Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 152

Nobiliana.de forum
This query is linked to a BLP concern. The Ferdinand Soltmann section of Haemophilia in European royalty describes the medical status of an otherwise non-notable descendant of Queen Victoria and discusses his ancestry, citing a web forum post that is behind a subscription wall of some sort at Nobiliana.de. The forum post is by a royalty follower named Arturo Beéche, who is claimed to be an 'expert', but as far as I can tell his only claim to expertise is self-publishing (web site and book publisher, eurohistory.com). It seems this may not be a WP:RS, and hence may be a WP:BLP violation. Agricolae (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted. We don't use forums for a start - among other things, who knows whether the person calling himself Beeche really is Beeche? We certainly shouldn't use anything that isn't a spotlessly reliable source to call someone a haemophiliac. I've deleted the section. We still have Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but it is unclear (and I couldn't look to tell without subscribing) whether it really operates like a forum - the announcements forum required special status to initiate a thread, so it may be operated more like a team blog, with a group of privileged contributors making posts and subscribers only allowed to discuss them. That would provide more certainty of source, and perhaps allow us to evaluate the privileged contributors individually, my own evaluation being that Beéche isn't an 'expert' (as WP:RS defines it), and hence his contributions are not reliable anyhow.  While it was most critical for the BLP implications, if the source is unreliable the whole section was doomed and that was bolder than I was willing to be without a second opinion. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Policymic
There is a continuing dispute at War on Women regarding the use of Policymic.com as a reliable source, especially in regards to BLPs. Its editorial standards are somewhat lax, using more of a crowdsourcing model, and their standards for writers seems overinclusionary. It's never been discussed here as far as I can tell, so it would be nice to nip this in the bud. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The site seems indeed to have some kind of crowdsourcing policy, which is interesting. WP:IRS mentions editorial policy/oversight repeatedly as a criterion to be used when assessing sources and this kind of site up very well in that regard, although some contributors may be reliable in their own right. The material sourced from Policymic seems to be sourcable elsewhere quite easily, such as here. The NYT is reliable for the information in that article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For this specific usage, the attempt is to link the material to the War on Women, not so much that the material itself is bad. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a crowd-sourced website. As such, it not considered a reliable source generally speaking.  At best, WP:SELFPUBLISH would apply.  In this particular case, the author, Audrey Farber, doesn't appear to an established expert previously published in the relevant field, and even if she was, SPS's can't be used to make claims about third-parties, especially living people.  The content itself looks OK at a glance, and you may be able to use this source which includes the quote. However, WP:SYNTH may apply as this source doesn't mention anything about the "War on women". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The title of the article mentions the War on Women. The website has an editorial staff and it's not going away. Condoleezza Rice has contributed. The content is not contentious in a way that would violate BLP. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Multiple politicians have posted on Daily Kos. What's your point? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And Daily Kos is also a RS here. Notable individuals don't usually contribute to non-RS. When they contribute, they give the source notability. It all comes down to how a source is used. If the content is especially negative, then there might be BLP issues. Otherwise not. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Daily Kos is not a reliable source, especially for BLPs. It's the definition of self-published, lack-of-editorial content.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's about as reliable as Fox News... They both represent different opinions and are RS for documenting them. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (reply to Brangifer) Are you crazy? Daioy Kos is a reliable source in the same way that Conservapedia is a reliable source. Equating it to Fox News is asinine. Fox is certainly biased to the right, in the same way that MSNBC is biased towards the left. Both, however, are reliable sources. Daily Kos is not, Conservapedia is not.  Horologium  (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Horologium, my should have cued you to not take my comment too seriously, but I can see why you missed it. I was actually just showing my disdain for Fox News, where the now-common joke ("Is that the truth, or did you hear that on Fox News?") is becoming more and more true every day. Hopefully Murdoch will soon be imprisoned in the UK and/or USA.


 * Daily Kos, for whatever reason, is deemed a RS for some purposes by many (you're in the minority) and is used widely here. Whether it is being misused would have to be determined on a case by case basis, but an overall ban (or deletion) on its use, just like such an action against Policymic, would be wrong. If the content is accurate and is backed up by other sources, we should be able to use it. In other cases it might be totally inappropriate to use it or Fox News. This all comes back to Wikipedia's rather esoteric use of "reliable" in RS. We obviously don't always use "reliable" as a synonym for "true" when quoting Fox News, at least a large part of the time. (According to WP:V we aren't concerned about "truth".) We mean that it's going to be there tomorrow and is notable (even if for its extreme bias and twisting of facts which keeps fact checkers in business), among many other shades of meaning we include in "RS". Regardless of this, I still use Fox News as a source when necessary. I will also use Daily Kos, MSNBC (which I never watch), CNN, Policymic, and Salon when they are appropriate. Each is usable under certain circumstances. Our RS policy is flexible in that manner. As for Conservapedia, I wouldn't use it for the same reasons I wouldn't use Wikipedia or SourceWatch. Their POV is irrelevant to the matter, but the manner of their creation is very relevant. Some of Policymic's and Daily Kos's articles seem to be of a much more reliable quality, and are attributable to one author, not a crowdsource. The quality of the individual article determines whether we can use it or not. The one in question hasn't been questioned by anyone on any noticeboard, thread, or talk page in this debate.


 * The current discussion is about the title of a Policymic article which ties Governor Nikki Haley to the War on Women for actions similar to those which have gotten other Governors and politicians tied to the WoW. She has shown that she's no different, and it has been noticed. There is no BLP violation because the content is not unduly negative, and it's covered elsewhere as well. The only possible reason for not wanting this same information from Policymic as found elsewhere not included in the WoW article is because of a desire to protect Haley. That's unwikipedian POV whitewashing. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, but some wish to tear it down through censorship. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that this Policymic article is a reliable source? Policymic appears to be crowd-sourced.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not only does it appear to be crowd-sourced (if you get enough "mic's" for your comments you can get promoted to publish your own opinion) there is no apparent editorial control. Arzel (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do either of you have proof that these accusations apply to this particular article? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Accusations? Excuse me?  I'm not involved in this dispute.  I'm simply responding to a question in good faith.  What I said was that this source appears to be crowd sourced and as such is not considered reliable generally speaking.  If I am wrong, then you can simply explain why I am wrong.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me. No offense intended. You (unlike some others) have always been civil with no apparent political POV to push. The way PolicyMic works applies to the comments. We're not quoting them. Comments are never RS. We're only quoting the article. I have seen no evidence that Audrey Farber's many articles are anything but her own work, and they are serious and quality work. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently a "Pundit level" user can have comments up to 750 characters. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've asked the top ten contributors to WP:RSN to weigh in on this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally, I understand that headlines are not to be used even from RS articles. Headlines are problematic for a variety of reasons. So even if this crowd-sourced site were reliable, this would still not work if the body of the article doesn't contain the "War on Women" verbiage. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When one questions a source, one should mention the article in the source and the edit it is meant to support, since both are necessary to determine whether the usage is consistent with rs policy. It helps to focus the discussion.  TFD (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's about the repeated removal of this content by GOP supporters. It's been in the article since at least June 20:


 * "In July 2012, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley vetoed funding for rape crisis centers. In a letter response, she said that the funding distracted from the state's "broader mission of protecting South Carolina's public health." " diff


 * It's two sentences, without anything of a BLP-problematic nature. It simply states the facts in a neutral manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely there must be better sources for this factual content? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes it would be better to find another source. Using a crowd-sourced source, even if high quality, is a bit of an issue for WP (as we also crowdsource, but we aim not to just reproduce other crowdsourcing). Concerning the fact that Condoleeza Rice contributed I would remind that a "source" has several dimensions in WP. One dimension is the individual author, and another is the publication. Condoleeza Rice might be notable even on her personal blog, but that does not make all blogs RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Policymic.com is precisely a "blog" site. makes no claims as to editorial controls or fact checking whatsoever. "Terms of Service" requires the blogger to be at least 13 years old, which is not really a sign of an RS site, as far as I can tell. "You are solely responsible for the activity that occurs on your account" tells us that the site assumes zero responsibility for anything published by any account. " All Content added, created, uploaded, submitted, distributed, or posted to the Services by users (collectively “User Content”), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such User Content" is also explicit. This site does not meet WP:RS at all for anything.


 * IN NO EVENT SHALL WE, NOR OUR DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, PARTNERS, SUPPLIERS OR CONTENT PROVIDERS, BE LIABLE UNDER CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE OR ANY OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICES (I) FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, DATA LOSS, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, COMPENSATORY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES (HOWEVER ARISING), (II) FOR ANY BUGS, VIRUSES, TROJAN HORSES, OR THE LIKE (REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE OF ORIGINATION), OR (III) FOR ANY DIRECT DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF (IN THE AGGREGATE) OF ONE-HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS ($100.00). SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Need anything be added to this discussion when the "all caps" part of its ToS is so clear? Collect (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Crowdsourced websites are not usually considered reliable, and I don't see any reason to make an exception for this one. That said, any source can be reliable in specific instances.  If someone like Condoleeza Rice posted to policymic, her posting might be covered under the "expert exemption" of WP:SPS (where we allow for personal websites, blogs and twitter posts under very limited circumstances)... However, that exception is author specific, and does not carry over to the postings made by others.  Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on why there is even a dispute, as the site is obviously not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Would someone here please stop throwing around the word "crowdsourced" without providing evidence? Maybe some part of the website which I haven't seen is crowdsourced (please show me where that content exists), but does anyone have any evidence that this article is crowdsourced? Comments are not RS, that's obvious, but the article itself....what about it? No one has yet objected to it. The author has many articles of high quality.


 * The objections above have often been (without using the words) about the comment's section below each article (something even major RS websites have, with similar disclaimers as above), without making it clear the objections could only apply to the comment's section. That's deceptive, and people have been sucked into believing the objections applied to the website or article. Let's have some evidence. The reliability of an article must be determined by its quality, not whether comments or other parts of the website are not reliable. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's treat the website, as in so many other cases, as an online politics/current affairs magazine. The articles are signed and the qualifications/standing/expertise of the authors vary. They are generally of the nature of essays, so it is difficult for us to evaluate the reliability of factual statements made in them. "The reliability of an article must be determined by its quality, not whether comments or other parts of the website are not reliable." Is there a reputation for fact-checking? I can't see one at the moment but please feel free to present evidence on that. At the moment we have to come down to the credentials of this author. If you want to say that she is an expert, please make your case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Judith, thanks for a thoughtful and balanced reply. You ask reasonable questions. I had never heard of Audrey Farber before this article. I still know little about her. What seems apparent is that she is a serious writer of quality work. Does she have to be a highly notable journalist before she can be cited at Wikipedia? We have no such rule. As far as real blogs goes (in 2008 Daily Kos was rated above Huffington Post by Time magazine readers), our policies that mention blogs (which previously completely forbad the use of blogs back in the day when all blogs were the rambling post-it notes of just about anybody) have now been updated so that we have been allowed the use of quality blogs since the blog format is now used on a nearly equivalent basis as other major websites, including blog formats being used as the main websites for businesses, politicians, and news websites. Therefore the above use of "blog" as a derogatory term is no longer justified. It's based on an unnuanced and antiquated understanding. Blogs must now be evaluated individually, and when it is discovered that the article in question is quality work, then it should be judged on its own merits.


 * Here are links to some of her works. Scan them and you'll see she's a hardworking journalist:


 * Her articles at PolicyMic, currently 65
 * Her articles at Mondoweiss, currently 12
 * Audrey Farber responds to proposed loyalty oaths


 * I'm just interested in this being judged on its own merits, not some political attempt to protect Governor Haley. Some of the editors behind this attempt at shoddy wikilawyering have a track record miles long of editorial actions designed to promote and protect Tea Party and Koch brother interests. They often do it by deleting opposing POV. That's not a good motivation for deletionism. It violates the spirit of NPOV by removing opposing POV. If the case for using this particular article to tie Haley's actions to the War on Women is too weak, then so be it, but I'd like it weighed by more neutral observers. Since her article is factual and backed up by many more notable writers and websites, I see no objection to its use. If there were any doubt about its accuracy, or if it made libelous statements, we wouldn't even have this conversation. As with all such matters, sources are about opinions with which we may or may not agree, but that should not matter for inclusion here. If an opinion presents one side of the political spectrum in a quality manner, we often use it to document that POV. We may not like it, and we may not think it's true, but we still use it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which editors are you accusing of "shoddy wikilawyering" here? The fact is that blogs are quite rarely allowed as sources for claims on any articles - and the claim "but this blog is well-written" is not found as an exception in any policy or guideline at all.  Now unless you manage to rewrite WP:RS, I rather think the preponderance of opinions here is clear.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't write "but this blog is well-written". The preponderance of opinions by known right wing supporters is obvious. I'm interested in more neutral opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Pray tell us who is a "known right wing supporter" that you so blithely disparage?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My contribution was specifically solicited. Farber (2012) "Nikki..." Policymic here is not reliable for the claims as: no editorial control, op-ed being used to source facts, no fact checking evidenced, public wiki. The content should be immediately removed as a BLP violation, or sourced against an appropriate article (not an op-ed) from a real media outlet with a reputation for accuracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at this page, and it clearly shows a policy of editorial control. It's not just a self-published blog. That said I think the more significant issue is going to be that of bias. The cited Audrey Farber article makes no real pretense to neutrality. The matters cited are not inaccurate (I verified them against a dozen other sources) but the reporting voice is conspicuously on one side of the issue. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mangoe, our sources and the authors we quote are not required to be neutral. In fact that's what makes our articles interesting. We document reality, including controversies. If we required neutrality from our sources, we'd have to delete a large part of Wikipedia and it would be "duh" reading, boring as hell and totally uninformative.


 * Neutrality is required of us, as editors, in the way we frame the content we add to articles. That does not apply to our sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The ultimate test of any source is that we have confidence that it tells the truth. It is one thing for sources to hold positions about an issue, but if adherence to that position obviously skews their reporting, then they are not reliable. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer is correct on this point. This is covered in WP:RS.  The examples I like to give is that MSNBC has a liberal bias and Fox News has a conservative bias, but their both considered to be reliable sources generally speaking.  (BTW, I'm referring to straight new reporting, not talk shows hosted by political pendants whose job it is to stir up their constituents and get ratings). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, July 11, 2013‎ (UTC)


 * AQFK is correct. On this point we do agree. We include differing opinions on all significant issues, and NPOV requires that we do so. Obviously people on each side are going to regard the opinions of the other side to be untrue. Big deal. That's life, and we document it. The issues in this article are obviously opinions, like much of the content at Wikipedia. Politics is definitely a playground for opinions, be they good, bad, or indifferent. Except for hard scientific fact, it's helpful to consider ALL sources as "opinions", not "truth". We're NOT about "truth" here, since that is a matter of opinion, and editors aren't supposed to make that kind of judgment call, except where scientific facts and theories exist. I'm rather shocked that Mangoe, who's been editing as a registered user since 2006, doesn't understand this. It's very fundamental. Even where hard scientific facts exist, we still include opinions about them, including some pretty false opinions.


 * Per WP:RS, Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." -- Brangifer (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, we don't necessarily include all POVs in an article. Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, only majority and significant minority viewpoints should be in an article.  Tiny minority and fringe POVs don't belong in an article unless, of course, that article is about or related to that POV.  But I'm getting a bit off topic, since NPOV is the purview of another noticeboard.  Getting back on topic, I don't think this qualifies as a reliable source.  Even if it were borderline, BLP requires that insist on high quality sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are totally correct about NPOV and weight issues. They aren't a problem here. As to fringe POV, the POV expressed is the one which justifies inclusion in this article. This is THE POV described here. It's not a fringe POV, but a POV held by the majority who voted Obama into office, thus it's a majority POV. As far as any BLP issues, no one has proven that there are any BLP issues here. There is nothing unduly negative or sensational, and the content is professionally written and fully inline with similar content in mainstream media describing Governor Haley's actions. Even editors in this discussion have agreed on that. Governor Haley has used the term "war on women" many times and has gone on record as denying that it even exists, while at the same time doing exactly the same things which have gotten many other politicians included here. She has been conspicuous by her absence, since her actions are no different. This article ties her in by using the exact wording we need here. The article expresses the majority POV which is so disliked by those who oppose inclusion here. I can totally understand why they object to the POV, but that is not a legitimate motivation for exclusion. They know that, so they are seeking other reasons. That's called wikilawyering, censorship, and deletionism, all unwikipedian actions. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest not reading into the motives of your fellow editors. My issue is with the use of the source, not with the claim.  If a mainstream, reliable source links Haley in on it, then I have no complaints with the addition. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We're getting off-topic here, but let me clear up something regarding WP:NPOV. NPOV is not determined by popular opinion (such as voting results) but by published reliable sources.  WP:WEIGHT specifically says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public".  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing how this matches up with any sort of cohesive journalistic editorial policy, it appears more to be about getting college credit for writing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That this appears on Policymic adds nothing with respect to WP:RS, it is not a newspaper with an editorial policy that would be recognized as such on WP. The ability of a submission to generate "buzz" does not qualify; in newspaper terms that would be like including letters to the editor as WP:RS if they attracted over 100 comments online. The WP:RS of the submission is entirely on whether the author, and their opinion is regarded as a notable expert on a subject; in this case the issue seems to be "what comprises this alleged war on women?". That the question of credentials or authority to declare this "war" is being discussed points to far greater problems with the article itself than with this reference. No, her opinion piece would NOT be considered an authoritative opinion meeting WP:RS on a similar article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I just want to be clear, is the consensus that Policymic not RS because it is a crowd-sourced site that explicitly states that it does not engage in editorial oversight? If so can this be closed? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Those words have been thrown around, but without any evidence. No one, even after I've asked for it, has presented any evidence that this article is crowdsourced. We're not citing the comments section. It's a serious article by an experienced writer. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The majority opinion here disagrees with your position on this. Collect (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but no one has yet provided any proof that the article is crowdsourced. Not a shred of evidence. Unless you're using some special definition of crowdsourced? Please provide a wikilink to your definition. IF that definition is relevant and also applies to Farber's article, then maybe we can have a meeting of the minds. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Brangifer, I offered evidence in my initial post on the matter, the one that launched the discussion. Multiple unrelated editors of various stripes agree with the assessment.   Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, neither here nor in a court of law. Accusations and charges are not evidence. Show me some evidence that Farber's article is crowdsourced in any manner. It is signed and authored by one person who has a good track record for serious journalism. Here are links to some of her works. Scan them and you'll see she's a hardworking journalist:


