common editing situations, but the approach I am describing is the one which works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ^^^^^^^^^^roaring applause^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep those applause in mind next time someone tries to use CAMERA or Arutz 7 or whatnot. This is a slippery slope indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I havent said I think EI is a reliable source or should be used, now have I? I do however have a problem with a collection of very involved users attempting to subvert the purpose of this board. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - from my experience with problematic sources, there is a general misconception of editors on what are reliable and non-reliable sources. I have to emphasize that there is no problem to post POV sources (!), as long as they are withstanding the reliability test (usually proper author, desirably an editorial board and a trusted publisher), are balanced by other reliable sources (both POV and NPOV) and can be verified. In case of electronic intifada, which is a POV, the problem is not its POV, but that there is a clear problem of reliability of information and no proper editorial. It is much simplier to use alternative trusted sources, in case the information is verifiable from more trusted sites.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Greyshark, that is very likely correct, and would probably apply to many potential examples concerning this source. Properly structured questions or real examples would be good to discuss, but otherwise this question appears to have been one of a wave of similar questions by a group of editors seeking general rulings as precedents (note: that is a legal term) to help in editing debates. Some of these questions are going after stronger sources than this one. We have a general principle enshrined in WP:RS that we should be careful about generalization. This noticeboard should not be used as a way of getting out of dealing with editors who have different POVs than your own.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the conclusion here can then be (assuming I follow Andrew correctly) that it's not automatically OK to source "bland" news from EI, and it's not automatically OK to remove existing material just because it's sourced from EI. I agree that that follows the letter of the policy, however I also do recall that this noticeboard has frequently reached "precedential" decisions. Like the the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung section above, although I do see the differences to this case as well. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Generalization is part of human nature, and a cause of the best and worst things we do. How is that for a good generalizing answer? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry: my sense of humour was not good for clarity. My point is that good generalizing should naturally be something that can occasionally require some debate on the article talk page to get right. It is a normal and natural balancing act. Sometimes people come to this noticeboard before trying that, but it really is critical to Wikipedia to try that first. See WP:CONSENSUS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i think the conclusion here is that ei can only be used for their own opinion (usually the author of a particular article) and not for facts, which should be found in an RS elsewhere. Soosim (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A better conclusion is to look at each case and consider what is being sourced, and whether the source might have a reputation for accuracy regarding that type of subject matter. Also, the advice is not to attempt to use this noticeboard to build vague precedents which can be abused later. Always first try consensus building with editors you disagree with, with both sides referring to what WP:RS says. If the application of WP:RS needs more comment from third parties, then bring the exact examples here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources that tend to be diligent with fact-checking tend to do so across the board. Therefore I think the notion of "contextual sensitivity" is overblown. If a source is going to play fast-and-loose with factuality in some areas I think we should regard them skeptically even when they report in unrelated areas of information. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That would mean that we can not use Fox news or the Sun. This comes up every week. I am sticking to context sensitivity, which is a community consensus that has developed based on what works. It is clear that there is a deliberate effort being made here to get precedents set, and by its very nature this shows why our policy pages say what they say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Our policy allows for both considerations. We read that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" and we also read that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. But properly read this is not two different things, but one. Each case of a reliability question requires us to consider the likely accuracy and care in editing of the source in that particular case. But this does not stop us from using Fox News sometimes, and it does not mean that sources which take a POV automatically must be considered inaccurate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between a slight leaning and a disregard for fact-checking. A source has a "reputation for fact-checking" if it has in general earned that reputation, no matter what the topic may be that is under consideration in a given instance. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit ambivalent about this because there don't seem to be any professional journalists/intellectuals/etc involved. But it does have editorial standards, so certainly there can be circumstances when it can be used, like well known expert writers, neutral info on organizations, etc. Highly negative info about individuals would be more problematic. Basically each issue has to be brought here if there is conflict on the talk page. CarolMooreDC 07:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Bus stop. Who decides what a slight lean is? Many people would say Fox News is extremist very often. And anyway, concerning a notable subject where notable sources disagree vehemently, why would we not cite people with a strong lean? Fact is that your approach is an argument that can be used for one individual editor to get what they personally prefer. I still think the correct approach is to look at real examples, and to try to determine what third parties think of the source in those particular cases. You are probably right that this source should indeed not normally be used, but that is not something which should be swept through here as a general precedent as part of a wave of similar proposals lumping a wide range of sources together right now on this board. Concerning EI there has been one relatively simple example named and a practical solution was proposed, which was not to use the source in that one case. It is not a good sign though, to see how much more effort has been exerted to try to argue that this one case is a precedent for all others. I can not think of a good reason that this would be so much more important than the real example. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew is 100% on this. EI is an aggregator with a political stance. We decide on its potential use case by case. Nothing more to say here and any continued attempts to bait the RSN are trolling. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Users' misunderstanding of RSN is not "trolling". Established editors often allude to RSN being accepting of a publisher or work being acceptable overall. This may or may not be intentional while, on the other hand, editors have relied on a single ruling at RSN being reason to include or not include a source. The scope of RSN has been presented differently to new editors in the already contentious topic area.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree trolling might not be the best word in most cases. (Although some of the ones recently certainly verge on that. I notice that several of the editors were in the process of getting themselves blocked etc.) But in any case even if experienced editors do this, it is not best practice, and the word should be spread. Of course some amount of generalization is normal by the way, but in the recent wave of Israel/Palestine questions we had editors explicitly refusing to name exact examples, or giving deliberately uncontroversial examples, explicitly because they wanted a general ruling to use in other cases which they would not name. Of course such editors may have very good intentions in a way, but only in the sense that such editors feel they are combating bad editors who need to be stopped in any way possible. When it comes down to it, that is not a practical way of working.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is something that EI has to say about itself: "The Web provides a cheap way to get more perspectives heard, stay in touch across many borders — Palestinians live around the world — and organize for activism." We are entertaining the idea that a source that says that it is there to "organize for activism" is in the same ballpark as a source with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I think these aims are largely incompatible. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Except on topics directly dealing with them or their counterparts : EI, Camera, ADL are not wp:rs sources. Each time these article come with any kind of information, whether it do exsit somewhre in an academic sources or in several newspapers (and these ones should be used) or they are false. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've never used EI as a source. And I advise all to avoid such venues as a general research principle. That doesn't however respond to a real problem, the systemic bias of I/P reportage, which has repeatedly been studied and reported on by outstanding scholars who are conservative, or realists Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, for example. I have a particular interest in the South Hebron Hills villages, for example. I get daily reports from the area, find much reported in EI and other such digital sources which gives swathes of concrete information that rarely filter into main news outlets. The area is grossly underreported, and on principle, because I try to respect RS, I do not put that material read in such sources in. However, over time, I've found these alternative sources to be as reliable, indeed more reliable, than anything in mainstream sources like the NYTs. So, as Andrew says, context sensitivity is important. It is very clear from efforts to get a programmatic deletion of anything from such a source as EI established as a principle, that the issue is not whether these sources are good at times, but rather that editors would prefer to just keep a lot of potentially relevant but underreported material off articles. Israel is not underreported whenever it suffers from terrorism it gets automatic world wide coverage, and rightly so. What Israel does in the territories is grossly underreported, and wikipedia is well aware of the problem, but only on a very abstract level cf. systemic bias.Nishidani (can't sign. Our new format has erased my abilities to access wikimarkup and everything else.)

Biography of a living person - reliable sources
User:RobertRosen and me seem to have got into a dispute with the usage of thisas a reliable source for Aruna Roy's article. RobertRosen has reverted my edits stating that this entry on Ramon Magsaysay Awards website is not a reliable source as it cites tape recordings as one of its references. The author of this entry is a published author and the website is a notable one. Need another opinion on this. There are other instances too, such as this and this where I find RobertRosen's intentions questionable. <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I also managed to find a book with an ISBN number that supports the disputed content. <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  18:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The book and the web post are essentially the same, just different formats.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation should be fine as a reliable source on the biographies of award recipients. But if there are other reliable sources you can use to supplement it, that would be even better. The Blue Canoe  20:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A) User:MorelMWilliam ought to have assumed WP:AGF without questioning my edit history at Wikipedia. He/She also ought to have reviewed talk and my record of eventually achieving mutually respectful consensus (as say with User:Cullen328 after a lengthy debate at Talk:National_RTI_Forum ).
 * B) User:MorelMWilliam ought to have discussed it with me first before escalating this matter to a notice-board, especially when I informed him/her as a courtesy on his/her talk page immediately after I edited.
 * C) I would prefer to discuss this on the article's talk page, which is the proper place for such discussions in the first instance. Hence I am not contributing anything further on this page, as I believe the process is premature and is not confined only to WP:V, WP:RS issues.
 * D) Whatever I "reverted" was in terms of WP:BLP which mandates such text to be removed immediately (and to stay that way till a consensus emerges). RobertRosen (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As the points raised by you involved doubts on the reliability of a source, this is where it belongs as it speeds up the process with feedback from other experienced and knowledgeable Wiki editors. Your understanding of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP seems to be clouded and I decided it best to guide you here for a consult instead of getting antagonistic. WP:BLP only asks for removal of contentious material, not the ones that you have a problem with. Besides, I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy. I take it that the source used by me is a reliable source, as supported by the user BlueCanoe. Any other views?<font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  05:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your attitude getting increasingly "hostile", I again request you to assume good faith. Since we are talking about "RS", let me specify the portions of the disputed source specifically "______. Interview by James R. Rush and Lorna Kalaw-Tirol. Tape recording. Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation, Manila, September 1, 2000." and also Various interviews and correspondence with individuals familiar with Aruna Roy and her work; other primary documents. These are vague PRIVATE & UNPUBLISHED cites and are as good as having no sources to cite. Tirol's biography also has PUBLISHED cites, do any of these contain the material I deleted ?  Furthermore, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is closely associated with the Magsaysay Award Foundation (see this ), so her biography is recursive and not independent or peer-reviewed. Thirdly, the additional source you cited (with ISBN) is nothing but a compendium of Magsaysay awardees based on their published RMAF biographies and also recursive. In line with WP policy, kindly take this discussion to the article's talk page so we have a PERMANENT record instead of having to trawl through the archives of WP notice boards. I also note that you have evaded clarifying why you brought this to a notice board before discussing it with the editor concerned in terms of WP:DR especially "Discuss with the other party" especially on User talk pages when there are only 2 editors or on the Article's Talk page when there are more than 2. RobertRosen (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the foundation's use of first-hand interviews as sources in compiling the biography: it would be a problem if a Wikipedia editor cited unpublished tape recordings as a source in a biography—that would violate the original research and verifiability policies. But it's not a problem to cite a reliable secondary source that draws upon such interviews.  The Blue Canoe  06:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @TheBlueCanoe: There are 2 disputed primary sources (a) Tape-recordings and (b)unspecified letters and correspondences, neither of which are in the public domain or accessible. One of these (the audio tape recording) is generated by Kalow-Tirol herself. In the circumstances, Kalow-Tirol's biography is not a secondary source but is a primary source. Further, the material I deleted is contentious and is not supported by anything Aruna Roy herself has "published". Kalol-Tirol's biography is neither independent nor is it peer-reviewed. The MGAF award is given for Roy's "work' and not for her personal and intimate details. Her work is very well documented by published sources (also cited by Kalow-Tirol from PUBLISHED sources) which I have left intact. My objection is to UNPUBLISHED / INACCESSIBLE sources concerning the personal / family details of Aruna Roy which I removed immediately in terms of WP:BLP. RobertRosen (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Refrain from digressing. Nobody is being hostile here. And I don't have time to research your talk page or relations with other editors. The Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation itself is a reliable source. Besides, the content supported by this source is not contentious. And the content is about the subject itself and does not have any claims about any third party. Refer WP:SELFSOURCE. Even if Lorna hadn't cited any reference in her article, the source is still reliable by virtue of Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation's notability. This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat. <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  06:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @MorelWilliam: The content removed does not refer exclusively to Aruna Roy and is also contentious. Please don't restore disputed BLP content while this discussion or other WP:DR is underway. RobertRosen (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your citing a blogpost and regarding this as disputed material makes me wonder if you should even be taken seriously. RMAF is a reliable source, okay? It is theirs and not wikipedia's if there is a problem with their primary source. Clear? Thanks. <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  07:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not citing a blogpost. The blogpost is a copy of email messages exchanged on an RTI mailing list between Wajahat Habibullah (IAS batchmate of Aruna Roy) and S.D. Sharma (former Addl-Director/RAW). The contention is the "unconventional marriage" (ie. love marriage) between Hema Krishnaswamy (Tamilian Iyengar Brahmin Hindu - also sister of CoAS Late Genl K.Sundarji) and E.Doraiswamy a Dalit Christian. That marriage is unconventional because at the time a Hindu and a Christian could not legally marry in Madras Presidency so they moved to Delhi and "lived in sin". Further, RMAF is a RS to the extent that they gave Aruna Roy an award for the work they have cited in their citation and which does not contain her personal details. Also, the latest deletion you highlighted is taken from the NAC (of which she is a member) and is text copy-pasted from Aruna Roy's other organisation websites like MKSS and is hence WP:SPS. Finally, since Kalaw-Tirols purported sources were never published the RMAF biography is the primary source for Aruna Roy's personal details, but is an otherwise acceptable secondary source for her work. Clear ??  RobertRosen (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How does an email exchange published in a blog make it notable enough to be taken to Wikipedia? Do you have a reliable source supporting this claim? If you do, then that has to be included too. RMAF is a reliable source for her personal details too as their newsletter, where their citations appear have a sound editorial team. Yes, NAC profiles their members and it is a reliable source for non contentious material. NAC's content is in public domain. Also, WP:SPS too isn't conflicting the addition. Why did you bring that one up? But Karlaw-Tirols work is published by a notable organisation and hence her work is a reliable source for her personal details too! I would be taking this to WP:ANI as I don't see this coming to an end. <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font  face="Rage Italic">William  08:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Before taking it to WP:ANI, let me say a few things. So "hang on" and "cool off" while I list them all. RobertRosen (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A) User:MorelMWilliam consistently refused to "assume good faith" when I repeatedly asked him to discuss (on talk pages) contentious BLP text I deleted from Aruna Roy concerning her personal and family details. The user wrote "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy."

