Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141

Are unreliable sources better than no sources?
I recently saw a series of edits where one editor removed sources because they were unreliable (self-published and user-generated) and a second editor restored them because they were the only sources and so "must remain". Is this really the case? I read WP:RS and can't find anything that says that unreliable sources are better than no sources. Doesn't the acceptance of unreliable sources give the reader the impression that the information is credible, when it may not be? I ask this as a general question, rather than one about a specific article because it's an issue that exists everywhere. 75.2.209.11 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we've ever had a discussion about that. I'll have to think about this, but here's what I usually do:
 * If the content is good (it's reasonably well-written, meets NPOV, and other content policies, etc.), and I think a reliable source can be found, I'll either find a better source myself or remove the source and add a tag to it.
 * If the content is bad (poorly written, factually inacurate, fails NPOV) or I don't think a reliable source can be found, I'll remove the content.
 * Another option is to leave the source in and add a tag to it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Always ask yourself whether the topic is notable. If it is not covered in independent sources, probably not. If the topic is definitely notable but most of the article is not supported by sources, perhaps the article needs to be stubbed down. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is all good in an ideal world. In a miriad of cases though, the information is notable and covered in many good sources, but they are not cited... because no one has bothered. Doing it yourself? Well, life is short and all of us have other things to do. Adding proper references to every article I see is lots of work, and don't get me started on things not available online. - BorisG (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At first glance, a low-quality source (or even a very-low-quality source) seems better than no source. However, low-quality sources often go hand in hand with other problems. For instance, if an editor wants the article to say something which reliable sources don't say, that may be a red flag for problems of neutrality or undue weight. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe - It may depend. I remember one controversy where I was an involved editor (CISPA/SOPA) where the author of the major implementation (BIND) of a critical networking protocol (DNS) said on a blog or in a speech, I forget which, that yes indeed the proposed law would break the internet. Since the world wide web depends on DNS, this is pretty close to getting it straight from the horse's mouth, but an opposing editor would not allow it to go in, because, no indeed, it did not meet reliability guidelines. And yet his idea of a good source was Newsmax, which, slanted as it is, does have editorial review...gah. Just saying. I do understand the rationale here, that the average person will not necessarily know who the man is, although -- to complain about this just a little more -- a quick google would have remedied this. My point in sharing this example though is that there are good sources which are not necessarily reliable under Wikipedia policy, and in information technology in particular, since this is where I have run into this, certain personal blogs are very good sources indeed. I do not know how to formulate a rule that will differentiate them from the sort of dross that led to the policy, but....if there is no dispute as to accuracy, I think it depends on whether this is a page someone put up three years ago, or that someone is carefully tending on an ongoing basis, in which case it may be worth discussing the reasons for the sourcing.... Elinruby (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Elinruby: Without knowing the details, I'm not sure if that other editor was correct in say that particular source was unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly, blogs of known experts and notable people are excellent sources of their opinions. It is absurd to think that an opinion expressed in a newspaper interview is more reliable than expressed in the person's own blog. - BorisG (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But that is what a literal reading of the policy gets you. This came out of this board, by the way; you can look it up if you want. The expert's name is Paul Vixie. But that's not the issue. I understand the policy and why that happened; the other editor demanded proof that the expert was indeed an expert, and none of it was to his satisfaction. It was a fairly contentious editing process ;) However, my main point is that sometimes Wikipedia's policy's do not foresee all possibilities. If a source that meets RS guidelines is available, it should be used. But I am just noting that I'm aware of cases where very good sources have been dissed because they did not meet the letter of the policy. How about the blog of a reporter who has been covering a story, to give another example. He's not an "expert" on the topic, except that he will have extensively researched it, and perhaps will be able on his own blog to say things he cannot in his stories. Just saying, it's not always that simple. Elinruby (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that this is that discussion: Daily Caller as source of opinion refuting a technical white paper + secondary sources A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is me and the issue I mention above, yes. I thought it was NewsMax but that may have been one of the other times this went to noticeboards. It was also on NPV, afaik more than once. I came into it on a RfC, matter of fact. But yeah. The idea that some dude with a CCNA is on a par with the author of the protocol is ridiculous on the face of it if you know the field, but admittedly this is difficult to determine if you do not. I do not know the answer to this. Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally no. Anyone can make a website. an editor who wants to publish things in his mind on wikipedia can make homepages under various URLs and refer to himself as a third party. So, in this case its actually worse than unreferenced as it misleadingly lends credibility. Which article and edits is this problem concerning?  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that as per the normal guidelines, there is no simple general rule for a question like this. We need to discuss real examples. All the answers above appear to me to be imagining various situations first, before answering. How bad is the bad source? How bad is the rest of the article? etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * that's pretty much my thought. "It depends" is a bit infuriating as guideline when you are the one trying to follow it, but if everyone is working in good faith it gives better results than wikilawyering based on the exact wording of a policy created by human beings not gifted with all-knowing foresight. Elinruby (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * for the example provided, there is no question. the content was challenged - per WP:BURDEN the person wishing to return must support it with a reliable source. the restoring person's assertation that there are no reliable sources is just the final nail in the coffin. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
 * An informal point here. Have you ever seen a reputed text book or even a good book refer to a blog for a material? Trust me, if I pay $99 for a book and the author says Wikipedia says (or my blog says) cloud computing is ..., I am going to be mightily dissapointed. I mean, the author is not even knowledgable enough to say in his words what such-and-such term means and has to look it up in Wikipedia? Isn't the guy an expert on the subject? Have you ever heard Bill Gates or anyone regarded as an expert on something say don't buy my book, just read my blog!. OK, apart from financial considerations, there are some very good reasons. (1) Authors can rarely negate something from a book they write unless there are major changes. All such changes are supported by extensive reference materials. (2) Books unlike research papers are reviewed (and used) not only by experts but even by laymen and students. The chances of error-correction are much higher. (3) All reputed publishers have limits to how much and what of the original content can be changed over time. Authors can rarely contradict themselves later. (4) Authors have vested interests to keep all volumes updated with latest findings and corrections. Authors and their books have been known to be outdated long before the term became popular in computing. Blogs might stay unattended for a vareity of reasons. (5) Blogs are often used to test an idea before it is published in a formal book... The list is really long, but I hope you get the idea. -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have a very romantic notion of the book production process :) Note that I am not arguing that the policy is wrong, merely that it will need, eventually, to be updated, and sometimes gives bizarre results. As for your question, actually, the online Linux reference is, afaik, considered the definitive reference on the topic. You should check out hadoop.apache.com or php.com, or for that matter Andy Carvin on Twitter, lkml.org, the blogs of glenn greenwald, lawrence lessig, paul vixie or Techdirt. None of these meet RS, but they are all very serious references in their field. But their authority isn't easily demonstrated outside of those fields, and until somebody finds a way to do so its probably worth excluding them to keep out the real trash. But it *is* an issue. Elinruby (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment about removing a citation to an unreliable source: if the passage in the Wikipedia article was written based on an unreliable source, and a reliable source can't readily be found, it is important to remove both the passage and the citation, not just the citation, otherwise it is plagiarism. This applies even if the claim is common knowledge and not challenged. In this situation, the passage could be reworded so as not to plagiarize the unreliable source. On the other hand, if the passage was composed independently by a Wikipedia editor and the citation was added later, just the citation could be removed. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Film review by David Gorski at ScienceBasedMedicine.org of Gabriel Cousens documentary Simply Raw

 * Proposed claim to verify
 * David Gorski of ScienceBasedMedicine.org reviewed the film [Simply Raw] calling it, "Highly effective propaganda."
 * Source:
 * Involved editors (all notified)
 * User:Ocaasi
 * User:LeadSongDog
 * User:Daniel J. Leivick
 * User:HoneyBadgerCowboy
 * User:166.147.89.145
 * User:166.137.210.18
 * User:166.137.210.15


 * Previous discussion at the article talk page
 * Talk:Gabriel_Cousens
 * Talk:Gabriel_Cousens


 * Arguments for inclusion (add/expand this list)
 * ScienceBasedMedicine's authors are all medically trained and have spent years writing for the public about science
 * Gorski is a recognized medical expert written about in multiple third-party publications, he's credentialed academic faculty, and has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals
 * The content is relevant to the area of expertise (science and scientific research)


 * Arguments against inclusion (add/expand this list)
 * Per WP:SPS, the website is self-published
 * Gorski's clinical expertise is in cardiac research not nutrition
 * ScienceBasedMedicine has a "pro-science" bias

Ocaasit &#124; c 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Discusssion
This is quite possibly the most well-presented discussion thread I've ever seen. I can't even tell which side of the issue you fall on, which is to your credit.

The relevant part of the RS policy would be this:
 * "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

David Gorski probably does have relevant expertise per this policy. In introducing his opinion in the article, you can state explicitly that his background is in cardiology.

Where I have a slight problem is with the chosen excerpt from Gorski's work. The fact that he referred to raw food diet film as "highly effective propaganda" does not tell me anything useful. Since Gorski would be quoted in his capacity as a medical expert, and not as a film critic, I would prefer to know what he has to say about the medical science behind the raw food trend. Overall, it seems that it should be possible to use language that is both less sensational and more informative.  The Blue Canoe  22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it may not be the best possible choice of quote. The film itself is of incredibly marginal notability having attracted almost no attention from traditional sources or reviewers.  I think we should simply mention the film's existence in Cousens' article without any of its scientific claims or rebuttals, delete the films article and be done with it.  The whole thing has received so little actual attention that it hardly seems worth mentioning or wasting time discussing. -- Daniel  (talk)  22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback here. I agree that there were more relevant statements about the science in the film and I have thus used a different quote.  It doesn't resolve the RS question, but perhaps it will lead to consensus nonetheless. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Smithsonian Magazine
An editor has twice removed an article from the Smithsonian magazine claiming that it is wrong -"(His book says that... His book says: "Allegedly there is a book written by somebody stating that... And that is not a reliable source." That link is not a reliable source if it claims sth that was never written in the book. I will find all the citations f)". And "The last days of April 1945. Hitler, Martin Boorman, Eva Braun and core "Nazi" leadership fleeing in Antarctica." If you want to check and have Chrome, it will translate. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is at . Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me just check if I'm understanding correctly. The sentence in dispute is this:
 * "In his book Alternative History he [Osmanagić] proposed that Hitler and other leading Nazis escaped to an underground base in Antarctica. "


 * The Smithsonian Magazine is certainly a reliable source. But the other editor seems to be arguing that Osmanagić actually does not make this claim about Hitler. If I'm reading his edit summary correctly, the editor is saying that in Osmanagić's book, he notes the existence of such a theory, but actually dismisses it. If that's true--if in his own book Osmanagić rejects the fantastical Hitler theory--then we need to consider that the Smithsonian writer got it wrong. No one is infallible.


 * I suggest asking the other editor to provide some evidence in support of his position. The Blue Canoe  22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone may actually have to read the book. According to policy if the Smithsonian statement is wrong, çan't it still be entered as RS. Same as the two birth years for Sondra Locke.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof--or, in this case, the burden of reading the book--falls on the editor who wishes to exclude the Smithsonian information. Until compelling countervailing evidence is proffered, the Smithsonian stands as a reliable source.  The Blue Canoe  22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth: This does not appear to be a reliable source, but it predates the Smithsonian article and supports the statement. Location (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the quote from Osmangic I gave at the beginning of this thread show that the Smithsonian article is correct? (hm, no sinebot so I'll carry on) And on the article talk page someone has added "Anybody can read Osmanagic's text about Hitler in his book "Od masona do mentalnih projekcija", chapter "Antarktika (8)" ; http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/AH1.htm#8". Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali (actor)
Another editor has made it his business to delete unsourced content from around the project citing WP:CHALLENGE (and ignoring the part where it says, per WP:PRESERVE, that it's better to try to find sources instead of just deleting).

One of the articles that he has recently targeted was Mohammad Ali, where he removed biographical information. In keeping with my ANI assigned responsibility to wikistalk this user, I'm trying to restore the content that he is too lazy to source himself.

Keeping in mind WP:BIAS, this article is likely to be difficult to source. However, I found http://mazhar.dk/film/stars/mohammadali.html to support the biographical information (i.e., family composition, schooling). My question is whether this would be considered a reliable source? Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that there is any editorial oversight for that source. http://mazhar.dk states: "mazhar.dk is an individual effort and an informative website which contains information's on various topics on Pakistan." Location (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of hoping that we're willing to look past any requirements for peer-reviewed-by-academics because of WP:BIAS, as I said. But is it enough for noncontentious biographical content? &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass drive-by "ref improve" tagging
I wasn't really sure where to bring this concern, but since it concerns sources, I thought I'd start here. Klemen Kocjancic has begun systematically tagging articles with the ref improve tag. (See: .) I question whether such mass tagging is really helpful. In addition, some of the tags make no sense. Small town articles are being tagged when, in fact, everything in the articles is templated geographic and demographic information that is fully sourced (e.g., Anson, Wisconsin, Anton, Texas, Antrim Township, Watonwan County, Minnesota, Antreville, South Carolina, etc.)

Can somebody please stop this editor, quickly? 75.0.193.138 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem here. Most of the information in the specific examples you provided does appear to be cited, however, there are a couple things that could use sourced verification. Perhaps would be better in those instances. I also took a look at 8 or 10 of his recent edits and agree that those articles do need more citations and sourcing. If you have specific concerns, you may want to bring it up on his talk page. Location (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos
Hi, I was looking at the sources for Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos and noticed that some of these may not be reliable. Can anyone shed some light on this?

In particular, I'd like to know about the reliability of the following sources.

(might not be neutral or reliable)

(might not be a neutral source, in addition to questions of its reliability)

http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/altreport/2010/09/horrorcore-rappermurderer-syko-sam-will-rot-behind-bars-4-rest-his-juggalo-life.html

http://gangwar.jigsy.com/entries/general/juggalo-movement-modesto-family-klowns-psychopathic-criminal-klowns-juggalo-rider-bitch-down-2-party-and-nothing-2-lose-2

Also please check the article for neutrality and check the rest of the sources for any that I didn't list here that might not be reliable. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're kidding, right? Usually if a website has video of one of its subjects captioned "See y'all in hell"...you know what, that's a big clue.


 * That Standard link looks like it might be the online version of the local Ogden paper -- it's a maybe. Maybe. Subject to verification. The gangwar link looks like it might be a reprint of mainstream news article, but that's a terrible source just based on the domain name, the layout and the overall tone. Go find the Modesto paper; I am pretty sure there is one and I bet that's where the story came from. The rest of these sources are tabloid at best. No point in even checking the article if the sources are this bad. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed, of these, only the Standard is reliable--it's the Ogden newspaper. There are a few other reliable sources in the article, such as abc nightline & Seattle Weekly And there's   The sections on the "two notable murder cases" are inappropriate emphasis--we have articles on each of them, and that's where the accounts belong. A sentence mentioning each with the link is sufficient. I've boldly done it.    DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com again
An editor has called into question the wether a snopes.com reference is verifiable as it is used on the The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) article. In essence, the question is its reliability. See Talk:The Twelve Days of Christmas (song). Is it reliable or not? The archives seem to suggest a slight split in opinion on the site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com is not a reliable source. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.162.163  (talk • contribs)  06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree; they are among the most reliable sources on the Web for the things they cover. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  10:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears (at a first glance) to be one of those sites whose authors don't easily qualify for WP:RS credentials because of the way they work. They prefer to self-publish on the Web and don't actively seek peer review from academics. If our guidelines on identifying RS were different, they probably would be RS; if our guidelines on citations were different, we would cite them in footnotes anyway, because they publish valuable material and discuss it wisely. I don't see it as likely that our guidelines will change. Andrew Dalby 12:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does anyone seriously dispute that snopes.com doesn't have such a reputation?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It fails RS because it is self-published and does not have a formal editorial policy. This is one of the cases where Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source" does not match everyone else's. For what it is worth, their fact-checking is widely accepted as definitive. But if they have an internal fact-checking process for *their* facts it is not immediately apparent. I have complained elsewhere about some of the perverse results of the policy. However, until somebody can formulate a way to differentiate snopes.com from joeblow.com, the policy is the policy and the purpose of this board is to try to apply the policy. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to tell us the text it is supposed to support. TFD (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

They largely do a decent job, probably better than many of the newspapers that do qualify, but we are in danger of slippery slope if we allow personal impressions to determine what qualifies. They are self-published, with no formal training in journalism, as far as I know, and no formal editorial process other than self-editing. We accept newspaper and books by experts, not because they are more accurate, they often aren't, but because they have a formal editorial process for fact-checking. (Although, as an aside, many people are under the misguided impression that science books are peer-reviewed. They typically are not.) I think there are a number of blogs with a better track record for accuracy than Snopes, and both are better than the NYT, but I don't think we would start accepting blogs as reliable sources simply because some editor has followed one closely and thinks it has a good track record for accuracy. (I know there are exceptions for blogs written by individuals who have been reporters at RS's, but that's different). Frankly, I would love it if we could find a way to allow Snopes as an RS, as well as some of the more careful blogs, but I don't see an easy, objective way to identify those which qualify and those which do not. I tend to use Snopes the same way I use Wikipedia - I accept that they are largely correct, have a bit of a political bias, so certain subjects are more questionable than others, and when in doubt, go tot he sources provided. Snopes is doing a much better job over time of including their refs, which tend to be reliable. This also provides an option for someone wishing to cite Snopes—go to the reference they provide, and cite that.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the Snopes articles it list its references. Are these references considered reliable sources?  It list "The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes" and other things for references for Twelve Days of Christmas one.  I say its a reliable source.   D r e a m Focus  17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally wrong argument above about books being fact-checked. They simply aren't. Publishers publish; they don't fact-check. Take it from me, a published author, or take it from a variety of other published authors whom you may know. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My wording was inelegant, but I was making the same point you were. Many people understand that scientists who publish in journals have those articles peer-reviewed, and mistakenly assume that if the scientist writes a book, it is even more subject to scrutiny. That is not the case. Publishers do have fact-checking processes, which is why books are accepted, but some are better than others, and in general, they do not do peer-review. Some don't bother with fact checking. I have worked with authors of statistical texts whose work was rigorously checked. I've also worked as a fact checker of a book, again statistical related. It is totally wrong to simply declare "They simply aren't", some are better than others, and you may have worked with one that didn't bother, but some do. However, that is fact-checking, not the same as peer review.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oxford University is in fact known for its detail to fact checking. Wikipedia articles for nursery rhymes already use this book as a reliable source.    D r e a m Focus  22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of their prominence and reputation, I'd be inclined to accept Snopes.com as a reference for this. That's not to say it's the best possible reference, or that it can't be overused. Tom Harrison Talk 20:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the snopes articles are listing references, we should be using those references (Assuming they are reliable themselves), instead of trying to justify scopes as secondary or tertiary. In other words, its fine in researching an article, but not as a source within in. --M ASEM  (t) 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Sounds like you are just making up a rule instead of following what the policy actually says. DreamGuy (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Commonly, I've come to sources I know are reliable but they provide references for the claims they make from more reliable sources, so it makes perfect sense to use those.  Unless, of course, we're specifically talking about a claim that snopes.com makes about the information, in which case we have to consider if snopes.com has sufficient editorial control that we can consider these claims as reliable.  My taken on snopes.com is while they trend towards reliable, it is not that great of one and if the claim is controversial, it is far from reliable for that. --M ASEM  (t) 00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com is undeniably a reliable source. It has a tremendous reputation for fact-checking and is well accepted by countless other reliable sources throughout the world. Saying that you should use the sources listed on its page instead of snopes.com itself misses the point, in that those original sources may be where certain facts or claims came from, but the article on snopes.com itself sometimes comes to its own conclusions or introduces its own research. Those articles always have been allowed here as reliable sources, and demanding we use other sources they cite instead can force situations where that other source doesn't back up the part needing a reference here. It's also pretty much the same as demanding that whenever we cite any book that is reliable that also has footnotes or end notes in it to only ever use the sources listed in those footnotes or endnotes instead of the reliable source. It's ridiculous. Now, certainly there are going to be cases where some other source is more appropriate (instead of more reliable) than snopes.com, but trying to claim it's not reliable or only reliable for other sources is simply untrue. DreamGuy (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with DreamGuy here. Snopes is widely accepted as accurate and reliable, and those are the criteria which matter. That they are an exception to the usual publishing methodology I accept as noted, and find it ironic that as we on Wikipedia are also an exception to the usual publishing methodology, we are all the more terrified of accepting anyone else who isn't dead-tree and peer-reviewed. Obviously we must not accept poor sourcing, which almost all such sites are, but blindly following the letter of policy and not being able to see exceptions is wankery. Remember that in all we do, we should be seeking to improve the encyclopedia - not try to ensure we become so rules-bound we forget why we're here. If there are better sources, sure, use them - but eliminating Snopes due to a mindless adherence to rules which are in place to help us identify reliable sources, not in place to help us rule out reliable sources, makes no sense. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for alternative theories on the natural-born-citizen clause?
A discussion has arisen at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (see here) regarding whether WorldNetDaily (WND) is or is not a reliable source for what are generally held to be fringe theories regarding the true meaning of the US Constitution's requirements for the office of President. The person advocating the use of material from WND is also arguing that the alternative theories in question are in fact legitimate viewpoints from "scholarly legal people or groups", which need to be acknowledged in the article in order to preserve NPOV and "illustrate the existence and extent of the controversy" — and that labelling these theories as fringe, and the sources backing them (most of which appear to me to be blogs) as unreliable, is indicative of an attempt "to try to pick a side and suppress the other side".