 * Her articles at PolicyMic, currently 65
 * Her articles at Mondoweiss, currently 12
 * Audrey Farber responds to proposed loyalty oaths


 * She's a well educated women who is an expert on her subjects. Her articles are largely about women's rights, rape, abortion, contraception, and the current political situation. This isn't about rocket science or genetics. It's about politics and opinion, and she's expressing the mainstream, majority POV, the same one expressed in the War on Women article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Crowd-sourced means essentially self published. Put aside the crowd-source problem, and the lack of editorial oversight. Even if it were true that the author was an "expert", which is apparently not from the description above, the problem with this source is more profound. This source is being used for "War on Women". Only the headline uses the term "War on Women". Nothing in the article says "War on Women". It is the well accepted consensus on wikipedia and this noticeboard that headlines are not RS. Headlines are not reliable sources. A quick search through the archives for headline will confirm this. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, crowdsourcing does not mean self-published. It means what we do here at Wikipedia. No one has yet proven that her article is crowdsourced. She wrote it. Period. Lots of notable websites, including the New York Times, publish articles by various people who submit them. I suspect that we're looking at such a case, except that this series of articles seems to have been solicited by Policymic. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And on the subject of "expert",("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") a search shows that she is a waitress/barista and freelance blogger with a BA in Middle East Studies. As such she would not meet the "expert" exemption for self-published sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought I made it clear above that this is not about rocket science or some specific scientific subject. This is about political opinion, and one need not be a certified expert on an opinion. Such certification does not exist, but when a writer researches and writes about a subject quite a bit, they certainly do gain a sort of expertise on the subject, and her writings clearly demonstrate that. Otherwise, her current occupation is irrelevant. Lots of freelance writers have various other jobs. We get the point that you're trying to dis her. It's just a distasteful way to do it. We don't have any clearly defined rule that marks the dividing line between when a writer becomes notable enough to be considered eligible for use here. In fact, their notability is not a requirement. If we had such a rule, it would be easier to make this decision. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of (positively) biased website
Source: "Professional EFT? or Easy EFT!" http://www.eftuniverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9206

Article: Emotional Freedom Techniques - proposed on the Talk Page

Content: [This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders; they say that EFT has the advantage of being both a simple self-administered personal growth tool, and a clinical tool for professional EFT practitioners.] This was originally proposed for the lead section, but is now being contemplated to be proposed for the "Process" section as a third party source.

Discussion:
 * The Argument Against Using: It is a sales/publicity type site. It certainly doesn't look like a reliable source for anything. WP:Refspam applies - "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced"
 * The Argument For Using: Website has a Books and DVD's (for sale) section; website has lots of information, a very pro EFT site. Per WP: Identifying reliable sources "Biased or opinionated sources: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." WP:Refspam is not applicable. Petefter (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be a reliable source - I can't see any information about the authorship of the site's content (other than it being owned by "Energy Psychology Group"), and it seems to have been created to promote this concept and market products related to it. I'd really question why there would be any need to use this as a reference - it's a pretty low-quality website. A quick search of Google scholar suggests that there are academic papers on this topic, and they should include some coverage of what this has been suggested as a treatment of. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a reliable source. I don't even think it would qualify as an external link as it violates WP:ELNO 2 and 5.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a bogus argument because this isn't a reliable source. Both RS and ELNO would eliminate it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, totally unreliable and does not meet EL requirements, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Heraldica.org
Heraldica.org is a hobby site run by François R. Velde who may well be a reliable source for economics but I don't see this as meeting our criteria as a source for geneaology and heraldry. It's used quite a bit so if it's agreed it shouldn't be used will need cleanup. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's OK as an EL? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a personal website, but people at WP:ELN might see it as acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw it used as a host site for images coats of arms, which I think is OK if the material is uncontroversial. Our clean-up campaigns haven't attracted as much attention as one would have hoped for, indeed none have been closed. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul Theroff
We've discussed Theroff before.. We use his site including his news site for a number of articles. Many of the articles, perhaps most, are BLP articles or include discussion of BLPs. He's extremely popular, but is that a good reason to use a self-published source, particularly in BLPs where it is explicit that we shouldn't? "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hog-dog rodeo
Would appreciate any attention to current issues involving sourcing. There is a discussion on the talk page involving a proposed move and some editing that I believe is not based on neutral sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of arsenokoites
This enquiry concerns sources cited in the article The Bible and homosexuality for the meaning attached to the Greek word arsenokoites (plural: arsenokoitai; abstract: arsenokoitia; verb: arsenokoitein) by writers of the 1st to the 5th centuries.

A. Is John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1981 ISBN 978-0-226-06711-7), pp. 350-351 a reliable source for the three unattributed statements:
 * 1) "It historically was not used to refer to homosexuality."
 * 2) "The word is used by Aristides of Athens (c. 138) clearly not for homosexuality and possibly for prostitution."
 * 3) "The word is used by Eusebius (d. c. 340) who evidently used it in reference to women."
 * For quotations of the words of Boswell on which these statements are said to be based, see this edit.

B. Is Robert A. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-42673078-8) a reliable source for the attributed statement: "Robert A. Gagnon states that 'in every instance where the arsenokoit- word group occurs in a context that offers clues to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list) it denotes homosexual intercourse'. He cites instances of its use by (eight Greek writers of the 2nd to 5th centuries)"? Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment on A. Of the three statements said to be based on Boswell, the second and third (preferably shorn of the editorial adverbs "clearly" and "evidently") have a basis in Boswell, but should be presented not as clear fact but as what Boswell says, since even Boswell does not claim scholarly consensus about what he is arguing for.  However, the first statement, even as a statement of Boswell's view, has no foundation in the phrase on which it is said to be based.  In that phrase ("The word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers") Boswell speaks of a single 1st-century writer.  In a strong contrast, the statement in the article ("It historically was not used to refer to homosexuality") is far more wide-ranging and is presented as undisputed fact.  (BTW, the lack of scholarly consensus about Boswell's view of what the word meant for Paul is evident, "with most commentators and translators interpreting it as a reference to male same-sex intercourse", as admitted even by the editor responsible for making Wikipedia say that "it historically was not used to refer to homosexuality".) Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but here goes anyway. The "-koites" element, deriving from a verb, means "go to bed with" (not "fuck", though one undoubtedly implies the other). The "arseno-" element gives the object of the implied verb. So the whole word means, as clear as day, "going to bed with a male or males."
 * Binksternet says I see two questions here. The first is whether Gagnon measures up to Boswell, which he does not. Boswell was highly respected, but Gagnon is sharply criticized for his practice of fitting the evidence to his preconceptions. The second question is whether Boswell is so authoritative that his conclusions can be assumed to be mainstream. I see on Google Scholar that Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality has been cited 1,434 times, an astoundingly high number for this topic. (Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice is cited 94 times.) This datum supports the idea that Boswell's pioneering work redefined the mainstream view. PBS Fronline says it "would be difficult" "to underestimate John Boswell's significance to the debate about Western attitudes toward homosexuals"... Catholic priest and scholar Daniel A. Helminiak writes in What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality that Boswell is a "top scholar" who has corrected the historically faulty translations of the Bible. Helminiak says "I rely most heavily on the work of John Boswell..." and two other scholars, gay theologian L. William Countryman and heterosexual theologian Robin Scroggs. Professor Guenther Haas writes that Boswell's book is a "major linguistic argument" which is supported by scholars Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, who agree that arsenokoitai cannot be a reference to homosexuality. Haas notes that a "devastating" critic of Boswell is David F. Wright, who agrees that -koites refers to fucking, but disagrees that the addition of the prefix arseno- means "man who fucks" Instead, Wright argues the word to be "man who gets fucked". The book The Boswell Thesis, edited by historian Mathew Kuefler, "brings together fifteen leading scholars" who discuss Boswell's work or use it as a platform for further research. The first four chapters are assessments of Boswell's great impact. After looking at the literature, I would gauge it this way: Boswell defines the modern mainstream, Wright is a minor viewpoint, and Gagnon is a fringe and reactionary figure. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So Boswell's view is the present mainstream, something easy to accept, but it is not the only present view. There is also, for instance, that of Wright and his supporters, such as Gagnon.  Even if Boswell's can be qualified as the mainstream view (Wikipedia may require for this some reliable source that says so rather than original research about Google Scholar hits - but I presume there are ways of getting around that), it still cannot be presented as the only view existing.  And does Boswell's remark about St Paul, contradicted as it is by most commentators and translators, justify stating as undisputed fact that (not only in St Paul but down the succeeding Greek-speaking centuries) arsenokoites "historically was not used to refer to homosexuality"?  Esoglou (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In the abstract, the subject of the verb (the governing noun of this adjective) can equally be male or female. Since Paul didn't give a noun, but used this adjective as if it were a noun, his meaning is, as clear as day, "those people who go to bed with a male or males". There is clearly room for argument about whether Paul meant "those men who go to bed with a male or males" exclusively, i.e. whether Paul meant same-sex coupling exclusively, but the word itself doesn't specify. Andrew Dalby 11:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The questions asked are neither about the meaning of the word arsenokoites nor about what view is mainstream, but:
 * A. whether the cited pages of Boswell are a reliable source for the absolute (not attributed) statement that the word arsenokoites "historically was not used to refer to homosexuality"; and
 * B. whether the cited pages of Gagnon are a reliable source for the statement of the existence of a view different from that of Boswell. Esoglou (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For A, yes. Boswell was a truly heavyweight scholar, and his book is a academically reviewed scholarly work published by a real academic press. Whether you agree with him or not, it is hard to argue that his scholarship was anything other than top-notch. Full-professor at Yale at the age of 35.
 * For B, no. Gagnon, while nno slacker, has nowhere near the stature of Boswell, and his book is primarily an apologetic work published by a popular religious press without the benefit of academic review. Skimming through the work, it's clear that Gagnon himself considers his ideas a minority within the academioc community, and scholarship clearly takes a back seat to apologetics.
 * To put Gagnon's opinion on the same level as Boswell's would violate WP:GEVAL. You would need a heavy-duty academic work by a heavyweight academic scholar in a real academic publication to represent any position opposed to Boswell's. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents: A) - No. Boswell is certainly reliable, but that statement needs attribution.; B) - probably not. There's got to be somebody more influential than Gagnon to supply the alternative (or is it mainstream? What makes something "mainstream" in a case like this?) view. What about Wright? Sorry, I don't really know much about Biblical linguistics, my father and grandfather have had more training in this area.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dominus Vobisdu and 3family6. However, the question is not whether Boswell is a reliable scholar, but whether the citation from his work is a reliable source for the unattributed statement that arsenokoites "historically was not used to refer to homosexuality".  The quotation on which this absolute statement is supposedly based is Boswell's "The word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers."  (Also, the unattributed statement supposedly based on Boswell is not about Biblical linguistics, as Boswell's quotation seems to be, but more about the various post-Biblical writers who used the word.)  Esoglou (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is reliable for the unattributed statement. It's pretty obvious, since it's the first instance of the word we know. What the word specifically meant to Paul and his readers is unclear and will probably forever remain so. What is abundantly clear is that Paul's understanding of same-sex relationships, and that of his readers, was very different from the modern concept of homosexuality. Ditto for the religious apologists and translators who followed Paul. Boswell's claim is therefore not at all surprising, and represents mainstream scholarship on the topic. He's not going out on a branch here, as Gignon clearly is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Back again to the question asked. The question is not whether Boswell was going out on a branch.  The question is whether the Wikipedia editor who wrote that arsenokoites historically is not used to refer to homosexuality (she indicated that she meant homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation) had a reliable source for her broad statement in what Boswell said about Paul and his early readers.  (Boswell was not stupid enough to imagine that Paul and his early readers had the modern concept of homosexual orientation.)  Esoglou (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just so I understand, the unattributed statement is referring to use of arsenokoites by writers other than Paul? Because that is true, though I don't know any specific sources. This doesn't really refer to Paul at all - Paul's use of the word is unique (I have my own belief as to why, but that's irrelevant.) Does Boswell make a claim about the general historicity of the term? If he does, he would be reliable for that. If he makes a statement about what Paul meant, that opinion is also reliable. But let's be careful not to conflate the two, unless Boswell makes that conflation. If he does make that conflation, then that should be attributable to him, unless it can be backed up by others.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A mere three of the specific post-Paul sources are given in the article as it now stands. Of the many more that exist, the Gagnon source gives at least nine (certainly more, since some pages are not available on Google Books) in which he and Wright think the context shows that they refer to homosexual activity.  No claim by Boswell about the general historicity of the term has been adduced by the Wikipedia editor in defence against the charge of making the conflation.  So it should be clear that the answer to the question is that the citation (and quotation) from Boswell that she gives is not a reliable source for her statement (covering both Paul and the later writers - "historically"), even if she gave the statement as attributed to Boswell. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, if your position is defensible, you should be able to defend it on its merits without inaccurately presenting the content of the sources or my own arguments. I provided you with a quote from a reliable source that explicitly states "the word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Roscelese, for intervening here. Then give us a citation from Boswell that is not limited to Paul but covers what you describe as "historically" - and not just the three post-Paul writers that you mention in the article: Aristides of Athens, Eusebius, and John the Faster.  Esoglou (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So this isn't a question about sourcing at all, but rather about whether "historically" accurately describes a period of five hundred years after the word's coinage? Then why don't you suggest other wording? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a question about the sourcing of your statement that "historically the word was not used to refer to homosexuality", for which you claim that Boswell's "The word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers" is a reliable source. Boswell's phrase is not a reliable source for your statement, which a) is not limited to Paul and his early readers alone; and b) is presented not as the view of an authoritative scholar, but as absolute fact.  Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also a difference between "connote" and "refer to". Here's a statement that is precisely based on Boswell: "to Paul's first readers the word did not connote homosexuality". In the contested statement quoted by Esoglou just above, "historically" is too vague and "refer to" is too imprecise. The word didn't connote homosexuality -- women, too, can go to bed with men -- yet Paul's readers may still have reasonably thought that, in Paul's use of this word in Paul's context, men going to bed with men were principally in view. Andrew Dalby 14:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify whether living and writing in the sixth century would still place someone among "Paul's first readers"? I'm referring to John IV, who, as we've said, also doesn't use it to connote or refer to homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting a close paraphrase of Boswell. So the question we'd need to ask (if it's relevant) is whether Boswell counted John IV among Paul's early readers. My assumption would have been that he meant much earlier readers than those of the sixth century ... but I haven't read him.
 * I'd say that whatever form of words we adopt, it should be attributed in the text as Boswell's opinion. There is clearly insufficient unanimity for a blanket statement about what this word connoted to readers at that period. (The one early use of it outside a Christian context -- that I'm aware of -- does refer to homosexuality, but adds another word to make this crystal clear: unluckily, from that meagre evidence you could argue either way about the connotation of the bare word.) Andrew Dalby 09:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, instead of proposing a doubtful synthesis, Roscelese, who has read the non-Internet pages of Boswell, will provide actual evidence that among Paul's "early readers" Boswell included the various writers who used the word down to the sixth century - and beyond, since "historically" doesn't end with the sixth century. Then the article can state this as Boswell's view.  As things stand, the statement said to be based on Boswell's quoted phrase and presented as absolute truth lacks a reliable source.  Esoglou (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Boswell is a reliable source, even if you personally disagree with him. I'm not sure why you're asking me to prove something I've never argued and for which I've in fact argued the contrary - I think Boswell is obviously saying that it wasn't just Paul's early readers that didn't use the word in this way, and that the later evidence he provides proves it. I'll repeat my earlier comment. "So this isn't a question about sourcing at all, but rather about whether 'historically' accurately describes a period of five hundred years after the word's coinage? Then why don't you suggest other wording?" We've established that there's no sourcing issue, so I recommend that you stop dragging out the conversation here and try to make productive contributions to the discussion by suggesting another way of phrasing the reliably sourced information. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unaware that anyone has denied that Boswell is a reliable source for statements truly based on what he wrote. The question here was whether the Boswell citation adduced by you was a reliable source for the statement that you were insisting on.  The discussion here seems to have reached agreement that the citation is not a reliable source for the statement.  If you do not oppose that agreement, I can return to editing the article from which you there told me to "take a rest".  Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you disagree, Roscelese, with what Andrew Dalby says: "Whatever form of words we adopt, it (the statement that you have formulated as "historically the word arsenokoites was not used to refer to homosexuality") should be attributed in the text as Boswell's opinion"? Please explain here, instead of just reverting the application of what he says.  And explain why you at the same time removed the tag that registers the fact that Andrew Dalby (and I) question your claim that the statement formulated by you is reliably based on the statement by Boswell, "the word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers".  Yours isn't the only opinion among Wikipedians.  Esoglou (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask Andrew if my attributing the statement to Boswell goes against his advice, instead of assuming everyone agrees with you? Based on this discussion, that is a very foolish assumption. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my rushed misreading because of shortness of time before going on a long journey today. Well, Andrew, do you think that Roscelese's already much improved (because no longer absolute) statement, "John Boswell states that it (the word arsenokoites) historically was not used to refer to homosexuality", has a reliable source in Boswell's "the word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers" taken with his claim (contradicted by others) that three post-Pauline passages used the word for something other than homosexuality?  (You, I notice, are someone who is aware how the word is used in the Greek Anthology 9.698.)  I think that an improved wording suggested by you would be more acceptable to Roscelese than any proposed by me.  I would be grateful for your help.  Esoglou (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a very hard question, because every word is being made to count here. "Connote" is not the same thing as "refer to". I know (and Esoglou saw my reference to this) that outside a Biblical context, but in the same language and at about the same period, this word was used to refer to male homosexuality. Just once; but that, I think, is our only external evidence. I'm quite sure Boswell knows it too (though, as I say, I haven't read him) and I'm sure that's why he words his statement the way he does.
 * And notice, Roscelese, how when I paraphrased from "Paul and his early readers" to "Paul's first readers", you came right back at me -- perfectly reasonably -- to ask how late a readership that would include. And my phrase was merely a last-moment attempt to vary the wording slightly before I pressed the save button ...
 * That -- and the whole discussion resting on our heads here -- strongly suggests to me that we shouldn't try to vary the wording at all. So, quote verbatim. So, I would say 'John Boswell states that it (the word arsenokoites) "did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers"'. I think that's the best I can offer. Andrew Dalby 11:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been silently watching this discussion, and I agree with Andrew Dalby: 'John Boswell states that it (the word arsenokoites) "did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers"'.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 12:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Weekly Worker and the Workers Vanguard
As part of the SPA heavy deletion discussion for Platypus Affiliated Society, only active keep!v has argued that for purpose of notability the Weekly Worker and the Workers Vanguard (the only sources that have made significant coverage that meets the WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG criteria) as reliable sources.