B) User:MorelMWilliam consistently refused to take the discussion to our respective talk pages (since there are only 2 editors involved) or to the article talk page (to maintain a permanent record).

C) Now having brought the discussion to WP:RSN notice board, User:MorelMWilliam is taking the discussion to the WP:ANI board without allowing the increasingly complex RS debate to reach any conclusion with intervention of neutral editors. It is pertinent that the sole outside editor User:TheBlueCanoe has not taken note of even a single of my submissions.

D) User:MorelMWilliam (having brought this matter to WP:RSN by describing it as a "dispute" with me) consistently refused to follow WP:DR's protocols and sneeringly dismissed it thus "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat". RobertRosen (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

E) I have hence suggested that we "cool off" and move the debate to the article talk page after that, and without precipitously activating higher dispute mechanisms. RobertRosen (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am taking this to WP:ANI. You need a third party opinion. This was taken to WP:RSN as there were doubts raised by you on the reliability of a source. Neither you, nor I is an expert with regard to WP:RS, what are we two going to talk? You have summarily refused to go by WP:SPS and BlueCanoe's comment. You would may be cool off with admin intervention. <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font  face="Rage Italic">William  08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * User:TheBlueCanoe's general comment (which I agree with) was given before I had my specific say. Kindly speak for yourself on expertise for WP:RS. I don't see what WP:SPS has to do with it. I can't stop you from taking this content dispute anywhere you want to. I can only choose to participate, or not. If your intention is to make me retire from WP, don't worry I (like Dr.Blofeld) am almost there. Lastly, WP:3 is where YOU go for a 3rd opinion not WP:ANI. RobertRosen (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is a direct copyvio of her SPS bio at which means it can not be used in the first place. How come no one noted this? There is no valid reason for so using a copyright violation, and the SPS bio is similary not RS for a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear to me that it's the other way around. The bio at allamericanspeakers.com is copied from the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation. The original lists the author's name and contains references. The Blue Canoe  14:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is which website sources which one. The RMAF source cites an author and also lists the references. Which one seems to be mirroring which one now? I couldn't find any info on the way profiles are written in All American Speakers. Is it a notable page by the way? <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  12:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was waiting for somebody else to bring it up. Aruna Roy has an entire chapter on how she "sings for her supper" in this  book written by her IAS batchmate. RobertRosen (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @MorelMWilliam Please carefully consider if you want Aruna Roy's article to be expanded. Off hand, I can think of at least 8 scholarly books, all with ISBN's (7 with googlebook entries) which are EXTREMELY unflattering to Ms. "Roy", her finances, her sexual habits, etc. But first my friend, please research if she was actually married to Bunker Roy, and why she had to leave the IAS. If you persist with editing this article, I shall move the entire contents of this WP:RSN discussion to the article's talk page. RobertRosen (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And why this book with conspiracy theories here? If thats what drives you to deface her article, then you definitely need to back off and clear your head. I can find sources on my own, but leave your list anyway. I shall get them from my library and see if they help in any way. If you have all those info backed by reliable sources (not like the book in your previous post), then get them into the article! What is stopping you? <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That book is on a discussion page, not in the article itself. Its only your opinion that the book is not a reliable source. Let me explain why that book is better than 75% of the so-called RS on WP. It is PUBLISHED in book form, by a Publisher who gives his full name and address, it is a priced publication with ISBN, it is in its 2nd edition, the 2 co-authors are well known in their fields (even if you don't agree with them), 1 is a well known author/journalist published by reputed newspapers, the other is Roy's IAS batchmate, and who, unlike Roy, stuck on in the IAS for quite some time. Both of them have their "Doctorates" and so presumably know about rigorous methods. It is accessible, a copy is available for any Indian to inspect free of charge in the Library of the Rajya Sabha. BUT, it is precisely because of unappreciated "door-keepers" (chowkidars) like me that text from books from "their" side NOR "your" side get through WP's policies and into BLPs. Some of the other books, BTW do you read German in addition to French, are positively pornographic about Roy. RobertRosen (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean this relatively unknown publisher is more reliable than Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation? Which wiki policy supports you here? Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is a published author and an experienced journalist who has even been an editor for magazines such as Philippine Daily Inquirer. This, along with RMAF's notability, makes it a very strong source. What do you mean by 'sides'? I don't think there is anybody here more polarised than you.<font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The publisher of the book is "Aditya Prakashan, 2/18, Ansari Road,

Daryagunj, New-Delhi 110 002. Telephone 0091-11-23278034." Their website is and they have an extensive catalog which is regularly cited on Wikipedia as Reliable Sources especially on India related pages. I have already said that I regard the RMAF citation as a reliable source about Aruna Roy's RM award and the basis for which they awarded it to her. I do not regard the RMAF biography by LKT a reliable source for AR's personal details. I do not regard the RMAF as a neutral or credible  award/foundation. It is administered by the Rockefeller Foundation and the junior Magsaysay award by the Ford Foundation to further American interests. That's another edit war building up, so please stop this now and read Arundhati Roy om RMAF instead . RobertRosen (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. First, I do not assume any of the facts in your source are wrong. HOWEVER, the Awardee profiles are by their very nature, promotional. Further, there is no editorial supervision or standard, and both points argue that they are not good WP:RS. On the other hand, WP:RS does allow for WP:SELFSOURCE, or other such usually questionable sources, if the claims/facts being made are otherwise uncontroversial. Could all interested editors PLEASE go back to the Article Talk page and sort through which facts are in dispute; the ref cited cannot be used universally but could be used in limited circumstances, and the two cases need to be sorted out. preferably with proper specificity and difs. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue here is what is controversial. RobertRosen is the only editor here who thinks it is controversial. He refuses to hand in notable references that make her personal details, such as marriage, birth and schooling controversial. Why wouldn't the burden apply to the one one that blanks content for a change, especially to prove that the issue being discussed is controversial! <font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  05:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't keep moving the goal posts. The issue is that you have continued to indulge in disruptive editing after you were blocked and given a 2nd chance under a new name. I have not roll-backed any material because it is controversial. I have rolled it back because it was a COPYVIO, and then again because of issues with it as a primary source and then again because you initiated 3 separate DR processes (WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, WP:ANI) and refused to wait for consensus/closure before adding it back. You also have a long history of misusing Wikipedia talk pages and notice boards for your bitchy poncing. To remind you of what another editor said to similarly shut you up on this very same notice board  "Your words are insulting; I am not your dog. Let me know when you wish to continue actual discussion" 08:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)RobertRosen (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While you are busy stirring up content unrelated to this discussion, let me set a few facts misrepresented by you straight.


 * This is unrelated to the current dispute.


 * This is bullying.


 * I DID NOT REFUSE TO WAIT FOR CONSENSUS. Do you have anything to support this allegation? This and the WP:ANI discussion are proofs for that.


 * If you didn't revert them because they are controversial, then what is your problem? Shall we call it closed and have the text back in the article? Good that you finally found some common sense.


 * Copyright violations? The editor concerned was completely unaware of your assusation and he denies any such violation.


 * I see that your only obsession now is me. I know, I can be quite addictive and I find it very flattering. So give this fight up and lets make peace when I don't have any suitors. Okay?<font face="Rage Italic" color="green">morelM <font face="Rage Italic">William  09:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The "London Daily Times"; January 23, 1994, supposedly cited by Stringer and McKie (Robin), 1997; page 190
The "London Daily Times"; January 23, 1994, supposedly cited by Stringer and McKie (Robin), 1997; page 190.


 * This is partly a misleading, nay false, citation. It is not an academic paper, but an entitled, bound and published book, not in or of academic binding, cover or appearance, but that for the consumer    – probably also not peer-viewed – complete with its ISBN ("African exodus: The origins of modern humanity", 0805027599).


 * NO such newspaper entitled "The London Daily Times" was known to had existed in England during that time, in the year 1994.


 * Given the long history of the modern homo sapien human race, spanning over at least 50,000 years, it is also highly unlikely that a publication with only and merely 282 pages can possibly touch upon the subject of the Chinese community in the United Kingdom in any length.


 * Therefore, I would move to allege and denounce that it is also partly a made-up or fabricated citation, with an unrelated publication, and that all of this is ultimately a hoax of some sort.


 * This citation is not only used at the article for the British Chinese, but also previously in the article for the Model minority.

