Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 177

De Telegraaf
A user is attempting to add controversial content from the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf into a biographical article. According to sources (including our own Wikipedia page on the paper), De Telegraaf is notoriously unreliable. The Skeptical Inquirer accused them of "fraudulent reporting". Google scholar seems to say quite a bit about this source but I don't have acess to the data at this moment. But to get down to brass tacks...In this particular case, this article is being used to support the statement that Jewish businessman Maup Caransa survived the war because of his "non-Jewish appearance". However, that wording is especially problematic. In reality (and in another more reliable source) Caransa said his marriage to his Catholic wife and his blonde hair and blue eyes helped him survive. This is an altogether different statement, implying that the nutty theories of the Master Race were used against them, rather than the notion that he doesn't look Jewish. It is my contention that the De Telegraaf is unreliable (known for its sensationalism and gossip) for use in a biography article and we should stick with the more reliable source that describes his blonde hair and blue eyes. I don't see any good reason to claim that he looks "non-Jewish" when this was the claim the Nazis were making, which he ironically refuted by his very appearance. It seems very unusual for a neutral encyclopedia to argue from the Nazis POV, that there is such a thing as a "non-Jewish appearance", or that it can even be defined. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were just "De Telegraaf" reporting this, i might even agree with you. However, practically the same is reported by Het Parool and even "Jewish Amsterdam", with an additional, painful, detail. Arguing that stereotypes do not exist is plain silly. Like Dutch stereotypes (windmills, tulips and clogs), British stereotypes (having tea with bowlerhat, umbrella and "The Times") they do exist, regardless of their veracity (very close to zero). Nazi's in particular were quite big on those and that occasionally worked in favor of some. Sad, cruel, but nevertheless a fact. Kleuske (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You evidently did not read what I wrote. Het Parool did not report this at all, only De Telegraaf did. Please cite the passage from  Het Parool.  I already did in my initial comment, and I demonstrated that marrying a Catholic wife and having blonde hair and blue eyes is not equivalent to having a ""non-Jewish appearance", which is a Nazi Master Race theory. The fact that the person in question had blonde hair and blue eyes dispels the stereotype.  I am not arguing that stereotypes don't exist, I'm saying that we do not represent them as fact, as is being done here.  I'm also arguing that the De Telegraaf is not a reliable source, and we shouldn't even be using it.  Saying that the person in question avoided death because he had blonde hair and blue eyes and married a Catholic wife is not the same as asserting he has a "non-Jewish appearance".  The former appeals to known facts, while the latter to fictional stereotypes. Again, what do Jews look like?  For every answer you give, I can provide ten that disprove it. Yes, the Nazis relied on stereotypes to promote their theory of the Master Race, and that's why the subject says he survived, because the Nazis saw him with blonde hair and blue eyes, which dispelled their stereotype of Jews. NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View, not Nazi Point of View. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I await your comment on the document, linked below, from Beth Haim, the oldest Jewish cemetery in the Netherlands, which uses the exact same words. So you have a choice: either the terminology is not an endorsement of racism or the establishment of some mythical prototype (meaning, you're wrong), or whoever compiled that document and put it on the cemetery's website suffers from Nazi POV. On page 61 you'll see the colofon--it reads like a who's who of the Dutch Jewish community, so be careful with your answer. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever other sources might say, I wouldn't use an unreliable tabloid like "De Telegraaf" in a biographical article. The bar isn't as high for non-BLP bios, but still, I don't think "De Telegraaf" makes it. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're not interested in the fact that other, non-Telegraaf sources used the exact same phrasing? Because that's the real issue here--not whether this one source should be accepted (and for the record, you can read that article, and the many other sources cited in the current Wikipedia article, and you will find that they all agree). Drmies (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone is forumshopping here. That someone knows fully well that the "non-Jewish appearance", the literal quote, is found not only in De Telegraaf (apparently that paper is one of many windmills that need fighting), but also in a fairly innocuous Belgian publication, a TV guide announcing a radio program by the Joodse Omroep. (Need we explain that such content is typically written by the channel that airs the program?) And of course there's Het Parool, the resistance paper: people died to deliver that paper during WWII, and its reputation is impeccable. This article says, "Dat hij overleefde, dankte hij, zei hij later, aan zijn gemengde huwelijk en zijn uiterlijk: blond, bijna rood, lichtblauwe ogen." One could translate that. And then one could, if one liked, tweak the article one way or another, to add "he later said" or something like that. Or one could escalate this all over the place and accuse other editors of having a Nazi POV, which is of course a personal attack. All these links, by the way, are on the talk page already, but perhaps someone didn't see that--see, I'm applying good faith. Also on that talk page is this link, where Caransa's non-Jewish appearance is also given credit for his survival, withou the "he later said" kind of modification."In de Tweede wereldoorlog was hij korte tijd geïnterneerd in kamp Westerbork, maar zijn huwelijk met de katholieke Rika Heijsteeg en zijn niet-Joodse uiterlijk redden hem van deportatie." Will someone claim this is also Nazi POV wording? Because the document comes from the website of the 400-year old Jewish cemetery where Caransa is buried. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I reviewed this and the original wording was never that Wikipedia was asserting he had a "non-Jewish" appearance but that he had an "apparently non-Jewish appearance". I think that any statement like "Jewish-looking" is a subjective assessment that requires attribution, but I don't think there was ever an issue here that Wikipedia was stating that a stereotype was true. This is a lot of ill will over what wasn't said. I think the original "apparently" helped indicate it was not some empirical assessment of the "truth" of his appearance, (although I think the phrasing of the current version makes it even clearer that it describes a stereotype and is an overall improvement). I think that most of the time any phrase similar to "looks like a" should be clearly inline attributed when it involves contentious material or can be confused in this way. I don't really care what phrase the sources specifically use, unless you were using it within a direct quote. To compare, if a source said person X "looked like a hero", I might include the direct quote, or attribute to whom X looked like a hero, but we shouldn't have a blunt "X was heroic-looking" in Wikipedia's voice. (And, of course, that's not what happened here).
 * Shorter: Sammy Davis Jr. and Andrew Dice Clay look like Jews to me, so there's no reliable source for what a flatly-stated "Jewish-looking" means without clear attribution of who is making that subjective assessment in clear context. 2. Drmies's original text wasn't flatly stating that in the first place, and didn't indicate any endorsement. 3. The current text is fine.__ E L A Q U E A T E   16:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Editorial use at BlackLight Power
A discussion at Talk:BlackLight_Power has erroneously been taken to DRN rather than here. The subject of the discussion is the use of the editorial in a fine journal (Eur Phys J D) at as a "secondary" source for the paper in the same issue that the editorial introduces. The editorial itself cautions that it "is in no way an endorsement of the authors’ “hydrino” hypothesis by the Editors of this journal". It continues "Despite the reservations about the “hydrino” hypothesis expressed by some members of the scientific community, we decided that, after ensuring that the paper passed all necessary refereeing procedures (review by two independent senior members of the academic community), we should publish this paper rather than silence the discussion by rejecting it. We view this as the most effective way to stimulate scientific discourse, encourage debate, and engage in a meaningful dialogue about what is admittedly a controversial postulate. We would therefore like to invite the scientific community, opponents and proponents of the “hydrino” hypothesis alike, to send us their comments and views. All comments received that are suitable for publication will undergo the standard review process for comments prior to publication." The publication did draw one such comment, at, which concludes "Hydrinos as proposed by Mills and Lu are inconsistent with laboratory scale high pressure LTE hydrogen plasmas, inconsistent with the stability and structure of stars including the Sun, and inconsistent with the known Universe." The user raising the issue wishes to use the editorial as a RS for a statement to the effect that "the hydrino hypothesis is not nonsense, but has attracted serious scientific discussion" and an assertion that the editors "came down in support of" such serious discussion of that hypothesis. Anyone care to offer an analysis of its reliability for such statements? LeadSongDog come howl!  18:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that this appeal is appearing shortly after the DRN moderator has found the article fails to meet the standards of WP:IMPARTIAL and has suggested parties work together in good faith to resolve the dispute. I think it would be useful to seek concurrence from the DRN moderator on the proposed change of venue before proceeding. Ronnotel (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ronnotel, but you perhaps don't grasp the roles of DRN and RSN. This is the board where the question should have been brought in the first place, which is the reason I showed zero interest in it being pursued at DRN. In any event the DRN findings have no weight on the question here. Taking it there could itself be considered a failure of good faith. Warping a source reliability discussion into an article-BPOV discussion was even worse. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The DRN volunteer has recused himself because he was WP:INVOLVED. Second Quantization (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think 2/0 summarised the issue nicely here: with using an editorial like this. "EPJ D is a fine journal (not first tier, but top quartile sounds about right), but the editorial in question is a good reason to continue treating the issue of hydrinos as outside of mainstream physics. Using this source as proposed would be to severely misrepresent it." Using a journal editorial to try and teach the controversy would be to give a false impression that there is any real controversy in the scientific community about this. It's a primary source, and using it would give a misleading impression, wait for the actual sources which if anyone respond to the editorial. In wikijargon, using a WP:PRIMARY source as a justification for content violates WP:FRINGE. Second Quantization (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Meta discussion
I am the WP:DRN volunteer who is managing this case. On of our rules (see at the top of the DRN page) is:


 * "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves."

If this had been open when the DRN case was filed, I would have closed the DRN case and asked the filer to re-file after the RSN discussion has ended. Because this was opened (without any discussion on RDN and without notifying me) during an ongoing DRN case, I am going to request that this noticeboard close this discussion as WP:FORUMSHOPPING, with an understanding that anyone is free to re-open it once the DRN case is closed.

Dispute resolution requests is the best place to start when deciding where to go with a dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Guy, considering LeadSongDog hasn't taken part in the RSN discussion your observation is irrelevant. It's not even clear to me why you accepted a discussion at DRN which is centred around reliability rather than directing it here in the first place. Fundmentally the question is about reliability. You also fundamentally misunderstand reliability in your comment at DRN as well. Anderson is completely reliable for saying what Anderson says. There is nothing unreliable about that. Are you seriously contending that Anderson didn't say that?
 * You are also (again, if I recall you did this years ago when I last saw you at DRN) using your position at DRN to give your own point of view prominence in a discussion: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard (It's not like you weren't aware of Blacklight power before: Talk:BlackLight_Power/Archive_6,
 * What I find particularly startling is that you appear to claim neutrality despite having made some of the edits you advance at DRN while giving the impression of being fresh eyes. You explicitly support one side and have made recommendations along specific edits you made in the past but which were rejected. Second Quantization (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC Notice - Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own attributed film review?
There is currently an RFC on whether Breitbart.com is a reliable source for an attributed quote from its own film review. Input is welcome. VictorD7 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Global Monitoring Division history in Earth System Research Laboratory article
Let me begin by saying I'm an editor with a conflict of interest. I work at NOAA's Global Monitoring Division (GMD), and the director of the division has asked me to clean up the Global Monitoring Division portion of the Earth System Research Laboratory article because I have some extra time. I fully respect the mission of Wikipedia and as such I will not edit the article directly, but rather make suggestions on the talk page for other editors to accept or reject.

I've been looking for articles on the history of my division, and unfortunately I have found a dearth of 3rd party sources. However, GMD has a number of self-published Summary Reports that reveal some of its history. Could these be acceptable sources in describing GMD's history? For instance, could I use the Introduction of the Summary Report 1989 to support a statement such as "In 1972, the Geophysical Monitoring for Climatic Change (GMCC) program was established as part of the Air Resources Laboratory (ARL), a division of NOAA’s Environmental Research Laboratories (ERL). 'In January 1990, as part of an ERL reorganization, GMCC activities were transferred, along with those of the NOAA Climate Research Group, to a newly formed NOAA Laboratory, the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL).”" Please note that the second sentence is a quote from the introduction page. I have read that quotes can be useful on Wikipedia, however I do not know if quotes from self-published sources are acceptable.

Thanks in advance for any help. NickAtNOAA (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * a self-published source can be used for routine uncontested details about uncontroversial factual matters, or as a statement of an organization's philosophy. In some cases, such as a group's intended goals, it can be best to quote, but for routine material like this, the usual practice is to rewrite and give a reference. Propose your wording on the article talk page, along with a tag.  DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Is wordspy.com RS for identifying language as Fedspeak?
This page from Paul McFedries website Wordspy is being used as a source to identify language as Fedspeak. Shouldn't we be using secondary sources rather than this tertiary source? Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: I'm not sure this is a tertiary source but it appears to be self-published and is therefore not a reliable source. There is no evidence that the author is an expert in the field. He appears to be a technical writer, not a lexicographer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Shameless plug: Now that I've contributed to this discussion, please consider contributing to this one. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku, other gaming news sites
Due to recent controversies (GamerGate look it up), it is felt that all gaming press websites should no longer be considered WP:RS Reasons:Proof (non RS) If you think the source is not reliable enough, the reliable sources usually used are biased. Retartist (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A Google search yields only a company called GamersGate. You might want to be more specific.
 * If you're referring to the event in which one journalist allegedly slept with his subordinate and then she falsified a review or whatever it was, then no I don't think that two people's conduct, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the events, justifies the automatic rejection of an entire class of sources. If you are suggesting that gaming press websites be reevaluted on their own merits, then please list your specific reasons.  If the falsification of reviews is a systemic problem in gamer press websites, then that would be another matter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What this is is evidence of a systematic problem in gamer press websites where they break journalism ethics (accepting money, close relations with subjects etc.) and also suppress criticism. They also harass and insult people who have differing opinions who in this case seems to be their usual audience. summary of what is going on with links
 * The Jayson Blair scandal did not make the NYT non-reliable, and this scandal does not make Kotaku non-reliable. Unfortunately for all of us, the arbiters of taste still regard them as a leading source of information about games. Individual gamers may feel differently. Shii (tock) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. One manufactured controversy isn't going to destroy the entirety of gaming journalism.  I don't cite Gawker properties, as I consider them to be clickbait nonsense.  You can do the same and refuse to cite souces that you find to be substandard.  90% of everything is crap, and tech journalism is no different.  Sift through the worthless, biased, and obvious shill articles to find what's useful.  It helps to look for reviewers who do not accept advertising or keep reviewed products, but that's pretty rare in tech journalism, unfortunately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, due to the fact all the gaming press websites have launched about the same story, completely one-sided, for Gamergate EVERY source should be met with scrutiny. It's an one-sided story being told, one where also a lot is missing that has turned up in blogs etc but for some reason isn't being picked up by 'regular' reporters while the one-sided story is, either out of incompetence or malice. I wonder what happened with 'checking the story' - because hearing the other side of the story is completely absent so far, and the articles themselves are hating and inflammatory. MicBenSte (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As the top of the page indicates, this noticeboard is for disputes about specific sources and their use in specific articles. , please follow the directions at the top of the page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Books' Details vs Books' Author's blog
Some Tamil Wikipedians believed that if book of the author is not referrable in internet except in blogspot means then we can refer his blog with that book contents as reference.

But I beleieve that Book Details is enough.

Is it correct to cite a blog in wiki even the blog has that Book contents.?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's ever appropriate to cite Blogspot. See also WP:SELFPUB. If you can't find pages of the book available on databases like Google Books then I would not cite anything. Could you be more specific though? What blog are you talking about and what do some editors want to use as a reference? Thanks. --Precision123 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that a well-known author's blog is a reliable source for that author's opinions. But not for objective facts.  Formerly 98 (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the author is directly quoting word-for-word their own written work from the book on their own blog, that would probably be verifiable enough (I'm assuming the author has no reason to misquote themselves). If it's somehow different writing, different phrasing, or a different work, even if it covers the same topic, then there's no way it can be cited as if it was directly from the book. It has to be verifiable that the exact material appears in the book, if that's what's we're telling the reader of the article. But it's still unclear what the actual situation is here without a diff or article.__ E L A Q U E A T E  18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Self-published sources such as an author's own blogspot posts may be cited as long as they meet the five requirements of WP:SPS. Quotation isn't necessary, but anything even slightly controversial should be attributed in-text. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Anders Rudling
Time for Per Anders Rudling to be taken to the WP:RSN believes User:Iryna Harpy. Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The article Per Anders Rudling has been described as multiple issues: POV and too few opinions.
 * 2) A revert has been made
 * See both the Per Anders Rudling article and discussion on the Per Anders Rudling talk page as to how a relevant historian is being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But what about Volhynia? Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need for this. I just made a few touch-ups here and there because that's how Wikipedia works. See my comment at Talk:Per Anders Rudling. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This conversation provides an overview of Rudling's "objectivity": . He's a credentialed historian but has a POV and has been caught with inaccuracies and perhaps dishonesty. He should be avoided when he makes controversial statements or claims.  There are some pro-Ukrainian nationalist historians who should be treated equally carefully.Faustian (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I appreciate that you've modified his bio a little, but I am still concerned with the use of Defending history com as a reliable source. It certainly presents as being an interest group WP:INDY. See authors, about us and even their indictment Wikipedia's article about them from when it was purely sourced from their own site information to being reworked with other sources. Their indictment of Timothy Snyder is a thinly veiled attack on his works and him, as a person.


 * In other words, while you've toned down the language to an extent on the Per Anders Rudling article, considering that the "Treatment of Ukrainian nationalism" section is based on information paraphrased from the Defending history page, I don't even see the section name as actually being relevant to the information it carries. Members of Canadian-Ukrainian community groups objecting to Rudling's public announcement infers (very, very strongly) that they are automatically "Nationalists" per Defending history's hysterical definition of 'nationalism', reflecting in that section as WP:LABEL. If Defending history org can be considered to be a WP:RS (which I don't believe to be the case), it should only be used with "according to" prefacing the opinion in the body of the article, not hidden in a footnote as has been done. Anything less can only be understood as being extremely misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume that at least one community group isn't nationalistic, which one?Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Poeticbent has already addressed that issue in modifications to the article. The remaining issue is that of Defending history com (represented by the The Seventy Years Declaration article in Wikipedia) as a reliable source from which to base the major portion of an article (being the Per Anders Rudling biography) without questions of neutrality or a highly problematic imbalance in the content being raised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I see how Rudling is Swedish, but how is he "Swedish-American"? --Hegvald (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea as to where that came from, nor can I see any sources for it. I can see that he's was educated predominantly in Sweden and has credentials from Canada and the US (although that doesn't actually even mean that he's had to spend any time there as primary postgrad supervisors aren't even necessarily in the same country as the candidate). Being published by the University of Pittsburgh means nothing as it's simply a matter of having an honorary position for the research quantum - a byline. Cheers for pointing that out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that he does have dual citizenship, Hegvald. Poeticbent has pointed it out as being on his CV: Citizenship - Sweden/ USA.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

" has been caught with inaccuracies" by whom? I think he should be criticized by historians,  not only Wikipedia editors with special POV And article mentions "response to the Canadian-Ukrainian complaint about Rudling, an open letter was published in his support, signed by 38 scholars of the Holocaust and professors of leading universities supporting him, including Omer Bartov, Kristian Gerner, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, Alexey Miller, Ruth Wodak, and Efraim Zuroff." So, you have to deal with all these researchers to prove Rudling POV. Cathry (talk)01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * His own words are contradictory:

Here:, an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and professor Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes:

"Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp..."