I have argued repeatedly that it is not, but they insist they are.

My argument centers in that while as notable journals in their topic area they might be reliable sources for supplemental information, verifiability, etc, their limited readership, partisan orientation (both are the official newspapers of political organizations) and their limited topic areas make them unreliable as a gauge of notability.

The assumption of good faith is thinning out - specially in the SPA heavy environment that smells of socks, so some uninvolved assistance/commentary might be good.

Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for outside assistance. I agree this is needed. At issue is whether these sources are reliable for establishing notability as media sources which cover the organization. I was under the impression based on WP:RS that these sources are reliable in that there is evidence and a reputation of fact-checking and editorial control. While the sources are arguably biased, according to WP:RS, these sources are being used to demonstrate media coverage and notability as per WP:GNG, for which bias is perfectly acceptable, indeed "Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" WP:RS. It would be great if we could clarify whether these sources constitute media coverage -- because the question is not using these sources to attribute statements of fact. Uninvolved commentary would be helpful, here. Eulerianpath (talk) 2602:306:CD91:2220:A488:F0EA:D38C:83D8 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable for notability of this group, because you would expect it to draw attention mainly in Left circles. More weight attaches to some of the other sources in the article, e.g. die tageszeitung. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The point of notability is that sufficient reliable sources exist to write at least a stub article. That a topic is covered only in a narrow section of the media is no reason for deletion.  Local organizations for example may only receive attention in local media.  The bias of the sources is not important either.  If a source is reliable then we should be able to identify facts for the article.

The main question then is whether these two publications are reliable sources. That depends on whether they are staffed by professional journalists, have fact-checking and are considered to be reliable by other media.
 * Most of the sources used for the article are opinions and I think should be removed because we cannot establish their significance in order to meet weight.
 * It seems the decision will probably be "keep." If you want to continue with this, I suggest after the AfD removing the opinions and researching the reliablity of the two sources above.
 * BTW I have edited similar articles and have found that there are few sources for modern left-wing groups, except where they have elected representatives. But if that is a failing of the media and scholarship, it is not something we can correct.
 * TFD (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * we can &should correct it partially in the customary way we handle cultural bias and difficult-to-sourcesubject, by being flexible in the sources we accept.  DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Krulwich & Jablonski
Please advise whether this National Public Radio interview of Nina Jablonski by Robert Krulwich on the topic of human skin pigmentation is a reliable source for use on the human skin color and race (human classification) wikipages. An editor has argued that it isn't, and that the following wikitext sourced to it is unverifiable:

"More recent research has found that human populations over the past 50,000 years have changed from dark-skinned to light-skinned and vice versa. Only 100-200 generations ago, the ancestors of most people living today likely also resided in a different place and had a different skin color. According to specialist Nina Jablonski, head of Penn State's Department of Anthropology, darkly-pigmented modern populations in South India and Sri Lanka are an example of this, having redarkened after their ancestors migrated down from areas much farther north. Scientists originally believed that such shifts in pigmentation occurred relatively slowly. However, researchers have since observed that changes in skin coloration can happen in as little as 100 generations (~2,500 years), with no intermarriage required. The speed of change is also affected by clothing, which tends to slow it down."

Jablonski is the head of Penn State University's anthropology department, and is one of the foremost authorities on the science of human skin pigmentation. She's written several papers on the subject, and received the W. W. Howells Award of the American Anthropological Association for best book in biological anthropology for Skin: A Natural History. This book and some of her other works are already cited as sources on the human skin color wikipage. Soupforone (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite probably RS, but, as with any academic and technical subject, it would be much, much better to cite her written and published work. It really is more easily verifiable, and it will include the nuanced arguments, the footnotes, etc., which a media broadcast necessarily omits. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured it was RS. I agree though that her written/published work would be preferable. Cheers - Soupforone (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is better to use a textbook or academic article. It is not clear btw whether what they are saying is a fact or an opinion.  TFD (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

For Lovers Only (film)
At For Lovers Only, there have been attempts to add content about a related documentary film on the making of the Film. The documentary is entitled How We Made Love. The source presented is this, which does not seem to be a WP:RS as it is not even a secondary source, but rather a primary source. I have removed this type of content twice now, but want to be sure I am doing what is right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

perezhilton.com
This site is currently used on a great many BLPs to state that a person is gay etc. Is this site generally to be regarded as a reliable site per WP:RS and WP:BLP for claims about sexual orientation of a living person? This came up at WP:BLP/N with regard to Mo Rocca. As a separate issue, where The Advocate attributes a claim about sexual orientation to a podcast, is such a source sufficiently strong to label or categorize a person by sexual orientation? (same discussion) Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolute violation of WP:BLPCAT to categorize or list someone, unless it is based on an unequivocal statement from the subject themselves. Perez is not a reliable source for inline statements of orientation. The advocate would depend on which podcast, and what their source ultimately was. If its a podcast interview with the subject themselves, then probably yes. Otherwise if it is someone commenting on someone elses gay-ness, i would say not. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're better off avoiding that source completely. Any big enough story will be covered by better sources.  Andrew327 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * perezhilton a WP:RS. NO. An easy call. WP policy insists statements of sexuality be either self-reported or both highly relevant and subject to the high standard of WP:BLP. Does not meet in any way.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Anonymous209.6 is wrong, there is no such thing as stating a source is not RS in EVERY case; but Gaijiin42 is correct, there are BETTER sources. A podcast interview of the subject themselves is a reliable source for what the interviewee says about themselves this has been clear unequivocal policy; an article that cites a podcast though may not be reliable if it can not be independently verified. The podcast itself can. Some podcasts are archived, as long as someone (not everyone) can theoretically verify the podcast, then citing the podcast is sufficient. Remember- verifiable does not mean EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME can verify something, it simply means someone could.Camelbinky (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We are talking about a CATEGORY designation, a very high sourcing requirement for WP:BLP, AND the reference to perezhilton is to perezhilton's REPORTING on what was contained in a radio show. Not known for reliable reportage EVER. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can someone point me to a WP policy that says this about sexual orientation? I was reading a lot of old Hollywood actors' articles (they were active in the period 1900s-1950s) and I keep running into assertions that actor A was gay because author X wrote a book about actor Z who told him (or intimated in some correspondence) that actors A, B, C, D, E, etc. were all gay friends of his. I realize that homosexuality in Hollywood was often hidden but I think someone's sexual orientation can't be determined based on one source that is not even a biography of that person.


 * For example, a dispute arose about Alan Ladd that required locking down the page because of differing understandings of whether one author's book about Hollywood (who only said that Ladd's orientation was "common knowledge") was sufficient to identify a person as gay (despite his being married and fathering children). This is only the most recent example I've come across but I've run into at least a dozen individuals whose sexuality was determined by one third party source (that isn't a well-researched biography of THAT person).


 * This isn't an ideological issue for me, I don't care what orientation a person is. But I do care about hearsay being written in as fact in a Wikipedia biography (living or dead person, I don't care!). I think it is okay to acknowledge that rumors exist but rumors aren't facts and "common knowledge" should be sourced. So, is there some official statement about this? Thank you! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for comments on influence of Cyropedia
This is perhaps a question of relative strength of sources. In this edit, one source is being used to trump another source, in order to make a comment about the nature of the influence of the Cyropedia on the founding fathers of the USA. I request comments on whether such trumping is acceptable in this case. Note that a third option is available which would be to mention both opinions, but also in this case some guidance would be appreciated on appropriate weighting. Neither source looks great to me, and so looking for better sources is perhaps also part of the eventual discussion needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * source 1. Cliff Rogers (USMA) as quoted in http://www.spentaproductions.com/Cyrus-the-Great-English/cyruspreview_english.htm
 * source 2. Rezakhani, Khodadad (2013). "Cyrus: the Tale of a Cylinder". Iran Opinion, May 2013. http://iranopinion.com/node/48
 * OK, quick response: source 1 is apparently self-published and probably self-promotional; source 2 is an opinion piece written by a reputable academic and published on a site that appears to exercise editorial control. It's competently written and cites proper references; I had a quick look to see if it had also been published elsewhere, but didn't find it. It does not state that Jefferson had 2 copies of the book, only that that claim has been made. It does confirm the use of the book as an example of Greek literature. I agree about better overall sources for the article. "Cyropaedia" gets over a thousand hits on JSTOR; the first 25 all look as if they deserve at least a glance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I started looking at it a bit more and noticed that actually the paragraph just before this one already gives a better sourced comment about the influence of the work on enlightenment thinkers, making this particular passage less critical. Maybe the latest edit is acceptable, as it long as it does not detract from the fact that at least some of the Enlightenment political greats in that period saw Xenophon (and Machiavelli) as important to their political thinking and not just "learning and refinement".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wizard 1986 – The Michael Berk Collection
Is there any reason to consider The Wizard 1986 – The Michael Berk Collection a reliable source for details of the life and work of Michael Berk? (Not that I can immediately see any details that it even appears to support). Would appreciate the opinion of others before I remove the only reference to a poor article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fansite of unclear authorship and provenance; I don't see any way we can regard it as a reliable source. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that. Does anyone have an opinion on whether it would pass muster as an external link (yes, I know this isn't the external links noticeboard). Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance, I'd say it's an acceptable external link. Andrew Dalby 09:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, advice taken. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

'Human Rights Watch' source
I am giving Human Rights Watch as source about Godhra train burning which triggered 2002 Gujarat violence. There are two theories, 'accidental fire' and 'attack by a muslim mob'. 'Accidental fire' theory is well-sourced. I want to use this and other sources for 'attack by a muslim mob' theory. But verifying this first. This is 2002 report and this is 2012 article which quotes their 2002 report. 2002 report states and I quote, "On February 27, 2002, in the town of Godhra, a Muslim mob attacked a train on which Hindu nationalists were traveling. Two train cars were set on fire, killing at least fifty-eight people." The 2012 article writes and I quote, "The violence in Gujarat started on February 27, 2002, when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob and caught fire, killing 59 people." :I am not stating it as fact in proposal. I am attributing it to HRW and I am directly quoting from sources but User:Maunus still accuse me of 'misrepresenting' source and also do not acknowledge reliability of source. Is the source reliable and am I misreprenting it? neo (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So is this the last forum where you will take up this line of argument? The the "muslim mob" theory is already in the article with better sources, the HRW source is not about Godhra and only mentions it in passing after which it goes on to describe the human rights violations against muslims in great length. You want to use it to cite a minor passage, that happens to be also at odds with its general point. That is called cherry picking and is a kind of misrepresentation of the source. The source is also not based on an independent investigation of the Godhra incident, here it just reports the conclusions of the Nanavati committee, and the research that it is actually summarizing is the research into human rights issues in the aftermath. It is not a source that can be used to source claims about Godhra, because it is not making points about Godhra. Now, why do you even want to include the source, when the Muslim mob theory is already mentioned in the article and supported by articles that can actually be used to support it?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I advised neo to come here, Maunus, so it's not forum-shopping. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus, whats wrong in saying that the theory is supported by the sources already present in the article and also by Human Rights Watch? And here you say that this is not an independent investigation, but on the article you very happily support opinions of writers who are sitting in Europe/America who certainly haven't investigated anything but simply opined based on other's investigations. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a problem that they didn't do an independent investigation. The problem is that they did do an independent investigation, just not of the Godhra incident, and by citing their investigation as supporting one theory of the Godhra incident it makes it seem as if their support comes from an independent investigation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's just me, but I can't see any merit in the reasons presented by User:Maunus for considering the sources to be anything but reliable for the train at Godhra being "attacked by a Muslim mob", though I would suggest possibly seeking a less condemnatory wording for inclusion in the article ("... a crowd of angry Muslims ...", perhaps?). I note that the sources do not specify the cause of the fire, and do not support "two theories". They appear to state that (1) there was an attack by a Muslim mob, (2) there was a fire on the train, (3) there were appalling reprisals and (4) there was a reprehensible lack of action by the authorities. The source is very clearly partisan on the last topic, but not necessarily on the others. It clearly and explicitly refers to events at Godhra. Or have I misread it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it is not reliable. I am saying that there are other sources that can be used to source that statement and that picking that one statement about violence by muslims against hindus from a report that is entirely about violence against by muslims against hindus is cherry picking. The information Neo wants to source is already in the article and with other, better sources, so there is nothing to discuss here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that the content is sourced, by this and other sources as well, but only other sources should be used and not this. I am sure you are aware that content can have more than one references and there is no sense at all in removing one source as long as it comes from a reliable publication; even if it were primary. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is usual tactics by Maunus to say that what I am asking for already exists in the article. Purpose of such statements is to stop other users from commenting or looking at this matter. this section of the article shows only 'accident' theory. It doesn't talk about 'muslim mob' theory. And maunus statement that as HRW report largely talk about 'attacks by hindus' hence I can't use it for 'attack by muslims' is stunningly weird. Based on this argument he has rejected UN report also. neo (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Gawker a reliable source?
Is Gawker a reliable source for the opinion given in the article on The New Inquiry? It doesn't look like an RS to me, but perhaps it is acceptable as a source of an opinion (not a fact)? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is rs for its own opinion, which is how it is used here, but then so is practically any website. The issue is really WP:WEIGHT.  My guideline for whether an opinion should be included is if it has received extensive coverage in reliable sources.  If major newpapers and broadcast media are reporting what Gawker said about The New Inquiry, then put it in. That actually happened with the Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal.  What they reported is extensively presented throughout the article, but source to mainstream media reporting what they said.  TFD (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Gawker blog post in question is by a likely pseudonymous poster, whose opinions, at best, are citable to him, whoever he is. It was grossly misused in the case at hand, and thus the fact that Gawker, per se, does not meet WP:RS  does not even come into play. Collect (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Source at 2002 Gujarat Violence
This source "Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction" is being used in the article 2002 Gujarat violence to support a statement "There were more than 60 investigations by national and international bodies many of which having investigated the incident, concluded there was support from state officials in the violence". I do not have any questions about the reliability of the whole book but the above statement is picked up from an unpublished paper as can be seen on the page 357. The exact statement in the source is "21 See A.Rashied Omar, "The Gujarat Massacre", unpublished paper 2009, Omar notes that more than 60 national and international agencies that investigated 2002 Gujarat violence concluded that the Gujarat state were complicit". The question is can we use this unpublished paper as a reliable source?-sarvajna (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not citing an unpublished paper, we are citing Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction Oxford University Press. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sarvajna, thats how it works, reliable sources use primary sources. And they are reliable sources because we trust them to be better at judging primary sources than we are. You can not use your own judgment and OR to discredit an academically published secondary source.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I know a little about how things work, The source "Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction" is not using primary source but an unpublished secondary source or an unpublished paper. The source might be useful for many other purpose but it cannot be used to write about the number of investigations as it is clearly depending on a unpublished source.DS, The source is using an unpublished paper which means that you are using an unpublished paper though indirectly. Both of you, we had a discussion at the article talk page so let someone else comment here.-sarvajna (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite clearly not enough. An unpublished paper is a primary source for wikipedia purposes. And we don't discount an otherwise reliable source because we don't like its choice of sources that would be OR and is strictly prohibited. I'll comment wherever I please thank you very much.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable because the author may be assumed to have properly assessed the material s/he uses. The fact that the author cites an unpublished paper is irrelevant. It's not the best source, as it's a general overview of "religion and human rights", but it's acceptable. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources may and do use sources we cannot because their authors have the expertise to determine what credence to give them. TFD (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Student's thesis
On the article Anti-Muslim violence in India, an opinion of a student of Bachelor of Arts, Elaisha Nandrajog is added. The thesis is here. Question: Is the thesis of a BA student considered reliable? Is the opinion of a BA student expressed in their thesis considered notable enough to include in article? The sentences being added are "Elaisha Nandrajog argues that the violence in Gujarat in 2002 was inevitable as the state government had replaced history and political science textbooks with material written by the RSS. And that this "communal indoctrination" over twenty years had made young people willing subjects of the state." §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is that this thesis is below the level regarded as appropriately scholarly. Given that everything in the thesis is referenced the root source might provide a suitable alternative. ''' Flat Out    let's discuss it   11:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Already removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't be a problem to cite that to a better source such as Martha Nussbaum or Edna Fernandes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then do that. And don't use such bogus crap again. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, WP:Scholarship takes for granted that a PhD is acceptable. I'm not sure why, I can point to one PhD thesis on the Maya which argues that the Maya didn't exist after about 1000 CE, that they had crystal skull technology, mentions as an aside evidence for a 12000 year old Pacific/Atlantic civilization. Many of the references wouldn't be acceptable here or anywhere I've studied. There was no vetting by any scholars with expertise on the Maya. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Link or it didn't happen. ;) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Chand Kelvin rumors - Indonesian sources
This article has sourced rumors about the actor's possible gay love interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chand_Kelvin&oldid=564596671 I had removed it but it was readded. The sources used for this section are: http://www.slidegossip.com/2012/05/chand-kelvin-cowok-keren-ini-pacar-baru.html and http://www.cumicumi.com/posts/2012/10/19/31118/26/olga-syahputra-bungkam-soal-hubungan-dengan-chand-kelvin.html. Are these reliable sources? (I can't read Indonesian.) And are we even allowed to include rumors about sexuality of living people, even if reliably sourced? I went looking around for a clear and concise policy on sourced rumors in BLP articles but I didn't find anything more detailed then WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPGOSSIP.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 11:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand Theatrereview
There is an article I would like to use from the New Zealand Theatrereview: http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/review.php?id=4700 - It talks how a play originated from an internet incident involving a self-published novel, The Greek Seaman.