-- KC9TV 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On the off-chance I checked The Times for 23 January 1994, on the grounds that it is published in London and is a daily newspaper. But 23 January 1994 turns out to have been a Sunday when The Times does not publish. The Sunday Times for 23 January 1994 contains on page 5 an article by Charles Hymas and Lesley Thomas with a title "Africans move to the top of Britain's education ladder" which remarks that "They [Black Africans] are now just ahead of the Chinese, the most academically successful ethnic minority in previous studies" which possibly explains it as a source for the "record of high academic achievement" mentioned in the article. The article is inspired by a report from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which, frustratingly, it does not name. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There was and there is NO such a newspaper here in England called or entitled "The London Daily Times", only "The Daily Mail" (with its Sunday edition being "The Mail on Sunday") and "The Times" (also known as "The Times of London" and "The London Times", at least for external, non-British (or Irish) consumption and purposes) (with its Sunday edition being "The Sunday Times"). The two authors are both Britons (Britishers; Brits), nay Englishmen; they would had known this, and they would not had possibly allowed or permit themselves to commit such an unforgivable mistake or over-sight. I would also refer to this, at Talk:Model_minority. -- KC9TV 01:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar to the terms "Caucasians" and "Asians", the term "Africans" is also NEVER seriously used here in the United Kingdom as such, in this particular context and in such a way that you and your source are alluding to – there is only the "Afro-Caribbean community", usually known – but amongst other names (the non-pejorative ones anyway) – simply as "the Blacks". "Africans" in the United Kingdom usually mean specifically the much smaller community of West Africans and Southern Africans in the United Kingdom, with an Nigerian, a Ghanaian, a Sierra Leonian, a Liberian, an Angolan, a South African, a Namibian, a Zimbabwean or a Mozambican passport, identity book, birth certificate, marriage certificate, parent or recent ancestor. This probably is yet another made-up thing or fabrication. -- KC9TV 01:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the source may not be problematic, but your premise is not correct. "Black Africans" is commonly used in the UK for black people of African descent, which is what I would take the Sunday Times article cited above to be referring to. Formerip (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The usual terms are "Blacks" or "Afro-Caribbeans", but never "Africans" or "Black Africans". Using "Africans" as a term to mean "Blacks" is an Americanism, largely unknown in or to the modern United Kingdom (Britain). -- KC9TV 02:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who suggested the source was using "Africans" to mean "blacks"? Formerip (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the term "Africans" was, after all, used in the title of the Sunday Times article cited above (and below). I've already posted this on the Model minority talk page but here goes again:
 * Well, the term "Africans" was, after all, used in the title of the Sunday Times article cited above (and below). I've already posted this on the Model minority talk page but here goes again:

"I've searched this through the Amazon book preview feature & I think this checks out. When I search for "Chinese" in the text I get 10 results one of which reads: "They [Africans] are now just ahead of the Chinese the most academically successful minority in previous studies.[20] Yet the author of the Bell Curve and all its ..." When I search for "Sunday Times" I get an endnote numbered 20 which cites the following source: Sunday Times 23 Jan 1994. The article title is "Africans move to the top of Britain's Education Ladder". So I think they just got the newspaper title wrong but it might be worth taking a trip to the library to verify this. If you really want me to I could probably dig out the Sunday Times article ... Actually, I can't link to it due to copyright violation, but if you search for the title of the Sunday Times article you only get 4 results. One of these is to some Google Group and if you log-in you can see the whole article which confirms the content above. Also you see the citation used here - see bottom of that page. I think it's legitimate."


 * The citation seems accurate but for the fact that person adding it to the article got the newspaper title wrong. They probably were not a "Briton/Brit/Britisher ... " FiachraByrne (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that this is becoming off-topic, and I ought to had retired for the night some time ago, but what is the proof that The Sunday Times actually used the aforementioned (those) words, other than according to a book (Africa and the West (2000)) by Godfrey Mwakikagile? (Who is a Tanzanian and not a British subject.) Did any of you actually have a subscription that would allow access to the on-line archives of the back-issues of The Times? -- KC9TV 02:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look above you'll see that Sam Blacketer has read and indeed quotes from the article. I've just read it myself and can confirm what he says. As an aside I'm not sure that the focus on who is or is not British is likely to provide a particularly useful perspective. Goodnight. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Call me old-fashioned and close-minded, if not also a little racist, but I do not think that a Tanzanian educated in the United States of America, rather than England, Scotland or Ireland, or the Continent of Europe – and who presumably still lives in sunny Tanzania – and who is a Pan-Africanist with chips over his shoulders, and who obviously – simply by judging the title of the offending book – has an axe to grind against the Mother Country or the former colonial power over Tanzania – can ever be trusted as a reliable source as to what The Sunday Times – which is after all a British and not an American, a South African or a Tanzanian newspaper – did or did not print. This is not so much one of the Secondary sources, but bordering upon Hearsay. -- KC9TV 03:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, let me put it in another way, would the books, e.g., of Ian Paisley, who is a Protestant, ever be considered and accepted as reliable sources of what the Pope and the Vatican did or did not say? -- KC9TV 03:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ian Paisley, mmm ... I'm not sure I'd trust most "Catholic" Irish people to be non-biased about either the Vatican or the Pope given recent history. Priests are very nearly a pariah group atm. Actually, there's lots of good Protestant historians from Northern Ireland, ATQ Stewart or Paul Bew, etc. Anyhow, whatever you think of the above author and his grinding axes he has appeared to be quite capable of quoting pretty accurately from the Sunday Times, in this instance at least. As far as I remember the use of the term "African" in this context derives from the way the British government, at least in the 1990s, divided up British Ethnic Minorities for census returns and the like. I don't know if they still use the same terms. However, the information looks a bit dated to me and I'm sure if you trawl a few British government websites you'll find a more recent appraisal of the academic and economic status of the British Chinese. In this manner you could, legitimately, remove the offending citation and improve the encyclopedia. But there's little basis to remove the citation for the facts that it's supporting at the moment. Ergo, find a better source. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch the above. Sorry it's late and I'm mistaken. Stringer and McKie are both British - which hardly strikes me as relevant in any case. They're the ones quoting the Sunday Times article and supporting the statement about the British Chinese being academically successful etc in the wiki article. The Godfrey Mwakikagile link was to corroborate that the citation was accurate. It's not used in any of the articles and therefore his wider hypotheses of which I'm blissfully ignorant are irrelevant to this discussion unless you propose he's in league with Stringer and McKie to distort this particular newspaper item for some unknown gain. I've read the original article as has another commentator here and can verify its general content. I've indicated how you might read the article itself. This is all a non-issue. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fiachra that this is a non-issue. There is no problem with the Sunday Times using the category Black African since it was a category in the 1991 Census. Given the date of publication, the research that the ST was reporting on was probably based on Census data. The point about "best educated" is a rather loose expression. British-Chinese young people are the ethnic group with the best GCSE and A Level achievement in school. People of African origin, especially West African, include particularly large numbers with graduate and postgraduate qualifications. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fiachra that this is a non-issue. There is no problem with the Sunday Times using the category Black African since it was a category in the 1991 Census. Given the date of publication, the research that the ST was reporting on was probably based on Census data. The point about "best educated" is a rather loose expression. British-Chinese young people are the ethnic group with the best GCSE and A Level achievement in school. People of African origin, especially West African, include particularly large numbers with graduate and postgraduate qualifications. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is beginning to sound too convoluted and too confusing. The water are becoming too muddled. An Englishman, an Irishman and an American! Perhaps I should start again, perhaps at another day. -- KC9TV 17:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Letter to the editor of a newspaper
Is this "reference" valid: '' It alludes to a letter to the editor of a newspaper, published on the "Letters to the editor" page of the Irish Times newspaper. It has appeared, as a "reference", in a number of articles, all contributed by the same editor, for example, St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin <font face="Old English Text MT" color="darkblue">Hohenloh <font face="Old English Text MT" color="darkblue"> + 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends on the authority of the letter-writer; if the author is an authority in the subject written about then yes, but otherwise it's a reliable source only for the contents being the opinion of the writer. Some important principles are sourced to letters in newspapers but it's a rarity and anything major should really have proper secondary sources. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the case of the St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin article, it seems to be cited for the formal name actually being the 'Cathedral of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St Patrick' - and since it is citing an Anglican priest on the matter, who merely uses the name in passing (not actually stating that this is the formal title), it clearly isn't a reliable source for this. The letter could only possibly be cited for the author's opinions, and frankly I can't think of any circumstances when his opinions would be of any note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction - the same letter seems also to be 'cited' for other material in the St Patrick's article - except that there is no mention of the relevant material in the letter. This is an entirely bogus citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the letter-writer being an Anglican priest should make it an unreliable source: it is an Anglican cathedral. However, the fact that it is an Anglican cathedral makes the blessed virgin bit rather unlikely doesn't it? So does the fact that nowhere on the Cathedral website does it give the blessed virgin bit of the name. Emeraude (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * its not the specifics of "Anglican priest" which makes it "unreliable" - is the fact that it is "Anglican Priest" and not "Historian specializing in architecture of the appropriate time and place". While a particular priest may be a reliable source for such claims based on their particular background, just being a priest does not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. For what it's worth, the letter quoted was a reply to a letter printed the previous day by a Catholic priest Thomas SR O'Flynn, who says that the cathedral was originally "dedicated... to Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary ... and St Patrick." I take it he is saying it is not now. I'm still inclined to go with the cathedral's own website as definitive naming. Emeraude (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both letters are used as sources for various claims in the article. One of the more contentious has already been removed. These are clearly POV edits intended to promote a Catholic claim to the cathedral. Overall, the article is very poorly sourced relying an antiquarian texts but this probably reflects the dearth of modern historical treatments of the Cathedral. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What one motivated editor can do ... ; ; ; ; ; . FiachraByrne (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I assume the same source cannot be used to support the following statement:"By 2011, some Anglicans were able to acknowledge that "The forced alienation of sacred places from one community to another leaves lasting scars" . It seems to me that the most the source could support would be that an Anglican priest in France acknowledges that "The forced alienation ..." FiachraByrne (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * you are correct that those sources would not be reliable for those claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal Center
Regarding the Hezbollah article, is the Simon Wiesenthal Center an appropriate source for the unattributed statement of fact that, "Hezbollah also used anti-Semitic educational materials designed for 5-year-old scouts.".

The cited article is here. Note that the Wiesenthal center article does not itself even report the statement as fact, rather it reports that a certain "Kamel el Batel" produced slides documenting the alleged materials. ("Kamel el Batel" produces one google hit, which happens to be the Wiesenthal center article ).

The Wiesenthal Center "mission" statement, which can be viewed here states that "The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a global Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations."

Given that we don't use mainstream, non-nationally affiliated Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as RS for facts in the Wikipedia voice it would seem odd if this human rights organization, that has a self declared mission to "stand with Israel" would meet the requirements for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice for material in an article about a long term adversary of that country. Dlv999 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be surprising if Hezbollah produces anti-Jewish educational materials. However, the website is clearly partisan and its characterisation of Hezbollah activities cannot be reported as fact in Wikipedia's voice. We have no way of knowing whether the materials in question were anti-Semitic, only that the SW Center believes this to be the case.
 * On a side-note, I very much doubt that Hezbollah is affiliated to the Scouts. The "5 year-old scouts" referred to are probably something else. Formerip (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot join the Scouts until the age of 11 which reduces "el Batel's" reliability considerably. Given his anonimity, if he is the only source for the Wiesenthal centre we shouldn't even mention the claim let alone attribute it. Wayne (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that Hezbollah uses such books but Simon Wisenthal Center is not wp:rs source to report this information.Pluto2012 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is obvious then it should be very easy to find an RS reporting it. If on the other hand it is only the Weisethal center reporting it, then it is not suitable for inclusion in the article. Seems pretty straightforward to me, find a better source or remove the statement. Dlv999 (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point. If the only source is SWC, then the information must be removed from any article. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many human rights organizations are rs for facts, and are important sources for current information. However we need to separate fact from opinion.  That the teaching materials were "anti-Semitic" is a matter of opinion, and would need intext attribution.  However that makes the issue one of neutrality, and it would probably be best to omit it unless we can establish that the matter has received wide attention and experts have weighed in on it.  TFD (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Like any human right organisation they should be attributed properly as they expert in the field we could use their statement much like HRW.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Wiesenthal Center, Human rights watch is not affiliated with any national government. In this particular case the Weisenthal center is commenting on an organization who is a long term adversary of the government that it is the weisenthal center's declared mission to support. Dlv999 (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like was discussed in other discussions NPOV problems are not concern for this board.Every source has its own POV.HRW was heavily criticized for it anti-Israeli POV.(even by its founder) yet it still used in articles about Israel--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike your only claim that this is a reliable source is to equate the source with human rights watch. If you are going to use that argument as the only justification that this is an appropriate RS for the material in question it is very relevant to point out that, in fact the source is not analogous to HRW (which has no national affiliation) because its stated mission is to "stand with Israel". Dlv999 (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "stands with Israel" refers to defending the right of Israel to exist. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

piney.com
Is this source, reliable for this statement:

"Chrysostom - writing on 1 Corinthians and the gift of tongues said, "This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?". (AD 347-407)"

The article in question is Cessationism. Piney.com cites this source for their website. Shouldn't we just use piney's source directly? I can't see why piney themselves should be considered reliable. Freikorp (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this website being used a few times now, and it doesn't look particularly reliable (or well organised) to me so I was hoping for a broad opinion of the site in general as well. Freikorp (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ars Technica a Reliable Source?
My first impression is that yes, it likely is, but I'm involved in the article in question, and wanted to get independent opinions. Article is IsAnybodyDown?, a "revenge porn" site that has been the topic of a recent blog-war. But until now, beyond the blogs, there was IMHO little if anything to show actual notability for the web site itself. So I filed an AFD on it a week ago. Today, there has been released an Ars Technica article that covers the controversy. I'm not in my mind coming up with any reason why AT should not be considered a RS, but I wanted extra opinions on the issue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ars Technica has been previously discussed here—see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2. At that time there were no objections to, and even some enthusiastic support for, using it as a source, barring those parts of the site clearly marked as blogs.  I agree with this point of view. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, yes, Ars Technica is a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that I've been an occasional reader at Arstechnica for over 20 years and would say that it is generally reliable but perhaps it merits a note. When it comes to articles authored by senior space editor, Eric Berger, it is a biased, unreliable source. As he is a senior editor, it may even affect other bylines in Arstechnica's space coverage (I honestly do not know, I have only noticed it in Eric Berger articles but most of the space coverage that I have read from Arstechnica seems to have been by Eric Berger so I don't have a good sample).

