Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 158

Hawkeye cast in The Avengers sequel

 * 1) Source: http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/05/20/update-jeremy-renner/
 * 2) Article:
 * 3) Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575702120&oldid=575684304
 * 4) Discussion: Would like some additional opinions regarding this source. I also have some alternate sources (or additional, if multiple sources would make a difference). These other sources are:


 * http://screenrant.com/avengers-2-age-of-ultron-hawkeye/
 * http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Avengers-2-What-We-Know-So-Far-About-Age-Ultron-32405.html
 * http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/07/25/avengers-age-of-ultron-black-widow-hawkeye/
 * http://www.mstarz.com/articles/16836/20130723/avengers-2-news-jeremy-renner-s-hawkeye-receiving-bigger-role.htm
 * http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/03/elizabeth-olsens-age-of-ultron-casting-confirmed-by-samuel-l-jackson-4133029/
 * http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a519517/james-spader-on-avengers-age-of-ultron-itll-be-a-lot-of-fun.html

Thank you for your opinions. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Metro citation seems decent. Shii (tock) 19:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Splashpage would be reliable if it were sure of itself, but in the linked-to article it specifically says it's reporting a rumor. We don't do that. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Metro source says that Renner is "expected" to return. That sounds like a prediction based on conventional wisdom, instead of fact-checked and verified information. I don't think that's good enough.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we use press releases to write an encyclopaedia?

 * 1) http://xcor.com/press/
 * 2) Lynx (spacecraft) - a concept under development by xcor.com
 * 3) Basically the entire article is sourced either directly from XCOR or obvious press releases - such as the article in Popular Mechanics. First announced in 2008 with "flights within two years", the project still has nothing beyond a mockup and a few pieces of equipment such as a nosewheel. The article looks to be little more than advertising for XCOR, with the aim being to maximise the number of links to their site that they can cram into a single Wikipedia article. --Pete (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that while we can use press releases to support specific facts ... we should not build the entire article on them. We need more than just obvious press releases. I don't know enough about this specific topic to know whether such sources exist... but if not, I would suggest discussing the article at WT:Notability. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Press releases should be used sparingly. However even though business writing bases a lot on press releases, these articles are reliable sources if the publication is.  Presumably their journalists are sufficiently knowledgeable to determine what is significant and authentic.  TFD (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ^This; Popular Mechanics, although not what it used to be, is a WP:RS; looking at the article in question, Air & Space Smithsonian is another "blatant RS", as is AW&ST. Space.com has also been determined to be a RS in the past; while The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC also require little to no questioning. Even if they themselves based their writing off press releases, it doesn't change the fact that it's reporting in a third-party source (therefore clearing the WP:N issue). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...also a serious trouting for the OP here, who started the discussion here then without waiting nominated the article being queried at AfD... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The trade press uses press releases a lot. And why shouldn't it? Say you are the editor of The Widget Magazine. Widget manufacturers send you press releases on their new kinds of widgets. You don't distrust their factual content. You just tone down some of the most exaggerated language. Everyone happy. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you are arguing in support of more liberal use of press releases, or making some other point. I think the original advice, they can be used, but sparingly, is on point. There is no question that many RS sources use press releases to create their material. I have no doubt that they are sometimes used with scant fact checking, however the difference is that they are professional journalists, responsible for their content, while we are not professional journalists. While I am sure some editors have developed a radar for creative press release wording, we do not distinguish between levels of editors so we ought to use them sparingly, for uncontentious facts, and information not likely to be made up (location of operations, etc.) The fact that a professional journalist has chosen to reprint the material provides us with a sort of safe harbor, which we wouldn't have is we used it directly.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Leigh Fermor - unreliable author?
Is Between the Woods and the Water a professional work when talking about the history of the town Alba Iulia?. I am asking this because an editor just added it to the article (Alba_Iulia) and I am not convinced that this is a good source (he does not seem to have an academic recognition as a historian) 79.117.168.132 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The source given only includes part of the book. The final section "Notes" is not visible in the preview. Before any comment is made about the historic accuracy of the book, one should look at that section - the author himself might let readers know of the limitations of the work. If the author asserts that he has accurately represented the history of Alba Iulia, it might be appropriate for somebody who knows about the subject to check whether or not this book is reasonable. If it is, then in my view it is worth keeping the citation, but flagging in "Better citation needed". Martinvl (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously what Paddy Leigh Fermor is famous for is kidnapping Heinrich Kreipe with Billy Moss, and carting him off Crete in a small boat. However, he was also an erudite and well-respected writer, though not a professional historian. I think it's safe to assume that what he wrote is based on sources he regarded as reliable; he might perhaps have seen something like this. Is there anything contentious about what is sourced to him in the article? I have the book, if that is any help; my copy doesn't have a Notes section, just a brief appendix. He spells it Bălgrad not Balgrad, by the way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, etymology of Alba Iulia is a very specific subject and I could not find better source than this. Any helpful contribution is greatly appreciated. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Better source needed" is correct, I'd say. It's quite likely Patrick Leigh Fermor has got it all right, but he isn't a historian or an etymologist. I don't suppose Coriolan Suciu, Dicţionar istoric al localităţilor din Transilvania, 1967, is available on line? Andrew Dalby 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam By Lesley Hazleton
Is this a reliable secondary source? I am interested in the story that she narrates in this page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I found a lot of positive reviews here including one from Professor Wilferd Madelung.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Gabre Gabric
There is an issue with Italian Olympian Gabre Gabric, whose year of birth has been listed as both 1914 and 1917. Until recently, we listed 1917 based on the explanation at Sports Reference, a site whose data and biographies are provided by a team led by Olympic historian Bill Mallon, as well as an Italian report where the athlete herself explains how 1914 came about as an error. User:Kasper2006, however, who claims to know the family personally, has changed it back to 1914 based on a blog run by a family member. I suggested that Kasper2006 submit anything relevant from the family to WP:OTRS but, considering that the last time I sent something from a family member there they told me to get an account and do it myself, I can't really fault Kasper2006 for not wasting their time on that. So, the main question is is there are a consensus that the sources added by Kasper2006 are reliable enough to change her year of birth (with maybe a footnote about 1917)? If there is, then I'm fine with that, but I would like some clarification, as they don't seem reliable enough to me (but I admit that it can be construed as a grey area). Canadian  Paul  22:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Her doughter and her son i law [[Eddy Ottoz] explained this. See here --[[User:Kasper2006|Kasper2006]] (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I have created a section where everything is explained better Question about the date of birth - Documents proving the birth in 1914. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But the most wonderful thing is that, beyond what it will obtaine Canadian Paul, there is a real life. ;) Look at this picture, please ;) --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky
Is the famed linguist Noam Chomsky a reliable source for historical facts about the Phoenix Program?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO, no. He's a polemicist, whose opinions are notable only as his opinion. WeldNeck (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * what source for what claim in what context? he is unlikely to have gotten facts wrong, but his interpretations are probably not representative of the mainstream, although as a noted opinionista, his opinions may be worthy of including, attributed in the article as "Chomsky called this X" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chomsky is a reliable source for theories of linguistics, and only for his own opinions outside that field. Though I haven't read his work on the Phoenix Program, I assume that he references or mentions work by professional historians or other reliable sources. Reading and citing those other sources is probably a better approach.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  01:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chomsky is cited for the following claim: "After Phoenix Program abuses began receiving negative publicity, the program was officially shut down. However, another program of a similar nature, code-named "F-6", was initiated as Phoenix was phased out." I believe this should be removed unless a better source is provided.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chomsky is known for his meticulous footnoting and sourcing of all his assertions. In this case, he cites Earl S. Martin, Reaching the Other Side, Crown, 1978, p82. So perhaps somebody could check this work, to see if it confirms Chomsky's citation of it. RolandR (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, instead of removing it, I'll just tag the statement with "better source needed".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can see it here on p. 82.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The text should probably be rephrased to better reflect that source; namely, this is an allegation from "several antiwar journals".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably needs tweaking, given that it's a personal account. Earl Martin was apparently a Mennonite conscientious objector who volunteered for service in Vietnam, worked with refugees and helped clear unexploded land mines. He's still doing MCC work.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to use Chapter 28 in Douglas Valentine's The Phoenix Program (ISBN 978-0595007387), for this. It seems F-6 was just a procedural change to Phoenix/Phung Hoang authorized on 21 April 1972, to make it easier to arrest people on the basis of 1 report instead of 3 reports. It was cancelled in December 1972 and the 3 report requirement was reinstated.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo Contributor's Network
Is Yahoo Contributor's Network a reliable source for this? My contention it is not as it is essentially composed of anonymous authors signing up here and writing with no editorial oversight or independent fact checking (no matter what references are listed at the bottom of an article). -- Neil N  talk to me  03:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And getting paid for it. "Performance Payments are payments made to the contributor based on the amount of traffic that a piece of content receives." It isn't a reliable source. If something written there is correct and  significant it will be sourceable elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually opened a discussion about this as well, just a few days ago (see here - Reliable Sources/Noticeboard). There actually is editorial oversight; everything submitted to the website has to be reviewed by a professional editor, who then decides whether to publish an article or reject it, providing feedback on how it can be improved.  According to the Submission Guidelines,  anything published by the site is required to include reliable references for all information that is not common knowledge. Articles are also generally expected to be within a certain word count, are supposed to follow a specific format, and cannot be unfair (no ranting, cheerleading, misleading, name-calling, or gratuitously attacking). Yes, as Dougweller pointed out, the writers are paid for their articles; I don't see how that makes them unreliable though. To the contrary, that makes them professional freelancers. All of this had led me to the opinion that the site meets Wikipedia's reliability  criteria (it certainly is much more reliable than self-published sources like blogs); the one thing that is making me unsure is NeilN's claim that the authors are anonymous. Technically, the author of the article in question is not anonymous (it was written by Adam Hornbuckle), but no information about him is provided whatsoever, so his identity is still somewhat unclear. I don't know whether all reliable sources provide some kind of information on their writers, so I don't know how much of an issue this is, but I can see how it might be a concern. I should mention though, that the author of the article that I had been interested in using does provide information on himself.   It doesn't seem to me that the reliability of this website is a clear call, so I would be interested in getting the opinions of several editors on it. --Jpcase (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting points Jpcase. By anonymous, I meant Wikipedia-like anonymity in that my author (editor) name can have no real-world connection to who I actually am. Regarding the review process, I'd be a lot more comfortable if it said, "A trained editor will read and review content for subject matter, clarity, and accuracy". We need more opinions from Wikipedia editors on this. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not at all convinced that the 'editorial oversight' is anything like we'd expect from say a newspaper. "A trained editor will read and review content for subject matter, clarity, and adherence to our Submission Guidelines. Depending on the quality of the topic and content, the editor may decide to make an Upfront Payment offer based on the projected number of page views the piece will receive as well as the shelf life of the topic." The submission guidelines to ask that material be accurate and cited, but I would be surprised if there is that much content checking, let alone by experts in the field. I read 'review content' as making sure that the content is something that will interest readers and get as many hits as possible. Their page on promotional tools is interesting. I agree that the authors might be called "professional freelancers". But I don't think we should treat them as we might treat a freelancer's article in the New York Times. Maybe we should just fall back to the author needing to be a recognised authority in their field. And if the author is anonymous, not use it. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Yahoo! Voices won't be interested in publishing something that is unlikely to attract readers, but that's no reason to assume the editors don't check for accuracy. The Submission Guidelines say that they do and that they require reliable references for anything that isn't common knowledge. If someone can point to several (even the most reputable sources are bound to make a few mistakes) instances in which the website has published inaccurate information, then it would be fair to say that their editorial oversight isn't up to par. But otherwise, that's just a hunch. My personal opinion is that the site's reliability should be determined on a case-by-case basis. In instances where the author does not provide any kind of background information on him or herself, then I would be hesitant to use their articles. But I'm not sure that an author on the site should necessarily have to be a recognized authority in their field (Though this should probably be a requirement for certain topics). For example, the article that I had been interested in using is an album review by an author named Jonathan Frahm, who has provided detailed information on himself;  he is a published author of fiction novels and has written one hundred and twenty articles for the website, most of which seem to be related to music. Although I don't believe that he has ever written a music review for any other publications, I don't see why he shouldn't be viewed as a qualified music critic. --Jpcase (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Know your Meme
I appreciate queries have been raised about the site knowyourmeme.com previously and can see it is generally not accepted as a reliable source, which is my re-action to it. However, it would be helpful if it could be confirmed as it was inserted in the Shiba Inu article last night (despite the discussion on the talk page). I have just removed it pending thoughts from editors here. The article keeps being protected to prevent the constant changes of the word 'dog' to 'doge' or 'dogge' etc as can be seen in the article history. It is being used to support the following insertion: "The Shiba Inu has also received internet popularity in 2013, with "doge" and "shibe" becoming an internet phenomenon. This spurned forth from a picture of a particular Shiba Inu reaching out with its left paw, and similar images of Shiba Inu in various poses with text in the Comic Sans MS font overlaid has spread through the internet (as an internet meme). Although the term "doge" afterwards began to be used broadly towards dogs in general, the Shiba Inu breed has gained popularity since."

The ref being used is here. Comments and opinions would be very welcome! SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  10:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think knowyourmeme.com is a reliable source for explanations of the origins of viral online content. However, this particular article is still in "research" mode and being evaluated by website staff. So, I'd say the page is still in a transitional state and shouldn't be used until the article is evaluated by the website editors. Liz  Read! Talk! 15:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Official government publications, from unrecognized states -- are they not eligible to be considered "reliable sources"?
Official government publications, from unrecognized states -- are they not eligible to be considered "reliable sources"?

Articles for deletion/Armen Ohanyan is a mass nomination of articles about individuals that assert they are members of the legislature of the breakaway state of Nagorno-Karabakh. The nominator claimed, first, that these individuals wouldn't meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN; second, that there were no references to document these individuals were legislators.

I didn't trust that the nominator had been diligent enough in whatever attempt they may have made to comply with WP:BEFORE. My own web search found that Vardges Ulubabyan had lead a diplomatic mission to the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Press releases from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic confirmed he was a legislator in the Nagorno-Karabakh legislature.

Well, the nominator at the afd is asserting that press releases from unrecognized states shouldn't be considered Reliable Sources.

There are coups, uprisings, that are mere flashes in the pan. When a coup or uprising has just occurred, and some hither-to shadowy or completely unknown group claims to be the new legitimate government in that region, I agree we should treat their press releases with great caution. Such groups can disappear overnight, without anyone even learning who had been in charge of the group.

Both Nagorno-Karabakh and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, and South Ossetia, for what it is worth, date back to the breakup of the old Soviet Union, over 20 years ago. While these governments may not be recognized internationally, they provide the same kinds of services to their citizens as other countries. They build roads, run schools, operate Foreign Ministries. Is it possible their official press releases contain untruths? Sure. But (1) so do the official press releases of well-recognized countries, like the USA; (2) our material complies with WP:VER "verifiability, not truth". Press releases from a foreign ministry that has been in operation for over 20 years should be considered verifiable, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the editor who believes that breakaway states official information can not be RS then anything by the PRC before 1971 can not be used and anything from the ROC after 1971 can not be used, and by that editor's logic all legislators from the ROC are not notable because they don't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Oh, and of course don't forget the Confederate States of America, mass deletions of sources from the Confederacy used in Jefferson Davis and any Civil War politician from the Confederacy, they barely lasted 1/5 the time Nagorno-Karabakh has. Down with the South (as a source on Wikipedia)!! (joking, calm down hillbillies).Camelbinky (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RS policy on WP is not like being recognized by the UN, so of course we can report the announcements of organizations not recognized by the UN - as do other types of publications such as news organizations. To start, with nearly any source is reliable for its own opinion. The key things to check are:
 * Is the organization notable? For example do news media mention it?
 * Is the publication we are using really from that organization? Again, seeing if news media cite it might help if there is any debate.
 * How are we using it? For example we should not be using a self-published source in order to say overly positive things about them (self promotion).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rightpundits
Rightpundits appears to be a blog with low standards of fact checking. It describes itself as a "a political gossip and news organization focusing on election information and editorial opinion" but writes about “blogger diversification” and "other blogs" on their "About us" page. It repeats uncritically an article from the European Union Times about how Obama Orders 15,000 Russian Troops to Occupy America. It should be noted that the EUTimes is called a conspiracy site by Snopes.com and according to RationalWiki "strays deeply into tinfoil hat territory". Rightspundits is used as a source or an external link in a number of articles. It's not always obvious what the link is suppused to contribute, such as a biography of Ruth Madoff in the Participants in the Madoff investment scandal. Sjö (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fails WP:RS, except possibly as a primary source for verifying information about itself or one of its writers. I'm also having trouble imagining a scenario where it would meet WP:EL. As for its presence in Madoff, I wouldn't care to guess about the motives of the user who added it, but my first inclination is to consider the last sentence of the "biography" and think "guilt by association". Rivertorch (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Source for Cambodian genocide denial
Is this undergraduate dissertation good enough for the idea that there was a (pro Khmer Rouge) "Standard Total Academic View" on Cambodia in the late 1970s? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this excluded by WP:SCHOLARSHIP i.e. "are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" ? It's an interesting source though. "an unequivocal record of complicity existed between a generation of academics who studied Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge."...ouch.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The thesis is only talking about 1975 to 1979, so not really a generation, and the author identifies fewer than ten academics. The complicity he talks about was real, that's for sure. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ouch indeed. But I agree, an undergraduate dissertation seems to be ruled out by WP:SCHOLARSHIP criteria, unless it can be demonstrated that it been cited as a credible source by more qualified academics etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tip of the complicity iceberg... Luckily a simple solution to the complexities of history seems to have been found in contemporary Cambodia, in my experience, by just blaming Vietnam for everything.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read a lot of the books in the dissertation, the quote bothers me "Standard Total Academic View" (there were several non-academics that disagreed, one of which was given lots of publicity in Reader's Digest) but the source is pretty good (I added it to my webpage about Pol Pot). I agree with Andy about WP:scholarship. No solid numbers about how many were killed by Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia and, blaming Vietnam for invading is a good excuse for never finding out the truth. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't think that STAV term should be employed using the encyclopedia's voice without attribution. See The Genocide Debate: Politicians, Academics, and Victims p. 56 or Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982 p. 131 for examples of how secondary sources handle it (and I guess secondary sources should be used rather than the thesis).  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these sources, a distinct improvement. It is even murkier than I remembered when I used to read about it. Scholars who are still publishing are being accused. Are we dealing properly, with the record of Ben Kiernan, in the article I mentioned above and in this aspect of his biography? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ben_Kiernan section looks like it might have the imprint of an editor hostile to the subject i.e. wiki-editor sampled quotes rather than secondary source sampled quotes. I guess they should probably go.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I took out the cherry-picked quotes as BLP violations. The rest has secondary sources but I don' think they're strong enough. If an academic's work has been criticised in academic sources, we should cover that. I'm not sure that even the WSJ is an appropriate source here. Further comments would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The heading is misleading. The section as I read it now (I haven't checked whether Judith was the last person who edited it) is not about criticism of scholarship, it's about criticism for having previously been "on the wrong side" politically. Andrew Dalby 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For a start, "The dispute is significant because it highlights the intellectual rifts in the post Vietnam War period in which the ideological convictions of anti-war academics often seemed to outweigh rational analysis" needs to go as POV editorialising. The Murder of Malcolm Caldwell section seems to have been added as some sort of morality tale - or at least, it is off-topic. Frankly though, the title is questionable, and I have to query whether it is normal for sources to discuss this episode in isolation, rather than in the broader context, where other Western players in the Cambodia saga don't always come out smelling of roses either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Without regarding the merits of undergraduate "honours" theses in various academic systems, I do not believe jim.com is a credible mirror for any source. Reject as republished through jim.com. In relation to Ear (1995) The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia: Ear has had 18 years to seek journal publication of this work; and not having done so the work has not received appropriate scholarly oversight fit for its claims. The work itself ought be rejected as failing to meet the criteria for scholarship. Review Articles are readily published. This is a non-expert publishing outside of appropriate forums, in a SELF grade mirror. Reject. (I'd encourage Ear to seek publication though). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, he's not a non-expert any more though, he's an Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, that's very interesting :) In 1995, though, he was an undergraduate, and we would only cite an undergraduate essay if it has meanwhile been cited with approval in RS publications by experts in the subject (which is, in a sense, post-publication peer review). Setting aside that case, I agree with Fifelfoo that we shouldn't treat this as RS. Andrew Dalby 08:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I should say, just to be clear, that I haven't advocated using this source and there's secondary source coverage citing his work that can be used in its place. Everyone appears to agree that the source is ruled out by policy, although I'll happily admit that if I were asked to demonstrate that something has had a "significant scholarly influence", I wouldn't exactly know how to go about doing that in a way that would produce a reliable and repeatable result (other than via a very reliable meta-source that said it has a "significant scholarly influence"). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. He has published on a number of topics subsequently, which should make us wonder why he hasn't published this particular work. He cites someone called Bruce Sharp as his "friend" and that is even more frustrating because Sharp has a website with a number of essays that are, actually, very good scholarship. Everything about his website screams advocacy publishing, just some old website, but as an account of the genocide denial (not the genocide) it's thorough and nuanced. Sean, what I think we would normally do is count the citations in top-quality academic sources, although sometimes you see a wording like "like every scholar in the field I will rely on Blogg's blog". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Kindly Check Sources
1. Source