 * The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie which Rudling himself contradicts elsewhere. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp."  The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities.  By lying that the officers trained in the camp, Rudling is falsely accusing military people of participating in the Holocaust.


 * The Division like the entire Waffen SS was under Himmler's command. Himmler's involvement with the Division was almost nil.  He approved it being formed, and reviewed it a couple of times during the war.  Bringing him up is simply inflammatory.

Rudling: "In 1943-44, the UPA murdered around 100,000 Polish nationals and thousands of Jews in Volhynia and Galicia."


 * This is the maximum estimate in the range. Consensus among sources is 40,000-60,000 in Volhynia and 25,000-40,000 in Galicia (this is covored extensively in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia). If an apologist for UPA stated that it killed "about 65,000 Poles" (the lowest estimate) he would rightly be accused of bias.  Rudling just gives the ceiling figure, demonstrating that he is biased.Faustian (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have read this, but you tell your own conclusions, do you find same in academical works? Cathry (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Cathry, have you actually bothered to read the entire discussion so far, or have you just not understood it? You've just re-quoted an article from a site being discussed as being unreliable. "response to the Canadian-Ukrainian complaint about Rudling, an open letter was published in his support, signed by 38 scholars of the Holocaust and professors of leading universities supporting him, including Omer Bartov, Kristian Gerner, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, Alexey Miller, Ruth Wodak, and Efraim Zuroff." is from that very site: Defending history com. In other words, you are presenting Rudling as being 'right' according to the interpretation of a spurious site. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it "spurious"? Well. this is ok site? http://hnn.us/article/155618 And here (http://www.academia.edu/2763263/_The_Honor_They_So_Clearly_Deserve_Legitimizing_the_Waffen-SS_Galizien_The_Journal_of_Slavic_Military_Studies_26_1_2013_114-137) Rudling also mentions Tarik Cyril Amar, John-Paul Himka, Dovid Katz, JaredMcBride, Andreas Umland, who co-work with him. Cathry (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your point being? Has anyone contested that he is an academic whose area is Eastern European history? You're presenting an article written by Rudling and an Assistant Professor Amar discussing historical questions in relation to current affairs in Ukraine, plus another demonstrating that he has been published. How does that attest to his reliability when he holds extreme views you consider appropriate to the article on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (and Romanovsky doesn't show up on the map of historians of any repute other than through Rudling's citations)? Look up any contemporary historian on the hnn.us site. In fact, you'll find articles citing Professor Peter J. Potichnyj. History News Network is essentially a mirror site pulling in articles surrounding the discussion of history, and has no POV as to whether the historian is credible, extremist or fringe. Faustian has provided reasons why, per WP:COMMONSENSE, the use of material from some scholars should be treated with caution. You've merely confirmed that Rudling and Romanovsky exist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * He is academic historian http://search.lu.se/search/lunduniversity/?q=Rudling%2C+Per+Anders&i=en Why do you think his views are extreme? Faustian has provided reasons based on his own original research,  I asked him to give similar reasons frome reliable sources. At example he says that 100 000 it is not correct number of deaths, but Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia page says that other historians also speak about this number ( John-Paul Himka), and extreme number is up to 300 000. Daniel Romanovsky is cited by different authors. Cathry (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you citing another Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is amusing Faustian cites the same article Cathry (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of a source that states two different things, particularly about a serious charge such as participation in the Holocaust.  Also, I did not claim that 100,000 was not the correct number of deaths at the hands of Ukrainian nationalists, rather that it is the upper limit that scholars consider (300,000 is not considered to be a legitimate figure by scholars, it's false, like 10 million victims of Holodomor).  By listing only the absolute upper limit as a fact, rather than providing a range that scholars claim is between 60,000 and 100,000, Rudling demonstrates bias.Faustian (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And a further note: the open letter did not support Rudling's specific scholarship: but rather his right to engage in scholarship and his criticism of some Ukrainian nationalist "scholar": "We, the undersigned, declare our solidarity with Dr. Rudling. We find his criticism plausible and extremely valuable. We also endorse his call for rethinking some aspects of the field of Ukrainian studies. We reject entirely any attempt to denounce Dr. Rudling, to exert pressure on him, and to obfuscate the issue by presenting Mr. Zabily and the organizers of his tour as victims."Faustian (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other." I do no see it. " rather that it is the upper limit that scholars consider" reliable source, where is such conclusion? Cathry (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ""I posted Rudling's own words, that contradict each other." I do no see it." See earlier in this section:


 * Here:, an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and professor Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes: "Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp..."


 * The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie which Rudling himself contradicts elsewhere. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp."  The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities.  By lying that the officers trained in the camp, Rudling is falsely accusing military people of participating in the Holocaust.


 * Actual numbers of victims are of Volhynia massacre are here: . While wikipedia articles alone are not a good reliable source, the figures in this section have references to reliable sources.  Note that 100,000 is the ceiling figure among the reliable sources.  By only including the ceiling figure within the range, and claiming it to be a fact, Rudling is demonstrating bias.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 1)- John P. Himka: 100,000. 2) I think there not all reliable sources listed in wiki-article 3) It was debates, not work 4) 100 000 here and here

5) Dachau "The units were trained in facilities linked to concentration camps" "Veryha recalls how the inmates of the Dachau concentration camp were forced to remove their hats for the Ukrainian SS recruits.5" "It would not have been unusual for Waffen-SS recruits to have helped with guarding or being trained in prisoner escort in the camps.5" from his work ‘They Defended Ukraine’: The 14.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS(Galizische Nr. Cathry (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You should have read the footnote, pg. 342: "Veryha, Pid krylami, 27. There was a network of camps at Dachau, known as the Kauferingconcentration camps. Hannah Arendt writes that Eichmann in 1933 attended an SS camp in Dachau‘which had nothing to do with the concentration camp there.’ Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Revised and Enlarged Edition, New York: Penguin Books, 1994, p. 34. While Veryha’s 2007 reminiscences do not specify the details of which of the subsidiary camps the training took place, they demonstrate that, at the very least, he was aware of the concentration camp system and the nature of the National Socialist system."


 * So in an interview Rudling states they trained in the vicinity of the concentration camp, in the article he states that they trained in part in a subsidiary camp, not concentration camp (see footnote, which contradicts his words in the body of the text), and elsewhere he claims that they worked in the concentration camp. The books you listed with 100,000 weren't by specialists in the massacres, such as Motyka (who gives a range of 80,000-100,000).Faustian (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Rudling article linked above includes the following falsehood: "ts previous incarnation, the Nachtigall battalion, took part in mass shootings of Jews in the summer of 1941." Although the OUN did slaughter Jews, Nachtigall did not - as noted by scholar John-Paul Himka: . and here:   In February 2008 the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) revealed documentation that demonstrated clearly that the KGB had “cooked” the evidence against Nachtigall."


 * So now we have clear evidence of Rudling repeating a Soviet fabrication. He is biased.Faustian (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Himka thinks he can believe SBU, maybe Rudling do not believe in their "evidence". And I think that paper about Nachtigall can be fake, as it was published when Shuhevich was claimed as hero, And there was not only Lvov massacre, " It is true that Nachtigall executed Jews on its subsequent march to Vinnytsia,8" Himka. The Lviv Pogrom of 1941: The Germans, UkrainianNationalists, and the Carnival Crowd https://www.academia.edu/1314919/The_Lviv_Pogrom_of_1941_The_Germans_Ukrainian_Nationalists_and_the_Carnival_Crowd So, now we see that you should be careful in your claims Cathry (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Um..Himka did not only state that SBU debunked the lie. He stated ""n 1959-60 the Soviets tried to embarrass the Adenauer government in West Germany by linking one of its ministers, Theodor Oberländer, with the Lviv pogrom. Oberländer was the German liaison to the nationalist battalion Nachtigall that fought along with the Wehrmacht. The Soviets produced “evidence” that it was Nachtigall that perpetrated the atrocities in Lviv in early July 1941. That something was fishy here should have been apparent from the start. Competent people who made it their business to know about the Lviv pogrom in the immediate aftermath of the war and who were aware of Nachtigall’s presence in the city at the time did not link the pogrom with Nachtigall. Particularly I have in mind the Jewish historian Philip Friedman and the Polish chronicler Tadeusz Zaderecki. A preponderance of evidence pointed to a Soviet fabrication."


 * "Executed Jews" is not the same as "mass shootings." The mass shootings were conducted by OUN militias not Nachtigall in Lviv.  When Rudling mentioned mass shootings he was referring to mass shootings, and Nachtigal's ties to those was a Soviet fabrication.Faustian (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Vinnytsia is not Lvov, i shall try to find about this episode. Cathry (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, i found it, it is from fighter memoirs ЦДАВОВ. Ф. 3833. Оп. 1. Д. 57. Л. 17; Патриляк I.K. Легiони Украiнських Нацiоналiстiв. С. 26. "But there is compelling evidence of the participation of soldiers "Nachtigal" in the extermination of Jews in Vinnitsa region. In the diary of a soldier reconnaissance company "Nachtigal" we find the following entry: "During our trek, we saw firsthand the victims of Jewish-Bolshevik terror, so this kind of sealed our hatred of the Jews, that in two villages, we have done some shooting all counterclaims Jews. I remember one episode. During our transition to one of the villages we see a lot of people wandering around. To answer the questions that the Jews threaten them and they are afraid to sleep in the huts. Because of this, we all met there they shot the Jews. " cited here http://scepsis.net/library/id_2175.html#a34 Cathry (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're citing an article by Dyukov? Precisely how far do you intend to go in cherry picking in order to get POV content included in an article? Becoming an autodidact by sourcing blogs and zines dedicated to revisionism certainly reflects on where you've gleaned your knowledge and formed your opinions. It most certainly refutes your ability to approach the subject matter without treating it as a soapbox. Seriously, you're expecting that a biased blogger lacking in academic credentials should be considered a scholarly source? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dyukov is citing book by academic historian Патриляк I.K. I know that academic historian Dyukov is hardly criticised by pro-OUN historians) You have strange opinion about revisionism, as far as I know, revisionism - it is when someone rejects crimes of nazi. Cathry (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand what you're trying to convey. Dyukov is cited by Патриляк, or he cites Патриляк? Either way, all it's established is that he's been cited by some scholars who have a particular and extremist opinion of the OUN. Your use of language appears biased in itself: pro-OUN? What's the other side: anti-OUN? I haven't encountered any such expressions before. Are you, therefore, asserting that Faustian and I are somehow promoting a 'pro-OUN' agenda, or are you confusing the use of politically motivated nationalism as per Right Sector with the historical entity known as the UIA? As for revisionism: you appear to have a very, very limited understanding of its multitude of meanings and the question of whose nation-building objectives it serves (the Soviet narrative of 'Benderivtsi' still being touted now, or Polish national narratives)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You demonstrate rather corrupt logic. If Hitler used multiplication table, multiplication table is not known only as "something, that was used by Hitler". And Dyukov has mainstream opinion of the OUN. Еxcept historians, I met exactly the same stories about Bandera units in the memoirs of Canadian-Ukrainian writer Podworniak http://www.antiqbook.com/books/bookinfo.phtml?o=intern&bnr=12889 Cathry (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is Podworniak? All I've found on him is an obituary "Michael Podworniak, author, editor of Baptist publications". Author of what, and what are his qualifications in the field? This is the only biography I've found, and it doesn't suggest any credentials other than being a theologian (although it doesn't indicate that he actually completed a degree at the seminary he was enrolled in. I'm sorry, but your English is weak and I find it difficult to comprehend what it even is that you're trying to convey. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Podworniak had not qulification, Himka, Patrylyak, etc. have. It is one example about real person who wrote his memoirs from Canada and had nothing with "Soviet propaganda"Cathry (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this really feels like talking to a brick wall. You brought Podworniak up. To what end? "Himka, Patrylyak, etc." are not being discussed: the use of Rudling is. Again, I'm sorry but I don't think your English is good enough to engage in a discussion here as you are unable to express your arguments properly. There's no point in prolonging this any more. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Try to read discussion one more time, if you want to understand why I spek about Podworniak, answerin to your question. It is interesting, you you did not write any argument relating to theme. Cathry (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

San Diego Rostra
I am writing regarding a BLP article about Nick Popaditch. I am asking others to look at this source and see if it appears to be a reliable source: Thanks in advance for taking a moment to look at this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * POPADITCH LEAVING SAN DIEGO TO JOIN TEACH FOR AMERICA CORPS
 * It's not an RS; it's a collective blog with no editorial oversight (other than a restriction on acceptable handles). Sources like that can however be good as gateways to other sources; your link references a post, apparently by Popaditch himself, on his Facebook page.  But when I log on I can't find it.  I'd guess that his Facebook page qualifies an RS as long as it's clearly his, but am not sure; if it is RS you might find something useful there.  Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Middle 8, not at all reliable. The source might fall under WP:ABOUTSELF if there were no doubts about its authenticity. But a notable figure like Popaditch would be very unlikely post something like this to a random website using just his nickname. Probably a fake. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Shameless plug: Now that I've contributed to this discussion, please consider contributing to this one. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Badassdigest.com
Would this source from badassdigest.com, written by Devin Faraci, be a reliable source? The site and author are cited all over Wikipedia, but I don't see there's been any real discussion of its reliability before. Faraci seems to be a fairly ubiquitous critic and is cited with some frequency in books about film and pop culture. The site doesn't seem to be a personal webpage. It would be used to cite something along the lines of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes has been variously called a reboot of the Planet of the Apes series, a loose remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes film."--Cúchullain t/ c 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the addition would be for the article Planet of the Apes and potentially Rise of the Planet of the Apes.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks fine. For that site it very much depends on the author, but Faraci is fine.  The site appears to be a group blog (see their "about" page), but it doesn't have editorial oversight (see disclaimer at bottom of page), so it's in effect self-published and falls under the third paragraph of WP:SPS.  Since Faraci has been published elsewhere (in 3rd-party pubs), and fairly frequently too, no problemo.  Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for the input, Middle 8.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Middle 8, with a caveat: As this is a self-published source with a lot of opinion content, it should probably be used with in-text attribution for anything even slightly controversial. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Shameless plug: Now that I've contributed to this discussion, please consider contributing to this one. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

michael brown RFC
The following RFC Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown could use additional input from uninvolved editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rockabilly.nl and .peggyleediscography.com
Are this and this sources reliable to be used on Wikipedia? The second one is also included on Peggy Lee's official website (here at the bottom of the page). I Am...  ***D.D.  14:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Re Rockabilly.nl, the clearest link to use is http://www.rockabilly.nl/references/references.htm   There is a lengthy list of biographical articles, many written by Dik de Heer.  In my experience of using that site to help start (literally) hundreds of articles here, it is highly reliable and written by experts with decades of experience in its specialist field.  Of course, as with all such sites, caution needs to be exercised.  However, it is far, far more reliable on details than other more general sites such as (one example) Allmusic.com.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

APGNation & Gamenosh
This is pertaining to GamerGate, both have been said to not be established RS, and we are unsure of.

For the specific articles, \apgnation has an interview with TFYC, who were a catalyst of the situation, and they tell their story.

\gamenosh is recounting facts that have come up from the Phil Fish hack, which points toward possible corruption in an indie game competition.

Would there be any problems with these, since they do not dive to much, if any, into opinions? PseudoSomething (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GamesNosh is not a reliable source, given that it has apparently only existed for two months, has an editorial staff of one and "is a wholly owned website and content platform maintained and created by Christopher Heeley." That would make it a self-published source, inappropriate for claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You say, since they do not dive to much, if any, into opinions? The APG article is a first person interview, that's almost completely primary-source opinions about what happened and should be considered an account written by people who are directly involved. The source generally needs to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy demonstrated for any part beyond the WP:PRIMARY claims in the interview.__ E L A Q U E A T E  01:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I spoke wrong it seems. I was relating it to be more of a primary source than an opinion piece, you said it correctly. Thank you.