He seems perennially biased against certain programs and may be guilty of excessive editorializing on articles that cover them (not that editorializing doesn't have its place).

Conversely (and a much more serious issue), he seems to have a blind spot when it comes to SpaceX. Namely, he pathologically treats anything originating from SpaceX press releases, Elon Musk or SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell, as revealed truth (no matter how fanciful and disconnected from reality). In other words, "Musk says {insert thing that Elon Musk says here}" has a very strong tendency to turn into "SpaceX is actively doing {insert thing that Elon Musk says here}" when covered by Eric Berger. He is also pathologically unable to say anything negative about SpaceX (which, to be fair, though it may manifest in a much more extreme manner in articles with an Berger byline, can at times be a failing of mainstream press outlets in general). Cosmicaug (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the article published in the "History and theory" a reliable secondary source?
I would like to hear community's opinion on the article authored by Ronald Aronson (Communism's Posthumous Trial. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus. History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245). Can this article be considered as a reliable non-fringe secondary source? Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The source appears to be a scholarly publication with a well identified editorial board, and specific guidelines for submission thus, reliable. It does however state that it accepts the "reflections" of prominent international thinkers, so that, it may be publishing opinions. In that case the source is in my view primary. That being said, looking at the table of contents, There are several reviews being published, presumably of works published elsewhere, and those would therefore be secondary. I am unclear if the article you point to is a review or not. If an original article, according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars.  It does seem that papers submitted to the publication are reviewed but I do not know whether they are peer reviewed. Also WP:RS/AC says that "individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named source". If you wish to use the source to  state that a particular view is universally held in the scholarly community,  you need sourcing explicitly stating that. Barring such sources, you have to make it clear you are stating one author’s opinion.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see one inaccuracy in your post. You write that opinia are primary sources. However our policy says that "an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event" is a secondary source. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Book review in essence. Usable for the author's own opinions about the reliable sources reviewed, and properly noted as his opinions. Collect (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, your opinion is noted. Let me point out, however, that our policy in general advises us to present information from reliable sources as opinia, not as facts, so this your comment is too general to be useful. In connection to that, can you explain, which secondary sourced do not express author's own thinking, and can be presented as facts? For example, what is the difference between Aronson's full size article we are discussing, and the books he analyze? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Aronson's article is, in fact, a review and explicitly represents "reflections" by the author. The BBoC is, however, published as a book by a respected scholarly publisher, and thus directly meets WP:RS as has been stated a number of times in the past.  That there is a distinct difference between what is explicitly stated to be the opinions of a reviewer and the scholarly published book is a simple obvious statement. Collect (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Aronson's reflections have been published by equally reputable scholarly publisher (Wesleyan University/Wiley), and I am not sure you have been able to explain the difference between Aronson's and Courtois' reflections. Do you argue that a book (which, by the way, have not been peer-reviewed before publication) is more reliable then a journal article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "reflections" are not a "book" and the fact that the journal is published by Wesleyan does not make a review in a journal into a book when the journal states it is "reflections".  Or do you think OP=Eds in the NYT become "reliable sources" for anything more than the opinions expressed therein?  "Reflections" are precisely analogous to "op-Ed" as a matter of fact, or to "nbook reviews" which this is.  Would you use an NYT book review as a reliable source for anything more than opinion?  Cheers - but I think you seem exceedingly invested in promoting this as the grestest source on earth. Collect (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking, I am more interested to know the reasons why do you think that a 24 page long article published in peer reviewed scholarly journal has lesser weight that the introduction to the (non-peer-reviewed) book. I am also wondering why do you equate NYT, a newspaper intended for general public, with "History and Theory", a specialized scholarly journal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a "book review" as referred to above but rather a review article - that is an article length treatment by an acknowledged expert in the field of a range of methodological and interpretative issues relating to a particular historiographical topic. This particular article happens to be a very fair, even-handed, insightful and non-polemical variant of the genre. It absolutely qualifies as a reliable source. In fact, as a secondary review of the field, it's an ideal source for wikipedia and this topic.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As has already been stated on this thread, History and Theory is a peer-reviewed journal . Well indexed too . FiachraByrne (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are the "reflections" peer-reviewed as to content and opinions?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewing is not a necessary criterion. If some author is invited to write a review, that means his views are notable enough. By writing that, I do not imply this article is not peer-reviewed, my point is that peer-review is just one possible procedure to ensure good quality.
 * In addition, many, if not most books (including the books published by university presses) are not peer-reviewed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And why would you not accept that opinions should be cited as opinion? Collect (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do accept that. Moreover, all secondary sources present nothing but an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.. In connection to that, and, taking into account that these opinia should be attributed in the text to particular sources, I simply do not understand your question.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul...what is it exactly that you are asking?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My question is simple: is the above named source a reliable secondary source. The problem is that during the discussion on the article's talk page my opponents (including Collect) reject this source without providing any reasonable explanation. That is why I decided to ask uninvolved users about this source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Collect. I'm not sure I understand your question or, rather, peer review doesn't really apply such an intellectual division. In any case, this is a review article. As suggested by Paul Siebert, the likelihood is Aronson was invited to write the article by the review editor of the journal and would have been selected as an acknowledged expert in the field. The article itself may or may not have been formally peer reviewed (as it's not a primary research article, probably not) but would still require editorial approval (principally from the review editor). That would be the norm in any case and entirely unremarkable. I'd also point out that according to WP:IRS for scholarly sources "a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper" and this source fits the bill perfectly. It's been published in a serious academic journal for the discipline according to scholarly norms - it's a completely non-controversial reliable source for WP in my opinion. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul Siebert. There's no rational reason and certainly no valid argument presented here for the rejection this source.
 * Hi again Collect. I note you wrote the following and you'll forgive me if I quote you but I think it reveals a certain interpretative difficulty in the evaluation of reliable sources:

"Aronson's article is, in fact, a review and explicitly represents "reflections" by the author. The BBoC is, however, published as a book by a respected scholarly publisher, and thus directly meets WP:RS as has been stated a number of times in the past. That there is a distinct difference between what is explicitly stated to be the opinions of a reviewer and the scholarly published book is a simple obvious statement"


 * First, I'm not sure why the fact that one source is considered reliable would disqualify another. In any case, there's no basis to disqualify a source because it's reflective, interpretative or expresses an opinion. In fact, texts by historians, insofar as they are not simply collections of empirical data, are necessarily interpretative and reflective rather than mindless. This is distinct, of course, from being polemical or ideological which are opinions unrelated or poorly related to empirical data and context. Better opinions and interpretations necessarily provide a more plausible and contextualised reading of the data and sources. If you insist on comparing these sources as to their reliability the one point I would make is that the editor's introduction and conclusion to the Black Book of Communism deviated from the conclusions of some of the authors' in the edited collection whose primary research his claims were based upon. This occasioned, rather remarkably, a very public split amongst the volume's contributors due to the contentiousness of the editor's claims. I can't think of any other example of a similar occurrence with an academic publication. That in itself should give one pause before uncritically accepting the claims of the volume editor and I presume that this fact is prominently reflected in the article? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fiachra. I believe, the discussion demonstrated that the source we are discussing is a top quality reliable source reflecting majority or significant minority views. Does anyone object to this conclusion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all -- it's very much the right conclusion. Use of the word "reflections" in the title of a journal article does not mean the article has not been reviewed, nor does it mean it is anything other than a scholarly source of the usual sort.  Far too much has been made (by some) of that word here.  (Some of my best friends have published good scholarly articles with titles containing that word...)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - it is not a reliable source other than for opinion cited and identified as the author's opinion here. No more, no less.  And there appears to be a real question as to whether a "peer review" of "reflections" occurred at all - at this point, I suggest that as an expert, his opinions are usable as opinions, but not usable for anything else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an article that professional historians would cite as a reliable, expert analysis of a specific historiographical issue by a recognized authority published in a leading journal that specializes in historiography.  This article is not made up of reflections or opinions but is instead an expert analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of specific arguments in specific books. Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is, as usual on this board, reliable to support what statement, in what article. For the article on the "Black Book" itself, it is exactly the kind of source needed. Articles on books ought to include how they are received, and if there are reviews in academic journals they should be used. For historical fact, too, book reviews in scholarly journals should usually be good. I will raise that on the talk page of WP:HISTRS for further views, though, as it's something we should explicitly mention as we work up the proposed guidelines. Extended review essays of this typie are probably slightly better than short reviews of single books, although they are not comparable to the systematic reviews found in the medical journals. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect repeatedly refers to "reflections" -- that term is not used in the journal article by Aronson; where did Collect get it? and where does he get the notion that scholarly reviews are "opinion"?  Actually what we have in the article is careful scholarly analysis based on wide scholarship covering numerous countries over several decades.Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)  Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Second post in this very section by Luke:
 * It does however state that it accepts the "reflections" of prominent international thinkers
 * I trust this answwers your question. And I trust Luke did not fabulize a quote - as some appear to have done. Collect (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your explanations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lodi News-Sentinel story
Is the Lodi News-Sentinel story a reliable source in the context it is used?: "According to a Lodi News-Sentinel news story written in the 1960s, in then contemporary Nepal an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. If it's correct, it should be possible to find a much better source. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're using this for, but this article in the Nepali Times discusses similar issues, and is more current. Maybe that would achieve a similar purpose. I'm not really familiar with the reputation of the Nepali Times, but it's probably okay for this material. The Blue Canoe  12:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) There are plenty of decent references for an incident in 2006 - including the BBC - where a woman got 12 years in jail for killing a cow. Some of them mention that the maximum sentence is death but I've not checked thoroughly & so have no idea if any of them juxtapose with the sentence for killing a pedestrian. It might be synthesis to use two sources to achieve that comparison. See these search results. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * the Lodi newspaper reprinted a UPI story (UPI was a news agency like the AP). The UPI story is a travel account by a mountain climber, who clearly is not a RS. Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is not sufficiently sourced. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a good source. UPI at that time was one of the best news-gathering organizations in the world, particularly good in South America. It would have not put out a story unless it relied on the source as credible and would have issued a correction if an error was called to its attention. That said, it would be best to give the name of the author. "According to H.J. Wellman, in an article written for United Press International . . . " GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that it is most likely an unbalanced characterization of the topic presented. Our article reads at present:


