Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 178

Dates of birth/death at Michelle Thomas
One cite currently reads, "The Internet Movie Database uses September 23, 1968 and December 22, 1998. Findagrave shows a tombstone in the cemetery marked "Chu-Chu" with a birth date of September 23, 1968 and a death date of December 23, 1998. No entry in the Social Security Death Index was found under the name "Michelle Thomas"." Comments would be appreciated. In other words: Are IMDb, Findagrave and "I couldn't find it" reliable sources? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the general understanding is that IMDB is not considered a citable reference, because it is crowdsourced. Find-a-Grave is citable only for a picture of the tombstone. Not finding a death in the SSDI is not uncommon, and means very little (if the dead person never received SS benefits, they may not be in the database). But you can find Michelle Thomas's death reported in the New York Times of 28 December 1998,, where we are told she died "on Wednesday", which would have been 23 December 1998, at Sloane-Kettering. - Nunh-huh 05:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that dates of birth and death are crowdsourced, or not under editorial control. On the contrary, IMDB was sued for displaying the real age of an actress and not what she submitted to the editors. "Hoang also made an issue of how IMDb had allegedly used credit information when she signed up to IMDb's Pro account and how IMDb's employees used a third party verification website to gain information to use in her profile." see this article The submission rules on the webpage for adding yourself as an actor say that "[biographical information] will be sent to the IMDb Data Editors for checking." You can submit a plot summary, you can rate a movie, you can leave comments, you can report an error for review. You can not go in an change Denzel Washington's birthday like you can in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Silly question, @SummerPhD. No one is suggesting that IMDB, Find-A-Grave and "I couldn't find it" are reliable sources.  Although, if there were a reliable source indicating that Michelle Thomas' nickname was Chu Chu, then it would lend greater credence to the tombstone photo on FindAGrave.  The NY Times reported her death date as being 12/23/98 so I'm not sure why you even bring up the fact that IMDB has a different date of death.  You have a reliable source for the date of death, so calling another source unreliable adds no value to the discussion.   The NYT also stated her age as 30, so the article should be updated with the template of estimated birth year based on death and age and until there's a reliable source to the contrary, we'll just assume she was born in either 1967 or 1968 (even though you know in your heart of hearts what the correct answer is).  Satisfied?   Vertium  When all is said and done 19:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I have updated this article to reflect the NYTimes as the primary source for date of death and age. Date of birth is noted as not verified and year of birth is shown as being either 1967 or 1968. I think this case is closed. Vertium When all is said and done 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section of Ello (social network)
Please see discussion about sources on Talk:Ello (social network).--ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include criticism but not in a criticism section. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What ^ they said.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wherever it is, it should be properly sourced. Any comment on the sourcing for the criticisms, which appears to be a blog?--ukexpat (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been no demonstration of that here.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available: 1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example:. 2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name. 3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: "text". Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". --Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Food Timeline

 * http://foodtimeline.org/ Just seeking consensus as to whether this resource is a RS. I have been aware of it for several years, and I have found it useful. It is a slightly US-centric but vastly entertaining compendium, and appears to be rich in RSS. It would be useful for a myriad of food and drink related articles. Any thoughts? Irondome (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Request opinion on a couple of Twitter cites
For context, please see the final paragraph of this previous version of Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations. I had originally cited two Tweets concerning the veracity of a claimed George W. Bush quote. The first was by Robert Draper, a NYT contributor and the author of a bestselling book on Bush, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. The second was by Terry Moran, Chief Foreign Correspondent for ABC News and a reporter covering the Bush White House during the time frame in question. The accounts are longstanding and I don't believe there is any doubt about their provenance, though I can't confirm that the "verified" feature has been used in their cases. Would these Twitter posts be acceptable cites concerning the opinion of these experts regarding the quote used by Tyson? Thanks in advance for taking a look. Kelly hi! 08:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, they're not reliable in this context.  Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.  See WP:SPS for more.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ^ see above. Gaba  (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A Quest For Knowledge, I agree with you in this case, but you probably shouldn't have narrowed it to only "third-party". SPS can't be used in second-party contexts as well (husband writing an angry blog post about an ex-wife is not a usable source about a living person either). __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that "third-party" includes "second-party" in this context. In any case, this is the same phrasing used in WP:SPS.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all for taking a look and weighing in. Kelly  hi! 08:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Draper tweet is no longer a SPS, since it has been incorporated as an addendum at TheFederalist.com page whose conclusions it endorsed. I don't see why it wasn't already a RS for Draper's opinion that Bush never said what Tyson claimed he said, and which Tyson has now admitted Bush did not say, but what you get here is in any case only advice, sometimes bad advice. And Terry Moran's tweet responding to Draper's and saying he's never heard anything like what Tyson had fabricated but plenty of the opposite should also have been good. You don't need editorial intervention to validate expert opinion, as long as it's properly identified as opinion. Andyvphil (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Health effects of fracking

 * Source: Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania" Environ Health Perspect DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732
 * Article: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing
 * Content: A 2014 study of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania found that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were found in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. People with clinically significant skin problems increased from 3% to 13% over the same distances.

The results of the survey were consistent with recent WP:MEDRSs such as, , and. Prior MEDRSs on the topic have all been inconclusive. EllenCT (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course any source is reliable for what it states, though even here it is not accurately stated since the source is reporting on reported health effects gleaned from a telephone survey, not acutally "clinically significant" data. But the real problem here is due weight & neutrality. A primary source reporting on a telephone survey should be avoided as it's not WP:MEDRS. If there truly are WP:MEDRS that say the same thing, simply use them. If this information is not however properly reflected in WP:MEDRS sources, then reporting it is not neutral. Alexbrn talk 07:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are you quoting "clinically significant" from? As I understand your comments, you would prefer:
 * "A 2014 telephone survey of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania reported that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were reported in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. The number of people reporting skin problems increased in from 3% to 13% over the same distances."
 * EllenCT (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We should use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for health information, and avoid primary sources especially if they run against the grain of information from really good secondary sources. That's what our WP:PAGs say. Alexbrn talk 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, the survey is completely consistent with all of the conclusive MEDRS secondary sources. In such cases is it preferable to use secondary news coverage of the primary source when, as in this case, it has received widespread coverage in national and international reputable news sources? EllenCT (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * this is kind of forum shopping. See somewhat-difficult-to-follow discussion at Project Medicine, where EllenCT was advised that for health-related content, the guideline WP:MEDRS expresses the consensus of the community (as also expressed in WP:RS) that WP content should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources, for a whole host of reasons.   MEDRS further defines SECONDARY sources for health related content, as reviews published in the biomedical literature, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies.  In the discussion at Project Medicine, EllenCT was pointed to recent reviews.  Those reviews state that there is not enough research completed to make definitive statements yet.  The source EllenCT wants to bring is WP:PRIMARY, and makes definitive claims about health effects.  This is exactly the kind of editing that MEDRS advises against.  We use reviews to determine if the results reported in PRIMARY sources are viewed as credible by the scientific community and to determine how important they are.  Without a review, it is pure WP:OR to select a given PRIMARY source and determine what WP:WEIGHT to give it.  We rely on SECONDARY sources for that.  EllenCT needs to wait until there are reviews published in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies that make more definitive statements about health effects of fracking. We just don't know yet. (which I am saying, because that is what the most recent SECONDARY sources say) Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that all of the MEDRSs are inconclusive has not been true for years. Dispute resolution noticeboards are more appropriate than further disruption of WT:MED and the article talk page when dealing with editors who repeatedly admit the shame in which they are unable to control their frustration while displaying concordant overreach in the application of rules. Need I provide diffs? EllenCT (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ellen, is there some reason that a primary source published this month would be considered to be better than such secondary sources as or ? Wikipedia is not intended as news, and there is wp:NODEADLINE. If the new survey paper is seen to be significant and credible by the experts in that field, it will surely appear in subsequent reviews over the next year or so. That is normally considered to be "soon enough" for Wikipedia's purposes. LeadSongDog  come howl!  18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How could a primary source consistent with the conclusive MEDRS secondary sources be inferior to inconclusive secondary sources? EllenCT (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are summaries of additional conclusive MEDRS sources and associated news articles from the current version of the article:
 * A 2013 review on shale gas production in the United States stated, "with increasing numbers of drilling sites, more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances used at fractured wells." A 2011 hazard assessment found that most of the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing and drilling have immediate health effects, and many may have long-term health effects. A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations." 
 * A 2013 review focusing on Marcellus shale gas hydraulic fracturing and the New York City water supply stated, "Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate, even if more highly regulated Marcellus gas production is eventually permitted elsewhere in New York State." 
 * A 2013 review concluded that confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations impede peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts. A 2012 study said that hydraulic gas extraction had a "potential negative impact" on public health, and that pediatric nurses should be prepared to gather information on such topics so as to advocate for improved community health. 
 * The US Environmental Protection Agency has defended their research into hydraulic fracturing while simultaneously attempting to downplay its results. 

Secondary news sources covering the primary survey include, , , , , and. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story:


 * Those who live 1 kilometer or closer to natural gas fracking wells are more than twice as likely to report skin conditions and upper respiratory symptoms, such as nose bleeds and coughs, as those living more than 2 kilometers away, a new report from Yale University found.
 * The study, which tracked self-reported health data from 180 households containing 492 people in Pennsylvania's Washington County, is the largest of its kind, lead author Peter Rabinowitz, M.D., who is now with the University of Washington's School of Public Health, told weather.com.
 * "We got interested in this issue because there were concerns that had been brought up about people complaining of some health symptoms when living near natural gas drilling or extraction facilities," he said. "At the time we started this study, most of these reports were really just that: isolated case reports of a handful of individuals."

(emphasis added.) EllenCT (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be getting lost in the content, rather than the method, which is fairly simple. List the secondary, peer-reviewed sources which address the topic. Strike out any of the earlier ones which have been cited in the later ones. You're now left with a short list of "current" ones. Summarize what they say. More recent primary sources only come into question where they address a topic that had been identified as important but not researched in depth until after the secondary sources were written. In that case, their content may be used carefully, in suitably circumspect language, never putting their findings in the voice of the encyclopedia, nor making our own inferences about their significance. Such exceptions almost always deserve discussion prior to inclusion. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs? EllenCT (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , please see Respect secondary sources which says (am copying what it says here):
 * "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them). "


 * please also see Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) (copying wht it says here):
 * "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[20] costs, and risks versus benefits,[21] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[22] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[23] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources."


 * so no, the news reports are not WP:SECONDARY under MEDRS. What you have is a primary source. Please wait until its findings are included a review article that is actually aiming at synthesizing the research that has been done on health effects of fracking.  I understand that the EPA is coming out with their review pretty soon. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs? EllenCT (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * i cannot make sense out of this comment. 1) you rely on MEDRS by using it to claim your sources are good, but then you ask why we should rely on it.  2) you use a term, "conclusive" that is not a criterion under which we evaluate sources per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.  We also of course disagree that the primary sources that you have brought comply with MEDRS.  The view of everyone else so far is that they do not.  We should rely on secondary sources, which as of now  say that based on the research so far, we can identify risks but we cannot identify definite health effects. I anticipate this will change with time as more research is done, but that is where we are today.Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have one comment. I thought the purpose of this noticeboard was to get outside opinion. I see the same people as in the other page (talk page and medicine project) involved in the discussion. What is the point of doing this, then? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Presumably editors who prefer to evaluate these kinds of questions will eventually weigh in after the discussion between the disputants has acquiesced. EllenCT (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is more likely that they will simply WP:TLDR. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 04:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * if you can put up with us, it would be lovely if you would render an opinion on the dispute - we do want outside voices to weigh in. thx Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Although for me there was a bit of WP:TLDR, from what I could gather, we should be basing the article on reliable secondary scientific sources, rather than on news sources or primary scientific sources. The primary scientific literature needs to be digested and substantiated by other scientists before it should be reported as a statement of fact regarding a contentious issue on wikipedia. I say this, despite the fact that I agree with and believe the findings of the Yale study. I simply don't think Wikipedia is the place to first report this information. If you want to disseminate cutting edge, controversial research, start a blog instead. Onefireuser (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To I am reluctant to weigh in here, because I was a marginal participant in the recent AN/I drama. In a nutshell, I agree with Onefireuser below, but I will elaborate only if asked. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Center for Public Integrity publications
Are books published by the Center for Public Integrity considered reliable? The only reason I ask is because I once used a widely used textbook as a source under the topic I'm thinking about citing for here, and I was shouted down because an admin felt the source was strongly biased. (He/She was openly in the animal rights camp, whereas the book discredited many radical animal rights groups.) According to WP:RS, that shouldn't matter... but I was outnumbered and voted down.

I'm thinking of using the following book as a source:



The animal industry is very divided, and although the animal rights campaigns have a strong presence on Wikipedia (and would therefore support the use of this source), I can still see my potential edits being reverted and attacked, primarily by targeting the source. The book was written based on collaborative research through public records and does not appear to be sponsored by any particular animal rights group. And I know it doesn't matter, but I come from the industry and have seen the tip of the iceberg on which the book focuses.

I have not made these edits to any articles, so there are no DIFFs. I also have not picked specific content from the book to use yet, though it can be browsed and searched online at Google Books. The material could be used on several websites, particularly Species Survival Plan, Captive breeding, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a host of zoos, and articles pertaining to conservation of particular species. PassTheSake (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, the edits will center around the book's thesis: that surplus animals (including SSP animals) from AZA accredited facilities get dumped into the exotic pet trade, canned hunts, and other places the AZA specifically prohibits. PassTheSake (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's still pretty general. This source could be generally reliable for some claims, but that's not a blank check for any claim. What material were you "shouted down" over? If it has to do with the specific claim about an organization then it still might be a NPOV or OR/SYNTH issue. __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The book mentioned above makes specific mentions of animals changing hands between highly reputable research facilities/zoos and people/facilities directly related the exotic pet trade (black market). (This was mirrored by a report in 1990 on "60 Minutes", which I'm trying to find so that I can be cited.  I just found another source, published by the Performing Animals Welfare Society, which mentions this and the "60 Minutes" program, but I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.)  I am considering noting these claims in a manner similar to the following: "Based on public records, Alan Green and the Center for Public Integrity have claimed that  sold unwanted animals to , owner of , which participates in the exotic pet trade."  For example, page 5 covers one of many claims against the National Zoo.  Since nearly every page of the book I've read so far tracks case after case, and even documents listings in the AZA's Animal Exchange newsletter and how those animals are processed (source: pages 45–47), it goes on the claim that the AZA knowingly participates in these activity (out of necessity) and then covers it up (source: pages 48–49).  I'm not yet certain how to make mention of this material in a NPOV fashion, but I'm sure it can be done.
 * As for my previous conflict (citing sources that lean the other way in the debate between zoos and animal rights), the source was this. Again, it's a textbook used in Veterinary schools.  It differentiates "animal rights" from "animal welfare"—two diametrically opposed views that unfortunately get treated as synonyms in the popular press.  I'm not here to contest that past discussion.  I'm just noting that the sole reason why I was told I can't use the source was because the author "is an animal researcher/former dairy farmer".  I want to make sure the same doesn't happen here. PassTheSake (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I would still like to hear more opinions on this. Thanks. PassTheSake (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am still hoping to hear some input on this matter. For now, I will start making edits to pages and refer back to this post if edit wars erupt. PassTheSake (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ambedkar dot org
I had conversation with Sitush about this website and we had agreed that this website has heavy amount of fringe theories as well as pseudo history, contradicting the mainstream historical aspects.