Al Azhar Islamic Studies Scholars Expose Dr. Tahir Qadri as Imposter, Fake Sheikh and Demand: Prove Your Claims

Al-Azhar scholars expose Tahirul Qadri

The Head of the Qadri Tariqa Publicly Denounce Dr Tahir Qadri

2. Article Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Tahir-ul-Qadri

3. Content

"On 12 April 2012, it was reported that Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri had been challenged and refuted by scholars of eminent Islamic institute, Al Azhar Islamic University, Cairo, Egypt regarding his self proclaimed title of Shaikh ul Islam. This refutation was also published in leading newspapers of Pakistan. In another development, he was also refuted as Sheikh ul Islam by head of Qadri Tariqa (Qadri sufi way of worship)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Farooq 78 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 October 2013‎


 * This has already been addressed on the biographies of living persons noticeboard: Regardless of the reliability or otherwise of sources, we do not report opinions as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Similarities between Avatar (2009 film) and Firekind
Sources: 1. 2. 3.  4.
 * (Note: sources 1 and 2 are the same person; and sources 3 and 4 cite them.)

Article: Firekind. Content: "James Cameron's Avatar has a number of parallels with Firekind: Request: Following an earlier discussion at Talk:Firekind, another editor (User talk:Betty Logan) and I failed to agree about whether the above sources were good enough to justify including the above material. Having reverted each other three times each and not wanting an edit war, I wonder if anyone else could offer their views? Many thanks. Richard75 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A human goes to a jungle world with deadly plant and animal life, as well as poisonous air.
 * Floating rocks fill the sky.
 * Aliens inhabit the planet and are not understood by the humans.
 * A human goes to the natives and lives among them.
 * The aliens ride dragons.
 * The protagonist eventually helps the aliens defeat the humans with help coming from the planet itself, which turns out to be 'aware'.
 * The native species and their environment are interconnected by some sort of "neural net". "

Comment I would like to point out that I am not disputing the reliability of these publications for factual claims. I am questioning the WP:WEIGHT that is given to non-notable reviewers. These fanzine style websites are two a penny on the internet, and Richard has so far failed to convince me that the opinions of these people are relevant. We don't really have any WP:FRINGE guidelines for media reception, but the same principle applies: if a view isn't shared by mainstream reviewers should we really be including it in our articles? Charlie Anders seems qualified to speak on the subject, but what qualifies Eddie Lazer and Caleb Goellner? None of these reviewers have had reviews accepted at Rotten Tomatoes which has a basic "prominence" criteria for critics to be included. At the end of the day we are not a fan wiki, and any "expert opinion" whether it is scientific research or critical opinion should meet basic peer review criteria. Just because someone somewhere writes an opinion on the internet doesn't mean we have to register it here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment The text was too long but I tried a compromise. Will this work for involved editors? QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment (1) QuackGuru's compromise works for me. (2) My reading of WP:WEIGHT is that it says that if 99% of people say one thing and 1% say the opposite, then don't give undue prominence to the 1% as they are likely to be extreminsts -- the example given is the Flat Earthers. That doesn't really describe the situation we are dealing with here (the analogy is if 100 people reviewed Firekind and only one of them saw a similiarity with Avatar -- but just about any review of Firekind post-2009 compares it with Avatar). Richard75 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment seems correct to me: this is not a classic weight issue if concerning the subject of the sources (claims of plagiarism) you do not have counter claims from other sources, just a lack of claims. So looking at Betty Logan's comment it is not an RS matter, and based on the point of Richard75 it is not a black/white NOTE or WEIGHT matter. It seems to be a matter for editors to argue in terms of what makes a good article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd find more sources that believe Avatar is a ripoff of Dances with Wolves than you will this British movie... and the conspiracy theory on it is more believable. In fact South Park did an episode on it.Camelbinky (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about Dances With Wolves, or Avatar per se. Richard75 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Timmerman of Daily Caller: "sources with access to intelligence reports had told him that intelligence reports from French and Jordanian military intelligence show..."
Source: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/09/the-evidence-for-syrian-chemical-weapons-use-crumbles/

Article: Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability

Content: According to former defense correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman, writing in September 2013 regarding the August 2013 Ghouta attack, sources with access to intelligence reports had told him that "intelligence reports from French and Jordanian military intelligence show that the jihadist al-Nusra Front rebels acquired similar rockets and chemical agents earlier this year when they overran a chemical weapons depot in Aleppo on May 17 and captured a rocket unit in Daraa no[t] long afterward".

Is this suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * he source is an opinion piece and hence fails rs for facts, in this case what Timmerman said. While it may be possible to find an rs, it should not be included unless included in mainstream sources, because of weight.  If his claims are generally ignored then they should not be included.  TFD (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nelson knows full well that Timmerman isn't just some random blogger mouthing off; he's a respected former defense correspondent and his claims about the US misrepresenting the key intercepted phone call for the Ghouta chemical attack were picked up as the sole specific intelligence issue mentioned by Rep Alan Grayson in his critical NYT op-ed about the U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 . As such, Timmerman's comments are clearly significant and it is beyond absurd to try to exclude them from an article to which they are so fundamentally relevant. Furthermore, this is entirely the wrong notice board: the claim is clearly attributed in the text and there can be no doubt that Timmerman is a reliable source for what Timmerman says. Podiaebba (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * TImmerman is an expert whose opinion is noted, not cited as fact. That's appropriate here, as commentaries from experts are encouraged, in certain situations, if they are contextualized. -Darouet (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

== Using a well-respected and reliable expert as a source. The expert himself posted, in a linguistics forum, his opinion on a language. Is it usable in an article? ==

This is the discussion:

Comparanda used by Koch

The comparanda used for translating Tartessian by Koch in Celtic From The West, Tartessian 2 and Celtic From the West 2 are the oldest attested forms of the Celtic languages concerned not Medieval Irish as was claimed by one editor for example he uses Oghamic ("Primitive") Irish then Old Irish if this is not available likewise with the other Celtic languages. I have removed the claim made by another editor that was not in the reference cited.Jembana (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Jembana, Dr. David Stifter said that about the Medieval Irish innovations..."I do not share Joe's complete scepticism, but I can't see anything particularly Celtic at all. A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place." . It was linked above in case you did not see it. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your source is a discussion forum not a reliable source as per Wikipedia standards. It also isn't a published peer-reviewed source.Jembana (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I reiterate the statement I made in my first sentence which comes from reading the three peer-reviewed reliable sources named. They are observations as per WP:VERIFY.Jembana (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I must respectfully disagree, Jembana. Professor Dr. David Stifter is a highly reliable and respected source. He posted the very statement himself. His expertise is in the very area on which this topic is based. I read WP:VERIFY and your claim not solid. If you disagree, this can be posted on the noticeboards and they can decide.


 * His credentials:


 * Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge/Department of Early Irish


 * Staff


 * Professor Dr. David Stifter


 * Professor David Stifter is the professor of Old Irish since 2011. He studied Latin, Russian and Indo-European linguistics in Vienna, and received his Mag. Phil. in 1998 for a thesis on the Old Irish influence on the Latin of the Nauigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis. He spent the year 1995/6 in Maynooth studying Old and Middle Irish with Prof. Kim McCone. In 2003 he was awarded the doctorate for a thesis on the didactics of Old Irish. From 2000–2008 he was contract assistant at the Department of Linguistics at the University of Vienna. During this time, he played a major role in establishing and developing the Celtic studies programme at the University of Vienna. He is secretary of the Societas Celtologica Europaea (http://www.celtologica.eu/). From 2006, he directed and worked in three different research projects, devoted to a dictionary of the Old Irish glosses in the Milan manuscript Ambr. C301 infr. (http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/milan_glosses.htm), an interactive etymological dictionary plus edition of texts of Lepontic (http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/wiki/Main_Page), and a study of the linguistic remains of Celtic in Austria.


 * He has published widely on the Old and Middle Irish language and literature, and on the Continental Celtic languages (Celtiberian, Gaulish and Lepontic). His introductory handbook Sengoídelc. Old Irish for Beginners (Syracuse University Press 2006) has been adopted for teaching Old Irish in universities world-wide and was awarded the 2006 Michael J. Durkan Prize for Books on Language and :::Culture of the American Conference for Irish Studies. He is founder and editor of the interdisciplinary Celtic-studies journal Keltische Forschungen (Vienna 2006–) (http://www.univie.ac.at/keltische-forschungen/) and of its accompanying monograph series (Vienna 2010–). He co-edited several volumes in Celtic and Indo-European linguistics, among them the four-volume collection The Celtic World. Critical Concepts in Historical Studies (Routledge 2007).


 * His research interests are comparative Celtic linguistics (esp. Old Irish and Continental Celtic) and language contact in the ancient world and on the early medieval British Isles. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Can the statement be used since Professor Dr. David Stifter posted the comment himself? His credentials are about as excellent as one can have on a specific issue. I hope I formatted this correctly. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A.Tamar Chabadi did not include the following replies from me on this:
 * Stifter's credentials are not the issue A.Tamar Chabadi. I personally hold his work in high regard as I do for Koch - I equally admire his work on Lepontic as I do Koch's on Tartessian. The problem is with using a brief off-the-cuff reply from a discussion forum as a source as per WP:RS. There are wiki editors (including admins) weeding out such self-published web sources as we speak. They are not reliable sources and your assurances cannot make them so.Jembana (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as WP:VERIFY, A.Tamar Chabadi, there is a further issue with this source - it says: "A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place.". Note that this has no examples given and therefore is just a bald statement that cannot be peer-reviewed. Now to verify that Koch's use of other Celtic languages does not indeed rely heavily on Middle Irish developments (strange the ambiguous term "Medieval Irish" is used instead of Middle Irish in the post, but anyway), I need only read the basis for each inscription's translation in the 3 peer-reviewed texts that Koch has contributed to on Tartessian: Celtic From The West, Tartessian 2 and Celtic From The West 2 and I can only see from this that he has used Primitive Irish, Celtiberian, Hispano-celtic languages, Old Irish, Gaulish as a basis BEFORE looking for later comparanda to add to these. So the statement does not verify. Since you are in contact with Dr. Stifter, maybe you can get some examples from him that we can verify ?Jembana (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Jembana (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact- self-published sources and statements by experts CAN and are indeed legitimately used and if there is indeed some "cabal" going around deleting them as implied above that editors and some admins "as we speak" are doing so... I suggest they quit it. It wasn't that long ago we had this debate and those that had the mistaken belief of what RS stood for were slapped down in the discussion. I suggest everyone reread the relevant policies instead of thinking it says that all RS must be third party, NO THEY MUST NOT!Camelbinky (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The source in question is a post on an electronic mailing list by someone purporting to be Stifter and on the personal say so of A.Tamar Chabadi. Are you saying he can use this source despite the fact that the bald statement concerning Koch's work contained therein doesn't pass WP:VERIFY on the material it is critical of ?Jembana (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Camelbinky!

Actually, Jembana, you are being highly misleading. I posted the above question here before you posted those comments on the "Tartessian" language talk page...anyone can see the timestamp. I, only today, saw your comments on the "Tartessian" Language talk page and here. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Accusation rejected. It appears from the timestamps that you pre-emptively posted here when you saw I was online and answering your reply on the Tartessian language page. As I pointed out in the reply you had missed the point.Jembana (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha, I am sorry, Jembana, that is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. How am I to know when you are online? Please enlighten me as to how that would work? Does Wikipedia have a green light like Yahoo! Messenger? If so, you are not my friend on here, so how would I then know that you are online? I am not on Wikipedia 24/7. I may check in every 12 hours or so. So you are obviously lying. You treat every one like an enemy out to get you. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be very loathe to use anything from a mailing list (or Usenet). Not that I wouldn't love to as I am on several academic lists, but I think that the problems in verifying that the text is without a doubt by the expert are too great. The off-the-cuff issue is another one. A blog by said expert would normally be fine. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dougweller, so using anything a source from mailing list (or Usenet) like the one cited is not allowable then ?Jembana (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Jembana, I am she, not he. Secondly, It is clear that Professor Dr. David Stifter wrote the post. He even signed it as David. Ms. Lenore Fischer, even acknowledges him and the person who originally posted the question about Tartessian 2 @ the Celtic conference at Maynooth, acknowledges him. Maynooth is where Professor Dr. David Stifter works and has worked for some time now.


 * He states in the post that it is clear that he made as it comports very well with his credentials:


 * "As for Celtic continuity and typical traits of "Celtic ethnicity", Patrick Sims-Williams (Aberystwyth) gave a wonderfully entertaining and elucidating paper in the session that I chaired. He made the point that none of the classic topoi that are usually adduced to bolster up the cultural continuity between ancient and medieval Celtic cultures (e.g. headhunting, champion's portion, etc.) holds up to any kind of close inspection. His conclusion was that the only connecting factor between the various Celtic cultures is the fact that they are derived from a common linguistic ancestor, but that's it. A point that I am pretty much prepared to subscribe. I talked briefly to John Collis at some stage. He seemed to make a kind of disparaging remark about the linguistic definition of Celtic, which I found a bit surprising. But maybe I misunderstood him there; as I said, the chat was very brief, another thing that inevitably happens at such large venues."


 * Jembana wants this removed (not because the source is wrong or unverifiable) because he wants, by hook or crook, for "Tartessian" to be Celtic (it is not and the academic majority clear agrees with me or vice versa). In fact, Jembana, has been admonished for vandalizing the "Tartessian" page by loading it up with massive, undue amounts of materials from Koch's book, to the point that it looked like an advertisement for the book, with no dissenting academic opinions (which existed and are the majority) represented and also vandalizing other pages associated with the "Tartessian" topic. Just look at the "Tartessian" language talk page to see the admonitions.


 * Professor Dr. David Stifter's credentials are from the official page of the National University of Maynooth. For, Jembana, to do this type of thing is, apparently, not unknown. Pettily calling into question, the expertise, of legitimate experts that disagree with his notion of how things should be. "Oh, how can we know that this is Professor Dr. David Stifter? It can't be him because he would never post in an academic forum dedicated to and moderated by academicians like himself. That would never happen. So the source cannot be reliable." That is absolute rubbish and Jembana knows this, at least, he and others should. John Koch publishes a book representing a distinctly minority and largely academically rejected opinion and Jembana eagerly wants to crazily load up the Wikipedia article with nothing but that. He is not concerned with accuracy, only with the promotion of his wrong-headed Celticist ideology. Being a Celticist is not bad at all, but being the type that Jembana is, is utterly deplorable to say the least about it.

Also the links are above within this discussion if anyone needs to see them. I am mentioning this just in case people overlooked them. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that Camelbinky and Dougweller have between them pointed to the only policy guidance we can give on this one, and the balance will need to be found between editors. We can use online postings of obvious experts, especially if it is clear it was something thought-through, which seems to be the case. But Doug is also right to say that we normally say that this is not something to do too often. In favor of using it, my understanding is that this is a subject where there is not a lot published and the figures involved are the ones experts would be watching. It would be good if Stifter published his thoughts somewhere else though! As a compromise you could consider, what about writing in such a way that it is clear that the source is an online forum? Then at least our readers can be warned.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Andrew, I propose the following change in wording then:

FROM:

Since 2010, John T. Koch and Francisco Villar Liébana have argued that Tartessian is a Celtic language and that the texts can be translated. However, their proposals have been largely rejected by the academic community; the identification as Celtic relies on features specifically Middle Irish rather than Celtic in general and the script, which is "hardly suitable for the denotation of an Indo-European language[,] leaves ample room for interpretation."

TO:

Since 2010, John T. Koch and Francisco Villar Liébana have argued that Tartessian is a Celtic language and that the texts can be translated. However, their proposals have been largely rejected by the academic community and the script, which is "hardly suitable for the denotation of an Indo-European language, leaves ample room for interpretation.". In 2011, in the Old Irish message list, David Stifter claims that the identification as Celtic relies on features specifically Middle Irish rather than Celtic in general but gives no details.

