Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 151

Is the University of Westminster a good source for its claims
The University of Westminster claims that "The University of Westminster currently has the largest... Scholarships Programmes in the UK" may we use the given source to make the statement? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute at Priyadarshini Raje Scindia. Yogesh wants to say something like She is the patron of University of Westminster's scholarship programme, the programme claimed by the University to be the financially largest in the United Kingdom. (this is what the article said before I pruned it). I consider the claim itself to be (a) extraordinary and (b) not supporting the statement that we had made - "largest" has many meanings and the source does not say "financially largest". I'm reluctant to use a primary source for any statement of this type and I argue that even if the university's claim were valid, it is irrelevant to the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Looking at that quote, and that source, the largest problem I see is that 'largest' isn't well-defined. Does it mean 'largest number of students', 'largest number of awards', 'largest individual awards (by cash value, per year or over four-year programme?)', 'largest average award (by cash value)', 'greatest average value per student', 'largest endowment', etc.?  It would be far better to find an independent source – perhaps whatever survey or study the University of Westminster uses as the basis for its claim – that makes clear what is 'largest', and when and where it applies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is implicit that it is financially the largest from above, and it is explicitly mentioned here as such. That Scidia is the patron is extraneous to the present discussion as that isn't disputed, Agree that the context needs to be mentioned. Striking off the extraneous part. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC) the dispute as I understand is: "Whether we can rely on the University's claim of being the most moneyed scholarship". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RSN now require that we give the context in which the source is intended to be used. That's why I mentioned the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yogesh, this is an extraordinary claim and it impacts on other universities in the UK. As such, we really cannot use a primary source even if we can find some other page on the same website that clarifies "largest". - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in that it is primary and not the best source, but is it good enough? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. Such statements should be cited to third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I wonder if someone is modestly wanting to say that her money makes it the financially largest in the United Kingdom? That's the only way I can see in which the financial magnitude of the program could be relevant to her biography. Patron can mean various things. If I happen to have guessed right, to show the relevance of this information we'd want a source that says the relevant financial contribution is hers; without such a source, the information (setting aside its problems of definition) isn't relevant to her biography. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view, the University is not claiming to have the largest fund in terms of money but only in numbers of students. (Quote: "Currently over 1900 undergraduate students across the University, a figure far higher than most universities, are entitled to funding due to their financial circumstances." (from the link above)) Regardless, what does it mean to say you are a "patron" - that you donated £5 (and claimed tax relief)? I suspect there is another agenda here to promote the subject above their station and would be wary of including any mention of UofW until an actual amount can be established that shows Scidia has done something out of the ordinary in respect of this fund. Emeraude (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, UofW in 2013 is offering 412 National Scholarship Programme awards, by no means the greatest number in England (see Complete University Guide and follow link to spreadsheet grid). Of course, there are other bursaries and awards available, but this is certainly a good starting point from which to examine the claim. Emeraude (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) One version of the claim verbatim is "Westminster has the most generous scholarship fund of any UK university". Generosity implies financial largess. (2) It also mentions that she is "the new patron" of the programme, that  makes it clear that there is only one patron. (3) The University has exhibited their relationship with Scindia on their website and not the other way round, the University hasn't provided details as to why she has been nominated as the programmes patron by them, so it is not fruitful to speculate.  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we have established that we shouldn't be using UofW sources for statements regarding how 'generous' their scholarship fund is. The source is neither appropriate, nor unambiguous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity is a matter or interpretation. I would ask how about using "claimed by the University to be the "most generous"? That is a verifiable fact, isn't it?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is verifiable that the university made the claim. Frankly, I can't see why this needs to be added to the article in question though - it looks to me to be padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The most relevant source - and the one that people seem to be quoting but not linking to - is this UoW press release] from 2011: "Westminster has the most generous scholarship fund of any UK university,...." . Unfortunately, it remains unclear what is meant by "most generous" - is it a few very high value awards or the greatest number of awards, but of low value? However, I tend to agree with AndyTheGrump that it seems to be no more than padding for the article. Emeraude (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Emeraude I've linked the said link twice above, we can always go for the greatest clarity I agree, the university hasn't given figures to answer your question, it is clear that the University claims that its programmes are the most generous, and the easiest interpretation is that it has the most valued scholarship fund. The reason I wish to use this "claim" in the article under discussion is to establish the subject's notability, it may not be the most elegant perhaps, what I'd like to know is whether using such a claim would be a foul under our RS rules. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is not fruitful to speculate. Which is why I cannot understand why you do so in the very message that makes the comment. For example, "implies". - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The "patron" part is not in doubt; claim by both parties, non-controversial. The "largest" claim is unfortunately, problematic. Have tried a quick search of outside sources, which would be necessary for citation, and (I'm a little shocked), only find re-posting of UW's claim. Agree, it needs a better source.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is missed, that the "claim" has been made is sought to be verified and not whether the claim is accurate or not, the text is "Scindia is the patron of Westminster's programme it claims to be the largest in the UK" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because something is sourced on the web does not make it correct and, as I said earlier, this is an extraordinary claim based on a primary source. Furthermore, as others have agreed, it is padding in the article that is being discussed. End, Of. Story. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No Sitush; "Scindia is the patron of Westminster's programme it claims to be the largest in the UK" isn't an extraordinary claim, this is about Scindia's patronship and not about the programme's size, also the text makes it clear that it is a "claim". We could further modify the statement to address the primaryness issue: "According to the University's website, Scindia is the patron of Westminster's scholarship programme it claims to be the largest in the UK ". The said position is part of the subject's notability, and thus this information should be in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't obfuscate. That she is patron is fine; that it claims to be the "largest" is not. The consensus is apparent above. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems you changed your mind after this. Good and the same will be incorporated in the article. I still would like to mention the size of the programme, the text of the sentence being ( as above ) "According to the University's website, Scindia is the patron of Westminster's scholarship programme it claims to be the largest in the UK "Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about the "largest" part? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Freemasons again
A follow-up of the lengthy Ataturk discussion above (sorry): an editor wants to readd Buzz Aldrin to the list, after his inclusion was challenged. He supports the claim these four sources: freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com, Phoenix Masonry, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. His claimed affiliation is with a lodge in New Jersey (ie, none of the three). Are these enough to keep Aldrin in the list, especially considering WP:BLP?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already commented on Buzz Aldrin above (see Reliable sources/Noticeboard), but more sources are now offered. I'll leave it to others to comment this time. Andrew Dalby 11:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the last one should definitely be considered reliable. The specific web-page is a sub-page of the Grand Lodge of British Columbia & Yukon website...  The Freemasonry WikiProject certainly considers the BC&Y website highly reliable, and its author/webmaster (Trevor McKeown) is highly respected as a Masonic historian (the Canadian equivalent of Brent Morris in the US, and John Hamill in the UK).  Unlike your typical masonic website, McKeown cites his sources. (And in connection to this specific issue... he includes a citation to correspondence between Aldren and the head of the Scottish Rite where Aldren confirms that he carried a masonic flag to the Moon.  It is highly unlikely that a non-mason would do this)
 * Note: If the BC&Y website is considered un-reliable it would have a huge impact for the Freemasonry Project... not only is it one of our main sources for the List of Freemasons series, we use it in multiple articles across the project. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To continue... At this rate we will probably have to have a review of all the sources used in our List of Freemasons series... and used by the Freemasonry Project in general. The project relies heavily on certain Masonic websites that we trust (based on the reputation of the authors), and the same rational used in this challege could apply to just about all of them.  We have to remember that Freemasonry isn't a topic that gets a lot of peer reviewed academic coverage, but there are trusted non-academic sources... sources written by people who are considered subject matter experts.  So... To what extent do we trust our WikiProjects (editors who are familiar with the subject matter and the reputation of the sources) to know which sources are reliable and which sources are not?   Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Going back and checking the sources used to compile these lists is a good idea, and necessary if they are to conform with WP:RS because on the current standards every tom dick and harry can be said to have been a secret freemason based on one dodgy source from the Great Lodge of Hawaii and Greater Easter Island.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have found several highly regarded reference books, generally regarding religion in some form and secret societies, which both have major articles on Freemasonry, and also, so far as I remember, rather substantive bibliographies in several of them. I acknowledge up front that some of those sources may overemphasize some aspects of Freemasonry, and may be themselves less than neutral, but I tend to think that the sources used by reference books are probably such as can be counted reliable, even if they themselves discuss the matter with perhaps greater emphasis on some aspects than others. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Drug Free Australia Analysis of Needle Exchange Statistics
Over on the Needle Exchange Programme page a fellow contributor wishes to revert all text which cites either Drug Free Australia or the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) as unreliable.

Re the JGDPP, this issue was discussed on RS/N two years ago here after which a JGDPP review was included as a reliable source chiefly because its review was one of the only four reviews considered rigorous enough by the 2010 Palmateer review of reviews for inclusion in their study. The aforementioned reverting contributor was not part of that discussion and seems not aware of it.

However the other issue is whether further analysis of these reviews by drug prevention organisation, Drug Free Australia (DFA), can be cited with attribution. Our reverting contributor believes only medical journals are permissible. This is where some other views will be helpful. My reasons for inclusion are 1. Drug Free Australia is the peak body for drug prevention organisations in Australia, with Australia’s previous drug Czar for a whole decade, Maj Brian Watters on their Board – it is therefore a notable and highly credible source 2. Its public statements are guided by its 24 Fellows who are medical practitioners, epidemiologists, addiction medicine specialists p24 here (all of whom have had numerous studies published in the best medical journals as outlined here and here) and along with social researchers with PhDs. Further, the lead author of the JGDPP Kall et al. study, one of the four rigorous reviews used by the same Palmateer cited in the Wikipedia article, is one of those 24 Fellows, so their statements are well-guided 3. In any case, my text is not addressing anything biomedical ie anything biological or physiological about the HIV or HCV viruses – only their relationship to cohort populations given clean needles or not ie statistical 4. It is the most cited source in an Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into drugs in 2007, and all 19 times it is cited favourably 5. The source is reliable even if opinionated as per and I have cited it with attribution according to advice of RS/N a number of years ago  here and 6. Importantly, their analysis is quite self-evidently correct, as can be verified by anyone wanting to delve into the broad issue, and I have found no alternate reliable source which contradicts this critique. Talk page text is here. Any wisdom on what is a highly conflicted area of international drug policy? Minphie (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am uninvolved. Drug Free Australia and Drug Free America Foundation (publisher of JGDPP) are advocacy sources, not scientific sources, and do not have the standing to criticize material published in reliable scientific journals. It doesn't matter if their members are luminaries individually - if their findings stand up to the scrutiny we expect of expert material, they should be able to get them published in real venues. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I venture that critiques of journal studies are not published by journals as such - the best they allow are letters on a correspondence page, and these are only accepted fairly immediately after a critiqued study has been published.Minphie (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, the position of Drug Free Australia and the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice has previously been discussed at this noticeboard in May 2010, early June 2010, late June 2010, March 2011, June 2011, June 2011 and April 2012. I don't think "after which a JGDPP review was included as a reliable source" is a fair summary of what those discussions resulted in. From what I gander, this is the consensus opinion of these discussions: That the above mentioned sources are not prohibited per se (as few sources ever are on Wikipedia). But given that they aren't up to snuff with the gold standards of biomedical research, they can't be presented as incontrovertible fact either. Their usage in articles is highly dependent on context, including (among other things) questions of "due weight". A concise sentence or two, properly attributed to an advocacy group, might be one thing. comprised 40% of the "Research" section of the article. Gabbe (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Caste and tribes of south India
caste and tribes of south india by edgar Thurston is considered as the reliable source or not. please let me know. When I want to write about an article I am taking the book as source. but an editor remarks this book is not an reliable source. please clarify me. --Suryavarman01 (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Edgar Thurston was a gentleman-scholar and official of the British Raj period in India. Along with people such as H. H. Risley, he was trusted with surveying the communities of the country, with various areas being assigned to various people. The purpose of the exercise was political, not anthropological: it was based on a perceived need to understand the people so as to divide and rule in the aftermath of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The surveyors used the principles of scientific racism in order to conduct their surveys. For example, they used nasal and cranial measurements and colour charts to classify people. As a general rule, and certainly in Thurston's case, they had no understanding of the local languages and relied on native third-parties to translate the statements made by the small, statistically unsound sample groups that were selected. They adopted an uncritical approach, accepting what they were told as being true despite the problems that were then emerging with, for example, the process of sanskritisation. Their translators were not often specialists either. Despite all this, some sources in India - notably the critically panned The People of India series - have continued to cite Thurston et al in recent times, although as a rule they only select the favourable bits. This is the approach that often appears on Wikipedia also: contributors like Thurston when he is favourable to their community but kick up a fuss when he is not. He should not be relied upon because his methods are discredited, his motives were highly suspect and in many cases it seems he would not have recognised a member of X or Y caste if one of them had sat down with him for a cup of tea. He and his colleagues determined that there were around 1,000 castes in the country as a whole; the figure is now reckoned to be somewhere north of 4,500. The most we can really say is something along the lines of "Edgar Thurston mentions this community in volume X of Castes and Tribes of Southern India". - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

News about altered HIV virus used to cure cancer successfully in one girl

 * 1. There are many sources out there covering this. I used ABC News, it a major long established news thing on one of the oldest American television broadcast channels.
 * 2. The article being used in is Management of cancer
 * 3.The block quote the instructions say to have is below. The diff of what was there when it was removed is at.

Doctors have successfully taken millions of white blood cells from a then 6 year old girl with leukemia then used genetically altered HIV to change those cells into something that will target and destroy cancer cells. One year later, she has no signs of cancer in body. The treatment was developed at the University of Pennsylvania. Clinical trial have thus far included 20 people, with an 80% success rate.
 * I would think this is relevant to the article's subject, it a treatment of cancer after all, but was told in the last edit summary "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Opinions please.   D r e a m Focus  14:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:MEDRS: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't giving medical advice. Its stating they tested this new treatment on 20 people, with an 80% success rate.  And many reliable, third-party sources do cover this.   D r e a m Focus  14:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The popular press is absolutely worthless as a source for news on medical breakthroughs, as explained in WP:MEDRS. Actually, it is worse than useless. My advice is to take anything you read about medicine and science in the polular press with an enormous grain of salt. Most "breakthoughs" they report are flashes in the pan.


 * Furthermore, per WP:REDFLAG, this is a single exceptional preliminary result in a small scale clinical trial. Even if it were published in a peer-reviewed journal, it would be of little significance in the medical research community until it is replicated, confirmed and commented on in WP:MEDRS compliant independent SECONDARY sources.


 * This is an extremely exceptional claim, and extremely exceptional claims require extremely exceptional sources, high up in the food chain of WP:MEDRS, namely independent peer-reviewed reviews and meta-studies.


 * Also, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL apply. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither NOTNEWS or CRYSTALBALL apply. This is not routine coverage of a famous person doing something minor, and it is not predicting a future event at all.  The article isn't complete without listing every legitimate way being used to manage/treat cancer.  And REDFLAG doesn't apply either since it is covered by "multiple mainstream sources".   D r e a m Focus  16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Those "multiple mainstream sources" have to, of course, be reliable, and popular press articles are not reliable for this topic, so WP:REDFLAG most definitely applies. Sorry, but the information you wish to add is too prelimary to be of encyclopedic value. WP by its very nature is going to lag behind the secondary sources, and the secondary sources behind the primary sources, and the primary sources behind preliminary ones. You're putting the cart before the horse. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if multiple experienced editors disagree with your position, it would be better to engage them on the article talk page and listen to what they have to say. Running to Daddy when Mommy says "no" is disrespectful of others' opinions and undermines constructive collaboration. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013
 * Two editors disagreed with me, so I took it here to the reliable sources noticeboard, which is the correct thing to do when when the validity of the reliable sources for the material referenced are in question.  D r e a m Focus  20:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The correct thing to do would have been to open a discussion on the article talk page and discuss the matter with the editors who reverted you first, per WP:BRD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems like a clear MEDRS case to me. This is not the kind of thing we need to report on before it is well established in the medical literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We do not know if the treatment cured the disease and will not know until other scientists have tried to replicate the results and formed an opinion on the treatment. And generally cancer is not considered "cured" until it has gone into remission for much longer than one year.  It is providing advice, because it is saying there is a cure which could lead people to postpone treatment or increase their risk of developing cancer.  TFD (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While it's a neat result if it holds up in a larger clinical trial, all that's really being talked about is another lentiviral gene therapy treatment. An enthusiastic reporter and a PR-savvy research group got together on a slow news day; the 'HIV-derived' angle is technically true, but not really exciting.  (There are literally dozens of lentiviral vectors for sale in the Invitrogen catalog and ready for use or modification for a variety of purposes; they're just another tool of the trade in a modern biology lab.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bloomberg on Microsoft
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world’s largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.


 * Is bloomberg.com a reliable source? Hcobb (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, said those releases occur in cooperation with multiple agencies and are designed to give government “an early start” on risk assessment and mitigation.
 * Bloomberg.com is reliable. Microsoft has their official spokesperson comment on this and confirm the information.