So, is APGNation a reliable source?
 * I'd consider it a reliable source. See their \About Us page They have staff who have various tertiary-education English credentials. One of them even has a journalism degree. From their autobiographies it's clear they are knowledgeable about gaming. The website's been up for a year. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see an established track record of independent reporting or wide citation among other sources . I'll defer to Wikiproject Video Gaming on whether it's useful for games stuff, but I wouldn't consider it reliable for issues relating to living people. We have far better sources for living people stuff. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

After their recent interview with Milo, APGNation should have their own Wikipedia Page. As stated before, their staff are well educated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.129.10 (talk)

Russian intervention in Ukraine 2014
This is being used as a RS in lede. It's not a reliable site, and an opinion piece, it seems. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The source is reliable. And it's not an "opinion piece", it's mostly reporting with a bit of analysis thrown in. The actual text that is being discussed is a factual claim, not somebody's opinion.  Volunteer Marek   15:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source might be reliable, but looks at first glance at least rather partisan (see the funding of the TOL magazine and the affiliation of the author). A more reputable and less partisan is certainly to be preferred for the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote supported is, "Valentina Melnikova, head of the Russian Union of Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers, said that conscripts may have been forced to sign contracts before being sent to Ukraine." Why is this in the lead anyway?  It is not even a confirmed fact.  And conscripts are not "forced to sign contracts".  They are "conscripted", i.e., forced to serve - it is not a contractual arrangement.
 * When news events are widely covered internationally, then the best approach is to read the New York Times or any of dozens of other leading media, find out what they say and put it into the article, using them as sources. Why are we using an aricle by a human rights activist in an Eastern European online publication?  This rings alarm bells for cherry-picking, where an editor decides what they want to appear in an article and then searches for sources.  Is Halya Coynash writing as a reporter for Transitions Online, subject to normal fact-checking, or is she writing as a representative of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group?
 * TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it does not belong in the lead, for the reasons that TFD mentions. Perhaps it may be warranted elsewhere, but certainly not the lead. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that while this source may not be unreliable in itself, it shouldn't be used as an only source. Rather, it can serve as one source among others, and what we write in the article is based on what the sources collectively say, not what individual sources choose to point out. The New York Times, of course, isn't unbiased either but is usable nonetheless, treated properly. The lead for it's part is then based on the balance of what the article says. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Using multiple sources for the same fact is a form of fact-checking. The reason we use reliable sources is that they already use fact-checking.  The problem I find with multiple sources, other than it makes articles hard to read, is that it puts a tremendous burden on anyone challenging them.  Anyone can add 15 sources they have not read and force anyone challenging them to read through, research and comment on each and every one of them.  Whether or not a source is biased is irrelevant to whether it is reliable.  I have little doubt that Melnikova made the comments attributed to her, although I would have more confidence were it from a better known source.  However, the best place to verify it is her organization's website.  The real issue is whether it is significant.  TFD (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org. Again
Does Westeros.Org, a self-declared fansite without editorial oversight constitute a reliable source for the Game of Thrones tv series based upon the fact that two of the fansite's owners unofficially and intermittently act as a continuity source for some of the members of the writing staff? If so, under what conditions could they be utilized as a source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been argued that Westeros.org meets the WP:SPS criteria for an expert source. About Us. Its authors, Antonsson and Garcia, have co-authored a book on the tv show's source material with series creator George Martin .  They have produced articles about the series for MTV Geek, Tor, and Suvudu.  Game of Thrones writer Bryan Cogman referred to Westeros.org as "a tremendous resource."  Garcia responded to a request for information. He said that he and Antonsson have worked as "informal and unofficial" consultants on the show but that they are not employees of HBO.  Further details upon request.
 * This page from Westeros.org is being used to support this text in the Wikipedia article Oathkeeper. Garcia confirmed that he and Antonsson wrote that page themselves. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: Jack Sebastian and Darkfrog24 are two participants in a multi-editor content dispute. Consensus was reached to seek outside input on the RS noticeboard.
 * I'd point out that this material exists solely via user-created sources. No single reliable source has noted all of the aforementioned links to the book except in passing. This also highlights the concern that the material is but crufty details. I am sure that the good folks at the fan forums for Harry Potter, Star Wars' Expanded Universe and the Doctor Who series are of use to the writers/directors/producers of those series, but it is the latter that creates the material. We don't start out with a preferred phrasing and spend months trying to find barely adequate sources to protect them - that's backwards. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no.  Off the top of my head, I've seen it in 538, Slate, AV Club, i09, and other sources. There's similar content in Spark Notes.  It's also in the books itself, which is where I originally found it.  That's not backwards.
 * All GA-rated Game of Thrones articles have single-line chapter lists and they all use phrasing very similar to this. All of them.
 * Jack, I request that you remove your most recent comment so that newcomers feel more comfortable adding their opinions here. You were the one complaining about walls of text. If you do so, I give permission for you to delete this comment of mine at the same time.
 * This section needs an unbiased header. If you don't like "Fan site or expert site?" then suggest one in the appropriate thread at talk:Oathkeeper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The subject of Westeros.Org has come up twice before (back in May and again earlier this month). I should know; I've submitted both queries. The title accurately reflects the issue, and I apologize for not previously linking the earlier conversations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This header is a complaint. It biases newcomers and poisons the well.  We want the regulars here to think that this thread is worth their time, and complaining suggests that it is not.  If you want this RSN to count we have to do it right.  If you don't like "Fan or expert," then we should just delete the "again" and say "Westeros.org" by itself.  Doniago would probably appreciate that; he says he likes things concise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a valid source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please expound upon that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, i dont know what i was looking at when i wrote that. When I went back to find what had triggered my response all i found were things that lined up with what's outlined in the requirements for using a WP:SPS --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait,, are you saying you do think the source meets the SPS criteria or just that you were talking about something else?
 * Either way, now that you're here, could you guys take a look? WP:SPS is actually the policy in question.  Do you think Antonsson and Garcia's other published work qualifies their self-published website as an acceptable expert source?  If your concern is a reputation for fact-checking, they did do some fact-checking for the guy who wrote the books. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like it this site may be an authority on matters of continuity. However, there are other issues, such as due weight. Fan sites will spend inordinate amounts of time analyzing trivia and other minor details; these are not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. That issue can be resolved with other forms of dispute resolution, such as the NPOV noticeboard or an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We could certainly deal with those issues if need be, but I'm pretty sure coverage of this particular material in other secondary sources and the treatment of this material in GA-rated articles would address them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly in agreement with NinjaRobotPirate. It is a reliable SPS for issues of continuity, but care must be taken not to confuse coverage by Westeros.org with making a subject notable.--v/r - TP 23:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So if the text in question were supported by, say, Westeros.org and an article in Slate or AV Club... Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The non-Westeros.org sites would be preferred. I'm not sure of the reliability of avclub.  Higher quality sources are always preferred above SPS.--v/r - TP 01:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AV Club was used elsewhere in the article without incident, but there have complaints have been made about it and about Slate in this specific case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AV Club has passed FAC reviews before, though generally for their reviews (see, for instance, the featured X-Files episodes). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The complaint that Darkfrog24 alludes to regards the use by Slate, AV Club and another source of a Reddit table that some (unidentifed) fan put together that shows all the chapters per episode. The sources were not making the statements; they were simply discussing the phenomenae of how involved in the series that fans were. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * [This issue is rebutted and discussed further in the sub-section below the break. Please post comments on that issue there and comments on Westeros.org in the main section.  Thank you.]

break

 * TParis has noted a point of view that has come up repeatedly in the Oathkeeper discussion (not by me) that, were the information about chapter-to-episode comparisons truly noteworthy, it would be covered by someone outside of a fansite. While there have been sources that comment on a similarity here and there, those sources were not fansites. And they weren't these somewhat crufty lists of synthetic comparisons, either.
 * The continued request for reliable, secondary and explicit sources from Darkfrog24 was to help her learn that not everything is noteworthy. Four months later, she has not learned this lesson, nor of following a consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually is covered at other sites. Please acknowledge that there is a difference between disagreeing with you and "not learning a lesson." It is no more your job to teach me than it is mine to teach you. One of the problems with this content dispute is that you keep expecting me to not only take your word for it but to prefer your opinion to what I can see for myself.  But you shouldn't have to take my word for it either.  Since you brought it up, here is a list of people who thought chapter information was important enough to cover:
 * AV Club
 * Slate (they actually thought it was important enough to write up twice; here's the older one)
 * i09 (also twice; one of these is a chart and one is not)
 * Forbes (partial, Breaker of Chains)
 * FiveThirtyEight (partial Oathkeeper specifically, concept generally)
 * the reviewers of every GA-rated article about a Game of Thrones episode: Baelor    Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things ([Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)]  A Golden Crown  The Kingsroad  Lord_Snow  The Pointy End   Winter Is Coming  The Wolf and the Lion   You Win or You Die ) (Links in parentheses are the versions at the time of GA listing and reassessment, if any; chapter information was always retained.)
 * Just found this other site, PandaWhale, while I was looking up the Slate link. Never seen it before, but it seems to be the older version.
 * RSN regulars&mdash;if you feel this is too off-topic, I'll remove it upon request. But the claim that this material isn't covered elsewhere is not valid.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If necessary, I'll point out the problems that others (this isn't about me) found with each of the listed links, not the least of which is that one or two of the sources do in fact note a chapter connection to an episode. That was in fact added to the article in prose form. That said, I'll avoid the wall of text eventuality that inevitably occurs in any conversation where Darkfrog24 is a participant, unless asked by someone else here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is my take on this: Westeros.org is a fansite, run by two people who sometimes (and quite unofficially) act as helpers in terms of fact-checking for the writers of the series. This is an SPS. Overlooking for a moment that fansites are very often rife with speculation and outright false wish fulfillment, we are overlooking the main point that fansites contain crufty information that wouldn't be considered noteworthy to anyone who isn't a fan. Our readers cannot be assumed to be huge fans, and those of them that actually are know where to go to get that sort of information. We do not write for them; we write for the average reader.
 * Sidestepping the forum-shopping, my other problem with this effort by the only other user truly interested in adding this information is that he is working the process backwards. She saw the chapter-to-episode connection early on, and was reverted when she sought to add it. She has been looking for references to cite it ever since. Most of these sources are unsatisfactory according to our own policies and guidelines. My frustration with this is that a fairly solid consensus of users do not think this material is important enough to include. The reasoning behind this is that most of the references in support of this information are from forum sites, or fanclubs, or blog posts from reviewers who wouldn't pass the sniff test for fandom or fakery. I am frustrated with Darkfrog's continued shouting that the consensus is wrong, and she is right - pretty much counter to WP:CONSENSUS. Towards that end, she has spread her concerns far and wide. She didn't get approval through DRN. She didn't get approval through not one but two RfCs. She inundates noticeboards like this with walls of text talking about how horrible everyone is for not appreciating her efforts. So yeah, I find Darkfrog24 a net negative to the Project, and I am not alone in that assessment - at least three others have all but given up on working GoT articles because of her insistence that we are all stupid for not agreeing with her.
 * At least one of the owners of Westeros.org are maybe noteworthy when they are cited outside of Westeros.org. But citing them within their personal blogsite for factual information is like deciding our content based on Twitter feeds. It is contrary to our role as an encyclopedia to pander to fansites. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the refs provided? We should take a closer look at those, too:
 * AV Club, Slate and Panda all use the same Reddit user-created table to point out how fans are deeply involved in the series. The references do not represent the content.
 * io9 has some pretty useful content in their main area, despite the previous concerns raised in RSN archives about their parent company, Gawker Media. However, the noted reference comes from their forum, called Observation Deck.
 * Forbes has a great write-up about another episode, "Breaker of Chains". The partial information about a chapter fromt he book used was incorporated into the article. I know, because I am the one who did it. There is no chapter listing there, and no reference to Westeros.org or "Oathkeeper" at all.
 * FiveThirtyEight's mention of a single chapter usage in the episode was incorporated into the article, again by myself, even though I missed it when someone else introduced it.
 * The GA articles which contained information from Westeros.org must have slipped through the cracks during the nomination process, as they fail WP:GACR, most notably, the refernce information (several of the references in these articles do not reflect the content they are citing). But then, they are GA, not FA. I am somewhat convinced that a fansite reference wouldn't survive the FA nomination process -and that's why we edit, right? To make the best, most neutral articles we can. Usiong a fansite isn't neutral; its pandering. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Post to which Jack is responding below was moved due to edit conflict; see below.]
 * Err, are you equating Stephen Hawking talking about rock hard science with the whimsical Sherlcoking of a fansite owner? Really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, if you don't want "walls of text about how horrible people are" then stop writing them. You don't want long responses to accusations?  Stop making accusations.  Don't attack me and then complain when I defend myself.  I'm also not sure that this is the right place for you to be making these claims.  If you agree to delete this post you've just made, then I give permission for you to delete my response here at the same time.
 * It's possible that not everything on Westeros.org is suitable for inclusion here, but this content is. Reasons above in my last post.
 * I did start from a source&mdash;the book. Just because I started from a source that Jack doesn't like doesn't mean I'm doing anything backwards.
 * The consensus on talk:Oathkeeper is not that the content is "not important enough" to include but that more sources are required. So I've been finding more sources.  I have also repeatedly asked other participants if they have any objections to this material other than sourcing.  Verbatim upon request, but I keep getting "No" from them, including from Jack.  Jack, it's one thing if you're changing your mind about why you don't like this content, but do not claim that this has been your position all along.  Or you can admit that you lied to me when I asked you about your objections and apologize for wasting our time by keeping this dispute going in the wrong direction.  Don't complain that I keep finding new sources when you repeatedly demanded that I do so.
 * Most of the eight or so sources I've provided are from news outlets. Two, including Westeros.org, were from fansites.
 * I have never called you or anyone in this dispute stupid. I have never implied that you were stupid.  I haven't called your edits or reasoning stupid.  The harshest term I had for DQ or Doniago is "guys who don't agree with me."
 * Back to Westeros.org: That's not how WP:SPS works, Jack. Say Stephen Hawking writes his own website about physics.  Because Stephen Hawking is an established expert who's been published elsewhere, the things that he says about physics on that web site are usable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AV Club, Slate, and i09 all cite the content; they all thought chapters were important enough to list ant talk about. Ergo, it is important enough for Wikipedia to talk about.
 * Forbes and FiveThirtyEight also thought that chapters were important enough to name and talk about.
 * "GA reviewers must have made a mistake" is an assumption. There are three possibilities: 1) GA reviewers saw this content, thought it was appropriate and deliberately kept it. 2) GA reviewers would have deleted it if they'd noticed it but missed it (which indicates that it's at least not taking up inordinate space). 3) GA reviewers did not care about this content one way or the other.  This isn't a huge unsolvable mystery: If this is really an issue, we can just ask them.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Response to Jack's post; see above] Elio Garcia is no Stephen Hawking or Richard Feynman, but Game of Thrones isn't theoretical physics or rocket science. (Similarly, I wouldn't call Feynman an expert on GoT, not unless those zombies are way more awesome than I thought!) If you would like a non-hypothetical example, the blog Language Log gets cited a lot on Wikipedia. Because its authors have PhDs in linguistics and have been published in the journals of their field, their blog posts are also usable on Wikipedia. The other publications (linguistics journals; Garcia and Antonsson's books and articles) prove that they are experts, so what they produce is expert content. In that case, "the field" is publications that talk about linguistics. In this case "the field" is publications that talk about Game of Thrones. Have Antonsson and Garcia produced third-party content that is acceptable for use on Wikipedia? Yes, their book and their outside articles. So their self-published content is acceptable too. But you don't have to take my word for it. You can always ask ...well I guess that's what we're doing now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack I have a request. I've separated our back-and-forth into a subsection.  I think that the two of us should keep it in here (or even delete all this entirely) so that new people will not be discouraged from adding their input above.  Considering that both respondents so far have said that Westeros.org is reliable, this may be in your interest.  Repeat: Jack, if you see fit to delete this whole sub-section, you have my permission.
 * If you would prefer that the subsection have a different header, feel free to suggest one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just realized a collapse might be appropriate here. Anyone who doesn't like that has my permission to revert.  If anyone wants their digression posts to be more visible, put them below the bottom of the collapse, and move the bottom tag after say 24 hours. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, replacing it with an 'arbitrary break' subsection. It has the virtue of concealing no one's post, but allowing it to be cordoned off if others don't want to see it.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, I still prefer the collapse and reference to digression. The break isn't arbitrary, after all.  I feel this ranty back-and-forth we've got going here may be discouraging new participants from taking this matter seriously.  I don't consider these matters we're discussing trivial (in case that's not clear from all the attention I've paid them here and elsewhere), I don't feel this is the place for them.  The instructions up top say not to talk about issues other than reliability here.  Besides, most of this stuff is covered in your second post and mine at the beginning of this thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out that you don't have to respond with a wall of text. Physician, heal thyself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you post a long rant accusing me of misconduct, then yes, I have to respond. You don't have to post long rants accusing me of misconduct.
 * Similar note: Since you clearly don't have a problem with changing headers that other people wrote, please remove the biased "Again" from the head of this filing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You deleted a post of mine there, Jack, probably by accident.
 * There. I hope we can both agree that "break" is both neutral and implies nothing false.  I chose this site by topic but also because it gave you both the last word one one thread and the first in the next.  Like I said, I'm trying to keep things fair.  If you'd prefer it somewhere else, then where? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's just leave it in keeping how other people use breaks. Arbitrary in this instance doesn't refer to being argumentative, but instead, without any real reason. Break by itself is insufficient.
 * And you don't need to "keep" things fair, Darkfrog24. They are fair. Now, lets see if some of this newfound collaborative spirit carries into someplace else. Are yoiu prepared to stop arguing against consensus and recognize the fact that the material doesn't appear to be notable enough to list in the article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I just realized that there is a better place to discuss the wording of this thread: The talk page. Kindly join me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2: In a nutshell
Apart from the personality hurdles that often arise when two or more editors differ in opinion, the problems I see with considering Westeros.org a usable source are as follows:
 * 1) It is a theme park slippery slide: allowing content from largely user-created sources sets us up for wide-spread problems in both the short- and long-term. While one of the owners of the website has in fact written a book on GRRM's world, we have no proof (apart from the one person favoring it) that it is he who is writing the articles in Westeros.org that some are seeking to draw references from. How about when further comparisons come up between GoT and Star Wars? How bout who the different characters should have been cast with? Who should end up with who at the end? Where do we draw the line?
 * 2) It is also a question of noteworthiness: one of the problems with starting out with a statement that you desperately want to have in the article is finding a source for it (which is actually backwards). When that source largely does not exist in any other source but fancruft, that should be a large-type warning sign that your information isn't considered noteworthy.
 * 3) WP:IAR is not a suicide pact: Just because the fansite has been used in a small number of GA articles doesn't mean that those articles should have that info in there. Looking at the information that was sourced to Westeros.org indicates the large amount of cruft and relatively useless information that was crammed in for no other purpose than to pad the article. I suspect that they won't make it through FA candidacy with them there. Ignoring or bending our sourcing policy to the breaking point is counterproductive.
 * 4) Most of this problem could be resolved with an external link: The strongest advocate for inclusion of fansite info claims that the reader might want to know this information. If this is truly the case, then we provide a link to Westeros.org where the ep is crufted about in detail and be done with it. If the reader is indeed looking for that fine level of detail, it is our responsibility to point them in the right direction. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan-source warehouse.
 * I wanted to take a moment to apologize for the strongly negative reaction I presented last week here. While I personally feel that the advocate for this information has been gaming the system for four months to get what she wants, it isn't my place to point it out. If you can't or won't see the truth of it, there is little I can do about it. In my defense, I am one of the few remaining editors (there used to be at least 8 of us) who endured for four months this editor ignoring consensus, offering fan forum blogs or fake sources. I watch her schmoozing it up with key editors and am frustrated that you can't see the game she is running on you. That is as much a part of the problem as the source being provided, but I should have presented it in a calmer manner. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Westeros.org has been used on Wikipedia for years, usually very stably. If there were a slippery slope, we would have seen some slipping by now.
 * Noteworthiness is addressed by the treatment of this material in other reliable sources such as Slate, AV Club, and Forbes. Its presence in every other GA-rated article on this subject suggests a wider Wikipedia consensus for its inclusion.
 * IAR is not in play, nor has anyone advocated for its use. Please do not argue matters that are not in dispute as if they were.
 * Those actions are not mutually exclusive. We could provide the information and an external link.  While a single sentence listing relevant chapters is sufficiently important for inclusion on Wikipedia, Westeros.org also contains a great deal of information on the subject that may also be of interest to readers but does not meet that threshold.
 * You keep saying, "Find more sources." I find more sources. If that's gaming the system, everyone should play.
 * Please check your numbers before you post, Jack. It's advocateS, plural.  This dispute has five longstanding participants, three against inclusion and two for inclusion, not eight against one.
 * I'm pretty sure the bot archives discussions based on the date of the last post, so posting here has artificially prolonged the life of this thread. I will support deletion of this post of mine if you delete that post of yours at the same time.
 * Please make no further accusations against me here. If you truly believe that any of this holds water, then go through proper channels. I have many complaints about your conduct as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In favor of using the statements (and therefore of using references that support them): DonQuixote, Donlago, Balaenoptera musculus, FormerIP, Scoobydunk, NinjaRobotPirate, TAnthony, TParis, Crisco 1492, Tutelary and myself.
 * In favor of using the statements: Diego and Darkfrog24.
 * As has been said before, Darkfrog24 did indeed keep bringing sources: fanblogs, forum reviews and even one faked source. There was one or two good sources, and they were incorporated into the article. When I suggest that you are gaming the system, I am stating that running to RSN, DRN or ANI every time your latest blog source isn't allowed seems designed to wear down the dissent to the content you have been trying to add for four months.
 * And its working. Of the five original active editors in the article, only three remain (Donlago, Darkfrog24 and myself); the rest chased away by your constant bickering and text walls and forum-shopping. I think the only reason I remain is that by allowing a fansite to be given equal footing with the sorts of sources we normally allow, we are allowing the trivial to replace the substantive. I think this is important.
 * That said, I would support an external link to Westeros.org, for those readers who want to delve more into what fans are saying. I do not support using it as a source for claims made within the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not bring in a fake source. I brought in a source that you didn't like.  I also brought in Forbes, FiveThirtyEight, Slate, AV Club, i09 (two from i09, actually) and others, and yes, one of them was a blog, which I posted here for evaluation.
 * "Running to RSN" was Doniago's idea. You also insisted on it.  You also posted several filings about sources here on your own.
 * Please do not misprepresent things. Scooby and TAnthony and most of the others were not weighing in on whether the article should include the disputed text at all, only on whether a specific source to do so (in which case leaving out people like InedibleHulk and others who supported inclusion is misleading).  You have similarly misrepresented other people's positions.  If you want to know what these people think, go and ask them.
 * As for ANI, I reported you exactly once for repeatedly referring to my contributions as feces after you'd been asked to stop twice and for making misleading edits on GA-rated articles about the use of Westeros.org.
 * This thread has gotten off-topic. If you have anything else to say that is not about the reliability or unreliability Westeros.org, please post it somewhere else, like the Oathkeeper talk page, my talk page, or the talk page of this noticeboard.  If you are serious in your belief that I have engaged in tendentious editing, then go through proper channels.  Accusations about me do not belong here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They do if you are gaming the system. Now, you have a choice: you can throw yet another wall of text of slightly reworded, identical text of how you are bringing in all these sources which we unfairly consider to be useless, or you can be silent, and trust the others here to make a solid evaluation, or post another wall of text-y drama. I personally do not believe you can stop yourself, but we shall see. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the bickering is distracting, but it would be nice to get some informed, neutral inoput on this matter. One of the reasons that two users are so vocal in their opinions is that so very few others have offered their input. Please help out a bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 5 points:
 * I am participating in this thread in the desperate hope that one or both of you will return the favor and dig into my own thread below about the Lucy Burns Institute, which also has been languishing. Interestingly, even though they're in completely different article spaces, there's some overlap on the RS issues.
 * A major reason this thread hasn't received more attention from uninvolved editors is that both of your posts are too long. Please keep them short and confined to the subject of the discussion.
 * On the reliability of Westeros.org, I agree with TRPoD and NRP that Westeros.org is, per the "expert" exception to WP:SPS, a reliable source for details of the Game of Thrones series. I also agree that, as a fansite, it's not an independent source and is therefore not a reliable source for (1) anything appearing to promote the series, or for (2) determining the notability of the article subject. In other words, Westeros should be treated as an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Following from this:
 * Any material appearing in Westeros.org that also appears in an independent reliable source (such as Slate), should be sourced to the independent source, not to Westeros.org.
 * Material that only appears in Westeros.org may be included and sourced to Westeros.org as long as (1) it appears to be noteworthy and does not violate WP:BALASPS and (2) the coverage as a whole does not rely primarily on any combination of Westeros.org, other fansites, and/or other ABOUTSELF sources.
 * I hope this helps, now please, if you will, consider looking at my thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, DrFleischman. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Other viewpoints? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So, what the takeaway from DrFleischman's post is that while Westeros.org qualifies as an 'expert' exception to SPS, we find it difficult to use as a source because it isn't neutral about its interest in the content and has a CoI regarding the usage of its material. Additionally, Dr. Fleischman points out that if we can use another source, we should - but only after determining whether the information is noteworthy.
 * Protonk, in closing a Proposal in the article discussion, seems to reflect some of this view:
 * " I think there's a general consensus to avoid drawing conclusions from sources like the above infographic for specific claims in the article, but I don't see a good reason to restrict claims to "explicit" comparisons made on a per episode or per chapter basis. If, for example, someone published a book with the same content as that infographic but formatted in a different way (i.e. pointing to page numbers and episode times instead of drawing points on a plot) we're better off relying on a review of that source and the claims we want to make in light of OR/SYN/RS than pointing to an old discussion with ~5 participants to disallow its use entirely."1
 * While Protonk was not discussing the usability of this source in the article (nor voting on the matter), I find the administrator's closing words on the matter germane to the discussion here.
 * There is a point, imo (and my experience in participating in other discussions of this nature), where one has to accept the consensus is what it is for now. Over the course of four months, one editor has pushed exclusively for a way to include information in the article wherein a consensus currently exists to not use it. Consensus can change, but a push for that change isn't supposed to happen moments after the consensus emerges and remerges time and again. This RSN section, and others like it, have been proxy fights to get that info in. It would seem that consensus should be taken into consideration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, Dr. Fleischman didn't say it was "difficult to use this source", they said it was "a reliable source for details of the Game of Thrones series." You've turned their advice on its head. Fleischman also quite rightly pointed out that you're contributing to this being a never-ending tug-of-war. I think if the main two editors represented here weren't involved, this whole thing would have gone as smoothly as the "badassdigest" thread below. This isn't properly a "reliable source" issue anymore, with multiple editors agreeing that there's a case for "expert status" on this ersatz pop culture issue. Experts don't have to be "neutral" on an issue. Now there may be other issues, but the "reliable source" one seems to have been assessed here. __ E L A Q U E A T E  17:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by Elaqueate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, you're right, Elaqueate - he didn't say 'difficult to use this source'. That was probably me, taking the whole of the user's response into account; I've stricken that wording. Dr. Fleischman said we should treat the source as an ABOUTSELF, and opt for an independent source if both it and Westeros.org say the same thing. The editor also pointed out the noteworthiness of the material being sourced should be considered, though that noteworthiness isn't really something to address here.
 * As for my participation in this "tug of war", I should point out that I wasn't the one who repeatedly went forum-shopping for a pet version of the article; lets keep things in perspective, please. We don't need to repeat fancruft into an article when we can simply direct the reader to an External Link, should they wish to explore that route. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, noteworthiness is a balance issue. It can only be addressed by looking at the article as a whole and is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. It belongs on the article talk page and, if necessary, can go to other DR forums (not here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The material in question seems to involve basic facts about the book, and not intended to promote the series or support the notability of the television episode. That makes it isn't neutral about its interest in the content moot as experts aren't required to be neutral if they also have some reputation for topic-accuracy among independent sources (side example: bird scientists can be super keen on the general subject of birds, specific birds, and can be publicly enthusiastic about their own scientific theories). This doesn't seem to be a reliable source question any more. __ E L A Q U E A T E  18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bingo! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, this is not the place to accuse me of forum-shopping or anything else. Coming to the RSN was Doniago's idea, and I happened to agree with it.
 * ,, we started an RfC on this matter when it looked like this thread wasn't going to get any more comments. If either of you want to weigh in, you're welcome to.  In any case, am I correct in thinking that you both feel this is more of a weight issue than a reliability issue? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking just for myself, yes it's more of a weight issue, but also a promotion issue. An article that relies too heavily on ABOUTSELF sources ends up reading like an advertisement, even if the prose itself is neutral. Hence the 5th prong of WP:ABOUTSELF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt that you'd find Oathkeeper unencyclopedic. Most of the sources in the article are things like IGN, The A.V. Club, and Entertainment Weekly, whose reliability isn't generally questioned.  Most of the article is undisputed.  It's only this one line that's the subject of any fuss, and even it is mostly about out-of-universe perspective. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