I challenged the editor in question to take the issue here, but he appeared reluctant to do so (opining instead that "making an 'effort to open up a wider discussion on one of the above noticeboards' is what administrators are for, we're just editors"). I don't agree with this view, but in an effort to move the discussion along and not allow it to simply stagnate, I'm bringing it here. Hopefully I've characterized the other editor's arguments correctly here; if not, I trust he'll correct me.

Comments welcome — here, and/or at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause. Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether or not a theory is fringe is an issue for Fringe theories/Noticeboard. There is no prohibition against discussing alternative theories as long as it is not given undue weight relevant to its prominence. Questions regarding whether or not specific sources for those theories can be used is an issue for this noticeboard. Hard to say until we know what they are.
 * On that point, WorldNetDaily might be a reliable source for a statement about itself or a statement of opinion with attribution, but it is unlikely to be regarded as a reliable source for a statement of fact due to the widely-held perception (true or not) that it publishes from a biased political perspective. As always, context matters. Location (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Three groupings of sources illustrate the problems for this article:


 * 1. Quotes representing “Birther scholars" Being blogs, these are not acceptable sources for showing what is or is not fact; yet, they accurately show why these people believe as they do, what they have said, and what their side of the dispute is. The sources are long legal-thought websites with point after point trying to prove what they have specifically taken to court. They accurately reflect their bias.


 * 2. CRS quotes used in the article itself:“Birther scholar,” Attorney Leo Donofrio, essentially (putting it politely) asks this question of the CRS memoauthor, Attorney Jack Maskell: Why did he reconstruct a key Supreme Court quotewhen he knew the original did not say what the reconstruction said? And, critical to his thrust, “Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.” Depending on interpretation, the change affects the credibility of the CRS memo upon which some of the article is obviously patterned (starting with the first quote and stating the view that the Natural-Born-Clause article reflects).


 * 3. WND (which I think is “over-the-top” frequently). Yet, what source hasn’t taken sides (their bias) on the Birther subject? If you believe Israel’s “Birther” and main-science web portal, then The New York Timesand CNBC among many in the national media) launched pure "Alinskys" against Birthers either maliciously or without doing their homework.  And if countries are watching the issue, as [ http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/ex-communist-nations-expose-obama-fraud/ WND] says they are, then  WND has an argument much bigger than “Fringe.”  That shouldn’t be too hard to verify on the Internet.  Yes, context matters immensely, yet dispute, not Birther fact or fiction, should be the context of the article. See “Fringe or Significant Dispute” on WP:FTN. mintbark 05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WND is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. That's been rather clearly hashed out many times before. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a Flounder
The Character from Disney's The Little Mermaid is not a flounder nor a guppy, the character's a yellow and blue colored tropical fish. I looked up other websites for other atlantic tropical fish I couldn't find an actual species for the character (none of the other atlantic fish has the same colors and/or patterns as him. Some of the other fish species (those that has the same colors and/or patterns as the character) only lives in the Indian and Pacific Oceans). That's why I inserted him as a juvenile atlantic blue tang. Although, the Character and the real life juvenile blue tang's fin shapes and body shapes are not similar, but his body shape and fin shapes are more like an Indo-Pacific regal blue tang.

Atlantic blue tang juvenile
Real life juvenile atlantic blue tangs are bright yellow with golden blue rings around their eyes and the edges of their dorsal and anal fins. Their coloration from yellow juvenile, to yellow-tailed blue subadult, and to blue adult is not a size dependent so they could be larger then the blue adults.


 * Fascinating, but uh...could we get some context here?  The Blue Canoe  05:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the context is this edit and similar ones in that article's history. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously the only source that matters here is someone from Disney saying what sort of fish they modelled the character on. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions about sources at Libertarian Republican
This is in part a BLP issue but I thought I'd bring it here first. I've got doubts about quite a few sources here. Eg:

http://freemontana.com/102_Reasons.pdf for Jerry O'Neil (politician) whose article doesn't say he's libertarian.

Reason.com in general, especially when the article is titled "Libertarian(ish) Candidates" (and again, the subject's article doesn't mention this, see Mia Love.

Ontheissues.org and is [] which says libertarian sufficient to call him libertarian?

GovTrack - maybe, but calls him a centrist, so how can we use it as a source to call him Libertarian? I'm removing the unsourced entries as BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The source could be used in an attributed manner stating X says Y about Z, but as these are BLPs, I would ask for multiple reliable sources be given to verify whether X is Y.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA reliability
Hi. i was wondering if mmajunkie is legit for using as a source. I see it has usatoday at the top. I was wondering about sn nation webdsites such as bloodyelbow? I have also had questions about the validity of bleachereport. Any merit to these questions? And I mean as it relates to enough of these type of articles justifying a fighter/events general notability. Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

mmajunkie

 * Assume to be reliable According to the About page, MMAjunkie.com is owned by USA Today and appears to have editorial oversight.  Unless someone has some contradicting evidence, I would assume that this site meets WP:RS, generally speaking.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assume not to be reliable and view on a case by case basis, a website that caries a "Rumors" (sp) section can't be assumed to have a blanket reliable status; then there is the reliance on "sources close" to things such as this or the 1000+ pages a search turns up for that well known journalistic trick to add an air of respectability to a guess. I also know that the OP agrees with me on this as he clearly viewed the website as "" five weeks ago.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 19:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliability should always be judged on a case by case basis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Assume to be generally reliable It is owned by USA Today and has an established editorial board. While specific articles may have errors, as with any news publication, the site as a whole appears to be reliable. Silver  seren C 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assume not to be reliable - It is at best a fan-press site, and is tightly linked with the covered subject (ie, not an independent source). Ownership by USA Today is irrelevant. News of the World was owned by News Corporation, that didn't add to its reliability either. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it a fan-press site when it has official columnists and an editorial review board? They have a specified staff, it's not a user-written site. It has nothing to do with "fans" at all. Silver  seren C 08:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As with the example of News of the World, the existence of a staff does not indicate an independent reliable source. In this case, USA Today has a sports department and they sometimes use material from MMAJunkie. However, when USA Today publishes such a story they do it under their own masthead, and with additional editorial review. Compare the MMAJunkie headline from today here, which paraphrases the USA Today article here. The USA Today article is in a reliable source, while the MMAJunkie article is based on that article. Yes, the same author is listed. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * USA Today being involved in really only tangential and just serves as an example of an organization that considers it a reliable source of MMA news. But MMAjunkie would be reliable regardless even if separate from USA Today, because it has an in place editorial board to review articles and has a set of specific writers for its articles. Silver  seren C 17:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

bloodyelbow

 * Comment I'm unsure of this site. It's owned by SB Nation, a company I've never heard of.  There's a fan section which is obviously not reliable.  There are news articles, by named authors, but I get the feeling that this is a glorified group/fan blog.  I would lean towarns unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable No evidence of editorial oversight, the SB Nation/about page refers to "involvement of SB Nation bloggers" and "network of fan-centric online sports communities." click on the "by line" of a news article and it takes you to a users section of the site. Again I also know that the OP agrees with me on this as he clearly viewed the website as "" five weeks ago.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 19:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been wrong before. Yes, I do not try to use websites like mmamania and bloodyelbow, unless it is a direct interview with a fighter. Otherwise, the opinions of that site is garbage. With that said, one man's trash is another man's treasure PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not reliable - Fansite generated by bloggers. Even the partent site refers to BloodyElbow as a user generated blog. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

bleachereport

 * Comment This looks like another group blog. They claim to have a rigorous review process to accept writers but I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for Bleacher Report as well for its "largely unpaid contributor base publishes", there is an application to become a contributor, but no evidence of editorial oversight.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 19:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment While hitting the Sports link on CNN.com today a notice popped up that in February, the sports news on CNN will be provided by BleacherReport and no long from SI. Interesting. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This is good. I see more mma coverage in the future. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable - blog and feed aggregator. When the front page of a site is tweets and responses, that's probably not a great sign. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NONENG vs. WP:USERG
Lately I've noticed a recurring trend in articles relating to Japanese topics. If I try to add something that I read in a Japanese book, journal or the like, sometimes I will be asked to give an English source. I can find English sources that say the same thing as the scholarly/reputably Japanese sources, but most of them are some guy's personal website. I don't think anyone would honestly claim that a piece of information that is backed up by both reliable foreign sources and non-reliable English sources should be deleted, but I was wondering which is better?

I ask this now, because on a move request for the page Rashōmon someone brought up the third source it cites, which is the personal website of some guy who doesn't look Japanese but goes by the name Shōriya Aragōrō. He doesn't look like he is a recognized expert in kabuki theatre, much less in the field in question in the article. The question is whether it would be a good idea to go out and locate a Japanese source to replace this one? It's theoretically possible that a reliable source in English says the same thing, but if so it would be very hard to locate; a Japanese source could likely be located with a simple Google search. If self-published English source says the same thing as a reliable foreign source, would it be better to give both for WP:V's sake, or delete the English one as per WP:RS?

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:V doesn't require you to give an unreliable source in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NONENG only says that equivalent English sources are preferable if they exist. If no equivalent English sources exist, WP:NONENG can't be used to disqualify Japanese-language sources. People's private blogs are generally not reliable, so using reliable Japanese sources would be the preferred option. And even if equivalent English sources do exist, WP:NONENG doesn't say that you can never use a Japanese one, it only says English ones are preferred. Having said that, I'd be hesitant to compose entire articles based exclusively on non-English sources. A topic with no reliable English coverage might be seen as failing the notability test as far as English wikipedia is concerned. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there is nothing in WP:Notability that requires any English sources - in fact it explicitly denies the notion, so the lack of them is not a "threat" to article notability. Roger (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yep. there is no requirement that the source be *easily* verifiable, only that it *is* verifiable, either by asking for help from a Japanese speaker, or ordering the book, or whatever. Elinruby (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone! Actually, most notable topics in Japanese literature have been discussed extensively in Japanese sources (and possibly Korean, Chinese...), but if they have been covered in English it is only on a couple of pages of Donald Keene's 4,000-page history of Japanese literature or some such text. Although apparently one similar book by Konishi Jin'ichi was translated into English, which raises the question of whether a translation is more reliable than the original, when if one only cites the translation then the choice of particular terminology might be that of the translator rather than the original author. But I'm rambling now... elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy on non-English sources is pretty clear. As long as an English source of equal validity is not available, the non-English source is acceptable under the same policies and guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I sometimes am involved with bringing in material in from from the French Wikipedia and asked a number of questions about this at one point. The rationale I was told was that if someone is interested in obscure points of French history and culture, something like the various factions of the French Revolution (for example) they may well be doing graduate work and actually read the language; and in any event a reliable French-language source is vastly better than nothing or than the the more superficial treatment that might be available in English. The sources should however meet the other criteria of RS, of course. Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Mecha and Anime Headquarters source reliable?
Im seeing this link --> being used as a source for Gundam articles so my question is, is it a reliable source? I have been trying to clean up the Gundam articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Haven't checked the article, but it appears to be the Mecha and Anime Headquarters, so that at least needs to be fixed. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay and I fixed the heading here as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The part im intrested in is this: it lists the Gundam series and clicking through it (Such as Gundam ZZ --> ) shows detailed information on the show. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Website appears to fall under WP:SPS. I do not see any sub-page on the site, that states who is publishing the content and what (if any) editorial supervision occurs on the website content. Has the source been shown to be a notable expert in the field it is publishing in? If it has not, I do not see this website as a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IM not sure on this but thanks for the feedback the source did seem unreliable to me based on what I saw as well, just wanted a 2nd opinion before doiung anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

rock on the net
A user is repeatedly attempting to use http://www.rockonthenet.com/ as a source for a past Grammy nominee. Specifically, the user is attempting to use as a source for Lita Ford's alleged Grammy nominations from the 1980s and 90s. I'm not familiar at all with this website but it's reliability seems questionable. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChakaKong (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 January 2013‎
 * If Lisa Ford had Grammy noms, there are surely far better sources than that. Not RS. Killer Chihuahua 21:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed. These nominations and awards are widely reported in the mainstream press. Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)
Are the sources used here reliable for the proposed content? An editor has objected to the first line so I provided these further sources, Forcible Displacement Throughout the Ages: Towards an International Convention for the Preventation and Punishment of the Crime of Forcible Displacement Martinus Nijhoff p37. Bonded Labor: Tackling the System of Slavery in South Asia Columbia University Press p130. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts Wiley p98. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review Transaction p128. South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav Ghosh Amsterdam University Press p101. Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World Cambridge University Press p368. as well as links to online books. "what is widely regarded as genocide against the people of what is now Bangladesh" The Changing Character of War p159 "genocide had occurred – a claim that scholars today back up" Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia The editor has also objected to the estimates for women and children raped, however those estimates are backed by excellent sources, but I provided more sources for estimated rape victims   He then begin to demand sources for the number of children raped at which point I lost my temper with him as I found such a question distasteful, nobody knows how many were raped and the question struck me as a deliberate attempt to goad. I believe the sources are RS for the content but require community input to resolve the talk page issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the proposed text which I want to replace a duplicate named section in the article with as a background on the trial.


 * What makes a Brookings Institution paper on US-Pakistan relations a good source for this (especially given that there appear to be lots of specialist works on the topic), and why is a separate reference being given for "women and children" and the high and low estimates of the number of rapes? Also, why is Susan Brownmiller's report being highlighted in this way? (does it reflect the consensus of the other experts views, or is this statement an outlier?). Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Brownmiller is an expert on this conflict, her work is cited by just about every source which discusses it so yes her views would reflect the majority position on the issues. A separate ref was given for women and children as YRC seemed to think it needed one, he is the editor who wanted references for how many children were attacked. There are not as many people working on this as you may think, it is unfortunately a forgotten genocide. The Brooking's source is useful as America backed Pakistan during the conflict. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Brooking's source is useful as America backed Pakistan during the conflict" - that makes no sense in relation to the question you were asking here, which is whether this is a suitable source to use: IMO, it isn't as it has no focus on this controversial subject. If Brownmiller's report represents the majority view, find a source which states this rather than attributing it just to her. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it not reliable for the estimate of 400000 raped? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's focused on an entirely different topic. Find a source with a focus on the topic which provides that figure. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As for Brownmiller her book seems to be cited a great deal. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source?
Hello! I am looking for input on whether this author is a reliable source. Please comment on the discussion at Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Thanks. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Movie Database??
The article Ugetsu currently cites this website for the release date of the film. Since this factoid is easily verifiable in published books by specialists, and is widely written about in English. I've already located another source which is both (apparently) reliable and fits with WP:NONENG.

However, the Japanese Movie Database is an interesting question. It seems to be less "user-generated" than IMDb, but I would be interested in knowing whether it is a no-no to cite it on English Wikipedia?

elvenscout742 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Conference presentation as source in article on Ayurveda
A recent edit in the article on Ayurveda has dated the Rig Veda to 10,000 years ago and has used as a source a 2011 conference presentation. As you may know, the Rig Veda was originally an oral tradition, and there is some question regarding its date of origin. Is this conference presentation considered a reliable source? Here's the ref that the editor uses:

"'A report on the National Seminar, held by 'Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas' Delhi Chapter, (ISERVE-Delhi) on 'Scientific Dating of Ancient Events Before 2000 B.C.' held on 30th and 31st July, 2011, in which the first concensus was that 'The astronomical dates of planetary references in ancient books calculated by the eminent astronomers by making use of planetarium software, indicate the development of an indigenous civilization in India even prior to 6000 BC. Astronomical references in Rigveda represent the sky view of dates belonging to the period from 8000 BC to 4000 BC and those mentioned in Ramayana refer to sky views seen sequentially on dates around 5000 BC.'"