In an e-mailed statement, Shaw said there are “several programs” through which such information is passed to the government, and named two which are public, run by Microsoft and for defensive purposes.
 * Since the information is confirmed by an official spokesperson for Microsoft, then there is no reason to doubt that information.  D r e a m Focus  15:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Institutional vs Expert Authority as a Reliable Source
I recently made the following comment at an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation, suggesting that expert authority is more reliable / encyclopedic than mere institutional authority.


 * A1Candidate's reliance on the authority of UNESCO and dismissal of scholarly sources clarifies one crucial element in the current disagreement, the different sense in which we're taking the term "authoritative source."
 * UNESCO is authoritative in the formal or institutional sense, but its publications are written by various people, sometimes by scholars and other experts on a topic, sometimes by bureaucrats, and sometimes by international diplomatic committees. Since UNESCO's authority comes from its institutional status, we can call its authority "institutional authority."
 * Rüegg, Verger, and Makdisi are scholarly experts on the history of the university; their authority comes not from any administrative position but from their scholarly expertise. We can call their authority "expert authority."
 * It seems that for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, expert authority almost always trumps institutional authority as a reliable source.

I'd welcome comments on the merits of this distinction and how it can best be incorporated into WP:RS. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or is it the other way round? The usual perception is exactly the opposite, that the authority of the Académie française on the topic of the French language is greater than that of, say, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing; that the authority of the British Medical Association on the topic of medicine in Britain is notably greater than that of the individual doctor, however scholarly. But that is just my opinion. More to the point, in what scholarly source is this supposed distinction discussed, and by whom? Or is it just a bit of WP:OR? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I'd have to do some thinking but on your first one I feel that one obtains membership in the Académie française, as in the Royal Society of London, because of one's professional expertise.  The British Medical Association, if it's like its American counterpart, tends more to being a professional lobbying organization.  Having written for UNESCO, I'd have to say its publications are a mixed bag, with political concerns even making their way into its more scholarly publications.
 * As to the second, I've always followed the view that when WP:NOR opens by saying "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" it was referring to article-space. Policy pages and other pages in Wikipedia-space are the product of internal development by Wikipedia editors and are not stringently restricted to avoid Original Research.  That being said, you have a point that this argument would be stronger if the distinction were defined in other sources. I'll do some digging as time allows. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick check turned up a number of interesting articles, including this abstract to an article that I can't freely download:  The abstract follows:
 * This essay offers a defense of ‘intellectual authority’ [my "expert authority"], primarily by pointing out the untoward implications of its conceptual opposite, ‘institutional authority’, in a wide variety of contexts. An opening discussion explores conditions for the possibility of intellectual authority in legal, humanistic, and aesthetic disciplines. Social science literature documenting and describing the biasing influence of institutional authority is then canvassed and analyzed in some detail....
 * Since I found these so easily, I think we can document the priority of intellectual or expert authority in scholarship without too much trouble. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is just the kind of source I had in mind, it would be interesting to read it; and yes, I misapplied the concept of WP:OR, using it as a lazy abbreviation for "something you have thought up by yourself, rather than something that has been discussed and documented in reliable sources". Sorry about that. For the moment, I continue to be of the opinion that the authority of the individual is generally less than, and indeed often derived from, that of the institution. I'm also, for the moment, unconvinced that it would be helpful to try to incorporate the distinction in our sourcing guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Further digging shows there is a large amount of recent material on this subject in the legal and sociology of science literature that deals with the nature of intellectual or expert authority, some of it comparing it with institutional authority. Sorting one's way through the many subtle distinctions in the literature to make changes to WP:Policy would require more time than this concept merits at the moment, and would probably be controversial if it were attempted.  I'm going to put it aside for now.  SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it's an interesting question and well worth thinking about. Thank you for raising it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Crossmark and http://www.cspnet.com/
I'm in dispute with another editor at Crossmark over the addition of material sourced to http://www.cspnet.com/. The two stories are http://www.cspnet.com/news/technology/articles/crossmark-named-informationweek-500 and http://www.cspnet.com/news/technology/articles/crossmark-named-top-technology-innovator. The problem I have is that the articles read like press releases from Crossmark and the awards that Crossmark has reported been awarded were awarded by InformationWeek, but I can find no reference to Crossmark winning these awards on the InformationWeek website. Trawling through archive.org I find this which appears to be the extent of the coverage. It all looks like paid coverage / marketting to me. Are any of these reliable sources? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Francesco Racanelli
I'm trying to bring reason to bear on Francesco Racanelli, but also to restrain my inclination to delete most of the content as pseudoscientific nonsense. So I'd appreciate the opinion of others on the sources, which are: Are those sources reliable for basic biographic details such as his place of birth or nickname? And are sources 1 and 2 reliable for this passage:"In Italy, Racanelli inaugurated the first zetetic research relating to animal magnetism and involving a doctor.[2] After having been examined and studied from every angle,[2] Racanelli managed to overcome all stages inherent in rational scepticism.[2] The findings of the aforementioned study revealed the presence of an “amazing fluid”[1][2] combined with “surprising curative properties”.[1][2]"
 * 1) The Ancient Massage Foundation
 * 2) this article, which I can't see
 * 3) this book, which I can't see
 * 4) this essay on scribd

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why no reply here? Sources 1 and 4 should be removed. Source 3 is unclear. Outrageous claims are being attributed to Source 2 and a quotation should be demanded. If Source 2 really says that, it is a notable claim that should be stated as a claim. Shii (tock) 08:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Academic book for statement about author
At Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto an editor states that these authors and this publisher are not "notable or expert or influential" or "distinguished" enough to have this quote (or anything else?) included in Wikipedia.
 * Andre Azevedo Alves and Jose Moreira state that Huerta de Soto is one of the main economists of the Austrian school and that he has written the "most complete and integrated analysis of the theories of banking" of the sixteenth century Jesuit School of Salamanca.
 * Reference: Andre Azevedo Alves, Jose Moreira, The Salamanca School, from series "Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers", Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009, p. 131, ISBN 0826429823, ISBN 9780826429827

Thoughts? ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 12:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say fully reliable for citation within their field of specialisation. Both authors have published in the Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia (available through JSTOR), and the publishing house is a reputable academic one. Whether the sentence you quote is an asset to the article is a different question entirely ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] In my simple thinking, the publisher contributes works that appear likely valid reliable sources. The publisher was taken over by Bloomsbury for 20 M pounds (source). Sounds like a serious publishing house. Two academics specializing in the Salamanca School (based on the title of their publication) published their work with this publishing house. They make a statement that is traceable. Text shows links the quote to the source. Looks verifiable and reliable to me. Rwos (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This really is not a RS disagreement at the article. There's no question that these two individuals wrote those words. The issue at the article is whether to include the opinion of the two authors, a graduate student and a junior non-notable academic.  For this WP article about noted academic Jesus de Soto we should cite opinions of individuals whose expertise or stature is commensurate with the claim.  There is no reason to deny the source, but the content is trivial and undue.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when you insult the source as "two nobodies" in your section header, the RS issue looms larger than any thing else. It's hard not to see this as a POV deletion given your expressed distaste for for certain Austrians in which category you place Huerta de Soto. Yet you are willing to use Gary North, who you otherwise despise, to criticize Huerta de Soto. And massive WP:Undue amounts of criticism from another source. I guess your pov pushing/editing warring really only can be addressed properly elsewhere. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 14:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that User:Specifico clarified this is not a WP:RSN issue, have added it and other things to the long list of POV problems on this article in yet another new section at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Thanks for your help. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 17:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is FORUMSHOPPING. Nobody but OP ever called this an RS issue at the article, on this page, or elsewhere. Any Request for assistance should be posted at the appropriate venue to conserve editors' time and attention and to avoid needless and confusing crosstalk. SPECIFICO talk  17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I misunderstood the point of your mocking the authors! Plus I only added as one of several examples of WP:Undue criticism vs. Biographies_of_living_persons which I was doing anyway. Dispute resolution says bring issues elsewhere if no one else is responding to dispute between two editors. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 18:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTHERE WP:HEAR Please take a breather. SPECIFICO talk  18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason academic books are more reliable is that they have undergone peer-review, that is, they have been fact-checked by experts. The relative prominence of the authors is unimportant.  Incidentally, the editor of the series is John Meadowcroft, who is Head of the Department of Political Economy at King's College London.  Andre Azevedo Alves has refereed for the Oxford University Press and Blackwell Publishing.  It is fairly common for a professor writing a book to be assisted by a graduate student.  The statement by Alves and Moreira writing in a textbook should be seen as an unquestioned expert opinion - it is how experts see the book.  TFD (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD, there has never been any question as to the opinion of the authors regarding Soto. We have this published source in which they state their own opinion.  The prominence of the authors is of no importance as to whether we accept their statement of their own opinion.  The prominence of the authors is, however, a key factor with respect to any decision to cite their opinion in an article about Soto.  It would be helpful if you could tell us the names of the experts who see this book as unquestioned expert opinion? Because there is no RS question in dispute here, I suggest this discussion be copied and continued on the article talk page.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind, this is a textbook. Textbooks are written to explain subjects not to present the views of the authors.  If a textbook says a book on a topic is the most complete written, one expects that statement to be true.  Otherwise, one would expect it to be qualified by "in our opinion."  If you think their statement is false, and there are false statements in even the most reliable sources, then you should be able to find another source that says so.  TFD (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello TFD. I would not call this a textbook in the colloquial sense, but that's not the central issue.  Whatever the form of the book, I think we agree this represents -- not to imply anything pejorative about it -- an opinion, judgment, preference, or other personal viewpoint, stated by the authors.  A very broad statement without explanation, qualification, or citation, has little meat on the bone. I have studied the subject in some detail, as I know you too may have done, and I will state that there are other, more widely respected scholars on the School of Salmanca discussion of banking:  Murray Rothbard and Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson for starters.  At any rate, once again, I don't see any RS issue here and I invite you to continue the discussion on the article talk page.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO. You often have mentioned your having weighty academic credentials and made it clear you think a number of economists are crackpots; you thus have to "correct" their articles, but in effect remove evidence they have credibility. Wikipedians don't let themselves get intimidated by alleged credentials or allow a such an editor to violate POV policy with impunity. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero
Spotted on the blogs this morning:


 * In doing a little research today, I noticed that the Wikipedia pages for Charles Richet and Cesare Lombroso both include the same claim: that each man had a sexual affair with medium Eusapia Palladino. The source of this claim, in both cases, is the book The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero, a sensationalistic volume that also claims Houdini's death was actually a murder plot organized by spiritualists under the direction of Arthur Conan Doyle!

I request permission to remove this source from about 2 dozen Wikipedia articles which use it as a citation. Shii (tock) 03:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Michael Prescott is a quack spiritualist who moans at anything anti-spiritual, Prescott believes ectoplasm is real, his BlogSpot is not a reliable source. He believes the fraud medium Eusapia Palladino was genuine so obviously he is going to criticize any skeptical material. He has not even read the book he is moaning about. The book The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero is a reliable source and is used in some references throughout Wikipedia on spiritualism. It is well known that Lombroso and Richet were in a sexual relationship with Palladino. Other references can confirm it. Doubter12 (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is some more information on Prescott as I said he not a reliable source! Your rant does not belong on Wikipedia. Doubter12 (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What sort of reply is this? You think I didn't know I was quoting a blog? First you attack the blogger's character, and then mine. Is this supposed to be a "rational" response to my "rant"? The Houdini book seems to make some outlandish claims, and I think it needs closer scrutiny. Shii (tock) 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's go back to the specific claim being made. Here's the citation the book uses for the claim that psychic researchers had sex with Eusapia Palladino: "Eric Dingwall to James Randi, October 10, 1979. From the archives of the James Randi Educational Foundation."

Pull up the Wikipedia article on Eric Dingwall, and what do we see? Go take a look for yourself. Is this letter to Randi good enough to make this claim downright factual? Shii (tock) 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Shii it is well known that Michael Prescott is a spiritualist crank, who cares what he says? He is very desperate to vandalize Wikipedia and import his spiritualist POV, he even told some of his followers on his blog to get involved in Wikipedia and delete criticism of various mediums including Palladino! Are you one of his regular blog posters on his "spiritual" blog? If you believe the source is unreliable I can delete it and add another source? I still don't understand why you are taking Prescott seriously. Doubter12 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me put your mind at rest Shii, I have deleted the references to the book. I will find some other reliable sources. Doubter12 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder, is this your attitude towards all people who offer constructive commentary about Wikipedia? You dismiss them as "vandals" if they don't match your religious views? Are you not aware that one of our most longstanding rules is "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? I'm not going to investigate your edit history or anything, but your attitude here is really worrying. Shii (tock) 14:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What religious views? I have not called anyone a vandal, I am asking why you are taking the words of a crackpot seriously? You are obviously a long time poster on Michael Prescott's blog. I already told you Prescott is not a reliable source, he is a fringe thinker spiritualist who also has intelligent design beliefs. I have deleted the reference to the book you/Prescott have moaned about. Doubter12 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I belong to a traditional religion, I find much of Prescott's writing to be superficial and unscientific, and neither of those facts is relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to examine challenges to articles no matter what "side" they come from. A spiritualist saying our coverage of spiritualism is erroneous -- that's a good thing. We benefit from that criticism, because we can examine the content of the criticism and rewrite the article instantaneously. The irony of linking to RationalWiki on Wikipedia's own reliable sources noticeboard apparently escapes you, as you've done it multiple times now. Shii (tock) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw this issue was raised at WP:FTN so I came here to comment. Regarding use of the source The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero: it's reliable insofar as it is an opinion published by a reliable source. There's no need to "remove this source from about 2 dozen Wikipedia articles". However it should not be stated as fact. Instead per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it should be clearly attributed as the authors opinion, and in this case, (i.e. allegations of sexual promiscuity) a speculation, e.g. "Authors William Kalush and Larry Sloman speculate that blah blah blah, etc." - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "an opinion published by a reliable source" -- sorry, what does this mean? I don't think every outlandish statement in every mass-market book needs to be in an article. I recently had a discussion about WP:WEIGHT which suggested that even academic publications don't belong if they are making extreme claims. Shii (tock) 22:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ridding the article of sources that make extreme claims and outlandish statements is certainly a worthwhile discussion the involved editors can pursue on the article's Talk page, since many sources (such as "Revelations of a Spirit Medium" etc.) will likely be affected. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Hookup Culture
There is currently two RfC's concerning the use of sources at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for house prices
Is a realtor's web site considered a reliable source for house prices? I reverted an edit from an IP editor that quoted a realtor's site, which they they re-reverted  claiming that they are verified by the Multiple listing service. --Drm310 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I've got a number of concerns about this suggested content change by the IP. WP:RS does not actually address the issue of using commercial sites, and there's almost no discussion of it in the WT:RS archives (I was amazed to discover).
 * I don't actually have reason to doubt the accuracy of information hosted on a web site of a sales office associated with a large real estate firm like Century 21 Real Estate, especially when that information is independently verifiable by competitors. The website states at the bottom "MLS® System data provided by The Saskatoon Region Association of REALTORS®, copyright© 2012".  So, I don't have reason to doubt that the information stated on the website "Average Home Sale Price, 2012: 		$298,280" is correct.
 * The first serious problem is that the proposed edit would make the article state "an average dwelling value of $298,220" which is not correct. The website cited doesn't give the average dwelling value, it gives the average home sale price, and they're totally different things.
 * The second problem is that it leaves the 2006 City Planning report (not available online) to support "with an average family income of $67,170" alongside 2012 data. The way the sentence is constructed it would place this 2006 government data alongside the 2012 MLS data inappropriately. If we're to use the 2012 MLS data, at the very least the sources and dates for each piece of information need to be specified.
 * The third problem is that the way the edit is done introduces an WP:INTEGRITY problem, with both cites at the end of the sentence and you can't tell which parts of the sentence are sourced to which refs.
 * The edit proposed by the IP cannot stand as-is, but if it were changed to something like "A 2006 city planning report described the neighbourhood as middle-income area, with an average family income of $67,170, an average dwelling value of $251,560 and a home ownership rate of 77.7%.(sourced to 2006 city planning report) According to MLS data, the average home sale price in 2012 was $298,280.(sourced to website)" then that might be closer to acceptable, although there'd be a question of whether it's appropriate use of primary source data.   17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Small note: Website actually says "$298,280" and the IP edit said "$298,220", probably just a typo but needs to fixed.   18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a new editor with limited understanding of WP:RS and basic syntax. They ended up ruining the original named citation with their edits. I've now split off the sale price into a separate sentence and restored the rest. Hopefully that will settle it - thanks for your input. --Drm310 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Usable sources? (In Russian)
I've submitted an article on a Russian computer science conference/symposium for deletion. One of the two editors for the page have submitted a few links that may or may not be usable. If they are, they would be a big help in showing notability. The issue (other than them being in Russian and my using Google Translate) is that I can't really verify how reliable the sources are. Both are from online newspapers in the IT world. The big problem is that I can't verify what the editorial process is. The second link does have mention of an actual editor, whereas the first doesn't seem to. The problem with the first one is that it looks like the type of place where anyone can submit a tip, although I don't know if this means that they write the article or the tip giver does. You can kind of see the issue here. In any case, here are the two links:  and   Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The first one has no editorial control that I can find, the second one has an email to contact the editorial team so that seems OK to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No reliable source for Irish Free State is a former Commonwealth Realm
In the Commonwealth realm artticle, there are lists of current Commonwealth Realms which include nations with Queen Elizabeth II as the monarch such as Canada, New Zealand etc. and former Commonwealth realms such as Ceylon, Kenya. Pakistan and so on, all of which chose a republican model with a president.

