Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 143

Is this picture a source valid enough on its own to say that Tokugawa Ieyasu had a single transverse palmar crease?
File:Tokugawa Ieyasu handprint.jpg.--Inspector (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly not. It's a primary source which requires interpretation. Mangoe (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I second the above. Location (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A little question about interpretation: IS this a handprint of single transverse palmar crease no matter whose it is, or not, or we can't say?--Inspector (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it could be faked, but it sure looks like a single transverse palmar crease. Location (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is not a reliable source, what do we have to do about such claims? Is saying "the handprint of Tokugawa Ieyasu at Kunozan Toshogu suggests he had a single transverse palmar crease" a good idea?--Inspector (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be a handprint of someone who died in 1616? According to whom? Location (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Its caption in the photo says(possibly Kunozan Toshogu) it is Tokugawa's handprint, along with the caption"age 38, height 155cm, weight 60kg...(Japanese I not yet understand)". The handprint looks like a copy, and we can't know any more about the originals.--Inspector (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, it's very much the kind of question we get about modern official birth/death records. They exist, but for us to draw conclusions from them (including, e.g., "this named record relates to that individual", or in this case "this handprint shows that Tokugawa Ieyasu had a single transverse palmar crease") is OR. Three ways forward: (a) we say nothing about it, because who cares? (b) if those working on our article think this is an interesting picture, and if there's no dispute that Kunōzan Tōshō-gū labels this as his handprint, we say in the caption that Kunōzan Tōshō-gū makes this claim; (c) if some reliable source, either on Tokugawa Ieyasu or on palmistry, refers to this handprint and deduces his palm from it, then we use the picture and we quote or paraphrase the reliable source. Andrew Dalby 09:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence to the far left says that the original imprint can be seen in a hall/room where honors are conferred, etc. The Kunōzan Tōshō-gū is a Shrine.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And what is meant by reliable sources? By just repeating the claim or analyzing it somehow further?--Inspector (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If some source presents us with a birth certificate (say, of Barack Obama) and says, "this is X's birth certificate", there's no significant research involved, because interpreting the dates on the record is trivial. If one of us goes to vital records and looks up the birth certificate, that's plainly research. This is a case where presentation of the document isn't enough to draw a conclusion through trivial examination. You have to believe that the case of a handprint like this is the condition we want to illustrate, and that's where the research comes in. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely with Andrew Dalby above. I add that this would clearly be OR. I note in response to Inspector (doing a little OR of my own) that the print is missing precisely those areas that might have demonstrated a normal second palmar crease, if there was one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck does anyone give a fuck care what creases some guy who has been dead for 400 years had on his hands? In what possible universe is this even remotely of any interest whatsoever to anyone reading WP? Just let it go already! The repetition ad nuseam of this utterly inconsequential question is getting close to abusing the system. Roger (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As to why, the note at the bottom of this web page might be helpful. That doesn't help with the RS question, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ieyasu was not just "someone who died in 1616" but a big time element of Japanese history and they research him to death from all I know. But the handprint is certainly not WP:RS. History2007 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has other funny items, e.g. the Go board where Hideyoshi and Ieyasu played. Was there a video of them playing on that? Anyway, many of these are very questionable, to say the least. History2007 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Museums of famous people, Anne Hathaway's Cottage, etc., are full of this kind of thing. In general, I'd say, such museums are not totally RS -- rather like local history that doesn't make it into academic publishing -- but they still merit being taken seriously; their assertions often derive from early documents or continuous traditions and are worth citing with attribution if on a subject that we consider notable. I take it that this shrine functions like one of those museums. So we don't say "this is his handprint" but (if it's agreed the topic is notable) we can say "this is labelled by Kunōzan Tōshō-gū as his handprint". Same with the Go board. Andrew Dalby 09:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What is about reliable sources that make one item notable?--Inspector (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding Andrew's point, of course attribution of the statement to the shrine makes it less questionable, but it is still far from clear how it got there. Reminds me of poor Erasmus complaining about the large number of churches built across Europe, all claiming to have been built with the wood of the cross used in the crucifixion of Jesus. The relics business to attract visitors is an industry onto itself across the world - and has been for centuries. I found the board specially unusual because after the fall out with the Toyotomis and all, Ieyasu had little reason to hang on to it, as did the other side. But that is all beside the point. For the record, I do not believe it, unless the shrine shows that Elvis used it too. History2007 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Monograph use in Waldorf education
Is a research monograph a RS?
 * Jelinek, D.; Sun, L.-L. (2003). "Does Waldorf offer a viable form of science education?", California State University.

The monograph has been summarized in the following secondary sources; are their summaries not preferable to a WP editor's interpretations?
 * Woods, Philip; Martin Ashley, Glenys Woods (2005). Steiner Schools in England. UK Department for Education and Skills.
 * Østergaard, Dahlin and Hugo, "Doing phenomenology in science education: A research review" 2008 Studies in Science Education 44/2 doi 10.1080/03057260802264081

The material drawn out of the monograph for the Waldorf education article is very different in content and style from what and how the secondary sources report on this monograph. The question is whether the original monograph or the secondary sources is the more reliable source for the Waldorf education article. See discussion at Talk:Waldorf_education and Talk:Waldorf_education. hgilbert (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The secondary summaries are more reliable. By the way, you should be able find find the DfES report on the Department for Education website, preferable to the link you show above. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I realize a link to the DfES site would be preferable, but this has been archived and I am unable to locate the link on this. hgilbert (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Itsmejudith. Thank you for taking the time to respond to noticeboard issues. Do you have any issues with Woods (2005) above as a reliable source? It has not been published in a peer review journal or in book form and so there is some concern that it has not met the third-party review aspect for wikipedia sources. What do you think? Jellypear (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The research was commissioned, overseen and published by the government department with responsibility in this area. I can't see any reason why it should not be regarded as a top-quality source. If it is contradicted by other research, present both without commenting. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Conflict in sources
I recently expanded Jacob Little from the poor rudimentary shell he once was, but one particular detail seems to vary between the sources I'm using: the date of the raid on the Erie Company stocks (cited in the fifth paragraph of the article). A number of different sources lay out different numbers:
 * This article says 1837.
 * An article in Moody's Magazine, an investment magazine, says 1838.
 * This pamphlet implies sometime before 1850.
 * An 1881 reflection published in The New York Times says 1855.
 * Another article in the Times says "the late 50s"

It's puzzling that such a major event could have such widely divergent dates attached to it. Can anyone help me out with verifying the dates? I nothing can be done, which one should be used? Should there be a disclaimer? Res Mar 04:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you looked for recent references written by qualified historians? The quality of historical scholarship by journalists is pretty poor at the best of times, and all those articles other than the first one are very old. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with recent references is that Jacob Little is, for lack of better words, "forgotten". For all of the prominence he had in the 30s and 40s, there's very, very little said about him today. I've been sifting around, but as of yet, no dice. Res Mar 05:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagreements over dates are best resolved using contemporary newspapers. Here is a large collection to look at. From the examples you give, I wouldn't be surprised if there was two similar events, one in the 1830s and one in the 1850s. Zerotalk 06:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there was one in 1866 (the Erie War), but I haven't seen any evidence of such action at an earlier date. It's very curious. Will do. Res Mar 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited are adequate for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try and see if I can't take this to GAN. Going to require some disclaimers first, though. Res Mar 20:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blic
What do people know about the Serbian newspaper Blic? It was being used as a source for the entire controversy section at the Predrag Danilović ‎ page. Not feeling comfortable with the material, I decided to remove all of it, in the spirit of WP:BLP. However, I don't speak or read Serbo-Croatian, so I'm a bit out of my depth here. Zagal e jo^^^ 07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tabloid newspapers are hardly RS, especially for controversial material. Good call. hgilbert (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on radio programme about Alawites
I sought to include information, gathered from a Radio four programme, broadcast 4 February 2013, to the page on Alawites. the programme included the testimony of a woman, anonymous, for reasons of personal safety i assume, about the beliefs of Alawites, and in particular, a somewhat denigratory attitude toward women,  05:09 - 06:30 minutes  - and  a belief in reincarnation. This material was immediately deleted - and with a most insulting edit summary too I might add, to the effect that only 'retards' believed such things. Looking on amazon I soon found a further source for the belief in reincarnation, Nicolas Pelham, a new Muslim order,  p.236 - though i had been assured such ideas were 'fringe' etc.Talk:Alawites  Is it true, as FunkMonk says , that claims made on radio programmes are of no account, and are inadmissable for consideration for inclusion on the wp article? The editor judged the programme was nothing short of an attempt to demonise Alawites. i do not believe this is a very helpful approach. so my question is, is the radio programme useless as a source of info on Alawite beliefs and attitudes? Sayerslle (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First, a claim made on a radio programme can be a reliable source. However if it's as you describe, that an anonymous woman said so, then that probably isn't very useful to us - I'm sure with a little effort we can find one or two anonymous women to say pretty much anything we like. Even if we accept that she is herself an Alawite, that doesn't make her an expert on the beliefs of others; crazy, mistaken, or deluded people exist in pretty much any religion over a certain size. Unless we know that anonymous woman is herself an acknowledged expert on Alawites in general, and not just an Alawite herself, we can't use that statement to generalize about the whole religion. --GRuban (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Radio programs, especially from the BBC as in this case, are certainly admissible as reliable sources. But an anonymous woman interviewed in a program is not necessarily herself a reliable source. Basically, it would be a RS for the statement "a woman interviewed by the BBC asserted that Alawites espouse x belief," but not "Alawites espouse x belief." If you want to make more authoritative statements about Alawite theology, there are loads of books available that discuss the role of reincarnation in Alawite beliefs, and you should use those instead.
 * On another note, I don't understand how publicizing a belief in reincarnation would "demonize" the Alawites, but you do want to be careful that you present things in a fair manner. In the context of the civil war in Syria, it's a group that is certainly vulnerable to demonization, with potentially grave consequences.  The Blue Canoe  05:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the feedback. the last thing you write, about the context of the civil war, and 'a minority, associated with a regime that has committed atrocities, viewed by islamist fundamentalists as apostates,' (from the radio programme) - maybe thus is not the time to approach the subject kind of thing, yes , i get that (actually, re-reading you didnt say that, you said present it fairly - but the material i was seeking to add carried negative implications - misogyny basically, so  - how 'fair' could i make it?)- as for the remarks, i take the point that it would be ok to add  "a woman interviewed by the BBC asserted that Alawites espouse x belief," - though equally I can imagine the hoot of derision that would accompany the edit summary that deletes it at once - 'deleted undue pov - anyone can claim to be an 'alawite woman' and say all manner of things only retards would believe possibly true - get over yourself ' etc etc - Listenng to the programme the woman appears wholly credible, speaks about the trouble she had at school as an Alawite female, dating a Sunni boy etc -the journalist and bbc would have to be careful - you know the trouble they reap if they make mistakes, - its a closed religion kind of thing, with fairly typical levels of misogyny imo - a bit gnostic-y - secretive on its 'only for initiates beliefs' - and from initial searches on Amazon, the statement that there are loads of books available that discuss the role of reincarnation in Alawite beliefs, i don't know about that, i couldn't find much on Amazon  - perhaps you could return here with a few isbns!. thanks again for feedback.Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you got the emphasis of that point there. While we could, in theory, use the programme to add that, we shouldn't, specifically because it doesn't say anything about the religion as a whole. The BBC programme is "one woman's story". Our article is supposed to be "the entire religious group". --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * agree to differ. i cant add the views of the entire religious group. its secretive at initiate level anyhow apparently. the womans view was precisely saying something about the religion as a whole.  namely deep in the religion women are considered lower than men and she related the bit about the 'idea' that a bad man can be reincarnated as a woman - and the interviewer asks if a good woman could be considered a candidate to be reincarnated as a man - but that isnt an idea entertained because the woman exists at a lower level of being or something - so, yes its just one Alawite womans testimony, but yes also, absolutely , she is saying something  about the religion as a whole -  your saying its no good "because it doesn't say anything about the religion as a whole" is not right imo - its about the religion as a wholes male tiltedness so to speak. also about its inward-looking ness. she was criticized for dating a Sunni for example. Sayerslle (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I (and, unless I'm wrong, BlueCanoe) are saying it's no good because she's not an expert on the religion as a whole; to put it in the terms of this noticeboard, she's only a reliable source about her own experiences, not a reliable source on the subject of the religion as a whole. She can say what she likes, but we can't use it as a reliable source on the whole religion. She is, at best, just one Alawite out of many. It's like writing a paper about what Canadians think and interviewing one Canadian. --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know more information about this. Unless the tenets are dogma are spelled-out somewhere, it could just be an inside joke or something that is not meant to be taken seriously. One way to figure out how serious this is would be to try and find out if there are any women or men participants who would seriously want to be reincarnated as a woman, and if they are allowed to have any choice in the matter before-hand. And if-so what would they decide and why? Or if being reincarnated as a member of any particular gender was considered a good thing or bad thing or more blessed/lucky whatever. I'm not sure about rendering the radio-guest's comments as "demonizing". That would seem to point-to it not being factual but it is hard to tell 24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What I was able to find is interesting in that more than one source claimed that in the past, women were considered to be "demons" and not having souls to be reincarnated. And-that the policy had changed. That gives the "demonizing"-remark a little more depth! Also it was mentioned repeatedly that it was thought that they believe that being reincarnated as an animal is the worst thing that could happen but I did not find a reference to women, except that current info. says that women share reincarnation. And yeah that everything is secret so it will be hard to verify.
 * Oh-and that men in particular reincarnate apx.7 times. Not sure what that means for women?

Executive Intelligence Review

 * Source: Various articles published in Executive Intelligence Review
 * Article: Permindex
 * Content: TBD.
 * Comment: As far as I can tell from the paucity of reliable sources available, Permindex was a short-lived trade company/organization that existed from the late 1950s to the early 1960s. It only became notable roughly five years after it folded when, shortly after the arrest of Clay Shaw in 1967, an Italian communist newspaper claimed [emphasis on "claimed"] that it was front organization for the CIA. Since then, these claims have become fodder for JFK conspiracy theorists.
 * The following articles have been published in Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review and make various allegations about Permindex and individuals purported to be involved with Permindex:
 * Are these articles sufficient for statements of fact about Permindex? Are these articles sufficient for statements of opinion about Permindex provided in-text attribution is supplied? Thanks! Location (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to make of this, but a related 2008 discussion in the RSN refers to a 2004 ArbCom decision on LaRouche material. Location (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anything published by an organisation with links to Lyndon LaRouche can be assumed to be a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded, and, as pointed out above, ArbComed. LaRouche publications are not WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, Stephan Schulz: Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the 2004 ArbCom decision: "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." It appears as though Arbcom affirmed that decision in 2005, too. Would it be appropriate to add to the talk page of EIR? Location (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to make of this, but a related 2008 discussion in the RSN refers to a 2004 ArbCom decision on LaRouche material. Location (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anything published by an organisation with links to Lyndon LaRouche can be assumed to be a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded, and, as pointed out above, ArbComed. LaRouche publications are not WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, Stephan Schulz: Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the 2004 ArbCom decision: "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." It appears as though Arbcom affirmed that decision in 2005, too. Would it be appropriate to add to the talk page of EIR? Location (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I being tag-teamed or am I just wrong? Television/The Real Housewives
I have been involved in a DRN and some other attempts at resolving a large-scale removal of information from all of The Real Housewives of...television show article pages.[] Although I have made numerous attempts at trying to resolve the problem, I have not received any indication that my complaint was taken seriously. I'm pretty sure that I have been tag-teamed and I am hoping that anyone with knowledge of The real Housewives tv franchise could take a look and tell me that I am not losing my mind please. Thanks in advance. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Oh-and just because this request may look like it is not in the correct place, coming here was recommended as a remedy on the tag-team page-ty. And sourcing was a problem with this particular section deletion because the material was available on short youtube clips as the primary source and never noted through-out more than the 128 edits that were wiped-out []24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since DRN has referred you here we will do our best to provide advice, but you have to help us. You told us what article. Now, what source(s) are we talking about, and what statements would they support. Spell it out please. We don't want to trawl through the DRN.. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources could be articles in paid publications such as newspapers that have wide circulation and magazines. My initial objection was the amount of info. that was deleted. There were 128 or so statements deleted from 7 different articles across The Real Housewives (television series)articles. So sourcing was a question that I asked about but was not ever answered or discussed. I did ask if re-using the same source would be acceptable,and what that would look like since I was not going to go find 123 times three or four sources for each item that was deleted to satisfy sourcing if the material was not going to be allowed anyways. For now I am asking for an opinion as-to whether or not the original editor and follow-up engaged-in tag-teaming starting with after I undid what the editor did.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't say anything about whether you have been tag-teamed. You will have to take that up in DRN. It is perfectly acceptable to use the same source several times in an article. Hope that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK TY for your opinion. I was mistakenly led here from the remedy section for the article titled "tag-team" under the heading "Remedies". []. I will make a note about this on the tag-team topic page.24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give us an example of what you are talking about? Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * TY-just for starters, when I undo what looks like a bad-edit(s)(all made by the same editor about 128+ good info. posted for years by who knows how many people)). And then that editor comes and re-does the edit/delete of info., after I have asked to please take it to talk page/discussion. Then I undo again asking again, then a flock of editors comes-by and vogorously defends editor 1, and also puts myself at three-revert rule, while also posting threats at myself of being banned/blocked for ridiculous reasons (being IP sign-in)...and so on. i understand that posting this here could be the wrong place so i made a note on the talk page of the page that sent me here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Ministers
This dif shows a conflict over a primary source. The question is whether or not it should be included in the article, or if any reference should even be made to it at all. Legal threats + history of ArbCom ruling = I look for outside opinions. Thanks. Andrew327 08:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The xenu.org site is not a RS, but at the left side of their webpage are links to several notable newspaper accounts of and a health organization notice referring to the same theme. Those could well be used. hgilbert (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I second the above opinion. Removal of the content is justified on the basis of reliability issues, not because of the legal threat voiced in the edit summary. Location (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this website qualify as reliable source?
Can this website be used as a reliable source? It is an academics website which consists solely of user-submitted content (research papers, etc.) and has profiles and followers. This page from the the website was added as a source (the only source) at Pier Giuseppe Monateri last night, a few minutes after an AfD discussion was created. If it cannot be used, can someone please remove it with an edit summary explaining why? Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Academia.edu is not a RS, but Monateri's biography should easily be verifiable through other (better) sources. I've tagged the sentence. hgilbert (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Hgilbert. So if that website is not a reliable source, is there a reason it cannot be removed? Especially since the article is a BLP. If it cannot be removed right now, is there a certain time period that the tag has to stay on there before the cite can be removed? Thanks for your input and help. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't even bother, the page has been Afd-ed and will probably not survive. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks History. Perhaps you're right, but the problem is that since it's the article's only current source, it's being used as a tool to try and save the article. So if it indeed is not a reliable source, it seems unfair to leave it in the article, particuarly since it was added during the AfD discussion and can be used to try and boost the article's legitimacy. Thanks for your input. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can not boost zero. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

City Population
What do people think about the reliability of the Citypopulation.de website. I know it's been around for a few years, but does it fall foul of WP:SPS? The particular article I would potentially like to use it on is List of cities and towns in Russia by population although it could potentially be used on various such articles. See also talk discussion at. Eldumpo (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While it's concerning that no information is provided about the authorship of the site other than its copyright to 'Thomas Brinkhof', the website appears to have been frequently used in academic articles: . I'd strongly suggest checking how it was used in these works (and look for articles critical of the quality of its data as well), but if it's considered a suitable reference for population figures there, it should be OK for Wikipedia's purposes. I just checked its data for the Australian city where I live against that published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics data it references, and it's spot on but slightly out of date (it gives a figure for June 2011 when the most recent estimate is for June 2012; the June 2011 figure is exactly the same as the ABS' most recent estimate for this point in time though). Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. I've had a look at a few of the specific articles, although a number of them involve subscription or pay to view.