I had removed the link of this website from some pages before, I couldn't see people opposing. Shall I continue? No doubt that just like before, I will replace the citation with other reliable citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It certainly doesn't look like a source we should be citing under most circumstances, so yes, if you can find better sources, replacing it would be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

icasualties.org
Is this a reliable source for casualty numbers on the War on terror article?
 * Looks like just a website. Not sure what or who it is citing. What exactly is the content which this is used to suppot? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like a blog site to me but can't tell. It only seems to aggregate news stories from other sources. Here is the content and the reference:


 * "The United States has carried out a campaign of Drone attacks on targets all over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. However, the Pakistani Taliban still operates there. To this day it's estimated that 15 US soldiers were killed while fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Pakistan since the War on Terror began. "


 * I can't actually find in the source which story is supposed to be summarized but my thought is...this is not the source, but the original news story...which ever one that might be. If you could help me figure that out we can check to see if the coverage in the article is accurate per the source and then simply use the news story, agency or media site as the actual source.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It has its own article which has details that suggests it is: icasualties.org, and it certainly was in 2010, see. is actually a copy of  a recent Washington Post article which uses it and that paper is an RS.  is Bloomberg Business Week. So yes. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that we had a general consensus of the community that if a website is not actually the ones with the editorial judgment or oversight of aggregated content that they were not actually RS and that we should be using the actual source. In this particular instance and in possible links in the future I wonder if just adding the page the article appears on would not be creating verifiability issues when that page changes so drastically. What do you think ?
 * I see it is as an aggregator; better to dig into its content and find the sources they use to produce their numbers, than using them as a source directly. Like how we shouldn't use Wikipedia directly as a source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Weekly Standard redux
The question of the RS status of the Weekly Standard was addressed in 2010. While short of unanimous, and subject to a bit of grumbling, it nevertheless concluded that the Weekly Standard is an RS, with the usual caveat that opinion statements in news magazines can only be cited as opinion. An admin recently edited through full protection to remove a statement cited to the Weekly Standard. (Two other non-RS's were also removed, whose removal is not disputed)  The admin is now using another discussion as support for the notion that the Weekly Standard is not a reliable  source. In this brief discussion, it looks to me like a specific statement was reviewed, and rejected for technical reasons, not simply because the source is not an RS. The last paragraph opens with "No it is not a reliable source." but that was not the rationale used for rejecting the use of the specific cite. It looks to me like a throwaway comment, that no one bothered to address.

If in fact, it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors that a news magazine, which happens to be partisan, is not an RS, this would be a major sea change in the way we accept or reject sources as Reliable. If the Weekly Standard does not qualify, there are dozens of sources, both liberal and conservative, that must be re-examined. I think this is a simple issue, that one editor made a throwaway point in the context of making a specific determination about a quote, and should not be construed as representing the Wikipedia consensus on the issue. However, as it is being used by an admin to support a contentious edit, I would like to see some clarification.

Please note that there is a side issue: the source was initially characterized as an opinion. This is disputed and under discussion, however, the implication of the editor is that it doesn't matter whether the specific piece was an opinion piece, the whole journal "does not have a serious journalistic operation or a reputation for independent journalism" so it isn't important whether it is an opinion piece. While anyone is welcome to offer, uh, opinions, on whether the specific cite is an opinion piece, my main goal is to determine whether the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that the Weekly Standard no longer qualifies as an RS.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: given that Sphilbrick mentioned the recent rightful edit in the Neil deGrasse Tyson article which originated all this, I believe it is important to note that the article in TWS used as a source there failed verification. This makes its removal 100% accurate and necessary, specially in a WP:BLP, whether TWS is deemed a RS or not. Regards. Gaba  (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you explain what you mean by "failed verification"? I'm obviously familiar with WP:V but that doesn't seem to be the issue. In the ordinary English sense, failing verification means one cannot find an RS supporting the statement, but that would be circular, if that's what you mean. Can you please explain?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean precisely this Template:Failed_verification. The sourced statement is not present in the source being used as a reference. Gaba  (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * TWS has editorial review of fact-based articles, and also runs opinion columns. It is widely cited by other reliable sources.  Where a claim is made which has reasonably been subjected to fact-checking, the claims are thus from a reliable secondary source - we do not rule out sources based on political ideology, vide HuffPo, Salon etc.   Where an opinion is cited to an opinion column in TWS, that claim, properly cited, is also allowed by policy.  Thus TWS qualifies as RS unless and until Wikipedia decides that any publication with "wrong opinions" is estopped, and only publications with "correct opinions" are allowed.  So far, that does not appear to be part of any policy, however. Collect (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC) (FWIW, the editor who had most berated the WS in that discussion is banned as a puppet master AFAICT) Collect (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That Collect and a couple of other editors decided in 2010 that The Weekly Standard is rs for facts does not cast it in stone. I would be interested if Collect could provide evidence that the magazine has editorial review of fact-based articles.  I do not even see any fact-based articles in the magazaine.  It is a magazine of commentary which uses facts to support opinions as opposed to say the New York Times which reports news.
 * The article in question was written by "THE SCRAPBOOK" Typical of his/her./their writing is the opening of "Kennedy Update":  "In the event of nuclear war, only three things are expected to survive—cockroaches, Twinkies, and the political ambitions of the Kennedy family."  Obviously that is meant as humor, but the article has the appearance of an editorial, not a news article.  It is commenting on the fact that Kennedy is a candidate, not reporting it.  And it uses the fact he is in the news to dredge up the fact he was a defendant in a well-publicized trial, intimating that he was wrongfully acquitted.  So even if The Weekly Standard is rs for fact-based articles, this blog probably does not meet it.
 * A further consideration is weight. If only what is termed the "echo chamber" reports certain facts, and mainstream sources ignore them, then there is no reason to include them in articles.  We are supposed to provide the same weight as mainstream sources.
 * TFD (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are editors that would like it if all non-left reliable sources were deemed as non-reliable, and thus non-usable, on Wikipedia.
 * The Weekly Standard list several individuals as editors, including William Kristol and Fred Barnes, just to name two. Yes, it is a biased source, but so is Salon, Huffington Post, and Brietbart. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Weekly Standard is not a questionable source, but at the very least reliable to verify what is written in it, and the opinions of the writer(s) whose content they publish.
 * And as an aside, there is this, published today.
 * So looks like this discussion is moot.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weight is always an issue when determining whether to use something from an RS. But this is the RSN; I'm not asking for a content decision on whether this particular quote deserves to be in the article, I am asking whether there has been a change to the position that TWS qualifies as an RS (subject to the additional alphabet soup that might preclude any particular cite.) I read the 2010 discussion as concluding that it is an RS. Your single sentence is being relied upon to conclude it is not. There is zero question that TWS is a partisan source, but that's true of just about all news sources when it comes to politics. The NYT is partisan, but I support its inclusion in the list of RS. If we exclude all partisan sources, we won't have any articles on political subject (which might be such a bad idea :)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Weekly Standard is a nationwide current affairs magazine similar to Time: they publish news analysis and opinion, not investigative journalism. Just because Time employs left-wing writer Michael Grunwald doesn't mean its opinions are non-notable. Similar to Time, Weekly Standard should be considered noteworthy and reliable to some extent. Shii (tock) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

contains the statements:
 * But here’s the real problem—nothing about this anecdote is true. George W. Bush did make a remark that bears a resemblance to this, but it was two years later, in his speech following the Columbia space shuttle disaster, a context that had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Islam. “The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today,” Bush said. What’s more, there are two biblical references to naming the stars—in Psalms and Isaiah, but not in Genesis. But why let truth and literacy get in the way of bashing George W. Bush and his crazy sky-God? 

The issue is whether the claim as written in the source may be paraphrased as "No evidence exists that Bush said that" with the reference to "that" being  "then-President George W. Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars," in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)" "   If the material is not a fair phrasing of the WS words, then it "fails verification." If the wording is a fair paraphrase of the WS article, then it certainly passes verification. This is a content issue, and one where the proper course would be an RfC and not a condemnation that it "fails verification" as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I hope we can return to the question at hand, there are plenty of other venues to debate the specific edit, which is not the subject of this notice board.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My take is that this particular instance is governed by the following policy in WP:RS:


 * Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.


 * Clearly the Weekly Standard piece in question is an opinion piece, not straight news, so we shouldn't use it as a basis for statements of fact, especially in a biography of a living person. So, the editor who removed the material was acting within policy. Whether non-opinion pieces published in the Weekly Standard are acceptable as RS is a question for another day. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct; except that I'm not sure the Weekly Standard publishes any "non-opinion" pieces. It is a commentary magazine, not a news magazine, and it has no journalistic operations or reputation. While the magazine may use various labels for its content ("Scrapbook", "Editorial", "Feature", etc), these are all commentary/opinion in the general sense, and not straight news. They need to be treated as such, subject to WP:BIASED and WP:RSOPINION; that is, pieces from the Weekly Standard may be suitable to describe the opinions of the authors with proper in-text attribution, but are not suitable for bald statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. This is the way we treat opinion pieces from higher-quality sources like the New York Times or Washington Post, so surely it's appropriate here in the case of a partisan opinion journal. MastCell Talk 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree that statements of opinion, in the Weekly Standard or any other source should never be stated as fact other then for the opinions of the authors. But for those things that are not opinion that are in the Weekly Standard (such as person X said Y), there is no reason to not include the Weekly Standard as reliable as any other source. --Obsidi (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The WS is a perfectly respectable mainstream political journal in no discernable way different than The Nation, NRO, New Republic, etc., etc. and there is no reason it suffer any higher or lower level of scrutiny than any of those. That said, the statement that "No evidence exists that Bush said that" should have been attributed, as common sense tells you it was not a scientific fact, but merely a statement about a search process conducted by the WS or the proxies it relied upon, and the reader should p;referably therefor have been explicitly informed in text as well as citation who was responsible for the conclusion being stated. Nonetheless, the claim by MastCell that this statement, fully-cited to the WS editorial, was an "unequivocal WP:BLP violation" (evidently, a "defamation of living persons" per WP:PREFER) is nonsense, as it was in no way the equivalent of a "serious and potentially defamatory factual claim... that tyson fabricated quotes". And, IMHO, MastCell abused his admin bit in editing the way he did, through full protection, to remove all traces of this particular embarrassment for Tyson. Andyvphil (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, something like "No evidence exists that Bush said that" is clearly saying the WS was unable to find any source (not that one cant exist). It should have been sourced to "The WS says...".  I wouldn't say its a "unequivocal WP:BLP violation" and "defamation of living persons", but it fell under WP:RSOPINION and should have been cited as such. --Obsidi (talk ) 04:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is ResearchGate reliable?
I found http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51966824_Cheaters_in_the_Steam_Community_Gaming_Social_Network which contains a large amount of research on cheats and Valve Anti-Cheat. The author is Jeremy Blackburn.--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that the article coming from pre-print Arxiv. So its not peer reviewed .So in my opinion is on the level as WP:SPS.--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Repositories are never considered a source at all really. It's the article itself that would need to be judged for reliability. If it's not published in a journal yet (or at least not accepted) then it's not going to be reliable since it's a self publication at that point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The authors on the other hand do seem to be experts who've published in the field, so this self-publication could be reliable depending on the content being sourced from it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say ResearchGate is never a reliable source, agreeing with Kingofaces43. I'd go for journal articles, if the authors are experts who have published, this may be a pre-publication document, but in any case, why hasn't it been published? So I'd say no, but it may be published at some point. Or, if you find that reliably published sources are using it as a source, that may speak to it being RS. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to have been published under the alternate title, "Branded with a scarlet 'C': cheaters in a gaming social network" in the 2012 International World Wide Web Conference proceedings, which should be usable as a source on wikipedia. Note that ACM conference submissions are peer reviewed and highly regarded. Do look out for any changes between the pre-print and the final version though, and make sure to use and cite the latter. Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing COI question
At Gamergate controversy, there is an issue with a video game journalist who has become part of the issue: this is Leigh Alexander who writes for several works including Gamasutra (where she is an editor-at-large), Time, etc. She wrote a piece for Gamasutra that was very critical of the other group; that group initiated a call to action to email Intel ( a major advertiser on Gamasutra) and were able to convince the company to remove their ads from Gamasutra; it has been identified that this specific article was the one that led to this incident.

Now while she has not written anything since that we can use on Gamergate, I would be believe that anything Alexander might write in the future about the Gamergate aspect should be considered touched by possible COI issues due to her and her site's involvement in the issue, and as such should be treated as a dependent source - that is, if there are independent sources saying the same thing that she writes, it would be better to use those sources over hers, but not outright eliminating her as a source, just the normal caution with any dependent source. This would include even if she was republished in Time in the future.

Would this be a proper interpretation of sourcing policy? I've always read it that independent sources should be used over dependent sources but that's actually not strongly codified in policy through implied by it. --M ASEM (t) 01:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

African Journal of Disability
Is the African Journal of Disability - http://www.ajod.org - a reputable peer reviewed academic journal? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks just like a normal academic journal, i.e. reputable. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So basically it's neither particularly good nor complete junk? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely not complete junk. A run of the mill journal, therefore reliable for the majority of purposes. Not a specifically medical journal, so unlikely to publish articles meeting WP:MEDRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the opinion. Yes indeed it's not a medical journal - its field is mainly sociology. There are unfortunately still many people who do not understand "Disability ≠ Medicine". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Arapawa Pig
I'd appreciate comment on whether source 1 and source 2 are reliable by our standards for a statement that the Arapawa Pig is: If anyone would care to comment on the capitalisation of "pig" in the sources that might also be helpful. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * a breed or, alternatively,
 * a landrace.
 * This isn't actually the nature of the dispute; see Talk:Arapawa pig's last two thread. The short version is two editor who detest the biology term landrace for some reason resist its inclusion pretty much everwhere it's being used.  I could almost set a clock by how regularly any landrace-related edit I make will be reverted be one or the other, more often the pair acting as a WP:TAGTEAM.  Jlan in particular here is making specific claims of fact as being sourced to something cited at the article, but that material and the additional material I've added from the same source proves both of his claims false.  It tells us:
 * The name of the population is "Arapawa pig" with a lower-case "pig" (expect in title-case headings)
 * The application of the word "breed" to this feral landrace population is an NBCSNZ internals shorthand jargon they're deciding to use for their own convenience; elsewehre they clearly distinguish between landraces and formal breeds.
 * NBCSNZ explicitly researched and rejected claims that the Arapawa popular are a breed in a formal sense or even related to any, and have even issued warnings tha breeders claims to the contrary may be legally actionable as fraud.
 * NBCSNZ has supported since 1998 some efforts by a grand total of 6 breeds to establish a standardized breed derived from the feral population; a draft breed standard was written 2007, and clearly stated various ways in which the breed-under-construction was expected to differ from the landrace population and be more like standard pigs; i.e. they're not even trying to standardize the traits of the feral group, but breed-true only some of them and breed out the rest, which will result it something that is not the topic of the current article. Reglardless, all progress resports on this breeding project went dark in 2008, and per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot presume that they have been successful (many if not most attempts to establish new breeds are failures, or we'd have tens of thousands of unique breeds instead of hundreds).
 * The editwarring by Jlan and Montanabw has been sloppy and careless, reflexive mass-reverting of all changes, even typo fixes. They've both been warned against this "don't you dare touch our articles" behavior in the past, but continue as if it's their right to do so.  More substantively, they been reverting not only any mention of landrace and any attempt to moderate the "breed" claims (I tried using "landrace breed", a term which correctly identified them as a landrace rather than standardized population and lets them get to keep the word "breed" - a win/win for those who insist that "breed" has some kind special imprimatur to it, as Montanabw definitely does and Jlan seems to.  But, they reverted that, too.  I think I'm being reverted, and so carelessly, simply because it's me, and they refuse to get over their personal dislike of me after several similar disputes. Basically, any time I touch any animal-breed-related article, there's a very high probability that Jlan, Montanabw or their triumvirate partner PigeonIP will show up to revert me, no matter what it is I'm doing.  It's a concerted WP:FACTION attempting to drive off all editing in this article space that isn't part of their wikiproject inner circle. The thing is, my leaping reliable sources style wiki-fu beats their crouching WP:IDLI style.  Osu!  All the sources already found for Landrace clearly indicate the Arapawa population qualifies as one.  If for some reason we're going to play a game where we're going to deny application of the term to the Arapawa population even though it perfectly fit the definitions of landrace, until some source says "The Arapawa pigs are a landrace", that's actually a form of OR in and of itself, a negative-systhesis refusal to accept demonstrable, sourced facts by use of WP:WIKILAWYERING over technicalities, that will have the result of filibustering the use of technical terminology even when common sense and reliably sourced facts indicate that the term  be applicable.  I'm unaware of anywhere else we'd do that.  I borders on the inconceivable that, for example, some variety of horse, call it the Fnordonian, of very small stature, would not get categorized on WP as a pony, even when we know it fits the requirements of that definition, just because the couple of sources cited, all from one publisher, didn't actually happen to use it.  WP's own categorization system cannot be held hostage by one single publisher, and two editors relying on one single publisher.  That publisher is reliable for some thing (e.g. the genetic testing and population head counts they've done to date), but what the definitions of biolgical terms are is not among of them. In the interim, I'm okay with "breed" or "landrace" in the article being replaced with "population", which is accurate and neutral.  One source using breed in an overbroad way they said is for their own internal categorization needs, isn't sufficient to apply a label in WP that will mislead readers into thinking it's a standardized breed, much less to keep reverting Category:Landraces on this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
On The Hum entry, there's currently an issue over whether the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a reliable source or not. An editor who has had an article published in that journal believes that it is; I don't. I'd included reference to his article, but drew attention to the fact (as I see it) that the JSE is not your run-of-the-mill scientific journal (i.e. it has been accused by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry of promoting fringe theories and ignoring contrary evidence).