However, Ireland is included in the list of former Commonwealth Realms, despite the fact that the Irish Free State was never described as a Realm. It was a Dominion, a different thing.

There is a great amount of discussion on the talk page, but nobody has been able to find a contemporary source describing the Irish Free State as a Commonwealth Realm. There are various arguments, but they all fall into the WP:SYNTHESIS category. There is no source. --Pete (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not Synthesis - discussion shows problem non-existent or exaggerated - but article would be improved with explanatory note per discussion. Qexigator (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Pete/Skyring doesn't present the full detail of the argument or the conclusion (even if just a step on a longer road) it's moving toward. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "full detail" of your argument boils down to one thing. A lot of hand-waving but no source. That's why I call synthesis. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources have been provided for the article's criteria for inclusion, definitions, historical context, and use of 'realm' with regards to Ireland. Ignorance of sources does not constitute a lack of them. trackratte (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, could you just be so good as to provide a link to just one source? It's the "multiple sources" and synthesis bit that concerns me. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're going to say the Irish Free State was not a Realm because it was a Dominion then you'd have to say the same about Canada and Australia both of which were dominions. And New Zealand, and actually I'm not sure if Australia technically had the name Dominion, as it may always have been the Commonwealth of Australia.Camelbinky (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Australia, Canada etc. are listed under current Realms. There's no problem with reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really the place for this discussion: See the Header, Here we evaluate sources against claims to determine if the source is reliable for the claim.  Suggest you take this back to your article's talk page, to a project page, or to an informal mediation service. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeees, but this hinges around reliable sources. Is there a Synthesis Noticeboard that could look at this problem? --Pete (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Does this help ? Moxy (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC) -
 * Well, it might. Is it a contemporary source? The publication date indicates it postdates the Irish Free State by some time. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The text talks about the "British Realm". Presumably that refers to Britain rather than Ireland. --Pete (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On looking at the article, trying to find one source out of the multiple sources suggested above to justify Ireland's inclusion, whether as a Realm or a dominion, current or former, I find not many, not one, but nothing at all. I have no source that I can bring to this noticeboard. I've asked on the article talk page. When I get a source, I'll put it up here and we can look at it. Thanks for your patience. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhhhh I see what your asking - See quotes below.Moxy (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We have a source. Two sources. Two contemporary sources, if we regard the Anglo-Irish Treaty as contemporary. However, and this is the crux of the problem, is that Realms and Dominions are not interchangable terms. We can say that the Irish Free State is a former Dominion. We have no contemporary source saying it was a Realm, which only became official usage after the accession of Queen Elizabeth II. There is no problem listing the Irish Free State as a former Dominion, but I balk at listing it as a former Realm when it was never a Realm at all. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Your point and arguments are well made. The 'crux' really is why the unref'd establishment date of 1931? This really is in the 'realm' of original research. RashersTierney (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well put! The best official source we have is from the Queen: A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. Note the use of the capitalised "Realm". Ireland and India never had the Queen as their monarch, and it would be synthesis to extend the official definition beyond what is stated. Previous monarchs never supported any similar definition - they referred to Dominions. This usage postdates Queen Elizabeth II's accession in1952. The long series of changes marking the transitions from Empire to Commonwealth and the post-war decolonisation activity, not to mention ongoing movement towards republicanism means that we cannot regard the relationship of monarch to nation as somehow preserved in aspic. What applied in 1913 does not necessarily hold true in 2013. And vice versa. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with everything Pete said. Rashers, you were spot on too. Calling Ireland a former "realm" really is in the 'realm' of original research!! All participation on the article page welcome too. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think some people are ignoring what a secondary source is and that they are preferred to primary. Contemporary sources, and especially the Anglo-Irish treaty are not the end-all of the discussion. Secondary sources of modern scholarship take precedence and if they concur in calling the Irish Free State a realm or former realm then that is what it is called in Wikipedia. To use primary sources to "prove" a secondary source wrong in this instance would be the original research. And I did this post without a pun.Camelbinky (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and India had the Queen's father the King as its Emperor and Ireland did have the King as its king (the Queen's uncle, but not her father; IFS did not recognize the Queen's father as King after Edward abdicated). You are taking the Queen's usage of the word "Queen" literally to mean her. No, it refers to any British monarch. Ridiculous original research and synthesis on your part.Camelbinky (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that the term "Commonwealth Realm" was not used before the Queen's accession, this is probably a matter for the next King, rather than the last. Nevertheless, you raise an interesting point, and one that would go a long way towards solving the puzzle. Do you actually have a source identifying the Irish Free State as a former Commonwealth Realm? Or better yet, a contemporary source (from say, 1937) saying it is a current Commonwealth Realm? You strongly imply that you have several such sources in your grasp and if you could share them here, we can possibly find a resolution. That would be useful for all of us. --Pete (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bureaucracy is getting out off control - very productive talk moving in a  positive direction that would help the project being closed because of a technicality. This is the type of thing that concerns content editors - may not be the perfect place but as all can see was not harming anyone - would like all to apply common sense to there actions in the future.Moxy (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Definition of Realm according to the official website of the Monarchy is that a Realm is any country that is a Commonwealth which has the Queen as sovereign. Remember, Queen simply means the monarchy and not necessarily THIS queen. It states Ireland left the Commonwealth. Therefore you have a source for the word former in reference to Ireland in specific, and so are you disputing that Ireland was a Commonwealth member that recognized the British monarch as its sovereign?Camelbinky (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the Queen's website. Do we think that a reasonable person would interpret "The Queen" on the Queen's own website as referring to anyone else but Queen Elizabeth II? Take a look over the rest of the site, please, and examine the context for the words "The Queen" where used. eg.
 * "The Queen is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and has four children and eight grandchildren."
 * "An animal lover since childhood, The Queen takes a keen and highly knowledgeable interest in horses."
 * "Much has happened over the course of The Queen's life. Television has been invented, man has walked on the moon for the first time and the Berlin Wall has been built and then razed to the ground."
 * Do we think that in just one case out of hundreds, "The Queen" has a different meaning to the rest of the site? --Pete (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Much has happened over the course of The Queen's life. Television has been invented, man has walked on the moon for the first time and the Berlin Wall has been built and then razed to the ground."
 * Do we think that in just one case out of hundreds, "The Queen" has a different meaning to the rest of the site? --Pete (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Irish Free State left the Commonwealth when it declared itself a republic, on 18 April   1949, after passing the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 -  -- Moxy (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Irish Free State lasted until 1937, after which it became Eire, with a new constitution, government structure and relationship to the Empire. However, there is really no problem with describing Ireland as a Dominion or a member of the British Commonwealth. It is the description of the Irish Free State as a Realm, a term which did not come into use until twelve years after the IFS had ceased to exist as such, which is incorrect and unsourced. --Pete (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Eire actually was not the official name, and the idea that the Irish Free State is a separate nation-state from current Ireland is like saying the USA under the Articles of Confederation was a different nation-state than the current USA under the US Constitution... somewhat a valid idea, but... The point is if the Irish Free State use to meet the current definition of a Realm, then it is a former Realm.Camelbinky (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok its the term Realm that is the problem i see. Ok will try to explain - the term "Realm" came into affect in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster that the Irish Free State never adopted formally. So yes your correct ... this is a tough one - only  Dáil and Seanad ratified the statute of Westminster but Ireland, or Eire as some call it during this time used the  provisions of the Statute of Westminster and declared itself neutral during the war saying that the Statute of Westminster was forced on them so they are going to use it to their ends. So what can we say or do here - you found a tough one my new friend?  -- Moxy (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at that source, the only use of the word "realm" seems to be in "realm of politics", "realm of possibility" and the like. --Pete (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky, the USA example is backwards. The USA remains the same, but the Articles of Confederation are not the US Constitution. A Dominion is not a Realm, and the Irish Free State did not meet our definition anyway. We'd have to change the definition to be far broader than it already is. --Pete (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles of Confederation refers to the original document or "constitution" for the USA, predating the current US Constitution.Camelbinky (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. They are two different things. Likewise a Dominion is not a Commonwealth realm; they are defined differently as we see. I am trying to see if there is a valid source to justify the inclusion of the Irish Free State in a list of Commonwealth Realms. If we can find one that does not depend on WP:SYNTHESIS, then that would solve the problem. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is this same discussion going on in two places at once? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is for discussing sources. We don't have a source in the article. Can I suggest that arguments related to synthesis be taken to the article, and we discuss the sources (or lack thereof) here? Thanks, Mies. --Pete (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pete, you have the patience of a saint. You are making an excellent contribution. Sticking up for basic Wiki standards.
 * Why don't the people who feel Ireland should be listed as an ex-realm bring forward their sources showing it was a realm? Err, could it be because there are none? Me thinks so. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Political Graveyard
Aggie80 is making a statement about Wikipedia being too inclusionary by creating a stub article for every individual listed on this web page. Can that site be considered a reliable source for the creation of this many articles? Andrew327 01:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you want me to use another source. It was split out by districts so it was convenient. I'm sure I can find multitudes of sources for the list of names. Actually, Wikipedia has a number of lists with red Wikilinks. And I was actually surprised at how many of the stubs were already Wikilinked to existing pages.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Other sources are encouraged, as long as they satisfy RS. Political Graveyard has been discussed here before without a consensus whether or not it should be treated as a reliable source.  I only noticed the new articles because I'm trying to clear the backlog of dead end pages.  Would you be willing to add at least one wikilink to each stub you create?  It would save time for other editors.  Andrew327 02:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems like a question of notability, not RS, doesn't it? It may be helpful to refer to Notability (people). If you can find non-trivial coverage in a couple independent sources, I think it's fine to assume that the person deserves an article. Andrew's suggestion to add more wikilinks is also a good one.  The Blue Canoe  02:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability issue is sort of the whole point. I was firmly slapped down when I suggested some politicians that had stub pages weren't notability just because they were elected to a state legislature.  It was clearly conveyed that I was not experienced enough to make that decision and told that the individuals are presumed to be notable because of that under WP:POLITICIANS and that one reference was enough.  So I'm trying to make a dent in the 80,000 or so missing state legislature.  Or they change the criteria. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * that number you give explains exactly the reason why we have this rule: would anyone prefer 80,000 AfD discussions?  DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm not concerned with the notability aspect right now. I've seen a bunch of the stubs and found sources in JSTOR and Google Books that more than satisfy WP:GNG.  I honestly don't have the time to add sources to all of them.  My only question is whether or not the Political Graveyard is reliable as the only source for an article.  Andrew327 04:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Broker lists as a source
Wanted to advertise here for outside input here. An editor has proposed we use the websites of third-party vendors that sell contact information as a source to say that Publishers Clearing House sells registration information to third-party vendors. An article in The New York Times only says the company collects registrations for their own mailings. I support the article-subject in a PR role, but have no inside knowledge besides what I'm reading in the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a synthesis of first party sources: a set of raw directory data that needs expert analysis. There is no way for us to judge whether the presence on the lists represents substantial activity. The rule of use of first party sources for SYNTHESIS was intended   for this sort of situation DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lumbee were not Federally Recognized by the Lumbee Act it was merely a name designation
Lumbee wiki article violates the 5 pillars and does not strive to be accurate and is not verifiable or neutral and is extremely contraversial[edit]

We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.

The Lumbee keep posting that they were "federally recognized" by the Lumbee Act as an "Indian Tribe" ...this is false The Lumbee Act was far from Federal recognition and was a name Designation only and actually barred the Lumbee from seeking federal recognition under false names like the Cherokee that they had been using because they lacked proof of any historical connection to any Indian tribe,it was all based on legend and the lost colony myth

It would be respectful for them to not stete that they were Federally Recognized by the Lumbee Act as this is completely False..........The Lumbee are trying to get federal recognition because they never were federally recognized just "Designated as Lumbee People" a name gesture a political concession only not recognition.

No where in the Lumbee Act does it infer Federal Recognition,acknowledgement or wardship by the federal government the Act infact actually forbids a government relationship with the Lumbee,that was its intent.a name only...and not as an Indian Tribe either. no where in the act does it refer or recognize them as an "Indian Tribe" Tribe is the key word here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50johns (talk • contribs)


 * You need to raise your concerns on the talk page of the article where you are finding the problem. The Wikipedia article titled Lumbee contains none of the information you state above, so I don't know where you are having a problem.  Can you link to the article itself which you claim has the false information, because the current article on the Lumbee pretty much agrees with everything you state above.  -- Jayron  32  02:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

constitution.org
Has an essay by Elizabeth Price Foley on SOVEREIGNTY, REBALANCED: THE TEA PARTY & CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. The issue wrt the Tea Party movement is whether this particular essay is primarily an essay reflecting Foley's personal views, or is primarily a factual paper about the Tea Party. Foley has frequently written on the Constitution, and been a pundit on CNN etc.

I suggest its coda suggests the nature of this precise source:
 * Before you drink the mainstream media Kool-Aid and dismiss these efforts as right wing, anachronistic, or just plain silly, ask yourself whether you want more or less liberty. If you want more (and I suspect you do), remember that our Constitution created a federal, not national, government for this very reason. Aside from the hopeless cynics among us, liberty is never silly.

Specifically, is this following quote from the site to be taken as a statement of absolute fact about the Tea Party as a whole, or is it reflective of her own positions and tying them as a matter of opinion to that group? Is this source a valid source for factual claims or is it more aptly a source for matters of Foley's opinions? Is the source a research paper into the Tea Party or is it a discussion of Foley's views about the Constitution?


 * Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment

Lastly, is "constitution.org" itself intrinsically an RS source per Wikipedia policy? That is, are articles published there the same as in a peer-reviewed journal? (I note its founder has a number of articles on that site, which has a huge number of established RS books copied on the site).

Thanks for all opinions, but I shall not engage I argumentation here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, the paper was published in the Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011.
 * Second, she is a law professor, and has thirteen published papers.
 * Third, a quick google search indicates that the paper in question has been cited in at least one other secondary source on the Constitution and the Tea Party movement.
 * The issue, it would seem to be, is whether a paper that basically agrees with the Federalist aspects of the Tea Party movements position on the Constitution can be used in a context that doesn't reflect the author's enthusiasm for Federalism and negative sentiment against the Supreme Court, just concrete political agenda items and corresponding proposals to amend the Constitution described by the author.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the main point is in the first sentence of the query. The paper is an essay. Not particularly useful as a source in Wikipedia, where we are mainly looking for factual information. I don't know that much more can be said without looking at what claims it might be used to support. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would the fact that a short paper is referred to as an essay by its law professor author automatically mean that it does not meet WP:RS? I'm not sure how that bears on the "factuality" of the content.
 * The paper is cited in a recent publication that is part of a series entitled "Routledge Research in Constitutional Law" Routledge being an academic press, and the book being on the Constitution, with Foley being cited in relation to the TPm's position on the Constitution Engineering Constitutional Change, 10th September 2012, Routledge.
 * I would assume that its citation in relation to almost the same subject matter in a publication that is a book which surely meets WP:RS would increase the stature of the "essay" with respect to WP:RS.
 * The paper is rather short, but the claim it is being used to support is simply that the political agenda of the Tea Party movement involves promoting various proposals relating to amending the Constitution. The quote from the essay that is at issue is"Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment)."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Foley is also the author of a book on the Tea Party movement The Tea Party: Three Principles. There would seem to be a substantial body of evidence to support citation of the above passage, which would seem to be an uncontroversial reiteration of facts. The only opposition being made to using the citation is that the quote is used simply as a statement of fact, whereas the quote was made by a legal scholar that is largely supportive of aspects of the constitutionalism of the Tea Party.