 * This Michael Lewyn article directly references the site regarding Austria (see page 7 of PDF).


 * This paper also directly cites Citypopulation (see Table1), although it is not clear as to the notability of the paper.


 * This article in the International Institute for Environment and Development includes it as a reference at the end, but the other refs don't appear to be similar population sites so it could have been used for all that data.


 * Any further thoughts? Eldumpo (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I am somewhat shocked that others would seriously consider the citypopulation.de website a "reliable source" regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. As a reminder, our guideline concerning reliable source defines a source as "reliable" when it is a "third-party, published source[] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I just don't see how we can assume a personal website copyrighted to a single person to have such a reputation? I understand that there are some academic sources which use this website, but that in itself is not an indication of the website being reliable (consider that there exist academic sources which include Wikipedia in the list of sources, yet it is still not a reason to allow using Wikipedia articles as references for other Wikipedia articles!). What's more, none of the sources listed above use citipopulation.de as the only source; at best it's an auxiliary link included for convenience and not necessarily supporting the main point of that academic work. Eldumpo's suggestion, however, is to use this website as the only source to reference the list of cities and towns in Russia and their populations, and not only that, but to use is as a replacement of the official Census data (the only drawback of which is that they are in Russian—which, by the way, is not a problem as per our verifiability policy). That's simply unacceptable, in my opinion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 15:26 (UTC)
 * List of cities and towns in Russia by population uses the census results, and census is a reliable source for the population estimated. I do not see any need in re-working the list at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen (and raised) a similar issue with Tageo.com. At least citypopulation.de says where it got (at least some of) its figures: http://citypopulation.de/references.html. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations on Wikipedia and discussion at WebCite
There is a discussion at WebCite regarding citations on Wikipedia that would be of interest to those that follow this noticeboard. For those who don't know, webcitation.org is used to archive newspaper articles and other reliable sources that disappear from the original websites. Wikipedia currently has 182,368 links to this archive site. Regards. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Virtual world sources
A group of students has taken on a few articles on Second Life and Machinima. Reliable sources are hard to find in the mainstream because sub-culture news is not very notable to the mainstream. Can inworld papers like The Alphaville Herald] be used for sources of inworld material in articles? I also found a Thesis on machinima for use in the machinima articles. Does a thesis count as a reliable source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Indirect references
I'm interested to know if this piece would be acceptable as a source for an article I'm planning to put through FAC. The Girl is a 2012 dramatisation of an alleged obsession the film director Alfred Hitchcock developed for one of his starring actresses, Tippi Hedren, and is based on the content of a book published in 2009. The piece from The Times discusses the same subject, but it predates the book and film by several years, so isn't talking about the topic in the context of the film. It was briefly used to support some information in The Girl's article, but I removed it amid concerns it could be seen as original research and would harm the article's prospects at FAC. There's been some debate over the issue on the talk page, together with a third opinion that seems to give it the green light. I have the information backed by a different newspaper, but have held off re-adding it just in case there is a problem. Can anyone help? Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Gene Expression" column in Discover magazine
Razib Khan writes the "Gene Expression" column in Discover (magazine), a science magazine (see here). On the topic of genetics, I assume that this source would fall under WP:NEWSBLOG - "acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"? Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the particular example is that you want to ask for comment about but I guess you know it is currently under discussion (in a very similar context) on Khazars and Genetic studies on Jews. One editor in particular is trying to insert it against consensus. I'll just give my thoughts (as a person involved in both discussions). I hope this is the one you intended to discuss but in any case it was probably needing to come here soon:
 * The source is on the site of a popular science magazine but not edited (fact checking) by them, and he is not one of their journalists or editors, so effectively a good quality "personal blog" I would think, not a "news blog". Is that also how others understand those terms?
 * The author is a geneticist by training and has lots of interesting and controversial opinions especially about politics and race and so on. I am myself a follower. I think from recollection of long discussions that the author has been mentioned respectfully by mainstream news organizations. So he is arguably a valid source for notable opinions on some things?
 * In the particular field of human genetics however, I have asked editors over and over for any evidence that the author has been published or even cited by strong professional sources, and I understand he has not. I also have seen no proper argument for his blog about this particular peer reviewed article (Elhaik) to be notable. (For one thing his blog is about an earlier draft on Arxiv, not the final peer reviewed version.)
 * Much of the debate on the two articles above is however not about whether this blog can be cited or not generally, but about whether it should be inserted selectively on these particular articles when a consensus of editors from different sides of all the old debates have agreed that the best idea is to avoid edit wars whereby people try to selectively insert news media commentary on peer reviewed materials.
 * In my opinion both articles are a mess, in large part because of the above type of cherry picking. I think a fairly strong consensus is against using non peer reviewed sources to spice up the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew is correct to say that Khan has qualifications in genetics, but also that he seems to have no particular qualifications in human population genetics. But this is not actually of much relevance, since the opinions people want to quote from his article are largely not genetic at all.  They are mostly historical, involving such things as historical migrations of the Druze.  For such stuff Khan is certainly not reliable. Zerotalk 02:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Such a statement would depend on the specifics of the case. I can see that for this particular source in this particular case there is an argument for that, but there is also a bigger issue about the editing context. In these specific WP articles the broader debate is about whether to use for example newspaper articles in order to colour the articles reporting of peer reviewed papers. In some cases, undoubtedly expert sources are quoted making non peer reviewed comments. The problem has been that such looser opinionating can be used to create just about any impression we want, and that is what some editors are trying to do. So I think the question for editors is not only about individual authors as much as it is about giving due balance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact it should be pointed out that effectively the same subject has already been discussed at the FRINGE noticeboard, where one of the articles involved, and especially the cherry picking of lesser sources, got a lot of negative feedback.
 * It should also be kept in mind also that the whole reason the Razib Khan blog came up is because of the strong consensus not to allow cherry picking of the peer reviewed sources. Bringing in the blog has always quite openly been argued for as a way of trying to de-emphasize certain peer reviewed articles which the proposing editor(s) had first tried to get removed completely.
 * On the other hand even though there are non RS issues involved, it would be helpful to get non-involved feedback on the RS value of this particular blog.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Razib Khan is way out of his depth here. It is not just that he is no great scientist, but that the topic is entirely non-trivial. So he can string together sentences that may seem clever to those who know less than himself, but will make an expert in the field shriek in pain. After all, that is why he writes in Discover Mag (just a touch above Popular Mechanics in scholarship) and not elsewhere. His views are not even worth discussion. History2007 (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think this source is not RS for this purpose, but I think you are exaggerating about the quality of the blog, especially when being compared to aspects of the quality of the peer reviewed article it criticizes, but that should not be the point anyway. The question for this noticeboard is NOT what we judge personally about a person and their opinions but rather about whether this blog is the right kind for us to use. Also the fact that the subject is non-trivial has no bearing on this subject as far as I can see. (I mean that we do not censor science when it touches on sensitivities, but we might pay extra attention to trying to source and edit carefully and well. And perhaps this is all you mean to say?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ on that. A person with a basic degree in mechanical engineering can write about types of car oil filters and that may be almost RS, but a person with a basic degree in physics could not be relied on about advanced topics in Quantum mechanics. Complexity matters. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but concerning the matter which Tritomex want to use this source for, it is not "advanced topics" as such, at least in genetics, but rather the more-or-less common sense subject (or perhaps more an historian's) about which modern populations should be assumed to be good proxies for postulated ancient populations. I shall explain my thoughts:
 * I have to say that all the sources WP can use are "iffy" on proxies. There is a long history of silliness both on WP and in academia. To cut a long story short you can try to argue that the Palestinians are descended from Bedouin immigrants, or you can try to argue that modern Jews are Europeans etc etc. I'd say things were a lot worse a few years back.
 * The consensus amoungst a lot of editors over time has been to try to write up brief neutral reports of what the geneticists did, making their assumptions easy to understand, and NOT to include things like newspaper commentary, which is normally filled with misunderstandings.
 * A valid question might arise: should WP even bother? My answers: First, I think WP can not avoid having articles on things like this, so we need to make them as good as we can. Second, you have to understand that all the genetics sources really are saying important and useful things as long as we tease it out and report it neutrally. Elhaik for example can certainly be criticized for calling Druze, "Turkic" (which is one of the things Razib complained about, and frankly I personally agree) but he did find a perfectly valid correlation between Ashkenazi DNA and northern, as opposed to southern, Middle Eastern DNA. (He calls the northern component more "Caucasian" and says that it might mean Ashkenazi ancestors might not all have come via western Europe. In my mind, and Razib's, other explanations beckon to say the least!. But as this was his main conclusion it is hard not to mention it in WP, but getting the context right is the difficult point.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Huey P. Newton
So there is some discussion at Talk:Huey P. Newton about a claim that was recently removed by an IP editor. It intersects with a discussion at WP:BLPN that appears to now be mostly resolved, at least with regard to Newton. The concern regards an account of a statement by Newton which appears in a book by Hugh Pearson, Shadow of the Panther. The section in Google Books contains the relevant pages, 5-7, leading up to the purported admission, but does not contain the reference, p. 349: "3. Newton admitting to killing Frey: Interview with Robert Trivors, Santa Cruz, October 2, 1992; interview with Willie Payne, Oakland, July 28, 1992." Additionally, Joe Street in "Historiography of the Black Panther Party (article, pdf) which is the only source I am aware of that attempts to assess the reliability of the various sources on Newton and the Panthers, does characterize Pearson's work as being "...built on a collection of accounts written by observers and right-wing writers..." though also acknowledges it as a seminal work. Notably, it does not appear that the claims about Newton's admission appear anywhere else that cannot be traced directly to Pearson's Shadow. If it's not clear from the Google Books listing, the Pearson account describes a scene of intoxication, by both Newton and others, surrounding the statement Newton is alleged to have made.

So, the question is, is it acceptable to include this allegation, given:
 * Newton's conviction for this incident (voluntary manslaughter) was overturned
 * the overall bias noted by other writers
 * what may be seen as tenuous sourcing of this specific allegation, and lack of other confirmatory sources
 * frequent use of this book as a reference for other, less contentious statements (i.e. readers will be directed to this source anyway)

And, if the allegation is to be included, is the existing wording accurate enough, or should more or less be included about the sourcing of the allegation itself?

From my perspective, I can see this going either way. I have been conservative insofar as I have reverted an attempt to put the allegation back into the article, because I do feel like it could go either way, and I am uncomfortable returning it to the article without more substantial discussion than seems to be available at the article itself.

If this is the wrong venue for this, and perhaps an RfC (or some other mechanism) would be more appropriate, just point me in that direction.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are there any secondary sources, such as a Newton biography, which comment on this alleged admission specifically? Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:REDFLAG, there needs to be additional citations for this. The best you will get out of this is in-text attribution of what Pearson said Newton said. Location (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on what's presented here, reporting the allegations as fact is right out. I was wondering if there was enough secondary coverage to justify including the allegations as allegations. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. Although I cannot access the full article, it does appear that there was coverage of Newton's "admission" to Pearson in The Sun. That report refers to Pearson's "claim". I haven't looked into the credibility/reliability of the source, but this book says the same thing. Location (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Book appears to be by this Charles E. Jones. I would say that there is reliable secondary coverage of the allegation. Location (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Pearson's Shadow is actually one of, perhaps the most widely known non-auto-biography of Newton, and I think it should be included (at minimum referenced, if not cited) as such. Street's paper alludes to its centrality in Panther scholarship by stating that it defines one of the three eras of Panther historiography. Another source (Judson Jeffries' Huey P. Newton: The Radical Theorist, which I have admittedly not read in its entirety) seems to make no mention of these claims. I have raised the issue of Pearson's scholarship elsewhere on the talk page as well.
 * As noted on the talk page discussion, I did add some language that attributed the statement to Pearson's book. I am rather on the fence, based on this discussion, between adding more attribution language (which can be a bit unwieldy -- "Pearson writes that Trivors and Payne claim that Newton said...") and simply keeping it out of the article entirely.-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Japanese American Veterans Association
Is the Japanese American Veterans Association a reliable source for the article Military history of Asian Americans? They are referenced three times in the article:
 * Content1: "Over 30,000 Japanese Americans served during World War II, in branches including the Army Air Corps, Navy, Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marines."
 * Source 1:
 * Content2: "At the end of that deployment the unit was authorized to wear the 442nd's shoulder sleeve insignia as a combat patch, the first time this had occurred since World War II"
 * Source2:
 * Content 3: As of Fall 2012, there have been 43 Japanese American, 26 Chinese Americans, 10 Filipino American, and four Korean American general and flag officers in the Uniformed services of the United States.
 * Source 3:

If it is not a reliable source, why is it not? If it is a reliable source, why is it? If it is not a reliable source, are there alternate sources that would verify the content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Does it have a reputation for careful historical scholarship, fact checking and neutrality towards its subject matter? With all respect to this organisation, I suspect that none of these apply (as is the case for all veterans groups). As such, it's probably not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been used as a source for the CIA, see this here, has been used as a source by the Washington Post (example), as well as cited by a few scholarly sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The group has an executive council and various research departments. Their publications are cited in 27 Wikipedia articles such as Japanese American internment and Puerto Ricans in World War I. The website shows the group to be careful in its work. I think they are a worthy source. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of those Google scholar results appear to be referring to the organisation rather than referencing anything published by it. Of those which do reference it, all appear to use this associations work only as a means of sourcing the personal recollections of veterans. For instance, the first reference to 'The Man Who Saved Kabuki' is a book review which notes that the author's views of General MacArthur are also available on the Japanese American Veterans Association's website, and the article in The Historian cites only the views of a veteran as published by the association (starting with the proviso "According to Joseph Y. Kurata..."). As such, this doesn't seem suitable for referencing general statements as is being proposed here. Have you checked the US Army Centre of Military History's excellent website? Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But the first source is written by James McIlwain, MD, Professor Emeritus, Brown University. The second source, has been verified from sources other than the JAVA, thus verifying the JAVA source. As for the third source, the DoD hasn't released the numbers of Asian American service members; the closest is a report from 2010 that has percentages, that I have provided a link for on the talk page of the article in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To receive additional opinions, per WP:CANVASS I shall be contacting relevant WikiProjects and informing them of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're confident about the first source (and if it's written by an academic who's field of specialisation covers this topic it's clearly a RS) and don't need to reference the second source, you've answered two thirds of your own question ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My chief concern is getting a consensus opinion on JAVA as a RS, or not. I do not want to bring the article up to GAR again, and have this being an issue, that is contested again. Presently, there are two editors who see the organization as a RS, but two does not make a consensus, or does it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the New York State archives' approval count?
http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_pgc_jewish_essay.shtml is an essay published by a professor of history at Binghamton University, and "compiled" by the New York State archives. In general, would it count as an RS?