MSN Money net worth on Ali Khamenei
is used in the "personal life" section as a source of Ali Khamenei's net worth. Is this reliable, is this allowed for BLP? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * MSN Money is usually reliable, and this particular article is attributed to "Canadian Business online staff," but is this saying that some of the information comes from the search engine Bing? Or is that a staffer's nickname? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not actually an article, just an information card. Too informal for potentially sensitive information in a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a tertiary source and therefore not recommended. While this publication puts his net worth at $30 billion, different sources have different estimates.  Of course these can only be estimates, because it is based on investments whose actual value can only be estimated.    Better to use an article that explains where they get their info, such as this article in Reuters.  (I think it is the basis for other estimates.)  It is not clear whether this wealth is his personal property, since it is legally owned by Setad.  TFD (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ibtimes.com/irans-supreme-leader-ayatollah-khamenei-multi-billionaire-bmw-car-dealer-1233899

His personal net worth is about $40 billion. Government owned Setad is worth over $100 billion.--Trodbowl (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Next Web

 * Source:
 * Article: Databending
 * Content: Users on Vimeo who deal explicitly with databending and glitch art in general exist, and a Chicago-based digital art project named GLI.TC/H was funded using Kickstarter in 2011

Is "The Next Web" a reliable source? It's cited in the article Databending, a DYK nominated article. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Per TheNextWeb appears to be staffed by several professional journalists and various web searches indicate that they do serious fact-checking and retractions when they get things wrong, so I'm okay with including. The article is of such trivial social significance that I think the risk of error on the side of helping people learn more about something obscure is minimal. EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Snoddy
Is this webpage: a reliable source as used in the article Stephen Snoddy for the following statements: The reliability of the source since October 2012 and it's about time this issue was settled. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) ... he and other city curators established the Manchester Gallery Consortium when the Hayward Gallery brought the British Art Show 4 to the city in 1995.
 * 2) He also organised such shows as the first John Baldessari European Retrospective toured to the Serpentine Gallery, London and onwards onto a European tour;
 * 3) a Bruce McLean film commission;
 * 4) 'Sublime: Manchester Music and Design'; Edward Allington;
 * 5) Jochen Gerz;
 * 6) Annette Messager: Telling Tales';
 * 7) ... during the construction of a brand new gallery as part of the £30 million Milton Keynes Theatre and Gallery complex.
 * 8) Milton Keynes Gallery (MK G) opened on 8 October 1999 with ‘The Rudimentary Pictures’, an exhibition of 33 new works by Gilbert & George.
 * 9) he has reviewed policies, restructured the organisation, enabled an acquisitions budget for contemporary art, opened a new 4th floor gallery, expanded the Library & Archive, developed a new sculpture terrace and increased visitor figures annually
 * 10) He was Director of Look11, the Liverpool International Festival of Photography and Photography,

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Israel
In the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, editors wish to add Israel to the list of countries which designate the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a terrorist organisation (see para 1 of the Lead). For other countries in the Lead, government documents have been found that support such a designation – official lists of groups formally designated as terrorist organisations – but no such document can be traced for Israel. (Exampes of these are cited in the infobox in section 13 of the article.)

Editors have provided sources which they claim support such a designation by Israel, which I have listed below, but I do not believe any of them can. I do not believe second-hand reports are enough, and the source originally cited (no. 1) mentions “unlawful” not “terrorist”.

Could we have your opinion on whether any of the documents listed below would reliably support the statement that Israel has designated the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a terrorist organisation, please?
 * 1) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184728#.VBaZQD9wbIW
 * 2) http://jpupdates.com/2014/08/26/israel-moves-declare-support-isis-illegal-photo-groups-flag-appear/
 * 3) http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2014/Pages/FM-Liberman-addresses-International-Anti-Terrorism-Conference-9-Sep-2014.aspx
 * 4) http://www.osenlaw.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/Counter-Terrorism/Key_Terrorist_Organizations/GOI1.pdf
 * 5) http://www.mod.gov.il/
 * 6) http://new.elfagr.org/Detail.aspx?nwsId=683441
 * 7) http://mfa.gov.il/MFAAR/Pages/default.aspx

In that list are two Arabic sources and one Hebrew source (nos. 5-7), and a document (no. 4) which editors claim proves that “unlawful” means “terrorist” in Israeli law, but I think they have misinterpreted this document. It seems to be merely a list of organisations that the Israeli government has certified as being either unlawful or terrorist. I include these four sources on their behalf, but I don't think any of them can be used here. If you need any clarification, please contact me; I am one of the editors on the ISIS page. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this article dated 11th September here is of any help (see para 5). --P123ct1 (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In order to help in good faith, I will fill in a critical missing translation of an Arabic reliable source, included above, but without the translation that I duly provided on the Article's talk page, and, since Google Translate is unreliable, I will help with the translation of "صادقت وزارة الدفاع الإسرائيلية على اعتبار (داعش) حركة إرهابية" which translates to "The Israeli Ministry of Defense approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movement". Hope this helps. This is a complicated matter for those who do not have long term insight into Middle Eastern affairs, but I am confident that there is enough reliable evidence that Israel has already declared ISIS as a terrorist organization.  However, I am fine with whatever the response is given here. Worldedixor (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Worldedixor. That is useful extra information.  That source didn't have a Google translation into English, unfortunately, so I don't think it can be used, but that is for those on this board to judge.  If we could use your translation, it would simplify matters enormously.  --P123ct1 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am curious to know on what WP rule have you based your statement "I don't think it can be used"? Doesn't WP:NONENG expressly permit non-English reliable sources, especially when a Wikipedian has taken the time to duly provide a translation by a Wikipedian, and especially in cases as complicated as this case pertaining to Israeli law, and/or especially when English sources cannot be readily found?  Worldedixor (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As you know this has been discussed several times on the Talk page. Let the board decide on this point.  My view here is irrelevant. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei wikileaks as a source

 * In the Ali Khamenei article Wikileaks is used, with an anonymous source, to describe the health condition of Ali Khamenei. This is the soured . Does this belong in a BLP? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. This is a primary source. If a mainstream news source has picked this information up and republished it, then that would probably be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Would this be blanket advice for all WikiLeaks "cablegate" material - if a mainstream news source has reproduced, or made mention of some specific content, the information that has been reproduced, or mentioned, is probably usable, including in BLP articles? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Hovannisian
Richard Hovannisian [removing BLP violation] is cited far too much. He has been condemned by the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan State University for falsifying Armenian history. His book consistently has the goal of attributing Armenian history to other nationalities and referring to the Armenians as outsiders in their own homeland, which is why he has been accused of having political motives such as in the video I linked. Other statements by him are just plain wrong, such as the book stating (Volume II, page 432) that the first Armenian book was printed in 1660, in Holland, when in fact it was published by Hakob Meghapart in 1512, in Venice. The textbook also presents the Armenian people as newcomers and "colonists" in their own homeland who have "overran" the indigenous "Urartian" population (Vol. I, pages 23-26). Wikipedia correctly acknowledges Urartians are Armenians.

"The Armenian Progressive Students Union demands that the grossly falsified textbook The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times is removed from academic circulation." 

"Outrageous mistakes and falsifications in The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times are countless. Any student, who would make such horrible mistakes during an exam, would receive an F and fail. So, how come this anti-scholastic book and its authors have continued to use this book since 1997, and even have republished it in 2004 without making ANY CORRECTIONS whatsoever? For many years, Armenian scholars from Armenia have repeatedly exposed and criticized this falsified book in their scientific publications. Yet, the chief editor continues to insist that the critics of this unscientific textbook are violating the freedom of academic expression." 

PanARMENIAN.Net is one of the largest online news agencies from Armenian and is very reliable. --Steverci (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You are very much into WP:BLP violation territory here. And your understanding of "reliable sources" is peculiar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Policy says that the book is a reliable source, because it is accepted by the academic community as factually correct. If there are specific errors in the book, you need to raise them on a case by case basis providing other reliable sources that disagree on the facts.  TFD (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Steverci, I think the article about your god needs my attention. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviews section of The Weight of Chains
An editor wishes to insert text in the 'Review/Critical response' section for the film The Weight of Chains article section here:-

The text he wishes to insert is:-

"The Raindance Film Festival, in association with VICE magazine, wrote a review of the film, describing it as "a sardonic look at how US foreign policy brought about the demise of Yugoslavia in the late 80s." According to the review, the film is "elegantly edited", and "makes the whole documentary feel like a history lesson as relayed by an endearing teacher with an average sense of humour." The review notes that, in the film, "experts tell grim stories about how fractured groups of people were exploited by power-hungry domestic leaders" and that "soon Yugoslavia is in the grip of one of history's most heartbreaking periods of civil war and ethnic cleansing."

The citation he wishes to use is:-[http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/raindance-film-festival-2011-reviews-weight-of-chains-stranger-things-cameramurderer Raindance Film Festival 2011 - Reviews! by VICE]

Note, on the VICE site which this link leads to, if you click on 'more details' on the Weight of Chains section, this leads you to the Raindance Festival 'blurb' on the film, (the bulk of the text is credited to 'VICE Staff').

The basis of the disagreement is whether the VICE link and the 'blurb' is actually, meaningfully, reliably a VICE review - rather than a VICE/Raindance ad, which may or may not come, in whole or in part - intact or selectively quoted from a 'real' independent review, and indeed, whether VICE online is itself a RS. In short is the above text justified by the source ?