Jembana (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am fine with either one, Jembana. You and other editors can "edit-war" about the specifics. My contention was that Professor Dr. David Stifter's comment not be removed as it IS a valid and verifiable source. Also, the link to his comment is referenced or cited in the article. One has but to click the reference/ citation number to see where his comment came from. Again, either one seems quite fine. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks A.Tamar Chabadi. We will use Andrew's suggested change then.Jembana (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

is this a reliable sources ?
Source : http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444

Article : B.R.Ambedkar

Content : “In 1942-46 he (Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premknutsford25 (talk • contribs)


 * A website which describes him as "emperical philosopher" does not inspire confidence. It appears to be a legitimate government site, which does not mean that it's good for matters of history, but should be usable for uncontroversial facts. Is there some dispute abourt whether or not he did these things? Paul B (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TM-Sidhi
Talk:TM-Sidhi_program have a stonewalling editor insisting that WP:PRIMARY studies on the effects of transendental meditation, which were performed by those associated with TM, are reliable sources, because WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS don't apply to social sciences (and somehow, the effect of meditation on the real world is a social science, and not some unknown physics or energy based science. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Le Monde and Jobar chemical attacks
At, is this news story a reliable source for the following statements? "After clandestinely spending two months in Jobar, Damascus, several reporters for the French news media Le Monde personally witnessed the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons on civilians in the Jobar chemical attacks. French intelligence later said that samples from the Jobar attack in April had confirmed the use of sarin." "The French newspaper Le Monde reported in the months before the Ghouta attacks that its journalists embedded among opposition fighters had personally witnessed several chemical attacks on a smaller scale by the Syrian Army against rebel positions."

Additional discussion can be reviewed at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm I dont think it is. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We know. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on Kudzu1 (talk)'s comment, Blade-of-the-South (talk) is extremely active on the Ghouta chemical attack and related pages. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And has made no effort to hide his personal POV, nor any effort to edit in an NPOV way, openly admitting that he seeks out sources that contradict "al Qaeda" and "Western" "bias". So I find this "hmmm I don't think so" act to be highly disingenuous. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr: When seeking outside opinion, please represent both sides of the discussion. No one is disputing that the quote you gave is enough to back the claim. The problem is that it comes from the article summary and not from its full text. The full text never describes such an event. The only thing it has is one reporter witnessing people with symptoms. There is no way to know these are chemical weapons, whether they were used by the Syrian Army, and were they used on civilians (a claim made elsewhere). The question is whether a full text is a more reliable source than its summary. That's all.--Swawa (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swawa Thats my view also. Its biased. Thats what the hmmm meant. BTW Kudzu1 dial down the hysterics  Blade-of-the-South   talk  05:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided the source and the two sections of article text it is used to support, without commentary and certainly without misrepresentation. I find both of your accusations that I presented any "sides" of the discussion completely spurious. VQuakr (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is noted Blade-of-the-South   talk  06:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An eyewitness account by Le Monde journalists is reliable, and not only that, it is an important source and should not be ignored. What is much more dubious is the juxtaposition of this with the statement about French intelligence confirmation of sarin. That would need its own source anyway, and should not be placed next to the summary of the Le Monde report in such a way as to advance the argument that the Le Monde report is necessarily correct in all details. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I actually oversimplified in my quote above; the French intel portion is separately cited but I see your point about the implied cause/effect in their order. I will see if there is a way to make clear that these are very intellecutally independent reports. VQuakr (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Itsmejudith. Note that the question is not whether Le Monde journalists accounts are reliable. The question is should we use a summary of the article which describes events that are not found in the full text of the article.--Swawa (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the question is whether the source provided is a reliable source for the statements quoted from the article. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean, can we use the introduction to the report, written in Paris by Le Monde editors. Yes, but it is better to use the precise information from the report body. Use direct quotation if necessary. If the report is doubted in reliable sources, you must use them too. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Itsmejudith. What do you think we should do if the introduction describes events in a manner that is not supported by the full text? Specifically - the intro says reporters witnessed an attack by the Syrian Army with chemical weapons on civilians, but the full text only describes the militants and the reporter suffering respiratory irritation and vomiting (i.e. no indication it was the Syrian Army, no indication it was not a riot-control agent, and no mention of civilians).--Swawa (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The editorial voice of Le Monde - in this case the introduction - is reliable for news. (Headlines, on the other hand, are not generally reliable). If the introduction were inconsistent with the report, we would have a problem, but there does not seem to be an inconsistency, only that the introduction makes a more definite claim. These are recent events and there may be inconsistencies and debatable points. We follow the debates; we don't lead them. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm new to WP so not always sure what's acceptable and what's not. Knowing how papers work and their strong incentives for outrageous stories, my common sense tells me to always prefer the full text to the summary, especially in such a sensitive subject. Can you explain what in WP guidelines goes against this? Thanks. --Swawa (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiLeaks webpage as reliable source on exiled persons
WikiLeaks is referenced as  a source of information on its founder and Chief Editor, Julian Assange,  and  Edward Howard. The referenced content is more like a rant on a blog and is not balanced and objective. Please remove them as a reliable source on articles that are directly related to their agenda.Patroit22 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had my Edwards wrong. I meant Edward Snowden.Patroit22 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific about your concerns? We don't expect the references we use to comply with WP:NPOV.  We expect our contributors to use allreferences in a way that complies with WP:NPOV.  So, if, for the sake of argument, WikiLeaks itself covers Assange and Snowden in a biased way, why should that matter if the contributors who reference that coverage, comply with WP:NPOV?


 * If you think material from the WikiLeaks site is being referenced in articles here in a way that you think is biased, is there a reason you aren't voicing your concerns about that apparent bias on those article's talk pages? Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have. Pro WikiLeak editors,in my opinion, stick to their agenda that parrots the WikiLeaks web position.Patroit22 (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You still haven't learnt to indent your posts, despite many attempts by others to get you to do it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I know how to indent but I choose not to use this strange optional process.Patroit22 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you seek respect in this community, following our conventions might be wise. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wikileaks website should be used very sparingly, if at all, on articles relating to its content and organisation. OK for uncontroversial facts, if there are any, and as a primary source to illustrate a point made by a good secondary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the lead in the Wikileaks article, there are 4 instances where wikileaks website is used as source:
 * URL
 * Wikileaks own slogan
 * Non-profit status
 * Which person Wikileaks themselves blame for release an encryption key in their conflict with an guardian reporter.
 * Out of those 4, not one reliable source can be find that puts out an conflicting opinion or point of view. The statement regarding the encryption could be improved by switching to a secondary soruce, as Wikileaks statement has been reported by reliable third-party sources. Looking at the whole article of Julian Assange:
 * List of WikiLeaks advisory board members (used as the second source).
 * An 2012 interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah on The World Tomorrow uses a transcript as source, which is published on wikileaks website.
 * Out of those 2, neither has any reliable sourced opinion or point of view that is in conflicting with the article. The second one was originally published by a reliable third-party network, if the RT network is considered as such. It might be better to replace the text-based transcript source with a direct source to the episode itself, as it was publish by RT rather than wikileaks website. Belorn (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Origins of Attitudes towards Animals (2009) PhD Thesis from University of Queensland
Some editor unsure about the reliability of the source For more detail please see 124.168.63.167 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare#Meng.27s_thesis_.3D_hundreds_papers
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole

WP:BLPN

 * 1) Source..
 * 2) Article. Larry Klayman.
 * 3) Content. none yet - but something regarding the subject's "inappropriate behavior with his children" or "inappropriate touching" of his children.

PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS THIS TOPIC HERE. This is just a notice that I've started a discussion on the topic at WP:BLPN. As this is a combined RS/BLP issue, it could equally be discussed here or there. I arbitrarily chose there but thought editors who patrol this noticeboard might also be interested in participating. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dissertations and theses
Presently, WP:RS says "completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community..." Should this language be modified or expanded in any way? See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What a good efforts. I saw the most recent revision of the text. The work still satisfy all the requirements.
 * Any other excuse to exclude it? 124.168.46.132 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Google books for some person
I am asking this question about the references which have been used on hiwiki. Since we don't have such test or so many users so I want to put this question here. On hiwiki, we have a article named गयासुद्दीन गाजी "(Ghiyasuddin Ghazi) which is recognized as Gangadhar Nehru (Grandfather of first Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru)." To prove above statement, few people gave the links of few book given below. I want to know whether these are reliable source?
 * 1) Google books
 * 2) The Last Mughal, by William Dalrymple, Viking Penguin, 2006, ISBN 0-670-99925-3, page xxiii

Other then these two there are few links such as http://www.mjakbar.org/book_chapter_nehru.htm

Please let me know so, we can take a decision on the corresponding page. &#9734;&#9733;  Sanjeev Kumar  ( talk ) 19:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the first source, but William Dalrymple is an internationally recognized historian. If he makes this claim, it's probably safe to include.  The Blue Canoe  03:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks TheBlueCanoe! Can some one tell me about first link of book and third link. &#9734;&#9733;  Sanjeev Kumar  ( talk ) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick notes:
 * The From Bharat to India book is junk; it is "published" by iUniverse, which is a self-publishing outfit, ie anyone can publish anything through it by paying the cost of publication. If memory serves me right, some books published by iUniverse have be known to have content plagiarized from wikipedia itself.
 * As TheBluecanoe said, The Last Mughal is perfectly good as a source
 * The book by M. J. Akbar should be okay but is non-ideal for a history article. He is a prominent journalist and should be expected to get basic facts right, but sometimes there may be issues with separating plian facts of history from his interpretation/reading of those facts. In short: use it if you need to, but with care.
 * Do you know which source is being used to support the claim that Gangadhar Nehru was actually named Ghiyasuddin Ghazi? I suspect that is simply a politically motivated claim meant to suggest that the Nehru/Gandhi family were actually Muslim (we often see such attempts here on English Wikipedia, especially on the Feroze Gandhi page). Abecedare (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions, I am discussing on these points on hiwiki. There was no such comment. Some IP made a page with name "Ghiyasuddin Ghazi" and clam that this was the name of Gangadhar Nehru. I nominated that page for deletion. After few days one another guy agreed with me. After there were a long discussion came in picture and gave many blog links and many wiki links and books link to prove above claim. I discarded all other claim (such as blogs and wiki-links). In case of books, I can't discard without reading the book, so I tried to get books which are given in references. In most of them there is nothing about Ghiyasuddin Ghazi. Few of them are talking that Gangadhar's dress in a picture is same as Muslims, but it is natural in Kasmiri Pandits, so it doesn't prove such things. Now only one "From Bharat to India" proves above, which has been discarded by you.
 * You are talking about Feroze Gandhi, but that case is a bit different because his name looks like a Muslim and till last year I was also thinking that he was a Muslim. Last year I searched on many places and found that he was a Persian. I heard stories at my childhood which says that Indra Gandhi married with a Muslim. But I haven't hear about Above incident before that page on hiwiki. Now one guy have transferred all this non-sense at Gangadhar Nehru, I am in the process to remove all such bad things from hiwiki. &#9734;&#9733;  Sanjeev Kumar  ( talk ) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, everyone! This board can't give advice on sources for Wikipedias in other language. They have different rules. Anything we say here could be misleading. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Itsmejudith, I don't understand what are you trying to imply here? Do other Wikipedias have "different rules" for the reliability of sources? Sanjeev Kumar has asked to check "whether particular sources are reliable", and this board is supposed to do that. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   17:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying. All the Wikipedias set their own rules and guidelines. They all have discussion forums or helpdesks where people can go for advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Itsmejudith, it's rare that disagree with your opinion, but this is one instance:
 * The concept of reliable sources was not invented de novo on wikipedia or English wikipedia. The particulars of the policies may differ on other language wikipedias but the gist does not. So any advice we give can be useful and I trust editors like Sanjeev Kumar to be able to interpret and apply it in line with the applicable policies.
 * If needed this is an obvious case for "ignoring all rules": the question posed here and the replies are obviously consonant with the fundamental goals of the Wikipedia project. And I for one will not hesitate in responding to such queries here in any instance that I think I can be of help. If there were to be a deluge of such non-en-wiki queries on this board, I would suggest splitting the board to deal with that "welcome problem" rather than suggest that editors from other non-English wikis, and those trying to help them, go away.
 * Hope you'll reconsider your position. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Judith is right. It wouldn't usually be helpful for people on the German or French wikis to rule on whether a particular source was reliable in context on en:wiki. In the same way, it isn't a good idea for us to rule on reliability for the Hindi wiki.
 * Having said that, the topic is relevant to us because we, too, have brief articles on these people. So no harm in saying :) that I agree with Abecedare on all three sources that Sanjeev names. If asked about sources for our articles, I wouldn't touch the Agrawal book; I would happily cite or quote Dalrymple; the Akbar book looks very good too (he's not an academic historian but definitely merits being regarded as an expert) and I would happily cite or quote him. And of course if there have been comments/reviews on Dalrymple and Akbar on this matter, they might be worth citing too. Andrew Dalby 15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Bill, Abecedare and Andrew, for your help. &#9734;&#9733;  Sanjeev Kumar  ( talk ) 06:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Nicaragua - The Threat of a Good Example?

 * 1) Source: Dianna Melrose, "Nicaragua: the threat of a good example?", Oxford (U.K.): Oxfam, 1985 (preface 1989)
 * 2) Article: Contras
 * 3) Content: "'On the one hand, US officials warned that Nicaragua could actively export leftist ideology by training radical union and peasant leaders of its neighboring countries.[40] On the other hand, Oxfam titled its report about Nicaraguan development reforms of the early eighties 'Nicaragua - The Threat of a Good Example?'[41] as the reforms undertaken by the Sandinistas to improve the condition of the people (which had already received praise not just by Oxfam, but also by the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank[42]) started to succeed.[43]'"
 * 4) Discussion: User:CJK wants to ban mention of Melrose's/Oxfam's book from this article, as he claims it is not relevant in the context of the contras section, . Please find the (lengthy) discussion between CJK and me at Talk:Contras. Thanks. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oxfam is a respected source in their area - poverty and development. So the article is a fine source for the effect of the Contra war on the population. Oxfam is not, however, particularly privy to the political reasoning behind the US funding of the Contras. Also, of course, as CJK writes, the report never actually specifically states "The US is funding the Contras because of the Nicaraguan development reforms"; it's a long report, and if they had wanted to state that clearly, they had plenty of room to. So while it's perfectly fine to use the report in the article, I wouldn't recommend using it in the political background of the funding. If there is a section on the effects of the war on the population, great. If there is a section on international reaction to the war, still OK, as they are a fair example of that. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That discussion appears to contain several violations of WP:BLP that should probably be removed. I think it would probably be more accurate to say that CJK regards the way you have used the title of the source as original research. I would agree with that view. It looks like you are essentially trying to employ Chomsky's argument from his "The Empire and Ourselves" article without sourcing or attribution. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. I've not read Chomsky, but you seem to point in the right direction, as CJK mentioned him too... Would you say that Chomsky could be regarded a reliable source for this article's section? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seems to have a complex stance on citing Chomsky that I won't pretend to know much about. You could consider the following scholarly source.
 * Cummins, J. (1994). The discourse of disinformation: The debate on bilingual education and language rights in the United States.  In R. Phillipson & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.).  Linguistic human rights.  Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3110148787
 * See p. 169 which says
 * "The destabilization of the Sandinistra government in Nicaragua by the Reagan Administration in the 1980s was, according to Chomsky (citing Oxfam reports), largely a response to the "threat of a good example" posed by the constructive social programs and absence of widespread torture in Nicargua; this example contrasts dramatically with many of the military regimes supported by the United States in the region (e.g. Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala)."
 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Man, you're good... Thanks a million. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Worldstatesmen.org
I have used this page as a source in List of chief ministers from Bharatiya Janata Party, but I am not sure if it is completely reliable or not. Please help. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tough call on this one. It does not look to be a very professional outfit, though website does include a list of contributors and sources (albeit in a bibliographical format on a single page). I would be inclined to trust the veracity of the website's information, partly because I can't imagine so many people perpetuating such a boring hoax. But it might be better to try to corroborate the data somehow.  Anyone else have ideas?  The Blue Canoe  15:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam By Lesley Hazleton
Is this a reliable secondary source? Thank You.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not mention which edit it is supposed to support. It meets rs because it is by a mainstream writer on religion and published by Random House.  However, professional writers get their information from academic writing, which is better to use.  Hazleton provides sources at the end of her book.  TFD (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I meant for the following two edits: 1 & 2.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a fictionalised account, so not usable in articles. Great for the Further reading section. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw one review by an Academic (named Joseph Albert Kechichian of Princeton University) stating that the author makes assumptions not based on historical facts. However, I found 3 other Academic reviews that praise the work without such allegations:

Harvey Cox, Professor of Divinity, Harvard University (link for this quote)
 * "A fine, highly readable history of Islam"

Professor Wilferd Madelung, Oxford University, author of The Succession to Muhammad (link for this quote)
 * "The general Western reader will come away from this book with a newfound respect for the depth and power of the early schism in Islam."