About the source, http://www.theatreview.org.nz/about.php states "The New Zealand Performing Arts Review & Directory (@www.theatreview.org.nz) is operated by The Theatreview Trust NZ Charities Commission Reg. No. CC45963 TRUSTEES (as at January 2011): Margaret Belich (Development Manager), Dawn Sanders (Arts Manager), John Smythe (Writer), Todrick Taylor (Accountant) and Michael Wray (Chartered Management Accountant). " And http://web.archive.org/web/20110724195357/http://www.register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/CharitySummary.aspx?id=748059c3-0107-e011-bae6-00155d741101 has the charity details.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Are UN, EU, US etc websites reliable sources?
Please refer this discussion. Some users are arguing that United Nations Human Rights Commission, European Parliament, United States Department of State, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International websites are not reliable sources. They all state direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob in Gujarat train burning. But the users deny credibility of these sites and want "scholarly" book citations. I can't search google books because of browser problem. But are UN, EU government, US government, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch less credible than some book written by some Professor? neo (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I request volunteers to please comment. Your help may stop the issue escalating further. Thanks. neo (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a complete misrepresentation of the dispute. The dispute is that the content you are proposing is already present in the article, the issue is you wish to beat our readers over the heads with "muslim moobs" every few words. This is not an issue for this noticeboard. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * here you said that my sources are 'junk'. And here User:Maunus insist to use "scholarly books". What's misrepresentation? And I request other users to see this section of article. As I have explained in details here, you are giving multiple investigations to prove that fire was an 'accident'. Where are you talking that 'muslim mob' is directly or allegedly set the train on fire? If you have problem using 'muslim mobs' so many times, I have proposed on talkpage that you write one line about 'accidental fire' and I will write one line about 'muslim mob' angle. Agree and move on. neo (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said the blog post, the three primary sources and the source from 2002 were junk, and I stand by that. I have told you repeatedly, every investigation into the Godhra incident has been given the exact same weight, one line apiece. The article already says that one of these reports said the attack was conducted by locals. The first line of the section says a crowd of Muslims were reported to have attacked the train, and the lede of the article says "The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, assumed by most to have been carried out by Muslims" So ya, you wish to duplicate content and beat our readers over the head with the "Muslim mob" meme. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please tell which sources are primary and "junk" so that others can decide. We can talk about contents on article talkpage or other appropriate forum. neo (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to tell the difference between reliable secondary sources and primary ones you ought to find a new hobby. Look at the sources you have used in your proposal, can you not see which ones are primary documents? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

These sources are potentially usable, even for history, but may be primary sources, so use with great care. Academic sources are also reliable and should usually be preferred even to these official sources from the time. Consult WP:PSTS. WP:HISTRS should also be useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Be it United Nation, US state department, European parliament or Human rights watch, they consider primary sources like news reports, witnesses, their own network and give their conclusion. How exactly conclusion based on primary sources is original research? Does governments do less research than academicians while taking diplomatic decisions? neo (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"How exactly conclusion based on primary sources is original research?" This is not an appropriate question. Published sources that contain original research are perfectly acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. It is Wikipedia articles that should not place original research in articles.

"Does governments do less research than academicians while taking diplomatic decisions?" The research by government agencies is sometimes just as good as academicians, but what the government ultimately publish is determined by the politicians, so may be biased and may contain deliberate lies. Of course this may happen with academic sources too, but usually there is less motive, and there are many academic sources to compare. The government is a monopoly. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliability depends on what it is supposed to support. Amnesty International for example is probably not a good source for off piste skiing.  However the issue here appears to be WP:WEIGHT, how much if any coverage to be provided in the article to certain events.  Incidentally, an academic source is not "some book written by some Professor."  It has credibility because it has been fact-checked by independent scholars, provides sources and can be compared with other scholarly writing.  Scholars will examine and compare contemporaneous reports and judicial inquiries and determine which version of events is most generally accepted and its signficance or importance.  For an event that occured more than ten years ago, we should not rely on reports published at the time or inquiries that took place immediately after.  The passage of time allows scholars to determine more accurately what happened and, if they chose to ignore these events, then it is difficult to argue they are of such significance that they belong in the article.  TFD (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Current events are written up from news sources, for example the Bretigny rail crash. When the first articles and books by historians appear, perhaps about five years later, the news sources should be supplemented and eventually replaced by the history sources. See WP:RECENT for potential problems with news sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * News articles can still form a core over time: FA Barack Obama uses news sources too WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

YouTube source on a persons death
Emik Avakian died on July 11. May he rest in peace. The only source that I found was a YouTube video that say he died. The youtube video is uploaded by Stepan Partamian who was a leading researcher in the life of Emik Avakian: See here and his book [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ww1GmwEACAAJ&dq Yes, We Have Too: Contributions of American-Armenians to the United States of America] (Unfortunately its an offline source). Can we just go ahead and call it a RS? Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no, the YouTube video - even if published by an expert - cannot be used for claims about a third-party per WP:SPS. If a notable person has passed away, surely there would be article at least in a local newspaper.  If so, you can cite that.  Also, non-English sources are acceptable.  If there's an Armenian language newspaper that reports this, you can cite that.  July 11th was just a couple days ago, so maybe just wait a few days for a more reliable source to publish this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Understandable. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Written sources are preferable. Only cite a YouTube video if it is a news organization publishing the video on its own channel: having a news report on an unofficial channel with no supporting info would be supporting copyright infringement and/ or is not well cited WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Abcnews and Telegraph sources
At English Defence League there was a claim sourced to ABC news which in turn referred to "a report by The Telegraph". Please see Talk:English Defence League for details of the article claim and what the sources say. The situation is ambiguous but I feel the article does not properly capture what the sources state. Could someone more familiar with this kind of second hand sourcing take a look please? -84user (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Indian contribution to the Communist side during the Korean War
Source:

Source text: "Most nations of the Arab-Asian group were of similar mind, willing to express support for the initial action in Korea, but determined to avoid commitments that would fundamentally undermine their middle course in the East-West conflict. Eight members of the loosely knit group offered no material aid to the UN enterprise in Korea. India donated a field hospital; but then, as the war lingered on and Nehru and Rau persisted in their efforts at mediation, India sent a similar hospital to the other side as well. US resistance to Arab-Asian attempts at meditation hardened most of the governments in their determination to avoid commitment to the West."

Supported edit: Add India to the medical support section on the Communist side in the Korean War infobox

Current discussions on the Korean War talk page

Other involved parties: User:Brigade Piron

Focus of dispute:

1. Dr. Stueck made an error by stating India sent a field hospital instead of field ambulance to the UN side. Therefore he could be wrong on the amount of aid India sent to the other side as well. Also political histories sources are notoriously poor on military details.

My response: The source of dispute is the Indian stance and belligerence on Korean War, not the military orbat of Indian forces during the Korean War. Thus this dispute clearly falls in the area of political/diplomatic history of the Korean War, and Dr. Stueck is recognized as the leading expert in the area. Dr. Stueck may be wrong on the details of Indian aids sent to the both sides, but his point that India, as part of its foreign policy, sent an identical amount of medical aid to both side in an attempt to stay neutral does carry a lot of weight on the discussion of Indian belligerence. Finally there are other belligerents in the infobox that got included for donating a lot less aids than India (for example).
 * I dispute that any aid was given to North Korea at all. No source I've been able to find - even detailed, academic studies of the Indian role in the conflict (cf. 1, as well as general overviews 2) make no mention whatsoever of it. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove a negative and it seems unlikely that any source will categorically state that "India provided no medical aid to the DPRK". However, even this newspaper article which specifically deals with the history of the Indian-North Korean friendship makes no mention of it, though obviously that along means nothing. (3). I would say that the same applies to the below point. Brigade Piron (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My counter point: I believe "not possible to prove a negative" is not a valid argument in disqualifying a high quality source. Jim101 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My counter point #2: According to the research I currently have access to, India appears to be both pro-China and anti-North Korea during the conflict. So stating that "India did not provide support to North Korea during the war" is misleading in framing the factual basis of this dispute and characterizing the stance of Indian foreign policy. Jim101 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

2. No other mainstream sources were found during the discussion that repeated Dr. Stueck's claim on Indian medical contributions to the Communist side during the Korean War.

My response: lack of multiple sources repeating Dr. Stueck does not mean Stueck's claim was widely rejected by the majority academics, given Dr. Stueck's high regard in Korean War studies. However, I am seeking community guidance on whether WP:REDFLAG applies in this case. Jim101 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct that the locus is merely on the precise nature and amount of aid rather than the fact that India gave similar aid to each side? I consider the distinction, as stated, to be less than substantial enough to reject the source. Collect (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I dispute the whole premise of India giving aid to North Korea during the conflict. I cite Stueck's error in the field-hospital detail (sent to the South) as evidence of his unreliability. --Brigade Piron (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Has anyone checked the footnote (No. 184) used to support the claim? If the source used by the book says something like India was asked for aid by N. Korea, but did not provide it then we could assume the book was wrong.  On the other hand, if the source supports the statement then we can check whether other writers have referred to the same source.  Other than by comparing sources with other sources, I do not think it is our role to question what sources say.  This is not a red flag.  It is entirely reasonable that India, which tried to be neutral in the conflict between East and West, would provide non-military assistance to North Korea.
 * The policy which might challenge inclusion is weight. If this is the only source that mentions the assistance, then it cannot be important.  Our brief article on the war should not mention facts that the overwhelming majority of  books on the conflict fail to mention.
 * TFD (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dr. Stueck did not provide a source for this claim. So we may have a problem there. I'm basing my trust on his reputation alone, since Stueck's book is required reading about the Korean War diplomacy.
 * However, based on previous discussions, it appears that the previous consensus was to "mention facts that the overwhelming majority of books on the conflict fail to mention" in the infobox. So there is another problem too. Jim101 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Without better sourcing to support the claim, I would have a real issue with saying it is a "fact". As an opinion it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the main body of the article text, but even then, we should probably attribute the claim directly to Dr. Stueck, to make the reader is aware that it is simply one expert's opinion. It certainly does not rate being put into an infobox... that would give UNDUE weight to a minority opinion.  Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot access the footnote. Do you know what footnote 184 says?  TFD (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See "Operation Stole" January 1951. The CIA took action to stop a shipment of medical supplies from the Indian government to China during the Korean War. (Combat Operations of the Korean War, p. 166)  Unusual Footnotes to the Korean War (2013) mentions it, but questions the story.  TFD (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Citation 184 only states the Iranian and Egyptian crisis, which is about the statement just after the cited text I provided. BTW nice find about "Operation Stole" and the US/Taiwanese interception of Indian/Norwegian medical aid to the Communist side (written by renowned Paul Edward, even better to vet for its source quality). Also, I can't see the bookmark on the second book. Which part of the story does Paul questions? Does the secret agreement between Noway, India and Communist on medical aid actually deemed plausible by Paul? Jim101 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I could not bookmark the second book - for some reason the page nos. do not show. Just search for "Operation Stole."  TFD (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After some more source tracing, I found that in Stueck's book he cited both Joseph Goulden's book Korea: The Untold Story (1982) and John Prados's book Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Iranscam (1986) in his bibliography, which matches my Google book search about Operation Stole. I think this explains where Dr. Stueck got his information about Indian medical aid from. Jim101 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, is there an Indian history expert that can comment on the matter? My research brought me into areas I am very unfamiliar with, like the political careers of Jawaharlal Nehru and the US-Soviet-Indian relations between 1950 to 1960s. I don't dare to disclose my understandings on those topics based on just few hours of browsing book indexes under "I" and none stop Google searches. Jim101 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I found which makes clear that "Field Ambulance" does not mean a vehicle but was "(Parachute) Field Ambulance" and had 320 men (another source states 373 men). India did chair the "Neutral Nation Repatriation Commission". The CFI used that same "ambulance." page 129 states that only India and Burma outside the Communist bloc voted "nay" on the UN Resolution condemning China as the aggressor. I suggest this later use of the same forces is what is at issue? Collect (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we are disputing whether India contributed to the Communist side more than the diplomatic supports provided at UN based on Dr. Stueck's statement. Now after both my and TFD's searches, it appears that CIA believes Indian government did provided material support due to Operation Stole, which is why Dr. Stueck concluded that India helped both sides equally in material aid (I'm still waiting for User:Brigade Piron to respond whether this counts as sufficient evidence in his opinion, since this is his condition for resolving this dispute). But then again, a lot of nations on the info box were included by just merely expressing opinions of support to one side or another, which India already crossed that threshold for both sides since it actively helped the Chinese with its Peace Initiatives. So even without the medical support, on the Korean War talk page there is still a case to be argued to whether India should be counted for supporting both UN and the Communist side in the info box due to its pro-Chinese but anti-North Korean diplomatic stance in UN. Jim101 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Brigade Piron has notified me that the dispute has been resolved. Jim101 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just reopened it: I think that Mr Stueck is wrong. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

IMDB page apparently by the subject
WP:RSN says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." which is about Rick Still has Rick Still's name as the author. Do we then accept it as a RS without any verification? I removed it at UFO Phil and Rick Still but it was replaced. I've removed it again from the UFO Phil article but then thought I'd come here. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As an external link sure, but not as a reliable source, unless there would be a really good reason why it would be an exception to that. - SudoGhost 19:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug, I gotta say, as someone who has a (minor) IMDB listing, that all their info-data has to be certified by their staff in consultation with the production companies; individual actors etc can submit material but it's not UGC, it does go through a review process, much more rigorous than Wikipedia's own. You can't just add episodes or credits to it, not even close, same with names/histories and such....all has to be verified.  Period.  I don't know where Wikipedia's hostility to IMDB.com has come from; in the film industry and in acting careers it has an extremely high level of credibility and is considered authoritative because everything is checked with the production company and/or the union before it actually appears on the site.  I know this because it took me months to get an episode or two added to my own profile (you can email me to ask what it is).Skookum1 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say, as someone who has used IMDb for over a decade their review process is not as vigorous as you indicate. There is no better example then the fact that they had a page for this List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin fictitious director for a couple years and it wasn't until the hoax was discovered here at Wikipedia that they removed their page for him. They also had pages for his non-existent films. They also had listings for this List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival which was also a hoax. Again the items were not removed until the hoax was discovered here. Their goofs, trivia and movie connections sections are replete with nonsense and inaccuracies. Go to almost any "memorable quotes" section and you can find the same quote listed over and over again which shows that they don't look at what is already there before adding a new submission. One last example. On their page for Barry Jackson they have his role in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon listed as "British Soldier." I have submitted, on four separate occasions, a correction for that description including the exact time on the DVD's where he is seen in the film. It is easy enough to use that information to discover that he is never seen as a soldier yet all four submissions have been ignored. Now it is a website that I will continue to use but I always take the info gained there with a large grain of salt and I would not encourage their use as a reliable source. MarnetteD | Talk 20:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bios or profiles, subject-written or not, are not subjected to the same kind of editorial oversight that credits are, so this type of content, at the very least, should be handled with extreme care and verified from an independent/different source that is reliable. I think some information on the website does come from the actual organization...DGA certified-directing credits, for instance, emanate from that group not from the individuals.  For actors, however, the acting credits come from the individuals themselves or persons submitting on their behalf, even for union actors they do not come from SAG-AFTRA.  I seem to remember that the sections that have caused problems in the past have been WP-editors using trivia sections, bio sections and other user-written content to back up assertions about living persons.  I was even at a seminar once where a film director said that an actor's claimed IMDb credit in his movie was an outright lie...so, yes, that is anecdotal but mistakes can make it through IMDb's vetting process. Shearonink (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if this is an acceptable source where Rick Still clearly states that he plays the UFO Phil character. Comparing the photos of Rick Still and UFO Phil, it's obviously the same guy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Books published through Lulu not being used as "sources" per se...
The article on Ernest Mason Satow currently includes references to several Lulu-published books that were (apparently) originally written by the subject himself, but are probably no longer in print under their original (or any mainstream) publishers. I'm a bit concerned that the page itself was started by the editor who published through Lulu (who is a professor of English at a Japanese university) and so the references may fall under WP:ADVERTISEMENT. I'm not really concerned that the Lulu-published books are being cited as sources, because that doesn't appear to be the case. Ruxton appears to be a good scholar and a productive Wikipedian (I'm not outing him, as his official homepage openly declares Historian to be his Wikipedia account), seeing the name Lulu mentioned so many times in the article on a 19th-century Japanologist is off-putting. 猿丸太夫 14:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Lulu is not a reliable source. All of those would fall under WP:SELFPUB.  I have went ahead and removed them all as non-reliable sources and self-publications.  Arzel (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I know that much (check my recent edit history), but the problem is that they were not actually "sources" so much as listing books that had been written by the subject over a century ago and are now effectively only available through Lulu. Should we replace "Edited by Ian Ruxton, Published by Lulu Press" with the original publishers and then put the books back in? (RSN may not have been the right place for this...) 猿丸太夫 15:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have the original publication information? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The original publication details would be available from the Library of Congress catalog (and others).
 * I guess there's no need to say, since Satow is dead, modern reprints of his work can't be self-published. He was a major scholar and anything published by him in his field of expertise would be presumed RS. But it's advertising, and a bad idea, to cite "Lulu Press" (like "Kessinger Publishing" and various others) when we need instead to give the original publication details. Andrew Dalby 08:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of short film from "Crikey"
I found this review of Verax (film) from Crikey: Would Crikey be considered an RS for the purposes of posting a review of a short film? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Buckmaster, Luke. "All about efficiency: reviewing Verax, the world’s first Edward Snowden film." (Archive) - July 9, 2013. - Luke Buckmaster profile (Archive)
 * Crikey has a reputation for fact-checking. It's a serious online subscription news journal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome! If there's no further feedback... I am using the source in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Video of News Channel as Reliable Source
The Chennai_Express article has been given the following source as a you-tube video. The video is from SUN News, which is one of the big Indian media channels. The video has been officially published by the  television in its News channel.

Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFGG8zZkGSs&list=WLo-RQ04tOAUUt9xAMVoM2R8YzX-WBtFzW Article :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennai_Express

Content from the source : Chennai Express Poster and Trailer that have been released in Twitter and YouTube, are criticized by some film makers of

South India for being deliberately demeaning to Tamil Culture and Tamil Language. The accent used by Deepika resembles

Malayalam accent rather than Tamil, according to them. There is an edit war going on, and the edit war is inappropriately tagged as vandalism with Personal comments on me , which is recorded in the talk page. Hence posting here for second opinion


 * The film, Chennai Express, has not been released and a discussion about the origins of a fictional character and their accent are meaningless at this point. The character is actually Malayalam and not Tamil contrary to what Karthikeyan.pandian said. He has a habit of posting wrong information on Wikipedia as he previously posted a fake article about how the film was banned in Pakistan but actually that is not the case. It is releasing in that country. The YouTube video in question involves a channel that has a reputation of publishing unreliable news in India and mostly inviting people who rant and rave about Bollywood films in general. They language is crude and expresses their opinions, a random rant video involving some men is not considered as a reliable source especially since the article has not been published in any newspaper or discussed about. They are not reporting anything but just complaining about an accent of a character which is just plain ridiculous. Their information is wrong and the fact that they chose to release it on YouTube and say multiple times that the video only involves opinions makes it someone's opinion, much like that on a blog, rather than a news article giving concrete information. Opinions of random persons on YouTube and on blogs are not included in Wikipedia as stated in the guidelines. Blogs or video blogs are not reliable sources. The YouTube video is not a reliable source because generally YouTube videos aren't reliable sources, unless they interviews about concrete matters like foreign policy or statements that make their way into news which are spoke by important figures and world leaders. Ashermadan (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The youtube video is a channel for Sun News which is a TV channel on Sun Network TV. The issues to resolve are 1. Is a youtube channel that replays News from Sun Network TV an appropriate source? It seems to me that that news channel of India;s largest media organisation is reliable. 2. Is the claim being made in the article supported reliably by the source? ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   06:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The video is from SUN News, which is a NEWS channel based in India as pointed by ''' Flat Out . The statement in my edit 'Chennai Express Poster and Trailer that have been released in Twitter and YouTube , are criticized by some film makers of South India for being deliberately demeaning to Tamil Culture and Tamil Language. ' is true and the evidence is the video from the Youtube channel of the Television.  I need a second opinion , not from the same user Ashermadan again and again , about Reliability of the source. Also would like to quote the following wiki pages Regarding Video as proof : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links#References Regarding Non english content : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chennai_Express#Controversies_Section Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the source is reliable. Let's wait a while to see if anyone else has a view. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   13:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If one has reasonably strong assurance that the youtube channel is the same as the copyright owners, then it is reasonable to use as a source. However, consider that if it is replaying news that was broadcasted on television and not an original video, the better way to source is to cite the television program (including the date of broadcast) that should be known through the youtube source. The youtube video, assuming its reliable, can be added as URL for this source, but the sourcing should act as if it was a news broadcast. --M ASEM (t) 13:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Masem that is a good point. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   13:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If one has reasonably strong assurance that the youtube channel is the same as the copyright owners --- yes it is

One clarification - The channel is news channel and the program is a Debate program where some South indian Directors have opined thier thoughts. And yes its a playback .Past show's particlar episode's schedule cant be obtained but the Sun Tv website itsef has link to this program http://www.sunnetwork.in/tv-channel-details.aspx?Channelid=10&channelname=SUN%20NEWS Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you should be okay, but I'd source it to the original news broadcast, using the Cite AV media template (if you are using that format), and you can then add the youtube link (since copyright owner uploaded it) can be added via the URL= field. --M ASEM (t) 17:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we have consensus ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for the clarifications Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Karthikeyan.pandianjust wait a while longer to be sure no-one else has a perspective, then I will post on the article's talk page that consensus has been reached here. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this fact tag justified in the introductory sentence defining the article?
The article begins: Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, and peoples of other continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492. For practical purposes, travel across the Bering Straits, or the former land bridge in the same region are excluded.

The fact tag was added 3 times last night - I removed it twice as I didn't understand why it was added, and each time I asked that it be discussed on the talk page. The editor ignored my request and his/her 3rd edit summary asked me not to play dumb, putting the word 'confused' in scare quotes, and finally (and in the wrong place - it should have been on the talk page) asked where the number was coming from and saying that it should be in the article. That's a bit more helpful although still no excuse. It's true that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." but that's not what's happened here. The lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

The article is not about when Native Americans reached the Americas. It is about controversies concerning other groups which are alleged to have come to America before 10,000 BCE and 1492 CE. The article does not suggest when Native Americans came to America and there is no academic controversy about there being Native Americans here 12,000 years ago (see Clovis culture).

So there should be no fact tag for 2 reasons:

The date is part of defining the article - if there is a problem with the definition of the article that should be brought up on the talk page. I don't see how WP:LEAD can apply here, this is not a discussion of material that should appear later in the article, it is just defining the article.

The date is not controversial except among Young Earth Creationists. Clovis culture is earlier than this date, and it is 'Clovis first which was what the now pretty much outdated academic controversy was about. WP:VERIFY doesn't seem to require a fact tag no matter where this is placed in the article, especially as it isn't saying when Native Americans arrived. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with you, Doug. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes we can as WP editors define the boundaries of our own articles. We do not always need to defer to sources on this, but on the other hand, we should be guided by them in order to ensure that our articles give due balance to what is published in a given area. For example if we would set our boundaries in a way which creates coverage which splits discussion between many stubs, that would not be good; and likewise if we would create a mega article which unites discussions of things which publications never discuss together, this might in some cases be accused of being original synthesis. In the particular case above I am wondering why the number 10,000 is so important. Is it just intended to be an early enough date to exclude peoples who have a recorded history that is not lost to us? If so then it seems a little early. What if someone argues that this or that indigenous culture arrived in their area only 9000 years ago? I wonder if it is not easier to just come up with a definition which says what it needs to say, rather than trying to turn it into a certain number of years?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It defines the time boundaries, as our article on Settlement of the Americas discusses earlier time periods including the Solutrean hypothesis which is an academic hypothesis suggesting the Solutreans came to North America about 15000 years ago.
 * Adding a source to a non-controversial statement in the opening sentence of the article, when the sentence already links to another article that provides adequate evidence, is out of the question. It clutters the prose with an unnecessary footnote, and non-creationist readers will just be confused as to why it is there. 猿丸太夫 10:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the date is there because it is non-controversial. And Andrew, I'm not sure I understand your point. At the moment, the date is fine for what it covers - the significant arguments for pre-Columbian but after Clovis contact. If you've got a better version, suggest it on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the article history in detail, and it is not a field I know well, but deletion of the number implies that someone finds it controversial. I do not want to opine on whether that is reasonable and I can well imagine that it might not be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added a reference for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see the page, what exactly does it say? It would have to define Pre-Columbian contact, right? Dougweller (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, it would have to back up "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, and peoples of other continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492." Please note that the date 10,000 is there to exclude anything earlier, eg the Solutrean hypothesis which is covered in the [{Settlement of the Americas]] (it suggests that some of the indigenous people of the Americas came from Europe). I doubt very much that this is what the source says. The introduction defines the boundary of the article and there is nothing controversial in it - all academics agree that Columbus's voyage was 1492 and that there were Native Americans in the Americas before 10,000 BC. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about 'reliable sources' any more, but the statement 'before 10k BC' does not exclude anything earlier? Do you mean 'after 10k BC'? Rwos (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Unverifiable Self-published Sources
On Death of Shane Todd, Theinsidefacts keeps adding references such as [] in his edits [], then claims that these were "independant report in the public domain. Under WP policy there is no requirement for a source to be referenced specifically by a news agency. The source is quite clearly the author of the report and that has been cited."[]. Looking at the original source documents (even assuming it is genuine), one an clearly see that it is in fact some form of personal correspondence between the doctor and another party rather than an actual report. I also note that the document seems to have been edited to mask the identity of the party the doctor was corresponding with, which means there's no way to be sure if anything else in the document had been edited prior to uploading. Hope more senior editors and admins can help me out on this, thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see http://www.simonteakettle.com/famousauthors.htm Geĸrίtzl (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not THAT type of self-publishing.This editor is using a document on a free hosting site which someone anonymous uploaded and treating it as if it were a valid source though, hardly the dsmr. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Encyclopedia as a source on...well, Islam stuff
Islamic Encyclopedia fashions itself as a non-open, privately edited encyclopedia on Islamic topics, especially biographies of Muslim notables. According to their About Us page, they publish stuff from a number of primary and secondary source books of history and mention works of respected historians like Ibn Khallikan. The thing is, those sources are reliable, but is the cite? Can it be used as a source in biographies of historical Muslim figures? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See about us. Seems to be self-published by the editor and without institutional support: the presumption would therefore be that it's not RS as a whole, but individual articles may be RS if written by established experts. Andrew Dalby 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell on the about us page, none of them are established experts; they seem to be hobbyists and volunteers (though it's mainly one person). If that is the case, then given the analysis above, I'm not sure if any of the articles would be RS. That's just what's coming to me now, I could be wrong. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally you have to say what exact statements one means for it to establish.  So sure, it could be a reliable source for some claim somewhere on some Islamic topic.   However, note it is self-published by a non-expert, and apparently has no reviews in the academic press.  Here's a selection from an example article, Abdullah B Abbas:
 * "Some Orientalists have tried to discredit him. The Brille [sic] Edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam tries to disparage him by saying, “He was the father of Qur’anic exegesis; at a time when it was necessary to bring the Qur’an into accord with the new demand of a society which had undergone profound transformation; he appears to have been extremely skilful in accomplishing this task.” (Art., `Abdullah ibn `Abbas). The hidden meaning is: Ibn `Abbas bent the Qur’anic commentary to confirm the Qur’an with the changing demands of his time. Considering the fact that the Qur’an is a living miracle, but beyond the understanding of superficial minds, poorly educated and trained to think in materialistic terms, the above statement can be excused."

- Islamic Encyclopedia


 * What a tendentious and revealing thing to say. Brill is one of the foremost academic publishers in the world.  The Encyclopedia of Islam is the foremost reference work on Islam.  But there's more than one edition, but you wouldn't be able to tell from this reference.  In fact, what's being cited is an early article from the second edition, published 1960, written by Laura Veccia Vaglieri. The latest work cited by the article is from 1945.  There's a new article on ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās in the new edition, published 2007, written by Claude Gilliot.  The bibliography included is a thing to behold.  Of course, this is completely neglected by the Islamic Encyclopedia article.    What is that last sentence quoted suggesting?  That it is an historical fact that the Qur'an is the word of God, undisputed by any real scholars, and that those people involved with the Encyclopedia of Islam have weak minds and are poorly educated? I would say that is exactly what it is insinuating.  What does all of this reveal? The Islamic Encyclopedia is an apologetic work, a desperate one at that, and it has no part in the academic history of early Islam. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Very well stated, and very good observations; we should be able to call this case closed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree about this case -- it is quite clear -- but I would challenge Atethnekos's general statement about Brill. I have heard Brill described (by academics whose colleagues' work was published by Brill ...) as a vanity publisher. That's an exaggerated statement, but so is Atethnekos's. They publish some extremely good and highly scholarly material, including the Encyclopedia of Islam, and also some that's not so good because the author paid them to publish it. Andrew Dalby 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I haven't heard that.  But fair enough.  What I meant to say anyway was that Brill is a well-known academic publisher, to give some context to the misspelling. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly: no dispute. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's part of the wider issue of some academics having to pay "subsidies" to get their stuff published, which has grown up in the last few years, & which we discuss somewhere else - I forget where. Too much scholarship, too few buying libraries. I agree about this lot, & generally BRILL should indicate RS. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Debka Files
Once I came across warnings about reliable sources. So I would to ask whether or not Debka files is reliable. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to provide us with a link, and tell us on what page, and for what information, you want to cite this source. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not it is not reliable. Zerotalk 09:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bradt Travel Guide, Falkland Islands culture
I am currently on the process of writing the "culture" section for the Falkland Islands article improvement project (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). The problem is that not much is mentioned on the culture aside from that it is essentially identical to British culture. I am wondering if the The Bradt Travel Guide on the Falkland Islands (written by Will Wagstaff) would be a reliable sources to use solely on the culture section? I have searched for prior similar cases and the consensus seems to be that each case is different. I wanted to know for sure other thoughts about this prior to using the Wagstaff source in the article. Thanks in advance.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it is "essentially identical to British culture" at all, though obviously derived from it. Sounds like you need to use Wagstaff, but since he has an article, starting "According to Will Wagstaff...." would be appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. The phrase you quote is the conclusion I got from the one source that discussed Falklands culture. Yes, I think that Wagstaff could probably provide a better insight into the archipelago's culture (or, at least a different perspective). I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this (I will probably link this page to the FAC or GA reviews so that the reviewer knows the community had a chance at making a decision on the source). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Over 9000 meme
Dragon Ball Z is host to an unusual and popular meme known as "It's over 9000!" which is a years old cultural icon amongst its fans that has been acknowledged by Funimation itself. At the heart of the matter is sourcing for it. Originally I used a book dedicated to the topic itself, ''Dragon Ball Z "It's Over 9,000!" When Worldviews Collide'' by Derek Padula. Padula's work is a self publication with indepth coverage and analysis of the meme and its meaning, popularity and philosophy about the scene it self. While the opinion of the author is not used in any shape or form, the citation exists to accurately depict creation, origin and original media from which it spawned. Padula's work has been reviewed and praised by two other fan sources, Screwattack and Japanator. Screwattack is itself a company "ScrewAttack Entertainment LLC" which has operated for 7 years, with a good deal of popularity, I suspect a review of the book lends some credibility to it. Japanator is another source, sometimes questionable on its own for its publication of rumor as rumor, but Japanator actually interviewed the creator back in 2008 and then upon the unrelated-to-the-site release of Padula's book, did a review on it. The details of the interview did make its place into Padula's work, but it is perhaps the review of the book which is the key point for validation of it. The reviewer states, "Derek Padula has done a stunning service to those looking to turn a scholarly eye to the series to dissect comparisons between the two heroes, their similarities, and key turning points during which we could immediately discern the characters had grown both mentally and physically..." The book itself has been praised in the small quarterly Shadowland Magazine which can be found in book stores and comic shops, all the more to validate the book itself as source by acknowledgement from the community. Padula's previous book was also well received if you don't mind me pointing out.

A second issue remains, where the actual primary source material is "not a reliable source" in the eyes of Ryulong. It is not synthesis to compare the Japanese language work and original English work and note that "Hassen ijou da!" is mistranslated because "Hassen" translates to 8000. And two English dubs from Ocean and Funimation both use the line on their respective releases. Here's where it gets complicated, due to the success of the series, two variations were made for the re-release as Dragon Ball Kai. Funimation produced the "over 9000" for TV and "over 8000" for DVD release, with the immediate lines themselves being different around it as well.

The TV script: "Nappa: Vegeta! Vegeta! What's wrong with you?! Tell me what his power level is! Vegeta: It's over 9000! Nappa: What?! 9000?! You've got to be kidding me, that thing's a piece of junk! - Dragon Ball Z Kai, Episode 21 on TV (Nick Toons in this case)"

The DVD script: "Nappa: Vegeta! What does the scouter say about his power level?! Vegeta: It's over 8000! Raah! Nappa: 8000?! C'mon, that can't be right! It must be broken or something. - Dragon Ball Z Kai: 'Protect the Dragon Balls! The Namekian's All-Out Attack!' Episode 21 on Funimation DVD."

This different is not a violation of WP:SYN, anyone can look at the two versions and notice the differences. Though I can also point out that the differences in the original Z release comes on 28 of Funimation's dub versus 21 of Ocean sub. I do not see how these "primary sources" are not reliable nor how a book about it, an interview with the creator or other validations including Funimation's own actions as "unreliable". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Isaiah Canaan birthday
Check out his college website they have it correct of May 21 not May 2. Also, he is my daughter's boyfriend so I know when his birthday is, although I'm sure you can't just take my word for it.