The editor also sourced the information to the I-SERVE website. Thanks much for your feedback. It's been a matter of ongoing discussion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the publications by I–SERVE appear to be peer reviewed. Most members of the institute are not qualified in the relevant academic fields (lot of them are former bureaucrats). The chairman Prof. K. V. Krishnamurthy is, at best, a post graduate in Mathematics. All publications of the institute are self–published. The source appears to be unreliable, more so as a reference for extraordinary dates of the Rig Veda. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  14:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:REDFLAG which is policy: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.". I've reverted this. The sources certainly are not high-quality and I believe any mention at all is probably WP:UNDUE. Note also that this was stated to be a "scientific fact". Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. TimidGuy (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not mentioned a 'Coference Presentation' as the source, rather, a 'REPORT' or the 'OUTCOME' of the seminar on topic "Scientific Dating of Ancient Events from Rigveda to Aryabhatiam" in which 10 seminar sessions were held with the objectives of 1) To ascertain astronomical datings of planetary references in ancient Sanskrit manuscriipts by making use of planetarium software, and 2) To corelate such astronomical dates with corroborating archaeological, geological, anthropological, paleobotanical, oceanographic, ecological and remote sensing evidences. Apart from Astronomical finding which I mentioned above earlier, other related findings are (a) Paleobotanical research reports have revealed that certain cultivated varieties of plants, trees and herbs, which are mentioned in Vedas and Epics, have existed in India continuously for more than 8000-10,000 years. Remains of cultivated rice, wheat and barley have been found belonging to 7000 BC; melon seeds, lemon leaf, pomegranate, coconut and date palm etc relating to 4000 BC; lentils, millets and peas etc. from 3000BC. These plants remained in use continuously indicating that there was not any abrupt end of ancient Indian civilisation. (b) The latest archaeological excavations have revealed large volume of new data which has proved the indigenous origin and development of civilisation in the Indian Subcontinent since 7000 BC. Some examples are: Lahuradeva, Jhusi, Tokwa and Hetapatti in Ganga Valley in the east, Mehrgarh, Kot Diji, and Nausharo in Indus Valley in the northwest; Lothal and Dholavira in the west. The material testimonies of these excavations have shown gradual cultural developments from the 7th-6th millennium BC in the entire region of Indus-Saraswati-Ganga system for a period of almost 8000 years Thus archaeology is also supporting the astronomical, ecological and anthropological conclusions that Aryans were originals of India, they have been creating and nurturing a continuously developing civilisation for the last 10,000 years. (c) The anthropological research reports have established that DNA dating for paleolithic continuity starts from 60,000 BC. The Genome studies during the Holocene have revealed that the genetic profile of humans settled in north, south, east and west of india is same and has remained the same for the last more than 11,000 years. (d) All these multidisciplinary scientific research reports, presented during the seminar, prima facie establish that indigenous civilization has been developing in India for last 10,000 years. This report is on the website of Institute. I think these facts would satisfy the editors on time period of Rigveda and Vedic Period.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another finding on dating of Indian Civilization, "on the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), the cultural remains of the pre-harappan horizon go back to 7390 BC to 6201 BC". This finding is reported in "International Conference on Harappan Archaeology" organised recently, in November 2012, by 'Archaeological Survey of India' (ASI) in Chandigarh by B.R.Mani, (Jt. Director ASI) and K.N.Dixit, former Jt. Director ASI in a presentation. It was concluded in the seminar that "The preliminary results of the data from the early sites of the Indo-Pak subcontinent suggests that the Indian Civilization emerged in the 8th millenium BC in the Ghaggar-Hakra and Baluchistan area". Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Other than the HT article I can't find any details of this conference. The ASI website does not speak of this conference. Can you give us a link to the conference and to the report? Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find the report at www.serveveda.org/documents/ScientificDatingAncientEventsBefore2000BCE.pdfSudhirkbhargava (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This link isn't working. If this document is same as the report presented in I-SERVE seminar above then we have already discussed this. Otherwise, please give a link to the report that works. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  20:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Link works now. Instead of BCE, it is BC which I corrected. The report gives the names of 10 specialists, who made the presentations, and their subjects. There was a peer review by a panel of 4 eminent scholars and discussions and question-answer sessions took place after each presentation. I had attended the seminar and participated in questions-answer sessions. You'll find from the list that most of the presenters in the seminar were Ph.Ds. You'll find from the report that former President of India, Mr. Abdul Kalam, a known Vedic scholar himself, Mr. Sircar, then Secretary (Culture), GOI and Mr. Pawan Bansal, Cabinet Minister, GOI, also participated in the seminar. It was a multi-disciplinery approach and well corroborated scientific datings of happenings which took place more than 4000 years ago. Mention of Vedic events in Sanskrit books and there scientific datings fulfill the conditions for putting them on Wiki pages.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The report contains a summary of presentations at the I-SERVE seminar. Since I-SERVE does not appear to be a peer–reviewed fact checking source, this report cannot itself be considered reliable for an extraordinary claim. However, it could be worth your while to see if some of these authors have published similar research in peer reviewed publications. I checked Kulbhushan Mishra, he has published Dancing Elements of Indian Rock Painting with Special Reference to Chhattisgarh in Journal of the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology, Government of Chhattisgarh. The paper irrelevant to us but reliable. Likewise, J. R. Sharma, as I have pointed out elsewhere, has published a paper in GSI regarding geological dates of Saraswati. If your search leads us to something relevant, it can be given due weight in the appropriate article. Regards.  Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  17:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The report is concensus after peer-review only, as I explained above. Each participant is highly acclaimed in his field. You said Kulbhushan Mishra's paper is irrelevent to you. It is amusing to me. Mr. Misra is an eminent archaeologist and wrote this artical on paintings which are more than 10,000 years old.The analysis of paintings tell us many things about the jewellery, wearings, styles etc. of that period. It is relevent to us, the researchers. His work was published in a reputed journal as you mentioned above. Bhimbetka, a World Heritage Site, also has similar paintings. Some other sites about 10,000 years old as mentioned earlier are Bhirrana, Mehrgarh, Jhusi. You mentioned JRSharma's one paper, I know about many which are published in Journals. Each presenter in the seminar is highly respected and report is scientific. I have a plethora of papers from various seminars in India and US, but I do not think that there is any use of putting them here. I wonder no other editor is commenting on the subject which is relevent for many pagesSudhirkbhargava (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's describe it the as the proceedings of an academic conference. Not reliable for historical claims that overturn an existing mainstream view. Journal articles by the same authors may be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not mind giving reference of I-SERVE conference and giving link to the report. The presenters in the conference have articles published in Journals as well on similar lines. Those references can also be given.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A number of problems here, but the main issue is still WP:REDFLAG. I'm not sure if we should be discussing this here, but civilization requires cities, not just signs, for instance, of agriculture. I can understand people wanting to define it otherwise, but for archaeological and historical purposes there are some criteria that have to be met - public buildings, a class structure, etc. Note that huge as it was, even Çatalhöyük is described as a settlement (or sometimes village), not a city. There are cave painting much older than 10,000 years old. Then there is of course the religious issue - we don't know what religion the people of the Indus Valley Civilization practiced. We are not going to suddenly try to turn over the mainstream view in our articles because of this. I'll also note that archaeology and Indian politics as a combination have produced some highly disputed results before. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and we do not have those. Wait for that to change - before we even mention it we might want some outside reliable sources commenting on it. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well ! I may submit here that claims are indeed 'extraordinary', but the new sources, based on archaeological, palaeobotanical, astronomical dates corroboration with Planetarium software, geological, anthropoligical, remote sensing evidences, and various dating techniques are equally extraordinary to bring about changes in old descriptions of dating of Vedas and Vedic Period. However, we can wait for more time and let others also give their sources of dating Vedic Period as 1500BCE-500BCE.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We used to have an article on this. See User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience. It may be time to revive the topic. See also Scientific foreknowledge in the Vedas, Historiography and nationalism. This is the topic you are looking at here. One thing this has certainly nothing to do with whatsoever is an actual scholarly evaluation of the date of the Rigveda. You are free to believe the Rigveda was composed by ancient aliens, but please do not waste Wikipedia's time with your views. The Rigveda depicts a society of the late Bronze Age. They have wheeled chariots and metal swords. I.e. the oldest hymns remember the earliest arrival of the Indo-Aryans, as reflected by the Gandhara culture. You might as well claim that the Iliad dates to 8000 BC, but you should not expect that anyone will think you worth listening to. See also WP:RANDY. --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to be quite open minded while making discussions on dating of Rigveda and Vedic Period. A prize winning historian, Upinder Singh in book 'A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India:From the Stone Age to the 12th Century', on page 116,published in 2008, talks of finding of Copper manufacturing units of various small items like arrowheads, fishhooks in Ganeshwar-Jodhpura in Sikar district of Rajasthan belonging to three stages 3800BCE, 2800 BCE, 2600 BCE. In fact 80 Copper sites have been located in the area, and it is assumed Harrapa habitations have been importing their Copper items from this area. This was pre-bronze period. Though, the writer did not link it with Vedic period, but other sources do. Palaeobotanical findings on the Saraswati river route confirm habitations during 7000 BCE. Flood period seers and their contribution remains the base of new researches. Much more is in pipe line to convince those who are interested in Indian ancient history. I do feel that Wikipedia editors should mention the new researches on respective pages.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * None of this of course suggests a 10000 year old civilization. Habitation does not mean city, it means a family or small number of families will have lived there. you would expect small settlements all over a flood plain going a very long way back. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite true. The other issue, just as important in its way, is the linguistic origins of the people who composed the Vedas (at whatever exact date they were composed). It's an extreme fringe view that those people were in India, or anywhere near it, 10000 years ago (see Indigenous Aryans); a more generally accepted view is that they were approaching India from the northwest, roughly 3500 years ago (see Indo-Aryan migration). For that reason, to call an Indian culture of 10000 years ago "Vedic" is pushing the fringe view. Andrew Dalby 09:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After the great floods, 10,000 years ago Manusmriti was composed, consisting of about 2685 shaloks (verses). As mentioned in Sanskrit Books of that period,  Manu, and his adopted son Bhrigu had guided/sermoned the congregation of flood ravaged seers on the subject of 'organised way of living' in the Vedic state of Brahmavarta on the banks of revered Vedic river Saraswati. The book was considered a 'Law Book' for Hindus by the British rulers, especially by Sir William Jones the indologist and  the language expert from Britain who came to India to translate the book and to frame rules for governing Hindu Indians by East India Company, in 1770s. Manusmriti shows that it was not a stone age culture, people were civilised and sages and seers who attended the conference were advised on organising the society for better administration, by dividing the community in four vernas (groups) as per their knowledge. Different sections were allotted jobs and responsibility as per their knowledge of Vedas. This four Verna division was seen during Ramayana period of 5114-5180 BCE and Mahabharata period of 3100 BCE  as well. Similarly, the Vedic spiritual Gods, Shiva ( mentioned as Rudra in Rigved) with three different identities, his Parvati or  Rudrani with nine different identities and son Ganesha were devised by the flood time seers which are worshiped even at present times by all shades of Hindus throughout the country in one form or the other. These spiritual Gods and Godesses are a good example of the fact that Vedic Seers had good knowledge of Cosmic energies, and their effect on human brain and how peace and tranquility could be achieved through Yog and Meditation. The flood area where Manu and Bhrigu's hermitage were located was on Rajasthan-Haryana border, from where flood time Saraswati river had flown,  and not in Sindhu river area as it is made out to be. There are several copper articals, archaeological and palaeobotanical findings in this area to confirm above facts. These facts earlier were written by me on talk pages of Vedic Period and Ayurved also. I wonder when these facts will find place on different pages in Wikipedia.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing demand concerning geographical term in a human genetics related article
Relevant Wikipedia article: Talk:Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA)

Edit proposal under dispute: Note that the following is from a lead paragraph, which is summarizing (as usual) something basic about the subject which is discussed in detail within the article body. There is no dispute about the details in the body, only how to summarize them. Summary of reasoning for the two proposals, and the need for community comment:
 * 138.88.60.165 wants all references to "Horn of Africa" should be changed to "East Africa" because this is the exact term used in a series of related genetics articles made by one team of Italian geneticists, to describe a part of the world where E-M215 is common, and where it has several variants that have never been seen elsewhere. (They are referring to data which is almost entirely from Ethiopia.) 138.88.60.165's is reverting edits with edit comments that claim that 138.88.60.165 is waiting for answers to sourcing demands concerning this matter.
 * Andrew Lancaster (posting here) believes that although those Italian papers are indeed important sources for the body of our article (but not the only sources), they are not reliable sources for novel English geographical terminology to be used when summarizing their work in a Wikipedia lead. In particular, it is proposed that both the sources named below, and the body of our article makes it clear, in a well-sourced and un-disputed way, that E-M215 is not very frequent south of the Horn of Africa at all, and the "several variants of E-M215 [which] are only found in East Africa" were in fact only ever seen in Ethiopia. So this is a question of picking good wording, and the proposed wording change simply gives the wrong message, which can surely not be the right thing to do. In summary I think the sourcing challenge being made by 138.88.60.165 seems to be an incorrect way to interpret WP sourcing requirements - by extending it to a word choice issue, and even using it in order to push for less accurate wording.

Sources which 138.88.60.165 is claiming as being the relevant reliable sources for the geographical terminology:

These are all by the same team, and use the same core data pool of genetic samples.
 * Also see Supplementary Data.
 * Also see Supplementary Data.
 * Also see Supplementary Data.
 * Also see Supplementary Data.


 * Comnparing the maps respectively of East Africa and Horn of Africa one can see at a glance that the former extends south as far as Burundi and Madagascar, where E-M215 is infrequent, and several varieties restricted in fact to that part of the Horn of Africa which is Ethiopia. Though the Horn of Africa is a subset of East Africa, what should be decisive here on the English wikipedia is how English usage determines the denotation, and in English East Africa connotes in particular the area covered by Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, which is outside the range where E-M215 is concentrated. The distinction is clearly lost on the Italian authors, and the proper thing is to correct it, as Andrew suggests.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I've understood this correctly, it is a little tweak to make the geographic reference more precise. If it's clear from the literature that the Horn of Africa is meant, then I don't see any problem going with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is my contention, ie that Horn of Africa is just a wording that is more accurate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit of extra information. The main article about E-M215 in East Africa, apart from the Horn of Africa is actually not one of the ones above but this one (as Nishidani probably realizes, and also as our article already explains in its body) so readers should not assume that the Cruciani/Trombetta team is the only source for this subject, whose findings should be considered in writing the lead:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * . See comment on Dienekes blog, comment on the Spitoon blog and public release.

To be more precise, I am asking for sources to figure out the most commonly used name for the region that E-M215 is spread in, I am not asking for opinions and beliefs. I have provided (see E-M215 Talk page) not only the authoritative sources that Andrew Lancaster has shown above, but also names for the region used by the main commercial private DNA testing companies, and in all cases what is used is East Africa and I can not even find ONE case where the Horn of Africa terminology is being used for the region in this context. In addition, I am also asking for some consistency in the Article, it shows the E-M215 lineage as originating in East Africa for instance, why are different terminologies being used across the article when it is the same dataset that was used to arrive at both the conclusions of origin and spread ? 138.88.60.165 (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So you are arguing that the term Horn of Africa is a geographical term which is only used outside of human genetics studies? Please clarify. Also perhaps consider Semino et al and Luis et al and so on and so on, who do use the terms in exactly such contexts. In fact all your sources stem from this one Italian data set name only, and I think the author team in Rome would find it odd to see you trying to use their dataset name as a source for a unique way of using the English term East Africa! Especially when the net effect is that anyone reading their article (which shows how their data sets are defined) will get a different story than anyone reading what you want to put in Wikipedia. We need community feedback please. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If this boils down to East Africa vs Horn of Africa, it doesn't so much matter to my mind that authors whose native language is not English say East Africa, To my mind Horn of Africa is more specific and more accurate and therefore would be better to use. Does Italian even have an equivalent term to Horn of Africa? If we are especially talking about Ethiopia and surrounding regions I think Horn of Africa is clearer, more specific, and better. Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Italian does in fact have an equivalent term it:Corno d'Africa but the only sources cited on that Italian wiki page are English. It's worth remembering that while English speakers, saying "East Africa", would think first of Kenya and neighbours (colonial memories: also known once upon a time as "British East Africa"), Italian speakers would think first of Somalia and Ethiopia (colonial memories: also known once upon a time as "Italian East Africa"). To be clear and exact in English, it is better to say "the Horn of Africa". Andrew Dalby 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this has anything to do with British or Italian, it is an issue of geography primarily and not necessarily geopolitics. For instance I have provided 3 commercial American sources that provide private DNA testing also using the East Africa terminology for the region where this lineage is spread in. I have also cited another Author, Scheinfeldt (2010), again a non-Italian that uses the Eastern Africa terminology for the origin of the lineage. The last source shown by Andrew Lancaster above, Henn (2008), Which is a paper on a specific variant of E-M35 that is more concentrated in the parts of East Africa that is South of Ethiopia, does not even mention the Horn of Africa as a terminology even once, but rather uses specific country names (Ethiopia and Somalia), hence Why I did not object when Andrew Lancaster added the specification of Ethiopian in the lead.
 * So the reasons why no sources are being provided for the use of this terminoloyg, Horn of Africa, in this context is simple, BECAUSE SUCH SOURCES DO NOT EXIST, I think it is just easier to admit this.
 * The other issue that I mentioned that needs to be addressed is that of uniformity or consistency in the terminology used throughout the entire article.138.88.60.165 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a bit silly and has all been discussed (and not answered) on the article talk page. For example the commercial companies are paraphrasing the Italian papers, and Scheinfeld does not discuss this subject except for a passing reference to Henn (mentioned above) and the variant of E-M215 found in the southern part of Africa. And yes, Henn et al does not mention the Horn but it is important for being a source of information about the rest of East Africa (the southern part ). That particular article makes it absolutely clear that we should not be implying that East Africa is the same in all parts. It is only one part, the northern part including Somalia and Ethiopia, which has an extremely high level of E-M215, as discussed in many more articles as well, some of which such as Semino et al do mention the Horn by name.
 * All this is beside the point in my opinion. I have proposed, and everyone seems to agree, that we do not need to follow one article concerning a clear English word which would include the region of Ethiopia and Somalia, but exclude places like Tanzania and Mozambique. We just need to look in any basic reference work. We do not normally even need to give a source for normal English terms. We also do not need to be "consistent" in the sense of the demand above (using the same term to refer to a region where E-M215 is common, and where it is thought to have originated; these are two different subjects). Is there anyone who thinks I am wrong on this? (Reverts by 138.88.60.165 are continuing, and this appears to be the main mission of this IP editor.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, let us all try to get our facts correct before we speak or try to make our case, Scheinfeldt (2010) is certainly not referring to Henn(2008) but to Semino (2004), which, surprise surprise, does not mention even ONCE the terminology Horn of Africa in their paper, "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area", Instead what do they refer to the East African region where E-M35 and its variants are frequently spread, well see for yourself:
 * "E-M78 (fig. 1E) is present in Europe, the Middle East, and North and East Africa."
 * "Both phylogeography and microsatellite variance suggest that E-P2 and its derivative, E-M35, probably originated in eastern Africa."etc....
 * Source after source it is the same story that I see, never a use of the Horn of Africa terminology and an exclusive use of the East African terminology, so again please back up your argument with sources so that we can make some progress on this issue.138.88.60.165 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this, for example the irrelevant cherry picking ("is present in" and "originated in" are NOT what we are writing about in the paragraph you keep changing), but it would be a waste of time to go any further about all the genetics articles, because the relevance of the genetics articles to this word choice is still the open question: Why does a Wikipedia editor need to look at a genetics article to describe the region which includes Ethiopia and Somalia, but not any of the parts of East Africa to the south? Until now you have not been able to stick to this question at any time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverts continuing, but no more responses on talk pages. Currently there are only 3 editors active in a cycle of reverts on this article (me and another who want Horn of Africa, plus the IP). This is just a simple summary paragraph in the lead, trying to say roughly where E-M215 is common, but leads are important. It has become harder to see where it is most common since this article had two "daughters". I have tried several round of wording tweaks also in order to try to get out of this, but we seem to be stuck with a dead horse flogging situation. (For example, the alternative idea to name the exact large ethnic groups known to have highest frequencies, for example >50%, such as Somalians and Berbers, is called "cherry picking". The IP wants "East Africa" apparently because, if you see above, said IP believes the place where E-M215 is common must be where it originated millenia ago?) So if anyone has time to come and have a look it would be good. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the area of origin for E-M215/M35 is different from the area that we are arguing about in this context? i.e., the East African area where E-M215 is more frequently spread in.138.88.60.165 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Recall that the original text you accused of ethnic cherry-picking did not use the term Horn of Africa. It distinguished several large ethno-linguistic groups. Somali people have an extremely high frequency, but unlike Ethiopia the east of the Horn is a place with very little signs of being the place of origin of E-M215. Place of origin and place with highest frequency are two completely different concepts, and estimated using different information. They are only rarely near each other, and generally that is a coincidence (in this case apparently caused by a more recent Cushitic migration "back" from the direction of Egypt, according to the published authors). Determining place of origin is highly speculative and often controversial, and therefore something Wikipedia editors must be cautious about. So for origins we quote authors carefully, and have a special section in the body. But place of highest modern frequency is something you can read from a data table, and is just a straightforward fact we can report. To repeat: leads have very basic aims. When someone comes to article they will want to know what sort of thing the subject is, and where you find it. Discussion of the possible origin point is much more complex and needs to be handled in the body, as it currently is. Summary: There is absolutely no reason that we should be forcing our description of where E-M215 is most common to be "consistent" with the place where some authors have suggested that it might have originated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I STRONGLY disagree, the authors arrived at a possible area of origin for E-M215/M35 using reason and a specific dataset, it was not magic, here are the reasons they thought why this lineage originated where it did:
 * "Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b—that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3)the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup."
 * All the 3 reasons point to the same area of East Africa that we are arguing about, which you insist on calling the Horn of Africa when it is about frequency but want to call it East Africa when it is about origin, I on the other hand insist on leaving it as just East Africa CONSISTENTLY. The same reasoning used by the authors to identify the East African homeland of E-M215 is the same reason the Wikipedia article is showing East Africa as a 'possible place of origin' for E-M215. I am not sure how much clearer it can get than this really. 138.88.60.165 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is nonsensical. The authors you quote are discussed in exactly this way in the origins section of the body of our article. They are reliable sources for this origins proposal, clearly, and this is a complicated subject which it would probably be WP:OR for us to "reverse engineer" too much. However, even allowing this line of attack, not one of the 3 reasons you cite concerning their origins proposal is the same as "region of highest frequency", i.e. region where you are most likely to come across someone who is positive for E-M215. You keep saying this is a sourcing issue, but not once have you cited any author who says anything which conflicts with saying that E-M215 is most common in "North Africa and the Horn of Africa". This is just a basic summary of what the data in the article says. And in fact you clearly know that Henn et al and other surveys show that the rest of East Africa is not such a place. Your wording demands would force us to say that E-M215 is at its most common in places like Tanzania in modern populations, when you know very well that this is not true, and has nothing to do with speculations about ancient populations! Can anyone else help me with this discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful to once again revisit where we are at this juncture in order to refocus-


 * So, currently the difference is that your proposal demands that “parts of the Horn of Africa” be used, while mine demands “parts of East Africa” be used. (a)Which 'parts of the Horn of Africa' are you exactly referring to? (b)What is your exact definition of 'most frequently'?(c)what data-set are you utilizing?(d)WHY are you insisting on using Horn of Africa when all the literature, regardless of national origin of the authors or other parties involved, uses East Africa for the region where this lineage is frequently spread in?(e)WHY is there a different terminology criteria for the area where the lineage is more frequent and the presumed area of Origin, when both of these utilize the same dataset and describe the SAME area?138.88.60.165 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that Andrew Lancaster completely changed the lead after I made this post above, hard to follow when everything is changing, reverted back to old state but with incorporation of specifics on M293 and M78 in south Africa and outside Africa.138.88.60.165 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My latest edit, which shortened the paragraph, removed some repetition, and attempted to make it more clear about exactly what it means (see your questions) happened before your post above. You have reverted it quickly, arguing that it "changed the sentence". Great reason. Please note, keeping it simple, that you are the one claiming this is a sourcing question but you have never given any source which disagrees with a statement such as "the highest frequencies of E-M35 are found in parts of the Horn of Africa, and North Africa". In fact your comments show you know it is correct. I'd like to point to your words above: "All the 3 reasons point to the same area of East Africa that we are arguing about, which you insist on calling the Horn of Africa" [emphasis added]. So your argument is still coming down to arguing that for a genetics article we must use special genetics words for African regions. But geneticists are not reliable sources for new names for geographical regions. All opinions have been unanimous about the invalidity of your position, both on the article and here. Are there any conditions where will you stop reverting consensus edits on this matter?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so here is your newer proposal, which I admit I made a mistake earlier and said you changed the lead after my last post, when in-fact you did make the change 16 minutes before, in any event, it is hard to settle an argument when the platform of contention keeps changing willy-nilly-