Comments welcome, either below or on the article talk page, here:- Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion

 * The blurb is not a review, and while I don't think the article would be harmed by linking to it, it should not be referred to as a review or quoted from; especially the marketing hyperbole. EllenCT (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. bobrayner (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be used in the article. It is somewhat of a promo piece, stating, "To celebrate our partnership with the festival" -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Vice is giving its opinion on a particular film showing in a film festival. Vice is also presenting 4 documentaries at that same festival (this, together with what appears to be invited access to screenings, is extent of the "partnership" that is talked about, see ). These two things are unrelated, and Vice has no actual connection to the film. I cannot see a justification for excluding Vice as a source. Exactly what wording in the article will use Vice as its source is a different question of course Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Tiptoethrutheminefield, not knowing who to credit as source is the heart of the problem. We don't know who to credit because we don't know who wrote it - 'VICE staff' is what it says - no name and no reason to believe that this wasn't something knocked up by the copy dept. No reason to believe that 'VICE staff' had actually SEEN the film, and no reason to believe that it was actually IN the magazine, (rather than just on the website). We DO already use the connected link as a ref for the film being shown at the festival. It is using it as an independent review that is disputed. Pincrete (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Another editor left a comment here:-, which I leave only to gather comments together in one place. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Realiable source: Directlyrics.com - licensed lyric provider
Hello everyone, I start this discussion because user IndianBio recommended me to. He says that the only external link that can be used for lyric pages is Metrolyrics because they're "official" I would like to debate this. Metrolyrics is indeed official as it is LICENSED, but other lyric websites are too. And this is the point that I want to make so I don't get my edits reverted anymore.

I'm a lyrics fan, and I decided to add on the [|Taylor Swift - Shake It Off] (new single) page a link to the complete lyrics via Directlyrics.com There are thousands of lyric websites in the Internet but only very few are official, legal and licensed.

Please read here about Directlyrics.com: http://www.directlyrics.com/about/

I have confirmed they have signed deals with all major publishing companies (pay artists money), and even LyricsSeal (you can verify its legal status here). and LyricFind (legal lyrics provider). They are official, legal and most important LICENSED just as Metrolyrics.com Additionally, they add more cool content that metrolyrics sometimes doesn't have (an updated blog - but I'm only focusing on the lyrics in this discussion). So my point is. Is Directlyrics.com reliable to be used as external link for "complete lyrics" in song wiki pages? I think so. Because just as metrolyrics, they are 'official, legal and most important LICENSED'.


 * The issue that would prevent linking that comes to mind is copyright violations. In that you are correct that direct lyrics doesn't seem to be violating copyright.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the American Bird Conservancy an advocacy group?

 * Source:
 * Article: Neonicotinoid
 * Context: "In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife."

The edit summary on removal says that the American Bird Conservancy is an "advocacy group" and the book did not undergo peer review. WP:MEDRS says that WP:SECONDARY monographs by experts are the highest quality sources even if their entire books are not peer reviewed. Which is this one? EllenCT (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think it's a reliable source from a notable POV. It is an advocacy group so I'd use it with a citation, but I can't see grounds for removing it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My initial thoughts are yes, they are an advocacy group, but I don't think that means they cannot be cited, especially if we use in-text attribution. BTW, this appears to be been reported on by mainstream news outlets so you can cite the report itself as well as news coverage.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This very topic was already discussed at this board here previously out of my curiosity on how such sources are intentionally (or unintentionally used), but no action was taken at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Reliability_of_reviews_of_scientific_literature_put_out_by_advocacy_groups.3F


 * The main issue is that the source fails multiple aspects of WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. It is self published, it has no peer-review, and is coming from an advocacy group. Essentially, we don't have an acceptable source for scientific content here. Nor is it something that should be called a review in that context. We normally don't consider a source reliable for scientific content for much lesser or fewer problems, so it's looking like it would be an extremely uphill battle to try to say it's an acceptable source in this context. I should also note that no discussion even occurred at the article talk page on the most recent round of edits before this post was made, so there won't be any background discussion to find yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as we use in-text attribution, I don't see a problem, especially when the report has received coverage from independent, third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Except we are talking about scientific content here, so news organizations are not considered third-party reliable sources in this case. Depending on whether someone is taking a natural sciences approach, or the veterinary medicine approach, WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS outline how reliable scientific sources are different from the coverage you are describing that we use for sources in general topics. I'd especially point out the White and Grey literature section in SCIRS:


 * "Advocacy organizations formed for a specific purpose or to advance a cause may be composed of scientists and mimic the structure and naming conventions of the general purpose societies. Statements and reports from such organizations are not reliable except to cite the organization's opinion or position. If such statements are necessary to the coverage of a topic, they should be attributed and the role of the organization made clear."


 * Self publishing and lack of peer-review are sometimes acceptable here when reputable organizations such as government scientific agencies, scientific professional organizations, etc. put out informal reviews or statement pieces. Groups furthering a cause though, regardless of the virtue of that cause, aren't afforded that same respect because they have a stronger potential bias that could be influencing their review or statements. If they went and submitted their review to a peer-reviewed journal and got it published, then we'd have a generally reliable source, but without peer-review or independent third party publishing like you get in a journal, we're left with a statement by an organization that's the equivalent of a blog post from a science content perspective. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As you just noted per our policies, the report is reliable "to cite the organization's opinion and position," precisely so. And the secondary-source coverage demonstrates that the organization's opinion is of public interest and a significant point of view in a public controversy about the chemical's environmental impacts. There are several other reliable sources discussing the controversy. We should ensure that the statement is properly cited to the organization, but I don't see grounds for removing it entirely. We are not prohibited from including notable points of view in articles about chemicals. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two different things going on that are important to separate: 1. Use as a secondary source. 2. Use as an opinion.

1. Our job in scientific articles is to especially use sources reliable for scientific content. Not doing so can quickly run afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc. in contentious topics. In this case, it seems very apparent this source is not appropriate for a scientific statement, especially factoring in what SCIRS says about it above, so we shouldn't be commenting on the science with this source in the article. This is primarily what I've taken issue with, and haven't seen any strong reason to say a "review" was done (review tends to connote a peer-reviewed review article we consider very reliable) with the reliability issues above in mind.

2. Using the source as an opinion is a slightly different issue that hasn't really been in contention yet, but I do agree the source is reliable for documenting that the group called for a ban. Whether this should be included in the article is a different question (e.g., why this organization and not listing all the others that want a ban for whatever reason) that should be discussed back over at the article.

So, for anyone out there, does it sound reasonable, given the above, to say the source isn't reliable for the scientific content of the article, but that it is reliable for the American Bird Conservancy's stance on a ban? Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's precisely how the source is currently used in the article. In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. That is in-text sourced to the organization, making it clear that it's the organization's POV. So if you're saying the current wording in the article is satisfactory, I agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite. With what I was suggesting above, saying the ABC called for a ban on the seed treatments would be fine from a reliability standpoint. Their findings on the other hand, would not be presented because the source would not be reliable for scientific content. Basically, it's ok to say they want a ban because they think toxicity for certain organisms poses a suitable risk, but it's not ok to give weight to the idea they did a literature review/study. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. So long as we clearly state that the findings are the organization's opinion, it should remain in. To not mention that the organization states that it has a scientific basis for its position amounts to telling a half-truth. If there are rebuttals to the organization's findings, we should publish those too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree as well. Perhaps, this dispute can be resolved by qualifying ABC's claims.  For example, how about In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their alleged toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.?  This makes it more clear that this is ABC's opinion and not a scientific consensus.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except doing so would violate NPOV, because it is not clear the content is not about scientific consensus. If something is not addressing scientific content, we should not make it appear like it is by giving it undue weight. It may seem like I'm being picky, subtle changes in wording have wide implications in scientific content. Simply saying a review was done has special meaning and is attributing towards fact, which WP:RSOPINION makes that pretty clear that we don't do. There are small nuances in language when dealing with scientific content, so statements of opinion need to be carefully crafted to avoid overreaching what we can use the source for that result in huge changes in meaning. That's why the two parts of your proposal need to be separated as I outlined above. If we are assuming that the source is unreliable for scientific content, but fine for an opinion then we need a much more condensed sentence only commenting on the statement of opinion such as, "The American Bird Conservancy has called for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their alleged toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife."


 * I could say more on how Wikipedia addresses scientific content if it helps, but does it seem like we're on the same page about how content about studies and related content are handled? I'm not sure how familiar some folks are here with how we generally have much tighter standards for weighting scientific content than more general content on Wikipedia, so I want to make sure that's not a point of confusion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Alleged" is a red flag per WP:ALLEGED. Why not turn the thing on its head? For example, how about In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids, concluding that they are toxic to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. The group called for a ban on the use of neonicotinoids in seed treatments. ? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. That text establishes the according-to-whom of the matter very well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence would need to be struck, but the last sentence in essence would be fine by adding "due to concerns of toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife." The word concern would alleviate the red flag issue. This would also open us up to using sources that establish notability of that opinion without having to refer to this contested source, and thereby not appear to be accepting the source as reliable for scientific content.


 * The problem is that the group did not publish a study we can consider reliable as I described above for scientific content. We don't use unreliable sources in scientific content even with attribution as an opinion, but rather just strike them all together typically. The opinion is that they want the ban, and it is that opinion that most everyone here agrees is fine to include. The issue is that saying they did a study or review is undue weight for the source for scientific content. As a parallel, this comes up a lot when we deal with WP:FRINGE/PS. The core that informs that guideline that applies outside of fringe topics as well is that we don't present low quality sources alongside high quality sources and make the unreliable source appear as if it's contributing to the scientific consensus. That usually means we don't list any assertion of fact from that "study", or mention that a "study" was done at all unless we have proper scientific attribution that the source is flawed.


 * So, again, there are two things going on in the original content. The opinion portion isn't under contention, but it's the scientific content weight issue that's key here that's really affecting content. So far, we've established the group is an advocacy group, and WP:SCIRS states, "Statements and reports from such organizations are not reliable except to cite the organization's opinion or position." Since we should only be citing the organization's opinion or we should have a concise statement of the opinion, and nothing more. With that, The American Bird Conservancy called for a ban on the use of neonicotinoids in seed treatments due to concerns of toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. seems like a reasonable end to this conversation with reliability of scientific content, and of an organization's opinion being considered. Does this seem like a reasonable approach, especially when substituting for a source that establishes notability of the opinion only? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * How about, The American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies calling for a ban on the use of neonicotinoids in seed treatments due to concerns about toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. Both of the authors are prestigious scientists with academic and government backgrounds involved heavily with scientific review of environmental toxicity articles, so they meet the requirement of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to state that they performed a review instead of simply issuing a position paper. EllenCT (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't use author notoriety to determine reliability for scientific content when summarizing consensus (it's a form of original research on our part), especially when we have the underlying reliability issues of the source itself, regardless of authors, that I've outlined above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SCIRS is only an essay; it is not policy or even a guideline and has no real standing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * SCIRS and the companion guideline WP:MEDRS (which has also been used in the article since we're talking about veterinary medicine topics) supplement WP:RS. consensus is built by those who demonstrate reasoning based in relevant policies, guidelines, and essays. Keep in mind even WP:BRD is "only" an essay, but it is regularly used by the community. If someone wants to ignore the conventions the community uses for assessing scientific content specifically, it's going to be a very uphill battle to make an exception. So far, we don't have anything particularly supporting this exception, but we have guidance from the community who specializes in scientific content saying sources like this are not reliable for scientific content, and that it is fine to summarize only the opinion of the source. My proposal above seems like a fair compromise (I originally wanted the content just deleted), removes the question of reliability for scientific content, and allows a notable opinion to remain. I don't see a better way to satisfy the reliability issues and keep everyone relatively happy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're the one arguing for an exception so the uphill battle is yours. Not only is policy against your argument, every uninvolved editor so far (NorthBySouthBaranof, Darkfrog24, Stephan Schulz and myself) have found this source to be reliable in this context.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that there are two issues here, whether the source is reliable (properly attributed) in this context, and that whether it has enough weight. My answer to the first is yes, and the second is leaning to no, but requires more study (and not a matter for this board anyway, probably NPOV noticeboard or the talk page). Advocacy groups can be extremely valuable, but they should be treated with extreme caution. Newspapers in general do a horrible job in science-related matters, and they should only be used to establish notability, not any weight for the opinion itself. Kingsindian (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Rebecca Bardoux
Here is an RfC about the reliability of some sources in establishing an actors comedy career. Talk:Rebecca_Bardoux -- Green  C  13:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Investigative Project on Terrorism
Is this a reliable source to say that IPT was founded in 1995? Following wp:sps it does seem to be. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. So is it?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course secondary sources are preferable but primary sources could be used especially in the article about the subject--Shrike (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Information is directly confirmed by the website, in such circumstances you can use the primary source.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"333 Årsboken", assembled by a Scanian foundation in Sweden
Source "333 Årsboken", 15 different authors from the most part of the 20th Century, assembled and published by "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF" (a litterar translation for these three words are "the foundation, Scanian, future"), published in 1991, Swedish ISBN 91-7586-384-7. List of authors:
 * Lars Larson
 * Carl Liljenberg
 * Stig Larsén & Ingvar Rydzén
 * Uno Röndahl
 * K. Arne Blom
 * Berndt David Assarsson
 * Helmer Lång
 * Wilhelm Moberg
 * Werner Persson
 * Peter Broberg
 * Arne Källsbo
 * Göran Hansson
 * Johs. Christensen
 * Victor Andreasen
 * Richard Willerslev

Most of the authors has no involvement in SSF, some of them were dead long before this foundation even was started. Most of them are/were Swedish citizens, but some contributers are Danish.

It was published 333 years after the Treaty of Roskilde 1658, in which the Swedish Crown took over the three Danish provinces Scania, Halland and Blekinge aswll as Bornholm island. (Several wars followed and the Danish armies was then supported by Scanians. Some enlisted for the Danish Army, while others, especially in the areas around the former Danish-Swedish border acted alone. They were labeled Snapphanar by the Swedes) While Bornholm returned to Denmark in Treaty of Copenhagen 1660, the three provinces were included in Sweden in 1719 and the last peace treaty between Sweden and Denmark was signed in Stockholm 3rd July 1720 it's sometimes labeled as the Third peace treaty of Stockholm.

The different topics of the book cover Scania, Scanian history, the enforced re-nationalisation of the provinces, known as the Swedification. Danish-Scanian relationships, Swedish-Scanian relationships, Swedish-Danish relationships, both as of 1991 as of times before. The Danish era, the wars, and the Swedish era. Some authors believes in a stronger regionalisation of Sweden, which is a rather centralised nation, and where Stockholm is "the natural core". Many of the authors describe historical events, like Uno Röndahl who contributes with "The bloodbath at Klågerup" in 1811, the last recorded military assult on the Scanian civil population. While f.i. Helmer Lång discusses the Scanian dialect. Primary - The official Swedish interpretation of Scanian history, as "natural borders", "Scania was lucky to became a part of Sweden rather than of Denmark" is challanged, from several perspectives and different times of history. Wilhelm Moberg shows how the history of Scania has been falsified.

Problem is that Peter find this book automatically "inappropriate" also in Wikipedia's Global perspective. And his reason for this is "the publishing SSF are political extremists. However this foundation isn't political. It's not a political party nor a movement, to me it seems most closesly related to a Gentleman's club, unrelated to left or right on the usual political scale. And besides - they have not written its contence. I can only give one concrete example of Peter's criticism, the mentioned article about "Klågerup's Bloodbath", here the author (Uno Röndahl)  refers to official Swedish archives , regarding the number of killed civilians and later the public amputations (of right hand) followed by beheading, of convicted rebels at a square in Malmö.

Info about the assembly and publishing "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF" and some history of Scania is available in English at

www.scania.org

The SSF foundation surelly cannot compare at the slightest of extremistic organisations or movements. The foundations primary aim seems to be enlightenment of Scanian history, and Scanian dialect.

I realise that the book, when and if, used as source, must be in line with the Wikipedia article topic and common criteria. But this request deals with Peter general ban of this book and his mentioned reasons why.