Here are some blurbs from the Amazon page, including reviews Book Description In The Tea Party: Three Principles, Elizabeth Price Foley asserts that the mainstream media's characterization of the American Tea Party movement is distorted. Foley sees the decentralized, wide-ranging group as a movement bound by allegiance to three "core principles" of American constitutional law: limited government, unapologetic U.S. sovereignty, and constitutional originalism. She explains how these principles predict the Tea Party's impact on the American political landscape, connecting them to current issues, such as health care reform, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and internationalism. "'Elizabeth Price Foley has produced an interesting and important work on the constitutional basis for the agenda of the Tea Party movement.... I do believe anyone interested in understanding how the growth of the welfare-regulatory state violates the constitution and threatens liberty can benefit from reading this book.' - Ron Paul, United States Congressman (R-TX)""'Elizabeth Price Foley's The Tea Party is a clear and straightforward explication of what the Tea Party Movement is all about, and is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the current political climate. With this slim, provocative volume, Foley once again demonstrates why she is one of constitutional law's rising stars.' - Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law"

"“By elevating principle above party, the Tea Party has already changed the face of American politics. In this marvelous book, Elizabeth Price Foley clearly identifies and defends the three basic principles that unite the Tea Party movement, all stemming from its commitment to our written Constitution. Politicos beware; the party has just begun.”– Randy E. Barnett, Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown Law Center, and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2005)" -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Un -- I know I was not going to argue here -- but that is all you have been doing. Do you really, really think Amazon blurbs meet WP:RS at all and are anything more than blurbs?  Really?  Especially since none of the blurbs refer to this essay at all? Collect (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we just write "According to Elizabeth Foley....."? Atribute it, don't state it as fact. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The A.V. Club at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)
Yesterday, editted  regarding the casting of William Fichtner as Shredder (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), adding a statement regarding the casting choice with a citation. However, the website he was citing was The A.V. Club, a newspaper published by the same people as The Onion. While it is not directly satirical as its parent organization, it still is known for its humorous tone (as our article states). The news article Hasdi has been adding is this piece which states, and I quote, "Having apparently determined that no Japanese actors would dare be a part of the Jonathan Liebesman-directed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, presumably given the original text’s importance to the Shinto religion, producer Michael Bay has been forced to make a decision regarding the reboot of a nostalgia property that will potentially upset people, just this one time." So Hasdi added a claim to the film's page echoing this statement. I reverted and sent him this message. He reverted me and responded. I reverted once more and pointed out the fallacies in the content. He reverted again and refused to acknowledge my argument and insisted on some original research of his to explain why. I once again reverted the claim and specifically spelled out my issues with the statement, particularly because of the source itself, and then stated I would bring up the validity of the source here, while also reminding him of the WP:BRD cycle (he was bold, I reverted, and began discussion, but he proceeded to edit war regardless).

So the short version is, should The A.V. Club, already known to be not that serious in its reporting, be treated as a reliable source for this statement? I can find no other news sources reporting on the fact he wants to add other than many websites mirroring them. A Google search for "william"+"fichtner"+"shredder"+"shinto" has all of 48 results, all of which lead back to AV Club. There's even an MMA forum in there questioning the validity of the claim.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 06:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I already requested that we take this to Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film) but if you need to escalate this to Reliable sources then so be it. I am basing the reputability of The A.V. Club based on its wikipedia entry. If that is not the case, I do apologize. Otherwise, I do think attacking the reputability of the source just because you disagree with reporting fits the definition of a personal attack. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 07:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The A.V. Club is clearly making a joke and it is beyond me how anyone with two brain cells to bang together could take the quoted statement literally. Just look at it. Shii (tock) 08:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Shii. Hasdi simply refuses to acknowledge this clear fact. And Hasdi, I am in no way personally attacking anyone by calling into question the validity of this source. You do not even cite the right page. Wikipedia's personal attack policy certainly does not cover questioning something's validity or reputability. It covers calling an individual editor out and being rude to him or her.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 11:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, in case my blunt comment is interpreted as a personal attack -- I wasn't aiming the comment at Hasdi who I'm not familiar with, I just imagine that if we were to email the author of the article they would respond with similar language. Shii (tock) 13:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally agree that while AV Club is reporting on the fact that Finchter is playing Shredder, the reason is very tongue-in-cheek (I note that when they are speaking factually, they have links to back up those facts). --M ASEM (t) 13:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume Ryulong edits were made in good faith and I would appreciate it if he were give the same consideration to me. I take my wiki editing very seriously. It is not that I refuse the acknowledge his possible interpretation of the AV article but the basis of his rejection, which includes:
 * The A.V. Club should not be treated as an actual legitimate source of information because he considers it a satirical website;
 * "there is nothing in Shinto that says anything about TMNT" but the 2003 TMNT series incorporated some aspects of the Shinto religion and re-imagined one of the FOUR Shredders as a wrathful demonic spirit; and
 * "AV Club is the only place reporting this" but it took weeks before other sites caught on an interview that M.Night claimed he ghost-wrote She's All That.
 * However, I have contacted the author Sean O'Neal and he has confirmed that he was indeed joking. See and . Thus, we can put this discussion to rest. If you don't mind, I'd like to place a note on Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film) page so other editors will not make a similar mistake as I did. I don't see why we cannot have a meaningful discussion there instead of an exclusive discussion on my talk page AND have this escalated all the way up to Reliable sources. If this is an attempt to intimidate editors with opposing views, please don't. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 15:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to make this note. I don't see why you're so gungho about the discussion having some sort of mention on the movie's talk page.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hasdi, your "opposing view" was a literalist reading of The Onion as a serious news source. I recommend you take your editing a bit less seriously next time. Shii (tock) 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, I don't see why you're so gungho on escalating the discussion all the way up here. This is a local discussion that belong in the movie's talk page. I CAN be reasoned with you know. If other editors make the same edit that I did, you can refer them to a note on the movie's talk page. Does that make too much sense? Shii, The A.V. Club stated on its own FAQ that it is not a satirical website like The Onion.
 * So the stuff you write is all fake, like The Onions "news," right? No. Not even a little. The A.V. Club features real interviews, reviews, features, and other entertainment-related articles. — Hasdi Bravo' &bull; 16:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because otherwise I would have not been able to get a proper third opinion that simply making a thread and continuously arguing with just you on the article talk page would have achieved. I mean, I find it particularly telling that the author of that piece was so incredulous that you thought he was being serious. I know you were editing in good faith, but in the future maybe this discussion will allow others to know that avclub.com's posts should be treated as being tongue in cheek humor mixed with actual facts.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, my experience is that AV Club rarely breaks news - the occasions when they do, they are rather series but rarely the last source to report on it, but they are good for critical reviews of works. --M ASEM (t) 17:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Court documents hosted on Scribd
The article Black Mafia Family makes extensive use of federal court documents that are hosted on Scribd.com. Specifically and. In all, these documents are cited a dozen or more times. While the court documents are a reliable source, should we be trusting them as verbatim here? The editor who added them to the article is the one who uploaded them to the Scribd site. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That just came up above and WP:BLPPRIMARY says we cannot use these sources for living persons. OR and neutrality usually mean we should not use them even if outside BLP - it is possible to confuse individuals with the same name and if secondary sources do not consider something important enough to mention then it should not be mentioned in the article.  TFD (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What are your feelings about documents being hosted on a site that has no sort of editorial control, then being used by the editor who put them there? Almost looks like SPS to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Inherently unreliable. We cannot verify that they haven't been altered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see that as a problem in itself. One may use a reliable source that is not available online. One may then post it online.  Posting it does not add or detract to whether or not it was rs in the first place.  TFD (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. One cannot cite an unreliable source. If the original document has been published, cite that (assuming of course that WP:BLPPRIMARY etc does not apply). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. The source is reliable or unreliable on its own as a court document (falling under the WP:PRIMARY guidelines). It could be cited purely by case # with no link. That a convenience link is made available does not affect the ultimate reliability (or not) of the source. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but unless it can be established that it has been uploaded by a reliable source, a link to an uploaded file cannot be described as a 'convenience link' - that would imply that it is definitely the same document, and we cannot verify that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with AndyTheGrump. I don't see how this isn't any different than a YouTube video.  If some random person uploads a video proporting (sp?) to be a BBC News broadcast, the said YouTube video cannot be used as a source and it's not a convenience link.  Unless BBC News uploads the video through their official YouTube account, we have no way of knowing whether the video is authentic and hasn't been tampered with.  I don't see how scribd.com is any different.  I also agree that citing primary sources (even if authentic and unaltered) is generally a bad idea and should only be used in a limited fashion.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The source is reliable on its own as a court document, I certainly agree with that (especially the WP:PRIMARY aspect) but that doesn't give the Scribd document any more reliability than it would otherwise have.  If the court document is the source, the Scribd document shouldn't be included since there's no guarantee that it is the actual document or that it hasn't been tampered with in some way. - SudoGhost 16:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's part of my concern. A document from the court is reliable. We don't know this is the unaltered version. So, the consensus, however, seems to be against using this source, for either PRIMARY reasons or Verifiability reasons, correct? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump from above : Assuming the source is otherwise acceptable from a Primary perspective etc, Under your logic, removing the link, but leaving a citation so it could be verified by someone else would be acceptable? this seems like a bad precedent to set. There is always the issue of "where you read it", and I will presume that the editor in question read it on scribd and not in person (in this case) - but what is the precedent for someone who has actually read the source document which is generally not available reliably, but there are unreliable convenience links available? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that scribd is unreliable as a convenience link. We've accepted some personal (or organizational) web sites for court cases.  We still need to use something like cite court to identify the case.  As, either the specific documents are no longer on scribd, or I cannot access scribd at the moment, I can't determine whether those documents are official court documents.  An indictment is not reliable except as to the charges, but not as to any specific claims.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would it be reliable? Anyone can upload any document they'd like and there is zero assurance that it hasn't been manipulated to support whatever it is they would like.  That is the very definition of an unreliable source, and to attach it to a citation is as inappropriate as using it as a citation itself.  The Scribd link is unreliable, attaching it to an otherwise reliable citation does not change that since as a self-published source, there is zero guarantee that it is the unaltered citation, and the ease in which it could be manipulated makes it worthless.  When I can edit a document to say what I want and attach it to a reliable citation, that's unacceptable and more damaging to Wikipedia than outright vandalism, since vandalism can be easily spotted and fixed.  That is why it is unreliable and cannot be used as a citation in any form, even as a "convenience link".  It's not convenient if you cannot trust what it says to be accurate. - SudoGhost 20:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd go further and suggest we add scribd to the 'spam' blacklist as it also hosts a lot of copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I've no idea what the blacklisting process involves/where to start. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would probably take place at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but don't quote me on that. - SudoGhost 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Scribd itself is neither reliable nor unreliable. Each cite has to judged on its own merits. Having a repository for clippings from, for example, out-of-print and defunct specialty magazines that may not readily be collected at a library is a valuable resource. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say that Scribd should be blacklisted, I was just pointing out where that might be done. I'm sure there might be situations where Scribd would be reliable, but for the most part documents hosted on Scribd are worthless on Wikipedia.  Even Blogspot blogs have more potential value on Wikipedia since it would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF or if the blog was verified as some reliable expert's blog, but short of a reliable source saying "Yes, that Scribd document is accurate to what I said", I honeslty can't think of any way something on Scribd would be reliable.  A repository of magazines would be useful, but not as a reliable source on Wikipedia because there is no assurance that what is uploaded is accurate as anyone can modify a document and upload it as they please.  I won't say that any Scribd document is unreliable with no exceptions, but by default they are worthless as reliable sources unless a very good reason can be given as to why such a link would be reliable. - SudoGhost 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
Is Women And The Politics Of Violence Har Anand author Tanika Sarkar reliable for this statement of fact? The RSS have carried out acts of violence against Muslims since their founding in 1925 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My Comment:It is not a fact because it is not proven it is just an opinion of the author. I thought of taking this to DRN, but since you have come here I would like to mention my objections. Until and unless it is proven that RSS carried out attacks we simply cannot say that, we will have to consider people/organisations innocent till proven guilty. -sarvajna (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They had been banned for the third time after the destruction of the Babri Mosque, they also got banned for their part in the murder of Gandhi. So yes, they have and do carry out violent attacks per the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we have a citation for the mosque demolition ban? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which Gandhi? RSS has nothing to do with murder of Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi. Lets assume you mean Mahatma Gandhi. So were the bans lifted because Gandhi was found alive and the mosque was also erected on the next day? No! Bans were removed because they were not found guilty in either of the acts. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic p589 "The RSS has had a contentious history and was banned by the Indian government in 1948, 1975, and 1992 for its involvement in the January 1948 (sic) 1980–1984) between 1975 and 1977, and the Babri Mosque incident of 1992 when Hindus demolished a mosque believed to be the site of a Hindu temple." Darkness Shines (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1975 was when Gandhi turned dictator and put the entire opposition in jail. How is that bad? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How is what bad? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Any chance on an uninvolved editor chiming in here please? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a reliable source, but it only says (on p. 187) that the RSS engaged in anti-Muslim violence when it was set up, not that it has since then. I think it is preferrable to use sources more directly connected to the topic, rather than one that just mentions the RSS in passing.  TFD (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But it has since then, which is covered in the article. But if stronger wording is needed "Smita Narula writes of RSS Hindutva genocidal activities "The RSS was founded in the city of Nagpur in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hegdewar with the mission of creating a Hindu state. Since its founding, it has promulgated a militant form of Hindu nationalism as the sole basis for national identity in India the RSS ideologue, M. S Golwalkar based much of his teachings on the race theories of Nazi Germany" Hindi Cinema: Repeating the Subject pp134-135 Brill. And "the contemporary willingness of the RSS to use extralegal violence and genocide as habitual modes of political action" State, Identity and Violence Routledge Darkness Shines (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another "Their strategy takes an aggressive stance against minorities that do not fit into the vision of Hindu nationalism. RSS activists and leaders have encouraged suspicion, or even hatred of Muslims and Christians and they have create several militant organizations devoted to attacking members of these minority groups in different parts of India" The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security pp87-88 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the line due to what User:The Four Deuces has said, it now reads as "The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925.(ref name="Sarkur"} and have since formed militant groups who engage in attacks on minority groups throughout India.(ref name="Breker")" The second source is from The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security pp87-88. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Bumpshack.com
Does anyone know whether bumpshack.com  is a reliable source or not? The website is currently being used to source biographical information in the article Tim Urban. It's a blog, which would normally disqualify it from being used on Wikipedia, but given this article - Joshua Holmes (model), it seems to be maintained by someone of note. I'm not sure whether or not he would qualify as an established expert on the subject though. --Jpcase (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know what others think, but I read at WP:BLOGS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I think that is pretty clear. Does anyone disagree? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems like a pretty definitive answer. Thank you. --Jpcase (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, it seems clear to me. I removed the ref from Tim Urban. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Bottletree Books
I am not sure if this is the most suitable noticeboard for this, as it's a possible spam issue as well as about sources. User:Memgab has been adding text and references to several articles recently (e.g. here, here, here...); the references are all published by Bottletree Books LLC, the website for which is here. The books published by Bottletree Books LLC are all by either Andrew Barger or the unspecified 'Editors of Bottletree Books', suggesting it might be a self-publishing venture, and hence not sufficiently reliable. I am also concerned that if it is self-publishing, User:Memgab's additions might constitute a form of spam (note that their first edit was this, which was later followed by this). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's notable that the company's website provides no information about the firm at all (including any contact address!). This is highly unusual, as publishers normally provide a potted history of the company, information on the types of books they publish (most small publishers specialise in one or a small number of fields and provide information on this as a guide to would-be authors) and contact details for retailers and authors. The small number of books advertised on the website seem to be of low quality - they're either collections of out of copyright short stories or lightweight self-help type works. With this in mind, I suspect that the firm should not be considered a publisher of reliable works. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Powerprofiles.com shows the address and lists it as a "Bookstore" but Zillow shows the address to be a private residence. This is the personally owned company of the author. Confirmed that the author is an owner of the company.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the website itself is a self made site using Weebly.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

therichest.org
I couldn't find any specific discussion of this site, currently being used as a source for birthdate, location and name at Dan Schneider (TV producer). The site itself isn't particularly trust inspiring: authors of articles are paid $5 for every "accepted" article, standard bland "as is" content warning, editors (whoever they might be) may reject articles without explanation, etc. Basically, it straddles the line between user-generated content and paid contributors and might have some basic fact checking involved. I do not personally see any indication of a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Comemnts? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It is not a reliably published process or authored by experts in any field that I can see. I took a look and the website is owned by an "acquirer and operator of a variety of online assets in different sectors of the web". It does not appear to have any editorial oversight or fact checking that I can establish.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources calling someone an al-Qaeda member
In the article Joint Special Operations Command, Anwar al-Awlaki is referred to as an al-Qaeda member. A new editor User: Paco Charte/User:24.155.161.68 has challenged this characterization. I presented several top tier sources, including CNN, the NYT , Boston Globe , the UK's Telegraph , NBC. I also pointed out that the source the editor presented himself earlier in the discussion, from the WaPo, called him "al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki". The issue here is that the editor refuses to accept these sources because "I insist that any allegations that a person is "a member of Al Qaeda" be backed by objective, third party (i.e. not American Government press releases - which in the case of JSOC and the CIA are the only basis on which the major media outlets have to base stories due to mutually acknowledged extreme secrecy)". When I attempt to explain that he's engaging in OR, I was told "I am beginning to think that you have an agenda which directly aligns with the U.S. government, objectivity be damned." The editor then declares " I will challenge Wikipedia's obviously lacking framework for dealing with propaganda such as the like you're proffering here.". Does anyone else see a reason to dismiss these sources as this editor would have us do? This seems like more of a RS question than an OR question.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources are OK but why not use these? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the ones I cited are easily verifiable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the sources you are using are obviously RS per the RS criteria, just use the academic ones as well to improve the article and to show on the talk page discussion that not only news agencies say that this guy is a member of al-Qaeda. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can these sources be used to genetically trace Arabs (or rather 'Ishmaelite Arabs') to Abraham?
See the latest attempt to add a genetic section to Ishmaelites. The first source Eupedia.com, which describes itself as "Guide to European travel, culture, history, linguistics and population genetics. Includes trivia, maps, a discussion forum, and a travel photo gallery." We seem to be using this in other articles, which may need to be examined.