 * For a source to be considered reliable for purposes of this guideline, the publisher is expected to have some process for assessing the reliability of what it publishes. Since state archives publish materials in a variety of ways, ranging from carefully selecting educational materials, to simply making available whatever is presented to the archive, you would need to dig deeper to find out what criteria the archive applied when it decided to publish the essay. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, it seems reliable for New York Jewish History. It's not just a dump of random donated papers, it was specifically selected, and the author is a known expert, who served as chair of the Judaic Studies Department at Binghamton. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general caveat that if the source is being used to support anything controversial (can't imagine what!) then it would be better to get a second source as well. While the New York State archives has a review process for many of its publications (those that are funded), this particular article appears to be an unreviewed essay, albeit from a respected professor. --regentspark (comment) 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability of Gamer Spawn
Is Gamer Spawn a reliable sourced? Please seeTemplate:Did you know nominations/My Hands for more details. — AARON  • TALK   13:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The content in question is "She said "I'm thrilled to be collaborating with Square Enix on such a groundbreaking game. I never would have imagined 'My Hands' as such a perfect fit for Final Fantasy XIII, but the strong female protagonist struck a chord with me and I can't wait to see Lightning do her thing.""

The references is as follows: As a youtube source, I am wondering if this is a reliable source. I am unaware of a regular webpage for the author. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

11v11.com and footballdatabase.eu
A lot of football (soccer) player articles use sites such as soccerbase or transfermarkt, which looking at the RSN archive aren't regarded as being reliable sources. I was wondering what your thoughts are on 11v11.com (operated by the Association of Football Statisticians) and footballdatabase? The references given by both sites are impressive enough - 11v11.com claims to supply the FA, Premier League and Football League, and footballdatabase claim a long list of international clients. Both sites have a log-in system for their forums, comments etc, but the databases don't appear to be user-generated. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Esther Katz vs. Mark Crutcher or, more properly, should Esther Katz's criticisms of Mark Crutcher's film be attributed to her in-line?

 * Article:

Esther Katz - history professor at NYU, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project and editor of several published volumes of Sanger's work - vs. Mark Crutcher, car salesman turned anti-abortion activist. Which is a reliable source for an analysis of Sanger's motives in founding Planned Parenthood? One user, at Talk:Maafa 21, claims that they are both equally reliable. This is, of course, nonsense. Let's enforce WP:RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:HISTRS, unless Mark Crutcher's works have been favourably reviewed in peer reviewed history or women's and gender studies journals, or unless Mark Crutcher possesses a relevant PhD and is publishing in scholarly modes, Mark Crutcher's works are not appropriate reliable sources for the historical issue of the motivations of a historical figure. Crutchers comments may be reliable elsewhere, but not in relation to history. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you agree, then, that if an expert like Katz says that Crutcher's claims are false, we can also say that they are false? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Unless a notable claim has been admitted to be false we should avoid saying it is false in our own voice, we're a bunch of volunteer editors, our voices shouldn't bear weight. We can cite Katz saying so (if Crutcher's claims are sufficiently notable to be included) as Katz's voice has the weight of expertise behind it. --GRuban (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you mean by "admitted to be false"? Crutcher, who is promoting these theories, is obviously not going to say that they are false, but he has no expertise or credibility in the subject, so we do not need him to admit it, only for experts like Katz to say it. [also note my comment below - this is not for the Sanger or PP articles, so whether we should mention the fringe claims at all is not the issue] –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, citing that Katz has called Crutcher's statements false within the article on Sanger or Planned Parenthood represents WP:UNDUE attention to them, given their relevance. It would be best to leave them out at all until such time as his work is published as historical expertise in reliable sources.  Stating them in said articles, even to note where they have been refuted, gives them too much prominence.  -- Jayron  32  21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course it would be ridiculous to mention Crutcher's conspiracy theories in the articles on Sanger or PP. This is an article on Crutcher's conspiracy theory film, however, so the theories should be mentioned, although it is also necessary to point out that they are fringe. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No one, and I do mean no one, at Maafa 21 has claimed that Crutcher and Katz are equally reliable sources on Margaret Sanger. The subject of the article is Crutcher's anti-abortion film (Maafa 21) that deals largely with Sanger and the early birth control movement in the United States. Crutcher's basic "thesis" is that Sanger's motivations were racist, that her aim was to severely reduce the Black population in the United States. The issue in our discussion is whether based on a reliable source on Sanger such as Katz who defends Sanger's motivations, Wikipedia should say in Wikipedia's voice that "Maafa 21's characterization of Sanger's work with the Black community is false," or whether Wikipedia should say in Wikipedia's voice something like "Sanger biographer Esther Katz has condemned Maafa 21's depiction of Sanger's work with the black community as false." Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Katz appears to be a reliable source for her opinion. If in-text attribution is provided, I don't see a problem with this. Location (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The facts as determined by scholars such as Katz should indeed be stated in Wikipedia's voice. If there were any doubt or contradictory theories presented by scholars, then naturally we should abstain from using Wikipedia's voice to make a contested assertion. However, the Maafa 21 situation is one in which no scholars have spoken up in contradiction. The Sanger Papers Project folks should be allowed to define the topic of Sanger's notional racism. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Let the record show that the two "outside editors" who offered an opinion on the specific issue, GRuban and Location, agreed that Katz 's criticism of the film should be attributed to her IN-TEXT. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I do not support the text that was provided as proper implementation of in-text attribution:
 * "In reality, birth control activist Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, the film's subjects, did not have racist aims and worked in coordination with black leaders; according to Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, the film is not based on any research, and its claims rely on misrepresentation of historical events, suppression of context, and attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said.[2][3][5]"
 * Prefacing the comments with "In reality" appears to make this a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion from Katz. I see this has already been reverted. Location (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me add a followup issue. One of the sources states that Katz said quotes of Sanger used by anti-abortion advocates were never actually made by Sanger.  Considering the film Maafa21 never used these quotes,  we should not be using this source to say that the film was essentially spinning quotes out of thin air.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want feedback here, you'll have to be more specific about the source, what it says, and what the article says. Otherwise, take it back to the talk page. Location (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The last sentance in the text you just quoted above. The source is  which states 'Other quotes are simply misattributed. Morris gave a speech to Clark’s congregation earlier this year, quoting Sanger as having said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Katz says Sanger never said this.    little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In that particular source, it appears that Katz said Crutcher misunderstood one of Sanger's quotes. Given that three sources are used to cite a sentence that contains an assertion of fact and assertion of opinion, it is difficult to tell what text is attributed to what source. I think this is further evidence that the semicolon needs to be removed and work done to cite two separate sentences. Location (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But is not Cruthcer that is being accused of inventing quotes, but rather Morris, whom wasn't involved with producing Maafa21.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If Crutcher uses someone quoting someone else out of context, then he shares some responsibility for passing that a long in his documentary. However, I don't see any accusations of anyone "inventing quotes" in the source or in Wikipedia text. Location (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's try this again. The following text, which in some form has been removed by several editors but keeps getting re-added by the original contributor Roscelese states:
 * In reality, birth control activist Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, the film's subjects, did not have racist aims and worked in coordination with black leaders; according to Esther Katz, a leading scholar on Sanger's life and work, the film is not based on any research, and its claims rely on misrepresentation of historical events, suppression of context, and attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said.[2][3][5] (emphasis added)
 * The text is clearly stating that the film is attribituing quotes to Sanger that she never made. A prior version (also by Roscelese) stated that the quotes were "simply fabricated".  The source that this text is attributed to states:
 * Morris gave a speech to Clark’s congregation earlier this year, quoting Sanger as having said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Katz says Sanger never said this.
 * Herein lies the rub. The statement from the RS is specifically talking about Morris.  Morris did not have any role in the production of Maafa 21.  No where has anyone presented a source that Maafa 21 relied on factitious quotes made by others, or apparated the quotes themselves.  While I personally feel it is fair game to present Maafa 21 as having taken Sanger's views out of context, because no one is seriously denying the sources say this, it is not ok to attribute to them (Maafa21), the actions and statements taken by others (Morris).   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for an opinion as to whether that source supports the Wikipedia text as it noted above, then the answer is "no" it does not. On the point you have addressed, and to be sure there are a few others, there is no indication from the source that Katz said the film relied on the "attribution of quotes to Sanger which she never said". Location (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Question from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
There is currently a debate on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. I am not a party to the debate (in fact, I have an opinion on the matter, but am withholding it so I can continue to act as an administrator on the page) but in order to try to stop the sniping between the involved editors, I'm bringing the matter here. There is a book entitled The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to al Qæda. See below Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) It's published by the University of California, so I'm fairly certain it meets our general RS concerns. The question is what we can actually say from the source. Okay, we have the book's title; the issue in question comes from a chapter entitled "Religious Justification for Terrorism". In that chapter, there is a section that says the following (two quotes):

"Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95). There have been Hindu grous and political parties that have sought to have Hindu practices(Hindutva) incorporated into national law since a large majority of the polpulation of India is Hindu. The bharatiya janata party that promotes Hindu practices has become the largest religious and nationalist movement in the world (Juergensmeyer 1996:6). While the party moderated its use of Hindu themes in the election campaign of 1998, it did not offer any real assurances to the religious minorities of increased tolerance(Chandra 1999:65-6). They feel that the members of the minority religions should be reabsorbed into the Hindu community (Greenwat 2001: 91). These efforts correspond to the attempts by Muslims to have the Sharia as the basis of national law or of groups in the United states to have Christian principles more directly incoreporated into..." “Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95).

Given the title of the book and chapter, but also given the fact that nowhere in the relevant text does it explicitly use the word "terrorist", can this book/section/quotation be used to support a claim in the article to the effect of "The RSS is a Hindu terrorist group."? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I got confused which of two books the above quote came from. It's actually from Global Terrorism; the publisher is Routledge, which is also generally considered to be a high quality academic publisher, so I don't think that changes the case materially. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, I'd say the source is reliable. James Lutz is a professor of political science at Purdue and appears to have written more than one book on terrorism. But, I'm not sure if the usage is correct. Lutz associates the RSS with "training paramilitaries" and with the assassination of Gandhi. But there is a leap of faith from there to calling the RSS a terrorist group that is not supported by the text quoted above. A milder claim that the RSS has been associated with violence in the name of Hindu nationalism would be more reasonable. --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would concur that the word "terrorist" should be avoided, and that something more neutral like "nationalist violence" should be used instead.--Ninthabout (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's Oldest Civilzation", by B. G. Sidharth
Can this be considered a reliable source for the history of astronomy? My impression is that it isn't, but I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance, Athenean (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say it depends on how it is being used. If it is being used to support a statement about astronomy in hindu texts, then yes. Otherwise perhaps not. It would be helpful to see the claim (I looked through the article history and talk pages but ...!). --regentspark (comment) 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I mean, just the title ("the world's oldest civilization") and the blurb "A leading astronomer proves that India had a thriving civilization capable of sophisticated astronomy long before Greece, Egypt, or any other world culture. ", should set alarm bells ringing. This is clearly a Hindu-nationalist polemic piece of the "Out of India" type.  He claims among other things that the Rig Veda is over 5000 years old, that it is the "oldest textbook of modern astronomy", that the sphericity of the earth and heliocentrism can be found therein, and a whole host of kooky claims, one after another. He denies foreign influences on Indian atronomy, while in fact going the other way, that Indian astronomy influenced all other civilzations' astronomy.  This completely contradicts all the mainstream scholarship of the history of astronomy, and it is precisely for these claims that some people want to use this source in Indian Astronomy. Athenean (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. Sidharth was brought up specifically to verify whether the hindu scriptures said the earth was sphere. These claims are not new either and have been brought up by other scholars/translators of the rig veda. Here is Sidharth's background. He is the director general of a major planetarium in India and a respected astronomer and physicist in his own right, having presented multiple papers internationally that were published in international journals--including western publications. Any additional use of him would specifically be prefaced as a distinct minority view. Sidharth's work is not a polemic. Also, athenean gave misrepresented quotes, here is the full quote of Sidharth's claim: "In fact, the Rg Veda, shorn of its allegory and metaphorical camouflage is the oldest textbook...". In the previous sentence Sidharth states 1500BC as the conservative dating of the Rg Veda--which is in fact correct (don't see how this is even remotely controversial). All this is on page 17. Two mainstream scholars Ohashi and Billard also challenged the colonial paradigm of pervasive greek influence on indian astronomy as advocated by one scholar Pingree. So greek influence on indian astronomy is still theoretical--certainly not scientific fact like evolution (athenean claims it is). Sidharth's claim of reverse influence is not new as even a british author did the same previously.
 * To clarify, as can be seen on the talk page, sidharth and even mainstream non-indians like ohashi/billard would all be prefaced with "minority view" remarks that would be weighted less in article length compared to majority paradigm. Devanampriya (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If he dates the Rigveda to 1500 BC, that is within the consensus, I'd say, but to claim that it's a camouflaged textbook (if he means that literally) is fringe, very very fringe.
 * As an astronomer he's not per se an authority on what the Rigveda really says and means, or on the direction of astronomical influences in ancient history, but he's notable enough to be worth quoting (with inline attribution) on these topics. Andrew Dalby 10:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The title certainly raises a red flag. My experience with Indian literature is that much of it is obsessed with often pathetic attempts to prove that Indians had all sorts of insights and technological advances first. I would not consider such a book as a reliable source for anything but the author's opinions.
 * No doubt there are exceptions and the occasional Indian scholar does really great work. It should be no problem to recognise these by the fact that they are cited by serious western scholars. In the absence of such evidence, and with such a title, this is clearly not a reliable source. Hans Adler 10:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that it isn't reliable. The publisher, "Inner Traditions" (website here), doesn't look like an academic publisher. It hawks books about New Age nonsense. Titles like Healing Love through the Tao immediately rings alarm bells. There are plenty of scholarly books on Indian astronomy published by reliable academic presses like Cambridge University Press. This isn't one of them.--Ninthabout (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just take a look at all the books listed on their About Us page as their "greatest hits".
 * Pyramid Power: New Age pseudoscience. See Pyramidology.
 * The Science of Getting Rich: A self help book from the so-called "New Thought Movement". Apparently inspired the New Age pseudoscience film The Secret (2006 film).
 * The Estrogen Alternative: More New Age pseudoscience. See Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy.
 * The Mayan Code: Notice a pattern? Even more New Age pseudoscience. See "Mayanism":
 * The publisher has practically covered everything on List of pseudosciences. Not reliable, at all.--Ninthabout (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Kition
Kition, a relatively new editor (, 10 day old account) has added numerous citations and new material to the article, all cited to "According to the text on the only plaque at the Kathari site (as of 2013)", "Excerpt of wall mounted text in exhibit room number two at Larnaca District Museum" and similar statements. Unfortunately, there are no links to images of said plaques. Reliable source of information?  He  iro 10:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not in the picture taking business. Information signs at an excavation site where people have to pay to get in—don't those signs have protection for the intellectual properties? (We don't photograph text from a book, just because we want to quote it.) Printing a sign is not that all that different from writing and printing books—sometimes authors get things wrong in books. – If there is consensus for doubting the contents of a sign or a book, we have at least one tool—the additional citation needed-tag. Is there any particular "sign reference" that you are doubting—more than others? If there is, you might want to do some legwork by contacting the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus. I think they would like to know about suspicions that people on the internet are potentially misrepresenting information—or falsely quoting information—from their signposts. - I think that they would also apprectiate to know that their signs aren't being overlooked. - For your information the Kition-Kathari site has two groups of signs at the entrance, with 6 signs on each post. --The long road homw (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is about WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE. Unless one travels to a remote archaeological site or sees an image of the plaques, how can the wording of the information be checked? Also, books and other sources are often peer reviewed or are published by reliable publishing houses, but we have no way to know who put up these plaques or what they even say. I am not completely against using them to cite that "a plaque at the site states X", but am extremely leery of having the majority of an article sourced on anonymous and unverifiable plaques. There should be reliably published information somewhere. The additional citation needed tag is not a holding spot to ask someone else to find a reference for you, it is used when editors would like you to provide a reference for the material you have added. If you don't have adequate citations, please hold off on adding the information until you do have the citations. Please.  He  iro 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The signs i have mentioned from Cyprus have a "peer review". People's reputations and potentially people's jobs are on the line. If someone screws up a sign, it will reflect both on the perp—and on people higher up the food chain—all the way up to the department head of the Department of Antiquities. – Can you point to any wikipedia guideline that states that I can not latch an "additional citation needed" tag, onto a text (of mine) that already has one citation? I have a feeling that you are misinterpreting some guideline—in line with how you would like things to be. --The long road homw (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one who thinks this. See Help desk and User talk:Diannaa. As for the question of the museum plaques, they also answered with Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 96. Which provides a citation template here Template:Cite sign. I would be a lot more comfortable with all of those citations to plaques and museum signs if you refactored your citations using this template. Cheers,  He  iro 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly obvious that a "citation needed" tag is not intended to be put there by the person adding the content. I don't know of any policy or guideline that says so in so many words, but hat is no doubt becasue it never occurred to anyone that anyone would think that was a suitable use of the tag. Adding a "citation needed" tag to content means that you are announcing that you believe the content lacks a suitable source and needs one: if that is your opinion then you should not be adding the content. The nearest I can think of offhand to a mention of this in a policy or guideline is at Verifiability, which says "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." That is clearly written from the point of view that the purpose of a "citation needed" tag is for use by an editor who is challenging the content. Also, the same section goes on to say "sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." That, I think, makes it clear that if your content is challenged then you have to provide a source, and I see no reasonable way of reading that as meaning that you have the option of either providing a source or putting a tag there saying that you haven't provided one. it is also clear from the two discussions linked to in the post above that there is consensus that this is the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On "citation needed" tags. If you consider your information obviously true and not likely to be challenged by any reader or editor, you can of course add it without a source. Then, if others do want to challenge it, it's up to them to add the "citation needed" tag. That's what it's for.
 * To add information which you yourself doubt, and at the same time to add "citation needed" to it, is making the encyclopedia worse. If you can't verify your own statement, it wastes other editors' time to add it anyway and expect somehow that they will do it for you. So what do you do? If you think your new information is important and you really can't find a reliable source, you put it on the talk page and ask for help.
 * On museum/site labels. They are very inconvenient for Wikipedia because other editors cannot check them (unless we have a photograph). They may or may not be reliable: it depends on the academic status of the author and institution that put them there. They are usually not peer reviewed: your superior officer is (by definition) not your peer. Peer review means review by others of similar status and expertise: museum labels don't usually get that kind of review. Because of the inaccessibility and the variable reliability, they are at the very bottom of anyone's mental list of handy sources for a Wikipedia article: you should not support any controversial statement merely from a museum label, especially not if other Wikipedians can't read the text of it. If you want to put any such controversial material in, you should find a reliable peer-reviewed publication that includes it. Ask the museum staff for help -- they, if anyone, will know where the material or the claim was published. If you can't find any such reliable, peer-reviewed source, then see above: you should put the doubtful information on the talk page, not in the article. Andrew Dalby 09:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

How to make Colloidal silver
In the alternative medicine section of the 'Medical Uses of Silver' article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver) I added the following sentence... "Colloidal silver is often made at home using a simple electrolysis system comprising little more than a battery or low voltage DC wall adaptor directly connected to two silver wires suspended in a glass of pure water."