Possible articles where some of the book's articles and authors can be used - Scania, Skåneland, Scandinavia-history, Sweden-history, Denmark-history, Swedish language, Scanian dialect etc. Boeing720 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have never referred to SSF as "political extremists". Those are Boeing's words, not mine.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not during our debates the last week, but around a year ago or so.Boeing720 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Lemme know when you have the diff to prove it.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have confused You with and other user, but if it was You (perhaps a year ago or so), then I'm not "the detective" to attempt to trace it far back in time.  If You honnestly can say, You have never stated SSF to be "political" or "extreme" , then I apologize, and believe You. But why do You then concider "333 Årsboken" and Uno Röndahl to be "unimpropriate as source", for instance about "The Swedish military Bloodbath in Klågeröd 1811" ? You have written "do not use such inappropriate sources as "333 Årsboken", have You not ? Boeing720 (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You can simply search talkpages if you want to find stuff. I have no reason to call an organization like SSF "extremist", though. They merely have a political agenda (claiming to be unpolitical doesn't make you that) that is clearly separatist. That's problem number one, and here's a clear example of it taken directly from the introduction to 333-årsboken:
 * Stiftelsen vill peka på att det i en stat som den svenska inte finns plats för kulturell regional mångfald. Det skånska problemet lever vidare genom mediatystnad, förlöjligande och ständiga ansträngningar att pressa saken ner på rännstensnivå.Det är kanske så att skånelandsregionen är vår världs bästa exempel på historiskt förtryck, långvarigt förtigande och modern kollektiv självcensur i ett välmående samhälle.
 * Translation: "The foundation wishes to point out that in a state like the Swedish one, there is no place for cultural regional diversity. The Scanian problem lives on through media silence, ridicule and constant efforts to push the problem down to a gutter level. It might be that the Skåneland region is our world's best example of historic oppression, prolonged suppression and modern collective self-censorship in healthy society."
 * In the same introduction they compare Scanians with everything from Catalans to Inuits, a very, very far-fetched idea since even Swedes and Danes are extremely similar culturally, socially, linguistically. The Inuit comparison (they're an indigenous people) is downright ridiculous and even the parallel to Catalans shows a serious lack of perspective.
 * And problem number two is that none of the writers appear to be recognized in the field of Scandinavian history. At least none of the texts actually represent mainstream historical research. It can be used as a source for separatist or strongly pro-Scanian (and anti-Swedish) opinions, but not for neutral descriptions of the region's history. It's an anthology that openly propagates a the POV of a small minority, not a generally acknowledged aspect of Scanian history. No Swedish historian denies the harsh assimilation of Scania, the brutal nature of the guerilla war in the 1670s and 1710s, etc. But they don't recognize the unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims about the uniqueness of Scanian culture. As far as I know, most Scanians today don't even share this view.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We are mainly discussing "333 Årsboken" as a possible soucre, not SSF. SSF has only assembled the book. As I have stated "333 Årsbokon" challanges parts of Swedish history, but its autors do it by mention things "forgotten" by other autors. I think SSF has made some good choices in exampifying such lacking parts. But in "333 Årsboken" or its at the world wide webb in English published there is no political agenda. Sweden has indeed during several centuries by force has attempted to re-nationalize the three former Danish provinces, Scania, Halland and Blekinge. This wasn't "a nice thing to do" and their success isn't full, which any reader of "333-Årsboken" will discover. This is especially true for Scania, where people often travels to Helsingør for shopping or to Copenhagen for its many attractions. And through Danish television, of which all DR channels are available. Also Danish TV2 is offered through analogue cable. You may not like it, or the parts that SSF published in 1991. I cannot see a problem in the statement You use as an example.
 * But this has no bearing on the question of the book is reliable as a source or not.
 * It seem to me, You wan't to ban not only SSF but also "333 Årsboken", which only is assembled by SSF. Now - please, I do not accuse anyone of being a Stalinist. But Your ban of "333 Årsboken" would I like to compare to a Stalinist that want's to ban Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar", and who bases this on something he/she might have found out about the publisher. (Although the real troble is that the Stalinist doesn't likes what Montefiore has written). I say it again, I do not believe You to be a Stalinist, but the allegory is how I perceive you in this matter. And since You seem to reject all authors that SSF has assembled in "333 Årsboken", I presume You will put a ban to all history wrighting based at a Scanian, rather than Stockholm-Swedish perspective. I do not believe there is a Wikipedia policy of f.i. prohibit Scotish, Catalan, Kurdistan or Scanian perspectives in history wrighting. And again SSF only has assembled different kind of works related to the 333 year period between Treaty of Roskilde 1658 and its publishing in 1991.
 * Without any real knowlidge about SSF, in Your translation "The foundation wishes to point out that in a state like the Swedish one, there is no place for cultural regional diversity. The Scanian problem lives on through media silence, ridicule and constant efforts to push the problem down to a gutter level. It might be that the Skåneland region is our world's best example of historic oppression, prolonged suppression and modern collective self-censorship in healthy society" - I fully agree.
 * And I can give very good examples of this aswell. In my home town, at its northbound entrance/exit street, the street bends some 30 degrees. The area around this place is well-known as "Hvilan", there are (and has been) many shops that has used "Hvilan" in its name. But some years ago "Skånetrafiken" the regional collective coordinators labeled the bus stop as "Vilan" (not "Hvilan"). This spelling has caused a lot of harm in the town, and I would say that among 100 people that i born in Landskrona or has lived here a long time, all preferrs the spelling "Hvilan" in this case, though it has absolutely nothing to do with our Danish time (the bend didn't exist in 1720), but still the civil servant boss in Hässleholm won't listen to the local people and population and continues to spell the bus stop wrong. It actually looks bizzare, bus stop "Vilan" and right behind it, is an off-liecence store called "Hvilans Servicebutik" located, even the immigrant who ownes it, has adapted the local (and thereby true) spelling. I could give You endless similar examples that support what You have found out to be an "SSF-oppinion".
 * You can trace a certain Scanian oppinion, at the very few occations when the people has been given a possibility to vote in something which actually can be related to "Scanian issues" in any respect. Sweden has held a total of six referendums, I think. The matters of left or right side driving, ATP-pension and Neuclear power plants, were not of that kind. But the first ever referendum about alcohol prohibitation, in 1921 or 1922 was, if You have a look at regional numbers (in this very tight result ; around 49.5% Yes - 50.5% no nation wide) - Western Scania, or Malmöhus län as of then [and Stockholm City] voted 75% (or more) No. One explination is that generally Scanians, like Danes are liberal in alcohol related matters. And almost every Scanian finds the free sell of beer, wine and liquor in Denmark uncontroversial. Also in the 1994 referendums of Sweden joining the European Union, Scanians voted also around 75% for joining the EU (being closer to the continent, is my guess. Brussels isn't that far away, and just a little bit longer than what Stockholm is). And in the referendum about the Euro, if Scanians had decided alone, we would have had the Euro today (Sililar reason). And there were the local referendum in Sjöbo in 1988, about wether that municipality would host refugees or not. To the Stockholmian horror, some 70-80% voted no, and very soon the entire (some 15.000) population in Sjöbo was accused of being racists, it could not have happened anywhere else but in Sjöbo [actually a true TV-formulation], and for a while "Sjöbo" as such became an invective in the nation wide media. And also in the Stockholm-owned and controlled regional media. I'm not saying I would have voted as most did in Sjöbo in 1988. But the aftermath became a verbal terror on that small municipality. Also in 2006 when SD [party against immigration], in the local election in Landskrona got 22% of the votes, immidiatly the town got full of "explaining and examining" journalists from the central power in Stockholm. When the Swedish football cup final in 1984, between Malmö FF and Landskrona BoIS wasn't played in Stockholm, but at Olympia, in Helsingborg, not even the result was mentioned in the TV-sport news ! And I recall when 17.000 out of 30.000 (figure came from the Police)local people, in my home town, protested againt closing the Öresundsvarvet shipyard in february 1978, the "Rapport" TV-news mentioned nothing about it, but instead mentioned a demonstration at Sergels Torg, Stockholm, with 400 people (what about, I don't know) Clearly 400 Stockholmers were concidered more importaint than 17.000 Scanians. And don't You believe that I am the only one who has such oppression memories. The SSF statement is a Bull's eye of truth.
 * [By the way - When Denmark won Euro 1992 (in Sweden), I was watching the final (Gemany - Denmark 0-2) on great screen at Rådhuspladsen in Copenhagen. There were many other Scanians present, but at the ferry (Scarlett Line sailed from Tuborg, northern Copenhagen to my home town, Landskrona. Though it was the last departure, it was crowded by Swedish/Scanian people who all were very glad, and at home everywhere happy people in red-white colours sang and drank beer. Only very few appeared to be envious.] Boeing720 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

his Further You resemble the historical Swedish oppression of Scania, and its language/dialect, culture and indeed history. To modern day Scanian life, this is no big matter, however it isn't forgetten either. In my oppinion You want to put a ban on all historical authors whose work You disapprove of.


 * As before, you don't have a single neutral backup source. There is not a shred of relevant evidence from reliable sources to describe modern-day Scania as an oppressed region. Your only contributions are long-winded outpourings of random personal reflections, anecdotes an extreme bias towards interpreting everything as a Stockholm-based conspiracy.
 * You're clearly trying to violate WP:NPOV. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for your personal opinions.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No I don't think so, in this case. I just attempted enlighten You about the Scanian problem. And to explain how and why I find Your examplification of "SSF exaggeration" - to be the actual truth and not at all exaggerations. The Catalan example resembles Scania rather well, with the exception that Scanian isn't a writing language. But it could just as easilly become a writing language - just like Serbian and Croation no longer is "Serbocroatian".
 * But about SSF, I don't know more about the foundation than You do, and what they have stated at their webbsite www.scania.org ,anyhow - "333 Årsboken" is only assembled by this foundation, nothing else. There are several similar foundations or organisations by the way. Like Danish-Scanian association www.danskskaanskforening.dk/, Skåneland Friskytten https://sites.google.com/site/skanelandsksamling//aeldre-dokument-fraan-fsf/tidningen-skaaneland-friskytten etc. (Search and You will find more)I do not state that everything such foundations, associations or organisations write automatically becomes reliable sources, but thats doesn't mean they automatically are unreliable either. Each source must be evaluated seperatly. And atleast "333 Årsboken" cannot be written off as potential source, only because You think so. By the way - if You watched the Champions League qualifier Malmö FF - FC Red Bull Salzburg (3-0), howcome do You believe there were not a single Swedish flag in the audience, but lots of Scanian ones but outside the stadium there were Swedish and Austrian flags at the official flagpoles ? Boeing720 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the extent to which Scanian is considered a separate language: pig-headed requests from random Saanians who lack any substantial support for their claims. It's all about persistence and skewed ideas about what actually constitutes threatened languages or cultures. I personally find most of this campaigning to be in rather poor taste. There are genuinely endangered local languages in Sweden like Elfdalian (not even recognized) and Sami (recognized but with few speakers). There are also dialects that border on separate langauges like kalixmål or Österbotten variants of Finland Swedish. Unlike Scanian, they are can be almost incomprehensible to other Swedish speakers. Most of these have no more than 10,000 speakers and will most likely be gone within two generations.
 * Some very localized forms of Scanian are at most a bit hard to follow (like any other dialects), but never moreso than, say, English from the southern United States. This can be confirmed with just about any basic linguistic work on Swedish, like Garlén (1988) Svenskans fonologi or Dahl & Edlund (2010) Svensk Nationalatlas: Språken i Sverige. But you keep touting your own fairly ordinary regional dialect of Swedish with well over a million speakers as "oppressed" by referring to Dano-Swedish strife that ceased sometime in the 18th century. I find this stance to be both ignorant and self-aggrandizing. Scanian is not unique or suppressed any more than other regional cultural expressions in Sweden and you have zero reliable sources to back up your claims to the contrary. The only real difference is that a small minority of Scanians, like yourself, have an unusually inflated sense of self-importance.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Could either of you please provide one or two examples of where Boeing720 uses the 333 årsboken as a source, to save people having to root around for it? I can imagine contexts where it would be a reliable source — as Peter suggests above, for separatist or strongly pro-Scanian (and anti-Swedish) opinions. (Though not indeed as a neutral third-party source.) Bishonen &#124; talk 09:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC).
 * Here is a use relating to the "Klågerup riots" in 1811. This addition was reverted and discussed at talk:Skåneland. 333-årsboken is one of several sources that I have pointed to as problematic. Skåneland does not attempt to make any serious descriptions of Scanian separatism (which would be very interesting). Peter Isotalo 10:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not been aware of the previous discussion. What Peter Isosalo ever thinks about "333 Årsboken" it is only assembled by the SSF foundation. And Uno Röndahl's part (about Klågeråds Bloodbath 1811) was indeed very easy to find other sources of. We cannot rule out the book as potential source, like in the case of Klågeröds blooldbath based on Peter Isosalo's ideas on "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid". Each part and author must be treated separately and its context in relation to what it is supposed to support, just like other historical sources. It's the possible general ban I disapprove of Boeing720 (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want each text to be treated separately, you must be prepared to quote it from its original context and publication. Quoting an openly separatist anthology will automatically attach a separatist POV to it.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe SSF to possibly have some thoughts about reginalism( like many others, in other parts of Sweden and in other nations, the EU seems rather fond of regions). But the main issue still isn't SSF, but their assembled articles by a number of different authors. The different articles (and their authors) should be delt with as any other possible source. (But for that matter also direct SSF statements can be used as source, if they provide further reliable sources). Some "333 Årsboken" articles do challanges parts of common Swedish history wrighting, Yes. Is that a problem in itself ? Independant of their sources or not ? For lingvistical matters, there may be better litterature on Scanian. But in historical matters is this a previously never before questioned book of importance (published 23 years ago). The quality of the work cannot be doubted, not in general anyway. Have You even read it ?
 * For instance, the (possibly) rounded figures from Klågeröds bloodbath, is (if that's the case) rounded by the Swedish military back in 1811. This becommes clear when reading that part. Do You suggest I should dig in archives myself instead ? - That would be OR indeed. This in not the place to put OR vs POV ultimatums, in order to miscredit a potential souce, which You possibly find "inappropriate". However if an article gives no further source, that perticulary article may though become doubtful or even unusable. In that I can agree. But where sources are clearly given, "333 Årsboken" is mainly a historical collection, and ought to be used as a such. And each author / article must be delt with seperately, and yet again - SSF has only collected older articles and assebled this book 333 years after the treaty of Roskilde in 1658, so its authors, like Wilhelm Moberg can not be given any "automatical POV"-status, as You suggest. I do however not intend to use it in lingvistical articles, if that's some comfort for You
 * Boeing720 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to write about Swedish history, you use the works of established historians as they will actually represent recognized perspectives in the field of history. You never rely on anthologies assembled by tiny fringe organizations with an openly separatist agenda. That you concede that SSF has "thoughts about regionalism" is an extreme understatement; they compare Scanians with Catalans, Basques and even Croatians.
 * Here are some examples of mainstream works by Swedish and Danish authors that are specifically about Scanian history:
 * Skånes historia by Sten Skansjö
 * Kampen om Skåne, edited by Göran Rystad
 * Skåne mellem dansk og svensk by Paul Erik Engelhardt
 * Even a commissioned work like Danmark og Sverige - danskere og svenskere would be preferable to anything collected by SSF.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean these are litterature You apporve of ? They do not exclude the authors of "333Årsboken" (In the case of former "Croatia within Yugoslavia", there actually are similarities, though Yougoslavia was some kind of Communistic Federation after WW2.) Boeing720 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the last time I attempt to advise you. And I'll go Swedish on you to make this extra clear (please don't try to reply in Swedish): Om du vill skriva in påståenden i artiklar som om de vore okontroversiella historiska fakta så måste du kunna hänvisa till publicerad och erkänd forskning (verk av professionella historiker som Rystad eller Skansjö). En antologi sammanställd av en öppet regionalistisk intresseförening med texter av amatörhistoriker och skönlitterära författare är inte en trovärdiga källa i sammanhanget. Du får heller inte infoga åsikter från amatörer som Röndal och sen källbelägga dem med trovärdiga källor. The closest you've gotten to actual mainstream historical sources is your referencing of an article from the magazine Allt om Historia, a slightly less reputable version of Populär Historia. But even then, you clearly skewed your brief summary by cherry picking the word "bloodbath" and including blatantly subjective terms like "very sad event". You even managed to render Klågerup as "Klågeröd".
 * So the issue doesn't come down to whether I personally acknowledge a source but whether they fulfil these basic criteria:
 * Acknowledged (erkända) as experts in their field, usually academics; none of the contributors to 333-årsboken appear to be historians.
 * Published by major publishing houses (Norstedts, Bonnier, Historiska Media, Svenskt Milithärhistoriskt Bibliotek, colleges and universities, etc); 333-årsboken is published by Sättern, a specialist on books on hunting and fishing.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As stated under "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information" in the box at the top, it is necessary to provide the source and a link to the article and the exact statement in the article that the source supports. It is not possible to say whether a particular source is "reliable" or not—it depends on the context. If the issue concerns whether historical accounts have been "falsified", much more than one source would be needed because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this acceptable sourcing or was the previous state acceptable?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014%E2%80%9315_FC_Bayern_Munich_season&oldid=626427583&diff=prev I think that each playing being referenced is overkill. I also think the detail is ridiculous but that's a separate issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The previous way was better. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

When exactly is Twitter appropriate for self-published biographical claims?
An IP is repeatedly adding a name to List of vegans using Twitter as a source. The tweet pans out, but it is from an unverified account. As I understood we could only cite Tweets from verified accounts; I searched the archives but it's difficult to find a clear answer on this. The IP restored the name on the grounds that there is no "reasonable doubt" to the account's authenticity per WP:TWITTER. Can I get some input on this please. What is the threshold for"reasonable doubt" when it comes to Twitter accounts, and do they need to be verified or not? Betty Logan (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I added the addition to that list article. I'd like some clarity on this issue, too. My reasoning is that, though the Twitter account does not use Twitter's "verified" feature, 1) the account is active for 7+ years, since 2007, 2) it has ~ 75,000 followers and 25,000+ tweets, 3) the person's official website repeatedly links to and references that specific Twitter account as her own. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to assume this account genuinely belongs to the person in question and is not someone else's, despite the account not using Twitter's "verified" feature. 71.146.134.113 (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a perfectly traditional reliable source for that claim. (If it was only on Twitter, I'd be hesitant to use it. Sometimes people tweet things casually, sometimes celebrities' Twitter accounts are run by third-party companies, sometime celebrities have had long-term impostors that fool diehard fans etc.) __ E L A Q U E A T E  00:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merely being old and well-followed I would say is not sufficient, but if the person's official website links to it I would call that well enough verified for our purposes. Elaqueate's source looks good anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

two questions re xmag dot com
Is this source a WP:RS for this statement:
 * 1998 F.O.X.E. Award for Female Fan Favorite

?

More generally, is the source http://www.xmag.com/ a WP:RS?

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ping, ping, hello? Any comment on whether or not xmag.com is a reliable source? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

lukeisback and sexherald dot com
Are "lukeisback" and "sexherald.com" WP:RS - especially for WP:BLP?


 * WP search results "lukeisback"
 * WP search results "sexherald.com"

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely not RS for BLP issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * LB, it would be better if you made your post more neutrally, not strongly suggesting the answer you think is correct. The answer is going to be it depends. people whose presence in the porn industry is uncontested and uncontroversial, things like "won award X" or "was in movie X" is not really a BLP issue, and porn-centric sources are reliable for porn-news. For example, I think this diff is inappropriate   for true BLP issues however, they are likely not reliable.  Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In case anyone looks at the diff Gaijin42 gave but not the source it refers to, here it is: . Lightbreather (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A porn star being in a porn, or winning a porn award is not an exceptional claim. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * God knows why we still have Luke Ford sourcing/links six years after the issue was settled. "I would certainly take out the Luke Ford blog stuff - no way in hell is that site a WP:RS." --Jimbo Wales. and related discussions. But we also have users who relentlessly add press releases, advertising, and giveaway/throwaway magazines whose "editorial content" caters to their advertisers' interests to porn-related bios, which is far worse than occasionally-informed blogging. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As is already stated here at the Pornography Project: "As a self-published site, it cannot be used as a reliable source. ... "However, the site sometimes provides links to some reliable sources." I've used "LukeIsBack.com" as a jumping off point to do web searches to research certain alleged facts, and I've found that many, but not all, of the facts contained on this site to be pretty easily verifiable through other, more reliable sources. I'm much less concerned about the often-repeated past quotation from Jimmy Wales since, as far as I can tell, this is Wikipedia not Jimbopedia. Should lukeisback.com be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles? No.
 * I'm not at all familiar with "sexherald.com" - it's looks mostly like some kind of review website to me. Guy1890 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with regarding Lukeisback.com. Granted there are blogs and bloggers that have some journalistic integrity, but Luke Ford is not someone I'd generally put in that category. Also, sometimes Press Releases are some of the best sources of background information on the industry. Often if the first couple of paragraphs are ignored, which contain the promotional content, some really valuable and non-contentious material can be gleaned from these sources. According to policy Press Release cannot be used to substantiate WP:Notability, but anything else that can be verified seems to be fair game. I have no opinion or comment about sexherald.com, but on the other hand I have found links to some fantastic content in the forum for adultdvdtalk.com. That is truly the "crowd sourced" collaboration that we wish WP would be at times with regard to the adult industry. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither appear to meet our definition of a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Tattoo Nation documentary
Hi folks, I'm trying to make improvements to black-and-gray, and found a documentary called Tattoo Nation (2013) which purports to cover much of the history on tattooing and this particular tattooing style. The documentary features Freddy Negrete, Don Ed Hardy, Jack Rudy, and several others who are frequently discussed in the context of early tattooing in books such as Inked and Bodies of Inscription: A Cultural History of the Modern Tattoo Community. The director does not appear to be established, but the documentary has received national coverage as it was shown on Spike TV on 11 March 2014. The documentary has gotten reviews in the L.A. Times, the Village Voice, and Hollywood Reporter. Anyway, the content I want to add expands upon how black-and-gray tattoos originated from what is referred to as cholo culture withink the documentary (and an existing source in the article right now). I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can cite a documentary, and you can quote the people making statements in the documentary. Shii (tock) 21:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Two sources on the I Ching
By request of, here, I have come here to ask the reliability of two sources used on the I Ching article.