The second source is which is a reliable source but doesn't mention Ishmaelites. There is some copyvio in the article from this source which needs removing.

The third source is similarly a reliable source which doesn't mention the subject of the article.

I'm not sure about the 4th source - I can't find it and I'm not clear what it's being used for - the quote from it doesn't enlighten me at least.

The response to my raising this issue on the talk page was:

"this is what it says in the article: quote: "were added to the set of haplotypes shown in. All three Arabic haplotypes joined the lower, predomi- nantly non-Jewish branch on the right of. After the addition of the Arab haplotypes, all 25 of the haplotypes in the branch contained 162 mutations on 25 markers, which gives 4,125±525 years to a common ancestor, slightly older that age of the branch without those three haplotypes. This time period is close to that of the legendary Biblical split into the Jewish and the Arab lineages of the Abrahamic tribes," "the most recent common ancestor of Jews and Arabs of haplogroup J1 (subclade J1e) lived 4300�500 years ago, and he had the "J1 Abraham Modal Haplotype", former "Cohen Modal Haplotype" signature. From him a split occurred between the Jewish and the Arabic lineages in haplogroup J1 (J1e*)They were practically the same people, and were called the Bedouins (or we call them Bedouins now). 4200�500 years before 19 .....present they split, on the grounds of some apparently very serious reason, which likely had a religious, that is a cultural and spiritual connotation. The split was, judging from the sharpness of parting of their DNA genealogical lineages, quite a decisive one. Naturally, the split occurred not along the haplogroups J1 and J2, but across them. That was how the Jews and the Arabs had acquired both J1 and J2 haplogroups. The story of Abraham and his siblings, Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob, the patriarchs of the Arabs and the Jews, respectively, was told and re-told by the Arabs and the Jews of all the haplogroups. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that each haplogroup which was involved in the separation process, would have had its own "Abraham", who lived about 4,200 years ago. (If some haplogroup does not show such a split involving both the Arabs and the Jews and going back to about 4,200 ybp and earlier, then either there were no Jews and Arabs with such a haplogroup in those times, or they were not involved in the split). To verify this hypothesis, I have composed a 25 marker haplotype tree ..."Valentino2013 (talk) 5:12 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Ishmael is not a religious belief and the Arabs say Ishmael their ancestor.regaRDLESs OF what THE CORRUPTED BIBLE SAYS. tHE REFS "aNCIENT RECORDSW FROM NORTHERN ARABIA" AND MANY OTHER BOOKS SAY THAT iSHMAEL IS MENTIONED IN THE ASSYRIAN ROYAL CHRONICLES (discovered 100 years ago ". Herodotus mentioned that the Nabateans told him they decend from Ishmael in 450 BC. did you publish books? then you can cite them here or you have to look briefly at the references" Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing short of a DNA sample from Abraham can possibly be used to track a living individual or groups ancestry to Abraham.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:OR to me. No relevant source is really being cited for all the edits Valentino is placing around Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This editor doesn't understand the sources, on the talk page he's written "Why did they believe Cohen Modal Haplotype or Y-chromosomal Aaron. Aaron was decided based on several men who have Cohen last names and they decided that the Modal they discovered have to be in J1 (high in arabs) so it can lead to Aaron. They based their assumptions that those people are truely the descendents of Aaron because they can not possibly lie and that they are very sure they descend from Aaron) and that was that.is that scientific? and all 400 million arabs claims about Ishmael their ancestor and the assyrian records is not scientific??" - he seems to believe that Y-chromosomal Aaron is scientifically shown to prove a real Aaron. His edits are concerning (as are many that try to prove something about an ethnic group by cherry picking a journal article). Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, so this is not a classic RSN question, as the concern is not with the sources themselves I think. I noted his/her remark somewhere, I think on his talkpage, that the subject is able to be understood by a ten year old, showing, I think, that this editor is aware that they are going quite far beyond the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's on his talk page. I don't know whether or not it suggests that he knows he's going beyond the sources. Clearly there have been attempts to use these genetic studies to support - or attack - religious traditions and claims concerning ethnicity. A quick google search reveals there are several books of varying degrees of reliability discussing some aspects of such claims. It's obviously a fast-changing field, so evidence that allegedly "proves" the existence of Abraham or whoever may suddenly be found to do no such thing on further analysis. Sources quickly date. It's obviously a minefield. In any case, I can't see that it has any relevance to the article "Ishmaelites". Unless there are sources that specifically tie genetic studies to the biblical concept of Ishmaelite tribes, it should not be there. Like other editoers, I've left the section there for the time being, but I can see no real justification for it. Paul B (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

as per definition of Genetic genealogy you don't need the grave or the body of the Most Recent common ancestor to prove he existed or he was your common ancestor with a group of people. There is a calculator at ysearch tells you some guy in australia is your third level cousin (so he is your third level cousin by law, you like it or not ,it does not matter, if he has inheritanc from your say grandfather he will take his inheritance, DNA does not lie). We have people who say they are descendents of a man named Ishmael since 850 BC (3 thousand years ago ) and up till now they still make this claim. DNA genealogy proved they are all descendent from a man in the same time they claimed of Ishmael, plus many other documented evidences throughout history such as the 7th century conquest that brought the J1- Modal containg the specific DYS388=17 to north africa which is of that Most Recent common ancestor calculated with certainty, plus the separation of both lineages, which means you can't find a most recent commomn ancestor between some jews and some arabs after the date of the MRCA, while arabs can among themselves, and jews can among themselves, meaning two arabs can have a MCRA who lived 1000 years ago and so on. There are many calculations of MRCA all over the place and in wiki about Europpeans and their ethnic Most Recent Common Ancestor, The Cohanim did their Most Recent common ancestor calculations in 1997 and tens of articles expounding on. Why then finding MCRA of Ishmaelites bother you.Valentino2013 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)03:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Its as simple as this, any claim in any source assuming a genetic connection to a body that has never been examined or seen in any way, without any common relative to compare to it is simply not possible. The connection cannot be made with just genetic samples of any person or group from today when there is nothing to compare it against.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

check out this site with its example, after all the whole porpuse of Genetic genealogy is to calculate the MRCA. There are hundreds of MRCA calculations on wiki such as the Cohen Modal Haplotype which was calculated in a study in 1997 by Hammer, and many many others such as groups in Europe for the R haplogroup haplotypes of specific historical persons and mythological persons, why them don't bother you, after all this is not legal dispute and we are not in court for that.Let me bring you an example two persons have one father lost at sea, no body no dna, but the dna of the two persons say they are brothers, what do you say about that? and that their father never knew them, and left big inheritance. the father was immigrant from another continent with no known relatives other than he was from mandinga people who had haplogroup specific to that tribe,the two men never knew each other because their mom gave them for adoption 40 years ago. Can the two persons inherit that man with just the historical document a marriage certificate of their mother from that man?Valentino2013 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that the sources don't discuss Ishmaelites, Valentiono2013's edits in this and at least one other article are copyvio. He is on some sort of pov push and creating new genetic stubs that probably should all be redirects, especially as his main source for them is ISOGG (a new article he created on the International Association of Genetic Genealogy) and not peer reviewed. Eg J-P58 uses that, Eupedia again (see the post where I started this thread), etc. L147.1 uses the same sources. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Shiv Sena
Is this source History, Culture and the Indian CityCambridge University Press a reliable source for this edit? The source states as fact that Sena are a facist group, yet an editor added opined to be at As a similar chat is takeing place on another article I had already provided other academic sources which state as fact that Sena are facist. Public Accountability and Transparency: The Imperatives of Good Governance p79 "a Fascist party like the Shiv Sena" Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants, and States in the Postcolonial World p95 "Shiv Sena, the most overtly fascist element in the Hindu right-wing formation" Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean fascist? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I mean Fascist "a Hindu fascist movement, the Shiv Sena or Army of Shivaji (a famous Maratha warrior of the eighteenth century). This movement, led by Bal Thackeray" Now what do we know about that fellow? "when asked if the Muslims were beginning to feel like the Jews in Nazi Germany said that if they behaved like the Jews in Nazi Germany, then there is nothing wrong if they are treated as the Jews were in Nazi Germany" Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror Or "More recently, the current leader of the Shiv Sena, Bal Thackeray, openly praises Hitler's actions" Performativity & Belonging Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a common opinion of Shiv Sena. It's certainly not just a meaningless insult term. Of course there are other sources that dispute the appropriateness of the term, so it would probably best to use a phrase such as "who have been called...". Paul B (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I have not seen a source which disputes this use of the term at all, can you point me to them please, such would be useful for the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that Koenraad Elst does in Saffron Swastika, but he would I suppose. Paul B (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless Shiv Sena self-identifies with fascism, the term would always be a well worn apellation, an opinion that others have about them, as Paul Barlow mentions, and an opinion shouldn', however commonly held, be mentioned as a statement of facts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a huge difference between my neighbour calling me a "fascist" because I object to his late-night parties, and scholars of political ideology labelling a poltical movement with that term. Eliding the two by linking to fascist (insult) is neither useful nor relevant. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is difference between "is" and "is called", "is referred" or "is considered", etc. Example from FA: "She (Angelina Jolie) has often been cited as the world's "most beautiful" woman,". §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Another source Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras University of Chicago Press p274-276 "While secularists often slap the label of "fascist" on the entire Hindu nationalist movement, Shiv Sena is one to which that appellation seems singularly appropriate. Thackery is quite open in his admiration for European fascist leaders and has advocated for the use of their "solutions" for India's "Muslim problem" Darkness Shines (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Opinions cannot be presented as facts. That's basic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of getting more that one uninvolved editor to comment on this? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Try attributing the descriptions, which are not plain fact, nor mere opinion, but scholarly analysis. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edy Ganem source
Edy Ganem is lacking in content and has been tagged with BLP sources. Is this a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the information that it would be used to support, I think this is fine and uncontroversial. The Blue Canoe  03:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am no longer watching here. If there are further issues, ping me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about Sources for Starcounter
Hello,

I'm trying to get more feedback about reliable sources for the Starcounter Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Starcounter

I was in a help chat with +Huon and he suggested that I ask a question here, specifically about the 451 Group blogs. Are these an issue? If so, can someone explain why? These analyst blogs are extremely reputable in the tech industry so I'm confused as to why they would be a problem. I would appreciate any insight on this and/or other sources listed.

Thanks!

Rachelamarshall (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)rachelamarshall

Enoch Powell


Is a speech made by Enoch Powell, 3 March, 1953, in Westminister against his govenments' Royal Style and Titles Act a reliable source that "The term realm was formally used with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and was adopted for the modern royal styles and titles"? There is a discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm. Also, since neither the act nor Powell use the phrase "Commonwealth Realm", is it relevant to the article? TFD (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As "realm" is not used as a proper noun here, but a common noun, and simply means a place with a monarch, I do not see exactly what the problem is. If a nation of whatever type describes itself as having a monarch, then it is a realm. Sources are not needed for ordinary nouns. Collect (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is not what "realm" means but how the term is used. For example, Canada and each of its provinces have always had a monarch, but it is not clear when it became a realm.  TFD (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain the importance of the point in time for Canada and other countries in connection with the specific question as put above. Qexigator (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to explain the importance in order to justify including it in the article. TFD (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please clarify to what "it" is referring - which is not self-evident from the way you have been replying and asserting, which seems inadvertently to create ambiguities or equivocations, making it difficult to follow your sometimes elusive reasoning. And to whom is "you" addressed? Is it everyone else except your own goodself? Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * --Given that per Dominion
 * 1_"Over the decades after 1930, the British dominions each became independent of the United Kingdom. Those that became sovereign constitutional monarchies within the Commonwealth of Nations and maintained as their own the same royal house and royal succession from before independence became known after 1953 as Commonwealth realms." and
 * 2_"In English common law the Dominions of the British Crown referred to all the realms and territories under the sovereignty of the Crown.]]",
 * is that being contested here, directly or indirectly? Also, is the question raised here applicable to the content in the second and third columns of the List of Dominions which represent that in 1953 Canada and six other countries "Became Commonwealth Realm"? Qexigator (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:THREAD: "When you reply to a statement, you should use one more colon than the number that appear in the statement you're replying to."  The statement in Dominion is unsourced and not a reliable source for this article.  The problem is that you there are no sources to support what is in the article - it is just original research about what "Commonwealth Realm" means and how it came into use.  TFD (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 'The problem is that you there are no sources to support what is in the article ... original research about what "Commonwealth Realm" means and how it came into use" '. I am afraid that leaves what you are asserting no clearer, and you fail to answer questions seeking clarification to see what it is you are complaining about without making positive input. Not helpful. Qexigator (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that except for say for the statement that Commonwealth realms are realms that are members of the Commonwealth, none of the sources provided for the article are about Commonwealth realms and the whole article is original research. I suggest you read WP:NOR and WP:RS which explain why relevant sources are required for articles.  TFD (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Using a dictionary is not "original research". Really. Collect (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Powell argued that that the wording of the Royal Titles Act 1953 incorrectly recognized the nations in allegiance to the Crown as separate realms, while he believed they were one realm. Could you explain how your dictionary definition resolves this?  When for example did Canada become a realm?  TFD (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Like all the others, except the realm of the kingdom of England, later the united kingdom of Great Britain, at one time it was a colony/dominion/dependency not a separate sovereign realm, now it is. Of course, it would be unencyclopedic to develop an argument in the article in the way Powell's speech did. Qexigator (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What year did Canada become a realm? TFD (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do we need this information? Qexigator (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Delusional?
The published website for the Queen, and the report of the debate in Parliament (UK) on the Perth Agreemant legislation, use the term Commonwealth realm: TFD's objection seems to imply that the Queen, or her Royal Household, and her cabinet ministers, are delusional about this. Even on that supposition the phrase is indisputably being used. Qexigator (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I said above, "except for say for the statement that Commonwealth realms are realms that are members of the Commonwealth, none of the sources provided for the article are about Commonwealth realms and the whole article is original research." (17:45, 4 July 2013) The published website of the Queen says that Commonwealth realms are members of the Commonwealth that share the monarchy, and enumerates them.  But the rest of the article, saying when each realm became a realm, citing various laws and usages that are often primary sources and none of which refer to "Commonwealth Realms" is original research and has no place in this article.
 * To return to the original posting, the comments by Powell say nothing about Commonwealth Realms and therefore have no place in the article.
 * TFD (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

community college online course page
Sea draws some statistics on ocean temperature from, a Santa Barbara City College online course page. Is this a reliable source? It is from a college course, but I'm also not sure that it has the editorial oversight of a textbook, etc. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would not use it and it is certainly not the best source because we cannot tell where they got their information. TFD (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TFD. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wusun: Cited sources on the lead section
Wusun lead section (current):

The Wūsūn (Chinese: 烏孫; literally "Grandchildren of The Crow") were either a Turkic speaking[1][2][3][4][5] or Indo-European speaking[6]...

Cited sources for Turkic-speaking claim:
 * 1) Jila, N., "Myths and traditional beliefs about the wolf and the crow in Central Asia: examples from the Turkic Wu-Sun and the Mongols", Asian Folklore Studies, V65, i2, p161, 2006.
 * 2) Denis Sinor, The legendary Origin of the Türks, in Egle Victoria Zygas, Peter Voorheis Folklorica: Festschrift for Felix J. Oinas, Indiana 1982, p. 240 verweist auf den Nachweis von O. Franke Beiträge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen Zentralasiens, Berlin 1904, p. 17-19.
 * 3) 王明哲, 王炳華 (Mingzhe Wang & Binhua Wang): 蘇聯的烏孫考古情況簡述. In: 烏孫研究 (Wusun research), 1, Ürümqi: 新疆人民出版社 (Sincan Halkyayınevi) 1983
 * 4) Zuev, Yu. A. (2002), Early Türks: Essays on history and ideology, sayfa 35.
 * 5) Wolfram Eberhard, Çin Tarihi, Ankara 1947, sayfa 33.

Cited sources for Indo-European claim:
 * 1) "Zhang Qian". Encyclopedia Britannica online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 28 October 2012.

1-5 (Turkic claim) are very dubious and I think they are unverifiable and unreliable sources. Indo-European claim cited an article from online version of Britannica:
 * ...Seven years later he was sent on another mission, this time to the Wusun, another Indo-European people living in the Ili River valley north of the Tarim Basin...