I thought this was a pretty uncontroversial statement but it was challenged and a citation was requested, even though its not actually a medical claim. Its very hard to find a single 'reliable source' for this statement (certainly theres nothing in Pubmed) but a Google search of 'How to make Colloidal silver' will turn up 1,590,000 results, mostly describing the electrolysis method using home-made or commercially purchased 'generators' as they are called. So how do I resolve this? Is a google search a satisfactory way to prove 'the bleedin' obvious'? I feel I'm being asked to cite that the sky is blue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLUE Blakebeau (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The overriding concern here, I think, is WP:NOTHOWTO. As for what's obvious or not, as per WP:V, "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." But I think that's beside the point: with or without a source, we're not here to provide instructions. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, judging from this older reference I would question whether the supposed electrolytic method actually creates a colloidal mixture at all. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is certainly possible to send electricity through two silver electrodes immersed in water. It may even be a common practice. The question of whether the resultant "colloid" or solution has any medical benefit is critical to whether it should be in the article. Note that if "pure" water refers to distilled water then it will not conduct electricity, and the silver electrodes will not do anything. If it is normal water with impurities it will conduct electricity, but will likely create a (very weak) silver ionic solution rather than a (very weak) silver colloid. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll state it plainly. You can't make any metallic nanoparticles or even colloidal suspensions of larger particles this way.  If you could, it would save some people a whole lot of work .  At any rate this is a moot point; while this might seems like a blue-sky statement to some, it's been contested by other editors, and can't stand unless a RS is found.  a13ean (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And as for the google search, there's lots of hits for "collodial silver nanoparticles synthesis water" but everything on the first two pages refers to a normal synthesis by reducing AgNO3 or similar. a13ean (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not a 'HOW TO'. It just describes the basic apparatus. A real 'how to' would require much more info.

As for whether its really 'colloidal', I understand, but I think that's a separate issue. The product that is generically called 'colloidal silver' and is made at home or is available in health food stores, is made by electrolysis as I described above. This generic product is what the article/section is referring to whether its technically correct or not. Tens of thousands of Google results will tell you how this generic product is made but so far I'm unable to mention it in the article. (The article possibly does need a fuller description of what 'colloidal' really means to try and cover this problem of mislabelling but thats another concern for the article.)Blakebeau (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's not a WP:RS in any of those search results, it doesn't belong in the article. a13ean (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article must answer to the higher standard of WP:MEDRS, so the "how to" instructions will probably never make it into the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Binksternet. The section heading I used here is probably misleading. I'm not actually trying to include 'how to' information at all. (People can easily learn the full 'how to' elsewhere if they so choose). I was simply trying to include the comment that home-made 'colloidal silver' is usually made with a simple electrolytic device.  Tens of thousands of Google results will verify my proposed edit, including hundreds of companies selling electrolytic colloidal silver makers.  But oddly no MEDRS source actually states it that simply. Another complication is that Colloidal silver is an not approved medicine anyway and officially has no medical uses. (Thats very clearly stated in the article). At best its just a 'supplement' or 'water treatment', so do MEDRS rules even apply if we are just talking about how its made? Blakebeau (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK this may resolve itself. The challenging editor agrees they are not medical claims and a lesser standard of source is acceptable. I'm using this one... http://www.silvermedicine.org Blakebeau (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is chiropractic a health care profession?
There is a discussion at the chiropractic talk page regarding the question Is chiropractic is a health care profession?. It is proposed that the first sentence of the lead be amended to include the description: "health care profession".
 * Current text: "'Chiropractic is a form of complementary and alternative medicine[1] concerned with the..."'
 * Proposed text: "'Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative medicine[1] health care profession concerned with the..."'
 * The question: Are any of the following sources sufficiently reliable to support the change?
 * 1) From the WHO source: "Chiropractic - A health care profession concerned with....."
 * 2) From a peer-reviewed source in Archives of Internal Medicine: "Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in..."
 * 3) From a peer-reviewed source in The Milbank Quarterly: "Chiropractic is the best established of the alternative health care professions."
 * 4) From a peer-reviewed source in Arthritis Research & Therapy: "many patients seek care directly from health-care professionals other than their family doctor; for example, at least one third of back pain patients in Denmark now choose to see a chiropractor as their..."
 * 5) From NIH/NCCAM: "Chiropractic is a health care profession that focuses on..."
 * 6) From a Provincial government source: "Chiropractic has been a designated health profession under the Health Professions Act...."
 * 7) From private insurance company WSIB: "The WSIB has completed a review of the fees paid to 12 health professions." *Note that chiropractic is #3 on the list of 12 health professions.
 * 8) This source examined the attitudes/behaviours of health care professionals, of which, chiropractic is included. DVMt (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure about the others, but the NCCAM definition by itself I'd find sufficient to support the proposed text. I don't know whether chiropractic is effective, but it does indeed at least intend to train and license people to treat disease and improve health, and earn a living doing so. Given these sources, the qualifier "complementary and alternative medicine" is indeed required to be part of the definition, as proposed. 04:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are plenty of reliable sources that support the assertion that chiropractic is a health care profession and chiropractors are health care practitioners or providers. Virtually every US state and Canadian province places the practice of chiropractic under some department related to health care. Add the AMA to the list, and include UK's NHS and Australia's Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Location (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "...every state"? That sounds like a very US perspective. (Unless you mean Russian or Australian states?) This is a global encyclopaedia. We need a global perspective. And what's an NCCAM? HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Location (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone likely to challenge that chiropractors get paid? That really is the hallmark of any profession is that you earn income from your endeavors. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Politicians get paid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Noone is challenging that they're professionals, in the sense that it's a job where they get paid. It's labeling it as "heathcare" that is the sticking point. It's a pseudoscientific alternative medicine thing, according to the medical sources. — raeky  t  06:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The opposition is that we should represent what the mainstream medical/academic community considers them to be, do they refer them as healthcare practitioners or alternative medicine? Labeling something as a health care profession lends it, at least perceived, more credibility... The article clearly is labeling, based on available mainstream medical sources, a pseudoscience. — raeky  t  06:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A totally incompetent surgeon in Bananistan's army clinic who has so far botched every single operation but is allowed to continue because his brother is the president is still a health care professional. Even Mengele was a health care professional. Alternative medicine is a form of healthcare, whether effective or not.
 * Looking up the word health care in Merriam-Webster, I found that the general dictionary and the medical dictionary don't agree:
 * general dictionary: "efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals"
 * medical dictionary: "maintaining and restoration of health by the treatment and prevention of disease especially by trained and licensed professionals"
 * The latter is more restrictive as it requires efficacy, but that aspect is clearly wrong. Every good-faith effort to maintain and restore health by a qualified professional is health care, even when it's counterproductive. Hans Adler 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So by that reasoning Crystal healing and every other alternative medicine if they're "licensed? I can get licensed to do crystal healing here, so then would I be a "health care professional"?... I don't buy it. — raeky  t  09:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can find nothing about licensing under that link and I really doubt that they are officially licensed anywhere. In Germany for example, anyone wanting to practise crystal healing would have to be licensed as a Heilpraktiker (alternative / non-medical practitioner), or as a physician. Thus a crystal healer, homeopath or whatever who is fully trained and examined according to their particular paramedical faith is only allowed to practise if they also have passed the Heilpraktiker examination. The latter is what makes them health care professionals, and the former does not play a role. Therefore crystal healers, homeopaths and I believe chiropractics are not health care professionals in Germany. If, on the other hand, many states regulate chiropractic and let chiropractics work on patients under this regulation, then it's a health care profession. I don't know to what extent that applies. I know that it does apply in Switzerland, and I think it also does in the US, where chiropractic seems to have lost a lot of its radicality and to be quite close to mainstream medicine nowadays. Hans Adler 10:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Windows 1.0 logo
This is to complain on User:Codename_Lisa, who reversed my changes regarding the removal of Windows 1.0 logo, which cannot be found on any media from 1980's-1990's and has appeared for the first time on February 17, 2012 on Windows blog for the comparison with the current Windows 8 logo. The reason he/she provides is: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We have three sources here.

However, In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For which reason the Windows blog article and two derivated articles in PCMag and PCAdvisor are considered more reliable than photos and screenshots of Windows 1.0 retail boxes, distribution media, the operating environment itself which can be easily found on the web using Google where you for sure will not find anything similar to that logo?

Aaleksanyants (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Windows 1.0 brochure is on the Commons. Microsoft also advertised Windows 1.0 in computer magazines that are available at Google books. If the "proposed" logo cannot be found in these documents it is not notable enough to use on Wikipedia. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert Temple cleanup
See User:Ninthabout/Robert Temple cleanup. I'm involved in an ongoing effort to remove or replace an unreliable source used in some history of China articles. I'm posting a notification here in case anyone wants to help.--Ninthabout (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Seemingly sensationalist article from The San Antonio Express News
This article from The San Antonio Express News is currently in use in the La Luz del Mundo, specifically in the Controversy section. It seems to have a highly sensationalist tone, and seems to pay lots of attention to rumors. The article also relies heavily on a dubious source discussed here. How reliable is this source? Should it be used to make contentious claims?

The source was first introduced here in an extremely biased addition. Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * can you find it in the original edition? This is a reprint by the reporter, who seems to specialize in this sort of coverage. I can see no rule by which we would disqualify the material, though, except a general distrust for this sort of journalism  DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * From this starting point it seems like this article ("Divine Retreat") ran on May 25, 2008. I can't see the entire article, but the first paragraph seems identical to the source url (which I presume is the reporter's site).
 * As for sensationalism, I will note that the reporter in question is also a blogger at Pajamas Media and a cursory search suggests that while he's received a National Press Club award, he generally seems to receive US attention mainly from right-wing sources, e.g. Hugh Hewitt. This may or may not be significant. Full disclosure, I am involved as a WP:DRN volunteer in a dispute about La Luz del Mundo. I noticed this posting earlier today while looking at the discussion of my own WP:RSN inquiry about Talk:Huey P. Newton, above. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found the actual article. There are minor differences in wording, but it is mostly identical. Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally the The San Antonio Express News is a reliable source. It is editorially reviewed publication, with a reputation for fact checking.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Uber Review for bat'leths
I would like to ask if this would be acceptable to be used as a source to prove that bat'leths are sold by Amazon? I thought it would be better to use something like this rather than cite Amazon directly.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The original source is this Neatorama article, which is just a picture of a user generated customer review on a website. Forum posts and customer reviews don't look reliable.--Ninthabout (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept that the comments are not likely to be reliable however would the pic be sufficient to prove that they are sold by a certain company?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 10:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be easier to find a reliable source stating that bat'leth replicas are sold online, and I'm sure that they are. Does it matter which company?--Ninthabout (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, I only did Amazon because it cropped up as a suggestion in a Peer review.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Esther Katz, again
I ask again: is Esther Katz - history professor at NYU, director of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project and editor of several published volumes of Sanger's work, a reliable source on the history and goals of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger? Per WP:FRINGE, we are asked to contextualize fringe views with mainstream views, so it it is reasonable and not only within policy but called for by policy to write, in Maafa 21, that scholars like Katz find the film's fringe claims "completely wrong and without evidence." (Katz's actual comment is that they are "flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that," but I thought it more encyclopedic to paraphrase.)

Unfortunately, fans of the film are edit-warring to blank any information that suggests its claims are not true. (OTOH, the last discussion demonstrated clear support for including Katz's view and these users are reverting anyway, so another discussion that confirms the consensus might also not prevent their edit-warring, but...) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the board rules please explain exactly what source you want to use and for which claim.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to use this scholar's words ("flat wrong...just stupid...there's no way she ever said any such thing...there's no action she's ever taken to signify that," etc.) quoted in the newspaper MetroPulse for the statement that she considers the film's claims "completely wrong and without evidence." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Be aware that in the same article Katz is reported to be unaware how the producers of the film obtained their evidence, so the "without evidence" part Roscelese is trying to insert has no basis from the source. Also be aware that the article makes assertations via Katz about other groups besides the film makers.  In other words context matters.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Roscelese is of course identifying the subject expert, but not the source which upon further examination will show the proposed edit is a mischaracterization of the source.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok its seems to me that source its not WP:SPS so it reliable to Katz words.Her words should be attributed of course--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only attributed, but properly attributed. Roscelese, there are two separate issues here. One is the reliability of the source. The second is proper attribution of that source. I stated in the previous discussion here: "Katz appears to be a reliable source for her opinion. If in-text attribution is provided, I don't see a problem with this." I also stated: "To be clear, I do not support the text that was provided as proper implementation of in-text attribution". You cannot state that you received additional opinions that the source is reliable then proceed to misuse that source. The quote that you attribute to Katz above does not appear in the source. As Shrike alluded to earlier, you need to be more specific regarding the text you plan to insert. Location (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, the current wording (or rather, the current wording before it was removed by LGR, who seems to have declared an intention to edit-war forever) is that the film claims that [its claims], a claim that Katz, [qualifications], identifies as completely wrong and lacking evidence. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion for the talk page or WP:NPOV/N board.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing the source to say "flat wrong in their depiction of her views and work". Also: "...debating whether she wanted to erase blacks from the face of the earth is just stupid. I mean, there's no way she’s ever said any such thing. There's no action she's ever taken to signify that, so why would we be talking about it?" Katz is a scholar and a topic expert, so her observations are very important to the film. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is correct. The first is from the article's author and the second is from Katz. A dispute regarding the proper attribution of a source should go to WP:NPOV/N. Location (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Queen of Versailles
Is a documentary being used as a reliable source for claims bothe on its own article page and on David A. Siegel. I tried to explain that a film is a poor source when no transcript per WP:RS is provided, and even more so when it is used to make allegations about a living person committing a crime, as in the Siegel BLP. See,   where the editor uses primary court documents to allege  crimes  etc.  On the movie article  also argues that a court decision is not a court record per WP:RS    (his edit summary is a court judgement is not a 'transcript of court proceedings' and is about a valid a source as you can possibly get)