 * "According to a Lodi News-Sentinel news story written in the 1960s, in then contemporary Nepal an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow.[82]"


 * So what? Is there more to it than that? This is an article about Cattle. Is this even the entirety of the law in 1960? And what does this say about the current state of law in that jurisdiction today regarding cows and pedestrians? Nothing. This is anecdotal and related to us by a travel agent. I don't think it belongs in our article. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not reasonable to use a travel article (not even a news article), especially this old, as a source for the laws of any country. Also, it is not according to the newspaper that carried the story, but according to the author of the story.  And if no more recent source has commented on the law, then it cannot be very noteworthy.  TFD (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the source is Reliable: It wouldn't have done the author or UPI much good to make up the fact. Whether or not the actual details should be used is, I think, up to the editors working on this story and is better addressed on the Talk Page of that article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ashley Publication on Tenedos/Bozcaada page
Source:  Article The Ashley book is used for a couple lines in the Tenedos article. Having read many other discussions of Alexander the Great and the island, most downplay the island, but Ashley refers to the island many times. I was curious, looked into it and do not believe J.R. Ashley or his source for most of the claims about the island, Curtius, are reputable sources per Identifying reliable sources, namely the line that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". This has been discussed on the Tenedos talk page and one editor asked me to "seek an advisory opinion at WP:RSN." (Although others agree the source is not reliable) I'm here to get an uninvolved opinion. Question: Is Ashley a reputable source for specifics about the island of Tenedos? (Since exhaustiveness is the best way to handle things on that article, I'll follow that here.)
 * 1) (A) Ashley specific claims and use in Tenedos Article:

(This claim above is the one that first got me interested in the source, because it seems in most histories that the 100 ships went to Sifnos, see here, here for Arrian, here. Ashley does talk about the ships then going to Sifnos, but the 100 ships to Tenedos rather than 100 ships to Sifnos was just weird)


 * 1) (B) Ashley has a poor reputation for checking the facts. Waldemar Heckler writes: "nor should students be encouraged to consult the error-ridden and amateurish Macedonian Empire by James R. Ashley." Michael Witby wrote in the Classical review about this book that: "this is no more than a synthesis of some English-language scholarship compiled by an enthusiast for historical wargames...There is no indication that A. has visited the site of any of the major battles, which might have seemed essential preparation for a specifically military study, and he does not refer to specialist discussions of topography. Bibliographical knowledge is generally poor...I would have preferred to welcome the initiative of an amateur enthusiast on the basis that the interest of outsiders is good for the subject, but this volume claims far too much for itself and all readers must beware." (Michael Whitby 1999, The Classical Review, Vol. 49, No. 2)
 * 2) Ashley's source for Tenedos claims is Curtius who is known (even by Ashley) to have a poor reputation for checking the facts. W.W. Tarn described his history as "a mass of problems", with "extraordinary carelessness", and (most damning for its use in this article) "the amateurishness is obvious; he often cares nothing whether or not he gets events in the right order, whether his geography is confused, whether he gives the wrong names...he is going to create a certain impression and he creates it." pg. 91-92 of Alexander the Great vol. I. Michael van Albrecht, "Curtius is unreliable as a geographer and a historian; especially his rhetorical description of battles is misleading" (A History of Roman Literature), Cummings history of Alexander the Great calls Curtius "utterly unreliable", Kenney's Cambridge History of Classical History makes clear "his geography is deplorable", his "irresponsibility and nonchalance are demonstrated repeatedly by inaccuracies, contradictions, implausible fabrication of detail...and above all freely confessed willingness to mislead".
 * 3) So any help, are Ashley's claims reliable? Or am I off here. Thank you for your time. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We should be using the best possible sources, which in this case would be books by historians, not popular writers with no relevant qualifications, and whose books have not been fact-checked. However, rs does allow these books so you need to address the errors on a case by case basis.  TFD (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thank you! AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the ultimate source is Curtius it sounds like it will make sense to ultimately mention what Curtius said, not necessarily as facts, but as notable reports, because for such ancient sources nearly every source is closely studied and notable. But ideally we should add secondary sources by modern historians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

theatrehistory.com
I feel that theatrehistory.com is not a suitable source, but I'm not an expert in this area and would appreciate comments from editors with more expertise. My apologies if this is the wrong place to post this.

Theatrehistory.com is a collection of web pages that, in many cases, contain verbatim copies of previously published works. Links to the site can be found in many WP articles, both as external links and in citations. The website has numerous advertisements and commercial links are sprinkled throughout. When I click internal links, I often get a popup window that advertises Netflix, etc. There is no "about this site" discussion, so one cannot be sure of the purpose of the site or the motives or identity of its operator, nor can the authority of its nameless authors be determined. Aside from the spam aspect, I'm concerned about possible copyvios; all of the works I've looked at so far were published before 1923 or lack an author's name, but I haven't examined every copied work at the site. On the other hand, if there are no copyvios, the copied works are readily available as primary sources, which are more direct (and less offensive) than this tertiary source. Lambtron (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please give examples of what you see as copyvios? I have linked to articles in this section of the site and the linked sections.  I am not aware of any copyvios, although it contains some quotations from public domain materials that appear to be properly attributed.  This part of the site contains a collection of short articles about theatre works, together with references to lots of research links, as well as presenting the full searchable text to many public domain plays.  For articles about theatre and theatre works, it seems to be very useful.  Can you elaborate please?  Note that we prefer secondary sources to primary sources.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick search on google reveals that TheatreHistory.com is recommended by other theatre sites, such as Jewish-Theatre.com, and it is recommended in this Theatre History Resource Guide. This teacher site calls it a "smorgasboard of information".  This teacher site says: "This is a comprehensive academically-oriented site that is almost an e-course. It provides insight into issue of theatre history as well as an index of topics and other features.". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from the argumentum ad populum rationale, why should an article cite a verbatim copy of a work when it can cite the original? Lambtron (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The texts available at that site are reliable publications with the original source provided – the authors are not "nameless". Lambtron wrote that no copyright violations could be found; so what's the concern? Lambtron also seems to be confused what primary and secondary sources are. We don't prohibit links to websites because they carry advertisements (IMDb, IBDB, YouTube, …). There is an identical discussion at External links/Noticeboard. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Example of nameless author: "SOUTH PACIFIC", linked to from South Pacific (musical). There are many others, and several of those are used in WP citations. BTW, this discussion is about reliable sources, whereas External links/Noticeboard is concerned with EL; both threads are concerned with theatrehistory.com, but they are not identical as you surmised. Lambtron (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a case where a book which is reliable is being cited in such a way that there is a URL linking to a copy or transcription of that book? That is not uncommon (consider Google books) and is referred to as a convenience link. The URL in such a case is just a convenient link to the copy but the citation in such a case would name the book. If I misunderstand then my apologies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's a discussion, written by an unnamed author, about a well-known book. Lambtron (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some kind of confusion here: The South Pacific article on the site is an article about the musical, not about a book. The content is prepared by the editors of the site.  It consists of a one-paragraph discussion of the musical, followed by a four-paragraph plot synopsis.  It's true that the editor/author of the article is not named, but many websites have editorial content that is not credited to a particular author.  For example BroadwayWorld.com, which is cited thousands of times in Wikipedia.  In this case, the website is, as I pointed out above, a source that is praised by many users, including teacher resources and theatre resource guides.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It is written by an unnamed author and I have no idea who that is, nor does the site give any hint about who the editors are or, for that matter, who is responsible for the site's content. Consequently, the article has approximately the reliability of a blog. And in case it's not obvious, argumentum ad populum doesn't mitigate this or other critical shortcomings. Lambtron (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * even if it is being used as a convenience link like googlebooks, there still has to be unambiguous certainty that what we are linking to is an actual valid copy being hosted within appropriate copyright arrangements. WP:ELNEVER. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of PhD dissertation on La Luz del Mundo?
As one of the primary contributors to La Luz del Mundo (which is currently undergoing a major overhaul), I have a question:


 * 1) Can a PhD dissertation be used to provide substantially large amounts of information to a wikipedia article?

The reason I ask is because this dissertation written by Jason H. Dormady is referenced way too many times (in my opinion) in La Luz del Mundo (by doing a search for "Dormady" on that page, one can see it is referenced at least 16 times). I don't think that the issue is whether or not a PhD dissertation is WP:RS; rather I'm wondering if this dissertation holds much weight to be afforded such an elaborate presentation on the La Luz del Mundo article. Most of the history section of this article found here references this dissertation.

All comments are greatly appreciated! Regards, RidjalA (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if it is published with peer-review in a respectable source, it could be used as a RS. Certain disciplines prefer books to journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The number of times it is used is not in and of itself a problem. It may be indicative of a problem, though, but that will have to be decided on other criteria than mere number. Are there any specific statements sourced to the dissertation that seem problematic? Or any concrete reasons to believe that the dissertation is unreliable? As for weight, that's really a question for WP:NPOVN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I do feel that it's become problematic, especially since La Luz del Mundo was recently tagged for NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:COATRACK, and a few other issues. I think this dissertation might be contributing to that problem.


 * This might be somewhat of a weight/NPOV issue, too. One concrete example that I think shows this is in the way it is used to dismiss an excerpt from a book Secrecy and the Institutionalization of Sexual Abuse: The Case of La Luz del Mundo in México, which was co-authored by an Emerita professor. The book's excerpt states:


 * That excerpt was paraphrased in the Controversy section, and was followed by this quotation from Dormady's PhD dissertation:


 * Would we not need a more authoritative or specialized source than a religious history dissertation to make counter-clauses vis-a-vis the book in question? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. RidjalA (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll cut you off here and say that whether the book is co-authored or not by a retired professor does not mean that it is reliable or that it should be assigned as much weight as a doctoral dissertation. If it hasn't been peer-reviewed, probably not. I took a quick look at the article talk page, and notice that there were concerns about the other co-author of the book, the one you failed to mention (just as you failed to mention him on the talk page). Please be forthcoming and transparent with all relevant information. Please don't play games. Anyway, this seems more like a case for WP:POVN than here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dominus and I am also uncomfortable with RidjalA's positioning of the situation. History2007 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dominus and History2007, Please see my response below

Do not tell anyone, but the way those dissertation defenses work is that the smart students pick their committee members in a way that the problems are minimized. There may be other faculty members in the same department that would have failed the student. The committee may not be imposed but student selected. In many cases some committee members do not even read the whole dissertation, but have generally made their mind up about the student as "scholar or hopeless" in the past 3 years, as they have observed him/her. So a PhD thesis is generally interesting to read, but if it does not get published as a book, etc. by a good publishers, I would not totally rely on it. But in this case, he may have good pointers to follow. But a number of items used in the article based on the thesis are non-controversial, and could hence be used for sure. Overall, his thesis looks good to use for those basic assertions, regardless of how many are used. History2007 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also an editor on the page in question. Dormady is an established historian, see . He also wrote a book based on his dissertation which is going, and is, to be used to cite some if not all of his dissertation claims. Revista Academica's authors and collaboraters lack any credentials in history, thus I feel that a historian has more or equal weight to Revista Academica's contributors when it comes to events that happened in 1942. One of the co-authors, the retired professor, was a professor of cultural studies and education (not really a scholar in the social sciences) while the other co-auther with a shady past (and an arrest warrant in Mexico for involvement in child trafficking according to the Mexican media) only has degrees in theology and philosophy. Anthropologist Carlos Garma Navarro says that Revista Academica is highly critical of the church in "La situacion legal de la minorias religiousas en Mexico: Balance actual, Problemas y conflictos" published in "Revista Mexicana de Sociologia" Vol 9 Number 018, 1999 published by the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Itzapalapa (His comments are in the footnotes). So it is important to use a Historian's words to act as another POV. There is a review of a book written about the church by Anthropologist De La Toree, in the review another scholar mentions the events of 1942 and provides a clearer picture that aligns more to Dormady's version as opposed to Revista Academica's version. Since Dormady's dissertation claims on 1942 (and by extension his published book) are supported by Mexican Scholars I'd say that it is RS for that one topic and can be used. I hope this information is helpful to anyone willing to voice an opinion. Thank you. Fordx12 (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dominus Vobisdu and History2007, I'll start off by apologizing for not being more forthcoming; my intention was to avoid all of these side narratives that have snowballed into prolonged and exhausting discussions so that we may avoid the drama and instead discuss policy from independent perspectives.