He's removed any reference to the suspect nature of the peer review/scientific method of the JSE, which was being provided via a CSI quote taken from the WP JSE entry (further, he's now promoting the JSE as "peer-reviewed literature"). The justification given was, "The link to CSICOP is not objective, because CSICOP has encouraged UFO research themselves for centuries. They are competitors to the SCC the organ of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a peer reviewed journal, which encourages to publish scientific literature, including unexplained phenomena, as long as they are in an objective way. The used wording is an unjustified partial defamatory statement contra the Journal of the Scientific Exploration and has to be removed."

That's twaddle, IMO (not least because CSI hasn't been around for centuries). I've pointed him to a previous WP:RSN discussion on the JSE, but he hasn't wanted to discuss. Before I enter a situation that may well trigger an edit war, I thought I'd better check for opinions.

(a) Do you believe the JSE is a reliable source in terms of being a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Obviously, it's a reliable source in terms of reporting what's been published there, but I'm talking about the weight that we should assign to research. For example, someone reading the current phrasing of "peer reviewed literature" would likely assign the same weight to information from that source as they would to one from the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

(b) Is there any problem with the reliability of the CSI regarding its opinion of the JSE?

The article is not available online. The author has generously emailed it to me. Bearing in mind IANAscientist, my initial read of it is that the conclusions it draws are far too bold given the limited (and sometimes questionable) data that it uses. For example, its conclusion begins with the statement, "Previous research establishes that hum is not an external sound and has no electromagnetic causes." This is plainly untrue; it is the opinion of the author and ignores documented cases where external sounds have been confirmed as causing the problem (as well as the opinion of genuine experts in the field, such as head of audiology at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge). Any scientific peer review should have picked up on that.

I've not included a diff; I've refrained from reverting to avoid an edit war, so what's there now is different to what was there and both are different to what will be there. The final version would likely include mention of Frosch and Deming (the two articles published in the JSE), but separate them out from those published in scientific journals and include mention of the JSE's suspect nature. Bromley86 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The raison d'être of JSE is to publish pseudoscience. Never reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked at the magazine's website. There are old articles available on-line, they are mostly written by academics and do not contain unusual claims.  In one article, "A scientific Inquiry into the Validity of Astrology", for example, psychologists at Indiana University asked six astrologists to determine the astrological signs of 23 individuals based on biographical information, pictures and the results of psychological testing.  The authors found that the astrologists did no better than chance and they did not even agree among themselves.  While one may question why they would conduct this study, I have little doubt that they actually did and reported their findings accurately.
 * Since, in the article, Frosch's paper is used as a primary source for his opinion, the issue of reliability does not arise. There is little doubt the article was published as written.  However, my reservation is that Frosch's paper is a primary source.  Before quoting his opinion we need to establish its weight by consulting reliable secondary sources about "The Hum" that explain the general acceptance of various theories.
 * There is an attempt to work around the lack of these sources by listing various theorists and saying that Frosch's paper appeared in a fringe publication. The implication is that his theory is fringe, which is original research.  You would not add the qualification if the source were used for mainstream claims.  (For example, "a study published in a magazine noted for inaccurate information claimed that astrologists could not determine people's star signs.")
 * Incidentally, I have never heard of "The Hum" before. Are you saying there is a hum that can detected by science and can be heard by 2% of the population?
 * TFD (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently 2% heard the Bristol Hum and the Taos Hum, although those fail your test (as they were never detected by science). I know I hear something that sounds like a diesel engine idling outside and a Professor over in Auckland has recorded one.  My hum and that hum may (or may not) have different sources, i.e. mine might be internal, similar to tinnitus.
 * That highlights the main problem I have with the Frosch piece. He's touting it as peer reviewed, but it takes massive liberties with other research to draw an unsafe conclusion (specifically, it takes evidence that the Taos Hum was probably not acoustic and concludes that therefore all hums are not acoustic, thus ignoring documented cases where it was).  The measurements he reports are on a sample of one (himself).  It also makes extensive use of a questionnaire issued by a self-help group.  I'm assuming here that the actual measurements and maths is fine; I'm not qualified to comment on those.  Peer review would have picked up on all this.
 * If we didn't have that list of published works, there wouldn't be a problem as I'm happy to use Frosch to support his statements. As we do, I don't believe it's right to list it as peer reviewed or scientific literature.  Perhaps remove it from the scientific literature list, but he's not going to like that.
 * Also, are you saying we can't even use it until it's in a secondary source, as I don't think there really are any (and certainly none from 2013/4). Bromley86 ([[User talk:Bromley86|talk]:]) 20:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with Judith. The JSE may publish some good papers, but papers are not reliable because they are published by the JSE. The very purpose of the Journal is to highlight fringe science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable, although there are some articles with a solid mainstream point of view that can be used in accordance with WP:PARITY. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary use of a foreign language source in an article lead
Hi,

I am involved in a dispute related to the "Renewable resource" article. I was accused of "edit war" for removing a reference in German language from the article lead. The article has no relation with Germany or any German subject. The reference which I have removed was completely in German. Many references are available in English. As only a minority on the English Wikipedia are able to read German, I thought that it was inappropriate to keep this reference in German and in the lead of the article which counts 3 to 4 references. It may let the reader believe that this particular subject is somewhat linked with Germany, when it is not. The editor who inserted the lead claims that Germany is particularly advanced in researches about "Renewable resources" and that this reference is necessary to reflect the German advance in this field. My position, is that he should create a sub-section about the German point of view rather than inserting a German language reference in the lead.

Is it good practice to insert a reference in a foreign language within the lead of an article (in this particular example the first reference of the article), while the subject is not related to a foreign country or a foreign subject, and when many references are available in English? If there was no regulations on Wikipedia against this practice, I guess that the English version would be full of foreign references which would be very difficult to understand and assess. Thank you in advance for your assistance.--Christophe Krief (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, see WP:NOENG. English sources are preferred, but non-English sources are OK if there are no English ones of equal quality. If there are equally good English sources, you can simply replace the citation with one of those. If you can't find a suitable English one, then this may be a case where using a German source is the best option. German isn't a rare language. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Representing Germany" is not a concern. Sourcing the statement is. If there is an English source that makes the same claim, switch to it. If there is not an English source making that claim (and the claim itself passes editorial judgement to be included in the lede) then use the German source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this was useful...--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also notice that it's quite probably easier to learn German to a useful degree than to learn science or math to the degree needed to understand some of the sources cited in Quantum field theory or General relativity or even Manifold. Only a minority of readers is able to understand those sources, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Stephan Schulz The problem is not about the German language itself. if an article is explained in one language, so it makes it easier for the reader to comprehend. If we start, without any reason, to mix Chinese, Russian, Japanese and other languages in wiki-articles, so we will need to become expert in linguistic to read anything on Wikipedia. Or we will need to refer to Google translating services 24/7.--93.107.45.199 (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Narrative driven comic-book as neutral voice of history?
Source: Sacco, Joe (2009). Footnotes in Gaza Metropolitan Books. Article: Rafah Massacre: References Content: Pretty much the entire article, written in neutral voice of history as "fact" (e.g. A handful of Palestinians were fired upon without warning).

Points against usage

 * Narrative driven: "he says he wants to get accross the Palestinian point of view"
 * Comic-book: filled with distortion, bias and hyperbole. "Sacco uses "all sorts of subtle ways" to manipulate the reader."
 * Disputed content 1: "It's a big exaggeration," said Meir Pail, a leading Israeli military historian and leftist politician.
 * Disputed content 2: "Jose Alaniz, from the University of Washington's Department of Comparative Literature, said Sacco uses "all sorts of subtle ways" to manipulate the reader."
 * Dubious methodology: "Sacco himself admits he takes sides. "I don't believe in objectivity as it's practiced in American journalism. I'm not anti-Israeli ... It's just I very much believe in getting across the Palestinian point of view," he said."
 * Dubious fact-checking: "people are confused about which event, what year they are talking about," he (Sacco) said. "Palestinians never seem to have had the luxury of digesting one tragedy before the next is upon them."
 * Dubious sources 1: book is based on conversations with locals, under control of Anti-Semitic, Islamist militant group Hamas.
 * Dubious sources 2: Palestinian locals had reliability issues (per "Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities") even without collecting stories 50 years after the fact.

Points in favor

 * Sacco has been lauded by Edward Said, the renowned literary scholar and Palestinian rights spokesman.
 * 2010 Comic-con award for non-fiction (based on testimonies/conversations with locals)
 * 2010 The Ridenhour Prizes, Determined to uncover the truth behind this forgotten killing, and one that took place in the neighboring town of Rafah a few days later, he returned twice more to Gaza to record the stories of Palestinian eyewitnesses to the tragedies.

Discussion and preference

 * Remove content - I don't mind an off hand mention in the 'popular culture' section. To go beyond that gives this source credibility which it should not posses. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say it can be used for an attributed statement about what the Palestinian viewpoint of events is (and more specifically for a statement as to the author's opinion), but it should not be used to cite unattributed statements of fact. It needs to be used with hedging phrases like: "according to comic artist Joe Sacco..." Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been forum shopping all over the place. This is not a "comic book". The author is a journalist who has used the graphic format. The publisher is an imprint of Henry Holt and Company. It is based on an UN special report into two massacres in 1956, Rafah massacre and Khan Yunis massacre. Here is the Haaretz review of and Guardian review the book. Please also read the discussion here (ignore the first half). Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "I'd rather emphasise their feelings."; "We asked around, people confirmed the story"; "as Edward Said has put it, they exchange their tales of suffering the way fishermen compare the size of their catch"; "lies and embellishments."
 * Waltz with Bashir got a golden globe but it shouldn't pass as reliable for anything other than the opinions of the movie maker. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not academic imprint so if it will be used it should only be used with attribution. But the question if it should be used at all this n for WP:NPOVN board as this single source is probably WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for history. If it's based on a UN special report, use that. Could be added to Further reading. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove content - Of course this should not be used for statements of fact. The full title is Footnotes in Gaza: A Graphic Novel. (bold added by me for emphasis) This seems pretty clear cut. We don't use historical novels for statement of historical fact. No matter how accurate they are regarding history, they are still novels. Onefireuser (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a helpful objection. Graphic novels aren't the same thing as novels. From our article: the term "graphic novel" is applied broadly, and includes fiction, non-fiction, and anthologized work. __ E L A Q U E A T E  18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I did not realize that the term could be applied to non-fiction. However, my concern with the book as a source for statement of fact in an encyclopedia still stands. I am basing this partly on the New York Times review, partly on the Amazon page, and partly on the publisher's own page (I purposefully avoided reading the Haaretz review because it seemed likely to be biased). They all seem to suggest that the book serves primarily as a way to translate the tragedy into an "intimate and immediate experience" (from the publisher's page). So it seems that this could be used as a reference as long as great care is taken in how it is used to support statements of historical fact. Why cannot a more traditional source of historical information be used? Onefireuser (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a very strange standard. You purposely avoided reading the Haaretz review because it is likely to be biased? Perhaps it is time to read E.H. Carr What is History?. There are no unbiased sources anywhere. Anyway, it seems there has been another source added for some portions of the Khan Yunis massacre. If you read the Haaretz review, you will see why the author chose this format. This work was initially part of a journalistic work. Benny Morris, a mainstream historian, confirms these massacres but does not discuss them in detail. There are no "thick" sources which talk about Palestinian testimonies and so on. The UN report is there but it is rarely quoted. I am happy to use in-text attribution for Sacco's work, in line with this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I figured it would be, if anything, biased against the book; that's certainly what the quotes from the OP seemed to suggest. I wanted to get a quick sense from the sources that were more likely to be neutral or biased in favor of the book, that's why I looked at the NYT review and the publisher's own page. If everyone is saying that the book is unbiased and as historically accurate as a traditional work of historical non-fiction, I wouldn't argue with that. Perhaps I should not have weighed in on this topic since I don't know much about the book. Signing off. Onefireuser (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not an RfC: this format is useless. I hope has not gone by the totally misleading description given here and read the Haaretz review and the Guardian review as well as the scattered forum shopping. The author is a journalist who has chosen the graphic format. This is not a comic book. From the Haaretz review:
 * "Official and other sources are quoted in full in a graphic novel published in New York late last year by Henry Holt and Company. 'Footnotes in Gaza,' by cartoonist-journalist Joe Sacco, is a hefty, album-sized tome whose hard-cover version is 418 pages long - 388 of which are covered with meticulous and highly detailed black-and-white illustrations depicting Sacco's journeys to Khan Yunis and Rafah (and Jerusalem) to investigate this unknown 'small percentage' of atrocities, and his interpretation in graphic-novel form of the testimonies he collected from dozens of people." Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Also the OP has not bothered to notify on the talk page of either Talk:Rafah_massacre or Talk:Khan_Yunis_massacre, another example of forum shopping, not to mention rude. I will make allowances for the newness of the editor and do it myself. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you please be willing to strike through the part of your comment which violates WP:POLEMIC? Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation to notify anyone.--Shrike (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To Shrike: It is called courtesy. It takes 2 minutes, and makes things go much smoother. See last sentence here Consensus. To MarciulionisHOF, I have no idea what you mean. That page you linked to is talking about user pages. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So, the proposal is to remove the one work of non-fiction that set this subject on the map, from the article on that subject? Seems bizarre. Taking this point-by-point. That a work of non-fiction is narrative-driven is not a problem, as long as the facts on which the narration are based remain unchanged. That it is a comic is totally irrelevant. Words, photographs, ... can be as neutral or as distorted as a comic book. Disputed content? Then present the content, and the dispute, side by side. You don't get to remove one source because another source disputes it (or parts of it), we don't decide which of them is right, we show both (unless there is overwhelming consensus that one source is basically rubbish or fringe, which is not the case here). Dubious fact-checking? Indicating that some of your sources are sometimes confused is not "dubious factchecking", it is being open about the troubles of getting facts about long-past events which were poorly documented at the time. I don't immediately see the relevance of your "dubious sources 2" item, Palestinian survivors exaggerated at first the number of deaths in one massacre so they (Palestinians, not the same people though as these survivors) are unreliable as a source on any alleged massacre? That's dubious logic. Your "dubious sources" 1 is even worse, unless you have evidence that the sources Sacco used were actually all Hamas militants (or that all Palestinians are pro-Hamas) and not e.g. Fatah suppporters or neutral people. Some of your statements aove are bordering on racism, with your logic apparently going "he uses Palestinians as sources, Palestinians are all anti-semitic Hamas followers, exclude the book from the article".

If you wanted to discuss the quality of the article or of this source, you should have presented a neutral statement, not some heavily biased one which is much more obviously dubious in its sources and POV than the actual source you are trying to get removed. So keep the Sacco source but present the well-sourced criticisms of it (and of the article subject) as well. Fram (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * not everything said about Palestinians is intended to make them all look antisemitic. It should be possible to e.g. mention the Egyptian "Mossad Shark" tale without having to deal with allegations of racism against Egyptians. There's a war going on and tales of evilness, sometimes contrived tales as well, have been embraced by both sides of the conflict. To summarize: You are misinterpreting my logic -- there's much more to the Arab-Israeli conflict than mere racism. Please make comments on the content. per WP:ARBPIA. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC) fix link MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you make statements like "Dubious sources: book is based on conversations with locals, under control of Anti-Semitic[12], Islamist militant group Hamas.", then I am free to remark that the content of that sentence (and what it is used for in this discussion) is borderline racist. Dismissing sources because they live in a country / region / whatever that is (was) partly under control of Hamas, without any evidence that these actual persons had anything to do with Hamas or anti-semitism, is wrong. My post above was purely about the content of your initial post and the arguments you used in it, and doesn't violate ARBPIA in the least. If you don't want to have some of your statements described as borderline racist, then don't make such statements, but don't try to stifle criticism by pointing to an arbcom case or by claiming that my comment was somehow not about the content of your post. As for the rest of your reply here, I fail to the see what it has to do with my post. "not everything said about Palestinians is intended to make them all look antisemitic." is hardly reassuring though. Fram (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, please avoid taking quotes out of context to make them look like the opposite of what they actually say.