Are these 6 cited sources are reliable for those specific claims (both Turkic and Indo-European)? I don't find anything about 1-5 and I need to know your opinions about the reliability of Britannica's article for this claim. Zyma (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My opinion: None of these cited sources are specialized sources for this case and claims. Zyma (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know where did you come up with that conclusion, but citation 3 is definitely written by an expert Chinese archeologist who spent considerable time on the study of Wusun (the caveat being that the author is only summarizing his findings of Soviet Union's archeological studies on Wusun in the source cited)...Unless you meant to say that Chinese/Soviet Union's archeological research on the matter is deemed invalid by majority of Central Asian academics. Jim101 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the claim that the "Turkic speaking Wusun" is unverifiable, I cite page 186 of citation 3 (Wusun Yanjiu as referred in English publications): "By the second half of 19th Century, Russian scholars had already conducted studies on Wusun. [La De Luo Fu, Chinese transliteration of Russian name] and [Er Li Si Tuo Fu, transliteration] viewed Wusun as Turkic speaking ethnicity at the end of previous century. Between the 1920s and the 1930s, majority of Soviet archeologist, represented by the viewpoint of [Bo En Tuo Tan Mu, transliteration], believed the Wusun possibly belonged to the Indo-Iranian speaking ethnicity of the Indo-European language family..." All it took me was 5 minutes of Google search. Jim101 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Emptiness article - oral presentation used as a source
Article: A questioner at the Reference Desk asked about a reference in the article Emptiness.

Source: The reference is given as "Awakening the Silent Soul: Treating Eating Disorders From the Inside Out. Jennifer Nardozzi, PsyD" - the Ref Desk established that this is a workshop/oral presentation, not a published work. Content: The statement in the article: "Just as religion influences addiction counselling, it has also influenced other therapies. Some eating disorder therapists argue that bulimia and anorexia are caused in part by 'spiritual emptiness, recognized as “hunger” of the soul', in which women who face 'isolation, emptiness, pain, fear and a profound sense of disembodiment' become an 'empty vessel, devoid of life' which needs to be filled with comfort-giving food.[14] People who have an 'empty self' may try to 'fill up on food, excitement, substances, relationships, [or] consumer products'." Question: If this can't serve as a source, what should I do? Remove the entire paragraph? Thanks, 184.147.144.173 (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a health realted claim, and the source does not even come close to meeting the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Deletion of the entire paragraph would be justified, as it is extremely unlikely that adequate sourcing will ever be found for this material. It's patent BS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I didn't want to comment on the validity of the statement itself. But if the source is not adequate, there we go. I've taken it out diff/ Thanks for your help! 184.147.144.173 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kamrupi dialect of Assamese vs Kamarupa dialect of Magadhi Prakrit
Chaipau (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Source: Barma, Sukhbilasa (2004) Bhāwāiyā: Ethnomusicological Study Global Vision Publishing House
 * 2) Article: Kamarupi Prakrit
 * 3) Content: "'Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and North Bengali.'"
 * 4) Issues:
 * 5) The quote from the source is: "Based on the materials of the Linguistic Survey of India, Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay has divided Eastern Magadhi Prakrit and Apabhramsa into four dialect groups (1) Radha-the language of West Bengal and Orissa (2) Varendra-dialect of North Central Bengal (3) Kamrupi-dialect of Northern Bengal and Assam and (4) Vanga-dialect of East Bengal." (p101) (emphasis mine)
 * 6) This is a misquote from Chattopadhyay's tome, "The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language", where Chatterji is referring to "Kamarupa dialects" of the Magadha Apabhramsa. The tree that Chattopadhyay draws of the Apabhramsa dialects is faithfully reproduced in Tomlin's 2006 thesis on the Kamatapuri lects (, Fig 7.3, p302).
 * 7) The misspelling in Barma is used in the article Kamarupi Prakrit to draw an equivalence between a first millennium language and the modern Kamrupi dialect.
 * 8) Can the quote from Barma be used to make this claim?
 * Is there a chance someone might take a look at this? Chaipau (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Blabbermouth.net

 * Blabbermouth.net, a metal music-oriented news blog with no coverage by independent sources, operated by one person. I'm posting this here after having it recommended at Talk:Metallica, so this would serve as a continuation of that discussion. More details available at that discussion page. Dan56 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless there are any objections to the points raised at the cited discussion, can this post be used as a reference if an editor tries to cite the site as a source? Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Acording to another user, Blabbermouth is reliable to the point that it is used as a reference by other reliable sources. I don't see it as unreliable. What happens is that the website mostly posts material based on other sources - much like Wikipedia. Most of their news come from other magazines, radios, press releases, etc. Victão Lopes  I hear you... 23:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So its about as reliable a source as Wikipedia? Something like this doesn't credit any source, yet claims to be reporting Nielsen SoundScan figures? And it's a blog run by only one person, who has admitted to getting rumors "half right or not at all", so how does it have a reputation for "checking the facts" or "meaningful editorial oversight" (WP:QS). News blogs are only acceptable if the writers are professional (WP:NEWSBLOG). Dan56 (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. My main concern is actually the number of articles in which me and other editors have used it as a source. The addition of Blabbermouth.net in the list of bad sources would result in many articles having it removed and, whenever possible, replaced with the original source. In case there isn't any credit, than the source will have to be removed, and I fear some articles will become candidates for deletion for lack of good sources, and, well, that would be too bad.  Victão Lopes  I hear you... 02:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to prove that Blabbermouth is untrustable, you'll have to indicate at least one concrete post by Blabbermouth which is refuted by some other more reliable source. I haven't seen any information distributed by Blabbermouth which is proven to be inaccurate. The main concern is the good faith of it's editors, but as Victor said, the posted material is based on other sources.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No I don't. I have to cite the relevant guidelines to show that it is a questionable source, which I clearly have (otherwise, what's the point of having WP:QS and WP:NEWSBLOG say what they say?). With regards to Victor's point, you don't have to remove the references to Blabbermouth in articles. Instead, you can place a tag next to it such as Template:Better source or Template:VC. If there are articles that mostly rely on Blabbermouth, then that is an indictment of those articles' notability that there isn't enough third-party coverage of those topics. Nothing needs to be removed, just don't encourage further use of the source. Dan56 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As I posted here, this site passes WP:RS. It is an independent third-party site with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (as shown by the large number of other reliable sources which reference it, including major publications like Billboard and Rolling Stone). This is not a "blog", and so WP:NEWSBLOG does not apply (NEWSBLOG applies to, say, a reporter or editor from the New York Times having an editorial blog hosted on that site). I don't see that WP:QS applies either. While you use a partial quote taken out of context, "getting rumors half right or not at all", here is the full quote, in context, showing that the site does put in the effort to check its facts: "Whenever I hear a rumor about a band, I do some digging around to see if there is any truth to it. Since it's usually very difficult to get any kind of confirmation on these things, I often have to make a judgment call and decide whether or not to run a story based on the available information (which at times could be very limited). Most of the time, the rumors turn out to be correct, but there are those occasions when I only get it half right or not right at all. When that happens, I make it a point to run a follow-up item either quoting a band representative refuting the original story or simply informing the readers that the information contained in the previous article was incorrect and hopefully offering some newly confirmed correct information (if possible)." That looks to me like the editor (Bori) puts in the work to prevent posting incorrect information, and will retract the article or correct it if it does end up being incorrect. Certainly in the small handful of cases where the site gets it wrong, if another source can confirm that the Blabbermouth article is wrong, then that source should be used instead. But this should be done on a case-by-case basis, instead of simply deciding that Blabbermouth is not reliable at all. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How is it not a blog? Dan56 (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Listen Danny. Can you prove that Blabbermouth is "considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip or personal opinion."?? Can you prove that it "has a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest"?? Unless you can, I don't see your point in questioning it's reliability (read again WP:QS).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Who's responsible for "editorial oversight" if there's only one person running the blog? He doesn't have an editor. I thought that sort of gave it away. Dan56 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How is it a blog? (It's not; it's a news site.) Bori is the editor, he's the one who provides the editorial oversight (as users can submit news stories, but he would be the editor deciding if that information should be added). Again, nothing you have said has shown that this is not reliable, and I notice that you could not refute anything I said above.
 * Also, do not edit other editors' comments. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A personal website with reverse chronological (unauthored) posts. So user-submitted news stories? (WP:SPS) And pardon me for removing "ny"--signature clearly reads "Dan56". Dan56 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I still don't see that it's a "personal website". Look through the CD reviews, there are plenty of other authors besides Bori. The site may have started out with just him, but there are obviously more contributors now. Also, the fact that it is hosted by Roadrunner Records, and not, say, Blogspot.com, shows that it is more than a "personal" website.
 * And yes, other people can submit news stories, which are then added after going through editorial oversight. In other words, they aren't just added as soon as they are submitted, but rather added after an editor (Bori) adds them (again supporting the fact that this site passes WP:RS).
 * So we can show editorial oversight, we can show that the site has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and while you continue to claim this is a "blog", it isn't. It passes WP:RS, it is reliable, and I really think it's time to move on to more productive things. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So it's a blog of Roadrunner. None of the posts are authored. Dan56 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a "blog of Roadrunner", it's hosted by them. You still haven't shown that this is a blog. Your only arguments appear to be: it lists its posts in reverse-chronological order, which many news sites do; and that the author of any one article is not named, which many news sites do (see [cbc.ca cbc.ca], many of its articles do not have an author named, yet it's not a blog, and is a reliable source...also, it presents its articles in reverse-chronological order). You haven't proven that this is a blog, whereas I have shown that it clearly passes WP:RS. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the posts have authors; what news sites have posts, let alone reverse-chronological posts? Where does cbc.ca not credit an author? Dan56 (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a few minutes to look at the Canada news page, and you'll see several news articles do not have specific authors. Also look at what news is currently being posted on there; you'll notice that it is current information (not articles from 6 years ago mixed with articles from yesterday and January and 3 years ago). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dan asked me (a randomly selected RSN regular) to comment on this question.

The website is being used to support statements like these: Mustaine, who went on to found Megadeth, has expressed his dislike for Hammett in interviews. He said Hammett "stole my job." This clearly is a contentious, even potentially libelous, statement about a living person. It is also used to support fairly uncontroversial statements about activities by the organization (the band).

According to our policies and guidelines, a reliable source has these characteristics:


 * 1) It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * 2) It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
 * 3) It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
 * 4) It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest.
 * 5) It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

Most of these are a matter of degree and not every answer must be 'yes' for every use of every source. The source needs only be strong enough to support the claim being made, and weak sources may be used to support lightweight claims. Having said that, in terms of BLPSPS requirements, item #2 is an absolute requirement for statements about living people (but not bands or other organizations).

For non-BLP related statements, then the usual SPS requirement ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") may be sufficient. In this case, however, there is no reason to believe that the website would qualify under SPS, because while the website is quoted or cited on occasion in reliable third-party publications, the author is not published in them and therefore does not count as "an expert" under Wikipedia's definition. (Put another way, a sentence in The Times that says, "According to Blabbermouth" doesn't count; only an entire article in The Times written by the same person who runs Blabbermouth counts.)

The source also appears to fail item #5. At minimum, item #5 requires some reason to believe that more than one person works on the website.

So in short, I would definitely not accept this for BLP-related statements. It is possible that the source, although weak in some areas, would be barely good enough for relatively lightweight and non-controversial statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this look like Judas Priest take Blabbermouth seriously? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, it seems reasonable that using it for BLP claims is a bad idea, and should not be used then. And it sounds like for non-controversial statements, it can still be used (although if another, better source exists, it should be used instead). Does that sound about right? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's reasonable. And like I proposed before, it doesn't have to be removed from each article. A better source tag would suffice, as would appending some note (perhaps a link to this discussion) at WikiProject Albums/Sources so editors aren't encouraged to use it as a source too often. Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, sounds like we've got a general consensus here for its use. I've added a note to WikiProject Albums/Sources pointing here (which I guess will have to be updated once this moves into an archive), take a look and modify as needed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether a source is considered reputable and reliable within its own field should matter. Within the heavy metal scene few would question that Blabbermouth is well established and one of the leading sources of news. Consensus should not be hard to find on that point. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * According to whom is it a leading source of news in the heavy metal scene? Blabbermouth has barely any third-party coverage, which was one of the reasons I originally questioned it as a reliable source, particularly at a BLP (and FA) article like Metallica. Dan56 (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit late into this, but here are my thoughts on the issue (I contribute to this noticeboard every once and a while):
 * 1) It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Reputation, I don't know, but it is frequently cited by other reliable sources, including info that would fall under the BLP category on Wikipedia: Rolling Stone, Billboard, Alt Press, Metal Hammer, Revolver, Consequence of Sound, Noise Creep, Pop Matters.
 * 2) It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). - hosted by Roadrunner Records.
 * 3) It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. - This would depend on individual articles.
 * 4) It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest. - No problems here as far as I can see.
 * 5) It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes. - A little sticky here. It certainly has a professional structure, but it's unclear whether all of the news, both authorship and editing, is handled by Krgin. If it is, this presents a bit of a problem, since no-one else would oversee Krgin. Reviews are fine, since they often are handled by staff and outside contributors overseen by Krgin. The user contributions I think are fine as they seem more like news tips, since Krgin actually writes and edits the content.

Now, the following is copied from WP:NEWSORG, with my emphasis and comments added: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." - This pretty much sums up the statement recently added to album sources list: "if another source can be found for information given, use that source instead." As Krigin presumably authors the news content, most of the news coverage might fall under the "editorials" category.

What follows is the list of basic guidelines for news sources:
 * When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces. - Krgin seems to be an expert, and Blabbermouth does receive outside recognition, though how important he is I don't know. I think use of news articles should follow a case-by-case basis.
 * For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name. - Not really applicable.
 * The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. - This seems to clear up the issues brought up about rumors earlier in this discussion.
 * Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
 * Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. - This I think is the crux of the matter regarding BLP's. The outside sources I mentioned above mainly cite Blabbermouth for BLP-related content, yet at the same time, this discussion brought up issues with Blabbermouth and BLP's (though I'm not sure what the Judas Priest link was about), so I think that Blabbermouth articles need case-by-case evaluation.
 * Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source. - With Blabbermouth, this could be extended to info taken from other reliable sources (Nielsen Soundscan listings, for example).
 * News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies. - This is important to highlight: Krgin does not publish his editorial policy, but he doesn't have to.
 * One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. - Krgin does issue corrections, as brought up earlier in the discussion on rumors.

Editorial comment: Something that I think needs mention here is the evolution of news media in this internet age. Dan56 seemed to take issue with the structure of the site, accusing it of being a blog. I think this misses the point. The distinctions between "website" and "blog" I think are becoming more and more blurred, and a lot of professional websites, news-related or otherwise, have begun adapting more blog-like features. Thus, I think that the structure and style of the site are of no consequence. Rather, issues of third-party publication, fact-checking and accuracy, reputation, etc. are what should be examined.