 * As far as Erdely goes, he's published how the LLDM church had been able to get away with many of these allegations of abuse in Mexico because of its close ties with government officials (if in fact the Mexican government issued a warrant for Erdely's arrest, from my POV that's not too far apart from what Sweden is doing to Julius Asange; it's a red herring to dismiss his credibility, and steer focus away from what he's published; and if there exists such a warrant against Erdely it may be an attempt to capture and torture him in much the same way police and church members did to Moises Padilla after he made allegations of abuse against the leader of LLDM )
 * The only two users on wikipedia to have consistently gone to great lengths to discredit this book and give more weight to the dissertation have shown signs of belonging to or promoting the church (one of them is the person who commented right above me, and we're currently sorting out a dispute resolution here).
 * Now back to the dissertation, I don't disagree that Dormady is an established historian. But I don't know that these allegations of abuse surrounding LLDM were ever the scope of his dissertation, especially so early on in his career. RidjalA (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, then no scholarly source can possibly be used since Revista Academica is the only source that alleges sexual abuses. To expect scholars like Patrica Fortuny to discuss events they seem to completely ignored is a bad prerequisite for using a source. In that case, RA is discussing contemporary issues, not issues of 1942. Then by RidjalA's logic, RA shouldn't be used as a source for the events, or alleged events, of 1942. However, that is not the case.


 * The fact is that Mexican scholars outside of RA don't even discuss the "institutionalization of sexual abuse" in LLDM and only mention accusations in passing (if that). Dormady and Gonzalez both commented on the events of 1942, yet neither of them went to the conclusions of RA. Those are viable opinions from two reliable sources. It is not the fault of other scholars if they don't believe that the church is a dangerous depraved cult ruining the lives of children and the poor (Which sums up RA's thesis). That cannot be used as a basis to discount their writings sources that provide other POV's on any given issue. It is alarming that allegations against the church are being taken as proven facts, and anything that counters the source of those allegations are not considered reliable and that some sort of government conspiracy with a protestant church in one of the most Catholic nations in the world is at play. This is exactly why these sources should be used. Fordx12 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Mantak Chia on human sexuality (medicine)
Are Mantak Chia or his books reliable sources on human sexuality according to WP:RSMED? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No because he does not write for a professional medical audience. TFD (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me rephrase: if I asked "Are Taoist writings reliable sources on human sexuality according to WP:RSMED?" the answer would be "No, since Taoism isn't a scientific theory." or "Taoism is no mainstream medical science." Right? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to let us know the article concerned,the statement to be supported and the details of the source. His books will not meet MEDRS but some of the ideas are notable and have been described in independent sourcesItsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Taoist writings are indeed reliable for providing the Taoist viewpoint, on those articles where it comes up as relevant, but they should be attributed as such. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I see in the Mantak Chia article as it stands, very few of the assertions are even backed by independent secondary sources, let alone MEDRS. It seems to be in need of a serious scrubdown to distinguish the portions based solely on his own assertions from those based on independent RS. Only the latter should be used to support assertions in the voice of the encyclopedia. I'd need to be convinced some that "Taoist writings are indeed reliable for providing the Taoist viewpoint" is relevant: that is, do we have reliable sources to support the proposition that M.C.'s writings are representative of a broader consensus Taoist view, rather than one of many competing Taoist views. Frankly the present state of the article is far less than convincing. But OTQ, no, Taoism is not science and especially not medical science. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at any article (which article?) I was merely stating what the principle is.  Conversely, if Taoism is not particularly relevant to a given article 'x', then of course Taoist writings should probably not be used in it at all.. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was trying to make the case perfectly clear to myself, since on the Romanian article on masturbation talk page an editor says he intends to include the Taoist viewpoint that relatively frequent ejaculation leads to "exhaustion and devitalizing", while orgasms without ejaculation preserve some vital force. Since the Romanian Wikipedia does not have a RS/N, I thought I could post the case here. Frankly, I just considered it a bizarre encyclopedic wish, I had no doubts that Taoism does not reflect the medical consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here on en, we have a home for that info at Religious views on masturbation, but I don't know how ro. would want to handle it... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no topic there with religious views on masturbation, just a mention of Onan and the Bible. He said he wants to include Taoist viewpoints as medical facts, not as subjective opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do concede that initially he framed it as an edit reflecting the subjective views of Tantra and Taoism, but he later engaged in an anti-intellectual polemic saying "We don't learn the great truths from academias and universities but only from the books of these spiritual masters and science follows upon the tracks of religion proving that there are unseen worlds, life after death, an energetic body, soul etc...". Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, you may be more intellectual than me on that one! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread doesn't seem to relate to any particular article on en.wiki. We can't comment on sourcing on Romanian Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As said, on the Romanian Wikipedia there is no such thing as RS/N. Besides, the same mainstream medicine is practiced in Romania as in UK, US, Canada and Australia. So, what's no reliable medical information in these countries is no reliable medical information in Romania. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack on Sydney Harbour
Hi. I have been working on this article for quite a while and just became aware of new information in the form of old (1942) copies of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph (Australia). Most of the info is archived and is already referred to in the article, but there is some that is not. I know these are OK sources (though weight issues will need discussion) but my question is: what do I need to do? Should I scan the relevant pages and upload them to Photobucket? Would that suffice? Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not obliged to make sources electronically available, though it would be nice if you did. But another issue you need to consider is the reliability of the sources,  There was a war on and all newspapers were subject to strict censorship and regularly published official misinformation. Zerotalk 13:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The newspapers are certainly RS for what was "publically announced information" which is likely of value to readers. I am concerned, howeverm about excessive reliance on too few sources overall - almost all of the article appears based on only three sources. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Publically announced information" was exactly what I had in mind...what the citizens of Sydney and Newcastle were told at the time and believed, and how it affected their lives. We have drawn admittedly heavily on Jenkins, Grose and Carruthers, but these are high quality sources and are augmented by Stevens, Fulford, Hasham, Rickard, Wurth and the NSW Heritage Organisation. Perhaps it would be good to look further afield. Anyway, the electronic side of it was my main question, so thank you for that. Rumiton (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Grande Rock
An editor has been adding http://www.grande-rock.com as a reliable source for reviews to album articles: The problems I have are that there only appear to be two editors and they use pseudonyms--thanos, rockavlon--rather than real names. There doesn't appear to be any indication of who they are. It appears to be a glorified music blog although, based on the interviews, they do have access to a lot of small bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Gold_%26_Bones_%E2%80%93_Part_1&diff=prev&oldid=522183783
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transit_of_Venus_%28album%29&diff=522094058&oldid=520044478
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Gold_%26_Bones_%E2%80%93_Part_1&diff=prev&oldid=522009285
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_2nd_Law&diff=prev&oldid=521915103

Melodicrcok.com is just one person? And so? By the way thanos is not a pseudonym. There also metaltom, dora, newseditor & admin as users. Do not hide things for your won sake. By that you say that an ezine is not notable? There are interviews with small and big bands as well? Does it ring a bell? So, you decide what's notable or not when the band and the labels have already spoken? Soon, there will be a page on wiki about Grande Rock. So, do not get mad. There so many articles that are truly trash do not deal with notable and well-written ones. Hard Rocker 13 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't about Melodicrcok.com.
 * This isn't about notability but reliability.
 * No, none of the bands ring any bells.
 * I'm not deciding anything here, and I'm not mad, I'm trying to discuss with the community to determine if Grande Rock does or does not meet the criteria for reliability.
 * Whether there are a lot of articles that are truly trash or not does not touch on this discussion either. Please focus on this discussion: how can we trust the material at the site? --Walter Görlitz (talk)

Any by the way what do you know about music or what's your background so to say if a post is bad or not? That's just your opinion. You not objective. An ezine is notable when it's more than 10(!) yearls online and is cooperating with bands and labels. If that's not enough for you then that's your problem. Hard Rocker 13 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My background is also immaterial. The issue is whether the site is or isn't a reliable source. Its length of publication doesn't make it reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any indication that the site and its reviewers meet the criteria for professional reviewers/reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The bands Poison, Sabaton, The Flower Kings, Circus Maximus, Threshold, Vision Divine, Sparzanza, Eclipse (just ot name a few) are not meeting your prof criteria?! Then you're probably irrelevant with this kind of music and surely you can't tell what's reliable or not. Hard Rocker 13 16:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If those bands talk to an ezine then that ezine is notable ans reliable. Those bands do not talk to everyone on the net. This ain't you average blog site that a kid owns it. This is a prof ezine by people who have been doing this job for over a decade. Hard Rocker 13 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c)You are obviously unaware of Wikipedia's definition and application of "reliable sources". And for most of the bands you have listed, there are FAR more reliable sources for reviews, and so why would we go to the second or third or fourth level of sources rather than the top tier? And while you may ignore some policies, such as the reliable source policy, with the only implication being that your opinions being ignored because they are not based on the policies, you should make yourself aware of our policy about not making personal attacks on other users, because ignoring that one will get you blocked, quickly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your point. They meet all the criteria. We are not talking for reviews but for bands that have been interviewed. And I believe that criteria for those bands are more strict than wikis where you can find thousands of trash articles. So what's you point here? I say they're meeting all the criteria. What's your say? This is called censorship. I have to deal with two young guys that are irrelevant with music and keep talking without saying anything.Hard Rocker 13 16:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are talking about whether or not grande-rock.com has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that puts it in the arena of being a reliable source or whether it is just some kid or some aging wanna-be-rocker's blog. There is zero evidence to support that it is the former and not the later. And if you continue in making personal attacks against other editors you will be blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It does feel like a blog. There are claims on User talk:AORmaniac13 that the reviewers are retired professionals, but there is no evidence to support this claim. Perhaps if we saw some evidence it might add weight to the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And for the record, we are talking about both reviews and interviews. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done my own searching, and couldn't find anything indicating that this blog is in anyway either notable or reliable. No indication that they have a reputation for factchecking, and they are not cited by serious reliable sources. Without unambiguous and credible evidence to the contrary, the site fails our requirements for a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You make accusations, spreading rumors and telling things that have never happened. This is censorship. Do you get it? I never said about retired reviewers!! OK i'll have to say one more time. This is not a blog. Can you tell the difference between a blog and an ezine? I guess not. Secondly, the bands and the labels that are cooperating with a site are making it reliable and notable. Not a bunch of kids on wiki that killing their time and have nothing to do with the music scene. Obviously neither of you can prove that is not an elephant, neither do I. So what's the point here? This is an uproar that was caused by a couple of fellows around here. Is that how wiki works? There thousands of trash articles around wiki and you wanna shut down a reliable, & notable site that's providing true info about rock/metal music? For what? I think this is called pure fascism.Hard Rocker 13 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, Hitler appeared rather sooner than usual!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Very funny! Hitler & Nazis have nothing to do with fascism. You did learn something today! If there are not any unambiguous and credible evidence to the contrary as you said then why must be put into the non-notable category? Cause you say so? If you can prove than a source is not notable then probably it is notable and reliable. I can't think of better & serious reliable sources that the bands & labels sites. Can you? I can shows you a few sites here in wiki that are not even sites - just blogs that you say they are notable. What are you trying to do here exactly? Hard Rocker 13 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right that there is a LOT of crap on Wikipedia. However, that does not mean that we should allow more crap to accumulate. When a source is challenged, it is the responsibility of the person who wishes to include it to be able to provide evidence that it indeed has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial control. That is not just any one of the editors here right now telling you that, that is the policy that has been widely agreed upon by the entire Wikipedia community. If you do not wish to participate within the community approved methods, then you dont have to participate at all. That is your choice. But it is not an option to participate against the community's processes and policies.
 * And you need to fix your signature to include a link back to your user and/or talk page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So you have already decided? That's it? A couple of guys decided that I should stop posting from Grande Rock, cause you can't prove that it is reliable so you decide that it's not? Huh! Is that the way things go around here? Do I need to bring some friends over to say the opposite? Who gathers the most guys wins?! What happened within a year and a site from notable became non-notable? All the posts till now are fine but from now own are not? How does it go? Hard Rocker 13 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)(talk)
 * No one has decided anything about the site. You're right though, we can't find any other sources that say your site (I'm assuming that you're one of the two contributors to that site) and you haven't provided any yourself, because quite frankly, we may be stupid and lazy and it would help if you educated us and did our work for us. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) very few things are "decided" on Wikipedia within the ~2 hour time frame that this discussion has been going on.
 * And the issue is that YOU (or some other editor) has not been able to produce any evidence that the source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial control.
 * And the site is not going from reliable to not reliable - it is going from not reviewed or properly evaluated to not reliable. The previously added content based on the now evaluated non reliable source will, eventually, get removed. and you can help if you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As for your claim above that "I never said about retired reviewers", I wrote "the reviewers are retired professionals" and so your quote was incorrect. What I was making reference to was "Grande Rock is being run by fully professional editors/musicians who use to be in big printed magazines in the past." I trust that clears that up. Oh, and start to sign your posts correctly. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just informed by the guys that some music labels, other ezines & band sites have used sources from Grande Rock. That according to the wiki article makes it reliable. OK here you go. 1st: http://glassonyonpublicity.wordpress.com/category/review/, 2nd http://gonzo-multimedia.blogspot.gr/search/label/erik%20norlander, 3rd http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records/, 4th http://www.dangerousdogrecords.co.uk/website/AOR_Reviews.html, 5th http://www.thresh.net/marchofprogress.htm. 6th http://unisonicfanclub.com/?s=mandy+meyer&search=Search, 7th http://www.bonrud.com/2012/10/05/grande-rock-reviews-save-tomorrow/. So is that enough to call it reliable or you need more? According to the wiki rules this is more than enough. What's your say now? Will you help me restore the old posts you have erased? Hard Rocker 13 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker so, no. you need third-party, independent sources of estblished credibility noting the value/reliability of the content on a site to establish that the site has a reputation for fact checking etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * labels using content for self promotion of their product do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking
 * non notable blogs citing other blogs do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking
 * bands using content for self promotion of their product do nothing to establish reliability and reputation for fact checking.