 * Your statement: ""as Edward Said has put it, they exchange their tales of suffering the way fishermen compare the size of their catch"; "lies and embellishments."


 * The source: "Sacco's ear for the way Palestinian men talk is as sharp as ever (as Edward Said has put it, they exchange their tales of suffering the way fishermen compare the size of their catch). Ditto his nose for lies and embellishments."


 * Every work of non-fiction must try to distill truth from the tales told by the sources. Witnesses are unreliable, second-hand witnesses even more so. The source you use to provide us with the "lies and embellishments" quote makes it clear that Sacco is actually very good at spotting these problems, not that his book is filled with lies and embellishments. Fram (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "your logic apparently going..." is the part in question. It is possible to mention when people are under rule of ISIS (or Hamas) when their testimonies are gathered without someone reading into how my logic supposedly goes to suggest all those people belong to ISIS (or Hamas) or agree with ISIS (or Hamas) beliefs. I have learned this behavior is not entirely uncommon, but it shows nearsightedness about the real-life conflict and bad faith. You can say my presentation is bad for X Y Z. Going into assumptions on my logic is bad form. Thus I asked the comments be made strictly on the content. per WP:ARBPIA. I don't think sticking to why content/presentation of it is good or bad,is 'stifling an opinion'. As for my presentation, I did my best to keep it neutral. Apologies if you feel another version would have been better. We can always discuss it in good faith. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your exposition of the troubles with the source is based on some logic, I hope. I tried to see what the logic was behind your out-of-the-blue mention of Antisemitism, and the reason that the sources (Palestinians) are dubious because Hamas is antisemitic. Your logic, your reasoning, not your motivation or personal opinion. All my remarks were about the content of your post, none about you. But, never mind what your logic was, if any, but the argument that all Palestinian witnesses are unreliable (or dubious) because Hamas is Antisemitic is borderline racist and certainly not neutral. Which (together with the other reasons I presented) is why I rejected your proposal. Fram (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The way the article is currently written, it is repeating the claims made in the Sacco source as if it were uncontroversial. The source is controversial. Therefore we shouldn't do that. Since it's important, we can devote a section to the Sacco source, but that section should not be "Events", as that means we endorse it. That section should make it clear that these are the statements of the Sacco source only, and that section should not take up over half the article. --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To your first point, I will add an in-text attribution for Sacco in some places. To your second point, the statements supported by the Sacco reference do not even take up half the article, while the references do. A new source (Filiu) has been added by for some parts of the article. The Sacco source is used primarily for 3-4 paragraphs of the "Rounding up of the men" section, with a few scattered references elsewhere. This kind of testimony is precisely the places where first-hand accounts are useful. The Sacco source is also used to note: "Rumors that he was tied to and pulled apart by two Jeeps exist, but are apocryphal." This is why WP:RSN states at the top of the page that the exact sentences which a source is used to support should be presented to judge reliability. Reliability is always judged in context. The OP has neglected to do this, which I attribute to his newness. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually went and looked at the few thoroughly reliable academic sources I'm familiar with to see how their versions stood compared to Sacco's. As one can see from several additions I then made, most of what Sacco said is uncontroversial and is endorsed by the account by an eminent French Arabist who wrote a history of the town. What Sacco did was, qua journalist, a piece of oral-historian anthropology, in the vein of Ted Swedenburg's Memories of Revolt: 1936-1939 Rebellion in the Palestinian National Past, University of Arkansas Prss 2003, which I have had occasion to use several times. There, his reports of what, fifty years onwards, peasants on the West Bank though of Haj Amin al-Husayni, were cited, with no opposition (is it by chance that some of those memories were hostile to al-Husayni?). Swedenburg the academic can write a history of the past using oral reports acceptable to wiki, Sacco, though trained as a journalist to sieve and sift information, is to be excluded, simply because he also wrote out his account with a graphic accompaniment? Swedenburg has a point in his preface which is important here:
 * "Palestinians, who have no yet won formal national independence, must produce their history and memory in a space that is more like a bomb shelter under continuous shelling than a railway station. p.3"
 * and
 * "Palstinian attempts at historical self-representation must be understood, thereore, in relation to their narrative absence in the West.p.5"
 * Swedenburg then documents that as occupying power, Israel has long banned thousands of works from circulating in the territories . not only on Palestinian history, but even Shakespeare's The Tempest, Ezer Weizman's The Battle for Peace, Solzhenitsyn, and Jack London. 'he censor's primary concern, according to Meron Benvenisti, is "to eradicate expression that could foster Palestinian nationalist feelings, or that suggest that Palestinians are a nation with a national heritage.' (p.11)
 * So, we have to be very careful here, and consider (a) Sacco is a trained journalist (b) his account is based on field work and prior research on the incidents mentioned (c) his accounts give personal testimonies which add more particular details, perhaps subjective as all eye-witness accounts are, to key events that are otherwise also mentioned, though without asking survivors of the events, by academic experts on Gaza or Palestine (d) despite the fact that in just over 4 months of the Israeli occupation from November 1956 to March 1957, roughly 1 in every 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was shot dead after the ceasefire (Henry Laurens) (which means in that small world virtually everyone was affected and it burnt itself into the collective memory), there was no Western historian or journalist around, as would have been the case had this occurred in our world, to go and conduct a detailed investigation. All you got was a generic field report by the UN of a few pages. Sacco interviewed old men, collated their accounts, and formed for the first time a narrative of Palestinian memories of those incidents. And . . .It can't be mentioned on wikipedia, one suspects, not because of any scruple over RS quality, but for the kinds of reasons outlined above. The less their suffering or memories of their suffering is mentioned the better.
 * In addition to the above, I believe the work stands on its own merits, and that, since nothing I we use from Sacco seems to stand at variance with what the few specialised studies we have of those neglected events say, it can be used, with attribution, of course. He obviously isn't making it all up, or 'fictionalizing'. Not to use it looks like an instrumental appeal to the finicky reading of WP:RS in order to maintain a WP:Systemic bias on a real set of historical events and maintain the silence that has, inaccountably, marked those episodes. We should not be imposing a criterion which says in effect that only an academic work by historians, like Benny Morris, should be used as definitive. Morris doesn't believe in oral history, which is of course very convenient, in this case, because Israel documents everything regarding what befalls its army and citizens which permits us to write marvellously complete narrative histories from their archives. Many of Palestinian archives, official and otherwise, have been destroyed or expropriated over the last decades, and no longer are accessible to Palestinians themselves. They have memories and Sacco is one reporter who recorded them.Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: would you allow the use of Congo: A History as a source for an article on Congo (or for any of the topics touched upon in the book)? If so (and I hope so!), then why would one allow this book but not the comics by Sacco? Only because of the visual difference between a book and a graphic novel? One can just as eaily lie, distort, ... in a book of course. Congo is also rather narrative, based on interviews with locals, some of them probably not very reliable, focusing largely on the point of view of one group (the native Congolese, not the Belgians), and so on. The main difference is probably that it is less journalistic, but being journalistic is hardly a reason to dismiss a source. (for anyone who doesn't know "Congo", it is very highly recommended reading! It has just been shortlisted for the Cundill Prize, "the richest non-fiction historical literature prize in the world". Fram (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not strictly related to WP:RSN, but I want to point out an ancillary advantage of this request. Due to this request, the article has been improved with two excellent edits by Nishidani. As John Stuart Mill says On Liberty, the devil's advocate has its purpose in society. Or as Nietzsche said, (paraphrase) what does not kill me makes me stronger. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * let's start with a good basic question: what do historians say about it?
 * thank you. If you recall, my initial 'merge' talk page section -- my first post in relation to the article -- asked if there weren't any other proper sources for these articles.
 * Best, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Footnotes in Gaza, the book we are discussing here, received the Ridenhour Book Prize in 2010, an award to those "who persevere in acts of truth-telling that protect the public interest, promote social justice or illuminate a more just vision of society". So it looks as if not just the comics world appreciated the book, but that serious journalistic awards also recognised it for its "truth-telling". I wonder why this wasn't adedd to the "points in favour" above, while a comic award and the praise of a "Palestinian rights spokesman" (nice way to dismiss the praise as partisan from the start) have been included. As said before, the initial presentation was severely skewed and biased, e.g. presenting statements by Meir Pa'il as coming from "a leading military historian" but omitting the telling "I was there." (as Pa'il was with the IDF at the time of the massacre) from his statement, making him not an unbiased reviewer but someone with a clear COI, but on the other hand omitting clear points in favour (present in the article on the book right next to the comics award, which is of course more "interesting" to include here as it strengtens the image of it being "only" a comic book, not something that anyone takes serious). Fram (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I will add the Ridenhour Prize to the points in favor. Would it offend if I say the testimonies are perhaps refracted by time and filtered through the minds of very fallible human beings? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would not offend, it would simply serve no purpose. Would you apply the same standards to testimonies from the other side, e.g. from Meir Pa'il? The question you posed was not "should we use the source with some care and balance it with other sources", what you wanted was to remove it completely as a source and only introduce it at most in a "in popular culture" section, completely denying the serious journalistic, non-fiction nature of the source as recognized by others. Like every work of historical non-fiction, it is fallible, based on whatever sources are available, and using human judgment in which sources to believe, which sources to give more weight, and so on. But that doesn't mean that it can simply be rejected and removed, unless there is clear evidence of the unreliability of the source (not of the sources used in the book, but of the source itself). Such evidence can be found by either explicit criticism or by a clear consensus of many other sources on the same subject reaching a clearly different conclusion; but the criticism or the consensus have to be reached by reliable, independent, non-partisan sources, not people involved in or sources with a stake in the conflict. If no such evidence is available (as seems to be the case here), then the source shouldn't be removed, but should be used with care, and in balance with other sources, and criticism of the source or of some aspects can be included as well. Fram (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (a) Meir Pa'il doesn't describe himself as a cartoonist on a mission. You should, seriously, rephrase as it appears you are insinuating this living person could be part of a massacre and coverup. You better have phenomenal sources for this, or that you just remove this. (b) "Non-fiction" says nothing about historical reliability. It just means it is based on conversations with real people. (c) On the points you've presented, Waltz with Bashir, a golden globe winning war documentary, is a source for history as well (it is not). This post, btw, was first and foremost to see if the community agree that it should not be used as a neutral voice of history. My own view about how much to use it with attribution, based on my reading of the material, is immaterial at this junction because I am willing to reconsider it based on the consensus reached. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A is a strawman (Sacco is a journalist who uses comics (not cartoons) instead of words, and my comment was about the testimonies of others, not of Sacco). As for my insinuation, I don't insinuate anything, I am saying that someone who self declares that he was there at the side of the group accused of the massacre, is not a neutral, independent source to criticize a journalist presenting a different story than his. That doesn't mean that Sacco is right, nor that Pa'il is right (I claim neither of these things), but that you shouldn't use Pa'il as if a neutral, independent historian has rejected Sacco's work. I have no problem with or opinion about Pa'il, please stop with that incorrect angle of attack. B; I haven't claimed whatever yhou are trying to disprove, but you wanyed to put the work in the "in popular culture" section, which normally isn't done with non-fiction works which pretend (rightly or wrongly) to be factual. C: ? I haven't said anything about Waltz with Bashir, so no idea what you are trying to prove or what you are responding to. Fram (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which news agency employed this "journalist"? (Journal of Accountants?). Sacco, not his admirers and superlative givers, describes himself as a comic artist on a mission (in the above sources).
 * Pa'il has uncovered Israeli killings of Arabs. He's a notable academic historian. Not a hack that you can dismiss off hand because you don't like ex-IDF members.
 * Graphic novels belong at comic-con for a reason. Waltz with Bashir is not used in the body of the relevant events for a reason as well (Disclaimer: I haven't checked, but I'd be fully surprised to learn this was not the case).
 * On point: Do you think a narrative based comic-book with conflicting stories from people who have memory and exaggeration issues (as Sacco himself records) should be widely used as historical accounts for as long as we don't have credible sources to counter each and every one of their "fish catching" stories?
 * Best, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for again demonstrating that it is nop use to have a serious, unbiased discussion with you. "Journal of accountants", seriously? If all you can do is mock things you don't like and make caricatures of arguments you can't dismiss otherwise, then feel free to have a monologue but don't expect people to reply. You clearly had your opinion from the very start, and nothing anyone says can change that or seems even to register with you. Your prejudices are plain for everyone to see ("Graphc novels belong at comic-con for a reason", I thought that kind of blanket nonsense was no longer common since 20-odd years, but apparently not everyone has caught up with the times), and I am done spending time with you. Fram (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please discuss content. Not perceived user bias.
 * Which news agency employed this "journalist"?
 * Should this source be widely used as historical accounts despite all the issues raised?
 * Regards, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooh, scare quotes, I love those! Should the comments by MarciulonisHOF be taken seriously despite all the issues raised? Can one only be a journalist (or a "journalist") when employed by a news agency? That's, well, news to me. And to our Journalist article apparently. And probably to most of the world. Fram (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Channel E! reports are also a form of journalism - no scare quotes needed. Comic-book research probably should be accompanied with scare quotes.
 * Should this source be widely used as historical accounts?
 * NOTE: please discuss content. Suggestions anyone who raises valid issues should not be taken seriously are incivil. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I take everyone who raises valid issues seriously. Anyone who, after all this discussion, still proclaims "Comic-book research probably should be accompanied with scare quotes.", doesn't fall into that group though. Fram (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE: please discuss content. Suggestions anyone who raises valid issues should not be taken seriously are incivil. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I take everyone who raises valid issues seriously. Anyone who, after all this discussion, still proclaims "Comic-book research probably should be accompanied with scare quotes.", doesn't fall into that group though. Fram (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Famous Birthdays for birth info in a BLP
Is this webpage reliable for the date and place of birth for Veronica Taylor in her article? Nightscream (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At first glance, no. It is just a random website. They give a list of "mentions" here, but it is just some people praising them on twitter. I don't see any information to suggest that they are considered authoritative by any news organization. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of a website that is not a WP:RS. Onefireuser (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was also a previous discussion about this site at WP:RSN which can be found here which reached the same conclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Isha Foundation and Vice
There's some edit-warring going on at Isha Foundation, re an uncomplimentary piece published in Vice in Jan 2013. It's a relatively non-accusatory piece alleging cult like behaviour and looking askance at their guru (Most cult exposes are alleging far worse). In the last week or two, this has been removed 5 times from the article by two editors, mostly with claims that Vice isn't WP:RS.

Interested parties are invited to comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Vice magazine is really full of original research, most of the facts that they have presented wouldn't be existing anywhere else. I recommend against it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean WP:OR?  Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and you cannot find any other source for a lot of the information that has been provided in the website of Vice. They have gained popularity after launching videos on YouTube, but we know that there are many other users who have got millions(of views). Their performance in Libya and Syria has been bad too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Vice magazine is really full of original research"? Quite possibly. We expect sources to base content on research - that is why we cite them. As for the contested material, I think it should be attributed as opinion (which it clearly is) and could do with copy-editing, but I can't see legitimate grounds for exclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Formally notified on article talk. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think that Vice is failing WP:OR, then you have rather failed to understand the scope of WP:OR.
 * As a separate issue, high hitrates on YouTube don't convey reliability (c.f. Cyriak et al), but nor do they remove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Vice article being used as a source cites only one source for the cult-specific accusations. That source is a personal blog, which has been replaced by the blog owner with a message stating that the organization is a genuine spiritual path. Considering these issues, and the fact that there are no other reliable sources for these accusations, it doesn't seem wise to include these in the article. Regstuff (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also thought that it can be considered as questionable source. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Reg - as you're the most active remover of this critical section in your editing at Isha Foundation, I would hardly expect you to say otherwise.
 * Are you now interpreting WP:V and WP:RS to mean that a source no longer meets WP:RS unless it also complies with WP:V and cites all of its transitive sources, as would be expected of a WP editor writing on WP?  That is not how WP:RS policy works, convenient as you would find that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One more in agreement with the Andys. Vice (magazine) is a reliable source, staffed by professional journalists, not anonymous Wikipedia editors. They are not themselves bound by our rules about original research and citing sources. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your assumption of considering it as being a reliable can be applied on any wordpress-blogspot as well, just because a writer is using real name. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, first, if it were a wordpress-blogspot written by a professional journalist that had been published on the subject, then it actually would be a reliable source on the subject, despite being self-published. That's per WP:SPS. But the point is that Vice is not a self-publication platform, but a respected magazine, with professional journalists and editors, and a twenty year publication history, that has often been cited in other reliable sources. So, no, that can't be applied to any wordpress-blogspot. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My statement is not directed at Vice in general. Just that when an article cites a source with material that is in broad disagreement with general consensus, it cannot be considered a reliable source when it makes its case based on a blog that in fact states the exact opposite of the source's main point. Regstuff (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

News One and The Third Estate
There are two sources that have been added to the lede of the article for Zeitgeist: The Movie that I feel are unreliable.