--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "In terms of historical trade-craft, Hazleton has done something quite remarkable: she's told a complicated story in writerly, yet concise way." Marshall Poe, Assistant Professor in History, University of Iowa


 * I can't see any evidence that the book is "fictionalised". Itsmejudith seems to be reacting to the fact that is written in a Carlylean style with dramatic narrative energy. But saying, for example, "Nobody was sure if the miscarriage was a result of her being knocked down by Omar or whether she was so frail that it would have happened regardless", is not fictionalisation. It's just a summary of responses. Obviously, it is not an academic book in which the sources for each statement are clearly defined as different interpretations are weighed, but a narrative history: so not the best source to use, but not unusable. I do question the insertion of a very long quotation as a dramatic narrative. Paul B (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The quotes taken from the books website are probably paid endorsements and if so are meaningless to establish this books worthiness. To call them academic reviews they must be sourced to a suitable academic journal.78.105.23.161 (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't be absurd. It would be completely unprofessional for a professor at Oxford University to write endorsements for money. The only very slight sense in which this actually connects to the real academic world is that books are sent out before publication to experts for review. Academics are paid for writing a report on the book, to say wehether or not it is good enough to be published, and, if it is, to point out any corrections or other alterations that need to ber made before publication. If the reports are positive, then sometimes the comments by experts can be published as endorsements of the book. But these are not "paid endorsements". The experts are being paid for their time and effort in reading and writing a report. They are paid the same whether they write a good report or a bad report. And they don't usually get paid all that much. Paul B (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken here, Paul. First, I have never known a report on a manuscript to a publisher (or a report on a submission to a journal editor) to be mined afterwards for a quote on a website or book jacket. Those are private communications, not even to be shown to the author unless the writer of the report agrees. So it's highly unlikely that the comments quoted above would be from that kind of source. Second, it is suddenly the fashion for publishers to ask not-eminent-but-possibly-relevant academic authors to write blurbs as quoted above from (assistant) professors. Yes, 78.105.23.161 is wrong (in my experience :) to suggest that any payment is offered. You maybe get a copy of the finished book: that's it. And I did on one occasion gather that if I couldn't be bothered to read the damn thing in proof, I could instead take the publicity person's own well-chosen words in the publisher's email, put them in my own reply, and allow them to attribute those words to me. (God knows what good it would have done to anyone.) But it is quite conceivable, as the anonymous says, that something of this kind is the origin of those favourable comments.
 * We wouldn't use them, of course. Book jackets are not reliable. Andrew Dalby 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Dalby "First, I have never known a report on a manuscript to a publisher (or a report on a submission to a journal editor) to be mined afterwards for a quote on a website or book jacket. Those are private communications, not even to be shown to the author unless the writer of the report agrees." This is completely untrue in almost every respect in my experience. If you look at the back-jacket of this book, written by yours truly, you will see a quotation from professor Elizabeth Prettejohn, which, I can tell you, comes from her reader's report. A reader's report for books and articles is almost always shown to the author, as I can attest, having written many of them and received many of them. Yes, there may be a part of the report that is purely private between the reviewer and publisher (usually so that the report-writer can make uninhibited comments), but there is also content shown to the author of the work being reported on. Practices may differ between disciplines. Perhaps you are right about norms in some areas of academia, but this is a book about history, the same area of which I have direct experience. Yes, it's also true that soon-to-be-published books will be sent to chosen academics in the hope that they will write something nice about it. I see no reason why such statements should not be used here as evidence of the value of the book. They are the legitimately expressed views of noted scholars. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken in saying that these quotes are from the book jacket -- they may or may not be -- they are on a publicity page about the book on the publisher's website. I don't think that affects my comment above, however, and I agree with the anonymous view that "academic reviews ... must be sourced to a suitable academic journal" or something similar: the New York Review of Books would be just fine :)
 * Reviews of that kind may soon multiply. From Kechichian's, the only one cited above, I note the comment "a piece of historical entertainment, rather than a serious study". Others may soon disagree with Kechichian, or not. Until we have more positive reviews we shouldn't treat this book as a reliable source. Andrew Dalby 10:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for taking part in my inquiry. Since the comments were 50-50 more or less, I only left quotes from this book for which I can find similar claims in academic sources.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma. Gospel Advocate Company.
1. Source.

2. Article. International Churches of Christ

3. Content. In the past, its focus on evangelism, high commitment expectations of members, and use of "discipling" partnerships have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a ‘cult,’

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Churches_of_Christ&diff=574506497&oldid=574446969

4. Discussion. The Gospel Advocate Company's publishing of Flavel Yeakley's 1988 book is being used, among other sources, to make some weighty claims about the ICOC in the lead section of this article. I am not concerned about the other references in this case, as there is a lively discussion already ensuing over those references and what they actually say and do not say at the Talk page. However I would like to know if Gospel Advocate is a RS for these type of claims in the lead section of this article?

The Gospel Advocate Company is found here: http://stores.homestead.com/GospelAdvocateCompany/Page.bok?template=about JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JamieBrown2011 left out the fact that he made a request to the DRN about this source. The advice that we received from the DRN was the while Yeakley's publisher--The Gospel Advocate Company-- is not a reliable source, we may directly cite the Yeakley text so long as secondary sources cover the same ground.  The section JamieBrown2011 quotes from the ICOC article is not in fact in the article.  It's currently being discussed on the article's talk page.  The other sources to the proposed material cover the same ground Yeakley does.  So I would think that referring to Yeakley, even considering the proposal is for the LEAD, is okay. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche123, that would not be an entirely accurate summation of the ruling. The DRN discussion can be found here . Which resulted in significant changes being made to a section in the body of the article. My understanding is that it is preferred that we use reliable secondary sources. In this case, @Nietzsche is proposing to use a primary source that has "no evidence of fact checking" according to the DRN in the LEAD section. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JamieBrown2011, what's not "entirely accurate" about my summary? The fact that significant changes were made to the article in light of the DRN is not relevant, here, at least.    When you specifically pushed for not citing Yeakley at all, the advice we received from the DRN was to go ahead and cite Yeakley directly, since high quality secondary sources covered the same ground.  What I'm proposing to do is insert a section in the LEAD that is supported by seven sources, one of which is the Yeakley text.  (And I only suggest doing so because the other six sources cover the same ground Yeakley does.) -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche, at the DRN mentioned above you argued extensively (for 30 days) for the inclusion of Gospel advocate on the basis that the reliable secondary sources "do not cover enough ground", now in a complete about-face, you are arguing for the inclusion of Gospel Advocate because the "secondary sources cover the same ground". My understanding is that the LEAD section should "be carefully sourced" and that using primary sources making weighty claims, that have no editorial board are not widely regarded as RS. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the Flavil Yeakley's research is primary source material, and that WP does not normally permit the use of primary source material, but prefers reliable secondary sources filtered through editorial boards.Markewilliams (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Markewilliams (talk) Does that apply to both the body and the LEAD section of a Wikipedia article?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Markewilliams, Yeakley's research is primary source material. But if you read the DRN in question--found at: --you'll see that two editors on behalf of the DRN advised us that citing Yeakley directly was fine so long as secondary sources cover the same ground.  Of course I agree that introducing material that Yeakley is the only source for is against WP policies.  But the statement in question has six other sources.  I'd like to add Yeakley as the seventh source.  The other sources cover the ground Yeakley does.  JamieBrown2011, it doesn't matter what I argued at the DRN.  What matters here is that editors on behalf of the DRN advised us that citing Yeakley directly was fine when reliable secondary sources cover the same ground.  If we're permitted to cite Yeakley directly in the body of the article when secondary sources cover the same ground, why wouldn't we be able to cite him directly in the LEAD when secondary sources cover the same ground? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, please quote the section you are referring to where the DRN advised us that using a primary source with "no evidence of fact checking" is fine to be used in Wikipedia? In the above DRN ruling @Cabe said this The primary source isn't "legitimised" by being quoted in reliable secondary sources, rather because the secondary sources are reliable we can use their commentary on the primary source. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I already quoted the relevant section before for you on another occasion. Here it is again, from Mark: "Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA". And again, you misrepresent my words. No one is arguing that it's fine to just willy-nilly cite primary sources published by companies that have no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. Rather, I'm pointing out that in the specific case of Yeakley's research we received advice from editors at the DRN that citing Yeakley directly is fine so long as secondary sources cover the same ground. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the reason Yeakley is quoted so much is that he was the only researcher, to my knowledge, permitted to gather data from members of the BCC (which, at that time, was the head congregation for the movement, missionaries and orders coming from the BCC). Yeakley's findings were that almost everyone who participated in the research didn't want their normal inborn Myers-Briggs type, they wanted to have the same Myers-Briggs type as the head of the organization, Kip McKean. As soon as Yeakley's research came out, no other researchers were permitted to survey the members of the BCC or any other congregation in the organization. So the Yeakley research stands alone in terms of its free access to the members of the organization. All other researchers were refused access after Yeakley's negative assessments. The only research that was possible after that date was with ex-members of the BCC or ICOC. So, even if Yeakley's research may or may not be strong compared to other social science research, it is almost the only research. Markewilliams (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake - Journal of Consciousness Studies
Is the Journal of Consciousness Studies a reliable source for the claim as is stated/removed here The editors introduction to the volume suggests No. Alfonzo Green says  "Yes". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are kerfuffles and brouhahas all over the noticeboards currently, over the way wikipedia treats fringe theories and the tension that exists among and between WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE with biographies of living fringe theorists. They are playing out over the BLP of Rupert Sheldrake. There's an ANI thread. There's a BLP/N thread. There have been, at various times, an AE action, a block, and all manner of BATTLEGROUND behavior. It seemed inevitable that we'd wind up with an RS/N thread, too.
 * For the record, I'll say that I think the OP was wise to use the phrases "[t]he editors [sic] introduction to the volume suggests..." rather than make any stronger assertion about the justification (or lack thereof) for the deletion of what the OP describes as a "claim". Such caution is sadly lacking in most of the exchanges about the Sheldrake BLP of late.
 * Before opining on the specific question asked in this thread, please review as much of the talk page and the article's edit history as you can stomach. Please come to the article if you can help. The specific answer to this specific question is far less important than getting some honest, reliable, previously-univolved editors to try to help rein in the name-calling, edit-warring and entrenched dysfunction. David in DC (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor of the academic journal (JoCS) makes it clear that he has suspended the usual rules for the journal for this article. He did not use independent peer review for reasons he explains at length. The editor believes that had he done so independent peers would have not allowed publication. He wanted this article to be included in this special edition of the journal as a provocation...to provoke thought. It is clear to me that this special case, this "one-off", should be not be considered as RS academic journal article (per the journal's own statement). Capitalismojo (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What do we do when an editor deliberately stays away from here & acts as though this board doesn't matter?
We had a discussion here on a source being used for Sheba. User:Til Eulenspiegel was asked to discuss the source he supported here but said "I have no obligation to go to RSN, I have no questions for them." When he was reverted after continuing to add it, his edit summaries in restoring it said " Nonsense, this will be disputed with RFC all the way to th etop" and " this will not be acceptable without appeal process, you have no cause to delete this". Now he's restored it again. Obviously he didn't appeal or start an RfC. Do we need to start a new discussion? He restored the material here along with other text I removed as not relevant to the section heading (and with sources not discussing Sheba in some cases, but that's probably an NOR issue). Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have to play the long game. If they refuse to participate and accept the consensus here, take the dispute the the DRN. If the consensus again turns up the same way or if the user refuses to participate and keeps acting against consensus, then you go to ANI and have the disruptive editor sanctioned for editing against consensus. Refusal by an editor to participate does not make the community's consensus any less the community's consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think TRPOD is right. Unfortunately you may have to demonstrate their lack of cooperation within the set-up we have. DR/N is likely to be a no-show for them as well if they refuse to discuss here.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I thought - and I'm sure DRN would be a complete waste of time. In any case, he's been reverted again and hasn't tried to reinstate the material. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of wikipedia talk page as primary source on Chelsea Manning
An editor is insisting on using a Wikipedia talk page as a source! Yworo (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted someone here because I thought the idea of replacing a reliable source with a Wikipedia talk page source was ridiculous. Am I missing something? I thought we should never use Wikipedia referencing itself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Per V, when talking about Wikipedia, it is perfectly reasonable to use wikipedia as a primary source for itself. In this case, the edit in question is finishing the story about the Manning page move - we have secondary RS about the first page moves but no RS for the final page move (the source from the Guardian which some editors are edit-warring to use incorrectly states that the move was the result of an ARBCOM decision, and as such that source is unreliable and miseleading for the claim being made.). The best source for now to support the claim that the page was moved is the page move discussion itself, and this is clearly permitted under the policy I cited above. Per WP:PRIMARY, there is no interpretation of the source being performed; anyone who reads the Manning move request can see that the decision was made to move the page. As such, I don't think this is in violation of any policies or causes a sourcing issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Question... is the fact that Wikipedia had an internal debate (changing the article title back and forth a few times) really relevant enough to mention in the article? It seems a bit odd.  The article is supposed to be a BIO article about Manning, after all.  I could see mentioning it if Manning herself had commented on our debate, but otherwise, no... I think we should cut it. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks but offtopic here; suggest you bring that suggestion there. The question for this board is, can we legitimately cite a wikipedia RM discussion to make a claim that a wikipedia RM discussion happened? I think, clearly, yes - as a primary source, its the most primary of sources for that claim.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure... my point was that if we don't discuss Wikipedia's debate in the article, then we don't need to cite Wikipedia as a primary source for that debate. But as long as we do, I would agree with your take on it. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I would be happy if we could compress the wikipedia story to 1 sentence, but I do think it's relevant given the visibility of WP and the coverage it garnered.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think three sentences may be three more than necessary. Wikipedia has no significant role in Private Manning's life. But yes, per WP:V, a Wikipedia Talk page can source a Wikipedia process that took place on that Talk page. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If information about Wikipedia's moves of the article is to be included in the article, WP:V actively endorses citing the RMs as the or a source. (Whether or not information about moves should be included is a separate question.) -sche (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich
A few days ago I created this discussion at the BLP board raising concerns that information in the article was based upon the tabloid Inside Edition. After no replies, I went ahead and removed the information. I was planning on correcting other parts of the article that are related, but I wanted to get the opinions of others about Inside Edition before I proceed. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The information never seemed to be solely based on Inside Edition. There were independently-researched local news stories, even though Inside Edition broke the story at the initial point. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards' affair but that didn't make other sources we would otherwise accept somehow disreputable because they contain the same information. I don't think the original source is important if it is somehow vetted and reported by NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. We shouldn't remove information because it is in both disreputable and reputable sources. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the information is in reputable sources, then this wouldn't be a problem. However the one reference you presented as a local news source does not back up the statement the article about Reich made.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the only one who thinks you might have misinterpreted the sources. There's a caution on the BLPN. I'll look at the sources more when I get a chance, but you seem to be throwing out a lot and then claiming none exist, which is weird if behavior relating to transition was reported on CNN and NBC. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Maybe we should look at these sources".... I can assure you I have. If you haven't, please rectify the situation since you have been commenting on the issue.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Skull Tower
At the moment there is a discussion at the talkpage at the Skull Tower article where a user is attempting to include information on the basis that Vox "is an extremist Muslim magazine from Sarajevo", a description in contradiction to a number of reliable sources. There are in total six sources that claim Vox was a satirical and/or youth magazine: These were all dismissed as unreliable by Zvonko for one reason or another. Either it being "in passing", containing "tangential references", or some other nonsense all while the sole academic source actually claiming Vox to be "extremist" (Tim Judah, The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia) is also "in passing". To bring uninvolved users up to speed, to date Zvonko has: Some input on what other users consider reliable would be highly appreciated as the current discussion has become a WP:TL;DR contest repeating the same things. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Ivo Žanić, a Croatian professor from the University of Zagreb, writing in Flag on the Mountain: A Political Anthropology of War in Croatia and Bosnia, a book published by Saqi (a publisher of academic works), stating "Vox‘s constructions contained enough elements for anyone who approached them with minimal common sense to be able without difficulty to realise that this was satire" and whose jokes are "clear to anyone with half a brain".
 * 2) Marko Attila Hoare, a British historian with numerous books published by Oxford University Press writing in his Greater Surbiton blog, endorses Zanic's view that it's satire and makes the observation that it "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye"
 * 3) Mark Thompson, a British historian, stating Vox is a "satirical monthly" in Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina published by Indiana University Press.
 * 4) David Bruce MacDonald, a Canadian political science professor, writing in Balkan Holocausts? Serbian and Croatian Victim-Centred Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia for Manchester University Press, stating Vox is a "youth magazine".
 * 5) Mladina, a Slovenian weekly current affairs magazine, stating Vox is a "satirični časopis" (satirical magazine).
 * 6) BH Dani, a Bosnian weekly magazine, stating Vox is a "satiricni prilog" (satirical contribution).
 * Dismissed Žanić for being "tendentious and misleading" citing himself as some authoritative figure and his original research because he remembers "holding and leafing through several of the Vox issues". Thus presenting his opinions as superior and reliable facts and followed by berating others for not blindly accepting them.
 * Dismissed Hoare, at the same time claiming I present "falsehood after falsehood", all while lying that "the only bit about Vox in Hoare's post that does come from Hoare himself" being "Vox was published by an alternative youth movement" when in fact it's verifiable he clearly states Vox "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye". Zvonko again voiced purely his own opinion with no reliable source to back it up and claimed that Hoare saying was an "alternative youth movement" is "factually false" and the Onion parallel is "preposterous".
 * Incessantly brought up Party of Democratic Action (SDA) connections, apparently believing it establishes it as "extremist", and continuously claiming its a "classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance", "SDA-sponsored fascist garbage garnered with sophomoric yucks", and "SDA's youth wing gazette". Again an opinion voiced by no one, but himself.
 * Continuously touted a personal rant contained in the autobiography of Emir Kusturica, a "protagonist" director, as the most authoritative on the matter and as establishing it as "extremist" while basing his reliability on being "internationally renowned" and on the number of Palme d'Or awards he won.
 * Brought in the weeklies Mladina and BH Dani when confronted on his claims and then quickly retracted on them when it was pointed out they too consider Vox satire.
 * Recommended that the work of the three sources below be considered if Mladina and BH Dani were to be admitted, implying a similarity in reliability between the two sets.
 * Carl Kosta Savich, a Serbian historian writing in a piece for Serbianna, a Serbian nationalist organization, that was specifically proven inaccurate by Hoare. He writes for many other Serbian nationalist and neo-Chetnik backed organizations (Serbian National Defense Council of America, American Serb Defender, Pogledi) and was criticized for genocide denial.
 * Julia Gorin, a American conservative political writer publishing in her blog and a member of a Serbian-American lobby group for Kosovo.
 * Darko Trifunović, a Serbian writer publishing in a "iReport", who was discredited and criticized by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for writing some of the "worst examples of revisionism" about the Bosnian War and by the International Commission on Missing Persons for committing historical "manipulation" for "political purposes".


 * Here's some more sources to throw into the mix
 * Serbian writer Danielle S. Sremac who calls it "a popular Bosnian Muslim youth publication".
 * Novi Vox is mentioned in an International Court of Justice case which says "...it has incited acts of genocide by the 'Novi Vox', paper of the Muslim youth".
 * Swanee Hunt described it as "the atypical but incendiary Bosniak youth newspaper, Novi Vox"
 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to point out Sremac belonged to the Serbian Unity Congress and was an "official representative" abroad for Radovan Karadžić and Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War, so for even her to fail to use the term "extremist" I think says a lot. Also Hoare, in a review of Zanic's book for Democratiya, a British online journal , states :


 * -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 20:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lest anyone think most of PRODUCER's mendacious drivel holds any water, I have to set these noxious distortions straight. After accusing me of engaging in original research and making other disqualification attempts such as implicitly referring to me as a Serb propagandist on the Skull Tower talk page, PRODUCER has taken his distortion practice here, engaging in more personal attacks, this time accusing me of lying.