Such as? According to the wiki article this is OK. This source http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records does not promote anything. It shows that Grande Rock is notable. Read the last sentence. You cannot bypass things without reading them at all. The blog sources are from labels that have reproduced the reviews. The labels are totally notable, they do not promote anything, just giving some feedback to the fans. Band's Fan Club that has linked to the site isn't good for you? What's good tell me? I think it is OK but you're not really wanna help do things right. All you're saying is no no no? Give me an example of such indie source then. Facebook posts are OK? Twitter? Hard Rocker 13 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker

Here's a source from Blabbermouth - I think you can't say that this ain't notable!!! http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=171270. You can't deny also the fact that the writer of this article is giving reliability to Grande Rock: http://tbfmonline.co.uk/2012/03/28/album-review-wrathchild-stakkattakktwo-perris-records. Other sources: http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/darkology/altered_reflections/, http://www.michaelharrisguitar.com/, http://plotn08.com/2012/09/the-michael-des-barres-band-carnaby-street-2012/. If you wanna help I think all these sources are more than good. I can't prove that I'm not an elephant anymore. There are ezines on wiki that do not have such resources but you have given them the credit. That's unfair. Hard Rocker 13 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker


 * Trivial mentions don't count, so they're not good. Fan forum/forum discussions certainly don't. tbfmonline.co.uk is another blog and so a single non-notable source can't give you any level of notability. If Spin, Rolling Stone or some other music magazine wrote a lengthy article about your site you would have instant reason to be considered notable. At the very least, your links would make the interviews somewhat notable to two bloggers since they duplicated the blogs, but not the review sections. However, since we don't know who the "staff" at the site are, there's no guarantee that the sites mentioned are not alternate persona of the two editors.
 * But again, notability is not what we're discussing and you haven't managed to understand that yet. Have you read the criteria for identifying reliable sources? Please read the whole thing, it should only take a few minutes. Once complete, re-read the Self-published and questionable sources section.
 * Nice to see you've figured the signature thing out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Was just about to post a question here about this site (THEN SAW THIS) - I have  reverted some  additions about  site  here - as I have never heard of this site before. I see there is a problem - hope it can be solve.Moxy (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a champ Moxy. Sure you don't want to stick around? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that you do not care to give any help. Blabbermouth is the biggest site out there. Linking back to Grande Rock means that the site has something good to offer. A notable site gives credit to another one that's notable & reliable. Can you tell me if ever Spin or Rolling Stone have published an article for a webzine?! Not even for Blabber! OK I got it if Rolling Stone talks about Grande Rock then it will be notable or else not. So, I'll make you a list of how many webzines you have to delete from wiki. For every reliable link you have something to say. That means you're kinda biased. You say the source is bad and then a great site like Blabber use a source from that site! I guess Blabber is not good either for you. I have read the article far too many times. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's what Blabbermout & TBFMonline have done! Tell me why these sites are better than Grande Rock and which big site has made any reference to them: Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? As for the two alternate persona etc. I can only take as a joke right! There's a complete list on the old site as well. It's been up for more than 10 years, this at least should mean something! Hard Rocker 13 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker


 * Please read the following policies CAREFULLY: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. That will explain why you are not making any headway here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * AORmaniac13, please stop with the ridiculous exaggeration. Blabbermouth isn't even one of the to 1000 sites on the Internet. http://www.google.com/adplanner/static/top1000 . Alexa.com's ranking of it is 16,179. The fact that they linked back to you means you had one thing to say. If they wrote a feature article about your site, it would mean that you had something good to offer. I hate to say it, but the rest of what yous said is self-deluded. If Rolling Stone or Spin linked to something on the site it still wouldn't mean it was reliable. If your site was specifically written about by another source--a feature article--then it would mean something. Being up for ten years means you should see a physician. I thought that Viagra suggested that if you're up for four hours you should see a doctor. What you're missing is that those other sites have an actual staff that is identified. Yours doesn't. Those other sites have been referenced by other reliable sources as being worthwhile. Your site has had links related to band interviews--something I was doing in the 1980s, and I can confirm I'm not a RS.
 * While Google searches can only really tell us the relative importance of websites, it would help your case if when I searched for Grande Rock that your website would appear first and not a Wikipedia article about an album of the same name. Your Alexa.com ranking is [www.alexa.com/siteinfo/grande-rock.com 4,750,840] and indicates that 59 sites link-in. If you had more than 210 Facebook likes. If you had more than 129 Twitter followers (I'm a nobody and have 79 followers). A source that is barely reliable, Jesus Freak Hideout has more than 10,000 followers. This particular site is has an Alexa rating of 133,760 with 704 linking-in. So it doesn't seem you're particularly popular. Please drop the pretense that you are.
 * Now back to the my greatest concern: the reviewers are unidentified. At this point if you were to appear on some Greek talk show, or perhaps be written about by a Greek-language music magazine--a feature article--that would show that people respect you. If we understood the editorial process: are you paid by the bands or their labels to write about them; are you paying to buy the music; is it sent to you with no expectations to review or comment; that would help us understand a few elements. If there was a complete list of staff, that would help too. And for finally, when we link to things like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR and suggest you read them, please do it. If you use the terminology found in them instead of making-up your own, it would help confer respect and understanding.
 * I think we all understand that English is not your primary language, so if you need us to elaborate or talk about specific items in those articles please ask. However, if you insist on making-up your own criteria, you're going to lose us. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I do realize that a couple of guys are wannabe the wiki-judges here. You know when accusing a site of not being reliable in public without being able to proved it if needed then this is called detraction. I'd like to know the full names of you guys hiding behind anonymity and talking trash about a site without carrying if that will affect people's jobs or not. If you can't prove that a site is non-notable then surely it's notable. The same goes if you can't approve that someone's guilty then he's not. It's so easy for you to understand. I told you there's a complete list of people being especially in the Greek rock/metal scene for ages. The editorial process is the same for every reliable webzine. There's a cooperation with labels that sending stuff (digital & physical) and expect feedback, artist & bands (big and small) that are being interviewed, people that arranging live shows have also added Grande Rock on their posters (wanna see some?). What do you need? As for the Facebook and Twitter I cans see that you not aware of how things work. Check out Myspace 4 thousands friends isn't good for you? Once it was Myspace not it's FB... and so on. Those profiles are less than a year created.

You didn't tell me if those webzines are also reliable and if they were featured in Rolling Stone?! Prefix Magazine, Drowned in Sound, musicOMH, Tiny Mix Tapes, This Is Fake DIY??? You're trying to avoid it. There are ads by labels on magazines that are featuring quotes from Grande Rock's reviews? Is that good for you? Wanna see some links? By the way do you have anything to do with music in general or just fooling around? You are just a user like me. Your word doesn't count more. Is there an Admin here or what? And yes, Blabber is consider to be one of the top 5 sites in rock/metal music. We're talking about music sites, you can't obviously compare it with FB! You know how to misrepresent things! I see that this site isn't good for you. You're probably are an ultimate wiki-Judge or something.Hard Rocker 13 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker


 * I'm sorry, but you're wasting your time. Nothing you've said makes any sense whatsoever in terms of the relevant policies and guidelines which I pointed out to you above. If your arguments don't conform to these, there is no chance of other editors understanding them and being able to respond to them. Again, please read the policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What's that? An argument? That's why wiki is full of crap articles? If the above arguments do no stand then no other webzine can be featured here as well. Don't you agree? Give me an example to know exactly what are you looking for. And, please stop repeating the same things again and again, it's boring. Hard Rocker 13 13:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Hard Rocker


 * No, I don't agree. I see no point in further discussing the matter with you until you learn to act civilly and read up on our policies and guidelines, and with that attitude of yours, I doubt that anyone else will be interested in what you have to say, either, unless it's backed up by policy and by reliable sources, and stated respectfully and civilly. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dominus Vobisdu. I'm not planning on participating until AORmaniac13 can present some material to comply with the guidelines for inclusion. As it stands, the source should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia as a source for reviews since the reviewers cannot be confirmed. It appears that its interviews may be reliable, but only direct statements from the artists should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * AORmaniac13 asked "I'd like to know the full names of you guys hiding behind anonymity". My full name is Walter Görlitz so I'm sorry, there's no anonymity. We're not talking trash, we're asking questions. We do care if people's jobs are on the line or not, but it doesn't seem as though the site has any full-time staff. It does appear as though they are hiding behind the anonymity of the names of thanos (no family name given) and rockavlon (no full name given).
 * And for the record, your claim that "Hitler & Nazis have nothing to do with fascism" is so utterly ignorant, there's nowhere to start to correct that statement. The German people themselves erected a monument that clearly links Hitler and his party with fascism. You learned something today. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as well-versed on WP's rules when it comes to reliability and notability, but I'll just say this: for a representative of a supposedly "professional" website/ezine/webzine or whatever it's called, AORmaniac13 has thus far conducted himself in an extremely unprofessional manner in almost response he's posted. If that's the kind of attitude staff at Grande Rock want to present to the viewing public, I'd certainly not consider reading any of their reviews, let alone support their increasingly immature and downright hostile requests for a spot on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Personally, I'll stick to relying on established music review publications which refrain from personal insults and poor use of English. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know that AORmaniac13 is a staffer, I'm just assuming that he is. And I'm fairly certain that he's Greek and not English. I'm actually impressed with his facility with English for that reason.
 * I think that we could safely add the site to the Non-professional reviews section now, unless there are objections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added it: WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites. The1337gamer (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally have no objections to the website being added to the non-professional reviews area. Considering how AORmaniac13 spammed this in many directions, and his attitude toward other Wikipedians, I see the addition of Grande Rock to the non-professional reviews as a fit response. I tried on his talk page to discuss his addition of Grande Rock reviews on Wikipedia, but that was somewhat unproductive, if I say so myself. Ever since then, he continued to add the reviews to articles, kind of like single-purpse accounts, and I felt like my hands were tied about the issue.