 * The Third Estate - It does not seem to have been added as a necessary source as every claim is backed by another source. From the byline the piece is an unnamed guest poster and the site's about page suggests this is simply a blog with no real professional oversight or editorial review. Seems the blog post is mostly accusing the movie of being anti-semitic, which I presume is the reason it was added to the lede as the editor who added it has tried to add such claims to the lede in the past.


 * News One - This two-paragraph piece is being used to back claims about the movie having themes common in the Patriot movement and claims that the movie accuses the Federal Reserve of orchestrating several wars. The first claim seems to be opinion, while the latter claim appears to be a dubious oversimplification. No other source makes this specific claim, nor is it made in the film. The piece makes other inaccurate claims, such as suggesting Alex Jones produced the film when it was Peter Joseph. Also, numerous grammatical errors are obvious in the piece. So many errors existing in such a brief piece suggests there was no editorial oversight.

I have little doubt that The Third Estate is generally unreliable. With News One I am more concerned about the reliability of the specific piece than the whole site.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The first ref "THIRD ESTATE" is clearly unreliable. (Anonymous writers, essentially a multi-author blog.) The second ref "NEWS ONE" is different. This is a division of a much larger mainstream news organization. It is prominent in the African American community. They have professional staff and editors. This specific piece is a straight news account, not an opinion piece. It seems to be properly used as a ref. Seems entirely RS for this use, assertions of grammatical error not withstanding. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not asking about the general reliability of News One, but of this specific piece. The author's LinkedIn profile describes his position at the outlet at the time as "lead blogger" and the apparent lack of oversight for a two-paragraph piece is problematic. Not sure why you are characterizing my statements about grammatical errors as "assertions" since they are plainly evident to anyone who has read the very short two-paragraph piece. Such errors speak to a lack of editorial oversight over the piece.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.uitp.org/
This membership association cannot be a main source for deciding what is and what isn't a metro system. Article List of Metro systems has been usning this membership association as main source, although f.i. China has no members, but the most metro-systems according to the list. Further IF they make general statements like "all S-Bahns" are not metro, they must be incompetente. There is a huge difference between S-Bahn in Hamburg, Berlin aswell as S-train in Copenhagen, as the tracks isn't shared with other trains in these three cities. While this indeed is the case in other S-Bahn systems (Rostock for instance). Associations like this are unreliable as sources as they might favour (in whatever sense possible) membership systems. Under no circumstances can it be regarded as a main reliable source to base an article on. Boeing720 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose this stance – the UITP is the preeminent international organization in this field. If you can't call these guys a "reliable source", it completely calls in to question what could possibly be considered a "reliable source" on this topic. What you want us to do here is ignore a reliable source because you don't like what it says. And, as was pointed out at the List of metro systems' Talk page, you are incorrect about the Hamburg S-Bahn – it shares track with other trains, and therefore is excluded on those grounds. Oh, and for informational purposes, the reference that is being challenged here is: this one. --IJBall (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree heartily with IJBall. If this isn't a reliable source, nothing is. oknazevad (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. No system in China is a member of this association. Yet no other nation is represented by more metro systems at List of Metro systems, don't You see this as a problem ?
 * 2. It's a membership association, not an international organization. Any bus company may join them.
 * 3. What do they base their exclution of all S-Bahn/S-train system on ? This association doesn't make studies. Inclusion and exclusion may be bias, depending on membership in this association or not. Who knows ? It's just a webbsite. Does any government or international organizations like UN or EU refer to UITP ? No - it's an association of a few transport companys. Nothing else. They have no formal tasks (given them from higher authorities of any kind) and their purpose isn't to rank urban train systems vs each other. Do they even define what is and what isn't "a metro" ?
 * 4. I.o.w. UITP isn't a scientific organization or remotely close to be a such, and is cetrainly inappropriate as some kind of main source above all other better sources for each system. (Just look at Berlin, without the S-Bahn system, line U-55 is unconnected to the entire metro net, as it starts and ends at two S-stations and lackes change to other U-lines)Boeing720 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a problem that not every nation with a metro system isn't in UITP, any more than the UN not containing every "nation" in the world should rule them out on international policy. (Note: Neither are the North American systems included in UITP, because they belong to the North American equivalent to UITP, APTA.) In fact, UITP operates exactly the same way as APTA does, and APTA is considered an authoritative source on North American systems here on Wikipedia. The point is that UITP is an organization with international focus, one of whose sole reasons for being is to study public transit, including metro systems. IOW, it would be ludicrous to rule them out as a RS. Your other complaints basically amount to a content dispute, and should be routed back to the List of metro systems' Talk page. --IJBall (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. This is a very insecure source on any topics. Where do I f.i. find studies on separate metro systems - and the ones they are supposed to have rejected ? Matters that regards relevant sources must be delt with here. Boeing720 (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a reliable source. Not necessarily the only one. If you can find another reliable source that says something else, we should also write what they say. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well put, GRuban. The source may possibly be used for inclusions but not for general exclusions. The three S-system in Berlin, Hamburg and Copenhagen has previously been proven to "be metro" in our list. For Berlin please have a look at
 * http://www.s-bahn-berlin.de/fahrplanundnetz/liniennetz.htm
 * and download "Touristenflyer" (available in English) or "Linennetz". The latter includes all metro lines in Berlin. S-Bahn lines aswell as U-Bahn lines. IF UITP indeed has proclaimed Berlin, Hamburg or Copenhagen S-Bahn/Trains as "non-metro" I would like to read it. It may though come down to a misunderstanding, since there are other S-labeled urban system which f.i. share tracks with other trains or uses one-level crossings with streets, for passengers or other trains. Or - like Paris-RER only makes very few stop in the city centre or Vienna S-Bahn (which fulfills most conciderations except city centre use). A metro system differs from commuter/suburban trains from not being used for transport within the city centre, and must be fully separated from other tracks and streets, have space for standing passengers when needed, short distances between stations (especially in the city centres), usually they are under ground in city centres but may also be elevated, and the net is located (mainly) within the urban area (not at the country side).Boeing720 (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot. Metro systems also uses schedules with fixed minute departures, and this is used for peak-hours aswell as during the middle of the day. S-system only differs from more modern systems by the partial use of old local railway lines, which may become notable at larger stations. But as long as no tracks are shared, the S-system still is fully separated from other traffic. Infact also London Underground began as similar "underground railroads", and is especially notable at Metropolitan Line (which by the way reaches several suburbs outside London Orbital/M25, like Watford and even suburbs of Watford), Circle Line and District Line, should we exclude them aswell ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, if you have a reliable source that refers to a system as a metro system, we should include it in our list. This is the first time I've seen List of Metro systems, and I'm shocked by the footnote about Boston, that only three of the four colors of T lines qualify?!? That's just silly. --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's really not – Boston's Green Line is light rail, including one branch that operates for a portion as an actual streetcar line with street running. By definition, all those things rule out the Green Line as a "metro" or rapid transit line. And, once again, APTA explicitly splits Boston's system exactly this way in their categorizations. The same issues apply to most of the lines in Los Angeles' Metro Rail system. Etc. --IJBall (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To IJBall, could You possibly give me the exact URL to where specificly S-systems in Berlin, Hamburg and Copenhagen are "excluded". Please. Boeing720 (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia will eat itself?
This is more of a philosophical question than referencing any particular pressing dispute, but still. And it's something I've run into a couple times lately. Maybe this will will give people a change of pace.

Supposing you come across a source used in an article, but it's offline, hard to get, and in an obscure language which you don't know. Say it has an ISBN and is held in some "reputable libraries" but none in your country. It looks reliable and absent any reason to be suspicious it's OK per WP:AGF. As a practical matter it'd be near impossible to get your hands on a copy or read it if you did, though. The question is can you use the source in another article?

You can't use it directly since you can't use sources you haven't vetted yourself -- can't find the rule right off, but for any second-hand source you're supposed to say something like "such-and-such journal, cited in such-in-source [which I have actually read]". The question is, can you use a Wikipedia article for the second-hand source?

You're not supposed to cite Wikipedia articles for anything (except their own contents, a very rare situation), but on the other hand, if the source is OK to use in the original article, why would it not be OK to use in other articles? It doesn't become any less reliable in these articles. What I'm talking about is something like this:



I copied the cite of the Semenov book from the article Arabat Spit to my article (Henichesk Strait) to ref identical material (I used a permalink). If it's OK in the first article why not equally OK in the second? Or but suppose the info in the first article is wrong -- the Semenov book is misquoted, say. Errors could promulgate through the Wikipedia. But that's true of any second-hand quote of material. But Wikipedia is not reliable. But if it's not reliable then how can we state the material in the original article using the exact same source? Does WP:AGF end at the first use of a source? Why? It's a philosophical conundrum.

Another way to state this is, is the following proposition true or false: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and that includes everything in Wikipedia articles, including their cited references, therefore there is no such thing as a "reliable source" in any Wikipedia article and we are down the rabbit hole. Yes or no? Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the conundrum. We shouldn't copy attribution from one wp article to another. Doing so to Henichesk Strait was an error that should be corrected.  Dubious sources should not just be taken on faith, they should be flagged vn so that someone will check them.  We don't engage in wp:CIRCULAR citation precisely because we don't want errors to propagate. LeadSongDog  come howl!  04:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a dubious source it should be removed from the original article also then (or at any rate flagged), right? I don't think it's a dubious source though -- Semonov himself is probably a reliable writer (I guess; he has an article) and Oxford published the book, and it's probably held in some "reputable libraries, archives, or collections", although possibly only in Russia or maybe England, at least publicly, and I can't get there. "Linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher)" which is another marker for "availability" according to WP:CITE is also satisfied, even if "challenged as unavailable" (which it hasn't been, yet). So I don't see how it's a dubious source. I also don't see how it'd be problematic in one article but not in another article since it's used to cite the exact same material. This makes no sense to me. Yes we don't want errors to propagate but it seems silly to say "Well, this is a dubious source, but it's acceptable as long as we only use it a few articles but not propagate it to too many".


 * Important note: in this particular case there's an online Google Book page I can access. However, I ran into a very similar situation recently were there was no such online availability, and I'm trying to figure out what to do in those situations. Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wp:Worldwide. We have editors in many places and many languages, you don't need to personally be there. Wp:RX can usually help. LeadSongDog  come howl!  12:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT is the content guideline. An editor is only supposed to add citations they are somehow vouching for themselves, personally. If you're adding something you can't vouch for in your own experience, you may be unwittingly perpetuating an error or a hoax. It's not necessarily sinister, but a citation that would work in one context may not work in a different article, based on weight and NPOV considerations that would come from knowing the source you are citing. Assuming a source probably says what another editor has written isn't verifiability for additional uses. Even if the first instance in the first article is used correctly, a second editor should be familiar with the source to add citations to it in other contexts. __ E L A Q U E A T E  12:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK, I see what you're saying. That makes sense, re context etc.


 * Hmmm, extrapolating from WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT (thank you for the link). It said you can say 8. Smith, John, Name of Book I Haven't Seen (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1, cited in Paul Jones, "Name of Blog Post I Did Read". which is actually wrong, I changed "Blog Post" to "Reliable Source" (if you kept the original, and assuming that "Blog Post" means "some random guy's blog" it actually indicates that you can use unreliable sources for second-hand cites, not what was intended I hope). Assuming that change is accepted, the inference is that you can say 8. Smith, John, Name of Book I Haven't Seen (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1, cited in Paul Jones, "Name of Reliable Source I Did Read". but not 8. Smith, John, Name of Book I Haven't Seen (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1, cited in Paul Jones, "Name of Unreliable Source Such As A Wiki I Did Read".


 * Still... it's disconcerting to consider that, if this is the correct interpretation of our rules, even our Reference sections are not considered reliable... and since they're not considered reliable, what use are they? It's a house of cards... But OK, your other points re context etc. are convincing. Herostratus (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you think a cite means "this proves it"? It does not, it merely says "look here to see what is said on the topic". Only by looking at the source can readers or editors know if there is any more meaning to it. We don't normally trust some random blog at all, even for that. An established journalist's blog only a little more. It hinges on the publisher's reputation for honesty, fact checking, etc. Accordingly we would not include a statement that was only supported by a random blog post, no matter how good the source that blog cited, until we verify the statement is supported in that good source ourselves.LeadSongDog  come howl!  16:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference sections are useful because they allow readers to verify for themselves that the article is correct (or not), and as a resource for the reader to investigate further should they chose. There is no 'house of cards' here, and your 'philosophical question' seems more suited to a forum on epistemology than to WP:RSN. Wikipedia doesn't claim to be reliable, though it does have policies and guidelines which should encourage relative reliability. I think most contributors understand this, and I hope most readers will too. We don't need to tie ourselves in knots over impossible absolutes and hypotheticals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When we say a source is reliable, we are actually saying it's reliable for the specific content citing it (context matters). We don't really give a source a blanket statement as reliable. That's the key understanding of how we determine reliability and why your thought isn't really an issue we should be bumping into. Each case of use needs to be evaluated individually, so if you can't evaluate it for new content, then it's not a reliable source. Using such sources is usually discouraged, but I'd be somewhat ok with one if we had the original sentence or excerpt being cited on the talk page for reference. That means that if someone wants to use the source for different content from a different excerpt, they'd need to go back and find that material to use it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hypothetical questions are difficult because in practice there will always be other considerations in selecting sources. If a fact can only be found in one source then it is probably insignificant and should not be included in an article, let alone several.  The only exception is articles about relatively obscure topics, such as local history.  Another consideration is the age of a source.  Since Semenov's book was published in 1862, it should not be used.  Not only have we had over 150 years of scholarship to correct any errors that might have been included, but many commonly accepted ideas have been abandoned, such as theories of the divine right of kinds, aristocracy, race and religion.  TFD (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand the example from non-English sources. I introduced a reference like follows - article Saint John the Baptist's Church, in order to establish in what year the church was demolished I used this reference formulation
 * (ref)Swedish encyklopedia "Lilla Uppslagsboken" 1950's, vol 6 of 10, article "Landskrona",column 227,In Swedish "1753 började den stora St Johanneskyrkan rivas",In English this means "In 1753, the large St John the Baptist's Church began to be demolished"(/ref)
 * but other contributers has in other Swedish-related articles reverted this kind of translation within the reference. Here the translation could be litteral [which occationally may be of some help] or not. Anyone can atleast check the translation, so it's atleast a bit better, I think. Of cource I appriciate not all around the Globe has this encyclopedia available. But it's better than just refer to the litterature, I think. By the way, I am aware of encyclopedias not be the best of sources. This was an example only. Boeing720 (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pajot / Mozart Forum (only available through Archive.Org)

 * 1) Source:
 * 2) Article: Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232
 * 3) Content: "...the Gloria portion of the mass continues to be popular with amateur choral groups."