 * Grr. I can't find the college website page referred to, and ESPN gives both May 2 and May 21. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is a movie a reliable source for itself?
I believe the editor of this document does not understand Wikipedia's own editorial policy or the status of a movie as a document in its own right--

Talk:The_Life_and_Death_of_Colonel_Blimp

The requested reliable source is the film referred to.

Could someone please add their opinion on one side or other of this discussion.


 * A film is acceptable as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE for things like the plot, film credits etc, but not for general claims about the film. I believe your question relates to this edit? In this case I believe the editor who removed the claim acted accordingly. Just because the photos look identical doesn't mean the prop was reused. This is basically WP:SYNTHESIS: an original conclusion is being drawn from two sources (in this case two unrelated films) where neither source backs up the claim being made. You need a source that actually states the prop was reused, or indeed modelled on the photo form the earlier film. Aside from establishing the veracity of the claim, a secondary source also establishes the notability of the claim to avoid WP:TRIVIA concerns. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is almost certainly original research. It is definitely off-topic. If the material could be properly sourced, it might belong in our article on The League of Gentlemen. It doesn't belong in our article on The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is certainly original research, no two ways about it. If the material you wish to add is significant enough to include in a WP article, it certainly would have been mentioned in reliable secondary sources. If you can't find it there, it just ain't significant as far as our policies are concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya gotta be very careful with this type of OR. IMDB picks up this type of stuff and then authors comment on it and it becomes a circular reference. I made a edit once about what I thought was an acceptable edit using IMDB. Turns out that IMDB had picked up the information from a comment I made elsewhere on the prop (which is why IMDB is not reliable, It is user generated content). When I went to try and find a reliable source in book form, one I found was an author commenting on the IMDB information. Instead of mentioning the props (or props) the edit was changed to mention just the similarities that were mentioned in a stronger RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Maplight.org
I would like to ask if http://maplight.org/ is a reliable source. thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliability of any source depends on context, but MapLight is a well-respected non-partisan group, so I would consider them reliable in most contexts. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, and what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner#Top_10_Organizations_Funding is this ok? OpenSecrets, Sunlight, and Follow the Money can we cite them? thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Using a page on a subject's apparent Tumblr page to source personal info when it contains claims about a third party
Can this page on what is apparently the Tumblr of writer Brian Michael Bendis be used to source the claim about his son. At issue are two points that I request be addressed here:

1. While I find User:Silverseren's comments on Tumblr in this January 2013 RSN discussion to be well-reasoned, I wonder, how do we verify that a given Tumblr account belongs to the person whom it appears to belong to? Twitter has "verified" accounts that are denoted by a blue check mark on the user's page, so that allows us to use Twitter accounts, but how do we do this with Tumblr?

2. Does the fact that they are making claims about a third party---in this case the Wikipedia editor whom he complains keeps removing the unsourced info from his Wikipedia article---mean that using that page would violate the second exclusionary criterion listed at WP:SELFPUB? Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources regarding religions
In the page Kabaa, i am trying to clarify my edit, but one of the editor seems to be disagreeing, even though the sources 2 sources i have used, were declared to be reliable, in a noticeboard. This time, i would like to know, if any of the following sources are credible?


 * "Original God-Part III- Mystery of Original God explained", by Mukesh Chandubhai Chauhan, P. 116.
 * "India in Kurdistan", by Parameśa Caudhurī, P. 52.
 * "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization" by David Frawley, P. 282
 * "The Koran and the kafir", by Arvind Ghosh, P. 166
 * "A Reconstruction of Sikh History", by Surajīta Hām̆sa, P. 207.
 * "Gods of Love and Ecstasy: The Traditions of Shiva and Dionysus", by Alain Daniélou, P. 131,

Capitals00 (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * These 'original God' books are crank stuff. As the author says on Amazon, "Exposed - Conspiracy and Black magic on Earth 'veil'of conspiracy to cover up the name of Original God is explained, the web of conspiracy took 14 years search to find Original God in which author’s career, life and surgery were destroyed by  every kind  of black magic". Parameśa Caudhurī believes that "Kashmir in India was the ancestral land of Jesus Christ and that India was the origin of Christianity.". And Frawley isn't accepted by academics for history subjects. Ghosh is self-published. I don't know who ABS Publishers (for Surajīta Hām̆sa) is, but this seems to be a very insignificant author - can't see any evidence this is reliably published or any mention of his work in reliable sources. As for Daniélou, he's the only one of all of these that might vaguely be a RS, but he's just making a throwaway comment "At Mecca, the Makeshvara of the ancient Indian geographers, the Black Stone, which is the emblem of Shiva mentioned in the Puranas, is still venerated. The Celts inherited ancient sacred places from previous peoples. The origin of the oracle near the Castalian Spring at Delphi goes back long before the Mycenaean era. Outside of Crete, there were many such sacred places in the Mediterranean world. Naxos was called Dionysias, or Dia, the Divine, and was especially sacred to Dionysus, while the wines of Naxos were famous."
 * And of course when asked if a source is reliable, one question has to be "Reliable for what?" The last edit this editor made, which I reverted, said "The perceived identity of a muslim saint and a hindu diety parallels the notion, widespread in coastal central Kerala, that allah resembles Lord Shiva in being the supreme deity and that, prior to becoming a centre of muslim faith, the Kaaba in Mecca(saudi arabia) had been a bana(arrow) lingam, and therefore, it's surrounding mosque a shiva temple." The source for this simply said " British chronicles of the 18th century refer to a Hindu belief that the black stone in the Kaaba was in fact a lingham carried off by Muslims. The text itself however is copyvio from.
 * Part of the problem is that this editor is edit-warring, calling experienced editors vandals (and evidently following editors around), and raised a spurious WP:SPI. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Be firm Doug. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A Reconstruction of Sikh History from Sikh Literature seems to be reasonably widely referred to as an authority in the field— which is a pretty small field, from what I can tell. The author is however usually given as "Surgit Hans"; I cannot explain the discrepancy. That said, without seeing the text I would be loathe to believe that it supports the kind of claims I understand are being made. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By my count, it is not just *1* editor that disagrees with Capitals00 -- but 4 that he repeatedly calls sockpuppets, just because they all 4 disagree with him that a self publish book that states that some people believe something is not the same as it being a fact.... 134.161.227.70 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that Capitals00 is just trawling Google Books in search of anything to support his P.N. Oakish wish to claim that Islam took over a "Hindu temple" even at its inception. However, there are some real issues. The suggestion that Hindus believed the Black Stone to be a Shiva lingam dates back at least as far as More's 1810 book The Hindu Pantheon. So there is at least some evidence that this is a "story" that circulated among some Hindus. And it would not be surprising. Hindu appropriation of potentially alien or alternative traditions goes at least as far back as the claim that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu and the later stuff about Jesus and Muhammad in the Bhavishya Purana. And of course the very creation of "Hinduism" as a synthesis of myriad cultic traditions in India is part of that. There is also an element of legitimate syncretism, in which one tradition is seen through concepts used in another (as for example the term "Muslim saint" used above). In that case, saying that the Black Stone for Pagan Arabs was the equivalent of the Shiva lingam is, at least, meaningful in the same way that saying a venerated Muslim holy-man and a bodhisattva are both the equivalent of a "saint". In this case, I don't think the equivalence is sufficient to be very useful, though since Shiva lingams are often "black stones", it would not be a surprising link for a Hindu to make. One question is whether a "non Oakish" version of this idea can be properly cited, rather than supported by passing mentions in books only tangentally related to the topic. The other question is whether it is sufficiently significant or notable to be mentioned at all. At the moment, the sourcing is very poor and does not even establish notability. Paul B (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't you think you are getting very off topic? While you are lacking the understanding about each of the point. It's well described in each of the source that i have mentioned, and how about these sources?:-


 * *Adolf Bastian
 * *"Cities of India" by Sir George Forrest


 * Just because Saudi Arabia doesn't admit(nor deny) something, it doesn't means that it's not existing. There are far more credible sources. Capitals00 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you are just too obtuse to have a meaningful discussion with. And why do you repeatedly link to an article about two 19th-Century writers, one of whom was Victoria Cross winner whose article says nothing about any scholarly achievements whatever? Paul B (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say same thing, and also suggest that Ad Hominem is useless, you are meant to argue about the content, not about me here. About the rest, sources are reliable, and already explained in it's talk pages. Capitals00 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-published source to quote a public statement
Zeitgeist: The Movie‎ contains details of a published interview with the filmmaker. The filmmaker claims, through the film's website, that he was misquoted. Are we allowed to quote his public statement, sourced using only the film's website?


 * Source: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/qa.html
 * Article: Zeitgeist: The Movie‎
 * Content: "The film's official website later contained a statement by Joseph addressing the interview, saying, 'At no time did I say anything about 'distancing myself' from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style.'"

Thanks --  Equazcion  ( talk )  06:39, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)


 * You can use self-published sources where someone denies a claim made about them made in other sources, provided it has in text citation. TFD (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Travel Kernel
Is The Travel Kernel Reliable enough for use in Invercargill Airport?.-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  08:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like that website was copied from an old version of the Wikipedia article (several word-for-word sections are found in both). So no, I wouldn't use it.  Equazcion  ( talk )  10:23, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference was added quite a while ago, So i'm going to remove it.-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  18:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed it.-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  19:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sgcafe.com
An editor started adding these to articles. I took a look and it looks like a blog to me so it can't be a reliable source. Searching here, I noticed over 50 articles have it linked, so I'm doubting myself and am looking for more opinions. Is it possible to blacklist this site also? DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 09:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Their "about" page lists four writers and no mention of an editorial department. It also requests blog link exchanges. It doesn't look like a viable secondary source to me.  Equazcion  ( talk )  10:27, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a secondary source indeed, because the articles of this website are based on latest news, affairs related to it's subject, that are published by main authorities first. Can be used if you are adding multiple sources for a single information.Capitals00 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what makes a reliable secondary source. See WP:RS.  Equazcion  ( talk )  01:41, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Can a Chinese writer that specializes in the history of Battle of Triangle Hill make reliable claims about the 1952 United States presidential election?
Source:

Background on the writer: Zhang Song Shan is currently serving in the Chinese People's Liberation Army as a writer. Appears to be specialized/famous in China for his historical writings/research on the Battle of Triangle Hill. I am currently not aware that this writer had published or recognized for his research on US military or political history, or the history of Korean War in general.

Claims being made: in from pages 295 to page 296 of his book, Zhang linked the event of Battle of Triangle Hill with the events of United States presidential election, 1952 (but he did not clearly state just how exactly does one affect the other).

Reason for inquiry: On OR_noticeboard and Talk:Battle_of_Triangle_Hill, there is a dispute on whether or not to follow Zhang's narrative in the article Battle of Triangle Hill about the 1952 United States presidential election (mentioning the election without drawing conclusions).

My stance: my gut feeling is to ignore Zhang's claim completely since US election is not his area of expertise and no US sources repeated his claim, but his notion that Battle of Triangle Hill impacted the 1952 US presidential election does appear to be popularly recognized in China (or Chinese editors in this matter). I just want to see where the community stands on this issue. Jim101 (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Books by political scientists would be a much better reference for such a claim, and this doesn't seem a suitable reference in isolation. As I understand it, there's no disagreement that the Korean War influenced the 1952 election (Ike campaigned on a promise to bring the war to an end), but I don't think that individual engagements had a significant influence on this. WP:FRINGE may apply here. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick-D. The best approach is to consider whether other sources, known to be reliable on the topic in question, have reached the same conclusion as the disputed source. If yes, use an alternative source. If no, disregard the source because, even if it is proven to be correct in the future, at the moment it presents a fringe view. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

population data for Somalian cities sourced by Tageo.com and Worldcities.us
The population data of Somalian cities enter the article Somalia via Template:Largest cities of Somalia. It has been complicated to find reliable sources for those (see for example Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134). Recently 2 new sources were proposed with worldwide city data: At Template talk:Largest cities of Somalia, user:Middayexpress and I have been trying to work out if these are reliable sources. The discussion has focussed on what are the underlying sources for the case of Somalia, and whether they are reliable (as the websites themselves [imo] are not automatically reliable sources, as they seem not to stem from a respected university, institute or government). We could use some ideas from this noticeboard! L.tak (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tageo, with an "about" section saying "Geographic Area of Coverage of Tageo:Worldwide excluding Antarctica", and stating
 * This site provides a geographic coordinate database consisting :
 * 5.4 million records from the NlMA GE0net Names Server
 * 2,7 million records of cities
 * (etc)
 * World cities, stating (left lower corner): "World Cities™ provides detailed educational information for cities around the world. World city and country information is attained from government sources and is subject to change. World Cities is not liable for any misrepresented information. ",


 * Tageo uses NIMA records for its coverage of areas "Worldwide excluding Antarctica" (which by default would include Somalia) . For its part, Worldcities.us indicates that its "world city and country information is attained from government sources" (which again by default would include Somalia) . Both sources are also widely cited on Wikipedia, especially Tageo; including on other city templates. Middayexpress (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ad Tageo: The fact that Tageo uses NIMA (as stated in your and mine ref, which are equal), does not mean that all data of Tageo stem from NIMA. We simply don't know. I checked nima, and downloaded the somalia info (here), but couldn't find population data at all (but I might have the wrong file)…
 * ad World cities stemming from "government sources" is extremely vague and not specific enough to verify the claim…
 * Again, the character of both sites (full of commercials, not backed up by a reputed institution) requires us to look at their sources and to clarify them with some certainly… L.tak (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially regarding a US public database as NIMA, it keeps nagging me that I can't get the underlying information available, and a cite like Tageo can. Would there be a way to get access to NIMA's population data for verification (as shown above my attempts failed)? L.tak (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Know Your Meme on ASMR
I have not been involved with the article, but I suspect that in this case, Know Your Meme is perhaps the best source possible for autonomous sensory meridian response (diff for context) because they have a reputation for accurately researching the genesis of such neologisms, and an editorial staff experienced in doing so. EllenCT (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The specific source that you are trying to use is an anonymous submission that is accomanied by the following disclaimer:


 * "This submission is currently being researched & evaluated!


 * You can help confirm this entry by contributing facts, media, and other evidence of notability and mutation."


 * Know Your Meme takes no responsibility for the content, nor endorses it in any way. Clearly not a reliable source for anything here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the journal: Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology (published by Dove Medical Press) a reliable source?
I would like to know whether three studies from the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology published by Dove Medical Press can be used in the Wikipedia article on Morgellons disease.

The three studies in question are:


 * Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease (2013)
 * Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease (2011)
 * Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology (2010)

Because of a dispute among editors at the Morgellons article, dispute resolution was sought, and all editors agreed to abide by the decision made by the dispute mediator (whose username is TransporterMan). TransporterMan, the dispute mediator, decided that the Dove Medical Press articles did not even meet WP:SOURCES, let alone WP:MEDRS. You can read the dispute resolution discussion HERE — click on "show" on that page to view the discussion.

Since I fully agreed to abide by the mediator's decision, I cannot now use these Dove Medical Press studies in the Morgellons article, and I will honor this agreement (until such time as new research is published, at which point, as per the agreement, the decision will need to be reviewed and renewed).

However, I would still like to get a second opinion on the suitability of these three studies for use in the Morgellons article, and thus welcome any input and perspective offered on this. Many thanks for your help.

I wanted to use these three Dove Medical Press studies to support the view that Morgellons disease is a real disease involving certain unusual skin lesions. These studies detail the nature of the skin lesions in Morgellons patients. Drgao (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You want a 'second opinion' on a decision you agreed would be binding? Here's one - I suggest that you withdraw your request here, before this rebounds on you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I said. What said was I wanted a second opinion on whether those sources are reliable, not a second opinion on the decision itself. I do not dispute the decision, and I fully agree to abide by it. I want a second opinion on the reliability of those sources because the decision is only binding until such time as new studies are published, whence the effect of the decision expires. So when new studies are published, I might take up this issue again, and that is why I an interested in the reliability of those sources. So I cannot see that this request is unreasonable. Drgao (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If and when new studies are published, you can ask the question (assuming that was what was agreed). For now, I suggest you abide by the decision - this notice board only answers questions of direct relevance to articles, and does not respond to hypothetical questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Drgao, you are not abiding by what you agreed to in the DRN discussion. In that discussion, you agreed that you "will abide by my [TransporterMan's] opinion and quit discussing the issue in dispute until something changes in the real world (for example, new studies or sources being done and becoming available) which renders it inapplicable."  (Emphasis added.)  By raising the question here of the fitness of the exact same sources there were reviewed in the DRN discussion, you are further discussing the issue in dispute, in violation of your commitment. Further, the appearance of a new source would not undo the decision made on the sources reviewed at the DRN.  You agreed to:  "if new sources pro or con are developed, by which I mean that they are published for the first time after the decision here, then they can be raised and discussed by either side." (Emphasis in original.)  What may be discussed is the new published sources. If this tendentious behavior continues we will discuss it at WP:ANI.    17:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * TO: AndyTheGrump. Well, the other issue was that wanted to learn why those sources were considered unreliable (if indeed they are), so that in future I might become a good judge myself on source reliability. But if you can't oblige on this issue, then I guess I'll have to try to learn about source reliability in some other way. Any suggestions on how welcomed.


 * TO: Zad68. I am abiding by the decision, and I am not discussing the issue in dispute. The dispute was about the proposal to add new content to the Morgellons article, which referenced the above studies. I am not discussing that, as I have agreed not to. I am discussing a different topic: whether the above studies are reliable sources or not; and as stated, I am interested in understanding why those sources were considered unreliable, so that I can become a good judge of this. I am also considering using those sources in another article, other than the Morgellons article, and so their reliability is of interest to me for that purpose too. Drgao (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The DRN statment was whether the sources presented were reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Read the Dispute overview from our DRN discussion, it states:  "This issue basically is that many editors do not agree that the sources cited meet WP:MEDRS, the medical sourcing guideline."  That is what our DRN discussion covered, and that is what TM decided on.  The statement that you would like to take these same sources and use them elsewhere sounds like game-playing.   17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Drgao is incorrect when he says, "the decision is only binding until such time as new studies are published, whence the effect of the decision expires." The agreement was, per Dispute resolution noticeboard/Morgellons: "It also means that if new sources pro or con are developed, by which I mean that they are published for the first time after the decision here, then they can be raised and discussed by either side." (Emphasis added.) That is, the new sources can be raised and discussed. The agreement for arbitration was that it was a final, permanent, and binding decision between the involved parties for the sources included in the decision insofar as the Morgellons article is concerned.