Will someone please tell that editor why court records are not used per WP:RS and WP:BLP, and why transcripts are used when a film is being cited as a source -- especially when it is being cited as a claim of criminal acts of a living person? Collect (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not quite correct and I have a worry about Collects interest in these pages. The documentary is being used as a source for the wikipedia page about the said documentary.  I cannot believe a subject itself cannot be the soruce of info about that very subject.  For example if the page was about a book it would be Ok to quote pertinent sections of the book especially if later litigation of importance occurs about that section.  The claim that court transcripts are being used is laughable, they are not transcripts of who claimed what they are the Court judgement!  You cannot get  a much better source than a court judgement, for obvious reasons - the court have spent a lot of time considering the claims and have come to a binding legal decision. the WP guideliens say excercise care using court transcripts and rightly so, all sorts of claims will be made in a court case.  It is the judgement that matters.  To remove court judgements from Biogs  would mean you couldn't mention any criminal act the person had ever done! 2.30.146.240 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a word on using the documentary as a source about the documentary itself. WP:RS says "The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book)....." In this case the 'piece of work itself' is the documentary. 1) It would be unreasonable to not allow references to the content of a movie in a wikipedia page on the movie by instisting on a full transcript of the movie.  2) The transcript would be a secondary source and so less relaible than the movie itself which is the primary source. 3) Often books are referenced as sources when the books are not available online.  You would not insist that an online transcript of the book be provided instead. 4) it is just as easy to check the source when it it the documentary as it would be if the source were a book that was not online or was chargeable online - buy the book/documentary and go to the quotes section.  In this case I have give the number of minutes into the documentary for each quote so it is quite easy to find and check.  Lastly Collect can I ask you to declare any interest in these pages, commercial or otherwise? I have none and updated the pages after recording and watching the documentary on TV.2.30.146.240 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Court transcripts are not to be used. They are primary source materials and hence not Reliable Source. The film (absent an available transcript) is not a reliable source, especially not for accusations that involve a Biography of a Living Person. Lastly, it is entirely inappropriate to suggest or imply that Collect has some sort of monetary conflict of interest. He is an active and longstanding editor who has a wide range of interests, particularly where BLP is involved. Your suggestion is a foul one. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait - I don't understand. Is the question about the documentary or the court documents?  Or both?  Generally speaking, documentaries are considered reliable sources if produced by respectable, reliable sources.  Transcripts are nice, but are not required by policy.  Generally speaking, court documents should be avoided for WP:BLP material.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion here is getting a bit confused. Nobody is wanting to cite "court transcripts" as far as I can tell. I thought the issue was whether to cite the judgment rendered by the court on a preliminary motion in a defamation action brought against the director of the documentary. In my opinion, there's a good secondary source about the court's judgment so no particular need to cite the court's decision directly. However, in general I have never heard of a Wikipedia policy prohibiting court decisions from being cited. I have edited a large number of law-related Wikipedia articles, and court decisions are frequently cited directly. A separate issue is the "Admissions" section in the current version of the article, which I deleted in this edit five days ago but has since been re-added by IP 2.30.146.240. I saw the film (The Queen of Versailles) and those are relatively minor scenes in which the so-called admissions take place. To write about them in the Wikipedia article just makes the article unbalanced, or in other words gives it undue weight. Also, when I watched the documentary, I got the impression that Siegel might have been joking about having illegally tilted the 2000 presidential election, and moreover that there was nothing illegal or immoral about buying back his own loan from a bank. Those are the reasons why, in my view, it's inappropriate to include those so-called admissions in the Wikipedia article. I believe that user Collect is making a different argument (that I do not agree with); Collect is saying that the film itself cannot be cited as a source for its own content, in an article about the film, unless a transcript is available. For completeness I will note that I raised this issue a few days ago on the BLP noticeboard. Hope this clarifies things. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The bar is on "court records" not just "transcripts" and in every case at RS/N, use of "court judgements" has been held improper in the past. And contentious claims (and I assume claims of illegal acts are contentious) require strong sourcing.  A quote from a film for which no transcript exists is in that category.  Collect (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, court judgments are used as sources all the time in law-related Wikipedia articles. As primary sources, court judgments are not specifically prohibited as a source on Wikipedia although secondary sources, if available, are preferred. Mathew5000 (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem here is the blurred line between verifiability (whether something is 'sufficiently true' to mention) and noteworthiness (whether something is sufficiently relevant to mention), an underappreciated concept.
 * Court decisions are the best sources for verifying what they say explicitly, though potential problems with interpretation make it desirable to have additional sources that help with that. But the mere existence of a court decision can never establish noteworthiness. The general principle: If it's important enough for an encyclopedia, then someone other than the original author (in this case the judge) has written about it.
 * Conflicts on sourcing tend to be phrased in terms of verifiability even when they are really about noteworthiness, as is the case in many BLP articles and seems to be the case here. Hans Adler 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I reject the idea that sourcing is automatically weak just because it is to a film without a transcript. I am not aware of any basis for this in policy or general practice, though as a written medium we obviously prefer to cite other written media where possible. Some editors may not be able to evaluate such a source, for example because they are deaf or hard of hearing or because they don't understand the language well enough. But that can happen even with our best sources, which may only be available in a few libraries, may require an online subscription, or may be written in a rare language. It only becomes problematic if a source requires too much interpretation or is accessible to too few editors. But that can happen with books as well and is certainly not a specific problem with the medium. Whether something said in a documentary can establish noteworthiness for negative information in a biography is a tricky question. I think that depends on the exposure that the documentary got and the amount of attention it gives to the negative information. Hans Adler 15:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully we've established above that court judgements can and are used as reliable sources, and that video does not require a transcript (and often is used eg newscasts to mention just one). Frankly I am amazed this has been questioned by Collect which is why I asked for any declaration of interest. I was not suggesting anything though I can see a request put that way appears so. I apologise if I did imply anything. But I would still appreciate the declaration. I do think my edits were being removed on spurious grounds. Noteworthiness is a very good point and a very different issue...2.30.146.240 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We have established that primary sources are not supposed to be used for articles. We have also established that court documents are primary, not secondary sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW and in response to the insinuations made: I have no interests whatsoever which could remotely be considered a "conflict of interest."  I have stayed at a Westgate facility as a result of an RCI trade, which I do not think is remotely near a personal conflits at all. I have no connection with Siegel, or anyone associated with him, or with the film. Period. Now that that silly charge has been disposed of, it is clear that we would need an actual transcript of the film to assure that nothing is being misquoted or taken out of context, and that the "court records" are not allowed to be used in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody other than Collect has accepted the proposition that a documentary cannot be a reliable source for BLP information unless a transcript is available. WP:RS provides: “However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.” The policy does not require the existence of a transcript, but says “an archived copy of the media must exist.” A DVD in a public library, or for sale to the public, would satisfy the archived-copy requirement. That being said, the insinuation of conflict of interest against Collect was preposterous. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * UYou iterate charges of a crime - and WP:BLPCRIME requires lots better sources than you have provided. Also, others above also note that quotes taken out of context from a "documentary" are not a "reliable source" for contentious claims.  Lastly - yu inserted synth in asserting that the number of votes was greater than the Bush "margin of victrory."  The article can and must comport with WP:BLP whether you "know" Siegel is a modern Al Capone or not.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect is referring to this edit to the article David A. Siegel. There is no charge of a "crime". The quotation is adequately sourced. There is no synth (see the Orlando Magazine article). Mathew5000 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I assert "This may have been illegal" is precisely the sort of claim which requires strong sourcing per WP:BLPCRIME. And that you seem hell-bent on making such a claim based on a HuffPo opinion column and film reviews does not bode well for such a claim.  Even if Siegel were Al Capone, WP:BLP still applies. Collect (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First, kindly cease insinuating that I compared Siegel to Al Capone, or that I in any way implied Siegel is a criminal. Nobody (other than you) has mentioned Al Capone here. Second, please step back and think about what you are doing with edits such as this. The particular quotation that you removed appears in The New Yorker, The Independent, and several other cited sources, but you removed it because Siegel originally said it for an interview in a documentary? That is not Wikipedia policy. Mathew5000 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it certainly is not Wikipedia policy -- and the sources you are producing go well beyond what is needed for inclusion here. I think the reversion of your addition is quite inappropriate.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do others agree? It would be helpful to get additional views on these two edits . Mathew5000 (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the quotation is given verbatim in those newspaper sources, we can treat them as reliable, and the matter is clearly notable also. So, if Siegel were dead, it would be proper to quote the words, citing those sources. That's as far as this board should go. Since he is alive, BLP (specifically BLPCRIME) decides what we do. Andrew Dalby 13:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for America's Next Top Model: All-Stars
I would like generic opinion on these sources. The conversation on the talk page was not sattisfactory to me. So placing my comments here Sources -
 * - I am uncomfortable with these sources. These are all obvious blog or blog like articles
 * - These are blog entries by someone on Boston Globe and many editors are using this as a reliable source. The same applies to this LA times article which is actually a blog entry and is being promoted as a reliable source as it is on LA times.

What I would like to understand is, can such sources regarded as reliable? Or is there some generic exemption for TV series as stated by editors in the talk pages. I have also linked MOS for TV series in the talk page every body is getting quite agitated about this. -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources are poor. America's Next Top Model as a whole is undoubtedly notable. For whether each separate series is notable, refer to criteria of WikiProject Television. Appropriate sources for an article like this include: the shows themselves for factual information about content; listings magazines for when the shows were shown in different countries and on which channels; entertainment magazines for how they were received. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The CW source is fine for factual information that the shows are being premiered; we can assume the network is a reliable source for its own schedule. The next two sources are blogs and do not meet WP:RS. The next 3, though, all seem to be legitimate. If you look at WP:NEWSBLOG, you'll see that "blogs" on newspapers can be reliable sources, so long as there seems to be editorial oversight. The truth is that many online newspapers have simply taken to using the word "blog" for what they would have, in print, called a "column" because it sounds more contemporary. So I think those are fine...however, with those particular blogs, we have to be careful only to use the factual info, as they also contain a bunch of opinions, and I'm not opinions would be of due weight to deserve inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:NEWSBLOG states that These may be acceptable sources...but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process. Have you ever heard of a retraction by a newspaper over what has been published in a blog? I thought the papers isolate themselves from these. Moreover, If Boston Globe is using blogs instead of columns then what about this column by John E. Sununu and this  review by Matthew Gilbert of a TV series. Yes, the site asks you to pay for the content of the second article but that is an issue that can be resolved at the Reference Desk. My point is surely these columns which are a part of the actual paper and do cover media and television are also valid columns. The same questions about this  article by Neil Genzlinger. I believe both papers have separate sections for blogs and columns. The article relies exclusively on these sources and No, I don't see any reliable sources for the episodes in question. Please advise... -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

247wallst.com
Today on reddit an exposee on 247wallst.org was posted. It looked only at one article and determined that the impact of the publication stands in no proportion to their quality. Two mistakes originating from said article on wikipedia were identified. They possibly also outsource the creation of the content to uncredited writers.

This looks very mich like a suspicious source and I suggest that the best idea would be to remove all references to them. This is actually a very fascinating article since it shows how unbelievably huge theirt impact is.

http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/18kele/one_blatant_factual_mistake_made_by_a_tiny_but/


 * Is the proposal that they are not reliable because a year ago they made a mistake? Humanpublic (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

USENET newsgroup post as source
212.183.140.58 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The source #58: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/metric-system-faq.txt
 * The article: Metric system
 * The statement being supported (at the end in my bold): "The usage of the metric system varies around the world. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency's Factbook (2007), the International System of Units has been adopted as the official system of weights and measures by all nations in the world except for Burma, Liberia and the United States,[56] while NIST has claimed that the United States is the only industrialised country where the metric system is not the official system of units.[57] However, reports published since 2007 hold this is no longer true of Liberia or Burma.[58]"


 * USENET as a source? Nope. Use actual published sources for claims - and preferably claims by people who reasonably are presumed to have no axe to grind (platinum-iridium or otherwise).  By the way, the US has allowed the use of the metric system as an "official system" longer than any nation other than France - just as a sidelight.  In 1792 we were the first to mint decimal based coinage.   In 1866 we even made it unlawful to refuse to trade or deal in metric quantities. We have also other legal measurements in addition to metric, but the wording of the claim is very misleading to readers.  The international "inch" is actually defined to be precisely 25.4 millimeters.  I would also like to point out that even in "metric countries" non-metric uits of measurement are frequently found - such as the use of carats for measuring weights of gemstones.  The metric UK uses "pints" of beer,  cheese-producing areas use weird measurements in many places -  frequently being sold "by the wheel" rather than by metric weight.  Oh - and the kilogram is not a unit of weight - if one is truly metric, the Newton is the unit of weight which should be used .  Roughly the weight of a small apple. Collect (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Humanpublic (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Oregonian
Authored article The Oregonian: "Chuck Palahniuk announces titles and release dates for next three books" used per policy in the Chuck Palahniuk article, in the section there on his fiction, to confirm the upcoming novel Doom.  As this was being used not as an assertion of notability, but simply to cite a novel's name and announcement by the novelist about its upcoming release, are we to now assume that a newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would not investigate something they published, before they published it? Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:CRYSTALBALL #1 and #5 seem to be relevant, but one could argue that they only apply to new articles (i.e. the release of Doomed) rather than information within existing articles (i.e. the works of Chuck Palahniuk). The release of the book is almost certain to take place and as such has received coverage in reliable secondary sources (see Huff Post, too), therefore, I would say that its OK to include the information in the author's article but likely too soon to create an article about the novel. Location (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

British Medical Journal imprint, "Tobacco Control," on one way how big tobacco has affected society.
The article ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party is from a peer-reviewed BMJ Group journal with editorial oversight. It finds that the Tea Party movement was formed by non-profit organizations that were in turn founded and funded by the tobacco industry and other corporate concerns.