 * Mozart Forum website is off-line: http://mozartforum.com
 * publication type: forum (or is it rather a blog type publication?)
 * No knowledge whether the author (Dennis Pajot) published in "first glance" reliable sources. Found a trace at Mutopia: http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/MozartWA/KV477/k477/k477-pajot.html
 * Spelling issues, e.g. "Wenzul" for Wenzel
 * Research seems rather thorough, and quotes a lot of sources.
 * Apparently widely used on Wikipedia as a RS - predating the forum going off-line?
 * prior discussion: Talk:Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

My approach would be: use these "wayback machine" forum pages for finding the sources you need, not as a source by itself. Other ideas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We need a good reason to use a forum like a reliable source, I do not see any reason here. Spumuq (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Appears to me to be an amateur self-published source. If authors of self-published sources are highly-respected in their field then the source may be considered reliable but I don't see evidence of that in this particular case. So I would not consider this to be a reliable source.
 * Additionally, the sentence in the source that supports the statement is very weak and speculative ("...judging from the internet there are still quite a number of performances by church groups of this piece."). --Tóraí (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

ISSUU.com
This paragraph is proposed for the Prem Rawat article, at the foot of section 1983-Present. One editor contests the reliability of the issuu-source http://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_2nd_august_2014/9, calls it 'self-published'; there is disagreement over that. Please, while you're at it, give your opinion about the other sources, too, as they will probably also be contested, given this article's controversial history.

"Prem Rawat attended two events in London in June 2014. He presented the 'Pledge for Peace' declaration before the UK Parliament, whereby each signatory is invited to report their activity on UN Peace Day, annually Sep. 22th. The 'Pledge to Peace' declaration was initiated in Brussels 2011 . Also, Prem Rawat gave the keynote speech at The Water and Food Award (WAF) . Along with Princess Basma Bint Ali of Jordan he was patron of this award. WAF recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment. “ --Rainer P. (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * issuu.com is a publishing platform, that does not mean that a publication published (or also published) on issuu.com is a self-published source. So, for example, Vice published on Issuu: http://issuu.com/vicemag
 * In this case, it appears that Asian Voice newspaper uses issuu.com to publish online while it's primary publication is in print. --Tóraí (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * While publication on ISSUU is not an issue, niche publications aimed towards the diaspora such as the Asian Voice have pretty low/non-existent editorial standards. Afaik, services like Nexis don't even index them and you'll be hard-pressed to find other reliable sources citing them uncritically. Such publications are mostly filled with uncritical puff-pieces and/or press-releases, and the particular Prem Rawat piece being cited seems to falls in that category.
 * The other sources listed above (wafaward.com and www.pledgetopeace.eu) also don't seem to be reliable for any claim other than for themselves, and should be used only as allowed by WP:SPS. Are the details in the paragraph above really due, if no reliable independent source has covered them? PS: Note that the "Pledge for Peace" was presented at the UK parliament, and not to the UK parliament (not at all the same thing!). The two websites contain many such true-but-arguably-deceptive claims, which should make us further wary of using them as a source. Abecedare (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: The Prem Rawat related piece in Asian Voice doesn't just read like an ad, it is an ad. Notice the links to wopg.org and tprf.org at the bottom of the insert, and compare with the ad in the June 14th issue of the publication. Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC
There's an RfC that might be appropriate for editors on this noticebook to look at. here. The question is:




 * Here is the relevant website for that organization.


 * Here is the section on the WP:RfC on publicizing an RfC. I thought it might be relevant here as it would involve sources and I think someone might have posted a few. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Argentine Revisionist authors
In the article Juan Manuel de Rosas is being argued that no author identified as belonging to the Argentine revisionist movement ("revisionismo histórico") can be used as a reference, as, it is argued, "revisionismo histórico" is a WP:FRINGE theory.

The outcome, if that proposition is true, is that a large number of prominent Argentine historians can not be used a reference for anything in that article:


 * Adolfo Saldías
 * Julio Irazusta
 * Rodolfo Irazusta
 * Tulio Halperín Donghi
 * Raúl Scalabrini Ortiz
 * Carlos Ibarguren
 * José María Rosa
 * Felix Luna
 * es:Pacho O'Donnell
 * Felipe Pigna

...etc, etc.

So far, the only author that has been "banned" is Pacho O'Donell, but any of the above could be targeted (they are not disclosing which historians they consider revisionists --see talk page)

I know that what I'm asking is pretty obvious, but I need some help to sort this out. I don't know what steps should I take to convince these guys, or what approach should I use. I figured that, being an argument about sources, RSN would be the place to start.

Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Langus (t) 01:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out, pushing the PoV of this particular author (and Argentine revisionists in general) were the subject of an Arbcom case last year at WP:ARBARG. Nothing has changed since, and revisionismo authors are still way outside the fold of mainstream historiography. Wikipedia does not turn to politically motivated revisionists for referencing history (we don't allow neo-Nazi authors to be used to source articles on the Holocaust, nor should Peronists myth-spinners be used to source what would otherwise be OR regarding their slanted versions of history). Nor do I believe anyone suggested that revisionismo authors "can not be used a reference for anything" – only that they must not be used to suggest that their version of history reflects mainstream historiography. They certainly could be used, with qualification, to support statements of revisionist historical views and on themselves. &bull; Astynax talk 22:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on in the TP of the Juan Manuel de Rosas article that is a perfect example of the issue here with editors and  teaming to remove a perfectly valid source from the article claiming "revisionist source". This might not look like much of a dispute but this behaviour is spread throughout the entire article and, as Langus pointed out above, these two editors are determined to not allow any historian they consider "revisionist" into the it which is definitely troubling. The question in this case is simple: is the book [http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6478536-juan-manuel-de-rosas Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial] by Pacho O'Donnell (published by Spanish editing grpup Planeta, one of the biggest in spanish speaking countries) a WP:RS to be used in the Juan Manuel de Rosas article? Gaba (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "...Pacho O'Donnell, formerly Menem's ambassador to Bolivia and Paraguay, who, however, has more openly avowed his revisionist inspirations, in particular through José Maria Rosa." Source:

The Nacionalismo (Nationalism) was a far-right wing political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s. It was the Argentine nationalist equivalent to Nazism (in Germany), Fascism (in Italy and in Spain) and Integralism (in Brazil and in Portugal). Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement with support for racially-based pseudo-scientific theories such as eugenics. The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographic wing of Argentine Nationalism.

A main goal in Argentine Nationalism was to establish a national dictatorship: "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they wished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..." Juan Manuel de Rosas and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina. This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revisionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas' image.

The Neo-revisionists appeared in the 1950s and still exist to the present. Some among them are leftists. "All Revisionists [Nationalists/Revisionists and Neo-revisionists] argued that they were the victims of a well-orchestrated 'conspiracy of silence' and that Argentina's 'official history' was a deliberate 'falsification' by the intellectuals of the 'liberal oligarchy'." The "set of historical villains that the Neo-revisionists identified behind the falsification of history was identical to that proposed by nacionalistas [Nationalists/Revisionists], with the same degree of grotesque simplification." The Revisionists had a "lack of interest in scholarly standards".

Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists, according to historian Michael Goebel, "academically they ended up in the same marginal position as nacionalistas [i.e.:old revisionists]." The "common feature of Neo-revisionist writers was their institutional marginality in the intellectual field". In fact, "the institutional marginality of nationalist intellectuals was greater in Argentina than elsewhere in Latin America."

Goebel said: "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff". David Rock was just as clear: "Revisionism is not regarded as respectable by most historians, either in or outside Latin America. It has extreme right-wing and xenophobic connotations, which most outsiders reject."




 * Argentine Revisionism is the equivalent to Holocaust denial. It's not taken seriously by mainstream historians, and thus Wikipedia shouldn't allow it. What other option do we have? Allow Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist publicists to be used as reliable sources? For me, it wouldn't make sense at all. --Lecen (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Argentine Revisionism is the equivalent to Holocaust denial." Also O.O wow.
 * "It's not taken seriously by mainstream historians"
 * "Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist publicists" Again wow. Relevant to "anti-semitic" remarks: a few months ago O'Donnell was named president of the Israeli Association of Culture and Science.
 * The book is published by an indisputably established editorial house (Editorial Planeta, as stated above one of the biggest in Latin América) and written by a renowned historian with almost 20 history books published so far. His own website states his position as a "neorevisionist" ("His historiographical production can be considered within the neo-revisionism") so it's not like this is some hidden agenda uncovered by Lecen. O'Donnell has received numerous awards for his writing and has even been named "Cuidadano Ilustre" (Distinguished Citizen) of the City of Buenos Aires. His credentials are quite remarkable. The attempts by Lecen to associate this author (and all "revisionist" authors) with authoritarianism, anti-semitism, racism and misogyny is troubling to say the least. Gaba  (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Argentine revisionism is equivalent to Holocaust denial in the sense that both attempt to rewrite mainstream consensus; nothing surprising about using that as an apt illustration. Lecen has already provided references and quotations as to how Argentine revisionists are viewed by mainstream historians. "Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist" are themes in Argentine revisionism and the political movements which spawned revisionism; again, nothing surprising there and references were provided. That a revisionist book gets published by a large publisher is no guarantee of reliability: to go back to the Holocaust denial example, one can find Holocaust denial books printed by the largest publishers in Iran and elsewhere. O'Donnell's credentials are remarkable, but paper-thin when it comes to history. His education was as a psychoanalyst, and his career has been unabashedly political as have his writings. That he has been rewarded by governments with which his views are aligned is not surprising or an endorsement of his credentials as a historian. Neither is his diplomatic appointment to a previously moribund Israeli-Argentine association for developing closer ties (especially given his relationship to the current Peronist government). Bill O'Reilly is a similar writer in the US, and despite at least having a degree in History, no mainstream historian would cite him in support of revisionist historical claims without prominent qualification. &bull; Astynax talk 17:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that my personal opinion was that O'Donnel was X or Y, even less tried to "associate" him with anyone or anything. All I did was to provide the views that mainstream historians have of Revisionism. It's not my fault if the best historians around do not share your view. --Lecen (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "nothing surprising about using that as an apt illustration", actually yes. But it is quite telling that neither of you seems (or is willing) to acknowledge the red herring.
 * ""Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist" are themes in Argentine revisionism" themes? Lecen is stating that every author that could be said to be a "revisionist" today is associated to those characteristics based mainly on random quotes and a lot of WP:SYN. There is no justification for that.
 * "go back to the Holocaust denial example", go back to red herring please.
 * "paper-thin when it comes to history", really? So almost 20 history books written and published by top editorials is a paper-thin background regarding history? Amazing.
 * "even less tried to "associate" him with anyone or anything" but you did. You are attempting to associate O'Donnell and every author you deem a "revisionist" with authoritarianism, anti-semitism, racism and misogyny. Read your comment above please, apparently you missed it?
 * "All I did was to provide the views that mainstream historians have of Revisionism". No you didn't. At all. You basically lumped together a bunch of quotes by M Goebel and D Rock, pasted them with quite a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYN and came to the (your) conclusion that "mainstream historians" (apparently Goebel & Rock?) somehow prevent us from using any author deemed a "revisionist" since 1930 to today. What's worst is that you never bothered to seek consensus for this truly wild idea but team to impose it nonetheless (ie: ). Gaba  (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys, the problem here is that "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context". (see header above). It seems that this is not the place to ask for questions about policy interpretation, which is basically what my original question is. And I presume that none of the editors at WP:RSN know where that place is... not a good sign. Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources or Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability? --Langus (t) 03:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Langus: agreed 100%. My question for this forum is pretty simple actually: is the O'Donnell book a WP:RS to be used in the Rosas article ?
 * Please note that WCM's wall of text below does pretty much exactly what Lecen did above, ie: WP:OR and WP:SYN, but to the tenth (also Lecen at least had the common sense to collapse it; WCM: could you collapse the bulk of your cmmt please?) He mixes old (~1930) revisionism with new, right-wing with left-wing (which is what we have today mostly) peronism with revisionism with nationalism, and uses sources as if he was WP's historian to generate his own research and come up to his own conclusion about nationalism, revisionism, peronism, etc. Also note that out of the 6 books he quotes, most have little to nothing to do with the issue directly at hand (we could as well quote 1000 books all mentioning either Rosas, nationalism, peronism, revisionism, etc. It's a worthless exercise.). Much less if we consider the simple issue is whether a heavily published historian ( ~20 history books published by top editorials ) is a suitable source for a history article. Yes, it's that simple. Gaba  (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also of importance: I note WCM's own acknowledgemetn of being canvassed off-wiki by Lecen to come here and comment. I'd say it surprises me but knowing WCM and seeing his behaviour over at AE, I sadly am not. Regards. Gaba  (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaba_p: Comment on content, not on the contributor. "1421: The Year China Discovered the World" by Gavin Menzies was a huge editorial success. It's take seriously by no one. --Lecen (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I only commented on your canvassing since it is of relevance to the discussion. Also, that's a very good advice but you'll understand that it is hard to take it seriously coming from you. As for 1421, two things: I never commented on "editorial success" (which I really don't think this particular O'Donnell book is) and see red herring please. Gaba  (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a place to comment on contributors, not content. So far you failed to provide any source demonstrating that revisionism is reliable. Your personal opinion on the subject (or mine, or anyone else's) doesn't matter. --Lecen (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I have failed? I've commented no less than three times now that O'Donnell has published almost 20 history books in a top publishing house over the last 20 years . I have to "prove" nothing, you need to come up with a way to prove that a dozen or more historians (heavily published authors) from 1930 to today are WP:FRINGE and you have failed 100%. All you've done so far, together with WCM, is fill the thread with your own analysis of random books discussing/commenting revisionism to come to your own conclusion that a whole group of historians should be completely dismissed because you feel your own analysis proves they should. This is the definition of WP:OR and WP:SYN. See my comment below please.  Gaba  (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Academic View of Argentine Revisionism
The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism. Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.

A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See, , , , , for example.

The question posed boils down to whether these works are suitable as a WP:RS for the purposes of Wikipedia. They pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general I would say they are not considered a wholly reliable source for material for Wikipedia. Below I set out why, with reference to views in academia.

Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate Caudillos (Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations.

Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.

Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the Caudillos such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.

Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.

Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".

Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.

The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Goebel notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.

As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as WP:FRINGE. WCM email 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Other sources.


 * Brennan in reference to the 1960s notes: "historical revisionism (exalting the figures of Rosas the caudillos for example) became a sort of alternative official history and the official history of Personism." Revisionism is not limited to the 1930s and is still a factor in Argentine politics today.


 * In regards to the allegation of canvassing. Lecen sent me a private email yesterday suggesting I comment at Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas, he made no attempt to suggest what I commented, merely requested that I did so.  There was no attempt to urge me to comment here.  I in fact looked in here, as  suggested referring the use of revisionist sources to RSN.  My evidence to the arbcom case here and my comments at WP:AE are only relevant in regards to their commentary of the use of revisionist material.  The inference of acting for bad faith reasons in support of  can be summarily dismissed if you actually look at what I've commented.


 * In evidence to the original arbcom case, the use of O'Donnell, one of the sources being advocated here, was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy. See here and this diff cited in evidence .  Of particular relevance from that case is the comment from.

I agree with the thrust of the finding. I understand the distinction Cambalachero was trying to draw—between a source as evidence of history, and the same source as evidence of how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time—but it doesn't seem that Cambalachero has always observed the same distinction himself. It might be useful to add a few more diffs to the finding.