 * Misrepresentation through insertion of peacock/weasel terminology, artificial induction of meaning that isn't there into other people's writing have been staples of PRODUCER's discussion technique on the Skull Tower talk page and he's in quite a form here as well.


 * PRODUCER says: "All my sources were dismissed as unreliable by Zvonko for one reason or another"


 * Untrue, I clearly said 2 are valid - Zanic and Thompson. A look at the Skull Tower talk page confirms this and reveals PRODUCER's falsehood. One of many. Let's keep going.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko dismissed Zanic for being "tendentious and misleading"...


 * What I actually said was: "Zanic's dismissive statement about "the joke being clear to anyone with half a brain" is tendentious and misleading". Quite a difference between what PRODUCER says and reality.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko cited himself as some authoritative figure and his original research because he remembers "holding and leafing through several of the Vox issues".


 * Another misrepresentation. I certainly did not "cite myself as some authoritative figure". Here's what I actually said: "I remember holding and leafing through several of the Vox issues. It was a classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance, garnered with a few juvenile bits here and there such as the above "bukva example". The fact that it occasionally threw in a joke or a wink, did nothing to negate its clearly fascist and anti-Serb overall tone."


 * I clearly stated my own opinion about the Vox magazine. An opinion based on reading it and informing myself who's behind it (source present on the talk page). My personal assessment of Vox is not part of the Skull Tower article nor am I trying to make it a part of the Skull Tower article. I stated it in the interest of having an open and intellectually honest discussion. Something that turned out to be impossible to have with PRODUCER. All the while feigning neutrality and objectivity, due to being unable to come up with rational objections to the actual sources I presented, PRODUCER resorted to misrepresentation by mixing my clearly stated personal assesment of Vox with the data from the sources in an poor effort of discrediting them via poison the well technique.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko dismissed Hoare, at the same time claiming I present "falsehood after falsehood", all while lying that "the only bit about Vox in Hoare's post that does come from Hoare himself" being "Vox was published by an alternative youth movement" when in fact it's verifiable he clearly states Vox "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye". Zvonko again voiced purely his own opinion with no reliable source to back it up and claimed that Hoare saying was an "alternative youth movement" is "factually false" and the Onion parallel is "preposterous"."


 * Hoare's blog post coverage of Vox is 99% taken from Zanic which was already included as a source. PRODUCER is trying to use Hoare's blog post (99% consisting of Zanic's duplicated material) as a separate source in an effort of padding his argument by artificially increasing the number of sources that support his argument. Not to mention the fact that PRODUCER dismisses Emir Kusturica's (a protagonist and a first-hand witness of the events in question) autobiography that covers Vox on 4 pages as a valid source because he says that an autobiography isn't academic, however, a at the same time a 99% duplicated blog post with two cursory observations one of which is factually incorrect is perfectly fine. A duplicated blog post with 2 cursory observations one of which (that of Vox being "published by a youth movement") is a factually incorrect, which I proved with dozen sources establishing a clear link between Vox and SDA, an Islamist political party in Bosnia that was part of the ruling coalition in the country at the time of Vox's run. I invite you to go to the Skull Tower talk page and inspect all the sources listed for the above.


 * The fact that in the rush to complete the post I failed to notice the other cursory observation made by Hoare (I thought it was Zanic's like most of the post) in Hoare's 99% duplicated blog post is being used by PRODUCER for a personal attack on me to call me a liar.


 * PRODUCER says: "Incessantly brought up Party of Democratic Action (SDA) connections, apparently believing it establishes it as "extremist",


 * SDA is being brought up a.) because its fingerprints are all over Vox and becasue its financial and logistical support is a key reason why Vox even existed, b.) because PRODUCER dismissed all the connections between SDA and Vox as my "personal SDA-Fascist-Kresevljakovic conspiracy theory nonsense" until I presented him with a number of links on the Sjull Tower talk page, and c.) because the SDA-Vox link, which is supported by numerous sources clearly disproves Hoare's blog post observation (one of two not duplicated from Zanic) that "Vox was the publication of an alternative youth movement".


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko continuously claims Vox is a "classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance", "SDA-sponsored fascist garbage garnered with sophomoric yucks", and "SDA's youth wing gazette". Again an opinion voiced by no one, but himself."


 * Another, poison the well attempt. All of the claims PRODUCER says I'm making continuously, I made only once when I clearly stated my own personal opinion of Vox as I explained earlier in this post.


 * PRODUCER says: "Continuously touted a personal rant contained in the autobiography of Emir Kusturica, a "protagonist" director, as the most authoritative on the matter and as establishing it as "extremist" while basing his reliability on being "internationally renowned" and on the number of Palme d'Or awards he won."


 * Yet another distortion by PRODUCER. Let me repeat one more time. Kusturica is a protagonist of the events in questions as a political activist and and a well-known film director. His autobiography offers valuable insight into the 1990-1992 period in Sarajevo in Bosnia, including details about Vox which he discusses on 4 pages.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko brought in the weeklies Mladina and BH Dani when confronted on his claims and then quickly retracted on them when it was pointed out they too consider Vox satire."


 * Another distortion. I didn't retract them. I simply pointed out that both are interviews with the Kresevljakovic brothers who worte and published Vox. The claims that Vox is satire were made in the interview intro by the person interviewing them as a summary of sorts of what the interviewees said. In Mladina case the person making that claim is Amir "Lunjo" Talibečirović (Googling him yields nothing), In BH Dani case the persons are Mile Stojic and Senad Pecanin (admittedly they have a more glowing CV, and seem to have a bit of a record behind them). All I pointed out is that if we're this inclusive that we accept observations made in interview intros then Carl Kosta Savich's, Julia Gorin's and Republika Srpska commission findings are just as acceptable.


 * It was a clear if-then conditional.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko is implying a similarity in reliability between the two sets"


 * How do you establish reliability of Amir "Lunjo" Talibečirović (the man seems to be a tour guide (judging by the his tour guide web sites' layout and graphics this was a while ago), but basically he doesn't exist on the internet?Zvonko (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * PRODUCER says: "I have to point out Sremac belonged to the Serbian Unity Congress and was an "official representative" abroad for Radovan Karadžić and Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War, so for even her to fail to use the term "extremist" I think says a lot. "


 * With a doubt it says a lot. It says that PRODUCER doesn't even click on the link to read the entire sentence. I mean, saying "Hostility towards Bosnian Serbs was evident on the front cover of a popular Bosnian Muslim youth publication, which showed a Muslim wearing traditional dress worn in the days of the Turks stepping on the head of the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic." to you means "not extremist"!? Have you even opened the link?


 * Also since we're being so diligent with the personal and professional backgrounds of the sources, Hoare's mother Branka Magas is Ivo Zanic's collaborator. This is probably why Hoare reuses Zanic's stuff so much. They got themselves an extended family business.Zvonko (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But despite the rest of that page saying what it says, Sremac described it as "a popular Bosnian Muslim youth publication". It doesn't mean "extremist" or "not extremist", it means what it says, "a popular Bosnian Muslim youth publication". You seem to be convolving your views with what sources say. The fact is that the sources contain a variety of descriptions, "popular", "satirical", "alternative", "youth publication", "extremist", "atypical", "incendiary" and there are probably more descriptions out there. Transforming that data into "an extremist Muslim magazine" is not a transformation supported by policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ''"But despite the rest of that page saying what it says, Sremac described it as....."
 * The rest of that SENTENCE, not the rest of that page.


 * The fact is that the sources contain a variety of descriptions, "popular", "satirical", "alternative", "youth publication", "extremist", "atypical", "incendiary" and there are probably more descriptions out there. Transforming that data into "an extremist Muslim magazine" is not a transformation supported by policy.


 * Agreed. And may I once again remind you that this all started because PRODUCER decided to blank the entire paragraph.Zvonko (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or another way of looking at it is that it all started with this edit at 2013-10-07T00:49:53 which added the description "an extremist Muslim magazine from Sarajevo" to the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So, you think it's "extremist" to depict Radovan Karadzic, a notorious war criminal, being trodden on. Perhaps you also think this British cartoon from World War II depicting Hitler and Mussolini getting kicked is "extremist" too. Or this one, in which Hitler's squashed into a dustbin. It is often difficult to place satirical publications, especially when they are also linked to a particular world view - satire always comes from point-of-view. But it is clear that this simply cannot be labelled "extremist" given the range of views about it and the cultural context. That does not mean that a passage about the magazine's references to skull towers should not appear in the "Skull tower" article, but that it should be characterised as a satirical publication. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "So, you think it's "extremist" to depict Radovan Karadzic, a notorious war criminal, being trodden on."
 * First of all, you fail to account for the timeline and context. The issue in question was published in October 1991. The Bosnian War began in Mirch-April1992. In October 1991 Radovan Karadzic was not a "notorious war criminal" he was just a political leader of the Bosnian Serbs. Furthermore, I think what the link says: "Hostility towards Bosnian Serbs was evident on the front cover of a popular Bosnian Muslim youth publication, which showed a Muslim wearing traditional dress worn in the days of the Turks stepping on the head of the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic" and I'm wondering how one goes from that to "not extremist".


 * "But it is clear that this simply cannot be labelled "extremist" given the range of views about it and the cultural context.


 * I'm not disputing that. PRODUCER was blanking the entire paragraph and that was the initial problem.


 * "That does not mean that a passage about the magazine's references to skull towers should not appear in the "Skull tower" article, but that it should be characterised as a satirical publication".


 * Referring to it just as "satirical" ignores all the other sources that characterize it otherwise.Zvonko (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is so laughable to hear Zvonko refer to Karadžić, whose party was infamous for its "ultranationalist rhetoric before, during and after the war", as "just a political leader" when in October alone he infamously said, in the Bosnian parliament of all places, that independence will "drive Bosnia-Herzegovina to hell, and the Muslim people into extinction". Zvonko says this all while readily claiming Vox "extremist" and "fascist" in the face of numerous reliable sources. Hilarious. The entire reason Vox is of any significance in the Tim Judah source is because he claims its a "extremist Muslim magazine from Sarajevo". You're either knowingly or blindly endorsing a paragraph that claims the Skull Tower held "such significance in Serbian national consciousness" that Vox "sought to provoke ethnic Serbs" when in fact Judah simply says it "helped the cause of Serbian propagandists", an observation shared by MacDonald. Again this is evidence of the level of source distortion we are dealing with. -- ◅  PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 15:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is trying to go to "not extremist". There's no data from RS that says "not extremist" at the moment. Also, the absence of something obviously isn't the same as its negation. The presence of "popular" and the absence of "extremist" from a description doesn't mean "not extremist". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue here is what relevant sources have to say about Vox. I merely pointed out thaat Peul B's statement about Karadzic being a notorious war criminal in October 1991 is not factually accurate. As for the PRODUCER distortions, the fact that I'm not supporting your blanking of the entire paragraph is NOT an endorsement of its current version. Despite your personal attacks and best efforts to present me as a Serb propagandist, the only thing I'm doing on the Skull Tower page page is trying to come up with an acceptable version of the paragraph that reflect what all relevant sources say about Vox, something in direct contrast to your action of simply blanking the paragraph.Zvonko (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

By dismissing academic reliable sources, insisting on the inclusion of directors, genocide deniers, lobbyists, and historical revisionists, and continuously reinserting false and unverifiable data to prove a point? Okay whatever you say buddy. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 15:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You're continually misrepresenting my activity and pushing your own agenda.


 * I covered all your distortions and accusations in great detail, both here and on the Skull Tower talk page.


 * :::PRODUCER says: "All my sources were dismissed as unreliable by Zvonko for one reason or another"


 * Untrue, I clearly said 2 are valid - Zanic and Thompson. A look at the Skull Tower talk page confirms this and reveals PRODUCER's falsehood. One of many. Let's keep going.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko dismissed Zanic for being "tendentious and misleading"...


 * What I actually said was: "Zanic's dismissive statement about "the joke being clear to anyone with half a brain" is tendentious and misleading". Quite a difference between what PRODUCER says and reality.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko cited himself as some authoritative figure and his original research because he remembers "holding and leafing through several of the Vox issues".


 * Another misrepresentation. I certainly did not "cite myself as some authoritative figure". Here's what I actually said: "I remember holding and leafing through several of the Vox issues. It was a classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance, garnered with a few juvenile bits here and there such as the above "bukva example". The fact that it occasionally threw in a joke or a wink, did nothing to negate its clearly fascist and anti-Serb overall tone."


 * I clearly stated my own opinion about the Vox magazine. An opinion based on reading it and informing myself who's behind it (source present on the talk page). My personal assessment of Vox is not part of the Skull Tower article nor am I trying to make it a part of the Skull Tower article. I stated it in the interest of having an open and intellectually honest discussion. Something that turned out to be impossible to have with PRODUCER. All the while feigning neutrality and objectivity, due to being unable to come up with rational objections to the actual sources I presented, PRODUCER resorted to misrepresentation by mixing my clearly stated personal assesment of Vox with the data from the sources in an poor effort of discrediting them via poison the well technique.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko dismissed Hoare, at the same time claiming I present "falsehood after falsehood", all while lying that "the only bit about Vox in Hoare's post that does come from Hoare himself" being "Vox was published by an alternative youth movement" when in fact it's verifiable he clearly states Vox "was a satirical magazine of the alternative youth movement in pre-war Sarajevo, similar in character to the US’s The Onion, or to the satirical news sections of the UK’s Private Eye". Zvonko again voiced purely his own opinion with no reliable source to back it up and claimed that Hoare saying was an "alternative youth movement" is "factually false" and the Onion parallel is "preposterous"."


 * Hoare's blog post coverage of Vox is 99% taken from Zanic which was already included as a source. PRODUCER is trying to use Hoare's blog post (99% consisting of Zanic's duplicated material) as a separate source in an effort of padding his argument by artificially increasing the number of sources that support his argument. Not to mention the fact that PRODUCER dismisses Emir Kusturica's (a protagonist and a first-hand witness of the events in question) autobiography that covers Vox on 4 pages as a valid source because he says that an autobiography isn't academic, however, a at the same time a 99% duplicated blog post with two cursory observations one of which is factually incorrect is perfectly fine. A duplicated blog post with 2 cursory observations one of which (that of Vox being "published by a youth movement") is a factually incorrect, which I proved with dozen sources establishing a clear link between Vox and SDA, an Islamist political party in Bosnia that was part of the ruling coalition in the country at the time of Vox's run. I invite you to go to the Skull Tower talk page and inspect all the sources listed for the above.


 * The fact that in the rush to complete the post I failed to notice the other cursory observation made by Hoare (I thought it was Zanic's like most of the post) in Hoare's 99% duplicated blog post is being used by PRODUCER for a personal attack on me to call me a liar.


 * PRODUCER says: "Incessantly brought up Party of Democratic Action (SDA) connections, apparently believing it establishes it as "extremist",


 * SDA is being brought up a.) because its fingerprints are all over Vox and becasue its financial and logistical support is a key reason why Vox even existed, b.) because PRODUCER dismissed all the connections between SDA and Vox as my "personal SDA-Fascist-Kresevljakovic conspiracy theory nonsense" until I presented him with a number of links on the Sjull Tower talk page, and c.) because the SDA-Vox link, which is supported by numerous sources clearly disproves Hoare's blog post observation (one of two not duplicated from Zanic) that "Vox was the publication of an alternative youth movement".


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko continuously claims Vox is a "classic fascist pamphlet of the Bosnian Muslim provenance", "SDA-sponsored fascist garbage garnered with sophomoric yucks", and "SDA's youth wing gazette". Again an opinion voiced by no one, but himself."


 * Another, poison the well attempt. All of the claims PRODUCER says I'm making continuously, I made only once when I clearly stated my own personal opinion of Vox as I explained earlier in this post.


 * PRODUCER says: "Continuously touted a personal rant contained in the autobiography of Emir Kusturica, a "protagonist" director, as the most authoritative on the matter and as establishing it as "extremist" while basing his reliability on being "internationally renowned" and on the number of Palme d'Or awards he won."


 * Yet another distortion by PRODUCER. Let me repeat one more time. Kusturica is a protagonist of the events in questions as a political activist and and a well-known film director. His autobiography offers valuable insight into the 1990-1992 period in Sarajevo in Bosnia, including details about Vox which he discusses on 4 pages.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko brought in the weeklies Mladina and BH Dani when confronted on his claims and then quickly retracted on them when it was pointed out they too consider Vox satire."


 * Another distortion. I didn't retract them. I simply pointed out that both are interviews with the Kresevljakovic brothers who worte and published Vox. The claims that Vox is satire were made in the interview intro by the person interviewing them as a summary of sorts of what the interviewees said. In Mladina case the person making that claim is Amir "Lunjo" Talibečirović (Googling him yields nothing), In BH Dani case the persons are Mile Stojic and Senad Pecanin (admittedly they have a more glowing CV, and seem to have a bit of a record behind them). All I pointed out is that if we're this inclusive that we accept observations made in interview intros then Carl Kosta Savich's, Julia Gorin's and Republika Srpska commission findings are just as acceptable.


 * It was a clear if-then conditional.


 * PRODUCER says: "Zvonko is implying a similarity in reliability between the two sets"


 * How do you establish reliability of Amir "Lunjo" Talibečirović (the man seems to be a tour guide (judging by the his tour guide web sites' layout and graphics this was a while ago), but basically he doesn't exist on the internet?