I have included in this article the statement "Richard Joseph Smith states that it had developed into something like its current form prior to 800 BC."

Sevilledade does not consider this reliable. He wishes to replace it with the statement "According to Daniel Woolf, the I Ching reached a "definitive form" at the end of the 2nd millennium BCE".

Daniel Woolf is a scholar of early modern England who includes this claim in an introduction to history writing called A Global History of History. Woolf's other books include The Idea of History in Early Stuart England and Public Duty and Private Conscience in Seventeenth-Century England.

Richard Joseph Smith is one of the world's leading experts on the I Ching and author of the groundbreaking study Fathoming the cosmos and ordering the world: the Yijing and its evolution in China (University of Virginia Press, 2008) as well as the recent overview The I Ching: A Biography (2012), part of the "Lives of Great Religious Books" series from Princeton University Press.

Please inform us which of these sources is considered reliable for the dating of the I Ching, and whether either of them might be excluded as an unreliable source. Shii (tock) 07:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say anything about "wishes to replace it with the statement", especially the "replace" part. In my edit changes, I specifically kept both of Daniel Woolf's and Richard Joseph Smith's references . On the talk page of I Ching, I said "So instead of removing one or the other, I kept them both and incorporated them into the section".  I questioned citing Richard Joesph Smith for the dating due to the uncertainty and ambiguity of the words used in Smith's book and that was used for citation ("A good guess is that...no later than about 800 BCE" on page 22), and I have a problem with Shii's exclusion of Daniel Woolf's A Global History of History published by the Cambridge University Press but not questioning Richard Joseph Smith's.--Sevilledade (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I wrote this very late at night and took your edit summary "Richard Joseph Smith's part is problematic as well, why didn't you remove that as well" a little literally. Shii (tock) 17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Routledge's Encyclopedia of Daoism Yijing entry gives the traditional dates as sometime around the 11th century BCE to some point during the life of Confucius, noting that modern scholarship places most of it during the Western Zhou period (supporting Smith), with its present form dating to the 2nd century BCE. I could see excluding Woolf, but I could also see citing the Encyclopedia of Daoism and Smith as "Most scholars..." followed with "Daniel Woolf also suggests in his Global History of History that..." giving a good range with due weight toward the apparent majority of academia.
 * Full Encyclopedia of Daoism cite: "Yijing", Isabelle Robinet, in Encyclopedia of Daoism, ed. Fabrizio Pregadio, Routledge 2008, p. 1161-1164. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem is that I don't know what grounds a tertiary source like Smith or other encyclopedias can base its claims on, while I can assume that a specialist source like Smith has expertise in this matter. Shii (tock) 19:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but it's not our place to decide whether a source that otherwise meets WP:RS provides an adequate base for its claims. Per WP:RS, it's up to the publishers to engage in fact checking and editorial oversight, not us (all we can do is exclude sources from publishers who refuse to adequately fact check, which applies to none of the sources here).  Since Smith was published by a UP for a good school, he would have been at least vetted for undeniable errors.  The Encyclopedia of Daoism was edited by Fabrizio Pregadio, who also has clear expertise on the matter as well.  Per WP:TERTIARY, the Encyclopedia would actually be the best option for figuring out what would be appropriate for saying "most scholars."  Per WP:DUE, we do give appropriate weight to significant minority viewpoints.
 * At the end of the day, it's not like we're constrained for space and cannot include an additional source to point out that Smith's view is the majority while including Woolf's view to indicate a properly attributed minority position. Doing so would actually elevate Smith's position and devalue Woolf's position moreso than simply removing the latter.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With the I Ching, there are plenty of minority positions. I suppose we can include any number of non-specialist claims as long as they are properly attributed. Shii (tock) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Megan Leigh
Are any of these source WP:RS for the sensational article at Megan Leigh? --Lightbreather (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if the LA times is a reliable soruce? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-16/local/me-16173_1_rock-star for the original story btw Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The citation from the article may say Los Angeles Times, but the URL is adultoutlook.com. Lightbreather (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The first one is probably not reliable in general due to its user generated content nature. The second is probably reliable for film related facts, but not for personal BLP facts. As for the adultoutlook.com I provided you with the original link, but no URL whatsoever is required - just saying the LA time and the story name and date is sufficient for citation. Anything beyond that is gravy for ease of WP:V. Also, see Convenience_link Gaijin42 (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have preliminarily recently edited the article in question here. I have also gone ahead & changed the specific link to the above-referenced Los Angeles Times article in the article in question here just to clear things up a bit.
 * As per longstanding Pornography Project guidance, Excaliburfilms' "biographies are not considered reliable, and they are often taken from other sites, such as Wikipedia." As seen in this specific case though, at least some of the information contained on this site can routinely be confirmed by doing a web search for other, more reliable sources. While I personally have no problem with including links to this website under an article's External Links section, others have objected to doing this in the past as this site sells adult movies.
 * Also as per longstanding Pornography Project guidance, IAFD's "filmographies are considered reliable, but opinion is split on whether their biographical information is reliable." What IAFD is being used for in this specific case is merely to confirm how many & which adult films the subject here was in, which is not controversial at all. I personally happen to be on the side of inclusion of this site as a reliable source for simple biographical data due to their past rigorous use of industry declarations that are used during the production of film content in the adult industry. Guy1890 (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(thefederalist.com) Source directly targets Wikipedia editing. Special Conflict of Interest concerns for this source?
This is a weird one. thefederalist.com published [criticism] of Neil_deGrasse_Tyson. This is BLP material, so there was lively Talk page discussion of whether the criticism warranted inclusion in the Bio. Then the same source published this crazy blog rant Fine Article directly targeting Wikipedia editing, wanting inclusion of it's original criticism into Tyson's biography. Question: Does this raise special Conflict Of Interest issues regarding use of this source? Alsee (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No. It is the outside interests of a contributor that may cause COI concerns, not the source being cited. Clearly, were someone connected with the source to edit the Tyson bio, that would raise concerns, but having read it? No. There may well be other concerns though - in particular, we need to be sure that undue weight isn't being placed on this single source. Have similar concerns been raised elsewhere? If so, we might be better off finding a source less filled with partisan hyperbole. And if similar concerns haven't been raised elsewhere, I'd have to suggest that we quite possibly shouldn't be citing such a source at all. We don't cite every opinion of every partisan commentator on every subject, and the fact that the commentator in question doesn't like Wikipedia excluding his commentary isn't in itself grounds for inclusion. If people are reading the Davis piece and coming to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting his arguments against Tyson, they need to be pointed in the direction of WP:WEIGHT, and asked to justify inclusion on valid encyclopaedic grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would start with seriously questioning Thefederalist.com as a RS in general, and the series on Neil deGrasse Tyson in particular. To me, this very much reads like your average blog post hatchet job. It clearly does not meet the high standard we have for WP:BLP sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the concern voiced by Stephan Schulz. On what basis would thefederalist.com be considered a reliable source?  Anyone can publish a web site.  In fact, this looks like a blog.  Is there any reason to believe that this source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Usual result: Opinions must be properly cited as opinions. "Reliable" does not have anything to do with correctness of opinions - only that we can verify that the opinion was published by a source competent to publish such opinions. Should we purge BLPs of all opinions? An interesting thought - but for now opinions are frequently found in such articles, and if the person opining is in a reasonable position to hold opinions (for example scientists opinion n scientific matters, political journalists opinion on political matters, film reviewers opinion on films etc., we allow them. Collect (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It fails rs. As an "opinion" piece it is unacceptable because saying that someone fabricated facts is a statement of fact not opinion and opinions should only be included if they are significant, per WP:WEIGHT.  Wikipedia articles should not be used to promote the significance of facts and information that are ignored by the mainstream.  The best approach for Sean Davis to take is to get the news media interested enough to run a story about his research.  Then when it hits AP, we can include it.  TFD (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone searches for information about thefederalist.com as a Reliable Source in the future, I think the crazy blog rant Fine Article clearly establishes an absence of editorial oversight. It doesn't even rate as an "opinion piece", it's nothing more than an unhinged personal-vendetta blog flamewarring at random internet nobodies: random editor's Talk pages here and random individual commenters on the Fark messageboard. Alsee (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Federalist's masthead lists its publisher as Ben Domenech, whose biography notes that he admitted to serial plagiarism and that he took money from a foreign-government lobbyist to write favorable opinion pieces without disclosing the payments. I would submit that, at best, there are substantial questions about the reliability of any material from a source whose publisher has such a significant history of ethical violations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * IOW, opinions from such a source are not actually opinions? In what manner does an editorial column used as a source for an opinion properly cited as such become "unreliable"?   Do you mean the author of the opinion does not actually mean to promote that opinion?  That if a publisher, for example, was fined by the government for tax evasion or the like that the editorial opinions published by that person or company are therefore to be excised (noting that many major publishers would fall into that criminal category)?   On what basis in any Wikipedia policy can you find "publishers who are immoral can not publish 'reliable sources'"?  We are better off ascribing opinions as opinions, and letting the readers assign their own weight to those opinions, lest Wikipedia ever have "officially approved opinions" listed as a criterion for articles. Collect (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the source carefully, you will find that the author is making (and insinuating) plenty of factual claims, some of which have made it into our article. And no, we don't publish all opinions we can reliably attribute. I have a hard time finding reasons to consider TheFederalist notable or competent on the question of deGrasse Tyson's character and lectures (one might argue that the publisher knows something about dishonest publishing from first-hand experience, but that would be begging the question). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It does appear that, new or not, blog or not, The Federalist has managed to score interviews with notable Bush administration aides on this particular topic, including Ari Fleischer, Matthew Scully, John McConnell, Michael Gerson, and David Frum. Kelly hi! 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not relevant to this discussion. Please remember that this is WP:NOTAFORUM.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody is soapboxing here, I'm discussing the merits of this source in regards to this particular topic. Yes, it's relevant. Kelly  hi! 07:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, your post did not explain anything related to why this should be treated as a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been more clear - I believe that they should be treated as reliable in this instance due to the fact that the author tracked down and interviewed primary sources who would be knowledgeable on the facts of this particular allegation. In addition, Robert Draper of The New York Times has written that he concurs with the original author at The Federalist, stating "I concur with @seanmdav & @FDRLST--from my research Tyson has hallucinated this post-9/11 Bush verbiage". Terry Moran, Chief Foreign Correspondent for ABC News, has written "I covered Bush then. Never heard him say it." Kelly  hi! 07:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Which part of WP:RS does it say that if a blog author tracks down and interviews primary sources, that makes it reliable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In the case of the assertions being made, I have weighed this source in regards to the statements the author is making and believe it to be reliable based on the sourcing (interviews with Presidential aides, speechwriters, etc.) Even the National Enquirer has been found to be a reliable source in certain limited contexts, such as the John Edwards extramarital affair. (Not that I'm equating this website to that tabloid.) Kelly  hi! 13:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I asked which part of WP:RS does it say that if a blog author tracks down and interviews primary sources, that makes it reliable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Already answered, see above. Kelly  hi! 06:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. The reason why you can't answer the question is because it's not there.  You're making up rules that simply don't exist.  Not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Kelly, you are misapplying WP:RS. Whether you or I think it is WP:Truth is utterly irrelevant. The fact that he (claims or actually did) talk to Presidential aides and speechwriters is irrelevant. In the general case, the question of Reliable Sources is whether there is a reputation for professional reliable responsible editorial oversight. And there is obviously none in this case. Not only did he use his page to vendetta-stalk a random-nobody-pseudonym Wikipedia editor, he actually used his page to rant that some random-nobody-pseudonym Fark commenter called him a homosexual. That wasn't journalism, that wasn't even an opinion/editorial piece, that was an unhinged flamewarring personal blog. thefederalist has significant readership, but so do many blogs, and so do many youtube channels. They are not Reliable Sources for much of anything beyond what they say about themselves. Alsee (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, it appears that the facts at issue were verified and repeated by the The Washington Post so it's not necessary to use The Federalist as a sole source on the contentious information. Kelly  hi! 10:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The post that you erroneously attribute to the Washington Post is actually a blog post on the Volokh Conspiracy by Jonathan Adler. The WaPo exercises no editorial control over the VC; their relationship is one of marketing and advertizing revenue sharing.  Please stop referring to it as "The Washington Post"  It's not.
 * Given the recent discussion of the VC as RS it is likely to become a topic here in the near future. (If it hasn't alreacy - I haven't searched the discussion history) so let's save further discussion of that issue until then. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There has actually been additional sourcing published today on the topic, from John Aziz of The Week. Kelly  hi! 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The source may or may not be reliable enough, and the content may or may not be due, but neither of those questions has anything to do with the article mentioning wikipedia. Wikipedia's internal politics and policies are quite often mentioned in reliable sources when major BLP controversies are afoot in RL. For example, the numerous sources discussing The Bradley naming dispute, and discussing 's actions and opinions, or the Santorum controversy. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kelly that the reporting in this case seems to be accurate, though the tone is such that most people wouldn't take it seriously. Looking more generally at the WP article, I consider it basically a press release with far too many quotes from the individual.    DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think the article linked by was bad, take a look at this gem posted today. I'd say that article is pretty much all that is needed to discard the site as a WP:RS forever. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  00:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. There are some silly comments on that talk page, especially from the perspective of a Wikipedia outsider. Kelly  hi! 06:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Anatolia Cradle of Mankind
is this paper reliable? https://www.academia.edu/3733730/Anatolia_Cradle_of_Mankind --2A02:908:E620:FD80:6455:D8D:5629:7425 (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliable for what? As the note at the top of this page makes clear, you need to tell us what article this concerns, and what specific text the source is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say that no, it's not reliable for statements of fact. The author is a self-described PhD candidate, and Google Scholar finds only one obscure publication that may or may not be fiction (and may or may not be by the author - I don't know how frequent that name is). Certainly not enough to confer expert status. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

rogreviews dot com
Is a WP:RS?

I've encountered several porn bios today that give it as a source, including Julie Meadows? Lightbreather (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that this site is almost exclusively used as a source for interviews (See: ), but the site is apparently self-published though, which means that it would have limited usefulness as a citation for potentially contentious or notable information in an article. Basically, it depends on how a site like this is used in the context of a specific article. In the article apparently mentioned in passing above (which I should note here that I recently edited in a small way), it's currently being used to cite that the subject of the article "moved to Los Angeles, California ... where she began working in adult films in 1998" and that her "first film was Ed Powers' Dirty Debutantes 94", which doesn't sound like especially contentious material to me. That doesn't mean that there aren't better sources out there for this type of info. Guy1890 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion may give some insights, it is on a very similar topic: Does the fact that the person in question participated in an interview, elevate an otherwise questionable source into being a valid source for the subjects own statements. The conversation is long and complicated, and there does not appear to be a clear consensus as to the answer, but it still may be enlightening. On the specific Barrowman discussion, my interpretation of the consensus is that the source became reliable by Barrowman's participation, but the particular content was trivia and not worthy of inclusion. How that applies to the porn bios you are thinking of will probably depend a lot on the context. Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

pornstaremart dot com
Is a WP:RS?

It is used five times in the BLP Keisha (pornographic actress)

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No I think. There are some obvious mistakes in that text. They refer to her as Asia Carrera in one bit, an obvious mistake referring to another porn star. Also a good amount of the text is duplicated on other websites and appears to be a "stock" bio. http://www.pornstarscenter.com/star.asp?id=47 - I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was reverse copying from wikipedia. however, if the original source of the text could be uncovered, that might ultimately be reliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com an expert SPS?
There is an RfC at Game of Thrones (season 5) regarding whether the site WatchersOnTheWall.com meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). Participation is welcome. Piandme (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Working link Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Divadevotee.com
I thought I would start a discussion here after I removed the divadevotee citation from the Kylie Minogue article, and it was reverted by. This site has no notability, no qualifications, is self-published, is merely a blog/personal website, and its about page states "DivaDevotee is my little space on the World Wide Web to share with the world my thoughts and feelings on one of my favourite topics: music's Divas. [...] I'm very much aware of my place in the universal pecking order (at the bottom, with all the other critics) so please take everything I write with a pinch of salt. It's really not that serious." All of these qualities lead me to believe it is not a reliable source. This is only my opinion, maybe I have missed something. Please share your thoughts. Melonkelon (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Bataan Diary
Greetings, I am seeking others opinions regarding the book Bataan Diary, published by Riverview Publishing. I am looking to refurbish the article Philippine resistance against Japan, and it appears that significant content from a website associated with this book had been previously used in the article. Therefore I am curious as to whether Riverview Publishing falls under a Self-publishing catageory, and the associated webpage as well, or whether they can be seen as reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As the firm doesn't appear to have a website, I don't think it's at all likely that it's a publishing firm with a reputation for producing good quality works. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Israel
In the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, editors wish to add Israel to the list of countries which designate the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a terrorist organisation (see para 1 of the Lead). For other countries in the Lead, government documents have been found that support such a designation – official lists of groups formally designated as terrorist organisations – but no such document can be traced for Israel. (Exampes of these are cited in the infobox in section 13 of the article.)

Editors have provided sources which they claim support such a designation by Israel, which I have listed below, but I do not believe any of them can. I do not believe second-hand reports are enough, and the source originally cited (no. 1) mentions “unlawful” not “terrorist”.