There have been concerns raised at Talk:Tea Party movement that the article violates WP:OR for it's own research, that it fails WP:BLP for making contentious claims about a group, that it's phrasing violates WP:WEASEL. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not peer-reviewed for content. There are a number of journals published by professional academic organizations I belong to which are almost entirely political.  This seems an excellent example.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't violate BLP; it has been asserted that the article doesn't say that, even though the abstract does; and it looks WEASELly. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty strange. While a lot of scientific journals have some political back-and-forth in letters or the like, this appears to be a normal article in this journal.  The operative statement from the conclusion appears to be "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests." which is pretty weakly phrased.  I don't think this falls under WP:OR, and the phrasing of the article does not seem that unusual for a public health journal.  Depending on how it's being using in the article, a brief mention might not be undue.  (Also, looking at their methods section makes me wish I could get published just for googling things in my field).  a13ean (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Arthur, why do you say that it's not peer-reviewed? No comment on the quality of the journal, but their guidelines indicate that research papers are externally reviewed.  a13ean (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire journal appears to be a political journal published by a medical organization; even if peer-reviewed, it's the wrong type of "peer".
 * And, if we may not use the Google-test in Wikipedia, why can we use a source which admits to only using the Google-test, even if it were a nominally reliable source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from the fact that the paper does not make that claim at all, we would allow it by the same principle that forbids us to do original research, but allows us to use original research done by others, as long as its reliably published. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a political journal, it's a journal about policy. And since the statements to be supported relate to policy, and since the publisher is a highly reputable body, I'm not seeing great problems. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * {ec}I don't see any evidence that this is a political journal, and a sampling of other articles in the same issue doesn't offer any evidence to the contrary. I think you misunderstood my statement above, there's plenty of real science where they basically just "google" in specialized databases or the like -- medical reviews such as this one are pretty common.  I'm just mad because the measurement equipment I use is not nearly as robust as my internet connection.  a13ean (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a peer-reviewed journal from a reliable publisher. The authors are affiliated with a major university, and at least the senior author is reasonably widely published and cited. Looks like a WP:RS to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. It's a political (or policy) journal.  (If it's a policy journal, rather than a political journal, the article isn't even within the stated topic of the journal.)  The article is about political history, and there is no evidence that the publisher (a medical organization(, the editors, or the authors are experts in that field.  The lead author is an expert on effects of smoking (and possibly second hand smoke; I haven't read through all the abstracts); there's little evidence he's an expert on political history.
 * We've dealt with this before, although I can't find specific references to discussions. "Experts" writing outside their field of expertice are not considered "experts" for the purpose of WP:RS.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The tobacco industry is Stanton Glantz's area of expertise. Publications include, but are not limited to: The Cigarette Papers, Tobacco War, "Why and how the tobacco industry sells cigarettes to young adults", "Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places", "The politics of local tobacco control", Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology", "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study". So what were you saying?
 * By the way, other news organizations are picking up this story.  &mdash; goethean 15:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Stanton Glantz might be an expert in the Tobacco industry, but where is he an expert with regards to the Tea Party? Arzel (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What a suprise that a bunch of left news sources would trumpet an incredibly stupid study that would attack Big Tobacco, the Koch's and the Tea Party all at once! This is clearly a WP:FRINGE study.  Such a stupid correlation without causation study I have not seen before.  Such idiocy would never make it into the true scientific journals which I have published.  Arzel (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; [...]; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies." (emphasis mine). How is this article possibly outside the the stated topic area of the journal? Expert status for the author is only needed for WP:SPS exceptions - the presumption is that publication through a reliable publisher is sufficient to establish reliability. The BMJ Group is a major academic publisher with a good reputation. Peer-reviewed academic articles are the gold standard for sources. And, as Goethean pointed out, Glantz is indeed an expert on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The objections to this journal are very much off target. There are significant numbers of academics/scholars in medical fields that do research on the social/political aspects of health-related issues; tobacco is a prime example.  The medical school in my own university has a large unit that specializes in issues of this sort. There is no question here of people writing outside their expertise -- it's really quite the contrary in this instance.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Glantz is an expert on the tobacco industry; his comments about the Tea Party would require independent evidence of expertise. BMJ is an expert in medical matters; their expertise about the Tea Party (or recognizing expertise about the Tea Party) is in question.  "Tobacco Control" is a (self-proclaimed) expert on "the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide" and "the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies".; their expertise about the Tea Party is problematic, as it's Glantz' assertion that the Tea Party is an ally of (an ally of an ally of ...) the tobacco industry.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The expertise of Glantz in regard to the Tea Party is established by the publication of his research about it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is a medical matter.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the Fallin/Grana/Glantz article as eminently usable for statements about the influence of tobacco companies on the early formation of the Tea Party. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is unmatched in its holdings; there are no other libraries holding such a mass of public and internal tobacco industry documents. Anyone drawing from this library would be expected to have unique conclusions. The medical experts who authored the article are not blind to the political and health issues surrounding tobacco promotion—in this case politics and health are tied together. The article is peer-reviewed and the journal is respected. This is a fine source. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One would expect experts that special in the dealings of Tobacco companies would be well versed with the politics of tobacco. This source is fine, however I'm a little troubled if their research methods was only google. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian.thompson, who started this thread, mis-characterized the conclusions of the article in question. The ref is clear that some tobacco companies worked to encourage and provide some funding to a variety of anti-tax groups some of which are now closely associated with the broad Tea Party Movement. He should be forgiven for the error of stating tobacco companies "formed" the Tea Party because a two media orgs (Rolling Stone and Huff Post) have thus mis-characterized the article leading to error. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As relates to the reliability of the article, I agree that their methods, as described in the abstract, look more than a little questionable. Moreover as a reliable source of political or historical research I'd have to say that it doesn't look good. The they are writing with an explicit Point of View (tobacco-control) for that (tobacco-control advocacy) audience. I'm sure their peers in the tobacco-control advocacy world found this entirely reasonable. It doesn't seem NPOV or reliable for Wikipedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Their methods are described as such: "We used the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, the Wayback Machine, Google, LexisNexis, the Center for Media and Democracy and the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org) to examine the tobacco companies' connections to the Tea Party." By itself, the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library would be quite suitable as a reliable source for the three researchers Fallin, Grana and Glantz. The other sources simply add more context and broadened the coverage for them. Fallin, Grana and Glantz are not restricted by Wikipedia's admonition against original research; they are researchers, for crying out loud. If by "tobacco-control advocacy" you mean public health professionals who wish to greatly attenuate lung and throat cancer by researching corporate malfeasance and political interconnections, then what part of that is against Wikipedia guidelines? We do not require our reliable sources to have a neutral stance. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm alarmed at the way editors are trying to wriggle round this one. Articles in BMJ journals are reliable, end of story, pretty much. If you find a source of equivalent quality presenting an opposing view, use both. Itsmejudith (talk)
 * Current consensus on the talk page (as defined by a pro-Tea Party editor) is to not include any material cited to this source. Rationales for excluding the material vary wildly. I suggest that interested editors join the discussion. &mdash; goethean 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some editors are showing a real problem with this, yes. The issue for me, however, is the idea that since a source exists, we must use it.  There's no doubt in my mind that this is a reliable source.  I see no consensus at the page, however, that it should be used in this article, given the claims the reference makes and the relative lack of attention it's getting (likely because the claims made are so dubious). Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The talk page is dominated by advocates of the Tea Party who want to see all negative information removed from the article. &mdash; goethean 23:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are certainly Tea Party supporters there and opponents as well. The allegation that it's partisanship doesn't hold up: you don't need to be a Tea Party supporter to see that the claim being made is lacking, but this goes beyond the point of this board. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. &mdash; goethean 23:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thargor, I was surprised at your remark about the "relative lack of attention" the topic has been getting. I would like to direct your attention to the media:
 * Fox News "Taxpayer dollars used to fund study tying Tea Party to tobacco lobby"
 * Rolling Stone "Big Tobacco's Tea Party Ties Exposed: New study shows links going back decades"
 * Reason.com "Revealed: Big Tobacco Invented the Tea Party!"
 * Newsbusters.org "Al Gore Attacks Koch Brothers and 'False Spontaneity of the Tea Party'"
 * Washington Post "Bringing Tobacco to the Tea Party"
 * Huffington Post "False Spontaneity of the Tea Party" by Al Gore
 * Wall Street Journal "Seib & Wessel: What We’re Reading Friday"
 * This list will likely grow in the next week, but by itself it proves plenty of media attention. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is getting attention for two reasons. One, the left loves to attack the Tea Party so anything which can equate the Tea Party with eviiil organizations like BIG Tobacoo or the Kooooochs is great for boogyman posturing.  Throw in Al Gore and you have a trifecta of leftist dreams.  Two, the right is responding WTF?!? Big Tobacco started the Tea Party three decades ago and tax money went to this piece of crap study?  I love Correlation without Causation studies as much as anyone, but this one is pretty darn weak.  It would never pass a real scientific journal with rigorous statistical testing.  Arzel (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Arzel, we are all well aware of your views that the leftist media is the antichrist and that the Tea Party is a righteous patriotic organization. No need to waste your breath. &mdash; goethean 00:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Arzel, if you want to debate Al Gore then call his people up and schedule something. Otherwise let's all retain our senses and concentrate on following Wikipedia guidelines. The way forward is clear: use this very reliable study, and check into the most prominent new stories that have followed from it. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Goethean, Binksternet, I am sorry that the facts hurt you so much. We are all aware of your beliefs that the Koch brothers are behind an evil plot to destroy Obama, but there is no need to rely on fringe theories to base your beliefs.  Not that it really matters now, but it is too bad (for the authors) that the authors were unable to get their crap study published back in October when it might have had the intended effect they wished.  But thankfully, by 2014 the utter absurdity of the whole issue will be long forgotten.  Arzel (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not fringe or pseudoscience. Reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Vienna_Convention_road_sign_B2a.svg
 * Please everyone, see WP:NPA. This noticeboard is not about content, that can be discussed on the talk page of where this source is to be used, this noticeboard is for building consensus as to whether a source is reliable or not.
 * Furthermore, whether the views of this article in this journal is WP:FRINGE or not, is not the perview of this noticeboard, it is whether the source is reliable or not.
 * That being said, as to whether the source is reliable or not, as an editorially reviewed journal, it fills one part of WP:RS. Does it has a reputation for fact checking? Not being familiar with the journal I cannot say, and will not venture to make an opinion in that regard. Is the journal politically motivated? Whether it is, or is not, does not matter in regards to whether the source is RS or not. As others have written elsewhere, just because MSNBC or Huffington Post leans politically left, or FoxNews and Breitbart.com lean politically right, their political bias does not stop any of the four from being reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * K. According to the Wikipedia article on BMJ its peer review system rejects roughly half of the articles submitted. To me, that would seem to indicate fact-checking is at work. Sure, they also no doubt examine methodology, but this is a professional peer-reviewed journal with a reputation for beng selective. Not some wild-eyed screed in a random, tabloid, geez. Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's BMJ as a whole, not specifically this journal. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. &mdash; goethean 13:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement that BMJ rejects roughly half of the articles submitted is not relevant to other journals published by the BMJ Group. Reliable publishers have been known to publish clearly unreliable journals; there is a Springer-Verlag journal which rivals the Journal of Irreproducible Results.  At least, in that case, they admit it, but there are any number of scientific organizations which publish psuedo-scientific journals, in addition to the excellent line of scientific journals.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tobacco Control has a publication rate of 23%, and has an impact factor of 3.11 which is reasonably high for a public health journal. It has an editorial stance against the Tobacco industry, but that is to be very much expected given that they are a public health journal. Given their coverage of tobacco related legal cases, I would imagine that the editors would be well acquainted with the legal issues associated with failing to fact check, particularly in relation to politically sensitive findings.130.102.158.15 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear that this article is a reliable source, by this site's criteria. Its senior author is prominent mainstream academic (a full professor at one of the premier medical schools in the US, a member of the Institute of Medicine, and one of the world's foremost experts on the tobacco industry). The article was published in a reputable mainstream, peer-reviewed, scholarly public health journal. It's a reliable source; the arguments to the contrary are quite hard to take seriously, particularly since many seem to stem from individual editors' personal objections to the article's findings rather than from any aspect of Wikipedia policy. Whether this particular reliable source should be used in the Tea Party movement article is a separate question, one which is outside the scope of this noticeboard and should be resolved on the article talkpage or via dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 05:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, I'm not sure I agree. It's a generally reliable source in regard the tobacco industry, but is it a reliable source about the Tea Party ?  They're experts on the tobacco industry.  Why are they experts on the Tea Party because they think it's connected to the tobacco industry?  It's a notable opinion, but I don't think it could be used to the support the statement as originally presented, even it that were a legitimate summary of the article.  The original statement was "... a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations that the tobacco industry and other corporate interests worked with and provided funding for...."   The phrase "... the movement was formed over time by ..." has since been changed to "... organizations within the movement were connected with ...", which does not require expert opinion outside the field of the tobacco industry.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

jainworld.com
Is www.jainworld.com a reliable source? It is been used in many articles like List of Jains, Indrabhuti Gautama, Islam and Jainism, Jainism in Japan and many more.[]. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It would seem to be reliable for some things, for example events relating to Jainism, the existence of courses in Jainism. It may also be useful as a convenience host for documents that were written elsewhere and placed on the website. Certainly not reliable for history, or for biographies of living people. If it's being used for Jain theology, we would have to look at that more closely and see if there are better sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, www.jainworld.com is a reliable and respected source. It is largely a compilation or articles and books, written by experts. Even for history (for example articles by Dr. K. C. Jain, a distinguished scholar)and biography, I would consider it a source, with reliability comparable to books in the field. In many cases, the names of the authors have been included. Obviously, at a scholarly level, there can be differences of opinions, but that is a separate issue. Malaiya (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On history, if the author is a scholar then an article may be reliable. But it would be an unusual case and should ring alarm bells. Why is that author not publishing in an academic journal? If jainworld.com is simply reproducing papers that have been published elsewhere, then we don't have a reliability problem but may have a copyright one. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * www.jainworld.com is a non-profit organization supported by the the donors. It is not affiliated with any specific religious groups or organizations. Many Jain scholars write on non-commercial basis that was the traditional system that still survives among the traditional scholars, who make no attempt to copyright their works. Most of the books by Prof. K.C. Jain have been published by well known commercial publishers:

Author	Kailash Chand Jain, Publisher Motilal Banarsidass, 1972
 * Ancient Cities And Towns Of Rajasthan: A Study Of Culture And Civilization

Kailash Chand Jain, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Jan 1, 1991
 * Lord Mahāvīra and His Times

Kailash Chand Jain, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Jan 1, 1972
 * Malwa Through the Ages: From the Earliest Times to 1305 A. D.

Kailash Chand Jain, D. K. Print World (P) Limited, 2010
 * History of Jainism: Jainism before and in the age of Mahāvīra

Some are however published by Trusts:

Kailash Chand Jain, Ahimsa Mandir Prakashan, Shri Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust, 1998.
 * A Brief Historical Survey of Jainism and Its Contribution to Indian Culture

He apparently wrote for www.jainworld.com without charging money, or it may have been sponsored by a trust. I would accept works of K.C. Jain as scholarly. However as I said, difference of views is common among scholars. Incidentally, I am an academic too.Malaiya (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't reassuring. We will have to take it case by case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

www.subgenius.com
A source making a claim about itself seems to fall under WP:PRIMARY or WP:SPS. Thoughts? Location (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Source: http://www.subgenius.com/updates/5-99news/X0020_Saint_Francis_E..html
 * Article: Francis E. Dec
 * Content: "Dec is also regularly mentioned by Church users in their Usenet newsgroup alt.slack, from which messages mentioning Dec or reprinting his rants were selected for the Church's official newsletter The Stark Fist of Removal.[6]"
 * Both  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking for addition rationale on whether this should be preserved or stricken from the article. Location (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with leaving the content. It is hardly contentious nor extraordinary.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Good Men Project
On his talkpage User: West Horizon has suggested this article on the Good Man Project website as a source for the history of the Fathers' Rights Movement and Fathers' rights movement in the United States. The material in the article places the origins of the men's rights movement in the 1920s, contradicting multiple scholarly sources that date it from the 1960s..

On the plus side, the Good Man Project website has a named editorial team etc ; on the downside the same page suggests that they may publish just about anything. "We shy away from nothing. Our content reflects the multidimensionality of men — we are alternatively funny and serious, provocative and thoughtful, earnest and light-hearted. We search far and wide for new stories and new voices from “the front lines of modern manhood.” Another concern regarding expertise is that the author Robert St-Estephe, who is described as historian but also "a deeply repentant former mangina who has devoted a bit of time to the study of the history of the relations between the sexes", is not traceable on the internet apart from postings on men's rights websites. Any thoughts? --Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Only scholarly sources can contradict scholarly sources, and in that case both versions are presented with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They are an online magazine. Though the credentials of the contributors are unknown.  Respected sources like the Boston Globe have written about the magazine, so I wouldn't say they are a crackpot blog, but at the same time I wouldn't want to trust them as a contradictory source unless the article in question had a byline that indicated the author was appropriately credentialed.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweeping removal of citations per WP:RS
User:Jayjg is (probably quite properly) removing citations to the works of discredited historian (and Holocaust denier) David Irving. I have no issue with this. However, out with the bathwater is going to baby of secondary citations, some to the London Times, some to other, non-Irving works, when the citations contain links to Irving's website or other traces of Irving. I am curious as to the correct response to this. An example is Special Operations Executive, where the offending link is to a copy of an article from The Independent. Another is the excision of a primary source (a diary) because it is contained on Irving's site (this might be more reasonable) in Alexander Scotland. What is the correct protocol for a sweeping removal of "bad" or discredited links like this? Malay Agin (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hard to say without diffs that give us the broader context. WP:BURDEN or BLP concerns may apply. It might be helpful to drop Jayjg a courtesy notice about this discussion. Location (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Document transcriptions on lobby group websites
Can I have opinions as to the reliability of the following documents, hosted on the websites of the currently active lobbying groups the UK Metric Association (UKMA) and the U.S. Metric Association (USMA).

The documents are being used to support a variety of assertions in the International System of Units article (section: United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa and Commonwealth of Nations), and are cited as if they are original and legitimate documents.


 * http://ukma.org.uk/sites/default/files/met1972.pdf (UKMA website)
 * Cited as: White Paper on Metrication (1972) – Summary and Conclusions. London: Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate.


 * http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/international.html#south_africa (USMA website)
 * Cited as: South Africa Metrication". South African Government. 15 September 177.


 * http://ukma.org.uk/australian-experience (UKMA website)
 * Cited as: Final Annual Report (1980-1981) of the (Australian) Metric Conversion Board (MCB)


 * http://ukma.org.uk/sites/default/files/met1980.pdf (UKMA website)
 * Cited as: Final Report of the Metrication Board (1980). London: Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate.

212.183.140.58 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The original reports appear to be reliable in that they are coming from various governmental sources and have been referenced in other reliable sources. The UKMA and USMA may be advocacy groups but that does not disqualify the reliability of the original reports. Linking directly to the governmental sources may be preferred, but there is no reason to believe these are not faithful reproductions by the UKMA and USMA. Location (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The question of the reliability of these sources is a total red herring raised by somebody whose views appear to be diametrically opposed to the views promoted by the sites in question. The original questioner, in order to disrupt things, was in effect questioning the honesty of the organisation in question, rather than their opinions.  Let me put it another way, if the URL was left out, would the original questioner have questioned the citation?  I don't think so.  Also, if the URL was left out, would it have detracted from the article in any way? I think yes - it would have been far more difficult for readers to read the source material themselves as they would have had to go to specialised libraries.  In short, unless there is a suggestion that the organisations in question have falsified the material, or have only produced extracts so as to change its meaning, then the material is reliable. Finally, is this USMA posting reliable? Martinvl (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith, and stop trying to disrupt this discussion by trying to second-guess, or assert, what my views might be on the subject of the article. I have never discussed them with you or disclosed them, so you cam have no idea of what they are, and they are certainly not relevant to this discussion.


 * I came here to see what those with experience in these things thought about the likely reliability of such apparent third party transcriptions of government documents. Particularly where they are cited as government documents, and with no statements concerning their pedigree, copyright status or whatever and with no way of checking the integrity and accuracy of the transcriptions and particularly with them being hosted on websites of single-issue lobbying groups, wand here those documents are clearly being used to support the activities of those groups.


 * If any of the documents were facsimile scans of the government documents that they are purported to be, or were hosted on reliable websites, there would be no such concerns. 212.183.128.131 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on the two British documents, which, although in .pdf form, are not facsimiles. The originals, as government publications, were "Crown Copyright". Unless permission was obtained, these copies would be copyvio. (I'm open to correction: it's possible that some recent legislation has amended the copyright on such items.)
 * If these were verifiable exact copies, and not copyvio, we could use these links as a convenience when citing the documents. Since the copies are not verifiable, and are (if I'm correct) copyvio, we can't. Andrew Dalby 13:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the copyright questions please see the Open Government Licence. On the question of the exactness of the copies, the easiest thing would be to link to the UK national archive version - an example. Mcewan (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that copyright information. I agree, it's much better to link to the UK national archive version. Andrew Dalby 10:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When I tried to access these documents from the Archive sites, there were problems which is why I went to the UKMA site. Martinvl (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

About the "Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" article leaflets.
In the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, Binksternet keeps on believing that Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cities on the list and Hiroshima was not. I don't want to go any further as things will gets ugly in the "leaflet" section "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Leaflets". I attempted to remove it in the "leaflet" section, and Bink kept on reversing it back to way it was without providing any legitimate explanation to me whatsoever. Everytime i tried to edit out the problem and everytime i tried to explain he keeps on telling me to go to the talk article and he kept on reversing the back the way it was. The whole thing is he keeps on believing that the Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cites with Hiroshima not on the list which no major sources ever said it as i i said again in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&action=history Earlier, he puts on this last sentence on late December 2012, "One such leaflet is on display at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; it lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed." This is really blatantly dishonest to deceive a reader because two books he put our there said it differently:

"Before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, the city was given the standard psychological warfare treatment prior to an incendiary attack. Leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, indicating, along with several other cities, that they were to be fire bombed within a few days and to evacuate the city. The leaflets are on display at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima and were dropped on the city several days prior to the atomic bombing." No Strategic Targets Left, page 103. F. J. Bradley. Turner Publishing Company, 1999."

"But, the leaflet continued, unless the country agreed to immediate surrender, the bombings would continue. On the back of the leaflet, along with a photograph of a superfortress, were listed the cities destined for destruction: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabaru, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima, it will be noted, was absent from that list; so were Nagasaki, Kokura, and Niigata." The Day man lost: Hiroshima, page 215. Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai. Kodansha International, 1981."

So based on the two links, I then remove that last sentence as i stated above because they are mixed together such as the leaflet was displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Museum (no link even said this nor i know many people who lived there did not say anything about it) to deceive a reader then Bink kept on adding in with the sources continueing on claiming to have that Hiroshima warned with 12 leaflets and Hiroshima was not on the list. He added this link: http://www.gifu-np.co.jp/kikaku/2008/gifu63/g63_20080804.shtml and he claimed that the leaflets were warned on Hiroshima based on the link he provided and said this: "One such leaflet lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed."