Zvonko (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sean and Paul can I get your assessments on the reliability and appropriateness of the sources I presented (Zanic, Hoare, Thompson, MacDonald) and those that Zvonko has presented (Kusturica, Savich, Gorin, Trifunovic)? -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 19:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice try at misrepresentation again. Actually, Zvonko presented Judah and Kusturica.
 * Also, what PRODUCER conveniently forgets is that he also suggested Amir "Lunjo" Talibečirović, Mile Stojic and Senad Pecanin as valid sources. As for claiming "Zvonko presented Savich, Gorin, Trifunovic", what I actually said was: "If we're this inclusive that we're including Amir "Lunjo" Talibečirović, Mile Stojic and Senad Pecanin we should also include Savich, Gorin, and Republika Srpska commision". A clear and specific if-then conditional. Check the Skull Tower talk page. So don't try to play this game of comparing "Savich, Gorin, Trifunovic" with "Zanic, Hoare, Thompson, MacDonald". "Savich, Gorin, Trifunovic" are to be compared with "Amir 'Lunjo' Talibečirović, Mile Stojic and Senad Pecanin". I brought up Savich, Gorin, and Republika Srpska commission to laugh off PRODUCER's suggestion of using Amir "Lunjo" Talibečirović. Zvonko (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Semantics. "Present" or "brought up", call it what you will. Mladina and BH Dani were also "brought up" by you. It's only when they contain something contradictory to your point of view that you push for their dismissal. You're "laughing off" yourself here. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mladina and BH Dani (interviews by Sead and Nihad Kresevljakovic) were not brought up because I wanted them included as sources of any information in the Skull Tower article, but only to demonstrate to you through their own words, Sead and Nihad Kresevljakovic's, that Vox was indeed written and published by Sead and Nihad Kresevljakovic and that they are indeed sons of SDA high ranking member Muhamed Kresevljakovic, all of which you laughed off and dismissed up to that point as "Zvonko's personal SDA-Fascist-Kresevljakovic conspiracy theory nonsense". I listed Maldina and BH Dani as part of the discussion between me and you to show your accusations of me as a "conspiracy theorist" to be what they are - baseless drivel. I never used any of the info from Mladina and BH Dani in the Skull Tower article nor do I plan on using any of it in the future.Zvonko (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear that sources which describe the magazine as satirical are far more reliable than those which simply treat the article in the disputed issue as though it was a serious incitement to massacre, or which label the magazine "extremist". Of course it's perfectly possible to be satirical and extremist (the Nazis had satirical magazines too, hilariously poking fun at Jews), and of course satire can be in bad taste, or push an "edgy" idea too far. But it seems to me that Vox cannot be legitimately characterised as extremist in Wikipedia's voice, as that position is poorly supported by the sources, and is clearly disputed by serious writers on the topic. Whether a reference to the Vox article deserves to be in Skull Tower is a separate issue. The source for the connection is Tim Judah's book (and Judah does call the magazine "extremist" ), but he also says that the main effect of the article was that it "helped the cause of Serbian propagandists" by giving them ammunition to portray the Bosnian Muslims as threatening. There's nothing in the Judah book which says that Vox "sought to provoke ethnic Serbs" (as Zvonko's edit asserts) or that it was so provocative because "the tower held such significance in Serbian national consciousness". Judah's book was published in 1997. The articles that point out the satirical nature of the magazine are more recent, clearly written in response to this characterisation. If the content is to be included the magazine has to be described as satirical, but of course it can also be noted that the article was read as "incendiary" and that it was used in Serbian propaganda, which is, after all, what Judah himself says. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda ministry?
The sourcing at Somali ancient script is horrible, and since I've dealt with the author before, I know that contesting anything will be a fight. (Gee, look, he just reverted my 'dated' and 'POV' tags.) Specifically, I assume the Ministry of Information and National Guidance of the Somali Democratic Republic issued propaganda and should not be relied on for archeological claims. Am I wrong in tagging it POV, on in removing claims citable only to them? — kwami (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that a government website would be a reliable source on where the inscriptions are found, but not reliable on their historical significance and interpretation. A "better source needed" tag might be the next step. Andrew Dalby 12:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Religious demographic data in Russia
In the article Russia's infobox, statistics on religious affiliations in Russia from the CIA World Factbook have twice been replaced by statistics from the following two sources: I make no claim that the new figures aren't accurate, but I am not persuaded that their reliability has been adequately assessed. Note that the new figures are significantly different from the previous ones. I opened a discussion on the talk page but the user reinserting the content has not replied thus far. Additional opinions would be much appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * sreda.org (the Independent Research Service, a Russian NGO founded in 2011)
 * Kommersant (a series of maps, their legends all in Russian, published on the web site of a Russian newspaper)


 * It hardly matters. Religious demographic data is notoriously unreliable at the best of times. Even the CIA fact book has to use local, widely differing sources, depending on self identification in response to wildly differing census or other questions the book has no control over. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right. However, I think it does matter. Just because the best sources on a particular topic are flawed doesn't mean we might as well throw up our hands in despair and use any old sources. Using the most reliable sources available to us goes some way towards safeguarding articles from insertion of content based not only on misinformation but also on disinformation. (Not that the CIA is above peddling the latter, but that's rather beyond the scope of this thread.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Would anyone else care to offer an opinion? Pretty please? Rivertorch (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to take the CIA World Factbook as any more reliable than the other sources cited. As HiLo48 says, they don't do research on such things, they merely cite whatever they can find. If we don't have reliable sources, we should tell the reader so, rather than citing questionable ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, then. The only way I can think of to "tell the reader so" is by way of inline maintenance tags, which I have now added (and noted on the talk page). My sense about it was that the CIA source, warts and all, is at least a known quantity, whereas sreda.org is very new, which makes it hard to tell where they're coming from. I hope the tags will inspire someone with bilingual skills and a knack for checking foreign-language sources to look into this more closely someday. Thanks much to both Andy and HiLo for their input. Rivertorch (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion was asked by the person who added the new sources, and I'll repeat the pertinent part of it here as well. Personally, I don't have a problem with the sources being added—they both are reliable in the WP:RS sense. Kommersant in particular is a well-known publisher of various regional stats. I do, nevertheless, lean to using the CIA Factbook figures, since that's what's used most often in the articles about other countries, making it possible to directly compare the stats across different articles. As HiLo48 said, the religious demographic stats often vary wildly from one source to another, so the least we can do for our readers is to use the same source consistently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2013; 20:59 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, without making some major changes to the section, which I won't undertake at present, I don't see any way to put the Factbook figures back in. Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is the main Russia article, but there is also a subsidiary article with the focus on religion. It has a breakdown of the smerda-dataset, in a table all by itself.  Suggest adding a table with the CIA dataset, for comparison purposes... or if possible, a combined table, which shows the CIA/smerda/kommmersat percentages, or even better, 1980/1990/2000/2010 triplets.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository for huge tracts of land vast statistical tabulations, but when the sources conflict, we should describe the conflict in a way that mirrors the sources, not pick winners and losers.
 * Agree that the *prose* sections cannot easily be repaired... but note that the pie-chart (which is in both the top-level Russia as well as the subsidiary article) can be tweaked to advertise the conflicting-source-problem. For example, in the big purple 'orthodox' section, there is enough room to say "30%[ref#7=cia] to 49%[ref#8=smerda]" or whatever the real numbers are, and then hyperlink that line-of-text to the separate-tables-or-combo-table down in the subsidiary article.  Readers (and editors) that really care about the answer, will at least realize that the 'answer' you get is highly dependent on who is doing the answering, and will not have to hunt up the raw numbers themselves. HTH 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO, The only way I can think of to "tell the reader so"  has THREE "ways": (1) Attribute the sources in the prose per WP:Attribution: "According to X, "a",[1] while Y states "b".[2]" is an excellent way to distance WP from differing sources. (2) Putting the whole disagreement in a footnote helps too, and allows more room to lay out multiple disagreeing sources. It's done all the time. (3) I also de-specify, as a fan of "two or three significant digits only" for population counts: after 3 digits it's all guesswork anyways. 1, 234, 567 becomes 1.2 million. --Lexein (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Volokh Conspiracy

 * 1) Source..
 * 2) Article. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
 * 3) Content. The source is used to describe the views of George Mason University Law Professor (and libertarian) David Bernstein regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Specifically, the source is used to note that Bernstein believes the Institute is associated ("plays footsie") with racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists. No particular person, living or dead, is mentioned, and these views are specifically attributed to Bernstein.

The basic question is: Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source to establish that Bernstein made the statement attributed to him above?

I ask that editors involved in the Mises Institute page offer their views as to whether it is an RS on a separate thread below. With so many problems and allegations of bias/edit warring on the Mises pages, we need the input of uninvolved editors. Steeletrap (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are asking about: North8000 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification question:
 * 1) With respect to establish the statement being made, or to
 * 2) establish (per the RS-based wp:npov requirements) that rs's have covered it in relation to the article topic for inclusion in that particular article?


 * North, thank you for asking for this clarification. It has compelled me to form the question in a more specific and made way. However, I ask that you delete this post (or move it down to the "involved users" thread) because it is cluttering the thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)


 * The clarification moves it a step towards resolution which is to show that it is now somewhat self-conflicting because you are still referring to presence in the Ludwig von Mises Institute article which is a different (higher) standard than how you have framed the question. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors
The source is certainly reliable for his own statements, but a throwaway comment like this is unsuitable for use in an article in my opinion. The post is about Ron Paul, and only mentions LVMI in passing. Certainly this is too weak to be used on any individual BLP page, where you would be causing a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to link the statement to that person, where they are obviously not mentioned in the source. Additionally, as a WP:SPS, the statement would be a brightline BLP violation for any BLP article. In the context of the LVMI article itself, it is less objectionable, but still so, because of the throwaway nature of the statement, and there is no evidence that Bernstein's opinion on LMVI is notable (is he known for writing about them? no.), and selection of this quote out of context, creates a WP:OR WP:POV issue. Why is this quote selected, out of the thousands or millions of other possible quotes about the LMVI? and is still a WP:SPS which should be used exceedingly sparingly. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (reply to uninvolved editor by OP) Concerns about notability of the source are off-topic as far as the reliability of a source goes. I do strongly disagree with your view in that regard, however. That a major libertarian legal scholar refuses to publish with the Institute bc of its association with racists/anti-semites seems very notable, even if Bernstein's mention of this was cursory in an article about Ron Paul. Steeletrap (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The source may be reliable, but after reading what the source actually says and the way it is (was) used in the article is a clear BLP violations. The sentence included says ".view that the Institute "play[s] footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists." This goes beyond what Bernstein said and is a BLP violation. Bernstein did not directly associate LVM with any specific group other than general conspiracy theories. He listed a number of conspiracy theories along with racists and anti-Semites, but did not make a direct connection. Also he said "Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them." A direct reading of "latter types" per his previous paragraph would be "to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc." but even that is Original Research. The question of RS is really moot because the source, as was used, was a clear violation of BLP via Synthesis of Material. I have removed it as a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unreliable and a BLP violation. This appears to be a self-published source. You can't use an SPS as a third-party source about living people.   Period.  See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Volokh Conspiracy is not a reliable source for this topic. It is a self-published source, and they can only "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." So it might well be permissible to use a post by David Bernstein on US evidence law or US constitutional history, which are areas in which he is an academic expert, but he is not a published expert on the Ludwig von Mises Institute and therefore this cannot be used. Neljack (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be a valid source if it is accurately described, but it is not accurate to say that Bernstein thinks LVMI plays footsie with racists. He said LVMI plays footsie with people who "hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories". I do not think Bernstein said (or meant) that LVM plays footsie with that entire range (i.e. with every single person or every single viewpoint within that range).  Anyway, this does seem to be a BLP issue even though LVMI is a group rather than an individual.  LVMI appears to be a small group, and so BLP applies.  According to the BLP, "The institute has a staff of 16 Senior Fellows and about 70 adjunct scholars from the United States and other countries."  According to WP:BLPN, "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."  If this does fall under BLP policy, then the Bernstein stuff probably cannot be included in the LVMI article: "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...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved Editors

 * I am somewhat involved, having recently edited at the article's talk page but not about this source. The "plays footsie" connection is very weak. I think too much is being made of the Bernstein source—it is thin soup, with no absolute statements made, just implications. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, the only reason "too much" is being made of this RS citation is because of the unfounded attempt to impeach it, contrary to policy, to deny the associated text. "Played footsie" is quoted in the text, so there's no question the source said it. If the RS said "facilitated" or "enabled" instead of this quirky but clear figure of speech, the meaning would be identical.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Having initiated the BRD at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute, I'll briefly restate: The source is a group blog, Bernstein is actually commenting about Ron Paul & the Mises.org comment is incidental, Bernstein is a professor of law and the subject of "Mises.org", its' history or philosophy is not within his area of expertise. Also, I note that Bernstein said "Congrats to the Mises Institute on this project [of putting] a staggering array of libertarian literature on-line...." – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Added comment: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says cited material should "directly support [bold in the original] the information as it is presented". The blog posting fails in this regard. 19:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, you're wikilawyering again but your claims as usual, are tenuous and transparent. Suppose you were a trial attorney and Bernstein were an expert witness in the field of entomology.  Suppose he testified that he saw an African killer honeybee sting the plaintiff, your client, in the ass.  Do you think you could get the judge to strike the testimony because the entomologist doesn't have academic training in human anatomy?  Your argument, which you use to contest source after source here, is specious.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My client is a strawman, so killer bees can't harm him. In any case, your analogy to trial practice does not help in this discussion. Testimony from a percipient witness is always admissible evidence if the witness is competent and the evidence is probative. So if the witness saw the bee sting someone, that testimony is admissible. The bee-keeper expert witness might be competent/qualified to testify about bee behavior, but may not be competent to testify about the effects of bee venom on humans. (As a percipient witness, s/he could say s/he saw the bee sting someone on the ass.) In this case Bernstein can testify that he did not accept an invitation to publish with Mises.org, but cannot testify as an expert that Mises.org had any particular characteristics. His lay opinion about Mises.org would not be admissible. Along the same lines, his blog comment about turning down an invitation to publish is not encyclopedic even if he gives an opinion on why. – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Srich - You managed to completely misrepresent my example and question, which was so brief, to the point, and carefully worded that your evasive reply (I do assume you understood my words) only strengthens the obvious inference that you are wikilawyering and throwing up specious and unfounded theories. Please re-read my message and you will see that your remark above concedes and affirms my rejection of your argument. You have made no credible or even coherent argument for rejecting what is manifestly a Reliable Source for the content on which it's cited.  Case closed, as Judge Judy would say.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (OP) It seems to me that Volokh Conspiracy, one of the most widely-viewed websites in the legal world (regularly cited by the NYT, WP, and other mainstream news sources), whose writers are tenured professors at second-tier, first-tier, and elite law schools, is a reliable source for the views of Bernstein (which is the only thing it is used to source in the article). It seems to me that a major libertarian scholar's refusal to publish with the Institute bc of its alleged association with bigots is notable. But concerns regarding notability are off-topic; this thread is about reliability of sources. Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This www.volokh.com search shows only a few uses of the site [clarify later: as references]. This WP:RSN found it not appropriate for WP:BLPs. Since the institute is made of individuals, a number of whom are mentioned in the article, I don’t think it should be used to make a blanket accusation of “racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists”.  If it's used it should be within the context of being written during the Ron Paul newsletters revelations period (because a lot of people panicked and disassociated selves or were far more critical than today). So, in addition to comments above, another reason not to use it.  User:Carolmooredc  20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Carol. Two points. 1) BLP isn't applicable here because no particular person is mentioned. Broad statements about institutions are not BLP statements. If I say something like "BYU is full of homophobes", "Brooklyn Polytechnic students don't do their homework", or "The Mises Institute is full of racists", I won't be accused of libel even if I provide no evidence (and indeed even if the statements are false), because that's not the same as making those statements about a living (or dead) person. This is an important logical distinction.
 * 2) Volokh has been used 203 times in WP articles. I have never heard the term "a few" applied to such a huge number. Steeletrap (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarified above - uses of the site as a reference. Also note that BLP concerns are expressed as part of RSN notices above. BLP implications of this are now under discussion at ANI. User:Carolmooredc  21:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Volokh is RS for this content This is a straightforward statement which is directly supported by the source, I see no problem with this one.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is fatally flawed  The question is posed as merely supporting the statement, but but context is a totally different standard. 01:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the setup question – The basic question is: "Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source to establish that Bernstein made the statement attributed to him above?" – is flawed. It is safe to assume that Bernstein made the statement posted in the blog. (And thus meets requirement #4 in WP:ABOUTSELF.) But editors are commenting about the appropriateness of using Bernstein's comment in the context of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is rs for what Bernstein said. The real issue is WP:WEIGHT.  A website that says the moon-landing was faked for example may be rs for what specific writers have said, but that does not mean they should be included in articles about the moon-landing.  TFD (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello TFD. If I understand your view, then, the discussion should take place on the article talk page, without further debate as to reliability of the source?  Thanks.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it never should have come here. The question posed was never an issue at the article, and the question at the article has not been posed here, and someone incorrectly implied that it was.  North8000 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks North. I ask the group then, are we ready to close this thread as RS confirmed and discuss the WEIGHT question back at article talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
 * First, it's clear that most editors do agree it's undue weight and on those grounds should be removed. Considering that Volokh Conspiracy only has been used a couple times as a reference. I think it's reliability for what still looks like a personal blog entry, unedited, negative personal opinion which by implication casts aspersions on dozens of individuals is questionable. I don't see any ref that he's a "libertarian" or anything like that in his bio. And his comment could be motivated by biased factionalism. User:Carolmooredc  13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, I think you're getting confused again. The weight issue should be discussed, but this is not the proper place for that. Rather than throw up all your balls in the air at once, you should try to separate your concerns and address them in the proper venues.  Once again, nobody has stated that the weight issue is resolved, but the RS question appears to have been resolved.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The group blog is RS only in one respect – we do not dispute that Bernstein said what he said (WP:ABOUTSELF #4). But another factor must be considered – what is the subject of his comment? This is needed because ABOUTSELF #2 restricts comments about third parties and #3 says blog comments may "not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" [source meaning the blogger]. Because Bernstein's blog comments involve third parties and because Bernstein goes beyond claims and events not directly related to him, the question of WEIGHT does not come into play. (WEIGHT would be considered in Bernstein's article, not other articles.) The non-involved editors opine that it is not RS in this context and most of the involved editors opine not RS as well.  – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, please. It doesn't say related exclusively to the source. You are misstating and misapplying policy. What would be related exclusively to the source? "Bernstein said he believes that his arms are too long" ?  Many editors here, including myself are prepared to consider the WEIGHT issue on the article talk page, where such discussion belongs.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SRich makes a good point. To me it's just one more in a long line of self-published negative/hostile opinion pieces some editors want to use in the Austrian Economics articles, which happily is now under official community sanctions here. User:Carolmooredc  16:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Closure proposal
1) We close the RSN as solved, with Bernstein's Volokh post clearly being a reliable source for Bernstein's views (this would be progress, as many were questioning the RS aspect of this on the talk page, and now are shifting to other concerns). 2) We create an RfC on the LvMI page to address WP:Undue and WEIGHT concerns with the use of Bernstein. 3) We do not re-add Bernstein into the article until a consensus has been developed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with this proposal: One, it stages the question as if the RS issue on Bernstein is settled "as RS", which is not the case. Two, this closure proposal only serves to prolong a needlessly convoluted discussion. That is, the issue was raised at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute and hashed out quite enough on this page. And it proposes to throw the issue back onto the article talk page. (Reminder, RS is determined in terms of how the source is used a la WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.) If enough discussion has ensued, then a WP:ANRFC should be posted. (And I recommend that one be posted.) I am confident that the reviewing (and dauntless) admin can figure out the issues, thereby giving us peace. (And I doubt that an RfC would bring in anything new or useful).  – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note – a WP:ANRFC has been posted. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A request for closure immediately following a rejection of respected editor Steeletrap's proposal? With no resolution of the disagreement?  How could that possibly make sense?  I am dumbfounded by this request, Srich.  Closing Admins are not here to choose one side or the other, they are here to recognize consensus.  Srich, you are premature.  Please withdraw. Reinsert at consensus.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * (OP) Support 1) Bernstein's views are clearly accurately described and do not relate to a living person. WP:BLPGROUP states that statements about organizations (that do not name particular people) are not generally considered BLP statements. There is no compelling argument prevented above that LvMI -- a huge org with by its own account 350 associated scholars (1) and a multi-million endowment -- should be an exception to this general rule. 2) Weight and undue concerns are legitimate, but should be hashed out on talk page, as it's off-topic for purposes of an RSN (use of a source can be undue even if it's reliable, and vice versa.) 3) Re-adding the material would serve to polarize editors and encourage edit warring. Steeletrap (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is clear from the above discussion that the Bernstein bit is not appropriate for the article. Whether it is reliable for Bernstein's opinion turns out not to be as important as other considerations such as weight, balance, applicability, accuracy, etc. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Our job here is to determine RS for the associated content. Weight, undue, and "accuracy" are not what we decide at RSN. Please review the thread -- editors are prepared to discuss your stated concerns on article talk. SPECIFICO  talk  19:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Three sources on Ludwig von Mises Institute article
I’ll make each a subsection. While these are in different stages of debate, we might as well address the repeated use of questionable sources in one thread. (Volokh Conspiracy originally was on the list.) User:Carolmooredc  22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Gene Callahan personal blog

 * This sentence: In a discussion about alleged racism in the Institute, former Institute Scholar Gene Callahan noted that the Institute had sought to appeal to racists for years, citing Neo-Confederate causes, but also said that "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time ... I got there" in in the early 2000s.
 * Ref: Gene Callahan’s blog “La Bocca della Verità”, article “Murphy on LVMI”, January 2, 2012

[End Carolmooredc description of issue]
 * Discussed here:
 * 1) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_156.
 * 2) Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute discusses this use in more detail.