 * Again we are seeing the line blurred between a source being used as evidence of historical fact, as opposed to how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time. RSN is being asked here to affirm that O'Donnell for example can be used as evidence of historical fact.  However, if you examine the academic view of revisionism it is clearly not considered mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact.  WCM email 12:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "the use of O'Donnell (...) was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy", except it was not. Ever. The WP:ARBARG case dealt with editor behaviour, not content. The comments by a couple of editors tangentially touching the author (and I do mean very tangentially) are completely irrelevant.
 * "if you examine the academic view of revisionism it is clearly not considered mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact", I'm sorry but this is just not true. Quoting some random bits of Goebel and Rock and pasting them together with a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYN it's just that: a WP editor "examining" sources and arriving at his own conclusion. There's no way that the interpretation of an editor on a few scattered sources is enough to dismiss an entire assembly of renowned and heavily published historians, the one being discussed here in particular having, again, almost 20 history books published by one of the biggest latin-american publishing group . Regards. Gaba  (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaba p, I'd like to ask you to stop with comments such as "Quoting some random bits of Goebel and Rock and pasting them together with a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYN it's just that: a WP editor "examining" sources and arriving at his own conclusion". Accusations of bad faith lead nowhere. If you doubt us, then read the books yourself (they are on Google books). Lastly, if you really believe we misused Rock and Goebel's words, you should see their own thoughts on the matter:


 * Dr David Rock sent me an e-mail saying: "Thanks for your message. I suggest you read the standard book on Rosas by John Lynch, which will answer most of your questions. To your second paragraph: Revisionism is not regarded as respectable by most historians, either in or outside Latin America. It has extreme right-wing and xenophobic connotations, which most outsiders reject. There is a similar partial historiography of Brazil by the so-called 'integralistas' of the 1930s, considered by many as fascists." (emphasis added)


 * Dr Michael Goebel said: "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously. It depends who exactly we are talking about, of course. Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff. I personally would not hesitate to call Rosas a dictator and I don't understand, frankly, what is so terrible about calling him that. The whole issue mostly depends on what we mean by dictatorship, of course, but I think in Rosas' government we have a pretty good candidate. I don't really get the impression that the revisionists "don't see it that way", as you put it. It's rather the opposite in my view. They like him BECAUSE they see a dictator (using more positive terms for the same concept) in him (that's for the early revisionists at least)."(emphasis added)


 * I can gladly forward you the e-mails if you want to. --Lecen (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lecen, there's no bad faith accusations here. If I comment on how you and WCM are blatantly incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN it's because I sincerely believe you are, perhaps even unaware. See my comment above: you can't analyze a bunch of random books and draw your own conclusion that a whole group of heavily published historians should be regarded as WP:FRINGE because you believe that is the conclusion to be inferred from said books (even worst: that those books you've analyzed represent the view of all "mainstream" historians, whoever they might be and however they might be classified by who knows who). That is the definition of WP:OR and WP:SYN.
 * You are proving my point even further: not only is your entire argument based on drawing conclusions from mainly Goebel and Rock, you've now exchanged emails with Rock and attempt to present that as evidence. How can you not see that is WP:OR?
 * The discussion is terribly simple and the only ones trying to complicate it are you and WCM. Could a historian with almost 20 history books published by top of the line editorial groups throughout the last 20 years be used in a history article? That's it. The deeper issue here, and why this discussion is taking place, is your apparent belief that history is an immutable and objective entity, unable of being examined and interpreted differently by different researchers. This is of course not true. History is not math. If two published and renowned historians disagree on how they view an issue what we do in WP is attribute those views. Again, it really is that simple. Gaba  (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Having published 20 books doesn't turn one person in a reliable scholar. Is that your best argument? I'm asking you again: can you provide any source that says that Argentine revisionism is reliable? --Lecen (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually my only argument is that the book by O'Donnell easily passes WP:RELIABLE. That's it. Is your best argument your own WP:OR and WP:SYN on the very broad topic of "revisionism" (including of course your email exchange with Rock)? If so the discussion can be ended right here and now and you are more than welcome to open a discussion about "revisionism" wherever you might feel is appropriate. I'll await your answer. Regards. Gaba  (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The book by O'Donnell does not easily pass WP:RS. In the case of books, WP:RS requires:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Emphasis added.

Looking at O'Donnell:

Pacho O'Donnell's book is published by Penguin Random House Group, which is not an academic press. The work has not been vetted by the scholarly community. He is not a professional historian but a psychoanalyst and political writer. His wikipedia biography acknowledges he is of the "neorevisionist" school which rejects the orthodox mainstream historical view. Populism does not confer reliability and revisionist historians are disregarded by academics, because as Goebel notes above, they invent stuff (ie make it up).

Why would we use a populist work, acknowledged to be politically biased and unreliable for fact checking, when there are many peer reviewed reliable sources that can be used instead?

Further, WP:RS cautions that biased sources should be used with caution, "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Clearly Revisionist historical texts are acknowledged to be politically biased sources and O'Donnell classifies himself as neo-revisionist.

Whilst O'Donnell could be used to source revisionist opinions on Rosas, it is not a reliable source for historical fact. Again I make the point a biased source like this is unsuitable for evidence of historical fact but it could be used to show how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time.

It is asserted above that the reliability of O'Donnell was not considered in the arbcom case. Rather obviously that person has not read the evidence provided by the diffs I added or my evidence in that case. In that case I pointed out that "There seems to be a confusion by all parties here, that this is a forum that considers both user behaviour and content. The only real issue of relevance on this forum from my experience is user conduct."  And indeed it did focus on user conduct, one of which was to use sources like O'Donnell that the editor acknowledged was unreliable As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work.  's comments quoted above are very relevant since we are seeing a repeat of the lead up to that case and an inability to acknowledge the difference between a reliable peer reviewed work and politically biased tome. Cambalachero's comment's on O'Donnell are accurate.

My comments have been a generalised response, to a general question as to the reliability of Argentine Revisionist Sources. Are they in general reliable for historical facts? No, because they are known to be politically biased, they are acknowledged as lacking in academic standards, they are not in general peer reviewed in academic journals and they have a poor reputation for fact checking. Does this mean they can never be used, no, they can be used to source the revisionist viewpoint when it is appropriate to mention it but this doesn't mean we elevate it to the same level as the mainstream academic view. WCM email 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Except the book presented by WCM above is not the same book presented in my original comment. What he showed is the 2013 re-edition of the original book published in 2001 indeed by Grupo Planeta.
 * Goebel and rock's comments on "revisionism" are noted: they dislike it. Your attempt to connect a circa 100 years extremely broad movement encompassing from the far right-wing to the left-wing with a book by a heavily published and renowned author are also noted.
 * "revisionist historians are disregarded by academics". Unless of course by "academics" you mean Goebel and Rock?
 * "acknowledged to be politically biased and unreliable for fact checking". again are you talking about Goebel and Rock?
 * "it is not a reliable source for historical fact", you seem to be under the same impression of Lecen that history can be treated as math. There are sometimes differing and even opposing views and interpretations of historic events. If we have at our disposal WP:RSs (as we do) we should use all of them, not just the ones you feel are good enough. The issue here is not "we use either this one or this one", but rather we use all WP:RS history books available.
 * "It is asserted above that the reliability of O'Donnell was not considered in the arbcom case." Let's see what was asserted above. You said: "the use of O'Donnell (...) was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy" to which i responded: "The WP:ARBARG case dealt with editor behaviour, not content." So, after noting that the statement by WCM is not correct, let me point out that your own comments on the author are by no means equivalent to an Arbcom decision preventing us from using his books as a source. You can analyze a lot of books and comment on your own analysis wherever you like, it will still be your own WP:OR and WP:SYN. Gaba  (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaba p, I know when I'm wasting my time, and this is a fine example of that. Obviously you won't change your mind nor you will present any source declaring that O'Donnel is a reliable source (isn't there a single peer review in a scientific magazine?). Rock and Goebel are mentioned simply because they are regarded as the best specialists in Argentine Nationalism in the English speaking world. Bring sources. If you don't plan to do it, don't even bother replying, because I won't be here to answer. Wee Curry Monster said all, BTW. I agree with him. --Lecen (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Lecen but you've got this backwards. The usage of a 'book by a well known and heavily published historian published by a very big publishing group is by default a WP:RS. The onus is on you (and Astyntax & WCM apparently) to bring forth evidence that the book/author are not reliable by WP standard and all of you failed completely in doing so. So far the only thing you've done is use some quotes by Goebel and Rock on how "revisionism" (a movement that goes back almost 100 years) is all bad, stitch them with a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYN, and conclude that since O'Donnell is a "neo-revisionist" he should be considered WP:FRINGE (along the entirety of those historians you or anyone else considers "revisionist" or "neo-revisionist"). The weight of this argument is so little that it makes it really hard to follow the thread of thinking. Also please see WP:RS/AC:
 * The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.
 * (emphasis added) I don't think it could be made any more clear than that.
 * I see you've been blocked for a week and probably won't be responding. This thread has gathered very little attention from non-involved editors, so unless it does perhaps the next step could be an RfC. Regards. Gaba  (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Revisionism by definition not mainstream scholarship. It is you and Langus-TxT‎ who have been attempting to push revisionismo as mainstream: it is not. Evidence that Argentine revisionism is regarded as fringe by mainstream scholars has been presented, and that you don't accept what they say is irrelevant. Pointing to the popularity of a writer who is well-known as a revisionist is also no evidence for reliability. There are many other popular writers, complete with awards and glowing endorsements, who put forth work that is regarded as fringe by the mainstream. Some of these even have advanced degrees in their fields, and O'Donnell is a politician who earned no degree in history. Lecen's temporary block for overstepping an interaction ban with another editor had nothing to do with this issue, and dredging that up is both offensive and misdirection from the issue at hand. &bull; Astynax talk 02:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This whole exercise is pointless and a red herring, as we shouldn't discuss the historical movement without first discussing if a historical movement can or cannot be banned from Wikipedia. Plus, Lecen has been blocked for a week and not a single uninvolved editor has chimed in. I'm requesting closure. --Langus (t) 22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note, no one has suggested any historical movement should or should not be banned; that is a red herring. Specifically the point made was that the academic view of revisionism does not consider it mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact. Further, biased source like these are unsuitable as evidence of historical fact but can be used to show how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time. Finally, that it was inappropriate to elevate revisionism to the same level as the mainstream academic view. RSN was being asked to affirm that revisionism, one example in particular, can be used as evidence of historical fact.  I would suggest this is left open to allow the outside viewpoint that is so desperately needed and request that those who have contributed so far desist from deterring it any more with walls of text. WCM email 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be great, but "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context ". You are asking the RSN to go beyond its boundaries, and redefine how WP:RS are identified.
 * Hint: you're doing it wrong. --Langus (t) 06:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

smoothblog.co.uk
As background, Oracle used to have two products: OpenOffice.org, an open-source office suite, and Oracle Open Office, a commercial version of the suite.

Question: Is this blog a reliable source for the statement that OpenOffice.org, the open-source project, is "discontinued" (see OpenOffice).

Specifically, there is a statement in the blog: "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the OpenOffice.org (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th [April 2011]". Is this a reliable interpretation of an Oracle press release of 15 April 2011 that:"'Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office.'"

Other sources say the commercial version of the software, Oracle Open Office, was discontinued at this time but not the open-source project. In June 2011, Oracle announced they would donate the open-source project to the Apache Foundation. --Tóraí (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My argument for is that the site has focused on technology for many years and does so regularly.
 * My argument against is that the author is always "admin" and so we don't know who the author(s) is (are). We don't know if the author is professional in any way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which would be the very definition of the kind of self-published source that we don't accept as reliable sources. If this was a news blog or an accepted expert writing in their field then we might accept it. But as it is, it's just some guy on the internet blogging about news reported elsewhere (and, in this case at least, getting it wrong). --Tóraí (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The blog does not accurately represent the contents of the press release, so I advise against using it. This isn't a comment on overall reliability of this blog. When any source--even normally reputable ones--make easily identified mistakes, then they shouldn't be used.  The Blue Canoe  15:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This last very point is important. And misconceptions around this is a reason why the phrase "verifiability, not truth" was removed from Verifiability and No original research (a pity, IMO). See Verifiability, not truth for a summary of misconceptions around verifiability and truth. --Tóraí (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source so do not use. In this topic area, which is throbbing with agendas and PR from rival "camps", it is especially important that sourcing be impeccable. Alexbrn talk 09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Patrick Haseldine a reliable source for a statement linking the Lockerbie bombing to the Rössing uranium mine?
The edit is here:. Specifically it mentions Pan Am Flight 103 which doesn't say anything about this suggestion. The text, which takes up half the lead, is:

"On 6 January 2014, The Ecologist magazine reported that the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988 could be directly linked to the Rossing Uranium Mine's processed uranium ore (Yellowcake) that was illegally extracted from Namibia in the period 1976 to 1989. A TV documentary film in March 1980 described succinctly what was going on:

"World In Action investigates the secret contract and operations arranged by British-based Rio Tinto Zinc Corp to import into Britain uranium (Yellowcake) from the Rössing Uranium Mine in Namibia, whose major shareholders are the governments of Iran and South Africa. This contract having received the blessing of the British government is now compromising the UK's position in the United Nations negotiations to remove apartheid South Africa from Namibia, which it is illegally occupying."

Although it calls itself a magazine, The Ecologist is now a website and the article is here. The author is Patrick Haseldine whose article has a comment calling him a "Lockerbie-bombing conspiracy theorist" in relationship to the article being used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This also takes up most of the lead at Bernt Carlsson where it also mentions Haseldine's claim that Carlsson was the target. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit to the Rössing uranium mine article is a direct copy-paste, and thus a copyright violation, for a start. As for Haseldine's theory, unless it has been significantly commented on by credible third party reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article - or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See also Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories. Editor  appears to have inserted this theory in several places (and the editor name and contribs suggest a possible association with one another). --Tgeairn (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The World In Action synopsis for the documentary "Follow the Yellowcake Road", broadcast on 10 March 1980, clearly states:
 * "WIA investigates the secret contract and operation arranged by British-based Rio Tinto Zinc Corp to import into Britain uranium (yellow cake) from the Rossing mine in Namibia, one of whose major shareholders is the South African government. This contract having received the blessing of the British government is now compromising its position in the U.N negotiations to remove South Africa from Namibia, which it is illegally occupying."
 * In The Ecologist article, Haseldine makes a very credible link between both the illegal occupation and the illegal exploitation of Namibia's natural resources to the targeting of the highest profile victim of the Lockerbie bombing, Bernt Carlsson. Don't you agree?--Ecophriendly (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Our personal opinions concerning Haseldine's theory are of no relevance whatsoever. Unless and until it can be demonstrated through significant coverage in credible third-party published reliable sources that his theory has been given serious consideration, it doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien
Recently I came across the article for Walter O'Brien and was concerned with the quality of the sources that was listed in the controversy section. I removed them and provided an explanation on the article talk page. However, my edits were met with some opposition. I'm still concerned that the sources used do not meet our BLP policies and that some of the sources are questionable. I'd greatly appreciate any additional feedback on the sources. Mike V •  Talk  23:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Center for Investigative Reporting
Is there anything that makes Center for Investigative Reporting an unreliable or biased source? I'm concerned about this. Thundermaker (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is reliable for its own opinions, but I think given WP:BLP, and the subject being an active politician, this type of content, needs to be more neutrally worded and sourced to multiple (preferebaly un-biased sources. But that is not what this noticeboard is about. but no further than that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying they are no good for facts? Thundermaker (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What the Center says shouldn't be asserted as fact (unless it is also accepted without doubt in high-quality RS's). If a report of theirs has not found an outlet in a reliable publication then mentioning it would probably raise questions of weight and neutrality too. Alexbrn talk 09:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola page move
Since editors here are experienced in sourcing, if you've the time, please comment on the page move request here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

FearOfStuff.com and Phobosource.com reliable sources for phobias?
Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, a long list of phobia articles created by that editor, some are sourced solely to and/or  - are these sources that we should be using? See for instance Nostophobia. It's easy to create articles if you find a rubbish list somewhere and use that as a source. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not even remotely close. Rubbish is about right on target. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been looking into the long list (XXX by my count) of 'phobia' articles created by PlanetStar myself, and the sourcing is appalling:
 * PhobiaSource states that "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it." Utterly indiscriminatory, and clearly not RS for any medical topic - or anything else really.
 * fearofstuff.com states that it "IS NOT a medical site", "IS NOT affiliated with any medical experts" and again "If we don’t have what you need, just send us a suggestion using the form below and we’ll add it to the website" Again, not RS.
 * Common Phobias (http://common-phobias.com/) is even worse - each entry consists of nothing but a raw definition, followed by the same boilerplate text.
 * PlanetStar has also cited (or plagiarised/copy-pasted - Siderodromophobia has already been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation) About.com articles written by someone with "a B.A. in Psychology"  - for an indication of the quality of this material see this page on 'astrophobia' - a supposed "fear of outer space".
 * Also used is the blacklisted website EzineArticles.com. Evidently PlanetStar didn't consider the fact that this website hosting user-generated articles had been blacklisted as sufficient grounds not to use it.