 * The way that these events played out supply reasoning as to why WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE is so important in these situations, and why review sites need evaluation before they can be displayed on Wikipedia music pages. Wikipedia is a website which can contain all kinds of information from many types of sources, but at the same time Wikipedia does not have an "anything goes" policy in the slightest. When someone wants to advertise their own website on Wikipedia articles, that's against the rules, but one or two offenses, while not favorable, is not a big deal either. However, to perform such self-promotion to this extent, including after receiving warnings advising against this behavior, exploits and doesn't help Wikipedia, nor does it help the website in question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an advertising forum. I will bring up a review site at another thread in this noticeboard, and I'd like to receive feedback on that, if possible. <font color = "2F4F4F">Backtable <font color = "5F9EA0">Speak to me<font color = "DA70D6">concerning my deeds. 07:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify, Wikipedia does not have a vendetta against smaller review websites, and such websites are encouraged to prosper and progress over time. However, spamming all over Wikipedia in order to advertise the website exploits Wikipedia and does n good for neither Wikipedia nor the website in question. Album and band articles can't mention reviews from all websites, because doing so goes against the way Wikipedia works. This Grande Rock website was never green-lighted to be mentioned on Wikipedia; before this discussion, it simply had not been discussed enough to determine whether it met REVSITE or not. I'm glad that something has finally been done about this irritating editing behavior. <font color = "2F4F4F">Backtable <font color = "5F9EA0">Speak to me<font color = "DA70D6">concerning my deeds. 09:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Are these sources sufficient for claims like "he was known" & "was a lead proponent"
Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery is a new article evidently created to make a point (see talk page) about a writer of dubious notability. The claims "r his commentary regarding the Pax Britannica in 1936 when he argued for increased trade and friendly relations between Britain and the USA. He suggested the two nations had a "common interest in preserving the international peace", and was a lead proponent of the Special Relationship," are backed by two sources. One of them is a book by the subject. The other is by Ali Parchami which mentions him but only cursorily. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK for the first statement,not for the second. But just take "lead" out and it is OK. The article was created for dodgy reasons but I think the subject meets notability as an economist because he jointly authored a book with Pareto. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well ahead of me there Judith, thanks. I have significantly improved Bo Gabriel Montgomery's sourcing and obtained his book Ancient Migrations and Royal Houses, Mitre Press, 1968. The inside cover of which can be read on Montgomery's talk page. I have yet to find any reviews of it and although the book may not have achieved great notoriety, the author has and I am hoping to use it as a reliable source to cover a lot of ancient manuscripts that Montgomery seems to have studied in the twenty years between publishing his book on Montgomery family and more recent history. My copy came from Hampshire county library, where it has been used as a reliable source by the people of that county up until 1996 (last stamp). Inside, the details of the publisher are : London : The Mitre Press (Fudge & Co. Ltd.), 52 Lincolns Inn Fields, WC2. printed by The Knole Park Press Ltd., Sevenoaks, Kent. It is a very factual, concise book that gets into the nitty-gritty of history with every source manuscript listed. I think Wikipedia should welcome the book on board as a reliable source. If anyone has any problems or advice with this, please raise a motion. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 01:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The author has no training as a medieval historian. The author has not been recognized as an expert in the area of medieval and royal genealogy, and as far as I can tell has never published a single paper in a peer-reviewed historical or genealogical journal.  The book itself was not published by a scholarly press, and gives no indication that the book has received any editing for accuracy or pre-publication peer evaluation.  None post-publication either - the lack of reviews is good evidence that it is given no scholarly recognition.  The fact that a book was checked out from a library is no evidence of reliability.  The author may be using a lot of primary sources, but a quick look at a few GBooks snippets shows that the author is not following reliable scholarly genealogical method when synthesizing their content.  For example, he has taken two entirely distinct legendary figures, one named Sigurd Snake-in-Eye and the other Frotho, neither of which most scholars even believe existed, and not only puts them in his pedigrees but decides they must be the same person. This is not the product of a reliable genealogist/historian. This is just someone's post-retirement hobby of ancestor-collecting in book form, and it contains enough fringe conclusions to negate the reliability of the entire work. Agricolae (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He isn't a historian. He's an author, an amaetur writing on history. He can't be used as a reliable source or geneaology. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, agreed. That is the way I will attempt to treat his coverage and you are welcome to do what you want to his page to reflect this opinion. Agricolae, you've told me off about page numbers before now. Please put at least a reference (with page number if poss) about your Sigurd concepts because I can't find them anywhere in my history book to explain the correct version this amateur has commented about. Regarding his training and scholarly genealogical record, I feel I have to take you over to the History article now to explain how Bo Gabriel used the last twenty years of his life employing the six auxilliary sciences of proto-history to draw some of his conclusions. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 13:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to add material from his God Kings stuff to other articles, eg at Norse activity in the British Isles. I know you didn't cite him, but that's where it came from and even if there is any truth at all to it, it is an extreme minority view and changing "In 866, Viking armies captured York" to "In 866, Aunite armies captured York" looks disruptive and even if someone involved in this dispute hadn't reverted it, some other editor would have as it simply is not the mainstream view or anything you will find in a standard work on the subject. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to add info from the Three Fragments of Annals of Ireland to correct all this wooliness and get to the bottom of Agricolae's OR argument about some sort of Sigurd ring that he can't explain properly and is causing all the wildy inaccurate information. Sorry for trying to help. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is editing articles to support your view and then using those articles to try to convince Agricolae helping anyone by yourself? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In all the above I see no evidence that this book is a reliable source in our terms. Reviews in reputable journals or by reputable authors? References to his work by other scholars? Other work by him on ancient/medieval history in peer-reviewed publications? If there isn't any such evidence, it's time to close this, concluding that we should not use his book as a reliable source (except on his own opinion that he ought to be a count, if that opinion is notable). Andrew Dalby 09:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't even have to use his own work for his titular claim - a Swedish biographical compendium takes brief notice of Bo Gabriel Montgomery having used his historical research into the early history of the Montgomerys to lay claim to being a count (although in compiling its own tree of the family, this source implicitly rejects the claim and its underlying genealogy). Agricolae (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, then. We wouldn't need a source that agrees with his opinion, merely one that reports it, and preferably a secondary source, which the Swedish compendium must be. Andrew Dalby 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we call him a count on his sayso?
The article says "He was a researcher into the ancient origins of their nobility through which he claimed the title of Count." No sources is given other than his own work. And for some reason his books and his patent are listed with his 'count' name even though that's not the name on the patent or books. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a dubious claim, and without solid and reliable independent sourcing, all claims of a title should be deleted from the article as self-serving. That includes the title of the article and the lede, which should be amended to "Boson Gabiel Montgomery" or "Bo Gabriel Mongomery". The "comte de" is a title, not part of his name, regardless of how he self-styled himself. Without solid sourcing, we cannot acknowledge his title in WP's voice, and even mentioning that he styled himself that way according to self-published sources would not be allowed under the self-serving clause of WP:SPS. As for the patents and books, we should use the name printed on the cover. Using another name would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His name is printed "Count B.G. de Montgomery" on the cover of Ancient Migrations and Royal Houses. Don't know if that makes any difference?  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 01:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'm pretty sure nobody is really a count on their own say-so. Even if they claim it by rightful descent, it is still something that is conferred, right? Also my impression is that the title of "count" can be traced all the way from the Germanic invaders of the Roman Empire, when practically every head of household was a count. I.E. nearly everyone in Europe today is descended from them. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe me, it had to be a pretty big household, even way back then ...
 * Three points, it seems to me: 1. if we have an article about him, what is the pagename to be? 2. What is the text of that article to say about his claim? 3. If we refer to his book, what do we give as the author's name?
 * 1 and 2 might soon be settled by deleting the article, unless there is independent evidence of his notability. End of problem. But I note what Judith says, above: so, if the article is kept, the claim is then probably worth mentioning, but the pagename should be chosen according to the way other people usually refer to him -- his usual name.
 * 3 might be settled if we decide not to refer to the book because it doesn't meet our standard -- no evidence of scholarship, not peer-reviewed, self-published. If we are going to refer to it, the name can be decided on how readers will most easily find the book if they want to. A good way is to check a library catalogue (e.g. British Library) and adopt the form used there. I just checked Cambridge University Library and the form used there is "Montgomery, Bo Gabriel". No count. This is the search page if anyone wants to verify: search for the book title.
 * Before anyone asks, the fact that CUL has the book is no evidence of scholarship or reliability. It's a copyright deposit library and would probably have got the book for that reason :) Andrew Dalby 10:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a big household when they each had like 14 kids, and plenty of conquered farmland for each of the initial settlers to divide up among them! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some good points, but to clarify, the book isn't self-published. There appears to be some sort of peer review on the cover, even if I can't find one elsewhere and Agricolae has noted criticism to this. I would say his work with Vilfredo Pareto is some evidence of scholarship, even if only the amateur type that Doug suggests, plus the fact that he can comment on things that Wikipedia doesn't seem to know much about such as Langfedgetal, Chatti, Aunites and the proto-history of Achaea (ancient region). Other reliable history publications by Mitre press include  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 16:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have to use this book as the source for these proto-history topics, presumably because there is no other source for the material, is not a reason to consider him reliable - it is a reason to consider him fringe. If what he wrote about was reliable, he wouldn't be the sole source.  Other modern scholars would be expressing similar ideas, either independently or in reference to his synthesis.  One shouldn't conclude a book is reliable just because it might be useful in writing new articles, and one shouldn't write new articles just to demonstrate that a book is reliable.  Agricolae (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, It's all going to take much longer, but I am still really looking forward to figuring out what this Sigurd ring concept-idea-OR of yours is when I can get all the wooliness off it, figure out what you're going on about and hack it apart with my shiny, new, purple, Mitre press labelled, history-lightsaber. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks aside, Sigurd Ring? Why would you introduce him into this discussion?  What does Sigurd Ring have to do with the book we are evaluating? How does introducing Sigurd Ring make the author a trained historian?  Does it now mean that he has published genealogical studies in scholarly journals?  Does the invocation of Sigurd Ring mean that this book has now been cited by other scholars?  I am not seeing the logic here that makes Bo Gabriel Montgomery suddenly reliable just because you don't like what was said about a medieval legend in a discussion of a completely different author on another noticeboard. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not making a personal attack, or supporting the Sigurd Ring. I can't figure out how you've created a 'ring' of kings that ends up with Godfrid having a 200 year old brother. Stuff like this does need further discussion somewhere. Please feel free to post an explanation on my talk page why the Count can produce a linear set of dynasties, but we can't. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained about Godfred's brother and you played WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT so I explained it again. Now we have a repeat performance. I will not explain it a third time. The self-proclaimed 'count' can produce a linear set of dynasties by inventing unsupported and unsupportable genealogical connections and taking people with distinct names and histories and proclaiming them to be identical, solely for the purpose of producing that linear set of dynasties. Anyone who does genealogy that way is unreliable and that doesn't change if he happens to be a notable economist, or whatever his day job was. Agricolae (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)