Uninvolved editors

 * Unreliable and a BLP violation Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.  See WP:SPS for further information.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I read the policy, and that's absolutely not what it says. It says we can't use self-published sources where there is risk of WP:BLP violation, but there is no such risk because the LvMI is not a living person, or even a small organization of them.
 * I am forced to conclude that, as your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of policy, it has no bearing on this issue. Please read WP:SPS and WP:BLP more carefully, and consider them before further involvement. MilesMoney (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? You are forced to conclude? I'm the fifth most frequent contributor to RSN so perhaps my opinion shouldn't be so easily dismissed without reason.  But if you think I've missed something in regards to WP:SPS and WP:BLP, then I encourage you to point it out.  Unfortunately, you've failed to do so, so I am sticking to my previous opinion.    A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since AQFK has quoted directly from WP:SPS, I'm not sure how MilesMoney can opine "that's absolutely not what it says". Bizarre or what? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's bizarre is that you think a rule against BLP violations can apply to reliable sourcing in cases where BLP is impossible. MilesMoney (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not reliable Again, a self-published source can only "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." There is no evidence that Callahan is a published expert on the Mises Institute or racism. Neljack (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject matter is the LvMI, which advocates Austrian economics and provides jobs for people like Callahan. As an economist and former member, he is eminently qualified to speak on this matter. If you'll pardon my skepticism, you seem to be defining the requirements so tightly that absolutely no real person could qualify. In reality, our requirements are intended only to prevent people from talking about things they have no expertise in, which is obviously not the case here. MilesMoney (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

 * Originator opines: It's self-published, he's making a throw-a-way comment about his past experience, not a reasoned analysis from specific incidents/statements/etc. from a libertarian "expert" perspective.
 * RS for this content It's preposterous to assert that only "a libertarian expert" is able to recognize what, in his opinion, is racist. Anyway, Callahan happens to be one of the foremost living libertarian experts and was a key Mises Institute scholar on site for many years. So it's a no-go double whammy trying to impeach this source. This issue has already been vetted, shredded, sliced and diced on the article talk page. Callahan's blog is RS here.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RS for this content This falls under WP:ABOUTSELF as the assertions of Callahan are attributed to him, and not presented as if they were facts (nor are there any statements about people dead or alive). Callahan was one of the Institute's most high-profile scholars, so his criticism of the Institute is particularly notable. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-RS – This is Callahan's personal reflections on what might have occurred before he came to Mises.org. The statement he makes does not directly support the information presented in accordance with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It violates WP:ABOUTSELF #3 because he is commenting on "about events not directly related to the source [e.g., himself]". – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, that's the sixth different reason you've trotted out to quash Callahan. None have been valid, and the cumulative effect of swinging blindly at the perceived pinata is making it hard for readers even to give each new assertion serious consideration. (Of course we do, but it's difficult. SPECIFICO  talk  23:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RS for this content It's WP:ABOUTSELF by an expert witness. Callahan is fully qualified to comment on the organization that he was a member of. MilesMoney (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if he was not a member at the time he refers to? - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. His membership qualifies him to compare the state of the organization during his stay with what he knew about it prior to that. Membership makes him an expert opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He certainly has expertise on the past of the organization having been a prominent scholar in it. A Catholic Cardinal knows more about Church history than a layperson, even if he "wasn't there". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)
 * I'd like to see you verify your analogy regarding cardinals because it seems like pure opinion to me: are members of the Catholic clergy ecclesiastically ranked according to their knowledge of church history? What about church historians who are not members of the clergy and are therefore uninvolved? As for Callahan, he may well struggle to fairly compare something he did not experience with something that he did experience. I've no idea how much his opinion might be influenced by hearsay, for example. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not RS, at least not for this stuff. Recently got to the article via the drama on ANI, SPS is quite clear on this, Callahan is not being used to cite anything about his expertise (economics), he is being used to cite stuff about racism, neo confederate causes, and all this before he even joined the bloody group. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bleeding Heart Libertarians web blog

 * This sentence: In a discussion of the paleolibertarian period of the Mises Institute, Austrian economist Steven Horwitz criticized what he describes as the Institute's "numerous connections with all kinds of unsavory folks: racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers".
 * Ref: Steven Horwitz, "How Did We Get Here? Or, Why Do 20 Year Old Newsletters Matter So Damn Much?", Bleeding Heart Libertarians website, December 23, 2011.


 * This sentence: Horwitz and political scientist Jacob Levy state that Rothbard identified the need to attract social and religious conservatives to establish a libertarian-conservative fusion constituency, distinct from the more socially progressive followers of Cato and the Koch Brothers.
 * Ref: Jacob Levy, "Ron Paul continued." Bleeding Heart Libertarians website, December 23, 2011.

[End Carolmooredc description of issue]
 * Discussed here: Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute but no response on this specific source.

Involved editors

 * Originator opines: These both are self-published blog entries on an advocacy site, as discussed at the about us page. "All of us who blog at this site are, broadly speaking, libertarians." Just negative personal self-published opinions that don't belong on Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc  22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RS for this content An author's being "broadly speaking, libertarian" doesn't disqualify the author. If it did, we couldn't use sources involving any of the Mises Fellows, its Founders, or even Mises himself. Horowitz is a distinguished Austrian economist, and this statement is credible RS for the WP content it supports.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RS for this content Non-libertarians don't tend to write much about libertarians, especially not at the same level of detail. BHL is a perfectly good source. MilesMoney (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Remnant (newspaper)

 * This paragraph: The Catholic journalist Christopher Ferrara responded in the "The Remnant" newspaper to Mises Institute scholars Llewellyn Rockwell and Mises Fellow Thomas Woods' criticism of his 2010 book "The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State". Ferrara criticized the Institute's outreach efforts to Catholics and its attempts to persuade them that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with Catholicism. He wrote that part of the "Institute’s mission is to sell Catholics an outrageously phony bill of goods: that a school of thought dedicated to the legacy of [Murray Rothbard], a radically laissez-faire liberal agnostic who defended the legal right to starve unwanted children to death" and as being compatible with and even congenial to Catholic principles.
 * Ref: Christopher Ferrara, Fury in the Cult of Rothbard, The Remnant, September 4, 2013

[End Carolmooredc description of issue]
 * Discussed here: Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute but no response on this specific source.

Uninvolved editors

 * I basically agree with S. Rich. In fact, I would go further and say that the material should be excluded from the article altogether on UNDUE grounds. There should be no shortage of criticism of the Institute to include, but I can't see why we should include a paragraph about an article in an obscure newspaper by an obscure author responding to criticism of his obscure book. We don't just include any old person's opinion at criticism - we look for people with expertise, prominence or influence. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I (an involved editor) disagree because the LvMI makes a major point of being -- in contrast to libertarian groups -- an organization sympathetic to religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Ferrara is well-published, in mainstream RS and publishing houses, about religious and theological matters; he is a good RS for purposes of responding to the Mises Institute's attempts to recruit Catholics to its ideology. Steeletrap (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

 * Originator opines: According to its Wikipedia article, The Remnant (newspaper) is an extremist advocacy site which Southern Poverty Law Center calls a hate site; it doesn't call Mises Institute one, FYI. This sort of publication not usually considered WP:RS, even if articles seem to be passed by the editor Michael J. Matt. User:Carolmooredc  22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One can be hateful while still having solid/reliable scholarly standards (see most famous Western philosophers); do not conflate the two. Ferrara is a well educated guy, attended a top 30 law school (Fordham), has had a fairly prolific career as a journalist, and has published academic works with mainstream publications. He's an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable source for the opinion, but placement/emphasis is undue. In an earlier edit I put the Ferrera comments into a footnote . Later on they were restored to the text. A full paragraph for his comments, and a second footnote to his book which does not provide page numbers for criticisms of Mises.org (which may or may not exist), does not further WP:BALANCE. – S. Rich (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Publications promoting hate cannot by definition be reliable sources because their objective is to defame (i.e., present false information). Individuals are not reliable sources, it depends on where their writings are published.  Barnes for example had articles published in academic journals, which are rs, but his writings on holocaust denial are not.  And opinion pieces are not rs for facts.  We are supposed to present topics in accordance with how they are presented in reliable sources.  Unfortunately, there is no extensive writing about the LvMI and its writers, hence little to report.  TFD (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brigham Young University is (arguably) hateful against LGBT people, yet its academic journals are (properly) deemed RS. Aristotle -- a grotesque sexist -- is an RS. I don't think there is a tight logical connection between hatefulness and lack of scholarly rigor. Steeletrap (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Better source
The Dina Eastwood article needs a source for her middle name. I think that This PDF file of divorce papers filed October 22, 2013 is a better source than This tabloid article containing a copy of one page of legal separation papers that have since been revoked and need approval. Mystiques00 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that either citation is useable, but I may be misinterpreting the guidelines on primary sources. While the separation filing is a primary source, it's being "quoted" (through being printed verbatim) on third-party sites. My one concern is that the Daily Mail uses it within the context of a news article, while Radar Online &mdash; a gossip site not normally a reliable source, but one that does post public documents and does directly interview named sources from time to time &mdash; posts it independently, without journalistic comment. My question is, is it still considered a primary source in the Radar case, or is it useable since it does appear on a third-party site, albeit without being part of a journalistic news story?


 * As a side comment, I would note that while the Daily Mail is a tabloid-format newspaper, like the New York Daily News or Newsday, It is not a tabloid in the sense of a tabloid magazine such as the Weekly World News. While the Daily Mail can be sensationalistic and while some celebrity stories use unnamed "anonymous sources", rendering such stories highly dubious, it is still a major, professionally run newspaper in other regards. I believe the editor above in his characterization of it tars with an overly broad brush and gives an inaccurate impression.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a similar problem with the birthyear of a BLP, where few sources claim anything exact, and the sources that do make claims, require use of WP:CALC to backtrack from "here she is in 2000 as an 18-year-old frosh" to the contrasting "here she is at 27 for her 2013 birthday party". The article ends up with the infoboxen explicitly saying both:  "date of birth: ~1982[1] or ~1986[2] (sources differ)".  This was based on the Mariah Carey article, which has a similar problem with 1969/1970 as the birthyear.  Wikipedia should mirror the sources, not pick winners and losers:  when they conflict, describe the conflict.  "Dina Anne[1] or Betty[2] Eastwood...."  Hope this helps.  p.s.  In the birthyear example, *one* source must be correct and one incorrect, but in the middle-name example, that is not necessarily true, since people like George Herbert Walker Bush with multiple middle names do exist, and names can legally change over time, unlike birthdays.  Thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Senhaja language and Ghomara language
Hello,

Here's an issue related to linguistics: On the articles Senhaja language (Talk) and Ghomara language (Talk), a user insists on using as the sole source a list established by Blench in 2006 to classify these dialects as "Zenata dialects" (by opposition to "Atlas dialects") ; The point is that the author (Blench himself) says clearly on its first paragraph that it is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems".

On the other hand, the same user persists on deleting three sources claiming they're not RS ; The following sources classify these languages as "Atlas dialects" (see respective talk pages for more details): Note that recent (highly creditable) sources link ethnic Ghomara and Senhaja to ethnic Atlas Berbers, but without discussing linguistics.
 * BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 (1993), Morocco - VII. Linguistic survey, p.598 (for both articles) ;
 * Bernard & Moussard (1924), p.278 (for the Senhaja article) ;
 * J. el Hannouche, 2008. Ghomara Berber: A Brief Grammatical Survey, p.20 (for the Ghomara article).

Thus, the main problem is that Blenche's classification is contradicted by the three last sources.

The questions are:
 * Is the list established by Blench a WP:RS even if the author himself says that it isn't correct?
 * Are the three other sources (BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, Bernard & Moussard and El-Hannouche) WP:RS or not, even if some were published long time ago?
 * Is that contradiction a WP:NPOV or a WP:RS case?

Regards, --Omar-toons (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Blench listing is reliable, but you should say in the text that it is a draft list. Hannouche is reliable, even though it is only a masters thesis; you should say tht it is a masters thesis. The older texts are no use any more. Are these the only sources available? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these are the only WP:V academic sources available. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit1: Just found that Mena Lafkioui describes Senhaja language as "non-Zenati" . However she gives no-statement about Ghomara language. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit2: non-RS sources include Souag's communication to Ethnologue describing Senhaja language as "not Zenati, but rather Atlas". --Omar-toons (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit3: About El Hannouche's work on the Ghomara language (MA thesis), note that even Stroomer (& Kossman) implicitely acknowledge that this work is highly valuable (see p.6) and take it as a basis for their ongoing study. --Omar-toons (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Souag and Lafkioui seem both to be reputable scholars, and even their comments in non-reliable sources might be usable, with the big IF that we mustn't imply that any classification of these languages is settled. It is clearly a matter for exploration and debate. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My take is only very slightly different from the excellent advice given by above:
 * Both views should be presented, with relative sources
 * The older sources would be reliable for describing a change in academic opinion if there has been one ("it used to be thought that ..., but recently ...")
 * The ethnic connection could be mentioned, with due care to avoid drawing unsupported conclusions from it.
 * Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these answers. --Omar-toons (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've accepted the change to Senhaja, since Omar was eventually able to provide a RS that supported it. I don't think there's any problem now with that article. However, AFAICT, he has no RS contradicting Blench for Ghomara, so we can only report what Blench says. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * El Hannouche says explicitely in his thesis (a thesis that Stroomer acknowledge as a valuable work) that Ghomara language has its origin in South Morocco. Unless you can give us a RS saying that there are Zenati languages in South Morocco (per WP:SYNTHNOT), El Hannouche thus links explicitely the Ghomara dialect to Atlas languages. --Omar-toons (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, I agree with Justlettersandnumbers's opinion: both views should be presented as long as there's no consensual opinion among scholars. --Omar-toons (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In a couple of years' time the scholars will probably have reached agreement. :-) Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A question remains: is the list established by Blench in 2006 a WP:RS, despite the fact that the author himself claims that it is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems"? --Omar-toons (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The answer above was "yes".
 * Hannouche does not say anything about classification, so we can't use him as a ref for classification. We can use him as a ref for where the language came from.  The two are not necessarily related:  English is not an American Indian language just because most native speakers are in North America.  — kwami (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I made a draft on Talk:Ghomara language. I would like to have your opinions regarding that. :)
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still a bit complicated, as it often is when the scholarship isn't settled. I know I said that the older sources are no longer reliable, and that's still the case, but assuming that we think Camps & Vignet-Zunz is reliable, and it does seem so, then their comments on Colin are also reliable. Kwami, I do think that in this case "where the people came from" and "where the language came from" are related questions. By way or an analogy: the southern and northern Cheyenne are separated by hundreds of miles, and the reason for that is a matter of recorded history, so linguists automatically classify varieties of Cheyenne as varieties rather than separate languages. It is also a bit like the link between Finnish and Hungarian, which aren't very close at all today, but as it seems with these Berber languages, were spoken more widely in the past. I'm sure we all understand that language and ethnic identity aren't necessarily tied together, but sometimes they are, or at least ethnic identity can be a clue to language and vice-versa. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

http://desktoplinuxreviews.com and http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk
http://desktoplinuxreviews.com is a one-person blog (although the author has professional writing experience - http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/about/) with no hits in Google Scholar or Google books; in a quick Google web search I did not recognize reliable sources citing the website:
 * 1) http://www.google.com/search?q=desktoplinuxreviews.com
 * 2) http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Adesktoplinuxreviews.com

The author claims to have been published by sources such as ZDNET, Forbes, MSNBC, Salon but I could not find it: I did found him on extremetech and PCMag:
 * 1) https://www.google.com.br/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Azdnet.com,
 * 2) http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Aforbes.com
 * 3) http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Amsnbc.com
 * 4) http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Asalon.com
 * 1) http://www.extremetech.com/author/jlynch
 * 2) http://www.pcmag.com.br/us/article2/0,2817,10414,00.asp

http://desktoplinuxreviews.com is used in Unity_(user_interface) as one of the sources for the claim "Its design and deployment has been controversial with some software reviewers finding fault with its implementation and limitations". I actually agree with this claim, but would like to remove this particular source. Editor User:Ahunt disagrees and wants to keep the source.