As you can see, my proposal stays pretty much the same, except for the addition of specifics on E-M293 and E-M78, which I hesitantly accepted, because it is not just E-M78 that is present in the Middle East, but also E-M123, in any case ,is this your final proposal or are you going to change it again? P.S. I am still offcourse also open to my original proposal as well, my above proposal came out of a series of compromises, my original proposal with a slight tweak was as follows-
 * E-M215 has two basal branches: E-M35.1 and E-M281, in turn, E-M35.1 has four branches: E-V68, E-Z827, E-V6 and E-V92, of which the first two, E-V68 and E-Z827, contain the vast majority of E-M215 bearers, of whom most are frequently observed in the East, South and North of Africa and to a lesser extent in the Near East and Europe, while the last two branches, E-V6 and E-V92 are to be primarily observed in the Ethiopian region only138.88.60.165 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard if for discussion of sourcing questions, and your sourcing claim is that we must call the region of Ethiopia and Somalia "East Africa" because of a sourcing issue. In your own posts above you have made it clear that you know that the area where E-M215 is most common in East Africa is a "part" of East Africa, which is also called the Horn of Africa. This sourcing claim of yours is present in all versions you have tried to impose and in your latest draft you are even going further and trying to include the "South of Africa" amongst the places where E-M215 is more common than in Europe and the Middle East. That is just wrong. So please make the case for your "sourcing concern" here and we can discuss other issues on the article talk pages. Why must we say that Southern Africa has some of the highest occurrences of E-M215 when you know this is not true? As far as I can see there is unanimity on this noticeboard that there is no policy reason to use a genetics article for a common geographical term, and yet you keep edit warring against the consensus of all other editors on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 138.88.60.165 is using all this space to get visibility for some political discomfort, tirelessly but thus far unsuccessfully: we still don't know what's causing the discomfort. The page has to get beyond this disruption, by blocking if necessary. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with 'political discomfort' but rather keeping inline with what is the commonly used terminology both by the public and by the scientific authorities as I have shown countless times above and in the talk page of E-M215, and what those who disagree have brought forth a grand total of zero sources to back their argument, but rather, as you have shown above, plenty of irrelevant personal attacks. The issue of consistency with the remainder of the article has also not been adequately addressed. I have put in my own modified version of the lead in the Article, we can go from there.138.88.60.165 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have in fact only given sources concerning what is proposed to be the ancient place of origin of E-M215, never concerning the subject of the paragraph which requires a geographical name for the part of Eastern Africa where it is most common today (that includes Somalia and Ethiopia, but not countries to the south). But you have yourself made it clear that other people call it the Horn of Africa. So your claim that this is about sourcing policy is very confusing to say the least! Anyway, at what point will you stop edit warring against the consensus on this noticeboard and amongst article editors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to restate this - I think you are getting little comment because of the very technical topic but, if I am reading this correctly, the genetics are irrelevant and the whole dispute centers around what to call a region of Africa. Is that right? A couple of questions: I have to say, to me, East Africa is the entire right-hand side of the continent. But if you want to use a geographical designation which, to me, is somewhat wrong, you could put it in a quote -- since the reason for using it is that the authors use it -- then clarify the facts in the voice of Wikipedia.
 * Is there any dispute at all that we are talking about Ethiopia and some of the immediately adjacent regions?
 * These scholarly sources appear highly reliable on questions of genetics -- I'm assuming this is genetics? -- but why would they be authorities on geographical nomenclature?
 * Would it solve anything if, when we talk about EM-215's distribution, we quoted one of these studies as saying "E-M35 is found in East Africa and North Africa" (or whatever a satisfactory quote is that contains "East Africa", then say a little later something like "ouside of the Horn of Africa where it most frequently occurs, particular variant have been found as far south as bla bla"?

If that doesn't help because the dispute is now about something else then please restate the issue. Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Elinruby. I agree in any case, and to me it seems all people have posted here think in the same direction. The most recent edits seem to confirm that this IP editor is mostly concerned with avoiding the term "Horn of Africa" even while knowing quite well that it is a standard term, because he/she has proposed on the article talkpage that they can accept a compromise of "the northern part of East Africa". So it never seems to have been a real sourcing problem. Concerning your advice, I think it is good, but this field has a shortage of true secondary sources (the academic articles all do a bit of primary raw data and secondary review work when they appear, because the field is fast moving). So we have no handy source which summarizes as we would wish. Nevertheless the areas with highest frequencies are clear in the literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that. If that's acceptable to you, um, ok :) I have had some editing processes like this too, so.... I guess it's your call. I for one certainly don't have strong feelings about the matter. I am almost afraid to point out that the wikilink on "East Africa" leads to an article illustrated by a map that indicates that the term refers to the entire right-hand coast of the continent. Perhaps you could leave the wording as is but remove the somewhat misleading link? Or if that seems likely to cause more argument, I think anybody who is interested in this topic will probably not get stuck on not knowing where Ethiopia is, no? Elinruby (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A significant point (it seems to me) is our duty to paraphrase the sources, not to copy them word-for-word. If the source says, in summary mode, "East Africa", but clearly identifies, in full-data mode, a smaller region that is properly and exactly called the Horn of Africa, it's our duty as encyclopedists to summarise that information concisely and usefully and the way to do it is to say "the Horn of Africa". Andrew Dalby 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW I agree this is an issue. The level of literalness of citation being demanded here, if applied in a logically consistent way, would force us to constantly commit copyright violations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am thinking in any case the WP:RSN aspect of this discussion can be closed given that the editor involved has said that they would accept "the northern part of East Africa" for the "part of East Africa" which, they admit, other people call the "Horn of Africa". An un-involved editor can decide whether to close more formally. To me it seems like there was a clear unanimity on the original question.
 * But I'd like to take this opportunity to call for more un-involved experienced editors to look at this editor and this edit.
 * I suggest as follows: if just one experienced and non-involved editor will look at the case and the way this IP editor is working, and declare it a good solution, then let's change "the Horn of Africa" into "the northern part of East Africa" which is the "compromise" this IP editor demands of the WP community. If that happens, then I promise I will not be the next person to change that wording. But if all experienced non involved editors think the proposal is ridiculous (which is, I think, the case) then how do we make sure the consensus opinion is respected? (As I say, this is an appeal for practical help, not really a sourcing question anymore.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * well, as I noted above, I have had an editing process like this. There are noticeboards for users. I did not find them particularly helpful when I was having such problems. However, this was either before or just right after they started Dispute Resolution, which apparently is more informal and less time-consuming. For the record, I don't really understand what the IP is stuck on, and consider that substituting "the north part of East Africa" is only a good solution if you can live with it. I'm not a stakeholder here but if there's a reason to do that beyond the fact that sources use "East Africa" this has not been made clear to me. Does Horn of Africa translate as something offensive in their language or something? Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?
On Talk:Jung Myung Seok an argument is being made that the websites providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com are RS for the trial of the group's founder for rape and sexual abuse. Example: Please advise. Shii (tock) 11:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These fail BLP policy. Use the mainstream press or leave the information out if it is not relevant or if you have no good sources at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely correct. You need impeccable sources for such claims. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Jung Myung Seok's 9-year fugitive status and conviction are attested by the national police of 5 nations, a dozen Korean newspapers, all major Japanese newspapers, the Associated Press, and Reuters (see my revision of the article). However this is being reverted to a version of the article sourced mainly to providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com which claims that the entire story is in doubt. I will attempt to maintain the article with the sources I have named. Shii (tock) 15:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The [ version of the article] which uses only providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com as sources is hopelessly unacceptable per WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:NPOV. The Providence sources may possibly (per WP:SELFPUB) be usable on a very limited basis as sources of information about Jung's movement, but absolutely not as reliable sources for factual claims about Jung himself or his legal difficulties.  Material from well-established news sources may (and almost certainly should) be included, but I would be careful with any conclusory statements supported by police sources, since these sources will probably start from a presumption of guilt and could easily be biased.  Regarding the description of Jung's teachings, I would advise avoiding either "pro" or "anti" extreme positions and sticking to dispassionate statements backed by reliable sources.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a similar problem going on at Providence (religious movement). MrTownCar insisted that the sources offered by others could not be verified (a legitimate objection if true) — but I was able to find most of the English-language sources in dispute.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, the sourcing in the version perferred by MrTownCar is just terrible. Some education in what "independent" means with regards to sources is greatly needed.  I did laugh that a section about bias was being sourced to providencetrial.com.  Ahh, the irony.  Delicious.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Could these sources be of any uses at all? They could be used to source their own opinions. But I don't see a section of their site that's a simple clear-cut "here's what we believe" section. There's sermons, but the problem with citing those is that it may take some interpretations, and that's getting into WP:OR. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The article being cited for the problems with Jung's trial is absolutely a reliable third party news magazine called, "Civil Government" published in Korea. It just happens to also have some translated quotations on ProvidenceTrial.com. Therefore the article passes WP:RS.

The religious movement has a magazine titled, "Joensori" that it publishes that could be used to verify several biographical details about Jung Myung Seok, like his service in Vietnam. Would these be safe to cite for biographical details or teachings? They also include publications of his sermons in both English, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. Macauthor (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Too many questions about the "Civil Government" magazine. Questionable source until that is resolved. "Joensori" is also not an independent source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.archivoelectoral.org/
Has been added to a large number of BLPs (over 60) as an external link. The site appears to be run by two individuals, Juan Víctor Izquierdo and Francesca Parodi, and is not controlled or operated by any actual RS source. In addition, it appears that the EL may be in violation of copyright law on its face. For each person, large numbers of campaign ads, videos etc. are included - many of which are obviously copyright. Collect (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look to meet the standards for reliable sources, and links to copyright violations are an absolute no go even if the site were found to be reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Source only mention the subject article in passing.
This source mention the topic of the article The Invention of the Jewish People only to represent Sand and to hear his opinion but the book itself is not discussed does its justifiable to use the source for such edits  in my opinion is WP:COATRACK.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An interview in Ha'aretz with an author is reliable for what that author says about his book, even if there is only a short report of that interview embedded in an interview with another author on a similar topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But he didn't said anything about the book really.So I wonder what could be included in the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's reliable for his views on the questions he discussed in his book. There's no sourcing problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I am in agreement with Itsmejudith but it can be noted that this noticeboard is for source reliability questions. You can also consider WP:NOTE and WP:DUE, which seem closer to what you might be worried about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what I meant, thanks for expressing it better than I did. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Orlando Bosch
The YouTube source is from a documentary which claims to be posted under "fair use", however, I'm skeptical that it can be used as such in Wikipedia. Alternatively, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sukhdevsandhu/9132917/Che_Part_Two_and_638_Ways_to_Kill_Castro_killing_Fidel_Castro/ appears to be an acceptable blog source that could be used instead. Requesting feedback on the YouTube source and the blog source. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=61LnD_oDKxw&feature=endscreen - claimed to be "fair use"
 * Article: Orlando Bosch
 * Content: In an interview for the 2006 Documentary 638 Ways to Kill Castro[12], when asked if he was responsible for the Cubana Flight 455 bombing, Bosch responded after a pause "I'm supposed to say no", and then described the justification for such attacks as being because there existed a state of war between Castro and his opponents.
 * I'm not commenting on the YouTube, beyond saying that I think you are probably right. The blog is part of the Daily Telegraph website, a reliable (and strongly Conservative) newspaper. I'd go for it. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I made the change. (diff). Location (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Johann Hari
The Post-American World contained these two sentences: ''In a review published in The Progressive, Johann Hari took exception to Zakaria's Thatcherist assertions that there is no alternative to increasingly globalized, free market capitalism. Hari pointed to examples where what Zakaria advocated led to disasters, such as free market policies leading to the collapse of Argentinian economy, and financial deregulation resulting in the financial crisis of 2007–2010, which had begun just after the book was published.'' →referenced to "Hari, Johann (November 2008). "Zakaria's Bad Timing". The Progressive 72 (11): 42–44." (offline but I can email a copy to anybody).


 * First removed this here with the edit summary "Discredited writer Johann Hari is not acceptable as a source here".
 * Second: I reverted.
 * Third: He reverted.
 * Fourth: I reverted.
 * Fifth: We laid out our positions at User talk:Chris Chittleborough. His position is that the above violates WP:RS because Hari was later found to be violating some journalistic ethics code (plagiarism, from what I've been told). My position is that this specific review is still good - no one, as far as I'm aware, has contested the validity of the review (per WP:NPOV we do not say whether the review was 'good' or 'bad', only that it was published) and The Progressive has not retracted the article/review.
 * Also, Chris Chittleborough is saying the above quote violates WP:BLP, but I don't follow that argument so I won't try to interpret it here.

I request a 3rd opinion on whether this reference can still be used and, if possible, what an acceptable way of wording would be (if the above is found to be unacceptable). Thanks. maclean (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the context of a book review I think Hari's disgrace would only affect its use if it emerged that he did not write the points cited, and there is nothing to suggest this. In my view as long as Hari's name is wikified so that the reader can easily follow to learn about how reliable his review might be, it can be used.Martinlc (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

List of award nominations (Kapanlagi.com)

 * Hi all, I recently expanded the article The Mirror Never Lies and found this source which includes all of its nominations at the Bandung Film Festival. KapanLagi.com is accepted as an RS on the Indonesian Wikipedia, but I'm not too sure if it would pass muster at FAC (and there are no supersources which reproduce this information). The website's been up since 2003 and they report readership of some 40 million per year.
 * Any thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm finding it hard to assess due to the language barrier. It seems to be a highly exposed website, but the real acid test is whether other reliable sources reference it: if Indonesian newspapers cite it for example, I would say it's reliable, if not it's hard to say. I mean, I doubt nominations are controversial and the site is unlikely to have made a mistake in this case, so personally I wouldn't challenge the source for this content, but in an FA review you may be asked to demonstrate that a source is reliable, and the easiest way to do that is to show that other reliable sources use the site for information. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like an obit translated from the site (no hyperlink though), and this and this and this quote interviews from the site. This puts it with Kompas' website and Detik.com (which really should have an article) as pages which have Chrome extensions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If The Jakarta Post sources news content from it then that's a compelling argument that it's a reliable source, after all, we would accept The Jakarta Post and its content as reliable. Unless someone comes up with a specific reason why it is not reliable, then I would say it's ok to use. Betty Logan (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Erowid a reliable source about drugs or not?
Cantaloupe2 has removed references to Erowid from the page List of misconceptions about illegal drugs, with the edit summary: "Erowid is a collection of anecdotal evidence and it is not a reliable source and does not belong here, period." diff.

I'm not sure if this is true. None of the links go to user experiences, but to various articles and FAQs. Links to other sites, such as acsa2000.net, canorml.org and ncbi.nlm.nih.gov were also removed. I'm confused. Is Erowid an RS in this context, and what about the other sites removed? -- Auric    talk  11:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Taking this as an example, it's not clear who are the authors, what their sources are, and what editorial oversight there is, if there is any. This looks like self-published material. I would not use this as a source for "drugs described as LSD in the 1970s occasionally actually contained PCP, amphetamine..." Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what about the other links?-- Auric    talk  16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did remove some credible references to, because, the prose that went with the references did not summarize what they said. This is the part I removed, in addition to all Erowid references:


 * "A cannabis equivalent of a hangover may occur the morning after taking high doses, but even that ends much sooner than the legend suggests. While someone who smokes cannabis on Friday night would most likely come out positive in a urine test on Monday morning, he would no longer actually be impaired by that point." Cannabis Effects by Erowid NIH.GOV


 * NIH hosted journal does not advance the position that this is in any way similar to hang over or if if this is in fact a well established legend. Erowid is bunk when it comes to 99.999% of anything. I explained why I removed Erowid and cited the prior discussion in talk page. When Erowid does not attribute, its difficult to validate what they're saying. If they're republishing reliable sources in verbatim in a significant amount, we can't permit that either, because that's copyright violation. These same concerns were addressed in prior discussion in December. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia entry of Erowid gives many reasons why it is a WP:RS. As the entry says, Erowid provides much accurate information, and they are frequently cited in WP:RSs. Furthermore, they've published articles in peer-reviwed medical journals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=erowid As for the WP:COPYVIO, how do you know that it's copyright violation and not fair use? That's a decision for a lawyer to make. Are you a lawyer? --Nbauman (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to make of that. It looks like Earth Erowid and Fire Erowid are fake names aka internet monikers used by the staff members of Erowid.org so that their last names are namesake with the website. This does not inherit expertise to the website. about. The crew.

I don't think Erowid can simply be considered a non reliable sources. Some pages don't have sources, some a few, and others have many. For example this about cannabis has cited sources. Erowid has also been cited many times by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, for example see this. Erowid Center has also a project named ecstasydata.org, which tests street-ecstasy tablets to know its content.

Regarding WP:COPYVIO, that is about including copyright violation content in the Wikipedia article, not about the references. Many times, references include the URL to PDF archives which are hosted in third party sites, evading the pay-wall of many journals, is that fair use? As Nbauman said, that is a decision for a lawyer to make, any way, that is not WP:COPYVIO, bacause it is not content in a WP article, it is a reference. --KDesk (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Distributing copyrighted work to circumvent payment is the very essence of copyright infringement. Did you read the prior RSN discussion on Erowid which I linked earlier? See WP:ELNEVER. Per policy, URLs to pirated contents are prohibited. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:ELNEVER is the right link, especially for evading pay-walls, thanks. Any way, how can we know what Erowid does is fair use, or if they have permissions or no? I've seen the past discussion on Erowid, but for articles with are sourced (not copied), why not include them? --KDesk (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Before adding further comments, please look at the prior discussion if you haven't already done so:discussion CLICK HERE

Dr. Cat article, is this proof enough of claim
1. Source Ultima 5 and Ultima 6 computer games, and a fan wiki which has a screenshot from the game as evidence as well, plus has taken the dialog from the games and put it on their wiki for anyone to see.

2. Article is Dr. Cat

3. Content "A Dr. Cat character exists as a bartender in Ultima V and Ultima VI."

Wouldn't this screenshot count as proof? No reason to doubt this evidence is there? The guy worked on these games, and included himself in them.  D r e a m Focus  21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Self-published material like this wiki is generally not a reliable source, and there doesn't seem to be a basis for making an exception in this case. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about just using the games themselves as a source for the information?  D r e a m Focus  22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It might require a secondary source to avoid original research. Tom Harrison Talk 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Topix
Is Topix (website) considered reliable? There is a poll on that website about how Armenians feel about Turks and I wanna include it in an article. Note that I will state the source and make it clear so that it wouldn't be taken as a sociological research. -- Ե րևանցի talk  06:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that Topix would be considered a reliable source for anything of significance - but you have failed to provide the information necessary to say for sure. We'd need to have the correct link to the source, the name of the Wikipedia article, and the statement which it was supposed to be sourcing, as it says at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad. I missed that. The poll link is here. And the article is Greater Armenia (political concept), but I'm currently working on it on my user space User:Yerevanci/United Armenia. Please see Public opinion section for more. One of the answers of the poll is "I am an Armenian and my hate for Turks will end if... we get back West Armenia" and it got about 16% of the vote and I just wanted to include there to show the relative mood of Armenians concerning teritorial claims to Turkey. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  15:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind! I will just put that "No reliable sources exist..." and then clearly state that the Topix poll is just a internet poll, so the reader won't take it as a research. -- Ե րևանցի talk  18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No - we don't cite sources and then explain to readers that they aren't reliable. The poll is meaningless and cannot be used as a source for article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not even a remotely reliable source - such user-generated forum polls indicate nothing of any significance whatsoever. The sample size is small and unrepresentitive, the questions are ridiculous (and offensive) and there is nothing to prevent non-Armenians voting. It cannot possibly be regarded as a reliable indicator of Armenian public opinion. Note also that if you find a poll from a more reliable source, you would have to state all the results, not just the ones that suited your objectives. Incidentally, looking at your draft article, I doubt very much that the Center for Armenian Remembrance could be cited as a reliable source regarding Armenian public opinion either, given its clear POV. Credible opinion polls are best conducted by uninvolved third parties. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know they aren't anything close to being reliable. My goal isn't to present it as "a reliable indicator of Armenian public opinion", because it clearly isn't, but it at least shows something. "the questions are ridiculous (and offensive)" is kind of a subjective view, because remember that fanatics like Hitler were elected by the people shouting unheard slogans. I totally agree that non involved parties are the most reliable, but it's impossible to find even involved party opinion polls. Nothing on the internet can be considered reliable, but it shows something. At last both polls recorded 16% of those who have any kind of "territorial claims" to Turkey on internet from highly unreliable sources and unrepresentative demographics. -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with Andy. "In an obscure poll that no one else noticed, 16% of self-selected people who claimed to be Armenian, but whom we can't even guarantee to not all be one bored teenager from Duluth, said:" means absolutely nothing, and we shouldn't repeat it, with whatever disclaimers. There are times we repeat unreliable information and say that it's unreliable - that's when the information is notable in itself, even if unreliable, and the fact that it's unreliable is a vitally important piece of the information. Examples of that include Piltdown Man, 9/11 conspiracy theories, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that sort of thing. This isn't one of those. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For Topix it may be the case. But do you honestly think that a bored teenager from Duluth will visit the Center for Armenian Remembrance website and vote? Don't you think 9,000 people is a lot and can mean something? -- Ե րևանցի talk  01:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A poll can only be representative of the people polled - and if the article is about 'Greater Armenia' as a political concept, it would seem logical that a US-based English-language website wouldn't be the best place to look for the opinions of Armenians - and there is no guarantee that the poll data is even valid. The results of unrepresentative polls from sources of unknown reliability aren't appropriate material for an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clearly stated "Los Angeles-based" in the article. Also, remember that more Armenians live outside of Armenia as in Armenia itself. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Gamelan gong gede
Gamelan gong gede has no reliable sources. Unsourced material has been thrice restored without any in-line citations (or any citations) in the last hour, thrice violating WP:Verifiability, which suggests posting here. Administrative attention is requested. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  01:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors have added in-line citations to parts of the article, so this is resolved.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

www.slowtwitch.com/ and Technical Editor Greg Kopecky
The point, that chain maintenance is controversial, is already confirmed by Brown, who has previously been confirmed to be a reliable source, so it seems that www.slowtwitch.com should be fine for independent confirmation. There is a claim that www.slowtwitch.com is self-published, and so inherently unreliable, but I can find no indication of that. It was founded in 1999 by Dan Empfield and provides bios of its contributors, including Technical Editor Greg Kopecky. It has a global Alexa Traffic Rank of 35,263 compared to 11,633 for BikeRadar.com, 19,330 for Bicycling.com, 179,646 for BikeMag.com, and 1,151,976 for VeloNews.com. Here is an article in Bicycle Retailer and Industry News about slowtwitch hiring a senior editor. What say ye? -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Source: www.slowtwitch.com, specically Technical Editor Greg Kopecky
 * Article: Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic)
 * Content: "chain cleaning, lubrication and wear, a source of controversy in the field of bicycle maintenance."