My conclusion: Blabbermouth.net is reliable for general news, but with BLP info it should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Reviews certainly are fine. Finally, if the story is found elsewhere by a more established agency, that agency takes preference. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't the BLP guidelines apply to band members and not the band itself? In other words, if Blabbermouth makes a comment about the style of Metallica's music, that is not a BLP statement, while a statement about Lars Ulrich would be a BLP statement.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How is Roadrunner Records a reputable publishing house? If a record label is the host, and the site deals with music news, there's no issue of COI? None of the news posts are authored, but we should assume it's all by Krigin, who has no credentials in music or news reporting? Don't services such as AP credit their source of info? A post like this doesn't. I don't think unauthored, reverse-chronological news posts with scattered boldface seems professional either, and there's essentially no third-party coverage of this source (would it even be used as much as it is if this deletable article existed?). Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you paid attention to any of this discussion at all? After a very lengthy discussion in which other editors, including myself, have addressed the points you brought up, you are still making the exact same argument that you started with. Why did you even bother bringing this here? You seem to have already come to your conclusion before even bringing the discussion here, regardless of the opinion of other editors. Unless you actually develop your arguments further in light of what other editors have said, there is no point continuing this discussion.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not cool, bro. My questions are valid. Dan56 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * They were when you first asked them, but you keep asking them again and again, even though myself and other editors have already answered them. But I'll answer them again to make you happy:
 * There is no COI issue, anymore than any other publisher would have with the authors they publish. All that Roadrunner Records does is host the site, they don't influence the content. Of course Roadrunner Records will promote Blabbermouth.net, as all publishers promote the works that they publish.
 * The posts with no author credit can be considered to be Krgin's. As for Krgin's credentials, that hinges on how respected Blabbermouth is as a source.
 * Your statement that there is no third-party coverage of Blabbermouth is false. I already listed Rolling Stone, Billboard, Alt Press, Metal Hammer, Revolver, Consequence of Sound, Noise Creep, and Pop Matters as sources which use Blabbermouth to get their info. Now, if by third-party coverage you meant sources talking about Blabbermouth itself at length, that is not crucial to this discussion. Reliability is different from notability - whether Blabbermouth.net deserves an article is a separate issue from whether it's a reliable news source.
 * I don't know what you hang-up is with "reverse-chronological order." How does that affect Blabbermouth.net's reliability at all?
 * The scattered boldface argument I don't understand either. I've seen other sources use highlighting on band names and similar things.
 * I think that's all of the points you made, please let me know if I missed one.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "I don't know what your hang-up is with "reverse-chronological order." How does that affect Blabbermouth.net's reliability at all?" – I have to agree with this, despite being shown above that other news sites also post their news in reverse-chronological order (which makes sense, so that the newest news is the first thing you see visiting the site), you seem to think this is somehow a bad thing. Can you explain why it is a bad thing? And should we then be disallowing other news sites that do this? (CNN, CBC, Reuters, etc) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The creator of the work does affect the source's reliability, and that Krgin is Blabbermouth (that is, only he checks himself) factors into editorial integrity. Third-party coverage (not merely referencing it) verifies reputation; the few articles by reliable sources citing Blabbermouth are validating those individual articles (not Blabbermouth in general), which should be eschewed in Wikipedia articles for those reliable sources, i.e. the links you provided instead of the Blabbermouth posts they're citing. CNN, CBC, and Reuters have articles, not posts (discrete entries), that are organized in columns and presented as in a traditional print source (such as here). This notwithstanding, my point in bringing up this source here was to discourage editors from using this source if and when there are better sources available, which theoretically there should be if the information in question is really worth reporting. That someone created a flimsy Wikipedia article on Blabbermouth doesn't help, but the revision to WP:ALBUMS' sources page did. Dan56 (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree: If Krgin is Blabbermouth (which other than the reviews seems to be the case), then he would fall under a self-published source.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 16:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Economictimes.com link used in the article Bangladeshi Indian
Shovon (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topiclist/Indian-people-of-Bangladeshi-descent Source
 * 2) Article: Bangladeshi Indian
 * 3) Content: "Notable Indians of Bangladeshi descent" and "Below is a list of prominent Indians of Bangladeshi descent".
 * 4) Issues: It cannot be ascertained as to the purpose or the author of the list. There is also no certainity of the list being ever published in the actual newspaper, The Economic Times. It comes across as a personal opinion of one author and as such, I doubt the reliability of it.
 * Comment: I don't see any confusion here as the source (official website of The Economic Times) clearly states "Indian people of Bangladeshi descent" and lists some notable figures under it. Surely, the list is not created by an ordinary reader rather by the staff of that newspaper.-- Zayeem (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there any possibility of anyone looking in to this? Shovon (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I doubt that this list is a mirror of the articles listed under Category:Indian people of Bangladeshi descent. Not only does the name and number of items (25 in each case, if we exclude "Bangladeshi Indian") match, the entry "Asit Sen (director)" in Economic Times prove that it is a pure copy of the Wikipedia category. Even for Category:British people of Bangladeshi descent, the Economic Times maintain a mirror page . Surely this is a case of circular reference and therefore can't be considered a secondary reliable source. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that it looks like a mirror of the category. Regardless, since it is a list with no provenance indicated, it is not a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 01:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Is The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Isḥāq’s sīrat a RS to state genealogies as factual?
See Ilyas son of Mudar, Qusai ibn Kilab, Mudhar, Nizar (Ishmaelites), Malik ibn Kinanah Mudrikah, Khuzayma and others, all created or edited by (see above) who doesn't seem to grasp our sourcing policy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * It's a religious tome, on the same level of reliability as the Ussher chronology.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not by a long shot. It's a religious work, not a historical one. Religious geneologies are seldom factual. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's usable within context. This is being presented as the traditional religious account, and the sources given are sufficient for that. That this is the traditional account, and not a scientific historical geneology is fairly obvious to me, but it might be well to say so. It is important that we have this information, sourced as the tradition sources it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true. Doug's question was whether this source would support the presentation of the information as factual. No, it wouldn't. It's a primary source on the tradition, and allows us, without comment or interpretation, to say what the tradition says about these genealogies. Andrew Dalby 08:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Roy Maloy and the Record Holders Republic
The article in question, Roy Maloy, is a BLP of an Australian circus performer. The article now states that Maloy holds six world's records in stilt walking and fire breathing. The source is this page on the Record Holders Republic website. I have tried to find sources that would support the reliablity of Record Holders Republic, but can't find much. It looks to me like a Pay to play scheme, selling certificates and medals to the "record holders". Many of the claims in the article are based on this source, starting with "Roy Maloy currently holds six world records, which have been registered with the Record Holders Republic." Should Record Holders Republic be considered a reliable source in this context?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems legitimate to me. There is an article about them in the Huffington Post.  According to their website, there is no fee to present a claim to them, only a $20 fee for a copy of a certificate.  Of course holding a record with the company does not mean one holds the world record, only the company's world record.  Someone could hold a better record but chose not to register it with the company.  The company is a reliable source for whom it has assessed to hold its record and so long as we are clear on this it does not seem to violate rs.  TFD (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Colour me "dubious." The "Book of Alternative Records"  was published by "John Blake" which does not, on its face, appear to be a major RS publisher at all.  The author includes some of his own records .  Absent a reliable real secondary source, nope. Collect (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Collect. At best, we can say that "person X holds a Record Holders Republic World Record for Y". This really isn't any indication that the 'record' receives any general recognition. The Huff Post piece seems to be using Record Holders Republic as a source for trivia more than anything more definite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To judge by TFD's useful quote, this site does not claim to certify real records, only claims made to itself. Are those claims notable? I don't see any reason to think so. So I don't see any reason why we should mention it. Andrew Dalby 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Record Holders Republic "records" do not require independent verification. Propose a stunt/challenge, perform stunt/challenge, send in some paperwork = record. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Or pay 100 quid plus travel expenses to get a famous head-balancer to come and watch you do it? They deserve marks for trying it on, they really do. Obviously not reliable, in my view. Is there a consensus here? Because if so there are a dozen or more articles that will need some attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not reliable, even just on the face of it. I think there's a consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I made some edits. But this seems to be a fairly large tin of invertebrate burrowers. What about this one? Or indeed this one? Does this deserve any different treatment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This one is considered a reliable organisation as per this article RecordSetter. While,  and  do not even have articles about them in WP. I think an article can not be approved if its based only on links of such sites which do not have an article about them in WP. But I think information based on links of such sites can be added as an additional information in articles if those have reliable news paper or other references. --Musicindia1 (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not yet convinced that having an article in this wiki makes the RecordSetter any more reliable than the others. Anyone else have an opinion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Animal magnetism
I'd like some advice. Does any of these: pass muster as a reliable source for a statement that "scientific research into animal magnetism has also been performed in this century"? Has any one of them been cited in an article in a notable peer-reviewed journal, for example? The titles of the publications suggest at first sight that this is unlikely, but I'd appreciate some input from others. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Grad, B., Cadoret, R. J., & Paul, G. I. (1961). The influence of an unorthodox method of treatment on wound healing in mice. International Journal of Parapsychology, 3, 5–24.
 * Grad. B. (1965). Some biological effects of laying on of hands: A review of experiments with animals and plants. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 59, 95–127.
 * Grad, B. (1976). The biological effects of “laying on of hands” on animals and plants: Implications for biology. In Schmeidler, Gertrude (Ed.), Parapsychology: Its relation to physics, biology, psychology and psychiatry (pp. 76–89). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
 * I would say all of those are WP:FRINGE and that the word "Scientific" in that statement is inappropriate. However, those sources may be WP:RS for the claims of animal magnetism within the WP:FRINGE topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The three articles you mention have been cited 89, 126, and 28 times, respectively. However, a more accurate summary would be "B. Grad wrote three papers related to the subject between 1961 and 1976."  You don't want to risk making the fringe claim that the field is a part of science.  Andrew327 19:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most helpful, thanks to both. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

timezone on the g-shock article
I've been doing some assessment on watch project articles, and I came across g-shock. There were several citation needed tags, so I googled the phrases and added references. The main one is this timezone article http://people.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml631728462093125000 but user Dr-K flew through removing the references replacing them with cn tags. In the talk page he requested I provide credentials for the author. The timezone source was used for this text "around the triple ten concept, the concept for a watch that has a 10 year battery life, is water resistant to 10 bars, and can survive a 10m fall, 200 prototypes were tested by dropping them from rooftops, or third story windows . It's shock resistant design has 10 layers protecting the quartz time mechanism, the major ones being the urethane rubber outer bumper protecting the steel watch case, the stainless steel case, the hardened mineral glass watch crystal, the stainless steel screwed down caseback, and the 'floating module' concept where the quartz mechanism floated free in a urethane foam cradle, with things like the outer buttons, and LCD module attached with flexible cables, with the buttons mounted to the watchcase, rather than the quartz module.", as well as referencing that the DW-5600E is space qualified by NASA. I'd also like to Dr-K to provide credentials for all the authors of all the books cited in the featured article on Operation Charnwood, and credentials for all websites cited in featured article SheiKra TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of that info (the triple ten) can be found here: Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I can't provide credentials for Ryan Thompson either.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to. He was published in the reliable source.. Timezone may or may not be a RS. men's health is a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By what standard? Do they fact check?  Do they print corrections?  Do they have a reputation for accuracy?TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm starting to sense that you're not really interested in improving the article as much as you're interested in being right. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I provided you with a source that has been accepted many times on Wikipedia, in an attempt to assist you, you've been nothing but adversarial. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * timezone.com is a source that has been accepted many times on Wikipedia. This is the first time I've had to defend a source against another editor demanding that I provide credentials for the author of an online published article.  I don't know any of the "rules".  I don't know why mens health would be a good reference, or why it would be a bad reference, I don't know why timezone would be a good reference or a bad reference.  From my point of view, there's no reason Dr K couldn't demand me to provide credentials of the author of the menshealth article if he can demand that I provide credentials for the author of a timezone article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not Dr. K, so whatever battle you're having with him, keep it between you two. Men's Health is an actual magazine available on newsstands everywhere. As a general rule of thumb, print publications usually meet RS. There are exceptions of course, like World Weekly News. You can also use the search feature here to see previous discussions about it. Just because a source has been used on Wikipedia doesn't mean it actually passes RS. It may very well mean that nobody has challenged it. Regardless, I've tried to help you and have no intention of "defending" what is clearly an RS. Good day sir. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the homepage of menshealth, under "today's highlights", is "the ultimate beach-body workout"... What if it ISN'T the ultimate beach-body workout?  What if there's a better beach-body workout?  And is that title really better than "unbreakable"?  Is there no reliable source with a title that employs hyperbole?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently I wasn't clear. I tried to help you, but you want to argue with me about some stuff between you and Dr. K. I'm not going to defend what I clearly know to be correct just to feed your need for dispute. I will not be responding further to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As Niteshift explains, an actual magazine is usually considered a reliable source. A magazine by virtue of being an organisation with paid staff which controls the material being published is better than a single enthusiast who publishes his opinions on his own website. The organisation which controls the magazine has quality safeguards and editorial standards which make it credible to its readers and the general public. Such safeguards are lacking or at least are not apparent in a website published by a single enthusiast who titles his article "Unbreakable", a clearly POV approach to publishing. Having said that, if my explanations are still not enough I am not interested in continuing explaining this further because I think the matter has been explained enough and any further elaboration would be counterproductive. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Help needed
here I have just been told that the use of academic articles for an incident in 2002 are "academic crap which make up stories long after the incident" That the acdemices are "conspiracy theorists" That sources such as Princeton University Press, Oxford & The Johns Hopkins are "biased academic crap" And rather that use any academic sources we should use newspapers from the period which covered the incident. I would like a few editors to pop over and explain which sources are the better here on Wikipedia. BTW this is what was removed in favour of PRIMARY sourcesm opinion pieces, and newspaper reports from the time of the incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this is best handled as a straightforward black/white policy issue. At a first reading the discussion could be improved by both sides not treating the other's position as more extreme than it is. It is clear that concerning recent events, academic sources are not always automatically the best, or in any case do not always give a full picture as per WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not really a recent event Andrew, and it has been covered extensively by academic publishers. The article before I tried to fix it had as sources primary documents, interviews for statements of fact, sources from the period of the incident. These are not good sources by any stretch of the imagination. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Article 2002 Gujarat violence is written by community over 10 years and user:Darkness Shines calls it Shite. He has created his own version of article here in user space and slowly replacing whole article with his own POV version. Articles on similar incidents of violence like September 11 attacks use media sources. But user is removing reputed media sources and has picked up so-called 'academic sources' because his POV don't exist in reputed media sources. neo (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? So I am pushing a POV because I am using the best sources available? Why do you not point out where exactly is it I am pushing this POV, name one thing POV about my edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one do not want to take a side in this discussion. I simply mention that both sides in the discussion are using words that do not give much chance for discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines along with User:Dlv999 are inventing a new guideline in wikipedia that we have to only use academic sources and that also western academic sources neglecting what tenured Indian scholars or columnists have said. I will not say that the sources are partisan but they are cherrypicked sources as evident by his various recent page move requests. The Legend  of Zorro  09:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rally? Where did anyone say that then? And guess what, a lot of the sources I used are written by Indian scholars. Please do not say I have said something when I have not. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am saying it per my experience. Either Western authors or a highly select group of self identifying leftist Indian historians. The Legend   of Zorro  10:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think talking about specific sources and the claim made by them would be more useful. To start with, which sources do you feel are self identifying leftist Indian historians? Rahul Jain (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the only reason you are here is stalking the edits of User:Neo.. And to answer your original question see this section. The Legend   of Zorro  10:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Even that sections says All opinions are from either Leftist historians or western scholars. Can you name one or two sources which are leftist historians placed in one of the recent edits on the article 2002 Gujarat Violence? Rahul Jain (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you try to keep most of the sources editors feel are important, rather than trying to eliminate the others? Once again I have not looked at the details, but am just observing the style of discussion. My comments are guided by the spirit of WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Somewhat difficult to do Andrew as all the other guys are saying is that the academic sources are crap. They have not even brought any sources to the table, just screaming that I am pushing a POV. Funny how it is always me pushing the wrong POV and never them Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources will normally be reliable for this article, although they may need balancing. If you want further comments you will need to be more specific. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Judith, if by balancing you mean putting in opposing viewpoints I have been doing that, all one has to do is look at the work I have been doing in userspace and that, I hope, will be obvious. I have spent around six days reading and finding the best possible sources for this article, I have spent hours searching for opposing views, the problem is the only opposing views are from the same people who orchestrated, or at the least allowed the attacks to carry on. Click on the extended content, those sections I believe are more or less wrapped up, the rest is still being researched. I would appreciate any feedback on the content I have written, I have worked damn hard on this and have done my best to show both POVs. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at your version and it looks very useful work, thanks. You may still need to defend the sources you're using. It's better to raise the questions here one by one rather than en bloc. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now if questions had been asked I would be able to do that, but all I am getting is the familiar mantra of "POV POV POV" See this thread, four/five times I asked what was wrong with the content, only one thing was put forward which was instantly disproved. That was the end result of discussions yesterday, one supposed POV issue was was easily refuted. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll have to work line by line and be prepared to discuss every change on the talk page. If you think existing material is poorly sourced you can come back here. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Son of the Bronx
A site hosted on Blogspot run by a television ratings analyst named Douglas Pucci, which claims to get its ratings info from Nielsen Media Research. Primarily used in episode list articles, where it is used to cite viewing figures (ex. 1, 2). It's been cited by a couple of third-party reliable sources, including Yahoo! and TV by the Numbers/Zap2it.

Seems legitimate on first look, but whether it meets the criteria to be a reliable source has yet to be determined. I'm not decided on whether it can actually be used as a reliable WP reference. It could meet the reliability criteria if it satisfies the following, taken from Verifiability ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."). Any feedback? Holiday56 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Pucci's blog might qualify for the "expert exemption"... but why rely on him when we can cite directly to Neilsen for the viewing figures? That would be a much better (more reliable) source. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I had thought of this, but wasn't exactly sure how exactly a direct citation to Nielsen would be formatted; perhaps the report citation template is most appropriate. Any other suggestions? Holiday56 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Malik Zulu Shabazz
Is ADL (a group with a long list of detractors for being a agent of Zionism a R.S for a living persons bio, Malik Zulu Shabazz to be used liberally without caution? I have my own opinion but would like to have some clarity on this issue. Because it is like using a site known for smear campaigns against anyone who speaks ill of zionism. And there is no shortage of people saying this and complaining about Abraham Foxman. It is clear ADL is not a neutral party like Human rights watch, Anti-Slavery Society, or other non-religious, non-political, non-racial org. Moreover, it uses very unbalanced, polemic, language like RACIST, Antisemite very liberally. Why not just use Final Call if we want that type of tone? Basically can it be used so liberally? --Inayity (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The ADL is being used as a source for (a) Shabazz's birth name and date of birth, the fact (b) that he established Black Lawyers for Justice, (c) that he promotes antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theories, and (d) that the ADL considers him an antisemite. The article has nine other sources—including The Final Call—that are used a total of 18 times. I don't see what the problem is. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the source in question being used "liberally without caution", but rather carefully, in a balanced way, and I also note that the article incorporarates a variety of other sources as well.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because i edited it out. Obviously user Malik Shabazz does not see the problem, but let us just agree then, that does not mean there is not a problem. ;-]--Inayity (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ADL is a reliable source for facts and for their own opinions. As long as we distinguish between the two, it should not be a problem.  TFD (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House
Are these two posts reliable sources?:
 * Alaska Business News
 * Denver Business Journal

I believe they are basically press release reposts being used in a very controversial area, where much better sources are available. Another editor alleges they are proper secondary sources. I believe that this source is indeed reliable. I have a disclosed COI.