The other questionable source is http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk. It is used all over Unity_(user_interface) and Ubuntu_(operating_system) to back several facts and opinions. -- Jorge (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lynch appears to be a regular contributer to ITWolrd.comTwo kinds of pork (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As noted Lynch has been widely published in third party publications and so meets WP:SPS "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". OMG Ubuntu is an independent third party publication covering Ubuntu and related topics with editorial oversight and so meets WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't source anything to Lynch's blog under WP:SPS. Not accountable to anyone for what he writes there. I especially would not rely on such a source for anything controversial. With respect to omgubuntu, I don't see a single article that they ever issued a correction for.  I wouldn't rely on it, it is just another SPS with some guest posts. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Times of India
Is this source "Writing Her Way to Glory" by journalist Munna Mishra in the Times of India reliable for citing that Rashmi Singh is "amongst the few female writers from Bihar writing in English fiction"? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comment here. Green Cardamom is mis-stating the issues somewhat. They are not merely related to whether this might be a puff piece but also to linking to a copyright violation, incomplete citation and seemingly inaccurate representation. I've been trying to find the original story online so that the entire thing can be evaluated, especially given that there is a history of misrepresenting sources in the article and an outstanding request for translation. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In my judgment:
 * TOI's main "news" section would generally qualify as a reliable source. Of course, it has occasional problems with accuracy, POV, publication of lightly edited press releases etc... but these problems are not dramatically greater in TOI than its competitors amongst Indian newspapers and can be handled by cross-checking with other sources and using common sense.
 * On the other hand, TOI's Metro and some other supplements are no better than tabloids. Mainly filled with gossip, puff pieces, and (local) celebrity profiles and interviews, they show little no sign of fact checking. These should be used with great care/ not be used. (And if someone believes that I am being unduly harsh, here is how the publishers themselves describe the metro supplements).
 * So in order to judge the whether the article is reliable for the claim, we will need to see more than an extract and also determine which part of the newspaper it was published in. If you know the date for the article, I can look it up on Proquest. Abecedare (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The image linked to says that the thing was "in conversation with TN". The citation said that the source was ToI & Green Cardamom seems not to have picked up the discrepancy. Is TN a ToI supplement or stablemate? The ToI often regurgitates PR puff pieces - some people call it the "Toiletpaper of India" (!) It is already evident that there has been much PR puffery surrounding the subject of the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

New information has come to light, TN apparently stands for Times Neighborhood published by Times of India, an example cover. According to a previous AfD they are "built on a platform of citizen journalism where the content is uploaded on social media". Obviously not a reliable source if true, and confirmed with TN Facebook and Twitter pages. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is useful to know.
 * I guess the rule of thumb is: The more local Times of India gets (National->Metro->Neighbourhood), the less reliable it becomes. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One hilarious example I've come across of appalling reporting by Times of India is this. In October 2009, Faking News, a parody and satire sub-site (which I love reading) posted a hilarious article on a made up guy called Vaibhav Bedi, claiming he sued Unilever as the Axe deo he bought failed to act in the same way as it was shown in the advertisements. Guess what Delhi Times, a city supplement of Times of India, does in May 2011. They fall for the faking news and print it as real. In other words, what Abecedare says above is more or less true. Wifione  Message 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

chinaag.org
For your consideration:

Website: chinaag.org

All production source data is collected and organized from China's National Bureau of Statistics (http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/). All trade data originates from the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, which gets its data directly from China's Customs Agency. All raw data is referenced and embedded for download on ChinaAg.org. Any user is free to verify its veracity.

Although http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/ is base data source, I had to research and verify with secondary sources (news articles, USDA databases/publications, journals, and trade associations) that the data presented was indeed accurate. Much in the same way as a journalist verifies information by interview multiple sources. As you are probably aware, Chinese statistic agencies, particularly those dealing with farming and aquaculture industries, have been known to either over/under report figures. Since I have put in the effort to extract, organize, verify, as well as include the appropriate links and raw data within ChinaAg.org, I believe I met the burden necessary to reference the website.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Anna -- I'm going to let somebody else give their better-researched-commentary here... but what it basically sounds like is, there is a wikipedia editor User:ChinaAg32, who self-publishes a blog at www.ChinaAg.org, in which they have synthesized some original research by combining the not-very-trustworthy figures of stats.gov.cn with some cross-referenced data-sources like the USDA, USA Today, trade rags, and so on. This is, pure and simple, WP:OR.  However, there is an important exception, that *might* apply here.
 * In real life, is User:ChinaAg32 somebody with Notable expertise in the field? For instance, if you are a stanford professor of economics, and you publish a position-paper in your official professor-blog, then in some cases that can be treated as WP:RS on your position, and because you are a Notable expert in economics, can be exact-quoted in an article.  There is no peer-review of the blog-entry, necessarily, but there is peer-review of *you* as an expert.
 * So, there are two ways that the *direct* contents of ChinaAg.org can be used directly as a Reliable Source. The first way, is if some 'normal' reliable source, such as a newspaper or a peer-reviewed journal or the blog of a Notable expert in USA-Chinese trade relations, re-publishes the material under *their* stamp.  The second way, is if User:ChinaAg32 (or to be more precise -- the acknowledged author of the content at www.ChinaAg.org -- I'm just presuming they are the same humanoid), is in fact *themselves* such a Notable expert on USA-Chinese trade relations, with a PhD in economics and/or international relations, and such.
 * Failing those, it sounds like ChinaAg is a blog, by a non-Notable-in-the-wikipedia-sense human, with no editorial-and-fact-checking-staff in the background. Of course, there is always the possibility to use the secondary sources, which were collected for the ChinaAg analysis-papers, to offset the 'official' information from stats.gov.cn -- but citing ChinaAg as a reliable source when it is not, or alternatively synthesizing/editorializing within the pages of wikipedia, is Not Good.  When you have a USDA report that claims X, and a CNBS report that claims Y, wikipedia should mirror the sources, and give both numbers, not pick winners and losers.  HTH.  p.s.  If you cannot use the dataset from ChinaAg, you *might* be able to put it into the External Links section... not as a source/ref/citation, but as a Unique External Resource, kinda like the "one major fansite" exception to the WP:LINKFARM policy.  That situation would be a different question entirely, of course.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the very intelligent and thoughtful reply. I fully agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

VoiceChasers.com
Hello. I would like some opinions on the following site, VoiceChasers.com. I was hoping to use this to source voice actors in video games, specifically for the Batman: Arkham Origins page. Currently, as the in game credits are not formatted like that of a film's (actor name with a character attachted to it), myself and others on the page are currently forced to try to search an actor's personal Twitter feed, in hopes of a confirmation, or hoping that a reliable new agency's review mentions some of the characters and their actors. This site would be a tremendous helping in allowing info to be added to the page that we currently cannot, because no RS can be found to support it.

I believe this source to be reliable, and unlike a site like IMDb, because of the following:


 * The site is run by a select group of people - While it does allow people to register and participate on the site, in regards to their database, outside users can suggest updates, not actually contribute to updates themselves.
 * The Batman: Arkham Origins page does not have every credited actor attached to a role yet - This leads me to believe that a name is only attached to a role once it has been verified by the site, reliably. Since I found the site a day or two ago, before starting the discussion here, the game's page did not have Khary Payton's name attached to Warden Joseph or Killer Croc - both since confirmed by Payton himself on his Twitter here and here.
 * I don't see much difference in this site than Behindthevoiceactors.com, which is considered a RS. - BVA.com utilizes a green "check" next to an actor when they are confirmed, and I do not see this as any difference than the system I believe VoiceChasers uses as I noted in the bullet above this.

Just as an FYI, this site was asked about on the RSN in February 2012, here, with the commenting editor saying that "it looked like a blog" with "no evidence on whether they check their information for accuracy," both of which I'm not inclined to agree with by my looking at the site and would like others opinions. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again Favre1fan, I've done a bit of looking at both sites. At first I thought BTVA was *not* suitable to be a reliable source:  "unofficial site.. for fans, run by fans in their spare time..."  The key reason why BehindTheVoiceActors aka BTVA is used as a reliable source is because they have a verification process.  "...any green checkmarks those are confirmed credits. Click the greencheck mark to see the source... official voice actor websites, voice actor resumes, DVD/Blu-ray ending credits and from conversations with the voice actors & voice directors..."  Especially valuable is this bit:  "Sometimes multiple sources conflict... leads to additional work on our part to find out the truth."  They are definitely a fan-site, but they have an editorial-slash-fact-checking process.  The process *is* flawed, of course, since a green checkmark might just be 'sourced' to some blog or twit of a pretend-actor that claims credit for roles they did not actually perform; cf WP:SELFPUB.  It might not even be a blog -- BTVA trusts private email from actors, saying "I was the voice of so-and-so" which might never be corrected.  Still, pretty reliable, at least on the level of the politics section of a daily newspaper in a mid-size city, right?  Right.
 * You are asking whether VoiceChasersDotCom aka VCDC is also good enough. They have a similar approach, where fans post in forums, and then the VCDC staff puts the information into the database.  What's the editorial-and-fact-checking-process?  They do not say, neither giving details, nor even whether they *have* any fact-checking.  "Our large, comprehensive database... over 120k voice credits..."  Notice the focus on quantity of info, not quality of info; they say comprehensive first, accurate as an afterthought, and they give a total count only, never giving a total-count-and-a-verified-true-count.   "... meant for research, education, and entertainment purposes only."  It is also run by a dedicated group of volunteers, like BTVA... but although VCDC claims to be an "accurate resource for professionals" they give no evidence, in the we-commit-our-reputation-to-the-following-written-process sense, to back that claim up.  At the end of the day, they sound more like IMDB than like BTVA.
 * That does not mean all is lost. Maybe VCDC *does* have a strong verification-process, maybe even stronger than BTVA, and have just not documented it in the FAQ.  Maybe email them this link, and see if they'll commit to publishing their verification procedures, and adding something like the green-check-means-verified-click-here-to-see-cited-source.  Another workaround would be, look up the info you need to verify with a reliable source (e.g. Warden == Khary Payton), and post the info at BTVA.  Once they give Warden==Khary the green checkmark, you can put it into the wikipedia article.  Anyways, at the end of the day, I have the same bad news as the 2012 person:  "no evidence on whether they check".  Your experience of watching the evolution of the Batman listings *is* evidence, of course... but it is anecdotal evidence.  Maybe you were just lucky.  Maybe they sometimes verify, but not always.  Maybe some VCDC contributors verify, but with others anything goes.  Maybe they verify batman, but not Bill Murray.  The key is, they do not commit to verifying, they do not document how they verify.  That is the substantive difference.  HTH.  Ping my talkpage if you have any question or concerns, I rarely check this noticeboard.  Thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into the site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified food - Advice on a source
1. Source. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers The first line of the report reads: "'Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded.'" 2. Article. genetically modified food controversies

3. Content. From the wiki article: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food."

4. Discussion. We would like some advice on the use of this source, and I do not want to sway any neutral parties, so I won't offer my own view or any other info about our previous discussion until we hear from some new faces. I would urge my friends from the gm food pages to do the same. Thanks everyone --Geraldatyrrell (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * American Association for the Advancement of Science is respected scientific organization, yes, they are a reliable source. But I'm not sure I would word the content the way it is above.  The article doesn't really say that there is broad scientific consensus, although one could certainly draw that conclusion.  Instead, the article lists specific organizations.  I suggest we do something similar.  Also, the source article doesn't quite say "conventional food".  Instead, it uses the phrase "conventional plant improvement techniques" which may or may not be the same thing as "conventional food".  So, I think the AAAS is an excellent source for the article, but we should try to stay closer to what it says.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quest, thank you for pointing out that AAAS is a reliable source here. Speaking as an involved editor, I want to address your concern about "broad scientific consensus". The source also says: "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”" I think that is tantamount to "broad scientific consensus", and that the AAAS is reliable as a source to make that assessment. I'll also point out that the community very recently made a careful examination of the question raised here, at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 6, and the consensus there was that the language on the page is reliably sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you tried finding a source that says what you want it to say? If you don't mind using the popular press, here's a source that says what you want it to say almost word for word.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. However, advocacy groups argue the risks of GMO food have not been adequately identified. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I'll bring it up at the article talk page. On the plus side, that source uses language that is just about word-for-word what the page says. On the minus side, they are popular press as you say, and I wonder if they mirrored the language from Wikipedia! Of course, the AAAS source is a reliable expert source, and I don't think there is the slightest bit of OR in going from the passage I quoted to the language we cite to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment from an involved party: The content that this source is used to support (which is narrowly focused on the relative safety of food from currently marketed GMOs), and the many sources used to support that content, went through an RfC not too long ago - see here.  The conclusion was that the statement and sources are fine. More recently, Gerald wanted to remove this particular source; he is not currently challenging the content.  Gerald failed to gain consensus for removing the source on Talk, so I recommended he bring the source here. I will leave it to him, to make his own arguments. I have argued that under MEDRS, specifically the section on Medical and scientific organizations, that this source is acceptable. It is not the kind of peer-reviewed secondary source that we generally rely on for sourcing (of which we have several already) but it is really valuable to have a statement by such a reputable major scientific body to support the content (which is in a controversial area, where the scientific consensus is clear but the public is very emotional).  The only legit grounds I could see to exclude this source (given the paragraph in MEDRS) is that the AAAS is not a "reputable major scientific body".  I don't see how that argument could be made, so the source should stay. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern was that the source doesn't back up their own claims with cited info. Honestly, I'm not sure why they referred to the 2 cited sources at all. They could have easily backed up the report by citing more heavily or just left them out completely. Maybe aaas is suggesting that those are the two best sources available. I'm not really sure what to make of it. I would appreciate other thoughts on this type of source in general. When is it appropriate, when not and why this over something more closely linked to the science. With all of the public confusion over the scientific consensus, I understand why the aaas would want to put the issue right, but I didn't think it was wikipedia's job to address that same public confusion, but instead to report the facts. Jyt and Tryp have the right of it, this is not about the statement itself, just about the use of this source to support it. I would appreciate some comments from RS folks on the lack of peer-review and limited citations of the report. Thanks Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why you continue to ignore the specific authorization of this kind of source in MEDRS is beyond me. For you to be solidly grounded in policy and guideline, that paragraph would have to not-exist. But it does exist.  You just have a preference that we not use the source, but you are not arguing that way. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the paragraph and recognize that it permits use of sources like this. The questions I'm raising are more for my own education. Seems like there ought to be circumstances that drive which types of source to use. Does that exist somewhere? (I'm curious when one should cite an organization's statement and what makes it preferential.) Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a much more reasonable position than the one you have taken thus far. But I think your efforts on the Talk page went beyond raising questions to strenuously making claims and arguments that this source should be cut.  In any case, wanting to learn is always a good thing.  My sense (but I too am happy to be taught) is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines specify what types of sources are most preferred, which are less preferred, and which are not acceptable, both generally and for health-related content in particular.  With respect to choosing among acceptable sources, there is no guidance other than a) use the most preferred kind of source whenever possible, and of course, b) the fifth pillar (there are no rules, use common sense).   In this case, as was stated several times on the Talk page, the AAAS source is both acceptable and is extremely useful for supporting the given content (the board of one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the US, issued a statement clarifying what the scientific consensus is.  (Rhetorical question - who would know the scientific consensus better than the board of such an organization?). Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw this on Forbes the other day stating:


 * A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.


 * So, Forbes is stating in no uncertain terms that there is scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe (well, as safe as non GMO)Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No comment on the substance, but the Forbes article is an op-ed by a named contributor, and hence only representative for the opinion of that particular author, not Forbes itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I didn't see that oped part. The link to the research is inside for those that care.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Policies (e.g. wp:ver and wp:nor) establish sourcing/source/sourcability requirements for the presence of material. There is no policy requirement for the presence of a source. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsure what you are saying. WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS are policy and guideline, respectively, on acceptable sourcing. Please elaborate! Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that North8000 does not understand why there is an argument about whether a *reference* is worth removing, and is pointing out that most wikipedia policies talk about *sentences* sometimes needing to be removed. Basically, they are asking what the point of this whole discussion is.  Methinks the answer is WP:STICKTOSOURCE, because here is what Geraldatyrrell said:  "...this is not about the statement itself, just about the use of this source to support it."  In this case, the AAAS report is signed by 'board members' and gives a general-sounding statement, which is in *agreement* with similar statements made by other folks, but does not *cite* very many of the other folks.  In a nutshell, the AAAS report almost sounds like a communal blog, where the board writes up their opinions, rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
 * (added later) in hindsight, I realize that I misunderstood an argument that was being made; and that my comment a couple posts back is not relevant to this discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks!Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the sentence in question does not depend solely on the AAAS report, and since the AAAS report was somewhat weak-seeming (in terms of academic formalisms) when you follow it a little deeper, Geraldatyrrell was trying to get a better feel for how valid using such a source might be... in a hypothetical situation where it *was* the sole supporting WP:RS for some sentence. My take is that the 'board members' of the AAAS, and their newsletter, are best seen as a *journalistic* body, rather than a *scientific* publication.  The board members act as the editorial and fact-checking department, in practice very much like a science-oriented magazine such as Technology Review functions.  They don't cite deeply-and-broadly, because the are *reporting* on existing conclusions, not generating any new ones.  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just a quibble with what you said, and I think that you are largely making a very reasonable point. But I'm going to quibble with your characterization of the AAAS Board as acting in an editorial/fact-checking capacity. Although they are indeed expressing an editorial view after reviewing available factual material, they differ from typical editorial offices (including the staff of the editorial office of their major publication, Science (journal)) in that most Board members are highly distinguished scientists, selected somewhat like the National Academy of Sciences. They are a governance board, as opposed to office staff. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

 * Source:Building a Legend: The 'Skinny' on the Slender Man
 * Article: Slender Man
 * Content: The classic distinction between folklore and fakelore, and whether it applies to this phenomenon.

It's a paper that's obviously passed muster at university level, but it is by an undergraduate. I've been keeping this source on ice for a while, because I'm not sure if it meets all the criteria, but the information it imparts is gold, and reliable sources on this topic are, as you can imagine, rare.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  14:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the PhD thesis and Masters thesis paragraph. The key phrase is "shown to have had significant scholarly influence" which basically means, lots of other academics have cited it, in lots of other thesis papers, peer-reviewed journal papers, and similar.  I'm guessing that is not the case.  Did anybody publish the work, as part of Proceeding of the 7th Annual Such And Such Conference, or the equivalent?  If neither a bunch of cites, nor a non-COI-publication, then prolly not usable as WP:RS.  The paper itself *might* be suitable as an external link, though, specifying pretty clearly that this is an undergrad student paper published by the student on the university wiki (or whatever the actual detailed explanation is).  Hope this helps.  There was actually just a rewrite of that section of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is why I remembered that sentence about Masters thesis stuff.  If you want the explanatory details, ping my user-talkpage.  Thanks for improving wikipedia, sorry my news is likely not what you were wanting to hear. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)