As for enforcement, everyone also needs to understand that the arbitration agreement, in that same section, also said, "Finally, this agreement is a handshake and obligation of honor, not an enforceable agreement. I'm not an administrator and even if I was there's no provision in policy for enforcing an agreement such as this." I would not be surprised if an administrator would take a clear violation of the agreement into consideration when deciding whether someone was editing tendentiously or not, but as more of a "brick in the wall" than a reason for a tendentiousness violation per se. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * TO: TransporterMan: First of all, I have no intention of breaking the agreement into which I entered. However, I have to admit that I did not know I had agreed to maintain this stance for all time, even if, in the future, it is proven by reliable sources that Morgellons is an infectious disease. Even then, would I still have to uphold my position against those studies being included? Is the agreement I entered into really binding for all time?


 * Secondly, I understand that the context of my agreement was the Morgellons article only. So if I want to discuss the reliability of those sources for use in other articles (and I do have another article in mind), there surely can be no problem with that? Drgao (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, the focus of the DRN discussion was the WP:MEDRS fitness of the sources brought to the discussion, including the three CCID articles you bring here. TM's decision was that none of the three sources you bring here meet the WP:MEDRS for medical sourcing.  If they don't meet WP:MEDRS for sourcing for Morgellons then they do not meet WP:MEDRS for sourcing for any other medical article, say Lyme disease just to pick one wildly at random.  If they don't meet WP:MEDRS today they will not meet it tomorrow or next week or next month.  The discussion on these sources is closed. If at some point in the future Morgellons is proven to be caused by infection agents, then those WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that satisfactorially support that biomedical claim can be used.  The future publishing of a reliable article won't retroactively make these three CCID articles reliable.   19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the why, primary studies have little significance until they are replicated and independently confirmed, and discussed widely and substantially in reliable independent secondary sources. This is explained in WP:MEDRS. We assign weight by the preponderance of coverage in the secondary literature. Assigning weight to primary studies on our own would be original research. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * TO: Zad68. And what if those sources were incorrectly deemed as unreliable? I have asked you and others on numerous occasions for some official guidelines that can be used to determine whether a source is reliable or not. But you have never pointed me to any such official guidelines. So how do you (or TransporterMan for that matter), determine that a source is unreliable? What is the process? How can you say a source is unreliable, but give no reasons why? Without transparency of process, it seems like there is some black art involved in reliability decisions. That is one reason I wanted some input from people on this page, so that I could understand the process and criteria involved in determining source reliability. Why is there a big secret about it?


 * TO: Dominus Vobisdu. I completely understand about primary/secondary issues. But this goes beyond that: this is an issue where a series of studies has been deemed unreliable and unfit for Wikipedia, period. If there were official Wikipedia rules that state that certain journals are unreliable, I'd be happy to follow those rules. But as I mentioned, nobody tells me why the journals in question are just deemed unreliable, they are just pronounced unreliable by people like Zad68. How can I check that Zad68 is correct, when the criteria for reliability are not given to me?


 * To reiterate: I am not contesting the decision by TransporterMan in the context of Morgellons, because I agreed to it, and I will stick to it. Drgao (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You really, really should take the time to thorougly read our core content policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as well as WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE, to the point where you can understand them as an organic whole and also understand the reasoning behind them. You also should read our core behavioral policies, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:CONSENSUS,WP:NPA and WP:AGF so that you know how to work constructively together with your fellow editors. Also worth reading are WP:NOT and WP:NOTHERE. The problem is that you have numerous fundamental misunderstandings about what WP is and how it works. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I don't know how many times you've been directed to it - it has to be dozens and dozens by now - but WP:MEDRS is the guideline. Every experienced Wikipedia editor who handles medical content is familiar with it, and of those who have reviewed the sources you've proposed, they have all come to the same conclusion.  The question you should be asking yourself is why you haven't come to the same conclusion everyone else has.    20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And I don't know how many times I have asked for people to quote me the text in WP:MEDRS which makes it clear that the published studies in question are unreliable, yet you are unable to do this. Drgao (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * DV's comment at 19:30 lays it out nicely. The extensive discussion at the Morgellons talk page explained the problems with Dove Press in general as well.  Please move on, we have had these discussions many times.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In others words, Dbrodbeck, you can't answer the simple question either, so you change the subject instead. Amazing that you should do that. Amazing that nobody can answer that simple question. Drgao (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me copy and paste the comment that I was referring to above by DV 'As for the why, primary studies have little significance until they are replicated and independently confirmed, and discussed widely and substantially in reliable independent secondary sources. This is explained in WP:MEDRS. We assign weight by the preponderance of coverage in the secondary literature. Assigning weight to primary studies on our own would be original research. ' I am not going to copy and paste the whole talk page on Morgellons. I (and many others, for weeks now) have answered your question.  You ought to go read WP:IDHT.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2013


 * Side-stepping the point again. My question is about reliability, not primary/secondary issues. The policy on the latter is crystal clear. The policy on the former seems more like a black art. Drgao (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As Dbrodbeck said, I answered your question, fully and concisely above. And, as Zad68 rightly points out, that question has been answered numerous times before. You would have understood it if you were familiar with the policies I listed above, especially WP:MEDRS. I don't know what else you expect. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are telling porky pies here. You totally avoided the question, as everyone does. You, like others, are just not honest enough to admit that the Wikipedia decision process to determining whether a source is reliable is a black art. It is inscrutable rather than being a transparent process, as all good policy should be (unless you are in the secret service). For example, TransporterMan did not explain why he said the Dove Medical Press was unreliable; he just proclaimed it.


 * In fact, the issue of this black art, the non-transparency of the reliable source determination process, goes beyond this small circle of disagreeing editors (who have traveled to meet me on this page to continue their unwelcome quarrelsome stance and their disruptive activities). This issue should be raised at some Wikipedia policy meeting. Presumably there must be meetings now and then where overall Wikipedia policy it set. All decision making process need to be transparent and easy to explain. The black art of reliable source determination is the most subjective, murky, open-to-intepretation process that I have come across on Wikipedia. Drgao (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's becoming increasingly apparent that your editing on this topic is tendentious, that you're unwilling to listen to other editors, and that your tendentiousness is becoming a major drain on the time and goodwill of other constructive editors. You've already moved the goalposts and violated your promise not to endlessly re-litigate these sources. If this isn't dropped now, I will block your account for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing, in order to enable other editors to improve the article constructively and in an environment free of disruption. MastCell Talk 22:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * MastCell, I did not "move the goalposts". My above suggestion, that someone should raise the issue at a Wikipedia policy meeting of the open-to-intepretationess of the reliable source determination process, was admittedly out of the context of the current discussion, but I think this is an important and helpful point. In fact, I wanted to ask where such an issue could be legitimately raised. This open-to-intepretation was the basis of a huge amount of wasted time and disagreement on the Morgellons discussion pages, and if that aspect of Wikipedia policy could be made more straightforward and transparent, then it would make life so much easier. I would like know why there is not a list of medical journals that are considered reliable, and another list of journals that are classed as unreliable. That would have prevented this dispute.


 * Also, please note that I did not invite all these other editors here; they came themselves, from the Morgellons page. My inquiry here was legitimate, because I was planning to use the above listed studies in other Wikipedia articles, and my agreement not to use them only applies to the Morgellons article. I was minding my own business here, but these editors turned up and started arguing. Drgao (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ...which, as I've explained to you on your talk page, they have the perfect right to do, as does any other WP editor. Good form would have been for you to have notified them of this discussion yourself by posting a notice on the article talk page. The fact that you are bothered by their comments confirms that you have fundamental misunderstandings about what WP is and how it works. Really, really BIG misunderstandings, and LOTS of them.


 * The thing you should be doing is reading and understanding the policies and guidelines I mentioned above. The thing that wasted so much time at the article talk page and at DRN was you dogged refusal to listen to what other, more experienced editors were saying to you, your even more dogged pursuit of dead horse arguments, and your constant assumption of bad faith on the part of your fellow editors, coupled with your inability to frame your comments in terms of WP policies and guidelines. Again, in case you didn't hear it the first couple of dozen times you'd been told, READ THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES, and many of your questions will be answered. We're not here to babyfeed you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In order not to further clog up this page with conversation, I have answered you comments HERE. Drgao (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread: Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Persian Heritage (magazine) Redux
There were no comments on the reliability of Persian Heritage (magazine) except for the two parties. Party comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_150. --Bejnar (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Source: citing Ghavami, Zia (2005) "تاریخچه پرچم ایران" ("History of Iranian Flag") Persian Heritage (magazine), January 2005.
 * Wikipedia article: Ghaznavids
 * Supporting in infobox: File:Old Ghaznavid Flag.svg Flag Flag of Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznavi.
 * DIFF
 * Text from cited article: Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznavi, the founder of the first Persian dynasty after the Arab invasion who reinstated the use of symbolic expressions on the Iranian Flag. This solid rectangular black Flag had in its center inscribed a golden moon.

RSVP Magazine
I was wondering if that is a reliable source to extract information for an article (not copy and paste, but with my own words). I want to use something there in the Adam Clayton article. It is about the news on he getting married.  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  19:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It describes itself as a "celebrity magazine" which means it is not of much use at all. It is, in short, commercial puff, with a lot of commercial advertising done under the guise of editorial content.   The site's current front page includes spa and restaurant ads etc. which means I would prefer you use the Daily Mail than this for any remotely contentious claim about a living person. Collect (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time Collect   Miss Bono  [zootalk]  19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In more technical terms to our guidelines, this would be a tabloid journalism source and not appropriate for sourcing information on BLP articles. Per WP:BLPSOURCES: "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.".--Amadscientist (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I do assume Collect is being sarcastic about even using the Daily Mail for BLP article. As they are very much of the same basic tabloid journalism type source.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah, I got the point. Thank u 2. Amadscientist Miss Bono  [zootalk]  20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
At Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism there is a dispute about the sourcing of what the Holy See's representative to the UN at Geneva is reported to have said. The disputed phrase is "he stated that states ... can and must regulate sexual behavior, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest". A proposal to modify this to "he stated that states ... can and must regulate sexual behavior, as, for example, they forbid pedophilia and incest" has been rejected. The part of the cited document that has been quoted as the basis for the version with "comparing" is: "Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behavior, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person's feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples". Esoglou (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't an appropriate question for this noticeboard, as the reliability of the source is not in question, rather, how the source should be paraphrased. That issue is best dealt with on the article talk page, where, as you know, it is already being discussed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In the instructions for this board it says the poster should include the exact proposed phrasing, specifically because certain phrasing might be adequately sourced by the reference and others not. The linked discussion does regard sourcing and whether rephrasing might address the issue. While not being a veteran of this particular board it looks to me like this is an appropriate place.  Equazcion  ( talk )  12:00, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
 * What is in question is the reliability of the source for the phrase that is being insisted on, i.e., the phrase "comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest", attributed to the Holy See's representative on the basis of this source. Is this phrase adequately sourced by the reference?  Esoglou (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See my full answer below. The source should be used but the phrasing should be altered, and yes, that is a viable suggestion to make on this noticeboard. Proper phrasing can solve sourcing issues.  Equazcion  ( talk )  13:14, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to slightly amend that. I shouldn't have said the source "should" be used. I don't have any opinion on that. I just mean to say the source could be used if quoted directly without interpretation. I'm not familiar enough with the article to say whether or not the point being made within the source is relevant to the article.  Equazcion  ( talk )  14:16, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that phrases like "comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest" is that they can be fundamentally misleading. If I say "homosexuality is totally different to pedophilia and incest", I am "comparing" it to them aren't I? If I say "homosexuality is like pedophilia and incest to the extent that it is a minority sexual behaviour", I am also "comparing" them. And yet this statement is perfectly accurate. The problem is that the phrase is used to imply the meaning "is similar to", which, IMO, does indeed misrepresent the source. I actually think that "comparing it to" could reasonably be included in examples of so-called Weasel Wording at MOS. On the evidence presented, the second sentence seems to more properly represent the source unless the source goes on to argue that the three sexual behaviours are closely linked or have important elements in common, in which case the claims made should be properly summarised. The word "comparing" doesn't cut it. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if "weasel words" accurately describes the problem, but I do see one (a problem) and Paul more or less describes it. "Bob compared the theft of his iPhone to my mother's cancer" is a loaded phrase that means much more than the dictionary definition of "compared" would have it mean. From my understanding this is a recent development in the English language, but anyway, it would be best to stay away from it. I would quote the passage from the source directly in order to avoid any accusations, from either side, of slanted interpretive language.  Equazcion  ( talk )  13:12, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact there is not even a comparison in the source, since the paragraph is making a general distinction between orientation and behaviour, assuming that this report of the full text is correct. Homosexuality, specifically, is not mentioned. Clearly that's part of the context, and "same sex" behaviour is mentioned later in the statement. But there is no direct comparison of homosexuality with paedophilia and incest that I can see. Paul B (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As an all-around rule we should abjure use of "A compared X to Y" when it can be misconstrued to mean "A said X was like Y." If we say someone compared to things we have to say what the outcome of the comparison was. And all this needs to be sourced; simply quoting the passage will not do if it doesn't explicitly say all these things. It's clear that in the presenting case, the requirement for sourcing isn't fulfilled; the passage has to be interpreted to get it to expres this comparison. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Proper noticeboard

 * This is not an "rs" matter, because no one questions whether the source is reliable. It should be posted to NPOVN.  TFD (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Equazcion has already mentioned above that the instructions for this board recall that many sources are reliable for statement X, but unreliable for statement Y. There seems to be consensus that the citation in question here is not a reliable source for the statement in question here.  Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is an address by the permanent representative of the Holy See to the United Nations to the Human Rights Council on "sexual orientation," published in "Zenit, a Roman Catholic publication. It is certainly a reliable source for what the representative said and, if you disagree, can you mention a news source that has a different transcript for the speech.  TFD (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When it says, "Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"", it is referring to the type of source required for a statement, not whether the source is correctly reported. The speech is a reliable source for what the clergyman said, but may not be a reliable source for information about homosexuality.  An editorial about the speech may be a reliable source for that authors's views on the speech, but not a reliable source for what was actually said.  A review of the movie "JFK" may be a reliable source for that movie but not for Kennedy's biography.  Other noticeboards exist for cases where lack of neutrality or synthesis are suspected.  TFD (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a reliable source for what the representative did say. But is it a reliable source for what has been attributed to him?  That is the question.  Esoglou (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case it would be an issue of OR or neutrality, which are more about how sources are used, while rs is about what sources are used. TFD (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My view (shared by at least one other editor) is that we are dealing with the reliability of a specified source for verifying a specified statement. Your view is different.  I think the instructions at the head of this page confirm what I said.  Your view is different.  I must leave it at that.  Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Determining whether a specific source is a "reliable source" for a specific claim is a proper use of this noticeboard. It appears the word "comparing" has several distinct meanings which may not all be supported by the source given. In such a case, the most specific wording attributed to the person being quoted is likely the best wording. If George Gnarph said "autosexuality, heterosexuality, pedophilia, homosexuality and antisexuality are all sexual orientations" then Gnarph has "compared" all of them to each other in the general sense of "listed them as belonging to a set of some sort". In such a hypothetical case, the more correct claim would be "George Gnarph listed a, b, c, and d as all being sexual orientations." Gnarph did not make a specific comparison of the different categories as being equivalent in that case. Again - this is a proper noticeboard for that query. Collect (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've come rather late to this discussion as there was no notification on the talk page that it was underway. I would have thought the article talk page the best place to hold it, but never mind. I'm not absolutely clear if there is a consensus here - and if there is then what it is? Could someone summarise please? In a discussion in Geneva on sexual orientation (specifically homosexuality) the representative of the Holy See argued against agreeing language to stop discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (homosexuality) because sexual behaviour should and is regulated by states. Homosexuality should be treated in that regard the same as incest and paedophilia - the implication being that these are all sexual behaviours against the norm, and generally disapproved of by society. Now what is the problem with saying he made a "comparison" between them? Did he not draw a comparison? I feel this discussion has focussed so much on dissecting semantics that we've rather lost sight of it all. But the language we have currently on the article page doesn't use "comparing", and I personally am happy to accept it. If there is a genuine consensus, however, to include a direct quote from Tomasi then we can include the following: "States can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples." While making absolutely clear that the comments were made in the context of a discussion about sexual orientation and homosexuality. As a separate issue I want to raise concerns with the approach taken by editor Esoglou who has characterised anyone disagreeing with him/her with promoting "original research". This is not called for as it suggests bias and lack of objectivity. I suggest Esoglou refrain from making further accusations without solid ground. Likewise I am alert to any edits that seek to create a pro-Vatican slant, despite contrary evidence.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (In this matter it was I who was accused, with support from Contaldo, not merely of "original research", but of "gross original research". On another matter I did, just once, speak of one single expression that Contaldo was insisting on as an "unsourced original-research claim"; I could have used, but I didn't use that description for the matter that I raised here.  But enough of that question, which doesn't regard this noticeboard.)
 * There seems to be a clear consensus here for using the exact words of Archbishop Tomasi at Geneva, instead of giving an interpretation of them as a "comparing", as Contaldo has even today been insisting. If Contaldo now accepts that the source he cited for this "comparing" claim is not valid, perhaps we can close this discussion.  If he wants to start a discussion about the reliability of some source or other for a different claim of his, that, it seems to me, will be a separate discussion.  Esoglou (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Common Sense Media
I have seen editors removing reviews by Common Sense Media from articles. They said that the website is unreliable just because it publishes media reviews for parents. I don't see how that makes any sense. The website is not controversial and is known for their reviews, as the article shows. They even review R rated films that are not for kids and those reviews are not bias. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there an example? I can't even see a reason why CSM would be used to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For film reviews in articles when there isn't many others. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What about examples? SL93 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Though you not seeing any reason why it would be used is not relevant to being reliable for film reviews. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice in our article on CSM we say "'According to Common Sense Media’s website, the organization has content distribution contracts with Road Runner, TiVo, Yahoo!, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DIRECTV, NBC Universal, Netflix, Best Buy, Google, AOL/Huffington Post, Fandango, Trend Micro, Verizon Foundation, Nickelodeon, Bing, Cox Communications, Kaleidescape, AT&T, and NCM.[7] The organization’s current rating system differs from the system used by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Entertainment Software Rating Board.[10] It has received positive support from parents, and it has received support from President Barack Obama, who stated that its rating system favored 'sanity, not censorship.'[8][9]'" Presuming our article is correct I guess this makes this organization's opinions notable at least. It would still be good to see real examples of citations being deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

“what matters for notability is simply whether the references are substantial, in reliably sources, and independent of the subject”
Hi, someone at the reference desk requested a translation of the French Wikipedia article on French painter Michel Bertrand. I would like to make sure that such a translation would survive – I don’t want to go to all the trouble if someone is just going to delete it. The two issues raised by commenters were notability (I will ask that at the other notice board) and reliability – which is why I’m here. I confess I didn’t really understand the issue posted (‘’“what matters for notability is simply whether the references are substantial, in reliably sources, and independent of the subject”’’). Can you help me understand if these sources are reliable? Thanks. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

1. and  – listings on the website of Centre Georges Pompidou, a major library and modern art museum. (ie showing that this artist’s work is exhibited in the Musée National d'Art Moderne.)