Could we have your opinion on whether any of the documents listed below would reliably support the statement that Israel has designated the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a terrorist organisation, please?
 * 1) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184728#.VBaZQD9wbIW
 * 2) http://jpupdates.com/2014/08/26/israel-moves-declare-support-isis-illegal-photo-groups-flag-appear/
 * 3) http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2014/Pages/FM-Liberman-addresses-International-Anti-Terrorism-Conference-9-Sep-2014.aspx
 * 4) http://www.osenlaw.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/Counter-Terrorism/Key_Terrorist_Organizations/GOI1.pdf
 * 5) http://www.mod.gov.il/
 * 6) http://new.elfagr.org/Detail.aspx?nwsId=683441
 * 7) http://mfa.gov.il/MFAAR/Pages/default.aspx

In that list are two Arabic sources and one Hebrew source (nos. 5-7), and a document (no. 4) which editors claim proves that “unlawful” means “terrorist” in Israeli law, but I think they have misinterpreted this document. It seems to be merely a list of organisations that the Israeli government has certified as being either unlawful or terrorist. I include these four sources on their behalf, but I don't think any of them can be used here. If you need any clarification, please contact me; I am one of the editors on the ISIS page. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this article dated 11th September here is of any help (see para 5). --P123ct1 (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In order to help in good faith, I will fill in a critical missing translation of an Arabic reliable source, included above, but without the translation that I duly provided on the Article's talk page, and, since Google Translate is unreliable, I will help with the translation of "صادقت وزارة الدفاع الإسرائيلية على اعتبار (داعش) حركة إرهابية" which translates to "The Israeli Ministry of Defense approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movement". Hope this helps. This is a complicated matter for those who do not have long term insight into Middle Eastern affairs, but I am confident that there is enough reliable evidence that Israel has already declared ISIS as a terrorist organization.  However, I am fine with whatever the response is given here. Worldedixor (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Worldedixor. That is useful extra information.  That source didn't have a Google translation into English, unfortunately, so I don't think it can be used, but that is for those on this board to judge.  If we could use your translation, it would simplify matters enormously.  --P123ct1 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am curious to know on what WP rule have you based your statement "I don't think it can be used"? Doesn't WP:NONENG expressly permit non-English reliable sources, especially when a Wikipedian has taken the time to duly provide a translation by a Wikipedian, and especially in cases as complicated as this case pertaining to Israeli law, and/or especially when English sources cannot be readily found?  Worldedixor (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As you know this has been discussed several times on the Talk page. Let the board decide on this point.  My view here is irrelevant. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)




 * It is best to use a source that is specificially about what states consider ISIL a terrorist organization. Because different states use different definitions and terminology, and have different procedures for this, it is preferable to use a secondary source whose author is familiar with this and able to tell whether labeling a group "unlawful" is in this context tantamount to calling it terrorist and whether statements by the defense ministry are the same as government announcements or whether different parts of the government (such as justice and finance) keep separate lists of terrorist organizations.  TFD (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Finding any source at all is the problem. I have looked on the internet and cannot find anything.  Perhaps my search terms are not accurate enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GeoNames
We seem to cite the GeoNames database quite widely despite the fact that it apparently permits users to edit, contrary to WP:USERGENERATED. Should we be using this database as the only source for an article on a geographical location, where other sources are entirely lacking? This has come up because a new contributor started Articles for deletion/Gasaneri (2nd nomination), asserting that the place doesn't exist (there is a side-issue as to whether the database asserting it is a 'populated place' is sufficient to establish that it has legal recognition, and therefore is automatically notable, but I don't think we need to discuss that here). I've looked through the archives, and the only previous discussion mentioning I can find on this noticeboard doesn't really come to any definitive conclusions regarding its reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was one of the main commenters in the debate over Gasaneri, and I do not believe that articles should be written that use Geonames as the only source. The website states that it allows users to "add new names [to the database] using a user friendly wiki interface." Many village articles appear to have been written by going down a geoname list of villages and writing a brief stub for each stating that "X is a village in such and such country". Any fictitious village added in to the GeoName server could potentially end up with a Wikipedia article. A skilled vandal could even deliberately insert a fictional village, and then write a "sourced" article about it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be better not to post WP:BEANS here.--Shrike (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Jonathan Adler writing on the Volokh Conspiracy web page a RS for notability of thefederalist.com
There's currently an AFD for the wikipedia article on thefederalist.com (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thefederalist.com). The issue is one of notability. Editors are trying to determine if there are sufficient citations from reliable sources to justify notability. One source being considered (it's not currently sourced by the article) is http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/

This article appears on the Volokh Conspiracy web blog. The VC was self-published for about a dozen years from 2002 to 2013. As of this January, Eugene Volokh entered into a distribution and advertising revenue sharing arrangement with the Post, and a key point of the agreement was that the VC stay editorially independent. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/about/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/21/in-brazil-you-can-always-find-the-amazon-in-america-the-amazon-finds-you-2/ for more info about the VC-Post relationship.

I found this previous discussion of VC as RS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_19#The_Volokh_Conspiracy_.28legal_blog.29 which says it is not for that purpose. Since then, the relationship with the Post has begun. Does that change anything with regard to RS? One can argue that it is self-published so it should not be RS for much of anything, or one could argue that it is RS for notability due to the Post masthead.

BTW, I'm having a spot of trouble with requirement #3. The issue is notability, and the statement supported is that thefederalist.com meets the GNG for a standalone article. Clearly, if the Post is writing about it then it has some level of notability. Not sure about a blog they host (and perhaps "publish" depending on what you mean by that term).(unsigned)


 * I am amazed. Right now the AfD is headed for a "Snow Keep" result.  The "blog" was notable, and won awards, before it was given an official home at WaPo, and WaPo would not host a non-notable blog.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears we feel differently about Post Everything. a13ean (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm failing to see how this response is helpful. I haven't been able to determine what criteria is used to decide what gets published in PostEverything.  It has the Washington Post's masthead, and a Post employee is the editor, so it may inherit the mantle of reliability that the Post has.  OTOH, The Volokh Conspiracy is editorially independent of the Post. So I don't see PostEverything serving as an example to indicate the answer to my query.


 * Agree with both your points.  "Keep" looks very likely (check my vote to see where I stand on the matter) and the VC is quite notable.  But I don't see how either is relevant to the question I asked. The VC status as RS given their editorial independence and partnership with the Post is an interesting question without an obvious answer. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

hmmm... Not much response. I'm going to conclude that the marketing and revenue sharing arrangement with the Post does not substantially change the fact that the Volokh Conspiracy is self-published with no editorial oversight from the Post. Thus, it remains WP:SPS albeit one whose authors are established experts in their field. Usable as RS, but with all the usual caveats of a SPS.

Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have it pretty much right. As with any self-published source, its usage needs to be considered in context. For instance, when legal scholars write about legal issues on the blog, those opinions may be useable subject to the usual strictures. When legal scholars write about the price of tea in China, or some other issue unrelated to their professional expertise, then I'm not sure it makes sense to use their blog musings as sources in a serious reference work. Moreover, a key point (which appears to need constant reiteration) is that the blog is not under the editorial control of the Washington Post, and so the Post's credibility and reliability does not attach to the blog. MastCell Talk 00:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Volokh Conspiracy is self-published with no editorial board, as such it cannot be considered like a normal WP:RS. It can be considered as opinion from recognized experts as per legal issues.  I would say that the Volokh Conspiracy can be used to suggest that something is notable (clearly not on its own however but as part of a large context), especially posts by people on the site that are well known public figures that are regularly cited in other WP:RS media. --Obsidi (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories, astrology, and WP:ABOUTSELF
I'm currently working on a bottom-to-top rewrite of fringe theory. While I disagree stridently with the editor who nominated it for deletion, I cannot argue with the fact that the current content is pretty damn terrible. My sourcing so far is irrefutably mainstream sources talking about fringe theories and the idea of a fringe theory. However...

David Cochrane is a professional astrologer. He (along with his wife) founded an astrology software company, and established an astrology school in Florida. Especially in those two contexts, he is cited with some regularity in astrology publications by other authors, although as far as I can tell, no one outside of astrology's insular community has paid him any attention. He's likely not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term, but he has come currency in his field, and is probably what passes for an expert therein.

He wrote this article, which appears on the website of Cosmic Patterns, his software company; it is inarguably self-published. The only purpose I wish to put it to is to cite him as an example of someone willing to self-identify as a "fringe theorist". Needless to say, it is not a remotely reliable source for any factual content. I believe this use satisfies all the concerns of WP:ABOUTSELF, but I'm not used to writing content that invokes that particular standard, much less while doing so in a controversial topic area, so I'd like to pre-submit this use here for a community sanity check. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed any of the links you provided, but based on what you've written and my understanding of ABOUTSELF, it's fine to refer to him as a self-identified "fringe theorist", though it's possible you could run afoul of UNDUE.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 16:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Casualties of 1982 Lebanon War
Article: 1982 Lebanon War Sentence: "In 1984, the Lebanese authorities publicly retracted their earlier estimate, instead stating "about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion." "

This is an astonishing claim. Lebanese sources have reported 20,000 figure total for Lebanese and Palestinian. There are tens of sources for this claim, three of them cited in the article. The lowest estimate is Gabriel, Richard, A, Operation Peace for Galilee, The Israeli-PLO War in Lebanon, New York: Hill & Wang. 1984, which gives 5,000-8,000 civilians, not total. There are two sources cited for the Lebanese official sources claim of 20,000 (Robert Fisk reporting Lebanese police and Red Cross, and this). One of the most recent sources is this by author which gives 19,000 killed and 37,000 casualties in total.

The citation in this book is to a single Washington Post article dated 1984, which does not say anything about retraction. The full quote is "In demanding war reparations, [Lebanese Brig. Gen. Mohammed] Haj said that about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion and that more than 1,000 others were wounded". It is not clear exactly what category he is talking about. The claim is so left-field that my only guess is that he is perhaps talking about soldiers in the Lebanese Army, though this is unclear. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This claim is only way out in left-field to those who have been thoroughly inundated in radical anti-Israel propaganda. The Lebanese government, as reported in RS Washington Post and this RS book by an academic publisher, is RS for Lebanese casualties. Kingsindian wants to use original research to bridge the gap between what Osama bin Laden-approved far leftists like Fisk wrote at the time and reality. As the full passage explains, "The PLO fabrications, adopted by the Red Cross and the Lebanese authorities, rapidly circulated around the world. "It is clear to anyone who has traveled in southern Lebanon" that these numbers were "extreme exaggerations," wrote David Shipler. Nevertheless, the PLO news agency soon became the "primary source of information both for Western reporters and for the Lebanese state radio and television." As a result, official Lebanese casualty estimates came to mirror the PLO inventions, recording 19,085 dead, 57% combatants and 43% civilians...In 1984 these inflated estimates were publicly repudiated by the Lebanese authorities, who announced that “about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion." No-one wants to remove Kingsindian's preferred sources, but Haj's statement should be included.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The book is an edited collection so the citation is incorrect. Would you please give the title of the piece and its author that you wish to cite, rather than just a page number. This is necessary because reliability depends partly upon authorship. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The book in question here does not appear to be focused on this war. Given that the war is the subject of many high quality specialist works, it's hard to see why it's being used as a reference. Recent scholarship on the war should be referenced, not books on more general topics. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not have the book, but as far as I know, the piece in question is written by Paul Bogdanor. See page 10 here. "Entirely absent from his mathematical manipulations is a rather pertinent fact: in 1984 these inflated estimates were publicly repudiated by the Lebanese authorities, who announced that “about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion" ". If TTAAC can confirm, it would be good. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen anything yet that indicates that this is a scholarly work of history. Could those who want to include the work justify it by that criterion. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyhow the WashPo is reliable source for General words about the casualties--Shrike (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Robert Fisk is too not historian so why he should be used?--Shrike (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fisk is not a historian, of course. But he is a journalist who has covered the middle east for decades and his statements are for now limited to reporting what the Lebanese Police sources and the Red Cross said. Nobody challenges that the Lebanese Police or Red Cross made these statements. The book (Pity the Nation) was published by Oxford University Press. I am happy to include more sources, like the more recent one by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb. As for including the throwaway line in the Washington Post, I will repeat the analogy on the talk page: if you find a throwaway line of unclear meaning claiming that 1 million, not 16 million died in WW1, would you include it? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to give a promotional blurb, but the volume features many distinguished contributors from Efraim Karsh to Irving Louis Horowitz, and many of the articles are collected from journals including World Affairs, Middle East Quarterly, and Azure. Bogdanor has written for the Middle East Quarterly, Judaism, and The Jewish Chronicle among others, although he is certainly not a historian. The Lebanese estimate isn't throwaway material in my view. BTW, Bogdanor also cites The Times on the same day as the Washington Post, which may or may not include more detail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1,700 persons were killed in Sabra and Chatila alone (source), so the figure of 1,000 seems to be way off. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An atrocity by a vengeful Christian militia? As the source says, the figure is presumably only counting those killed by Israeli troops.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

An update: There is another LA Times source on the same day. It states: "Israeli and UN sources said it was the first time they could remember any Lebanese official using such a figure. Early casualty estimates originating in Lebanon after 1982 invasion put the figure at 15,000. UN sources said it was not clear whether El Haj's figures included the casualties during the seige of Beirut."

I ask any fair-minded person whether such an unclear primary source bears the weight of the claim that is being put upon it in the secondary source, that Lebanese officials have "publicly retracted the earlier figure". If Lebanese sources did withdraw their claim and give a figure 15 times lower than the original, it should be possible to find a better and more serious source for this astonishing claim. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As the LA Times also states, "Israel has long claimed that...about 800 Lebanese civilians were killed during the invasion, excluding deaths during the Beirut siege." The Lebanese figure of 1,000 matches up with the Israeli figures exactly. If the "retracted" phrase is POV-pushing, I will amend the text accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable in this context. There are likely to be other poor quality sources in the article too. Fisk, for example, is a reputed journalist but this is a historical topic and the work of historians should be preferred. if scholars differ include both views. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Israeli claim is already present in the article, this is why I did not quote it. If you want to use the text without the "retracted" phrase, then this is simply a primary source reporting one isolated incident. If this is a notable incident, the correct way to do it would to use secondary sources for it to establish notability.
 * As I have said already, Fisk's book is used mostly to report the Red Cross and Lebanese police figures. Nobody doubts that the Red Cross and Lebanese police gave these figures. As everyone (including the Red Cross themselves) recognize, the figures given by them are very unsatisfactory, and this is mentioned in the article. It is very hard to estimate the numbers and there are many estimates. As to your suggestion that other views be included, they already are: I mentioned one other view of 5,000-8,000 civilians killed, which is included. Another source gives about 20,000 total killed, with 5,000 fighters. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to cite a book by Fisk, as opposed to his reportage at the time, please present the details. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already given it above. But repeating. Book: Pity the Nation

Sentence as fact: "By the end of the first week, 14 June 1982, International Red Cross and Lebanese police figures claimed that 9,583 had died and 16,608 injured. By the end of the second week, they claimed up to 14,000 people died and 20,000 were injured, mostly civilians." (Fisk pp 255-257)

Sentence with in-text attribution: "Journalist Robert Fisk claims that early Israeli figures for civilian casualties were so low as to be "preposterous", and that afterwards it "issued casualty figures for its own losses but no longer offered figures for the invasion death toll among Lebanese and Palestinians" Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's set the bar much higher. I see very few historians in the references. if only Benny Morris has written at length about the war, then base the article on Benny Morris. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I did not write the article. This is not the place to argue about the whole article, the correct venue is the talk page. The last few comments were only referring to the question which Shrike raised as to why include Fisk and not this other claim. To this I replied: there is no comparison between the two claims here. One is a totally uncontroversial fact widely reported everywhere (that Lebanese and Red Cross sources put the figure at 20,000), and the other is an obscure and totally unsubstantiated claim about one isolated unclear incident where one Lebanese official quoted the figure 1,000. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will be including estimates by Amal Saad-Ghoraeb this article in the article, she gives the figures 19,000 killed and 32,000 wounded. Hopefully this will put the matter to rest. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * She is not historian either not she is an academic if she will be used I don't see why Paul Bagdanor could not be used too.--Shrike (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * She is a political analyst writing in a good journal. Reliable. Paul Bogdanor's work may be reliable in many circumstances. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And he is journalist writing in book published in Academic publishing house.Can you explain what the difference here?--Shrike (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this "She is not historian either not she is an academic". Historians are academics. Anyway, Saad-Ghoraeb is a widely cited political scientist on South Lebanon and Hezbollah. Her figures are in line with many other estimates, some of which are cited in the article. Bogdanor's article is not about Lebanon war, he is not an expert talking about the war, this sentence is an isolated sentence in a larger essay discussing Chomsky, and this is an exceptional claim based on unclear sources. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul Bogdanor should never be used on wikipedia for any statement of facts. The item cited is total nonsense, as any familiarity with the IDF accounts of casualties they caused on any day in that initial 2 month conflict. This war was one conducted deep into Lebanon, using massive firepower on four fronts over two months, and Bogdanor is citing one article saying over all that period 1,000 died? Worsse still, if 600 IDF soldiers died, that is an unheralded proportion of 6 to 10 in the history of Israeli warfare, where the differential is a always multiple of at last 10. Bogdanor's figure is less than a few arbitrary instances of specific episodes over a few days.
 * Ahron Bregman, Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947, Routledge (2000) 2002 p.174, gives the data for just one point on June 7 alone in a densely populated Beirut. There the IAF and the Israeli navy offshore bombed or struck with missiles some 500 buildings alone in Beirut.  On August 9 the IAF bombed massively for 12 successive hours a sector of Beirut causing 300 deaths (‘Black Thursday) p.175.
 * Robert Fisk, Pity the Nation, Oxford University Press 1991 pp.437ff. p.649 goes into the details of a lot of cross-checking he himself did at the time with Nick Tatro involving hospital casualty lists, cemetaries, Red Cross statistics, noting:’The Israelis still claimd that the casualty figures were lies, that the information came from the PLO rather than from our own investigations. Not once did they ever produce evidence to th contrary.'
 * Specifically, in just one small graveyard at Sabra, the gravdigger they interviewed had a diary tabulating the names of those he had buried since 6 June, i.e.250 by the end of that month. Fisk himself had the names of 270 men, women and children who died in the Israeli bombing of Beirut on June 7. The official Lebanese toll in late August estimated for Beirut alone (leaving out all the rest of central and southern Lebanon) was 6,776.
 * ‘By late August 1982, Lebanese sources placed the official death toll in Beirut at 6,776.'(Molly Dunigan, Victory for Hire: Private Security Companies’ Impact on Military Effectiveness, Stanford University Press 2011 p.103)
 * Add just these four elements up of hundreds of episodes over more than 2 months and your figures exceed Bodganor's for the whole war. It is typical of him to fish up something extreme (WP:Undue) and make it a showcase for the 'truth'. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

TTAAC has dropped the Bogdanor source and is now citing the newspaper directly for Haj's claim. He says that WP:RSN is not a venue to decide WP:UNDUE, which is technically correct, I suppose. I have opened a discussion at WP:NPOV noticeboard here.