 * The disagreement is specifically over this article. "why is there so much controversy?" is a hook, and the explanation offered is not journalism, but his personal opinion as evidenced by copious use of first person pronouns in the article. So, to evaluate if the statement that there is indeed controversy in the industry, I evaluated if he's an establish author. He received a press coverage for somewhat controversial incident in what appears to be him initiating a frivolous legal claim against a city here which is a challenge to accuracy of his claim. There is no established publications by him which swears him in as expert, so his OPINION should not be used as a support another's opinion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can find no mention of writing style in the reliable source guidelines, nor any mention of how unrelated events in an author's personal life bear upon their reliability in their field of expertise. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The writing describes "I/we" experiences and his evaluation of controversial is derived from his opinion. Before an opinion piece on some website can be considered "an expert opinion" so that its beyond "some people say..." territory. The point of disagreement is that someone only known for suing the city for running his bike into the back of a parked truck does not meet the "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Since its an opinion piece, like responses to letter to the editor, I consider this an opinion piece and Kopecky does not appear to meet the standard of established expert. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no indication, however, that the articles by slowtwitch staff are self-published any more than the articles by the staff of any other news outlet, so the WP:NEWSORG guidelines should apply, not the self-publish guidelines. Also, the article in question, although written in a conversational style, is about chain maintenance and not an "opinion piece". For similar examples of news stories in more-traditional publications that describe something as controversial, consider the story on page 18 of today's NY Times on uranium mining in Virginia, which states "A fight over whether to drill ... has divided the region", or the story on page 6 in the same paper about discontent in China, which states "A widening discontent was evident this month". Would either of those articles be considered opinion pieces, or would they be considered reliable sources to reference claims of controversy? Could Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States state that uranium mining in Virginia is controversial with that article as a source, or would it have to say that Trip Gabriel of the New York Times claims that it is controversial? I do not mean to suggest that slowtwitch.com is equivalent to the NY Times, but merely to demonstrate that an article from a news source making the non-exceptional claim that something is controversial without citing a study published in a peer-reviewed journal as confirmation does not automatically make that article an opinion piece. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This has little to do with the reliability of Greg Kopecky and far more to do with the question of whether Cantaloupe2 has crossed the line from WP:TENDENTIOUS to outright WP:TROLL. Just look at the recent article history. Also what is this edit summary about? Is Cantaloupe's contention now (having been defeated on every other complaint) that someone who is awarded damages against a city / suffers a fractured skull / cycles negligently (I don't know which of these three he thinks disqualifies a source) is no longer an acceptable source? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When a source calls something "controversial", it is often  a mere rhetorical device to introduce a topic. Journalists need to present things in some pattern, and pro-and-con is one of the standards. Typically, if a writer wishes to do other than present a straight description of the facts in chronological sequence, there needs to be some focus, and human argument is a good one to hold the interest of the reader, because people cannot read an argument without taking sides to some extent, even if the matter does not directly concern them. This extends to WP also: essentially everything in human affairs is a matter of argument, because it affects humans, and affects different groups or individuals differently, and so they fight about it. Perhaps we would do well to eliminate the word as much as possible. In general, finding a source or failing to find one that says something is "controversial" is a meaningless exercise.  DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf education: two sources

 * Article: Waldorf education


 * Source 1: Carlo Willmann, Waldorfpädogogik, Kölner Veröffentlichungen zur Religionsgeschichte, v. 27. Böhlau Verlag, ISBN 3-412-16700-2. See "Ganzheitliche Erziehung", 2.3.3"
 * Content: According to professor Carlo Willmann – a member of the Waldorf education unit at Danube University Krems – elementary schools center around a multi-disciplinary arts-based curriculum that includes visual arts, drama, artistic movement (eurythmy), vocal and instrumental music, and crafts.

More generally, all RSs that have any connection to Waldorf education are being contested as sources for this article, even if their work appears in peer-reviewed journals or presses. For example,
 * Source 2: Robert McDermott, The Essential Steiner, Harper San Francisco 1984 ISBN 0-06-065345-0
 * Content: Various statements about the curriculum and goals of Waldorf education

hgilbert (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither is a very strong source. The first is a 2001 thesis. The second is a book from a general, not academic publisher. They could potentially be used for straightforward description of the method. Use independent academic sources in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify: The first is not the author's 1995 dissertation, but a later book based upon that work. Both are being used for "straightforward descriptions of the method," (see above) rather than evaluative conclusions. hgilbert (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Other sources
What about these, then, two of which are also not peer-reviewed journals:

hgilbert (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Content: "Waldorf education is controversial", or "Waldorf education has experienced controversy in English-speaking countries" (two proposed versions of text)
 * Source 1: Melissa Benn, School Wars: The Battle for Britain's Education, Verso Books, ISBN 978-1-84467-736-8
 * Source 2: The Financial Times, David Turner, "Steiner school switches to city academy status", March 1, 2008
 * Source 3: Heiner Ullrich,"Rudolf Steiner", Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, vol.XXIV, no. 3/4, 1994, p. 555-572.
 * Benn: journalist book, not expert educationist, OK for uncontroversial facts. FT: good for news fact only. Ullrich: good source. Rather than the lede saying "it's controversial", which is not informative, it should summarise the detail in the "Responses" section. It doesn't need to introduce new sources. The article needs some copyedits by the way. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Censorship in Islamic societies
An IP editor is removing Fox News as a source on this article claiming a consensus that it is unreliable based on this RFC, which I note was not closed and looks like no consensus to me. What is the consensus on Fox as a reliable source? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You could have informed me that you've decided to report me here. It's been about 2 hours, I find you very attitude very condescending to say the least. Just because I'm an IP doesn't make my reasoning any less valid. You're treatment towards me has been disgraceful. You've yet to open up a dialogue with me concerning this personally on my talkpage. Instead you've issued patronizing warnings which are nothing more than veiled threats against me and even a told me a blatant lie about my own edits. Why you've accused me of removing templates is beyond me. Please don't insult my intelligence, I can see clearly what you're doing. You're hoping to get me, at the very least, blocked here. You think you're superior to me and this is why you treat me like a child. I'll have you know I'm a professor of sociology and yes, if you would have, in good faith talked to me we could have resolved this ourselves. Please carry on with your petty attitude sir. 2.96.201.168 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not accused you of removing templates, as the editor removing the sources you should have used the talk page once reverted. I asked you to come here and get a second opinion. Two editors cannot decide if a major news network is unreliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To 2.96.201.168. This is a Noticeboard for more formal discussion about Reliable sources. Being mentioned here does not mean you have been "reported", and would not normally lead to anybody being blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fox News argues that they have both news and opinion journalists and that there is some separation between the two. I'm not completely convinced by this, but Fox has employed some highly respected correspondents - for instance Major Garrett, now at the National Journal. I don't think that we can take something reported on, say, The O'Reilly Factor as a reliable source, but I'm not sure we can automatically dismiss something from, say, Fox's White House correspondent. In this case we're looking at a story that repeatedly mentions that it was produced by foxnews.com. It would be helpful if someone could explain the editorial policies and reputation of that website, since I don't read it, but my sense is that we should treat it like we treat a journalistic article published in The Nation or Mother Jones. My understanding is that in those cases we acknowledge that the publication has a strong editorial position but that their journalistic work is generally well-respected and we look at articles on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it seems like the facts can be sourced to other news organizations.GabrielF (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have accused me of removing templates. But that's beside the point. I'm all for discussion of why Fox News is an unreliable source. I'm very puzzled why you've tried to "tell on me" as if we're two kids in a playground. There was ample evidence in the RfC for Fox News that at the very least, it's a highly questionable source to use, even if some of the things it says are factually correct. The other sources are fine (which is why I did not remove them). 2.96.201.168 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into a discussion on the edit-warring here (Bbb23 has warned the IP, and Darkness Shines should know), but I'm puzzled why DS would go to war over this. The statements are already well-sourced with the other references, and one of the Fox references was indeed from Bill O'Reilly's show, which is just about the last thing we should ever cite here. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who Bill O'Reilly is. I reverted only because references were being removed. I opened this discussion to see if that was right or wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * a. you're kidding, I'm sure. Bill O'Reilly (political commentator).
 * b. if you don't know, and someone removes it claiming "not a reliable source", then why the eagerness to put it back? Drmies (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * a. Nope, never heard of the guy.
 * b. To the best that I know Fox passes the criteria set out in WP:RS. Als owhen an IP removes a source saying the BLP is a liar I figure they are removing the source cos they do not like the person. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed: assuming good faith is a good policy, but when an anonymous IP removes apparently useful source information, you have to be aware that there are sometimes hidden motives. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am no Fox fan but this just looks like current affairs. Potentially it could be replaced by reports from another media source in order to avoid problems, but simple deletion looks a bit concerning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fox news are reliable source its clearly meets the WP:RS criteria--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fox meets WP:RS for all the claims which the IP seems not to like. That he "knows" it to be wrong is not how Wikipedia works. Collect (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're beating a dead horse here, and I'll beat it some more: Bill O'Reilly (or that other one before him, Glenn Beck) is not a reliable source, even if Fox is. Judging whether something is reliable is obviously a matter of some editorial concern and deliberate evaluation. A blanket statement like "Fox is reliable" is simply incorrect: not everything on Fox is to be accepted (and that goes for other stations as well, of course). I'm not defending everything the IP did, but I certainly don't want to defend everything DS did. A better response would have been to investigate the issue, which in this case would mean learning who Bill O'Reilly is, and learning that differentiation is important. If DS had, for instance, restored everything but O'Reilly, they'd be on firmer ground. "I don't know who Bill O'Reilly is" makes DS's position extraordinarily weak, even if it doesn't make the IP's position any stronger (Collect, I certainly agree with your second sentence). Andrew Dalby, we are all anonymous here. Don't rag on IP editors because they're IP editors, and to suppose that they are more likely to have hidden motives than registered (and still anonymous) editors is a severe mistake. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not ragging on anyone, Drmies. Some of the best and most useful edits on Vicipaedia, over the last six years, have been made by anonymous IPs, and here on Wikipedia too. We'd be much worse off without them. This is just a little thing you become aware of when you've watched for a while: an occasional anonymous IP edit will be the removal of a useful source reference or a useful name. If you make an edit like that with a named account, people might well come and ask you why you did it. If you make it with an IP address, there's usually no comeback. I happened to be dealing with a case like that on Vicipaedia (here -- the same thing has been done anonymously on the French Wikipedia as well), and that's why Darkness Shines's comment struck a chord with me. Andrew Dalby 10:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've missed something. Fox is the source under discussion, but is it a Bill O'Reilly opinion piece? I think he was just mentioned as an example of what is wrong with Fox? A lot of media outlets have opinionators who are controversial for reporting news, but that does not make all their news services unreliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies - if Bill O'Rielly is not a reliable source then we should start scratching off all opinion news journalists. Let's also throw Piers Morgan and Michael Goodwin in that pile then.  Or alternatively, let's not.  Because these folks are professionals and are paid to be opinion columnists, they are accountable to their publishers and producers, and when written in that respect on Wikipedia, they make reliable sources.  And to add, I have nothing good to say about Bill O'Rielly.--v/r - TP 20:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd never consider Piers Morgan a reliable source, and I'm on his side in some hot-button issues. We should scratch all those opinion news people (i.e., entertainers): I don't even think of them as journalists. Anywayz, happy dayz to you TParis. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They get paid for their opinion. I'd call them all reliable sources even if they're only reliable sources on their opinion.  They are professionals, if you stretch the term.  I don't recall the last time I saw Piers do standup on Comedy Central.  Sunday Monday, Drmies ;) --v/r - TP 21:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to RS guideline wp:IRS newsorg opinion pieces (which is what O'Rielly does) is not reliable for facts; it is only reliable for stating his opinions, which in most articles will be irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter. This thread is about Fox News, not Bill O'Rielly.--v/r - TP 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm? If one looks at the diffs, one of them is attributed to O'Reilly. Moreover, the above discussion responded to was how to deal with newsorg opinion pieces, such as from O'Reilly:  in general we don't use them, unless somehow their opinion is so important that we need to say, "so-and-so says." Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If the main point of contention is Fox News as a source for the reasons for South Park making changes to an episode, then I'd be cautious. Is this fact or opinion? Are Fox News reports reliable to the extent that we don't expect them to present a guess as a fact? I wouldn't be very sure of that. Formerip (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fox News is clearly a reliable source. Some care should be exercised in differentiating between straight new sources and opinion pieces (including talk shows by political pundits).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is ever "reported" here. This is not a disciplinary project. Fox News has been discussed on multiple occasions before, please refer to the archives and come back if there is a dimension that we haven't got consensus on. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Itsmejudith. Concerning opinionators such as O'Reilly, they can be problematic for many types of news, but their opinions can also be notable and useful to put in an article sometimes. Generally in such cases we would explicitly state whose opinions we are giving, and not allow it to be said in Wikipedia's voice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

SPS on European borders
An editor is trying to use this page to cite a European border at Boundaries between continents. The site appears to be some sort of personal blog, and I reckon there'd have to be either a very strong source or quite a few to put any definition on the standing of the others. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify that I'm adding that definition to the "historical" section where multiple other definitions are already mentioned. That particular one wasn't, so for completeness I added it among the others. I'm not suggesting to replace "the modern definition" (as defined elsewhere in the article) with that one or anything like that. Japinderum (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The website http://www.phespirit.info is not a reliable source for geographic borders. It does not appear to be an academic source and there is no indication that the author is an expert on the subject. If the author had provided sourcing for the comment, then perhaps there would be some trail to follow. Location (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Your attention is called to Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot. Please comment on whether the website at "Billionaire's Bogus Legal Threats Against Bloggers Threaten Free Speech" can be a Reliable Source at Frank  L. VanderSloot. The exact statement in the article is

According to Rachel Maddow, the National Journal. the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho independent journalist Jody May-Chang.

Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Trevor Timm is described by the EFF as Trevor Timm is an activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He specializes in surveillance, free speech, and government transparency issues.. His opinions can be cited as his opinions, but there is no indication that his columns are reportorial rather than purely editorial in nature, nor does a fair reading of his post indicate that it is "news" and not "opinion." Collect (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is an editorial. Timm also appears to be discussing the report that Salon already posted. Is there an argument made for the necessity of including the reference to EFF and the citation? Location (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Film Fail Awards
We are having a disagreement about these negative Bollywood awards being RS or not. There was a lengthy discussion on the Jab Tak Hai Jaan talk page to include negative awards that had user voting just like the Golden Kelas and Ghantas. Now there are more negative awards like the Film Fail awards which are nominated by some of the most esteemed critics and journalists in India http://filmfailawards.com/jury/. A more detailed discussion is available on the Dabangg 2 talk page. A user keeps on reverting my edits because he says this is not RS. It is clearly RS as the reviews by all of these people are included in the film's pages. Can you help decide if this is RS or not? Thanks. Ashermadan (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an amateur looking blog site running on Wordpress. It is spam. It is most definitely not a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The website is made by http://www.theanthill.in which is one of the most recognized site makers in India. Just look at who the members of the Jury are. Even Rajeev Masand, the best critics in India, talked about them. Ashermadan (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From Dabangg 2 Talk Page: Film Fail Awards are a reliable source as a panel of esteemed critics decided them. Golden Kela, Ghanta, Screen and Filmfare all had public voting and are considered reliable sources. As long as they're talked about in the media and are affiliated with reliable sources like Rajeev Masand (CNN-IBN), Anirudhha Guha (DNA India), Baradwaj Rangan (The Hindu), Mihir Fadnavis (Mid-Day), Raja Sen (Rediff), and Rituparna Chatterjee (also CNN-IBN) it's RS. Look here: http://filmfailawards.com/jury/ . We had this discussion during the Ghantas and Kela debate and this was decided. Film Fail awards have more credibility than the Kelas which Zee supported and which aren't even affiliated with any critic and also have public voting. You cannot be the judge of what is RS, we have to abide by Wikipedia rules. Zee did not bother to read the jury section or even open the about section. Even Rajeev Masand, one of the top critics in India, is talking about them. Look here: https://twitter.com/RajeevMasand/status/294085421967765506 . Ashermadan (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Cineuropa
Is this a reliable source for the statements "In 2004, Joakim Langer researched Pettersson's family history in Papua New Guinea and wrote two books entitled In Search of Efraim and Pippi Longstocking and the King, which influenced the screenplay for Efraim Longstocking and the Cannibal Princess." and "He is regarded as the inspiration for Ephraim Longstocking, Pippi's father in Astrid Lindgren's children's series, Pippi Longstocking." in the article Carl Emil Pettersson? Ryan Vesey 04:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a referenced author to the page; the reliability seems fine to me. What is the context here? Is this information contested by another source? VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neotarf opposed it as unreliable. Their argument is here; although, it doesn't, in my opinion, come anywhere close to addressing why the source was supposedly unreliable.  I decided to take the issue here because it seems clear that Neotarf and I wouldn't come to a consensus on this issue. Ryan Vesey 20:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This publication is not a RS, it is a publicity ezine for the movie industry and the author is not an authority on books, but appears regularly touting gossip for the film industry. The article in question does not say a screenplay has been written, it only says the rights have been purchased, which I find speculative and non-notable. This supposed book title appears no where else, the supposed book is not in Amazon or WorldCat; I suspect it is a badly garbled rendering of some other book. Wikipedia needs to be more attentive of its fact-checking and not simply repeat the industry publicity. —Neotarf (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Two books here's one of them. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are insinuating that this isn't reliable because it isn't academic. That has never been held to be the case. Ryan Vesey 00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Insinuating", no. The policy reason is WP:NOTRELIABLE it "lacks meaningful editorial oversight" (fact-checking), and is "promotional" (relies on rumor and personal opinion). The book does not exist; the movie does not exist.  —Neotarf (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just showed you the book. Here's another source for the movie .  It's from Variety (magazine).  Here's one from RTL Group.  The movie is in pre-production phase, from what I gather it will be released in 2014.  The books have already been written.  Your statement that Cineuropa lacks editorial oversight is made up.  You have zero proof for that.  Here, you'll see that they clearly do have editorial oversight. Ryan Vesey 13:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. The site says: "Cineuropa.org is co-funded by the MEDIA Plus Programme of the European Commission, Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, the Ministry of the French Community of Belgium, the French Centre National de la Cinématographie, the ICAA, Swiss Films, the Swiss Office Federal de la Culture, Filmunio, German Films, Luxembourg Film Fund, Malta Film Commission, Czech Film Centre and the Irish Film Board" That certainly sounds pretty impressive. I'm guessing bureaucrats from half a dozen countries wouldn't be funding a personal blog. I'd say it's reliable until we have evidence otherwise. --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no claim being made that this is a "personal blog", rather that the publication is "promotional". And yes, government agencies, including agencies formed for the purpose of promoting film festivals, do have huge budgets for promotion. —Neotarf (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The above links are not for "In Search of Efraim and Pippi Longstocking and the King by Joakim Langer" but for "Pippi & der König : auf den Spuren von Efraim Langstrumpf by co-authors Joakim Langer and Hélena Regiusby", in German. My understanding is that an English version was originally planned but has never been published. If an English version does exist, there will be a separate ISBN for it. —Neotarf (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Looks like a reliable source to me. As for "This supposed book"--I don't know what that refers to. Two were mentioned, but why In Search of Ephraim would be "a badly garbled rendering of some other book" is a mystery (and it's not relevant for this thread anyway). Ryan Vesey did some useful searches, and the book (Auf den Spuren von Efraim Langstrumpf) is mentioned here. List Verlag, a sub of Ullstein Verlag, is a notable publisher. In addition, Joakim Langer seems like a notable enough author per Googling. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Joakim Langer is the author (actually co-author) of the Petterrson biography. The biography itself is not in question as an appropriate Wikipedia source but rather the Cineuropa article written by Jorn Rossing Jensen, which appears to be based on a press release from a film company.—Neotarf (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is a WorldCat search by author for Joakim Langer. Who are you going to believe, WorldCat or twitchfilm.com? —Neotarf (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just finished reading, The Revolution of Peter the Great. In that book, it mentions a number of books/treatises written during his rein.  All of those were written in Russian; however, my book gives English names for them.  Why?  My book is in English and I would not understand the Russian name.  There is nothing in the article to suggest that there is some separate English version that has not come out. Ryan Vesey 23:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yukio Mishima bibliography: Number of works
I'm asking for someone who brought this up in the IRC help channel. At the article, there seems to be a dispute on the number of works Mishima has created, attributed to different sources. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yukio_Mishima_bibliography&diff=534144766&oldid=534119423 This diff] shows the discrepancies. I don't have access to any of the sources and I'm unsure how to proceed, so I'd appreciate it if the folks here could help. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Without access to any of the sources it's difficult to tell whether this is an actual disagreement among experts (after all, when is it a book of connected short stories and when is it an episodic novel?), a mistake, or merely vandalism. The editor みしまるもも seems sincere, but he seems to be in the minority. I found this: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/25/specials/mishima-bios.html which also says 40 novels. I also worry that his point seems to be whether or not a novel was written for profit, or for entertainment, which isn't normally the way literary experts make decisions - there are plenty of novels that weren't written to make money, and there are also plenty of novels that were written to enlighten or to preach rather than to entertain. I'm also worried that he seems to be basing his edits on a "complete works" edition, and yet still writes "about" - you'd think with a complete works edition he could simply count. Without better evidence than that, I'd recommend reverting or, at best, putting a footnote: "such and such complete works edition only lists 34 novels." --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. GRuban. Henry Scott-Strokes said that Mishima wrote 40 novels, and 18 plays etc., but it isn't right clearly. "18 plays" is too little number. And actually, Mishima wrote 34 novels. I've list up all his 34 novels in Yukio Mishima bibliography. Please see. Then, my "about"(number of plays and books of short stories) means that how include Mishima's childhood works, or unpublished or unfinished stories and plays, or include the luxurious limited editions. So, it is necessary to attach "about" word. It is important to show more precisely about Mishima's works. Sorry for my poor english. --みしまるもも (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with you directly, as I personally don't have an alternate list of Mishima's works. However, I do see many other sources saying 40 novels. A reference book on Japan, the LA Times (written in 1985, so they're clearly not getting this information from our article), a blurb from the cover of a translation of his work,, the New York Times , the Chicago Tribune  (again 1985) ... it's possible all of these are wrong, but isn't it a simpler explanation that your collection is incomplete, or that experts consider some books novels which your collection considers collections of short stories or plays? --GRuban (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also I don't know Henry Scott-Strokes, but our article Henry Scott Stokes has him as a professional journalist for some respected newspapers, a personal friend of Mishima, and the author of a published biography of Mishima. If he is the source of the "40" number, then, unfortunately, you'll need some pretty convincing arguments to overcome that, as all that seems to make him a pretty weighty source. --GRuban (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. GRuban. Of course, Henry Scott Stokes is an excellent journalist, and is a Mishima's good friend. But Henry do not show list of 40 novels in it, and other newspaper sources do not too. Number of plays "18" is too little. It is wrong cleary Henry researced details about Tatenokai, and relations with Mishima and Japan Self-Defense Forces, but he is not a researcher of Mishima's literature. "Final edition-Yukio Mishima complete works"(No.1 - No.42 plus 2)  are classified into Novels, Short Stories, Plays, Criticisms (include Essays etc.),  These are published by Shinchosha. A lot of Mishima's works were published by Shinchosha in ｄuring his life time too. And this "Final edition"'s editors are experts in research of Mishima's iterature. Actually, Mishima's novels are 34. None of Japanese researcher of Mishima say "Mishima wrote 40 novels". Where are 6 (40-34) novels? Mishima's all novels are recorded in No.1 - No.14. Please see, and please count it. And, "Yukio Mishima complete works No.42-Biographical sketch and Bibliography" Amazon site is. I wish for you understand it. Sorry for my poor english. --みしまるもも (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Final edition-Yukio Mishima complete works -Novels-" (No.1 - No.14) lists. Mishima's all 34 novels are recorded in them.