He kept on saying this because he believes that Hiroshima was given a 12 city warning when i saw no evidence providing to the contrary whatsoever. And he added the 2nd link in addition to the Japanese link claimed it was based on this: http://books.google.com/books?id=adI-6jRDipgC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Would you read it and does it REALLY says that Hiroshima was given such as 12 city leaflet? I don't think so. This Google link specifically did not say anything about Hiroshima given the 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not which makes no sense and this link did not specifically say anything about it. I like the say the leaflet section is written as earlier on the article earlier didn't say any information about the leaflets, just had problem with the last sentence to claim that Hiroshima received a warning with 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not. That link isn't along with the Japanese link reliable enough to support the evidence. XXzoonamiXX


 * Discussion has been going on at the article talk page and at my user talk page. The latest discussion is here: Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.
 * This is the full cite for the Richard Miller book:
 * Miller writes, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. The leaflets the Americans had dropped the day before warned of devastation to a number of other cities: Yawata, Saga, Takayama, Akita. Ominously, Hiroshima was not on that list. It was never on the list." This is as clear as it could possibly get, that Hiroshima was leafleted and that the leaflet message was about 12 other cities. The point is that Hiroshima was not warned specifically because Hiroshima was being saved from firebombing so that the atomic bomb's destructive power could be assessed without previously damaged areas confusing the matter. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Miller writes, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. The leaflets the Americans had dropped the day before warned of devastation to a number of other cities: Yawata, Saga, Takayama, Akita. Ominously, Hiroshima was not on that list. It was never on the list." This is as clear as it could possibly get, that Hiroshima was leafleted and that the leaflet message was about 12 other cities. The point is that Hiroshima was not warned specifically because Hiroshima was being saved from firebombing so that the atomic bomb's destructive power could be assessed without previously damaged areas confusing the matter. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First, leaflet image you put out can be applied to others since the 12 cities leaflet were dropped on many Japanese cities from July to August so that image is moot.

"possibly get?" You were saying to the fact that Hiroshima was WARNED with the leaflet drops which list 12 cities and Hiroshima was not. Also, you already put in the article main page that no warning was going to given to Hiroshima that the atomic bomb was going to be dropped so your argument is moot. I also already know that Hiroshima was preserved from firebombing so they could assess the damage caused by the nuclear bomb. Again that's completely out of the topic what we are focusing now.

2nd of all, it says, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. The leaflets the Americans had dropped the day before warned of devastation to a number of other cities: Yawata, Saga, Takayama, Akita. Ominously, Hiroshima was not on that list. It was never on the list." However, it is clear that after the sentences, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima."

Now it goes off THEN saying Tokyo predicted the invasion then said that all the major cities had been firebombed and the rest nothing said about the Hiroshima residents in the sentences. It also says that the leaflets warned on which mostly like the Japanese cities in general which listed of cities for targeting and Hiroshima was not on the list so it did not say specifically enough that Hiroshima was given such a warning with four cities listed and Hiroshima was not. So you come to the automatic conclusion that Hiroshima was given such a warning of what you put out in which the link specifically nothing about it.

3rd of all, it says four cities in that Miller link yet it did not say about 12 cities listed and and yet that was put on the article main page. This is a bit deceiving at it's best as you mix two link together as you previously did before. Also, Miller's link inaccurately says that Hiroshima only housed 25,000 troops (All the major sources, including the Japanese ones, agreed that it was about 40,000 soldiers in Hiroshima). If Japanese citizens in Hiroshima was given such a warning (12 cities listed/Hiroshima not), then why didn't the residents say anything about the leaflets being warned with leaflet (12 cities/ Hiroshima was not) nor goes on the details that Japanese officers said so itself? The link make it seems like as it was a third-world source and it make no sense at all.

Also, I was talking about Hiroshima warned of a conventional bombing, not a nuclear bomb and I know that. I don’t want to discredit you but when you put out the last link when it does not specifically say it (As I told you above already) makes other sources seems very discreditable and assume to all sources that say leaflets was warned to Hiroshima about the conventional bombings a bunch of lies. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Commenting for Binksternet. Disclaiming that I'm not a regular contributor to this noticeboard, I'll say, yes, that book does contain that quote. We can verifiably assert that that book does contain that quote. I'm not sure, however, how much of that is simple statement of facts observed by the author and how much is supposition or synthesis on the part of the author. I wonder, for example, what information the author had regarding the mood among the Japanese citizens of Hiroshima. When he says, "It [(Hiroshima)] was never on the list", I wonder what specific list the author speaks of, and whether his information about its contents comes from his observation or his supposition. Googling around, I find another source, . According to the google search results I got, page 60 of this source says, "Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 55 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following ...". It would be interesting to learn what that source says that the text on the reverse side of the leaflet says. That information is probably easily and verifiably obtainable in U.S. libraries. Unfortunately, I am located on a small island n the Philippines and am unable to obtain/verify that information myself. Perhaps another Wikipedia editor might do that and let us know what it says there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes Miller did say Hiroshima was never on the list I never denied it but he assumed that based on the quote he got, Hiroshima was given a leaflet with 12 cities and Hiroshima was not. That the residents in Hiroshima received that leaflet which that book written by Miller did not specifically say that the residents of Hiroshima was given such a warning. You can look what i said above. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Studies in Intelligence source says that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities were leafleted on 1 August 1945. (The CIA webpage is somewhat confusing in that it positions the LeMay leaflet after the Hiroshima explosion, but the text is clear that the LeMay leaflet was dropped before the atomic bomb. A completely different leaflet warning of the vastly powerful new bomb was dropped after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki.) John W. Dower writes that the 12-city leaflet was standard fare in the days leading up to the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Dower writes on pages 186–187 of Cultures of War that the 12 cities "were small and of negligible strategic importance." He says that "several-score" (~40) cities received these LeMay leaflets. He says "neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki nor Kokura" were on the list of 12 cities shown on the leaflet. He says these leaflets were dropped on July 27, July 30 and August 3. (Note that the reported dates of the leaflet drops vary widely within the range of late July and early August. Many of the best sources contradict each other regarding exact dates.) Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is very difficult for me to figure out how to explain the situation to XXzoonamiXX; the method of reading a dozen sources to come up with a suitable encyclopedic summary. It seems that XXzoonamiXX is upset that some of the dozen sources contradict each other about various parts of the leaflet situation. I get the impression that XXzoonamiXX wants the atomic bombing article to make some particular statement about the leaflets, but I do not know what that is. XXzoonamiXX's communication skills are confusing to me. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What am I missing? The version supported by Binksternet appears to be supported by a reliable source. What does XXzoonamiXX want the caption to read? Location (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I get what the sources say and i read it many times. My whole point is Binksternet kept on assuming that the residents of Hiroshima was given a leaflet with 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not based on the Miller Link he has. That's my whole point. It's not that i discredit the facts from the sources that Hiroshima was not giving such a warning but the way you put it makes no sense. I strongly disagreed how you put that in the last sentence right next to "likely Hiroshima was leafleted on early July and August" sentence and the residents of Hiroshima was given such a warning. So i want to move it somewhere else in the "Leaflet" section and not to make it appear that Hiroshima was given such a warning with 12 cities and Hiroshima was not. And BTW, Location, he puts out a CIA article and if you click on the leaflet image of it, you see that 35 cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were targeted with leaflets but he puts out that Hiroshima was not listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firebombing_leaflet.jpg look at the bottom. Even though it was supported by other book sources, it makes it seem like as if CIA specifically say this nor the image listed the names of the cities listed for destruction. Also BTW, Dower said that 12 cities were targeted on July 27 yet the USAAF chronology says it was only 11 cities. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * XXzoonamiXX, can you find the name 広島/廣島/Hiroshima or 長崎/Nagasaki on the leaflet? Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, faithful translations and transcriptions into English are not OR. Oda Mari (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you listen to what I said, that's not the point what I'm talking about. Specifically, the last sentence gives an impression that Hiroshima was given such as leaflet with 12 cities and Hiroshima was not when it specifically not so i want to move it somewhere else in the "leaflet" section. Also, the Japanese link didn't say specifically anything Hiroshima given such a leaflet, as with the Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai's book as well. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

www.assassinationresearch.com
James H. Fetzer has independent notability as an advocate of various conspiracy theories and he is certainly a reliable source for his opinion; however, Assassination Research and www.assassinationresearch.com appear to be self-published by Fetzer. I'm seeking other opinions on the permissibility of this source in the article given that WP:SPS refers to claims about third parties. (One confounding factor, the Fetzer article contains one or two of Bugliosi's opinions about Fetzer taken from Reclaiming History. Tit for tat?) Thanks! Location (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Source: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1fetzer.pdf self-published by James H. Fetzer
 * Article: Reclaiming History, a book authored by Vincent Bugliosi
 * Content: In his 2007 review of Reclaiming History, conspiracy researcher James H. Fetzer contended that "Bugliosi has misled his readers by lies, omissions, and deliberate distortions, where, in particular, when confronted with evidence that is incompatible with his own—official but fanciful—theory, he either twists, warps, and distorts the evidence or simply ignores it. His key claims are not merely provably false but, in crucial cases, not even physically possible.."
 * I don't think it's a major problem, because it is relevant that someone like Fetzer has criticised Bugliosi's book. So long as we adequately distance Wikipedia from this opinion, and indeed from Bugliosi's opinions, it is clear that we are simply reporting on a spat that took place. It would be good to include some reviews in the mainstream media, if there are any. I saw http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/he-died/ this but not much else. Normally, if there are no reviews in mainstream media, we question whether a book is notable, but in this case I think there were lots of sales so notability probably isn't in doubt. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1361358118-mkZHKQ+Nk9T2/Wv3GzAtvg Mainstream reviews should go first, in a Reception section. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
In Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, there is currently the claim that Pope Benedict will choose to remain in the Vatican in order to avoid the possibility of lawsuits. This is clearly a very strong claim, and there has been some dispute about including it. The source being used is Reuters, so that's good, but the article, "Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican", is relying on two anonymous "Vatican officials" as the source for the claim. The article also acknowledges that there are no current cases that name Benedict. So my query is whether or not this is sufficiently reliable for a claim of that strength. - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is very much a disputed point, and should only be expressed as an opinion offered by whoever-it-is at Reuters. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem being that we don't know who whoever-it-is is, as it is only attributed to "anonymous Vatican sources". But I've attributed it that way, so hopefully it is ok. Thanks for your help. - Bilby (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Gary Webb (racing driver)
I am new to Wiki. I am the computer tech/financial advisor to Gary Webb (racing Driver) from Blue Grass. The last statement about him (married to ...) is wrong & causes family tension & I don't know how to remove. The rest of the article has incorrect dates & numbers I want to submit correct dates & figures but am not sure of the format needed. This is coming from Gary Webb's mouth so am not sure how to list source either....
 * Partially resolved. It looks as though another editor has removed the uncited information about a marriage. This was likely vandalism. Regarding dates and numbers for the article, its best to post that information on the talk page with an appropriate source. I'll bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR for you. Location (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please post the information at Talk:Gary Webb (racing driver). I'll watch the page for your information. Please list what's wrong and what's right and I'll take a look at it. Also please list your sources (newspaper articles, magazine articles, books. You can just post a link by copying the web address and pasting it on the talk page.  Royal broil  00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A silly claim referenced to unreliable websites
, an editor of some experience, maintains that we should keep a "rumor" in one of our articles, Volkswagen_1-litre_car, though it is based only on the evidence of a website, "truthorfiction.com": this rumor is reprinted here, with reference made to one single email. If you look at the talk page (unpleasant discussion ongoing; I had asked Gorlitz on their talk page but they moved it to the article talk page) you'll find another link, this one, on an even more questionable site, Resources for Life ("Holistic Wellness! Business Services!"). You'll also see that Gorlitz has defended the section before against two other editors. Now, Gorlitz, I think, claims the information is "reliably sourced" because, I suppose, he looked at a clip from ABC on that Holistic website. The clip is no longer there, and it's impossible to tell "what" ABC it was, or which one of their local (and often not so reliable) affiliates. It is my contention that neither of these two websites are reliable sources; that the memory of Gorlitz having seen the clip is not enough to verify that the information was indeed every reported on a news program; and that the information should be removed since we don't report internet rumors unless they're reliably sourced and of some value to an article. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The assumption that the claim is "silly" is all the editor's here.
 * The unpleasant discussion is all at Drmies's hand. I am trying to remain pleasant. Sorry about for not devolving into name-calling so that it could have been more unpleasant. I'll see if I can work on that in the future as opportunity arises.
 * There was a link to ABC news, which they have removed as part of their editorial policy: archiving old stories. Unfortunately, it's a victim of link rot. No further copies of that story were available when later edits were made otherwise I would have added the source as well. Link rot applies to outside sources as well. And, contrary to claims, it's not just my memory that serves as witness here, but the author of the story claims it was there at one time as well. Thankfully, the presence of that video is not key to the reliability of this source however.
 * The question isn't whether there will ever be a $600 version of this vehicle sold in the US or any Western nation, it's whether VW ever intended to sell one in the Chinese market. That's what the issue was. Over a few edits, another editor and I came to this consensus or compromise. So the source is to confirm the idea (probably incorrectly labelled as a rumour) that such a vehicle may have been planned, and the reference does support it. For this purpose, that specific source is sufficiently reliable, and it links to other secondary sources. I suppose we could add those linked sources instead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the previous two editors might disagree with your claim of pleasantness. At any rate, can you provide reliable sources for this rumor? Or will we have to build an encyclopedic article on the evidence given in an unreliable source that once upon a time there were reliable sources? In short: can we get a reliable source to state that VW intended at one point to etc.? For now, what you're defending is an unreliably sourced account of a rumor. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So the source is to confirm the idea (probably incorrectly labelled as a rumour) that such a vehicle may have been planned, and the reference does support it.  -- Which source?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. The source that's there is http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/v/vwl1.htm while all of the discussion here has been about http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item3583 --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That site is even worse, if possible. The page is simply a reprint of an alleged email. No sources are given, and the site has more ads than editors. It's owned by Branches Communications, apparently, and there is nothing anywhere about an editorial board or policy. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sources are very poor. It is clear that there was a hubbub of misinformed discussion on the internet, but it didn't make the mainstream apart from possibly ABC. An internet rumour which has left no trace except on discussion boards and  rumour sites seems about as  non- notable significant as it comes for purpose of writing an encyclopedia. Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Before anyone complains, let's call this incident insignificant, rather than non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks for the correction, which I have now made.  I made the same suggestion to Jimbo re notable/significance years back... you'd think I could take my own advice!!!  Slp1 (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East

 * Source: Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East. Google Books link and publisher link.
 * Article: Azerbaijani language
 * Content: used on this revision – diff. Check page 79 of the source (book). Is this book RS to use for number/population of a specific language-speakers or population of an ethnic group? Zheek (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

onefivenine
Please see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FOIA document question
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Salvatore Giunta. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Two sources for Tough Trip Through Paradise
Looking for advice -- I'm about to embark on a major edit of the page for Tough Trip through Paradise, and I've got two sources to ask about.

The first is the Andrew Garcia--Mountain Man page on franksrealm.com, which was heavily used as a source by the last editor. The franksrealm page only gives "Donald Gilbert y Chavez" as its source, and I've noticed a number of discrepancies between franksrealm and the handful of print sources I've consulted thus far.

The other question I have is whether an online guide or finding aid to a manuscript collection held in an archives is considered an acceptable/reliable source. I know the manuscript collection itself is a primary source and therefor not to be used, but what of the description of the collection, as published to an online catalog by the historical society that owns the collection? The specific page I have in mind is the Northwest Digital Archives page for the Ben Stein research collection. If it's a no-go I have other sources to use, but I'd like to know before I begin my edits in earnest. (apologies for initial failure to sign; still new to this) RogueArchivist (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Use of franksrealm as a source would have to be justified based on the author's reliability in peer-reviewed publications elsewhere. Without that, we can't use it. Cite it under external links, that's all.
 * You can use primary sources if they are published or on line (assuming the people concerned are dead), but purely for what they say: you must use secondary sources for any interpretation.
 * It's a positive that this archive handlist is on line, so other editors can verify your use of it. These handlists are a bit like museum labels: probably OK, but reliability is difficult to judge and the material is unlikely to be peer reviewed. We are dependent on one librarian or archivist, a professional, but anyone can make errors in analysing documents. We discussed the use of museum labels on this board recently, but whether the use of archive handlists has been discussed I don't recall. Andrew Dalby 08:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

OpenSecrets.org
Is the use at KochPAC proper in using pages from OpenSectrets.org to make statements which use information compiled from that site? Specifically the detailed information about how many candidates received X amount of money from the PAC? In addition, claims are made in that article which do not even seem to originate from Opensecrets.org on the pages cited at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First, are there other secondary sources that contradict the OpenSecrets compilations? Second, Center for Responsive Politics is the OpenSecrets group. They are a respected organization, publishing contributions in a non-partisan manner. Third, they are cited in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Finally, if you know of "facts" at the KochPAC article that are not supported by the cited sources, then tag them with the failed verification template. Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You answer what I did not ask -- my question is whether the counting of how many received how much money is, in fact, SYNTH when the claim is not explicit on the source.  That is "3 received $X " where the source is a list from which the "3" is a derived figure.   In short - since I did not say the raw data was wrong, answering that is nicely irrelevant.  The question posed is - are figures derived from the raw data also proper? Collect (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * SYNTHNOT makes it clear to me at least that this particular summarization is entirely proper. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:CALC allows simple math in Wikipedia articles, such as adding multiple figures from multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Richard Keatinge and Binksternet in regard whether the summaries are reliable.   However, there used to be an identical page that was not referring to KochPAC, but to Koch Industries; which included KochPAC, any other PACs run by any of the Koch companies, and contributions by self-identified employees of Koch companies.  Assuming good faith on CRP's part, it would be logical to assume that this is still the combined data, although now it says KochPAC,  and hence not appropriate for this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While CALC uses the term "sources", the caveat is that there be consensus on their usage. It does not mean that data from multiple, disperate sources be used to achieve an end result. For example, adding numbers from different data bases, which have different sample sizes, populations, times of collection, etc. would be improper. – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Magazine associated with Careers 360
Some questions arise about the use of the magazine associated with Careers 360. The main site of the organization is Careers 360 Following is a link to the magazine archives: Magazine archives.