Hoping to get more input. See related discussion here. Also note, I have annotated the article with Better source needed templates where I believe press releases are used as sources in the controversy, though I certainly know there are enough reliable sources to author a substantial body of content that are based on secondary sources.CorporateM (Talk) 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Many newspaper articles especially about business are based on press releases. While the press releases are not rs, the articles are because the newspaper has made a judgment on how credible the press release is.  OTOH, we are supposed to use the best sources available, which would be business sections of major newspapers or national business journals, which often would have a legal correspondent who would have read the legal documents.  If major news sources do not cover the case, then it becomes an issue of neutrality.  Generally if these sources ignore a story then it is hard to justify inclusion for a story about a company with a high national profile.  If you think that any of the information in the articles is inaccurate, then you can compare them with the written agreement, provided it is available.  TFD (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * State press releases are not "best source" and the source you proffer is, indeed, a better source. The "written agreement" is, of course, a "primary source" on Wikipedia.  I notice the NYT ignored this particular case. Collect (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have the subject-matter expertise to contest the facts. I think you are right, that it is actually a neutrality complaint, because my issue is that the material is written from the plaintiff's point-of-view, since it is written on the basis of the plaintiff's press releases. The "more reliable" source certainly carries a much different (and more neutral) tone. And I'm sure press releases from PCH would be equally bias. It is also a substantial body of material sourced to mediocre sources, creating a very overt weight issue.


 * Anyways, I have proposed on Talk that the paragraph and five bullets should be replaced with a couple sentences based on the "more reliable" source. Does that seem like the right approach? CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously the press may not be neutral and it is possible they cannot be neutral because they select which stories to cover or ignore, and whose opinions to include. But the neutrality policy only requires that we reflect what sources say.  So any lack of neutrality in the media will be reflected here.  I will comment further on the talk page.  TFD (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . I think its usable. They're not a RSf for notability purposes, but they're a RS for the material they include unless contested by better sources. But as CM says, there are probably better sourcesi n this area, so why not use them?  DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In this particular case, the lawsuit is very small ($3.5 million) and the only available sources are a few brief blurbs - that is for this 2010 lawsuit specifically - yet we have an entire paragraph and five bullets devoted to it, where a sentence would do. A few editors have pointed out that it is actually more of a weight issue, so I may have taken it to the wrong board in that regard. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the WP:RS aspect is just one component of several. Second is actual reliability with respect to the items which cited it. Actual reliability is a total different topic than being a wp:reliable source.....to its credit this noticeboard usually addresses that as well. Finally, two more question are whether the material is wp:undue, and whether it summarizes what in the sources. The two noted articles I believe meet the letter of wp:rs but, if as you say ( I did not immediately see that/ look into it), they are basically based only on press releases from the plaintiffs, then I would consider their actual reliability in discretionary areas (wording, spin, choice of emphasis) to be low. The source that you provided at first glance looks pretty good. But I would also deal with this at a content level, not just source credentials. E.G. what is the statement in question? Is it a summary of what is in best available sources? Etc. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the content in question:

In September 2010, to settle contempt charges that it had violated one of the 2001 agreements—specifically that they would not mislead consumers to believe that purchasing magazines and other products increases the chance of winning  —the company entered into a supplemental judgment with 33 states to extend consumer protections set forth in its 2000 and 2001 multi-state settlements. They paid a total amount of $3.5 million to cover the total cost of the states' joint investigation. Specific terms of the 2010 settlement include:
 * Increased outreach to customers with frequent purchases (High Activity Customers) to ensure that they understand that “no purchase necessary" means that no purchase is necessary to enter or win, a key principle of a legitimate sweepstakes
 * Cease using the tactic of sending a communication from the “Board of Judges” to indicate that the recipient is close to winning
 * Enhanced description of different giveaways offered in the same promotional mailing
 * Additional messaging that sweepstakes winners are selected randomly
 * Hire an ombudsman to review the company's solicitations on a quarterly basis.

CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to respond to this, but this is a lot more simple to determine. If a press release is an RS, then these are fine sources. My general understanding is that press releases are not considered RS. Just because a media outlet decides to use a press release as an article, does not make it reliable if there is no original reporting involved. It is very easy to determine if it is just a reprinted press release, just take the first paragraph, copy it and google it. If you can find that on multiple sites, they did not even bother to do anything other than just print a press release. Which is the case in both of these sources. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail (UK): use in BLPs
There's been a large number of mass edits to BLPs by Hillbillyholiday and John. I've not reviewed or counted them, but Hillbilly has said its 50 or so. The purpose of these edits appears to have been to remove tabloid, especially Daily Mail, cites from the articles.

I've no problem with someone improving sources; it's what I spend the majority of my time here doing. However, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. The process seems to be Hillbilly removes all the Daily Mail cites and replaces with {cn} and then John swings by the next day to remove all unsourced claims (and any tabloid-supported points that slipped through the net).

In Sally Bercow these changes were reverted by Obscurasky who asked for an explanation. WP:BLP was cited, but no explanation was forthcoming as to why the Daily Mail was being blanket-removed. Instead, Hillbilly called John in, who said: "WP:BLPSOURCES is the place to look for guidance." One revert and a level-4 warning later, I found out that John was an administrator, but even then he seems to be unable to point to a discussion/judgment/pronouncement/whatever that says the Daily Mail is entirely unsuitable for BLPs.

It does appear that it is a RS for WP as a whole (of course, BLPs are a special case), albeit one that you need to treat with more caution than most (i.e. evaluate on a case-by-case basis). There have been a bunch of discussions around the subject, but this is perhaps the most pertinent (as it is relatively recent and had a vote):
 * Time to axe the Daily Mail (Oct 2011) Support 4, Undecided 1, Oppose 5.

John's expanded WP:BLPSOURCES point was this: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Fine, but the stress was placed on the wrong part of the quote. Contentious material is the key there; if there's material that's both notable and uncontroversial, and if the Daily Mail article is judged to be reasonable, then why not use it?

The result has been the removal of notable but not contentious points in the Sally Bercow article. Along with some points that shouldn't be there; I'm not pretending that everything they've done is wrong, just that the points have not been considered on their merits. If that's happened on the Sally Bercow page, it's likely happened somewhere else (i.e. Grandiose and Escape Orbit have questions about the changes to the Andy Murray article)

Other examples are John's removal of content because it had a Daily Mail reference, when 5 seconds of searching found a BBC cite to replace it and Hillbilly's removal of a source written by the person in question. These were examples I found quickly (i.e. they were both found in the first articles I looked at).

There seem to be two issues (please feel free to edit this if I've got the format/process wrong). Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay to use it for non-contentious statements?
Things like confirming middle names and other non-contentious material. Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, BUT - define contentious. The positive, neutral or negative wording is used to exclude material that may or may not be, in the public sphere, contentious (such as middle name, or something you might think is harmless), but which an EDITOR on WP may doubt is correct. The editor who removes has an obligation to state what they dispute, otherwise you are free to assume they have no such dispute. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis for contentious statements?
Things like detailed interviews with the subject, especially when directly quoted, vs. Daily Mail statements about immigrants. Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is RS for almost everything other than likely slander or libel - thus almost all factual claims are pretty solid in the DM. It is not all that good for "Hilda Gnarph has secret love child by Prince William" or the like. Investigative reports on MP spending etc. have been shown to be accurate, and there is no real reason to disparage it as a source for such matters. Collect (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Collect. At the very least it will often be useful. As a general remark I would add that I believe there is wide consensus on WP for the fact that reliability in sources can be very context sensitive. Of course there can be special cases, but normally it is not going to be widely acceptable to delete things just based on the source being used and no discussion about the case. This newspaper is not quite that bad!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It meets rs and should be treated no differently than any other newspaper. In general however one should use broadsheets and if they do not cover a story, then consideration should be given whether it is significant.  TFD (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In links to past discussions you will see me arguing the same position as Andrew and TFD here. But my view of the DM has shifted somewhat - after consulting it more frequently. It is a tabloid rather than mid-market. If apparently factual content is only in the DM then it is likely to be gossip, unless it is part of a major investigation. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)_


 * Agreeing with opinions given above, I'd put it like this: it is legitimate, and often a good idea, to replace a citation of the DM with a citation of a "broadsheet" such as Telegraph, Times, Independent, Guardian, Observer. It isn't legitimate to remove material sourced to the Daily Mail just because of the sourcing.
 * The Daily Mail has enviable reach (as shown by the fact that Judith is consulting it more frequently!) Which means that any worthwhile story it prints is likely to be taken up by those other papers fast, and their reports will make better sources in the long run. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No - I support its wholesale removal from Wikipedia articles. We tolerate poor fact checking more than we should, but when newspapers move on to story fabrication (which we caught the Daily Mail doing in the past) that revokes RS status in my eyes. If something is worth mentioning then just find another source. Enough is enough. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with your concerns Itsmejudith and Betty Logan, but keep in mind that asking for case by case discussion, and being against wholesale deletions, is not the same as saying we should in fact use the DM for any specific purpose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. We've "caught" even the New York Times in story fabrication (Jayson Blair); evaluate case by case for contentious material (though with a bias towards exclusion, especially of gossip). --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with this. "Evaluate on a case by case basis" is a good rule for evaluating the reliability of all news sources.  Even solidly respected news sources (BBC, New York Times, etc) can be deemed unreliable in certain cases... and even the least respected sources (National Enquirer, New York Post) can be considered reliable in certain cases.  Sure, there may be more instances where the Daily Mail ends up being deemed unreliable when compared to other news sources... but that does not mean it is always unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Is a footnote from a 1980 Supreme Court opinion in 1980 a reliable source for the Supreme Court's view of the law in 1980?
1. Source:  the United States Supreme Court Specifically, in footnote 8 of United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 (1980)(6-3 decision; dissent did not dispute law in footnote)

2. Article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

3. Content: I want to say in the article:

"The United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 n. 8 (1980) that the Miller case held 'the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'' Appellate courts from 1942-1997 concurred."

I've been told that I may not mention the Lewis case in the article in any context.

4. Context:  United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 (1980)  was a case in which the Supreme Court found a conviction of a defendant who had no attorney may still be the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by a criminal sanction. The court also found in footnote 8 that this legislative restriction on the use of firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.

Footnote 8 is provided in full below (emphasis added):

"'These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson , 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States , 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied , 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).'"

The debate over whether to include Lewis in the otherwise lengthy article comes in the context of the question of what the law was in 1980. I contend the Supreme Court believed in 1980 what they said they did, as did the 11 circuits of the United States Court of Appeals from 1942 to 1997 who said the same thing or used even stronger language. See, e.g.:

Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942); United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1997); Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1993); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1978); and United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)

The opposition to including this information claims the Supreme Court and these eleven appellate courts are unreliable sources. Instead they claim the decision was "ambiguous" in these years because some commentators (although no court decisions) say so. (I'm fine with including the commentators' opinions, as long as they are stated as opinions and not fact.) The opposition also claims that the Lewis case cannot be cited because it did not primarily concern the Second Amendment, even though some of the appellate cases did. They also contend that because the Supreme Court disavowed Lewis 28 years later in 2008 that the Supreme Court's holding in Lewis regarding the Second Amendment cannot be mentioned in wikipedia. I contend that in the context of an article purporting to be about the history of the interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is OK to state what the law was in 1980 and for 60+ years.

[Although this is a more a NPOV issue, I should note there is a plenty of room in the article. The Second Amendment article focuses at extensive length on one-sided opinion while editors have expressly refused commentators who disagree with this opinion to be represented. There is also extensive 17th Century and 18th Century history prior to adoption of the Amendment and a little bit of 19th Century as well. But the 70 years from 1939-2008 are played down in a brief poorly sourced paragraph at the end of the article that editors have not allowed, after extensive talk page discussion for more than six months, to mention Lewis or these appellate cases. I contend the actual 20th Century law is at least as relevant as the pre-Revolution commentators to the history of the Second Amendment and that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the appellate courts in those years are reliable sources for what the law was during these years.]

We've reached an impasse. Please advise.GreekParadise (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court's comment in Lewis is relevant information on how the Justices of the Court viewed the Second Amendment in 1980. It is not completely authoritative, because as has been noted the Second Amendment was peripheral to the case (in lawyerspeak, the comment was dictum rather than part of the holding of the case). If there were a more relevant Supreme Court case from that era to cite about the Second Amendment one would cite that one instead, but (to the best of my knowledge there isn't). So I think it is permissible to mention the case, but the fact that this was a comment in a case primarily about another topic could also be mentioned. To call a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States an "unreliable source" as to what the law was as of the date of the decision would be to go too far. And to say that because the law has changed since 1980 means that the law as of 1980 can't be mentioned, would be to say that Plessy v. Ferguson is a candidate for deletion, which cannot be correct. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Newyorkbrad's assessment, the concern that seems most salient to me in this instance is no RS but OR. Is there possibly a secondary source that makes note of this decision and the comment in question? siafu (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of them, including the American Bar Association here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/u_s_supreme_court.html, but they have rejected all my secondary sources including some I consider reliable such as the New York Times and the Library of Congress as "unreliable" so I thought the safest bet was to quote the decision directly itself.GreekParadise (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Supreme Court Footnotes largely come in two varieties: citations and explanations. Citation footnotes simply cite a source that was referenced in the main text of a document and are rarely employed by the Court. Analysis of the modern court’s use of footnotes is difficult because most Justices do not write their own opinions. In the Lewis case footnote 8 refers to another case that supposedly refers to Miller. The problem is that quoting this footnote, as an excerpt of Miller gives a distorted view of Miller. The Lewis opinion did not argue the 2nd Amendment or Miller as this was not a 2nd Amendment case. As Scalia pointed out in Heller:"Miller was briefly mentioned in our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), an appeal from a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The challenge was based on the contention that the prior felony conviction had been unconstitutional. No Second Amendment claim was raised or briefed by any party. In the course of rejecting the asserted challenge, the Court commented gratuitously, in a footnote, that “[t]hese legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller … (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Id., at 65–66, n. 8. The footnote then cites several Court of Appeals cases to the same effect. It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued."


 * The secondary sources, given by GreekParadise, do not comment on the case or its meaning but rather just quote the footnote. Trying to present it otherwise is OR. Grahamboat (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Citing a primary source is perfectly ok, a secondary source is never mandatory. All that needs to be done is to present the footnote as it is written without any explanation or expansion on what the footnote means. If it is stated in a neutral fashion of what the footnote says it is not a violation of OR. I don't know why some think simply using a primary source means its OR, to take a primary or multiple primaries and come to your own conclusion is OR. Simply stating what a primary source says is not.Camelbinky (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If an issue of law mentioned in a court case is essential to the decision then it becomes a precedent and is binding on future courts. If it is not, then it is dicta, and may have no effect on the interpretation of the law.  If the winning party presents more than one argument any of which alone would make their case successful then it is not clear that any precedent has been set.  Also, court decisions may be controversial.  Since it requires original research to interpret court decisions, we should rely on secondary sources.  Unfortunately this whole article relies far too much on primary sources, i.e., court cases.  TFD (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

someone re-adding material from unreliable sources
I'm trying to stop short of an edit war at the Conan chronologies article. By all interpretations, the article has had problems with people adding information from widely popular, but still self-published and unreliable sources. (In this case "REHUPA -- the Robert E. Howard United Press Association. A group of fans devoted to the fanship of the author.)

I would appreciate a second or third pair of eyes on the article. As is, the article is sourced to primary and other sources affiliated with the author/fiction itself. We don't need someone to make things worse by adding fan theories. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Skeptic Dictionary - Deepak Chopra
Two editors believe this diff is unreliably sourced. Is the notable source Skeptic's dictionary (see to access specific pages 45-48) by Robert Todd Carroll reliable for the following text in that diff: IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”.
 * 2. According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”
 * 3. Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others.


 * Claim 2 is clearly a personal opinion of the author, and citable as opinion of the named author and not as fact. Claims 1 is properly sourced as opinion. Claim 3 is not made in the source given, and thus fails entirely for that source.  Collect (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much with Collect on this one; the Dictionary is an opinionated but useable source. The citations should include in-text attribution to make clear that they are opinion, per WP:ASF. MastCell Talk 17:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (An aside, as an editor involved in this discussion ... I think the third use is to support the influence on Chopra of "others", since the Krishnamurti claim is sourced separately, and RTC goes into some detail on influences on Chopra - this probably needs to be unpacked a bit in the article). Alexbrn talk 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * John Wiley & Sons is a reputable publisher and the book has been received favorably by other reliable sources such as the The Guardian, Los Angeles Times and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And opinions in reliable sources are ... opinions. I did not call it "not RS" but only pointed out the normal BLP usage - that opinions should be labeled as such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I was contradicting you (or at least that was not my intent). I'm just adding a comment that this source is reliable generally speaking.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to impugn you at all -- just making my oft-iterated comments about opinions about living persons - I think I have posted pretty much the same wording several dozen times now . Collect (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I also agree with collect and have made the appropriate edit, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)