No.1
 * Tōzoku (盗賊 Thieves), 1948
 * Kamen no Kokuhaku (仮面の告白 Confessions of a Mask), 1948
 * Junpaku no Yoru (純百の夜 Pure White Nights), 1950

No.2
 * Ai no Kawaki (愛の渇き Thirst for Love), 1950
 * Ao no Jidai (青の時代 The Blue Period), 1950
 * Natsuko no Bōken (夏子の冒険 Natsuko's Adventure), 1951

No.3
 * Kinijiki (禁色 Forbidden Colors), 1951 - 1953

No.4
 * Nippon-sei (につぽん製 Made in Japan), 1952
 * Shiosai (潮騷 The Sound of Waves), 1954
 * Koi no Miyako (恋の都 The Capital of Love), 1954

No.5
 * Megami (女神 Goddess), 1954 （Book Published in 1955）
 * Shizumeru Taki (沈める滝 The Sunk Waterfall), 1955
 * Kōfukugō Shuppan (幸福号出帆 The S.S. Happiness Sets Sail), 1956

No.6
 * Kinkaku-ji (金閣寺 The Temple of the Golden Pavilion), 1956
 * Nagasugita Haru (永すぎた春 Too Long a Spring), 1956
 * Bitoku no Yoromeki (美徳のよろめき Misstepping of Virtue), 1957

No.7
 * Kyōko no Ie (鏡子の家 Kyoko's House), 1959

No.8
 * Utage no Ato (宴のあと After the Banquet), 1960
 * Ojōsan (お嬢さん The Mademoiselle), 1960
 * Kemono no Tawamure (獣の戯れ Beasts' Game), 1961

No.9
 * Ai no Shissō (愛の疾走 Stampede of Love), 1963
 * Gogo no Eikō (午後の曳航 The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea), 1963
 * Nikutai no Gakkō (肉体の学校 School of the Flesh), 1964

No.10
 * Utsukushii Hoshi (美しい星 Beautiful Star), 1962
 * Kinu to Meisatsu (絹と明察 Silk and Insight), 1964

No.11
 * Ongaku (音楽 The Music), 1964
 * Mishima Yukio Letter Kyōshitsu (三島由紀夫レター教室 Yukio Mishima's Letter Classroom), 1968
 * Yakaifuku (夜会服 Evening Dress), 1967

No.12
 * Fukuzatsuna Kare (複雑な彼 That Complicated Guy), 1966
 * Inochi Urimasu (命売ります Life for Sale), 1968

No.13
 * Haru no Yuki (春の雪 Spring Snow), 1969
 * Honba (奔馬 Runaway Horses), 1969

No.14
 * Akatsuki no Tera (曉の寺 The Temple of Dawn), 1970
 * Tennin Gosui (天人五衰 The Decay of the Angel), 1971)

--みしまるもも (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Graham Greene distinguished between his own novels and his own mere "entertainments", if I remember correctly; and even the (at his best) excellent (and Nobel-winning) Kawabata also knocked out forgettable stuff for the money. There could be a legitimate distinction between (A) a novel rightly considered part of a writer's real oeuvre (pardon the pretentious word) and (B) a lower order of novel. And there are other imaginable complications too. I'm not much impressed by flat statements that a writer wrote N novels, because (quality aside) I can see immediate problems with the simple/simplistic numbering of the novels by those authors whose work I happen to enjoy. (E.g. Nabokov: is his The Eye a novel or a mere novella, and should his The Enchanter be counted at all?) &para; This seems to be an excellent opportunity for thinking editors to use reliable sources and their own brains, and work together to come up with intelligent numbers. I've written at greater length at Talk:Yukio Mishima bibliography, and suggest that the conversation should continue there rather than here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I bow to someone who seems to know much more about what he is talking about than I do. I also like the idea that we write "between X[ref][ref][ref] and Y[ref][ref] novels..." While it's true that what is and is not a novel is debatable, giving a ballpark estimate is still very useful, if nothing else because it gives prospective readers who want to read all of an author's works warning whether they're dealing with someone with the output of Thomas Harris or John Kennedy Toole or Isaac Asimov. --GRuban (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Source for Progressive Utilization Theory

 * Source:
 * Article: Progressive utilization theory
 * Content: Specific content using this source has yet to be determined. Per various discussions as Talk:Progressive utilization theory, the article is in the middle of a major restructuring in order to address issues related to an overabundance of primary source material. This source has been proposed as a reliable secondary source. The information appears to be self-published; however, the author, User:Denis Bellamy, appears to be an academic. Location (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it can be treated as an expert's self-published writing. Reliable for what PROUT advocates. Not a wonderful source. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish it went through a normal publisher or appeared on an academic website, but it does seem to be an accurate reflection of the philosophy according to what I have seen in primary sources and other secondary sources. Thanks for the reply! Location (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: WP:SPS states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I just noticed that Bellamy is a Professor Emeritus of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy (i.e he is an expert in a particular field of the natural sciences, not the social sciences). Does that influence the use of this particular self-published source? Location (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It weakens it a bit, but see that he has a role in mainstream ecosystems management. . This PROUT stuff really is hard to fathom. From its own presentation, its ideas are motherhood and apple pie, or at least liberal social democratic environmentalism. Yet there are sources asserting that it is a violent cult. Weird world. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis deaths?
Hi, I just created an RfC and was advised to enter it here. Does this study deserve mention in the "safety" section of Cannabis (drug), and what would be reasonable to say? It is being used to support an idea contrary to what good sources say, that there has never been a cannabis-induced human fatality. Thank you.  petrarchan47  t  c   04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When the prose makes medical claims, such as efficacy, safety, effects, etc, the general guideline is that we must use WP:MEDRS and cherry picked articles from mainstream media speaking flatteringly of marijuana safety is not appropriate. WP:RS is a different standard and would be acceptable if the claim is about cultural or legal matter, but not for health claims.


 * This is not the root of the issue however. Another editor disputed the bias in favor of marijuana use. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a serious problem at the Cannabis (drug) and related pages, as there are passionate editors who cannot accept the reports of cannabis' relative safety. When I first saw this page last in December 2012, there was no 'safety' section, but rather one line that said "It is rare, but people have died from cannabis" with 5 references that did NOT support the statement. The reference in question (subject of the RfC) is the one remaining reference from that grouping that is still being inserted into the article, most recently today by Cantelope2. All of the experts say no one has ever died from cannabis. The 'flattering prose' are the results of studies which find that cannabis is safer than aspirin. Just do a search to see that the idea anyone has died from cannabis is so fringe it doesn't even exist.  petrarchan47  t  c   19:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS says: "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse." The study, "Acute cardiovascular fatalities following cannabis use," is a primary source. Therefore, it can't be included in the article. Making a statement like, "people have died from cannabis" and giving primary sources to support it is original research which is forbidden under WP:NOR. If these individual primary sources are accurate, somebody should have done an evidence-based review and published it. An evidence-based review is a reliable, published secondary source. If the editor can find a review article, that should go in. If the editor can't find a review article (a reliable secondary source), he can't include the claim that people have died from cannabis. --Nbauman (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are review articles that support rare deaths or serious medical problems. This  is at least one good secondary source documenting “occasional myocardial infarction and stroke”. Another medical review and secondary source  also supports this.  Several other primary sources are available but need not be listed. Rlsheehan (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Kim Jones at About.com on Christian music
I have an anon stating that "The Changing Face of Christian Music", which is on About.com and written by Kim Jones is not a reliable source. It is used three times in the contemporary Christian music article Is this a reliable source or not? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A direct quote linking the Jesus movement of the early 1970s to the formation of a major Christian music industry, which is supported with other references in the paragraph.
 * 2) A similar statement relating how Christian music had, until the late 1960s, been primarily church music.
 * 3) A quote indicating that by the Christian bands were crossing-over to non-Christian (mainstream) radio.
 * ascribed to Mark Writght and dated April 1, 2009 has much of the exact same language . I think using something as a source which has multiple copyvios is not per Wikipedia policy.  Find the earliest source you can for any such claims - about.com does not seem to make it. Collect (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Material published on about.com should virtually never be taken as reliable. At best the pieces may be an WP:SPS by an established expert in the field (in cases where they are written by established experts in that field). At any rate it appears there are other sources that can be used for the same information.Cúchullain t/ c 16:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I only returned here to mention Walter Görlitz has still refused to remove the above questioned content even after being advised/informed it was not a valid source/statement more than once (by the above users as well as myself originally). In addition, other examples of "about.com" uses have been denied as stated within past noticeboard messages (some he is already aware of and were provided on the "Contemporary Christian music" talk page here: ). Additionally, he has not used the necessary templates where he has admitted they were missing and required due to a lack of verification (those statements are subject to removal). He claims some of the content are [only] in books he owns which is not an acceptable source of verification (original research perhaps). Lastly, he reverted content that he and another user claimed were not properly sourced even though some were from NY Times, MTV.com (music sites), CCM sites and the actual singer's sites verifying the statements he and another user removed. Plus the same content is already found within related articles such as ones about the artists and/or similar topics which "Walter" himself has edited on and/or "watches" (therefore agreeing to it when mentioned on other articles). Not only that, the About.com article includes some of the same musicians I mentioned in the edit that he removed, even though I'm aware it isn't a reliable source (but I provided additional reliable references that he didn't like). It just seems to be a contradition (double-standard). I hope the above users who responded to this source/content not being allowed will finally have it removed. The entire paragraph itself is poorly typed, "unclear" and invalid because it is an opinion by a random writer (I can give examples if necessary). Thank you, have a great day! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. The reliable info he recently removed on the CCM article has been included in another article he doesn't "watch" and has not been reverted.


 * The About.com content needs to be removed or sourced properly. I also have permission to replace my reverted entry with the legit sources (although not required since it's already contained in the respective articles about the individual singers) as it helped expand the article regarding diverse artists in CCM. If I do this, am I going to get hassle again? Someone else let me know, thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * DONE/COMPLETED (I no longer have a complaint about this matter and it can be closed as of now. Thank you!) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable press, outside area of expertise.
I recently removed the following ref "" from the Palestinian people article, due to the fact Micahel Prior is not a historian. It is being claimed on the talk page that because the material was published by Psychology Press, it may be used in the article for information about history, which is outside Prior's expertise. Is this correct? And a related question - is it true that anything published by an academic press is considered prima facie reliable? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:RS leads me to the conclusion that a book is reliable if either the author is an acknowledged expert in the field or if the publisher is a well-respected academic publisher. I see the argument above as one that removes the second condition completely. If only experts in the field are "reliable sources", why mention the publisher at all in WP:RS? And just to note, Psychology Press is part of the Taylor & Francis group.  nableezy  - 22:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally independent of this question I recently added to,WP:HISTRS the idea that social scientists other than historians can be reliable for history, ifthey are writing within their area of expertise. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Prior is a theologian of biblical theology, so the history of Israel from the time of the Assyrians to the time of the Bar Kochba revolt is hardly completely out of his area of expertise. Moreover, as far as I can tell, what he says in the quoted part is a fair reflection of mainstream opinion. It's certainly true, even according to Biblical sources, that e.g. the Babylonian Captivity only affected some parts of the population (mostly upper classes and skilled craftsmen), not the population at large. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, he'd be an expert on what the bible says that history is. But that's not really what this ref is used to support in the article. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted here that the article, Palestinian People is not a historical article. The statement the source is being used to support is the first sentence of the lead defining the subject: "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab." The definition of Palestinian People is not a historical question and it is reasonable, in my view, to use experts in a number of scholarly disciplines to give a rounded definition of the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Michael Prior was a professor of Biblical Theology, so no matter how you look at it, the quote is outside his area of expertise. Certainly the part that supposedly (but not quite) supports the sentence in the article. So the question remains - is the fact this was published by an academic press enough to make it reliable? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He could be a good source about Biblical theology but not about historical fact.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Michael Prior is not the only thing to consider here. I agree with NMMNG on what question is outstanding, and I would love to not see this devolve into a contest to see who turns out the most votes. Lets see what people who are actually uninvolved in the topic area say about a question that applies to more than single source and a single sentence. Please.  nableezy  - 06:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that something published by an academic press is likely to be accurate, especially as this seems to broadly fall within the author's field of expertise and (based on my understanding) isn't a controversial statement. However, there have to be much better sources which specialise in the topic which should be referenced instead; we're doing our readers a disservice by directing them to works which aren't focused on the subject. I'd suggest finding a scholarly work on the historical demographics of the region and citing that instead (such a work is also likely to provide additional details or nuances which aren't included in the work in question here which can be used to improve the article). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * expertise in Biblical history means expertise in the ancient history of Palestine-- and Prior certainly qualifies. See his book Prior, Michael, Western scholarship and the history of Palestine Melisende, 1998, which is cited in numerous scholarly books and articles. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's some confusion here. Prior is not being cited here for the ancient history of Palestine. Only the last sentence I quoted at the beginning of this section is being used, and that by stating as fact something he's stating as a possibility. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The late Professor Prior was indeed a historian of Palestine, as reflected in the frequent citations in the professional journals and scholarly books to his 1998 book on Western scholarship and the history of Palestine. Rjensen (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * NMMNG - I am not sure what led you to make your last comment. It is a misrepresentation of how the source is being used. The whole passage you quoted is being used in the citation, not just the last sentence as you erroneously claim. Furthermore, the statement that this source is used for does not state something as fact that the source is stating as possibility. But your attack against this source seems to have shifted somewhat, you have not raised this point before. Dlv999 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * this is the RS noticeboard and the only question here is whether or not Prof Prior is a RS--in this case an expert on the history of Palestine. I cited his book on the history of Palestine; google scholar lists citations to it in over 500 books--I looked at the first 20 and they are pretty solid evidence he is considered authoritative by the scholarly community. There are several long articles praising his scholarship in the journals. He was an Irish Catholic priest based in Britain and apparently had no personal connection to Palestine. Rjensen (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable. He isn't writing outside his area of expertise. The article isn't primarily a history one although even if it were this would not break WP:RS. The claims don't seem to be very contentious, but if they are contradicted by other scholarship both views can be shown. On the broader question, academic texts areprima facie RS, but that still seems to leave us a lot of room for debate. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misapprehension about what qualifying as a Catholic biblical scholar means. You have to learn the relevant semitic languages, study history because the bible is both historical and historicizing, and, as a theologian interested in the Middle East, this almost invariably entails a comprehensive interest in the history of Christianity and Judaism throughout the long durée of that country. This should never have been raised. I don't know why we are required to make inordinate efforts to document a fairly generic and uncontroversible definition of Palestinians. As I've noted before, comparable pages on peoples show no such obsessive scepticism of the lead definitions, which are rarely sourced, and if they are (Jews), to take a sister article, the sources all fail the kind of test NMMGG and others keep repeatedly demanding of the Palestinian page (Louis Brandeis, a justice on the Supreme Court: Edward Palmer, a 19th century prof. of Arabic, and Albert Einstein, a physicist). Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Need assistance regarding Contemporary Christian Music article
See "Jon Gibson & others" on talk page. I feel I am being bullied by an editor who reverted good contributions that was being discussed until there was a concensus or improvements made. He got involved when an open discussion was going on about the edits I provided. This seems to happen a lot with this user: Walter Görlitz (talk). I would like someone else unrelated to him and myself to assist. I feel he is not working with me and should leave it until we resolve the matter. He has belittled me and put unnecessary messages on my talk page that were out-of-line when [he] knows I'm not vandalizing. I'm only trying to expand the section and not be stressed by anyone who doesn't like the content even though it's legit. Thank you for your help! I will be going offline for now and reply later. Hopefully those assisting will have more patience than [him]. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian music and Talk:Contemporary Christian music
 * Anon posted 17 sources at Talk:Contemporary Christian music and I responded to each. If other editors want to respond there, it might be most appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * UH, those sources i listed were removed. Do you actually read what i typed? I said those were removed, i just listed them on the talk page. You are not really paying attention, just reverting and insist on getting your way. I am not visiting this page, or the talk page, or the discussion page you started about this anymore. I seriously won't return. When i see i have a message, it will be ignored. It just doesn't matter to me. I am removing myself from this minor detail in my life and consider myself the "winner". I really don't care anymore. The talk page will speak for itself and the edit history. Those who really care and see it will appreciate the info and know i'm right. I also produce many of the articles that Wiki uses, so it's not like i care about having "fame" with Wiki. I create real original articles, not "steal" them. I produce them. So this doesn't matter to me. I feel bad that you like starting trouble, no one else has done this. It's always you. I think it's a bit scary to be honest. I can always change my user id/name and avoid the pages you work on. You violate Wiki policy and for that you should be banned in my opinion. You have a history of being "revert happy". I will go on as a professional editor and decent human-being who doesn't hide behind being a "christian" yet doesn't bear the fruit. (Not saying you, just speaking generally in case you take that as a personal attack.) Frauds are always among us. Best of 'luck' in life! BYE P.S. You only mention the 17 sources i listed as if that is our "beef". WOW! So not worth it, this was a huge waste of my time. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This topic can be removed. I have decided to avoid WALTER. I posted this so that OTHER users participated and "he" is following me and sticking his nose in what was supposed to be unbias and unrelated to him. I do not want to resolve or discuss it anymore simply because he keeps responding to me in a negative manner and not addressing the concerns on the talk page this is about which asked him to list what was wrong or right about the edit, instead he just removed it all. I am not worried about it anymore, and won't be visiting this topic anymore. I have not even read his responses/input since my last edit. I simply do not care what his "opinion" is after he has made a bad impression on me from the start. I don't deal with people like him, they are toxic/cancer. Again, this can be deleted. I would do it, but i am not tip-toeing around Walter's poor attitude and know he will want to read this when he has nothing better to do, plus i don't want it to seem i am violating any policy (unlike "him"). P.S. This goes for the other mediation/noticeboard pages where this is being discussed (this is the one i created). I am not returning to any of them. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern (FYI update only): Reliable_sources/Noticeboard P.S. I want no contact with/from "Walter" and will not communicate with him nor read any of his comments/responses. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, no hounding is going on. Anon edits pages I watch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: was advised to repost my contribution per my talk page which is currently on the article talk page for review/editing before I add it back at some point. The above user is currently making changes to the overall article, so I will wait several days more than likely until things are settled down some. FYI only... Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Compositional information of a song
Is this website reliable to cite only the song's key and tempo? Till 14:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Philip Ahn
Biographical material was recently removed from this article (diff), specifically, information relating to his parents and their emigration to America (i.e., not particularly contentious). I've since found two sources:, and.