The magazine is used as a source in Indian Institute of Planning and Management and is the subject of discussion in Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy

Both of those articles have cleanup issues, with dead links, citations needed and other issues, but one of the issues to address is whether links to the magazine constitute reliable sources.

Does the magazine arm of a career resource organization enjoy the same status as a news magazine? What should our position be on the use of this source?

This is one of the references used: example

-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please explain what it is being used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source is being used to support, inter alia, this claim:

As per Mahesh B Sarma in Careers 360, NVAO, the accreditation organization for Netherlands and Flanders,[ has clarified that IMI "is not a recognised higher education institution in the Dutch or French speaking part of Belgium" and cannot award recognised degrees.

That claim appears,on its face, to be supported by the reference. However, as the article goes on to note:

In 2009, IIPM filed a criminal defamation charge against Careers 360.[100] According to Arindam Chaudhuri, Honorary Dean of IIPM, the courts in February 2010 had admitted IIPM's defamation cases against Outlook and Careers 360.[92] In May 2010, the court upheld that the contents of the Careers 360 article were "prima facie defamatory" and issued bailable warrants against Maheshwar Peri, publisher of Careers 360 and Outlook, and Mahesh B Sarma, editor of Careers 360.

I think we ought to have serious reservations about using as a source a publication which has been found to have published defamatory material. If this is were isolated, it might not be much of an argument. Surely many sources accepted as reliable sources have lost a defamation suit at some time. However, this suit was directly involved with coverage of this incident.

I should note that I am in OTRS email discussions with one of the parties.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the editors of these two IIPM pages which have seen quite some history. Initially, I had tried to remove Careers360 as a source. I had three points: (1) Careers360 is a student news magazine and is not as good a reliable source as editorially reviewed newspapers; (2) It focuses on advertisements from a lot of this institution's competitors and could have a conflict of interest in reporting; (3) The publisher of this magazine Maheshwar Peri was initially the publisher of Outlook, which not only is a direct competitor of the institution's magazine called The Sunday Indian but more importantly also had court rulings against it because of an IIPM case. The problem here is that Careers360 is, in my opinion, a classic questionable source. Not only has there been continuous litigation between the two parties (IIPM & Careers360), the Careers360 news reports have been asked to be blocked in India again in a court ruling last week that made news in India. If one were to look at the Careers 360 publisher's Facebook page (which I won't link out here but anyone can view it typing the publisher's name in Facebook; second name first), you'll see that every second post is a ranting against IIPM. Other editors had objected at that time commenting that Maheswar Peri was a respected publisher at Outlook therefore my views were mistaken. Of course, at that time, the courts had not ruled on this issue. Once the bailable warrants had come out, I think Maheswar Peri also had to resign from his Outlook publisher position. My view since then remains that this heavily conflicted source should be deleted. Such a large section like this has been built largely on a questionable source when we should purely use secondary sources to refer to such controversial statements. And if there are no secondary sources other than Careers360 for the incident, then this incident any way does not merit inclusion. Wifione  Message 18:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

St Martinus University History
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Martinus_University_Faculty_of_Medicine

In the history section of this page there are multiple reference that are incorrect

St. Martinus University was established on May 22, 2000. In 2010 with escalating debts and low enrollment the university was forced to close.[1] St. Martinus reopened under new ownership in October 2010.[2]

The reference referred does not mention anything about the year it was closed. In fact the university was never closed. A verfiable reference that was provided that shows the university is awarding degrees since 2003 to current is being removed.

In addition the University is designated by Canada as an institute for highr learning. The requirement for the institute to be on higher learning are as follows:

(a) An international post-secondary educational institution located outside the United States must meet the following criteria: be approved for the purpose of student financial assistance in its home country; and demonstrate stability by having been in continuous operation for a minimum of two years prior to designation.

(b) An international post-secondary educational institution must also be listed in one of the following references:

International Handbook of Universities (International Association of Universities, Stockton Press), the World of Learning (Europa Publications), the Commonwealth Universities website at www.acu.ac.uk/home , the International Association of Universities website at www.unesco.org/iau/members_friends/mem_membinst1.html, the federal school look up for FAFSA, (US Department of Education www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw0607/fslookup.htm, or       Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education (Greenwood Publishing Group),

2.   International post-secondary educational institutions located outside of the United States offering medical programs must meet the following criteria in addition to the criteria listed above in section 2:

Be listed on the International Medical Education Directory imed.ecfmg.org/ maintained by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) or the World Directory of Medical Schools www.who.int/hrh/documents/wdms_upgrade/en/index.html maintained by the World Health Organization. Be approved by a member of the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada; Be in continuous operation for at least ten years.

The university is approved by Canada government in Jan, 3 2013. This implies that the university is continuous operations for the last 10 years.

This is logical that a wrong resource is being put. We kindly make a request to fix this error and correct tthe history sections.--Sharmauiuc (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Magill and Limerick Leader
Magill Magazine


 * Source Magill Magazine Issue 1, 2008, 46-47 / also held on the Limerick City Council website here
 * Article Limerick pogrom
 * Content diff is here: Over the last 25 years, historians and writers in Limerick have questioned the traditional narrative of the event, with the question of whether the event's description as a "pogrom" is appropriate being "at the heart of the matter"

The question here is around Magill, an Irish current affairs magazine which is now out of publication. At the time of the publication of the article in question, the magazine was being edited by Eamon Delaney. There is a difference of opinion on whether this source is WP:RS the article - grateful for third party views here.

Limerick Leader


 * Source Limerick Leader, Saturday 6 November 2010, "Jewish envoy says Limerick pogrom is 'over-portrayed'" / also held on the Limerick City Council website here
 * Article Limerick pogrom
 * Content diff is here: In 2010, the Israeli ambassador to Ireland, Boaz Moda'i, commented on the pogrom stating: "I think it is a bit over-portrayed, meaning that, usually if you look up the word pogrom it is used in relation to slaughter and being killed. This is what happened in many other places in Europe, but that is not what happened here. There was a kind of boycott against Jewish merchandise for a while but that’s not a pogrom."

The Limerick Leader is one of the Johnston Press Ireland titles. It is a local weekly paper with a relatively small circulation although is the largest paid-for newspaper in the whole Mid-West region of Ireland. On its website the newspaper claims to have "a cherished reputation as the local paper of record". There is a difference of opinion on whether this source is WP:RS the article - grateful for third party views here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am involved in this discussion with Once. Personally I am puzzled why this was taken to RSN.  The question isn't whether the sources cited support the specific content proposed.  The periodical quoting Gannon is a reliable source for Gannon's opinion.  The newspaper quoting Moda'i is a reliable source for Moda'i's opinion.  The question is whether the article's treatment of the opinions of these individuals is undue or not, especially when we have much more authoritative academic sources covering this topic.     14:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Zad, the WP:RS challenge came from Jayjg - see a selection of comments below:
 * ...''In addition, the opinion is published in a small-circulation weekly newspaper (not a historical journal or history book), and Moda'i is a non-expert: a politician, not a historian. As such, we are clearly facing WP:RS issues... Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ...''Keep in mind, as well, that any material sourced to the personal opinions of politicians such as Boaz Moda'i or Robert Briscoe will fail WP:RS... Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ''If something fails WP:RS, then it doesn't matter how brilliantly written it is, or how much one agrees with it. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the conclusive points above that the Limerick Leader and Magill sources are not reliable in this context, on what do you base your statements here? Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope that's clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I think you two are talking past each other a little bit.   15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Magill article is irrelevant in this "terminology" section (it's badly written, but it says it's about "questioning the traditional narrative", not about terminology). So we don't have to worry whether Magill is reliable or not.
 * The quotation from Keogh is the important one. Keogh knew the facts and can write clearly. It's almost all we need in this section, really.
 * But it is interesting to notice that an Israeli diplomat agreed with the point, because terminology in this field matters, at least in a historical sense, in Israeli politics. So, if I were writing the article, I'd say in the text that Moda'i expressed a similar view to Keogh, and perhaps I'd quote him as briefly as possible in a footnote, citing the Limerick Reader.
 * The Limerick Reader is reliable. Can't see any good reason to dispute that. Andrew Dalby 15:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course its reliable but the question of WP:UNDUE doesn't belong to this board but probably to WP:NPOV/N--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers (season 1)
An editor removed a review from the Blogspot. I wonder if the removed content should be re-inserted. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It depends on who W.L. Swarts is. For example, Ken Levine, one of the writers for Cheers, has a blogspot blog that should definitely be used as a reliable source. Is Swarts a critic of note or just some guy with a blog? Gamaliel (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Swarts is not affiliated with any newspaper whatsoever, and he is, like you said, "some guy with a blog" that makes reviews. That makes him unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. See WP:BLOGS.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Various sources at Politics of global warming
A number of what I think are questionable sources is used at Politics of global warming to make statements of fact. These include There seem to be several other questionable sources and WP:OR there as well, so additional eyes would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * An op-ed reprinted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute
 * This report by Joanne Nova published by the Science and Public Policy Institute to support a somewhat confused claim about "academia"
 * An article by Greenpeace on funding of "climate denial"
 * A discussion of Greenpeace at http://activistcash.com/
 * An article by the Discovery Institute
 * I've done a lot of work on this page. It was UTTER GARBAGE in December.  SInce then I've tried to bring it up.  I"m frankly tired of Rogue Admins and POV pushers showing up and attempting to oppose any kind of a reasonable work to DESCRIBE the extremely complex politics of global warming.  I can't fight and win against an administrator who has been found to be Rogue.  You guys do what you want.  If you want me to try to write a good and balanced NPOV article on global warming, please let me know.  Otherwise, please feel free to revert the page to the UTTER GARBAGE that I found here in December.  Tired guys and very tired of the 4 year old POV pushing on the whole climate change issue.  Trying to make it (wikipedia) better here. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Stephan there is not much we can do with this unless you explain the contexts, for example what was being cited. Asking this noticeboard for a general ruling about a source is not normally appropriate. You say statements of facts, but which facts? We need to deal with concrete information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that would be ideal. But I had serious trouble - some of the statements "supported" by the facts seem to be rather unconnected with them, and some seem to be so confused that I really was not able to summarise them. Since I think the sources are generally unsuitable, I'd rather not first try to argue about what they say, and then have a second discussion on why they are unsuitable. As an example, the Discovery Institute source is attached to "Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy." I'm not even sure if someone thinks the article says that, or if it is supposed to be an example the such a campaign. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel strange about indirectly defending such weak looking sources, but still, it is hard to know how to comment in a serious way. We can say "looks like a weak source" but I am sure you know this noticeboard tries to avoid such loose comments because otherwise it just becomes an extension of talkpage debates. Most sources can be reliable for something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave one example. Per WP:BURO, you can hop over to the article and see for yourself how the others are used. It's simpler than me copying over the relevant parts of the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary of Foregon Terms as Historical Method Source
The text in question is highlighted here:

On the other hand, Adeleye et al state that such arguments are often based on less than stable foundations and may collapse like a "house of cards". 

A link to the text being cited on google is here:

The source is being used to assert in the article that "Ex silentio arguments stand on shaky foundations and can, like a house of cards, be easily demolished." That text is an example of usage that dictionaries often provide. This can be easily seen by looking at other italicized texts in the dictionary entries. The source itself is just a dictionary, and not reliable as a source on historical method even if the opinion being expressed were that of the editors. Humanpublic (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No big deal anyway given this. You were again saying Seb followed you there, debate it for ever, go back on ANI and waste life for 3 days, I just left it out... Will take up the rest of my life this way on a small change... amazing... History2007 (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with the RS issue? Humanpublic (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam War
Claim: "Viet Cong insurgents reportedly sliced﻿ off the genitals of village chiefs and sewed them inside their bloody mouths, cut off the tongues of helpless victims, rammed bamboo lances through one ear and out the other, slashed open the wombs of pregnant women, disemboweled random civilians and draped their mutilated bodies on fences, machine gunned children, hacked men and women to pieces with machetes, and cut off the fingers of small children who dared to get an education."

Source: Reader's Digest, "The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh," November 1968. Originally the claim was cited to this supposed reproduction of the Readers Digest article on a personal blog site. The link to the blog was removed when the source was originally queried but otherwise the citation remains the same. Article: Vietnam War
 * Normally RD articles are reprints and condensations of other sources. In this case, unless we can find this original source we are at something of a loss for evaluation. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, RD reprints are clearly noted (copyright acknowledgements are not "optional" <g>) - and most articles now, and for many years,  are written for the publication itself.  RS.   The article is written by John G. Hubbell, who appears to have written a number of articles for it.   Collect (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyways, Reader's Digest seems to have published this article. However, given it's conservative and strongly anti-communist editorial stance, and the fact that is was written at the height of the Vietnam War, makes me vey much doubt its reliability. It's useful as a primary source about what circulated in the US press at the time, but I would take its claims with a large grain of salt. I suspect that a 1968 article is still under copyright, in which case we probably could not link to, as there is no indication that it is reprinted with permission. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as we cite the RD article properly per WP:MOS, there is no Wikipedia rule that it be available online - that is a non-starter as a reason not to use a book or article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Do you think I said anything else? Of course there are other reasons not to use the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nam: The Vietnam War in the Words of the Men and Women Who Fought There also describes Viet Cong use of castration and impalement. A Bright Shining Lie mentions Viet Cong use of disembowelment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both look like much better sources than a contemporary Reader's Digest article to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, a 1967 Newsweek article ("Off With Their Hands") mentions Viet Cong attacks on schools and hospitals, noting "Sometimes they chop off a finger or a hand, just as a warning. In other instances, they disembowel a man or impale him alive before the eyes of his fellow villagers". "The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam" contains an endless list of such atrocities.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are contemporary sources. The Senate report is definitely a primary source of questionable reliability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively - it is simply a source whose facts do not comport with your beliefs.  seems pretty clear. Sorry, Paul Stephan - what you appear to assert is obviously fiction appears likely to be fact.    Collect (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Correcting slip as discussion was referring before to Paul Bogdanor. Collect (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to me? I don't know how good your source is, but are you sure that you have read it in context? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A few pages or so - but the specific eyewitness account seems pretty solid, the source is not "contemporary" (which means naught AFAICT), the author and publisher appear to fully meet WP requirement, but it does not agree with what you "know."  And it is not by a "right wing" person.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to confuse my evaluation of sources with my opinion on historical events. An unreliable source is not necessarily wrong, and even less likely completely wrong. It simply is not reliable, i.e. we cannot use it to source a claim. If we can find a reliable source, all is fine and dandy. But of course the senate report, from a partisan political body of one party in a dirty and unpopular war is a primary source, and inherently dubious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this thread by accident, but, taking into account that Collect addressed to Stephan Schulz "Paul", I conclude from this Freudian slip that he expected me to participate in this discussion. I think it would be incorrect to disappoint him:).
 * Regarding Stephan's question about this source, I think he was right, Collect did take the information out of context. On the page 78 this source describes the tortures of Communists by South Vietnamese interrogators. Therefore, irregardless of the validity of the source, it would be quite incorrect to make a stress on one side's brutality. The most likely the brutal actions the thread is discussing were the manifestation of the overall brutality of the war, and should be presented as such. Therefore, even if there is no V issued here, we definitely have an NPOV issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The source had been Paul Bogdanor - so sorry to disillusion you, but I do not have any intent of discourse on such a "major issue." And NPOV does not mean "nothing strong can be included" it means that "balance" is used for all the sources - the fact, alas, is that the Viet Cong did use pretty nasty modes of argument at times.   And I rather think I correctly noted this source was not "right wing" so why you feel impelled to point out what I already said is weird.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources such as journalistic reports from the time shouldn't be used in historical articles, it amounts to original research, see WP:HISTRS for an essay that condenses many past RS/N discussions on this point. Go out and read scholars of PLAF/PRG and NFL actions against civillians. If there's debate in the scholarship, find the scholarship of the scholarship. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We should not use contemporaneous journalism as a source for events that occured decades ago. Much of the coverage of the war from the Gulf of Tonkin incident on is no longer operative. TFD (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuller, John "The Day of St. Anthony's Fire"
There are a couple of articles that use John G. Fuller's book "The Day of St. Anthony's Fire" as a source for claims in ergotism and 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning. I'm wondering if, given Fuller's output, and not having seen the book itself, it can be considered WP:RS for purposes of describing the mass poisoning incident?

from Ergotism: "A severe outbreak of ergot poisoning occurred, however, in the French village of Pont-Saint-Esprit in 1951, resulting in five deaths.[2][3] The incident is described in John Grant Fuller's book The Day of St Anthony's Fire.[3]"

from 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning: "However, the symptoms exhibited by victims in Pont-Saint-Esprit were not consistent with this hypothesis.[8]"


 * Also Psychochemical weaponry:
 * "However, the symptoms exhibited by victims in Pont-Saint-Esprit are not consistent with this hypothesis.[19]"

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 04:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From our article on him, he seems to be a WP:FRINGE researcher, so we certainly shouldn't be giving a controversial sentence from one of his books without a serious qualifier and attribution. I'm reading a letter from him to the NYTimes, and shuddering. Since he did write a whole book about the event, we should mention it, though. Something like: "Paranormal author John G. Fuller, in his book, The Day of St Anthony's Fire, states the symptoms exhibited by victims in Pont-Saint-Esprit were not consistent with this hypothesis". --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That letter (and response from Gardner) is interesting. It would seem to belong in the John G. Fuller page, no? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly worth a sentence. --GRuban (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)