2. – brochure for an art festival in 2008 that mentions this artist was exhibiting.

3. – google books result; catalogue for a collection in the Musée d'art moderne Saint-Etienne (mentioned in the en wikipedia Saint-Étienne article) that apparently includes at least one mention of this artist’s name )(I can’t access the book).


 * None of those sources prove notability. You would need to find an article about him in a book on art history or newspaper - and not just an obituary.  I notice the French article is an orphan, Bertrand is not mentioned in other articles, which is a sign of lack of notability.
 * Also, since the French Wikipedia article is unsourced, it would be unwise to translate it. It is much easier to write an article based on reliable sources than to find sources for an existing article.
 * TFD (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see no reason to question the reliability of any of those sources, though (2.) does little more than confirm his existence. In my opinion, the Centre Pompidou is a clincher for notability too. Just in case you don't see it, the snippet of text I get in (3.) is "… Claude Viallat. Elle ne le connaissait pas, mais elle connaissait, parce que son mari pratiquait ce sport, un escrimeur peintre, professeur à l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts de Perpignan, Michel Bertrand". If your man is a fencer who taught at Perpignan, I'd say you are home and dry. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And I fully agree with TFD that it is much easier to write from scratch from the sources you have than it is to find sources for poorly referenced material translated from another wiki. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree on that too.
 * The catalogue of an art collection, like the catalogue of a library, doesn't in itself prove that all the authors/artists listed are notable ... but, yes, reference 3 as quoted by Justlettersandnumbers probably pushes him across the finishing line :) Andrew Dalby 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all, very helpful. BTW, he is a sculptor/painter, not a fencer as far as I know, but he did teach at l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Perpignan. And the French wikipedia article does mention he had two write-ups in a newspaper called L'Independant. However, since they were in 1976 and 1988, I doubt I'd find them online. Certainly the Perpignan paper of that name doesn't appear to have online archives. Is it going to be a problem just to translate the assertion that they exist? 184.147.137.9 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestion, for what it is worth, is to make a stub with the bare facts you can glean from the references you can actually see. Other relevant documents, such as the Indépendant articles or the article in Occitan listed on the Pompidou page (which might perhaps be hard to find, though I haven't tried), can be added as Further reading. In my view, that shows both that they are there (which helps with notability), and that you haven't read them. Anything that's on fr.wp that is unreferenced should not be translated - wikipedia can't be a reference for itself - so it is really easier to work from scratch, using the French article just for hints on what you are looking for. Two well-referenced sentences are much preferable to a long but unsourced page. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks all. Turning into more work than a simple translation! Appreciate your advice. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Maximillion Cooper
Advice, please! Can either of the following be considered reliable sources for details of the private life of Maximillion Cooper:



I know what I think, but would value the opinion of others. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Er ... which details? That he's married to one woman but dating another? If it were just those two sources I'd say no, but there are others, including direct interviews with the lady in question, that in sum breach the "just gossip" line. Essence BET . --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable publisher, COI author
An article in a peer-reviewed academic journal Computer Music Journal has a study comparing the performance of various optical music recognition software products. Other reviews in Maximum PC, PC World and Music Educators Journal all say the software has a terrible user interface, but it basically works and is the best option available. This article says differently that other products perform better.

The author of the journal article is from the University of Florence, which develops a competing product, 03MR, which is one of the products it says performs better. The author therefor has a substantial conflict of interest.

I am hesitant to use a source authored by a competing "vendor", which unsurprisingly says that their software outperformed competitors, something other sources don't seem to agree with. However it is published by a very reputable source and User: Justlettersandnumbers brings up a good point that presumably the journal has taken the conflict of interest of the author into consideration and found the information still to be worthwhile. Thoughts on how and if we should use this source? CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Journals determine whether there are any COIs which may affect the accuracy of articles and they would be reviewed by independent experts before publication. If an article is inaccurate then it will attract academic attention that could damage reputations.  So the authorship is immaterial.  However, opinions expressed are a different matter, which must be assessed according to neutrality.  TFD (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend using the review along the others, and specifying the author's affiliation, so the reader can decide what weight to give the possible conflict. --GRuban (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Ok, for now I put it back in with a really heavy attribution regarding who the author is and the fact that they produce a competing product. If anyone has other opinions, please feel free to edit/discuss, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

State Press Releases, State Bar Associations RS for matters of law?
I am working on the article for Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, and in the timeline there, someone had referenced the governor's veto of a specific bill in the legislature. It made reference to a press release by the State in question, and I could not find another more clearly independent RS on GN that made reference to this particular veto (which it appears was overridden).

I did find a reference to this specific veto on the state bar association website.

My questions are as follows:
 * 1) the State website is considered a primary source in this case, right?
 * 2) is the listing (without substantial commentary on the individual bill) on the Bar Association website considered RS?
 * 3) or is this just not considered notable for purposes of this article? (which may be different for an article on, say, the 2011 session of the NJ legislature) There is some other coverage of the event, but it is on blogs.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  22:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington Post
The article has claims on the new president elect of Iran's PhD degree. I am wondering if it is considered reliable for WP:BLP purposes. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically no, because the source cited in the Huffington Post is our own Wikipedia article Hassan Rouhani and a very poor copy of the relevant 1980 newspaper for which the HP acknowledges "Wikimedia". Wikipedia is, as we know, not a reliable source. It's nice that the Huffington Post is citing us, but we can't close the circle by citing it. [For anyone curious about this, the statement at issue is not that Hassan Rouhani has a doctorate -- he certainly has -- but that he already claimed to have a doctorate in 1980.] Andrew Dalby 13:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is rs. The article is not sourced to Wikipedia, but shows a 1980 newspaper clipping reproduced on Wikimedia.  I think too that it is beyond the scope of rs to review articles and determine whether the author followed good journalistic standards, just whether the publication is rs.  TFD (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is exactly within the scope of WP:RS, because reliability is only judged relative to a specific claim. If the claim were only sourced to a wikipedia article it would be clearly and unequivocably unreliable. But it is not, it is sourced to the news clipping and wikimedia is only cited as the depository of the clipping - so therefore it is RS for the claim, just as the clipping is an RS for the claim here on wikipedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The clipping is not, as things stand, an RS for the claim on Wikipedia. It isn't currently cited at Hassan Rouhani -- see the discussion at Talk:Hassan Rouhani. We cite convenience copies if we are sure they are genuine, not doctored, and not a breach of copyright. This is a clipping uploaded to Commons from a blog. It is apparently PD, and may come from a 1980 newspaper, but I don't see any clear indication that it does.
 * So, if we can't cite our clipping, we can cite the Huffington Post which cites our clipping? I don't think so. Andrew Dalby 13:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "no clear indication"? What kind of evidence do you suspect to be presented for a clipping from a 30 year old Iranian newspaper being genuine? If the Huffington post believes the clipping to be genuine, then why shouldn't we. I don't know why the editors have decided not to cite it, but given that old news papers can be cited without providing actual scans of the clipping or any online presence I see no good reason not to accept it as RS.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We were asked whether the HP article is RS.
 * The only sources for the HP article are our Wikipedia article plus this clipping on Commons which we ourselves have not yet decided to cite. Our standard view is that Wikipedia is not reliable. Additionally we do not cite external sources whose source is Wikipedia, because that's circular.
 * So, no, the HP article is not RS. There's no good reason to change our usual practice here. Citing the HP article without making all this clear could deceive our readers into thinking there is external support for what is at present a round-game.
 * If you think the clipping is RS, Maunus, I'd suggest the place we should talk about it further is at Talk:Hassan Rouhani where they have indeed been discussing whether to use it :) It would be good to have a translation -- to know, for example, what is the Persian word used for "doctor", what the word implied in 1980, and whether the subject used that word about himself. I find the script on that low-res image impossible to read. Andrew Dalby 15:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, Maunus and others, I have to correct myself: perhaps I was distracted by surprise that HP was quoting Wikipedia! In fact the HP article cites another document as well, which is said to be published by the Iranian Parliament. On what it draws from that document, we surely could cite it. Andrew Dalby 15:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The main question you ask when looking at Huffington Post articles is whether the authors are reliable. A random blogger would not count as a reliable source. But the author here is an academic and president of the American Council on the Middle East, so he seems reliable enough. If possible, I would attribute the information directly to him, however, as that's usually good policy. Silver  seren C 06:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

History of Assam, E.A Gait 1906
Is History of Assam by E.A Gait, published in 1906 can be considered as reliable source, when newer books challenges its content. I also like to point towards earlier recommendation here and response it got. Thanks भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What article(s) would this be used and how (what content)? Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is Kamapitha. It will be used to show all the different definitions in different sources.  Like Kamapitha (the first row entry).  "History of Assam" is a standard text, and the relevant portions are here: .  Chaipau (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, his view shows subjects area, part of West Bengal state while others show it as part of Assam state, i.e real odd one, making subject equally confusing for editors as well readers. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the other definitions agree with each other, either. A map shows this, in the talk page: Talk:Kamapitha.  Chaipau (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Modern scholars identifies the subject's boundary in current Western Assam and Central Assam, in Assam state, while old work by Gait marks it as North Bengal, in West Bengal state, which is makes dispute resolution process impossible. I like to request here, that said book should marked as unreliable to avoid future conflicts, as subject of this old book is researched thorougly in modern times. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 14:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Modern does not necessarily translate to critical and more accurate. R M Nath's work, first published in 1948, was mostly a product of his fertile imagination (Basham (1951) Review of "The Background of Assamese Culture"), which Goswami (1998) has, unfortunately, accepted uncritically. Note that Basham writes: "It in no way supersedes the works of Sir Edward Gait and K L Baruah, but succeeds in giving the Indian reader an imaginative rather than a scientifically accurate picture of Assam's history". Chaipau (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have yet to come across a source authored by a member of the British Raj administration that would be appropriate to use on Wikipedia. Those connected with the dreaded H. H. Risley, as Gait was, are particularly suspect. I've no reason to believe that they were any better at defining areas than they were at counting and classifying people. It is not uncommon to find them using inconsistent spellings etc and confusing one place with another, in particular because few of them had any knowledge of the local languages. Is it really encyclopaedic to use Gait in any circumstances? - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gait has been extensively quoted by others. Dineshchandra Sircar, in "Comprehensive History of Assam" Vol I cites Gait when he defines Kamapitha.  He gives three definitions, of which two are from Gait.  Sircar says, "There are some conflicting accounts of the theoretical divisions of Assam" and that "These theoretical divisions are not known from the early epigraphic records and may have been fabricated in the late medieval period." (p68).  We are using Gait the same way Sircar is doing, reporting on what different sources say the boundaries are.  If Sircar can cite Gait, Wikipedia should cite Gait too. Chaipau (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the Ripon Society a reliable, neutral source?
The Ripon Society maintains a website called the Ripon Advance, which issues posts and press releases. User:SandraJacoby15 has been inserting content from these releases into WP articles. Many sound promotional (e.g.,, ); there also seem to be some copyright violations. Can a "centrist Republican think tank" be considered a reliable, neutral source? 71.139.152.154 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dealing with the most important issue first, the edits in question were clear copyright violations, and have been reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of some of that editor's copyright violations, but the question still stands: If the same material had been added in original wording, would the Ripon Society be a reliable, neutral source? 71.139.152.154 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral? No, clearly not. Reliable? For its own opinions, certainly. As to whether such opinions are noteworthy, I'd suggest that unless they had been commented on elsewhere, they probably aren't. If material is significant enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, it is likely to be commented on in the media, and partisan websites need not be cited as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral or objective to be reliable. Identifying_reliable_sources However, per Andy, just because they are reliable (for at least their own opinions) doesn't mean they merit inclusion, if their statements are not discussed elsewhere. One possible exeption would be if they are a placeholder/representative for a notable viewpoint, even if they themselves are not notable. (In that case one should be able to point out others who also hold the same viewpoint as well) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Television documentary
A video of an investigative TV documentary posted at Hadrei Hadarim web portal has been linked as a reference to cite a certain fact. The relevant quote is mentioned in passing in the film by one of the journalists. 1) Is this video a copyright violation? 2) Can we use quotes in such films as RS? (The article in question does not make reference to this specific episode or news channel.) Chesdovi (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Press coverage of the Armenian genocide
There is currently a dispute at Template:Did you know nominations/Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide as to whether or not the article in question meets NPOV. At present, the debate is focussed on whether the article's sources are reliable. In particular, this link from a newslist called groong has been questioned. I would appreciate some input here from uninvolved parties as to whether this website and this link in particular can be considered reliable per the usual policies. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I get a response here please? Gatoclass (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of images as RS
Discussion (or the attempt at it) has been going on for some time now at Haredi Judaism. It relates to additions made by a novice editor User:Jonathan.bluestein. I wish to bring to attention at this point only one issue: That of using images as RS. Is there ever a circumstance when images can be used to cite text? If so, please can someone confirm when they can be used.

Please see Talk:Haredi Judaism. I had removed the image of the swimming pool which was being used as a reference. It was re-addedby User:Jonathan.bluestein until he removed it himself:.

Now he insists on using another image as a source:. I had removed it ([) and he has just re-added it after replying to my post at talk. [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]] (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. My name's Jonathan Bluestein. I strongly suggest reading the Talk page on Haredi Judaism, to get a sense of what has been going on there as of late, and what Chesdovi has been up to. He has been making tremendous efforts to delete mass amounts of material off that article. As for his claims in this particular discussion:


 * First image - unlike what he wrote, it was not removed. The use of it as reference has been removed.


 * Second image - in my opinion, a valid source. Addresses the subject matter. Has copyrights. Was shot at a relevant location and at a relevant time to the subject being discussed. Speaks for itself as proof of a certain claim made in the article's text.


 * Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not delved into the whole history of the conflicts in this article; my gut reaction is that both sides need to back down a bit. Having looked at the picture of the police barrier, however, it's not a reliable source. I say this especially since I cannot read Hebrew, and therefore have to have the picture interpreted for me. That interpretation is the actual source, and from what I gather the interpreter is someone captioning the picture or otherwise giving personal testimony. Now, I wouldn't mind the picture itself, perhaps; but I have to think that there must be some published source, even in Hebrew, which talks about such roadblocks and connects them with Heredi influence. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on this particular source, but I'd like to point out that your language skills are entirely irrelevant to whether a source is reliable. Zerotalk 00:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any policy/guideline which states that sources should ideally be in English? The addition of numerous Hebrew sources is making it very difficult for me to verify his additions. This is English Wikipedia after all.... Chesdovi (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is WP:NONENG. But it won't help much. Zerotalk 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are ample and I have used a couple to suggested a draft text at talk. . Whether Mr Bluestien will be happy with it or not is another matter.  Chesdovi (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ReasonTV
A user is repeatedly adding ReasonTV as a source for discussing the "scientific consensus" about GMOs in an article about the March Against Monsanto. A discussion on the talk page found no consensus for its reliability nor for adding it to the article, but the user will not recognize any consensus and continues to add the link to the article. We already have a good secondary source from the Associated Press that covers the same material without the added opinion or baggage.   The ReasonTV source self-identifies as a "video editorial", commentary that exists solely to make fun of the protesters. But, the editor is not actually using the source in the article, the editor is citing the blurb about the source, which is somewhat disingenuous. Further, the site itself is funded by a "right-libertarian research organization that...produces papers and studies to support a particular set of values." Additionally, the source has monetary connections to the topic of the article (Monsanto) that is under criticism (see the linked discussion). To summarize, the editor who keeps adding this source isn't actually citing the video but a blurb about the video. And, we already have a reliable secondary source from the AP that adequately covers the scientific consensus. Since the editor will not follow the consensus on the talk page, I am looking for further opinions here. If you actually watch the video, you will discover that this is basically a joke and far from a quality source. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)