Would anyone have major objections to these two sources (considering they're both essentially personal webpages) for the purpose of providing a citation for the biographical material removed? Alternatively, does anyone know where better information might be found? ˜danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 16:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Spelling differences can drive you crazy when searching for English-language sources about Koreans.  Philip Ahn's father, Dosan An Chang-ho, was a very prominent figure in Korean-American history and has all sorts of things named after him in L.A. and elsewhere. And there's an entire book about Philip Ahn, although unfortunately some parts about his parentage seems to be excepted from text search at GBooks.  However, a footnote raises some doubts about whether he was really the first Korean-American born in the U.S. and I am also not sure about the claims that Helen was the first (or second) woman and that they were the first married couple.  Other web-available reliable sources for his parentage include  and . --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Press+1 a reliable source?
I'm involved with an AfD where an editor is trying to say that the review website Press+1 is a reliable source. Even though it has been up since 2007, I'm not entirely convinced that it is. It looks to be that the site doesn't have a set reviewing staff and takes random reviews from anyone. There might be some quality checking, but there's no way of actually being able to verify how in-depth it is. The AfD in question is Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy (2nd nomination) and there are also some sources in question, such as this article from AWN. I'm almost convinced it's a press release or taken predominantly from one, as the names of the show and its crew are all in capital letters, something that is pretty common in press releases.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of it, but it seems to be under editorial control. with named contributors and an editor-in-chief.  DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has reputed editorial control, but there's no evidence that it has a history of fact-checking, is considered reliable by other sources, etc. We need a pretty high bar to be using reviews on the web as reliable sources, especially for purposes of determining notability of topics for having articles. DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Typepad.com
I wonder if Typepad.com is reliable to be included. I want to add content into Diane Chambers and Rebecca Howe by using this link: http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2006/06/shelley_what_we.html --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a blog site, so it's only reliable for confirming the opinions of the individual blogger. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Medievia

 * 1) Source:
 * 2) Article: Medievia
 * 3) Content: "...being noted as having over 100 players online at off-peak hours."

Another editor raised concerns over the reliability of the source, given its use of 'humorous' language. Since it was published by IDG Books, I think it is enough to support the (non contentious) statement, but if I'm wrong, please chime in. The date is quite old, so that might be a problem.

My main concern is sourcing in the rest of the article. The game is primarily notable (AFAICT) for a legal controversy surrounding its code and licensing, and so the article is (perhaps rightly so) devoted almost exclusively to that controversy. Since we mention the owner's name, this intersects with BLP. Many of the available sources are poor. Some are acceptable, such as  I believe the article in its current state is acceptable, but I'd like outside input to make sure I'm correct. Thanks. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 06:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that there's anything wrong with the Yahoo Wild Web Rides source. Its "humorous" or light-hearted language does not convert it from what it is, a collection of reviews, to a work of humor.  As to the rest, I've worked on the article so I'm not really an outside opinion. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Horrible source?
So far, the article GodWars is a stub mostly supported by primary sources, and we are trying to improve it and provide serious, secondary sources (the references 2 and 4 are not very good either, but this is the worst). We are having a conversation about it on the talk page, but nobody else is participating so I'm bringing it here. I believe it's worth noting that the other editor has a conflict of interest []. The source appears to be a lousy text file, not even signed with a real name but with a nickname (Sunangel). It's hosted on a personal website which doesn't look professional or notable (nothing links to it). EternalFlare (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Source:
 * Article: GodWars
 * Content: an ASCII drawing, leading to the change:
 * The tertiary source "Hierarchy of MUDs" is cited as a reference in the Bibliography of Designing Virtual Worlds, where the author of the book (who is considered an expert on the subject) refers to it as "a later (but still not up-to-date) tree". The fact that it isn't up-to-date isn't important in this case, only the accuracy.  Ref: http://www.mud.co.uk/dvw/bibliography.html KaVir (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting on (outside) help to resolve the issue, considering that the comment above comes from the editor who's discussing with me on the talk page. Basically, not sure this is a valid source when we don't even know who it comes from. Thank you. EternalFlare (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems a valid source. It may not be in a printed newspaper, but it is hardly a 'lousy' text file. (IMHO, it is an extremely well done and well formatted text file.)  The file contains solid references and has validation from the expert source mentioned above, and while it may be dated, that does not impinge on its historical validity.  It is at least as valid as an arXiv or electronic-only PubMed paper.  Given the time of publication, the use of ASCII art would not be considered any more unusual than the use of a PDF would be considered today. Flying hazard (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a matter of principle, we shouldn't treat txt files different than html. Neither are more secure or less prone to manipulation... they're just different formats. A few possible issues I see with this source include that it's hosted on a personal website (and so not prone to editorial oversite, as some journals, newspapers or books would be), its author's real name isn't readily apparent (perhaps I missed it) except for a pseudonym, and some of the sources cited have to be considered carefully. For instance, one source is "author unknown", and another is KaVir (the author of the subject). None of those compel me to discard this source. It may not be the pinnacle of citations, but we can use it, especially for such uncontroversial claims. For the particular claim being made, that "GodWars is a family of MUD engines", I would prefer to see a source which used the word "family", rather than a chart from which we could infer it. But, that's another matter which can be handled on the article talk page. I'm not really "outside" input either, despite not having participated in this discussion until now.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

DNA Tribes, a private genetics company, being used as a source
I think we need some guidance on using DNA Tribes as a source for articles. I was reminded of it when I saw it was used atDNA history of Ancient Egypt. We use it in several articles, see and  while at the same time its article was deleted as a non-notable organsiation Articles for deletion/DNA Tribes. I think we should attempt to stick to peer reviewed articles for genetics information. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I think most active editors on these sorts of subjects try to avoid use of all testing companies, who are after all trying to sell tests. (But also DNA Tribes is not one of the better or most successful and respected ones.) In any case every claim on testing company websites is supposedly based on published research, and so it is normally not hard for any responsible editor to confirm if that really exists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I keep trying to remove it from DNA history of Ancient Egypt but I keep getting reverted, either by an IP (whose only contributions are about this) who says that it should be in if another report from a company that probably also fails our RS criteria but got a lot of media attention stays in, and by someone else who says its been there a long time and is sourced (to the company) so it should stay. And ironically it takes up a large chunk of the article, much more than the report which actually got some media attention. So it fails as a reliable source and as a significant viewpoint (and has a copyright symbol I see). [Just noticed I didn't sign this, I wrote it 19:09, 28 January 2013. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)]
 * Effectively, the Ramses III and the 18th Dynasty mummies analysis is based on those 2 published research http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268 and http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 respectively. DrLewisphd (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are good sources - are you suggesting that's a problem? DNA Tribes isn't a reliable source, we should use peer reviewed sources, the exception being when a report that we would ordinarily never use hits the media and gets considerable coverage in multiple sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree should not be used - not only its it  a testing company, but its not a good one (not a staler reputation).Moxy (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And he's restored the material again. He hasn't even tried to argue that it's a reliable source, he knows about this thread and a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt saying DNA Tribes should not be removed without "consensus or completing dispute resolution." How can you complete dispute resolution with someone who won't put up an argument other than to say it should be in the article? Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * DNA Tribes generally used other peoples (researchers) data - can we not find the same info from a more reliable source? If reliable published sources do not include the information that is  found only at DNA Tribes, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may constitute original research.Moxy (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would also be my suggestion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook used as official website in infobox
An editor wants to use Saverin's alleged facebook page as his offficial website in the infobox. I've objected saying there is no way to verify that it's Saverin's facebook page. The other editor is insistent. They also seem to see things I don't, perhaps because they are a facebook user (I am not), but claim that even anyone can see them. Although I think the burden is on the other editor to establish a consensus for using the facebook page (WP:BRD) and have said so on the talk page, I am not going to battle over it. I looked at the archives of this board, but most of it seems geared to using facebook as a source to support material.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument that the page can't be verified it's his is a bit strange to me - if it wasn't, it suggests someone is actively impersonating the part-owner of a site on that site without anyone having noticed, despite millions of page views. It's a bit like worrying we can't assume User:Jimbo Wales is, in fact, Jimmy :-). I don't see any reason not to trust its validity.
 * Linking to a Facebook profile is unusual for the "official site", but where it's the only public web presence of the person - and especially where they have such a specific link to Facebook - it seems entirely reasonable. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the page in question . I would argue that any social media page is not the same thing as an "official site" for an individual. For example, a famous person can have as many personal profiles as they want and none of them are the "official site." Here is a social media page for Madonna and here is her official site  The personal Facebook page of Eduardo Saverin is much less "official" than his professional bio here  and no more "official" than another Facebook page that also bears his name  USchick (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If a person or organisation chooses to use only a Facebook page as their web presence, and it can be clearly established that they do so (which may not be the case here), then it seems reasonable to list that as their "official website". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, there are two personal Facebook pages  and they are not being used to establish him as a "brand" with online presence, they are being used as personal communication tools, not at all "official." USchick (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A person's official site is whichever one among verified sites under his or her control is treated as the main one. That can certainly be Facebook -- and for a cofounder of Facebook I don't know why anyone would express surprise. The CrunchBase bio linked to above is a nice bio, but it's clearly not his official site. Hell, that page even links to the Facebook page in question as his official site. Case closed as far as I am concerned. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for us and for the rest of Wikipedia community, you don't have the ability to close a case. :) Which of the two Facebook pages is more official in your opinion? How can you tell? Why does a FB founder get special treatment on Wikipedia? USchick (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From earlier comments it looked like it was already closed before I even commented, but please feel free to continue to make unhelpful, snarky comments at editors who disagree with you, as I'm sure that will go far in advancing your argument here. DreamGuy (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I admit to having a bias against social media websites being used for just about anything at Wikipedia, but I'm trying to put that aside. Responding to Demiurge and to USchick, how do we determine that a facebook page is offical (it looks like he may have two pages because of the language issues)? As far as DreamGuy's point, Saverin hasn't been involved in Facebook (as a company), other than selling stock, in a long time, so that point seems weak.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't even my point, just an aside. As others pointed out Facebook pages can be the official site if there are no better ones or if the subject uses them as such. I don't normally like those sites for use on Wikipedia either, but others have said it's his official site and the site USchick was trying to call more official also said the Facebook page was his official site. There needs to be more than just Facebook hate as a counterargument. DreamGuy (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Patents as source for invention claims
I contend that reliable sources patents are insufficient sources for claims that a certain person invented something, especially when other inventors are traditionally credited with the invention. I suggest multiple high quality secondary sources are required to establish who invented something in controversial cases.

This matter has been discussed since early December at Talk:Integrated circuit and concerns this edit, and a number of similar edits since early December. The edit claims that one Frances Hugle invented a process for fabricating an IC (that is, integrated circuit). To further clarify, in the "Integrated circuit" article is only about monolithic integrated circuits, and does not cover Hybrid integrated circuits. The sources cited are US Patents 3226271 and 2994621. The diff also cites the article's talk page.

I leave it to readers to figure out their favorite way to view patents; the US Patent Office makes them available but you have to jump through hoops to install the right TIFF viewer. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Beware. The issue of a patent is proof that the person to whom it was issued was the person granted the patent and nothing more. It is accepted that no previous evidence existed to the Patent Office at the time of a pre-existing claim. The Catch-22 is quite clear here. Edison got the patent for the light bulb (say, I haven't checked) but that does not mean that Fred Bloggs did not invent it 50 years before and didn't bother to get a patent! (And there's plenty of evidence of people "borrowing" others' inventions for their own profit.) Emeraude (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "I contend that reliable sources are insufficient sources..."


 * I think it serves ALL readers to be presented with as complete a picture as we can reliably provide.


 * Most secondary sources do credit Noyce and Kilby since their patents were awarded first. But, that is because these sources were unaware that Frances had filed for a patent on the IC years before... ultimately awarded in two parts (in 1961 and in 1965).


 * But there was an article printed in SEMI magazine and written by its editorial staff that mentioned Fran invented an early IC while at Baldwin in the fifties and it was for this reason that Baldwin provided the funding for Siliconix. Siliconix is a major Silicon Valley semiconductor house and one of the valley's first and most prestigious. It was co-founded by Frances Hugle who served as its Director of R&D and Chief Engineer and developed its first products(and critical fab equipment).


 * Also, Fran was working on classified contracts at Baldwin in the fifties and most of her work could not be discussed, even after she left.


 * But, possibly my edit should be rewritten.


 * I am only trying to insert into the invention chronology the actual patents that first described how to fabricate an IC. In fact, later patents such as Noyce's do not detail this process.


 * Not including the all important reduction to practice breakthrough seems VERY biased especially when the article devotes time to highlighting those who contributed only theoretical speculations on its feasibility.


 * Also, though I shared this info on the Talk page initially in hopes that someone else would incorporate it, not only did no one take the initiative, it was suggested that I do it myself. I decided to do so only after giving sufficient time for others to do the insert.


 * "and a number of similar edits since early December."


 * I do not know what this is regarding. I have made no others but maybe this refers to other editors.


 * "To further clarify, in the "Integrated circuit" article is only about monolithic integrated circuits, and does not cover Hybrid integrated circuits."


 * The Frances Hugle patent(s) does not describe a 'hybrid integrated circuit'. It describes a 'monolithic integrated circuit' and was filed in 1956.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * It is highly questionable whether the patents describe monolithic integrated circuits. Monolithic integrated circuits, especially early ones, usually consist of a single crystal substrate on which are created, through diffusion or growth, single crystal devices (that is, all the transistors on the whole substrate are part of a single crystal, although the gate of MOS transistors may be polycrystaline). Creating decent quality transistors, whether bipolar or FET, requires that they be made of a single crystal. The Hugle patents did not provide a way to fabricate single crystal devices. But that just goes to show that it requires original research to determine whether the patents provide a process used fabricate a monolithic integrated circuit. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "It is highly questionable whether the patents describe monolithic integrated circuits."


 * That is just a ridiculous statement. I am preoccupied at the moment but will soon return to cite specific wording in the patent(s) proving no original research is required.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * I don't see this as an issue of reliability, so much as a technical one of definitions. There are credible patents here about a credible invention – however are they integrated circuits?, according to our operating definition of what an integrated circuit is, and has to be to be counted as such? I'm still not seeing these. (As an aside, I've never made an IC in my life – however I have worked in semiconductor fab for laser diodes). Andy Dingley (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "There are credible patents here about a credible invention – however are they integrated circuits?, according to our operating definition of what an integrated circuit is, and has to be to be counted as such? I'm still not seeing these."


 * Because you are not alone in not knowing what an IC is, I have included in the discussion below two common definitions from two highly regarded sources. Hope that helps end the confusion. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * I don't see the problem in general using a patent directly as a source to support claims made by its inventor(s) as long as they are casted in prose that way. Eg "In Patent 000, Dr. Smith claims to have invented perpetual motion." However, such claims should always be taken as opinion if taken directly from the patent; only secondary sources referring to the patent can "elevate" that claim to a citable fact. --M ASEM  (t) 03:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This question is in the wrong forum; it is a WP:OR issue in WP:RS clothing. Patents can be reliable sources for statements that do not require interpretation. If the inventor describes something clearly, then that description can be made in the article, but it may not be embellished. Hugle invented a photosensor array; that's in the patent. Hugle patented some isolation techniques; the patent file and issue dates may be reported. If some prior patent (or other prior published work) clearly described a process that fabricated different isolated components (e.g., R, C, Q) on a single wafer and wired them together into complete circuits, then no interpretation would be required and editors could easily reach a consensus that the thing described in the patent was an IC.  (For example, Monopoly was published prior to Parker Bros' copyright.) That's not the case here.  Editors may not read some patents and draw conclusions about what the patents mean or imply because that would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. I read the Hugle patents when this issue came up at Frances Hugle, and I get a much different impression of her claims and priority.  In any event, editors may not read a patent and conclude that an array of photocells is an integrated circuit or that depositing polysilicon on a substrate is inventing the microprocessor.  Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but we don't get to make that call.  WP needs secondary sources to make those judgments. Glrx (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * " If some prior patent (or other prior published work) clearly described a process that fabricated different isolated components (e.g., R, C, Q) on a single wafer and wired them together into complete circuits, then no interpretation would be required and editors could easily reach a consensus that the thing described in the patent was an IC."


 * What you have just described is traditionally called a Hybrid Integrated Circuit which is clearly NOT what Fran invented.


 * The real problem here is not OR or anything to do with Wiki rules. It is that those commenting or objecting to my contributions (and probably the contributions of others) do not have a clue what is being claimed (by me, or the inventor) or what the actual definitions are of the things they are discussing (i.e. an IC)... and so we go round and round. It is time wasting for everyone. Please become better informed on the subjects to which you wish to contribute, it is not enough to copy technical terms and then throw them haphazardly about thinking that will win the day. I am sorry if that is insulting, I really am not intending to be. But this is a serious discussion to me and does take my time, much more than should be required.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

I compiled some excerpts from Frances' patent(s) that clearly indicate Frances described how to fabricate an IC long before Kilby or Noyce made any claims in that regard. It lost its formatting and for that I apologize. Before getting into her words though I would like to offer a review of what an IC is. I keep encountering Wiki editors who are quick to tell me Frances did not invent it but aren't clear at all about what it is.

(It seems that the person who brought this to this board is also somewhat confused, so hopefully these definitions will help simplify and clarify the matter.)

That said, I think a very non-controversial interim way to deal with this has been suggested by Masem. Possibly if those interested would read the excerpts I have compiled, we could achieve consensus?

Before we consider the claims Frances received patents for, we need to know what an integrated circuit is...

1) An integrated circuit (IC), also called microelectronic circuit or chip, is an assembly of electronic components, fabricated as a single unit, in which miniaturized active devices (e.g., transistors and diodes) and passive devices (e.g., capacitors and resistors) and their interconnections are built up on a thin substrate of semiconductor material (typically silicon). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289645/integrated-circuit-IC

2) Integrated circuits, also called "chips", are electronic circuits where all the components (transistors, diodes, resistors and capacitors) has been manufactured in the surface of a thin substrate of semiconductor material. http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/integrated_circuit/

And here are some excerpts from Frances' patent(s) proving Frances invented the processes and the equipment to make them (reduction to practice).

From the first set of claims patented: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2994621A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=1&date=19610801&DB=&locale=en_EP "The invention relates to the method of preparing semi conductive films and to the products of such methods." (Page 2, column 1, 1st paragraph)

"It is an object of the invention to provide a method for the direct production of semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals which will be cheaper and more convenient than methods hitherto current in the art." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 27-30)

Page 2, Column 1, lines 35-49:

"It is an object of the invention to provide a method of forming semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals in combination, in which stoichiometric proportions may be automatically obtained." (lines 35-38)

"It is an object of the invention to provide semi-conductive films of metallic or semi-metallic materials or combinations which may be selectively of the n or p types." (lines 39-41)

"It is an object of the invention to provide an improved method for making semi-conductive films having alternate areas of n and p characteristics." (lines 42-44)

"It is an object of the invention to provide a mode of manufacturing semi-conductive films of metallic or semi-metallic combinations, wherein the extent, area, disposition and thickness of the films can be easily, cheaply and accurately controlled." (lines 45-49)

"Briefly, in the practice of the invention, a series of films of metals or semi-metals is formed with the films in superposed relationship on a suitable substrate or support." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 67-70)

Page 3, Column 1, lines 42-65:

"In the fashion indicated, either n or p type films may be formed by varying the thicknesses of the layers and/or the temperature and time of the heating procedure. More than two layers maybe deposited of either of the metals or semi-metals." (lines 42-46)

"The support on which the films are formed should, of course, be of a material capable of withstanding the necessary heat treatment. Thus, it will be found that the glasses and ceramics are most available as substrates for use in the process. The films may be combined with printed circuitry if desired. While printed circuit elements may be formed on the composite in various ways, it is also possible to form the printed circuit first and impose the composite thereon. The material of the printed circuit if first imposed on the substrate should be such as will not fuse or amalgamate with the substances of the films at the temperature of the treatment. Otherwise there is substantially no limitation on the substance of the printed circuit excepting that it have the requisite conductivity. Metals and alloys are available. Excellent results have been obtained, for example, with Iconel metal. The printed circuit may be imposed on the substrate in any suitable fashion, as by printing or stenciling, or by etching an over-all coating." (lines 47-65)

Page 5, Column 1, Lines 8-23:

3. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position to contact spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part. 4. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position overlying spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part, and in electrical contact therewith, and wherein certain areas of the substrate surface are masked with a masking substance prior to the formation of the superposed films so as to restrict such formation to another area of the substrate surface, the masking material being removed prior to the reaction of the superposed films under heat.

Second set of claims patented: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=3226271A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=1&date=19651228&DB=&locale=en_EP Page 2, Column 1, lines 11-14:

This is a division of applicants' copending case, Serial No. 574, 804, filed March 29, 1956 and bearing the same title, which case issued as Patent 2,994,621 on August 1, 1961.

Page 4, Column 2, lines 67-75:

1. A method of making a composite semi-conductive film on a substrate, which comprises sequentially exposing a surface of the substrate to vapors of n and p type materials through the meshes of a screen from separate sources of the n and p type material spaced from each other in a plane, substantially parallel to the substrate surface, whereby the films so formed are characterized by alternating areas of different composition, and subjecting the composite so formed to a heat treatment.

Page 5, Column 1, Lines 1-29:

2. The process claimed in claim 1 in which as initially formed the said films comprise alternating heavy and light deposit areas which area are out of register with each other so that the heat treated composite is characterized by alternating areas having respectively n and p characteristics and meeting in a p-n junction. 3. The method of making a composite semi-conductive film on a substrate, the said film being characterized by repetitive n and p junctions, which comprises depositing on said substrate by vaporization from separated sources and through the meshes of a screen located in a plane substantially parallel to the substrate surface, two materials which, being deposited through the meshes of said screen by reason of parallax inherent in the separation of said sources, in repetitive areas characterized by varying quantities of the two materials will produce n and p junctions between said areas. 4. The process claimed in claim 3 wherein said materials are respectively anionic and cationic semi-conductive materials. 5. The process claimed in claim 3 including the step of initially forming a film of semi-conductor on said substrate and wherein the said two materials deposited through said screen are respectively acceptors and donors capable of forming with the predeposited film semi-conductors having n- and p- type characteristics. 6. The process claimed in claim 3 wherein the two materials constitute semi-conductors having respectively n- and p-type characteristics.

Page 5, Column 2, Lines 1-8:

7. The method of making a semi-conductive device characterized by adjacent areas of n and p type materials, which comprises evaporating said n and p type materials from separated locations onto a base through a foraminous element characterized by a plurality of small spaced openings, whereby said n and p type materials are deposited in areas having a side by side relationship whereby to form n and p junctions between said areas.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * I think the wall of text above is missing the point. Patents can only be used as a source to prove a) the existence of the patent and b) the exact text of the patent itself.  Per WP:OR, you can't use the text of a document like a patent to support any statement at Wikipedia which requires you to provide your own analysis of what the patent means, which severely limits their usefulness as sources to prove anything.  A patent filed under the name of "John Smith" would only prove that John Smith filed that patent.  It wouldn't prove that John Smith invented anything.  In order to establish that in a Wikipedia article, you would need another source which states that John Smith invented the thing you want to say he invented.  That is, unless there is a secondary source, a reliable one, published by a reliable writer in a reliable publication, which states in plain language "John Smith invented..." whatever, Wikipedia can't make that claim either.  At best, Wikipedia could make the claim "John Smith holds a patent on..." whatever, but that isn't the same thing as saying he invented it.  To say that the patent proves he invented it would require the Wikipedia writer to provide their own interpretation of the meaning of the patent itself, which we're not supposed to do.  -- Jayron  32  07:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not a 'wall of text'. It is a selection of patented claims germane to this discussion that demonstrates that Frances was the first person to describe how to fabricate an integrated circuit, which is obvious to anyone who actually knows what an IC is! Cheryl Hugle (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * BTW, I did first offer this info on the Talk page. Apparently there is NO ONE associated with this project who has ANY understanding of the subject?


 * Because my verbage has once again been removed, this time claiming a COI and with an accompanying suggestion to offer the info on the Talk page... a very futile idea unless someone reads it who actually understands a bare minimum about the technology.


 * So far, I can't find anyone here to talk to who understands the subject. Note to Wikipedia, get help with technical discussions/issues, open a technical room where misunderstandings can get cleared up (not with votes, but with facts). Cheryl Hugle (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * The editor who opened this discussion also posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics to ask for contributions from people who have expressed interest in electronics articles. You could also invite editors via notices on pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics if you like. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done as Dreamyshade suggested. I also disagree with Cheryl Hugle's assertion that no one in this discussion knows what an IC is; at least one of us made a career of designing ICs. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Who? Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * This is a pretty straightforward example of a primary source. To quote the policy, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Any contested statements about being first in the field should be supported by a secondary source, not the text of a patent. The patent is a reliable source only for what the patent says. VQuakr (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a suitable subject for this noticeboard. Patents present particular problems. In theory the mere existence of a patent means that it has been carefully examined and found to be truly innovative. However during periods of relatively strict interpretation this system was imperfect and in the US now it has basically been thrown away in practice. In short I agree this is a primary type of document, and the inspection process does not qualify as enough fact checking to mean WP can quote patents concerning strong claims without attribution. That does not of course mean that patents can't be used as a source in certain contexts, and using the right type of wording. Attribution will often allow us to avoid some of these concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

History Lesson in a Patent

If one reads the excerpts provided above, we can deduce a few things about the level of semiconductor device production sophistication in the mid fifties.

1) Semiconductor devices were being made in military funded labs at the time this application was written:

"It is an object of the invention to provide a method for the direct production of semi-conductive films of metals or semi-metals which will be cheaper and more convenient than methods hitherto current in the art." (Page 2, Column 1, lines 27-30)

This invention claims a major improvement ((cost and ease of production) in that devices would now be grown directly onto the substrate rather than added one by one later (thus making possible 'monolithic' IC production rather than the already current 'hybrid' IC production).

2) Circuitry was already being printed upon ceramic substrates (this is NOT the same as a printed circuit board)(see quote below):

"The support on which the films are formed should, of course, be of a material capable of withstanding the necessary heat treatment. Thus, it will be found that the glasses and ceramics are most available as substrates for use in the process. The films may be combined with printed circuitry if desired. While printed circuit elements may be formed on the composite in various ways, it is also possible to form the printed circuit first and impose the composite thereon. The material of the printed circuit if first imposed on the substrate should be such as will not fuse or amalgamate with the substances of the films at the temperature of the treatment. Otherwise there is substantially no limitation on the substance of the printed circuit excepting that it have the requisite conductivity. Metals and alloys are available. Excellent results have been obtained, for example, with Iconel metal. The printed circuit may be imposed on the substrate in any suitable fashion, as by printing or stenciling, or by etching an over-all coating." (lines 47-65)

3) The improvement here is that devices are grown directly onto the substrate rather than added to it (see quote below):

Page 5, Column 1, Lines 8-23:

"3. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position to contact spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part. 4. The process claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate carries on its surface the elements of a printed circuit, and wherein said semi-conductive film is produced in a position overlying spaced elements of said printed circuit at least in part, and in electrical contact therewith, ..."

These facts of patent tell us that Kilby did not invent the Hybrid IC, it was already in a much more advanced state at the time Frances submitted her patent application describing how to grow devices directly onto a substrate (the monolithic IC, now simply called an IC).

The Kilby story was probably invented to enable commercialization of this technology without disclosing its level of sophistication, which was classified.

Similarly, a very opaque patent was cobbled for Noyce.

If we forget the crucible (classified military) in which such inventions become possible, we are left with nothing but mythology... and that is surely reflected in Wikipedia's present treatment of the invention of the IC, something I sincerely hope will be possible to correct.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Historical Reflections

The Frances Hugle patent(s) were awarded in 1961 and 1965. I imagine that one of the reasons they were delayed was due to decisions to introduce the technologies, declassify them, in a certain way that precluded exposing the classified work at Baldwin.

Additionally, following the death of Frances, a popular journalist, Don Hoefler, entered Silicon Valley and proceeded to codify the history of the industry. Still, according one of Don's close relatives, he admitted privately that he knew Frances had invented the IC and not Noyce.

Regardless, you now have proof of who invented the monolithic IC and the processes involved.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

The short answer
Patents are not a reliable source for invention priority, as can be seen by all the argumentation above. They require interpretation by secondary sources to say, "this patent was issued before any others, and that's good enough evidence of priority." In cases where someone developed a similar technology earlier, we need secondary sources which consider the earlier invention to have priority. We don't have to discuss this particular case, but the sheer length of the discussion is evidence for the need for interpretation, showing that patents are a primary source. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Patents are not a reliable source for invention priority, as can be seen by all the argumentation above."


 * I had never before heard that a claim becomes invalid simply because many people express opposing points of views, whether or not those points of view have any validity. And, patents are most DEFINITELY a reliable source of invention priority IF they are published PRIOR to those claiming the invention. Seriously, what absurd nonsense! I can't believe anyone would assert it..


 * "They require interpretation by secondary sources to say, "this patent was issued before any others, and that's good enough evidence of priority.""


 * NO, they do not! The date of issue and the date of application are included on the patent. This is most definitely a case where primary sources are acceptable.


 * "In cases where someone developed a similar technology earlier, we need secondary sources which consider the earlier invention to have priority."


 * You need a secondary source to state that an earlier invention has priority? Because later inventions are generally assumed to have priority? Excuse me but this is exactly why people like me get frustrated with Wiki editors... just throw the spaghetti at the wall... if it doesn't stick, take a vote... never mind if it is edible (logical).


 * "We don't have to discuss this particular case, but the sheer length of the discussion is evidence for the need for interpretation, showing that patents are a primary source."


 * Again, I did not open the discussion nor assume any of it necessary. So, that is not a reason to insist I am wrong... that a bunch of people want to deny a reasonable edit and will claim anything at all to support their preferences... including the fact that they are involved in denying it and therefore it should be denied.


 * Additionally, no one here is stating the patents are not primary sources. But, primary sources are ACCEPTABLE sources if they strictly support the text for which they are being used as a reference. And, that is what this issue is about; Inserting a reference to the patent(s) that was filed years prior to filings by Noyce or Kilby (stated at the top of each patent) in which the process to fabricate monolithic ICs is revealed. Not including these patents is simple censorship.


 * Ms. Hugle, you are missing the point. That you have to argue for your interpretation of what the various patents say is prima facie evidence that this is your interpretation. A patent never supports the claim that "X invented this first" in the sense that counts in Wikipedia, that is, a patent never states some version of "X invented this first." Patents provide evidence to a historian who compares the various documents and provides the evaluation that "X invented this first," and it is that evaluation which can be used as to support a similar statement in our articles. Your personal evaluation is not acceptable. You can find someone reputable who is pushing the same theory of priority you are, and you can argue for us to prefer them over other sources, but that's it. Your position needs to be "censored" if you can't find some more authoritative support, and if you don't see this, then you need to find something else to do. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "That you have to argue for your interpretation of what the various patents say is prima facie evidence that this is your interpretation."


 * No, that is not the case. The fact that I say something is as it states it is (e.g. declarations in a patent) and you say it is not... does not prove that 'You have to argue for your interpretation.' If I say the stars are shining and they are, and you say stars may not exist and therefore it is an interpretive matter whether they exist... then my repeated statements that they do does not prove that it is 'my interpretation'.


 * "A patent never supports the claim that "X invented this first" in the sense that counts in Wikipedia, that is, a patent never states some version of "X invented this first.""


 * Then all those people fighting about patent infringement must simply be mistaken. Patents are dated for a reason and sorry, but the above statement is sheer nonsense. A date on a patent does in fact very definitely tell us who did what when and allows us to place various events (patented) in chronological order. I can't actually believe that these arguments are necessary. Am I really supposed to take this seriously? Are you really serious?


 * "Your position needs to be "censored" if you can't find some more authoritative support, and if you don't see this, then you need to find something else to do."


 * My position needs to be censored? I have provided an authoritative reference for the edit I made. That is what is under dispute. If you make up nonsense, and then trheaten me becasue I refuse to accept it, then you are in the wrong. I every right to defend my edit here and so far, no one has been able to claim anything viable that would disallow it... with one exception. And that is that I made it and thus there are according to Wiki rules COI issues.


 * Still, the edit was NOT biased, was based on sources, was not interpretive and should have been included by other editors without COI issues... which is the reason I am still involved here. But, I certainly do not have to play dumb just to get along...


 * "Patents provide evidence to a historian who compares the various documents and provides the evaluation that "X invented this first," and it is that evaluation which can be used as to support a similar statement in our articles. Your personal evaluation is not acceptable. You can find someone reputable who is pushing the same theory of priority you are, and you can argue for us to prefer them over other sources, but that's it."


 * I am not 'pushing a theory'. Again, that is YOUR INTERPRETATION. I am attempting to insert the name and date of the patent(s) (into an historical section on Integrated Circuits where it clearly belongs) in which the process to produce monolithic ICs is explained and claimed and those claims have been validated. The date of the patent is a matter of record, no interpretation needed so, 'the theory of priority' is certainly a strange way to describe a US patent office filing stamp!


 * Example. I diagram, for the first time, a tricycle. The media claims it was invented in June. My diagram was stamped by the US patent office in March, two months prior. A third person claims that my patented diagram of March was a prior invention. They decide to include that in a Wikipedia article about tricycles. Their edit is denied on the basis that they are interpreting... even though all they do is state that the diagram for the tricycle was done in March, provide the name of the person who drew it and include links to the patented drawing.


 * This is very tiring and I am not of a mind to keep trying to refute baseless assertions. In any case, my edit has already been removed... and that is certainly not an improvement in the IC article nor does it help those seeking info on the history of the IC. Good work, Wiki editors! Attack those offering real enrichment to this project.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Cheryl, you really need to get the point of the replies here. Please stop criticising participants for not understanding what an IC is. I have made ICs and am perfectly capable of understanding and drawing conclusions from Hugle's patents. But I am not permitted to write those conclusions into a Wikipedia article. This is not the place to establish Hugle's claims. You need to establish those claims elsewhere. When the results are published in an independent source then you can add something to Wikipedia.  Spinning Spark  18:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Please stop criticising participants for not understanding what an IC is."


 * I am certainly within my rights when people make fallacious statements about technologies they simply do not understand and pretend to an understanding they do not have in an obvious attempt to denigrate other editors contributions.


 * "I have made ICs and am perfectly capable of understanding and drawing conclusions from Hugle's patents."


 * While this may be true, I asked no one to draw conclusions. I made statements that were clearly supported by the primary source and did not require interpretation. On the other hand, it is necessary that someone know the definitions of terms, and that seems to be more the issue.


 * "This is not the place to establish Hugle's claims."


 * Sorry, the existence of the patent is Frances' claim. It is already established. That Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge it exists is absurd.


 * "You need to establish those claims elsewhere."


 * No I do not. They have already been established by the US patent office and I am attempting to make no interpretive statement not already established by the US patent office and included in the patent...


 * In such a case as this, use of a primary source is allowed according to Wiki rules.


 * "When the results are published in an independent source then you can add something to Wikipedia."


 * The results of her claims were awarded Letters of Patent by the US patent office. That is an independent source!

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * The USPTO is a primary source publisher for patents, people have had patents invalidated, so publishing a patent is not proof of priority, only that the USPTO didn't find anything at the time of publications. But since patents are invalidated frequently, clearly the USPTO is not perfect on things. And as several impossible inventions have been patented, the USPTO's science isn't up to snuff either. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "...people have had patents invalidated, so publishing a patent is not proof of priority, only that the USPTO didn't find anything at the time of publications."


 * Rather a meaningless observation. This discussion is NOT about whether Frances' patent(s) is the absolute earliest (It is though most definitely the earliest one to come to light thus far). It is actually ONLY asserting that it is EARLIER than the ones submitted by Noyce and Kilby. And that is a matter of patent record... the filing dates given by the patent office assures us that her patent(s) were submitted years earlier. In other words, yes, the date of her patent DOES PROVE PRIORITY over the patents submitted by Noyce and Kilby. There is absolutely NO WAY to assert otherwise.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
 * Really? And that assertion, that "the date of her patent DOES PROVE PRIORITY", where did you read that?  Because unless you have a reliable source that draws that conclusion already, you cannot draw that conclusion yourself.  That's the whole point people are trying to explain to you.  You cannot draw your own conclusions from primary sources.  All conclusions can only be restatements of conclusions that have been established in existing literature.  That's the essence of the No original research policy.  -- Jayron  32  03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * !!?? What can anyone say to this? A prior patent date does NOT establish patent priority? This is just such COMPLETE NONSENSE!!!!


 * There is NO CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN! No Interpretations to be made!


 * These are EXACTLY the places where primary sources are allowed by Wikipedia, where NO INTERPRETATION is required BECAUSE THE DATE is published, is a part of the official record and anyone who understands the difference between 1956, 1957, 1958, etc. also knows which is earlier WITHOUT need of INTERPRETATION. So, you really think that Wiki policy states that a secondary source must be cited before it can be asserted whether 1956 or 1957 is prior? Pretty shocking stuff.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Look, let's simplify this. What specific text are you trying to add to which Wikipedia article that you claim this patent supports?  The specific wording and context matters here.  -- Jayron  32  07:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier in this discussion, my first attempt was to provide the info on the IC Talk page so that someone else could incorporate it. But, I was encouraged there to introduce it myself, and after waiting a substantial amount of time and noting no one else undertook the task, I introduced the text (in quotes below) being careful not to alter pre-existing contributions.


 * I am not wed to the exact words by any means. My only point was to make a note in the IC history section that a patent was filed on the process to make monolithic ICs in 1956 and it was awarded Letters of Patent on two separate dates because its claims were split, one set awarded in 1961 and one set in 1965.


 * Text I wrote that has been deleted and that I would like at least partially reinstated:


 * "Also in 1956, a patent application describing how to fabricate an IC was filed by Frances Hugle, US 3226271, Hugle, Frances B. & William B. Hugle, "Semi-Conductive Films and Method of Producing Them", published March 29, 1956. This patent was ultimately divided into two claim sets, the first set was awarded articles of patent in 1961 (patent no. US 2994621) and the second set in 1965 (patent no. US 3226271).


 * This is the first published description of how to actually grow semiconductor devices on a substrate incorporating a printed circuit, what equipment is required for this purpose and how to regulate the process depending upon what characteristics are desired.


 * Though Frances was the first to describe how to fabricate an IC, her claims were not patented until after both Noyce and Kilby were awarded patents for her invention. (please see the Inventors section of this article's Talk page for a more in depth discussion of the Frances Hugle patent(s).)


 * Thus ideas such as those following continue being espoused:"


 * Minimally, I think the first paragraph quoted above should be included where it was originally placed in the history section of the article(just after the second paragraph). Most accurate would be to include both the first through third paragraphs since none are interpretive.


 * Cheryl Hugle (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * Actually, I think everything from "This is the first published description..." forward are interpretive, and would require secondary source confirmation to state that they were the first. The dates of the patents, and their content, can be garnered from the patents themselves.  However, the patent itself contains no information about what may or may not have come before these.  It may be the first such IC of its kind, or it may not be, but that can't be shown via the text of the patent itself, per se.  What you would need is a reliable secondary source which analyzes all of the available information and itself makes the claim that this was the first.  The patent itself cannot be used to reach that conclusion.  -- Jayron  32  20:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)