 * What we have in essence is a long list of articles (52 by my count, though there may be more), all citing websites with precisely zero medical credibility, clearly created as click-magnets and to promote 'cures' for so-called phobias unrecognised by medical science. I can see no good reason why the whole lot should not be deleted, along with much of the other poorly-sourced pseudo-psychology found at Category:Phobias. Neologisms created as word-games, or for the purpose of promoting 'cures', do not belong on any credible encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Camp Trans
This is more of a general than specific problem. The Camp Trans article is almost entirely based on unreliable sources such as Internet forums, Google Groups posts, LiveJournal blog entries, transcripts of conversations on AOL Instant Messenger, and press releases and other files hosted on scribd (most if not all now deleted). That is, it's almost entirely original research based on unreliable sources. I've removed many of these and requested new sources. But more eyes are needed on this article by those familiar with our sourcing policies. It's possible that the article needs to be deleted, but I suspect adequate sources can be found to keep at least some of the material. Skyerise (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Websites of medical centers as sources for services they perform
At Talk:Acupuncture (stable version here) there's been discussion of how to source the fact that multiple medical centers use acupuncture. Some editors have argued that the websites of these centers (e.g. Osher Medical Center at Harvard) are fine; others have argued that they are not because they are "primary sources". IMO, this is a case where a primary source is fine per WP:SELFSOURCE not to mention WP:SENSE. What do you folks think? (Relevant section of article here.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) ( edited 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 05:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 08:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strictly, this is not a reliability issue, but a weight/neutrality issue, since of course a medical centre is reliable for listing its own services. The question is: is the fact these medical centres have such offerings significant? If so, it should be easy to find secondary sources making mention of it and use them. Otherwise it would seem undue—I don't think we would list medical centres that offered some other medical specialism (for a particular type of operation, say) so why for acupuncture? Alexbrn talk 08:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, Alex. Good point. As you know, there are more than a few editors determined to depict acu as a wholly fringe phenomenon, and that influence is pervasive.  Citing its use in mainstream settings is a counter to this UNDUE problem.  Since we do have some sec sources now, it's less of a big deal -- except when somebody decides those sec sources are outdated or otherwise inadequate and tries to delete the material.  Which is not unlikely given the article's history. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that article well. Since secondary sources exist can I take it the query here is now moot and whatever issues there are with using the secondary sources can be resolved on the Acupuncture Talk page? Alexbrn talk 08:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not, for the reason I stated above ("except...."). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's an issue with the weight accorded to those secondaries, and discussions on Acupuncture's Talk page are at an impasse, it may be worth raising the question of those sources' use as a separate query at WP:NPOV/N. Alexbrn talk 11:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a «reliable sources» problem. In Pizza, we do not say that many places sell pizza, with citations from individual pizzerias. In Ibuprofen, we do not say that many pharmacists sell ibuprofen, with citations from individual pharmacists. That would be strange. Why do we say it this way for acupuncture? Spumuq (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question, and thanks for commenting; the answer is that it's part of the section on reception, which includes sphere of usage. It's not nearly as common as pizza or ibuprofen, but isn't as fringe-y as some determined woo-fighers would like to depict it. Re which, see also my reply to Alex just above; we do have some sec sources.  --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Spumuq has hit the nail on the head. Presenting anecdotes as if they were data is often problematic&mdash;what you want is a systematic study of the usage of acupuncture in a given country, not a cherry-picked list of the most-impressive-sounding institutions that may have an acupuncture clinic. However, that's a WP:WEIGHT issue rather than a WP:RS issue.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is important to remember that acupuncture itself isn't Fringe. It is actually quite common (especially when you consider it's prevalence in the non-western world).  What is fringe are most of the claims about the medical benefits of acupuncture... what acupuncture will do for the recipient.
 * As for listing hospitals that perform acupuncture... It is important to look into why they do so... it is quite possible that some of the hospitals do so because they think it has a beneficial placebo effect on the recipient. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points, and generally agree all around. Yes, claims of efficacy and sphere of use are different things, and as far as I can tell, acu is used in academic clinics mostly for nausea, pain and anxiety, all of which have a lot to do with its placebo effects, and may be all placebo -- but I'm not speaking for these clinics.  To clarify: when I say "mainstream", I mean the scientific/academic mainstream.    --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing; thanks to all for input. Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

iFanboy
Is this article at iFanboy reliable for the following 2 statements at The Punisher (1993 video game): Thanks in advance. Freikorp (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "This version also contains some content censorship including the animation of cigar smoking by Fury being removed"
 * [The game ranked] as the fifth top Marvel arcade game by iFanboy's Josh Richardson

Sukkot section removed
This edit http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440  has been removed on the grounds that The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability. The first claim has now been withdrawn. I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational.

Author  Elon Gilad

Article SukkotTheredheifer (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The claim that this material was removed on those grounds is misleading, since much discussion followed after that first post of mine on Talk:Sukkot. Not posting a link to that discussion was not nice. I suggest the discussion should continue there. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As a side comment, the complaint that sourcing behind a paywall violates WP:V is utter nonsense, and is simply an invention of the editor's imagination. Choor monster (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the material that was removed, apologies for not adding it before.

The origins of Sukkot are both historical and agricultural. Based on its timing and the fact that it is frequently referred to in the Bible as "the holiday of ingathering," meaning harvest, it is believed that the holiday evolved from ancient agricultural religious practices. Over time it was formalized, centralized and given religious significance. + Sukkot became a significant holiday during King Josiah’s reign. However, the tiny city of Jerusalem would have been unable to house the great influx of pilgrims coming to worship in the Temple. Unable to find lodging, the pilgrims would have had to erect temporary dwellings – little huts that became known as sukkot. The holiday gradually became associated with the sukkot themselves, which took on a national-historical meaning correlated with the Exodus, as is reflected in the (late) biblical passages.

As was the norm with all Jewish holidays during the Temple period, the holiday centered on animal sacrifice at the Temple. 70 bulls were sacrificed during each Sukkot, as well as numerous other animals. After the temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE, the Jewish religion went through a major change, and the temple sacrifices could no longer be observed. Thus further emphasis came to be ascribed to the sukkah, the four species, and prayer. Theredheifer (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Pit bull
It seems that there are sourcing issues on the article Pit Bull. I am leaning toward sources like Veterinary Associations. There is POV warring using a very old and misinterpreted CDC study and the article is not really about pit bulls so much as support for the POV that pit bulls are nature's killing machines. I understand this is different from the sourcing issue but I would appreciate some consensus building advice. I am not sure if posting references here will work and have the refs show up properly so I will come back tommorow and repair if the refs are not working rights. I think this is kind the ideal type of RS https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspxWikidgood (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't even discussed this on the article's talk page, so you're not following good practice. Don't misuse boards. Your concerns will get an ear (or more) at the talk page. Please ping me there, since I have over 5,000 pages (plus their talk pages) on my watchlist. (I recently pared it down when it reached 10,000!) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact I posted on the talk page and you ignored it. I have every right to pose a question to this or any other notice board. You are continuing with your opening salvo of vague renarks tantamount to a personal attack. Actually, it is a personal attack to accuse me of misusing a notice board. Before that you accused me of "drive-by tagging" after I tagged POV on a section, not the whole article. I had been aware of the POV problem with that articles for weeks if not months. Please stop making personal remarks and allegations of misconduct and discuss constructive edits. You also do not "own" the pafe despite that your UID resonates with the article title. A third personalizing remark, for which however I will reserve you WP:AGF is your speculation regarding my mental state or emotional purchase for the issue or something along those lines. It is not polite to make a remark like that, it is like "cross talk" in a meeting abouta topic in which you "take personal inventory" of someone. So to reiterate, I have the right to ask for RSN pointers and you do not have the right to accuse me of misuse of the notice board. Aside from your accusations and allegations and innuendos, do you have anything to say about sourcing? Wikidgood (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My sincerest apologies for the mixup. I somehow missed your comment on the talk page. I had your user contribution history open, but hadn't refreshed it for a few minutes, and during that time you left the comments there. Then I saw this comment pop up on my watchlist and made the obviously mistaken conclusion that you hadn't used the article's talk page. My bad! Sorry about that. We can work things out on the talk page. You are of course welcome to seek advice here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * NO PROBLEM.Wikidgood (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My primary concern/ requesting comments on this issue
I first thought about opening a thread on RSN actually re RS(medical) because some people seem to think that the ONLYlegitimate refs for bio med articles are things like BMJ and JAMA. But I insist that it is OK to use sources like Rueters and mainstream newspapers, including third world newspapers, for things like "Hospital Researcher Announces New Vaccine". I think the area of disagreement is that some people think that we have to worry about false hopes being raised by hucksters. That is a concern but it doesnt IMHO mean that you have to wait six months for a peer reveiwed journal article when it is a fact of history that, say, a Thailand Hospital research team has a vaccine in testing phase with animal trials. So I was hoping that there would be a similar refinement on dog bit related pages where we distinguish between an article in a newspaper stating thatthere will be say a city council ordinance on pit bulls in a place like Denver, that does these things, and we allow that as RS for that kind of thing. But we do not take it as RS if a newspaper, especially a sleazy rag or something between a sleazy rag and NYT, Wash Post or AP/UPI?Reuters blasts a headline identifying a dog as a "pit bull" becauses some old boozer down the street told the press that such and such a dog is a "pit bull". For encyclopedic statements aboutwhat is and is not true about a breed identification we need a source which is (a) secondary (b) preferably peer reviewed. If it is not (b) or if it is (advoccy), then we can present it if we identify it as a statement of an advocacy group, and/or if we balance it with a contrasting view, a criticism or at least a label that it is controversial. Does this resonate? Wikidgood (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Secondary concern
I think advocates are essential sources for perspectives and so I think there is need of good Wiki policies and guidelines which prevent people from reverting any advocate as not RS just because they are POV. A good example is that RT Russia Today is very slanted but it is probably RS for things like "Putin has a black dog". Similarly, Interpretermag (not sure I spelled it right) is vigorously anti Putin but is probably RS for much. But some editors claim that some sources are NEVER RS for ANYTHING and I suspect that problem will look large on pit bull in the coming weeks. Wikidgood (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I have read the lengthy text above and find it quite hard to see what is being asked. When posting to this board editors are requested to post (a) some content and (b) its source for evaluation. What seems to be being asked is for general guidance giving permissions for certain classes of source for as-yet unspecified content. That's not what this board is for, and general discussions about sourcing or neutrality should take place on the respective WP:PAG Talk pages. Alexbrn talk 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think as much was implied and the obvious reference was to the ongoing edits. I aksi\o had some particulars in mind for here but since I have ironed out the differences with the above users there is no further need to go into it here.


 * FYI I don't think that there is a hard policy regarding the specific-edit/specific-source framework you suggest although I know that is usually how it works. But if there are sourcing issues that are not being worked out on the talk pages, it seems less confrontational to take them up here rather than going the rout of arbitrations and edit war reporting and all of that stuff. You are free however to ignore threads on RSN which in your opinion don't follow some etiquette you prefer. I agree however that my more general concern is more effectively taken up on the RS talk page. It would have been nice if you addressed my substantive concern with the distinction between sourcing which should be from peer reveiwed journals rather as opposed to sourcing whihc can be journalistic but you are free to do what you wish.Wikidgood (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Are journalists/writers not reliable sources if they have written about paranormal subjects?
There's an odd case at the Summerwind article (scrutinized because it's in AfD). There is a charge that three writers, Corey Schjoth of the Huffington Post, Bill Wundram of the Quad-City Times and Chad Lewis of Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are not reliable sources because they have "written about" paranormal legends such as UFO's, Vampires, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc.. Are these writers, or any other for that matter, not reliable sources solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past? --Oakshade (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To get the best input from this noticeboard you should probably give more context, i.e. what specific text do you wish to cite to what work by what author? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's really a meta-discussion question, but this is an example: An editor has challenged the below statement because "Chad Lewis other works include articles about UFOs and Bigfoot."

--- In 1916 it was purchased by Robert Patterson Lamont, who employed Chicago architects Tallmadge and Watson to substantially remodel the property and convert it into a mansion.

---
 * The editor has went on to add the word "allegedly" to the sentence. Are the publishers and authors of these sources unreliable because the authors of these sources have also written about topics such as Loch Ness Monster, Vampires, UFOs and Bigfoot?--Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For anyone else reading this, I don't know where that diff came from, but most of those changes are not me. There are 6 intermediate changes there. However, I also have a problem with taking articles about ghost stories and UFOs and using pieces of them to cite items as facts as though we know what parts of the article are unverifiable retelling of a ghost story and what parts of those articles are verifiable facts. In the context of a ghost story or legend, those sources are reliable for retelling the legend, but may not be reliable for verifiable facts about history. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If an author's previous writing about the paranormal shows that they are credulous about such matters, that's generally an indicator of unreliability (for anything). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If an author's previous writing shows that they are credulous about any topic, yes they would be un-reliable. But what about the writers simply having written about paranormal topics?  Does that in itself make them un-reliable journalists/writers/authors as the charge is?--Oakshade (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if this work by this author is considered a reliable source of facts regarding who the architects of record were for the Lamont Mansion? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The real issue is what content supported by what reference in what article with what weight is being proposed. Without these specifics its generally not fair to evaluate a source. A writer who is a generalist, that is writes about multiple topics may not be the best source for an expert opinion on any specific subject. However, unless we know more about the content and its source I don't believe we should be making any definitive comments about sources. Id' take this back to the talk page (is there one) and try top get input there.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
 * It was brought here because discussion on the talk page and edit warring threatening 3RR was going around in circles. The specific content that became the center of discussion is what's listed above, but it also affects the entire article as these and other authors who have written about paranormal topics - no surprise as this topic is a reportedly "haunted" house - are most of the sources.  It really came down to the validity of generally discrediting journalists/writers solely because they have previously written about such paranormal topics as UFOs, etc. --Oakshade (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit warring is continuing with a single editor now removing all of these sources. Input to this question is highly appreciated.--Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (politician)
At issue is if these sources are sufficient to state that Davis graduated at the top of her class. 
 * Texas Tribune
 * New Republic

--Neil N  talk to me 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a wee bit of an oversimplification of the issue at hand. The cites given use her campaign website as the primary source for the claim "top of her class" for which I can find no reliable secondary sources.  Since this is being used as a parenthetical bit of fluff, I suggest we would need sources which are secondary and not simply ones which refer to her official campaign biography which was shown to have a couple of problems in a minor controversy.  Had it not been shown to have problems, I would not be as concerned, but it was and so it is.
 * The proper question is "If a campaign biography has been shown to have inaccuracies, can we assert in Wikipedia's voice that it is accurate for other matters?"  again noting that the sources provided all appear to rely on the campaign biography, including copying of entire sentences therefrom. Collect (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you have given no proof that the listed sources have used her campaign website without error checking. --Neil N  talk to me 18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement that Davis graduated at the top of her class at TCU is supported by Texas Tribune piece (initially published by the New York Times), the New Republic, and by TCU itself. This is more than ample sourcing to support such a relatively innocuous and uncontroverted statement. Frankly I don't understand why a trip to this noticeboard was necessary for such a clear-cut case. MastCell Talk 04:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially as Davis' life story has been heavily scrutinized for inconsistencies and no source has been presented challenging that text. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Except one should note, for example, that CNN ascribed claims to her autobiography, the wording of the various sources seems to be identical in too many places to have been independently verified, and the use of any campaign website or press release is iffy as a source. Other than that, we all know she was number one in her class, and the most notable alumna of her uni ever.  Cheers -- does anyone understand that fluff claims do not belong on BLPs? Collect (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the position that a university website is not reliable for where a student places in the class of that university beyond bizarre. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be adding back the statement tomorrow as has not provided a shred of evidence the claim was not verified and was challenged. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "university website" contains quotes from her campaign website, and even has misspellings to boot.  Amazingly enough the "university website" appears to print press releases.  Cheers.  As for the suggestion that "top of her class" has been shown to be true, that is a matter for consensus at this point, but the fact is that there are zero actual independent sources for the claim.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No editor here agrees with your "zero actual independent sources" assertion. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Show me a source which does not have exact quotes from her campaign biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Show me where any source disputes this reporting by the NY Times, "Their daughter, Dru, was born in 1988 and, after Ms. Davis graduated from Texas Christian University at the top of her class in 1990, she set her sights on Harvard Law School." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Several sources generally considered reliable have reported the matter, including the website of the university that honored her as "alumni of the year". No reliable source has been identified which questions the assertion, and it is widely known that her political opponents scrutinize her claims intensely. I respect Collect's skepticism on such matters in general, but am unconvinced by Collect's arguments here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If a reliable source says she graduated at the top of her class then we can say that too. Reliable sources are supposed to weigh evidence and determine whether it is correct.  We should not question them except whether different sources are in conflict.  TFD (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No.
solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the pastWikidgood (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cosign by ARX sources
Hi - wanted to get opinions on whether the following sources can be considered reliable for the article I'm working on User:Drcarver/CoSign_by_ARX:

1) Source: Legal IT Professionals Content: "Digital signatures, which are based on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology...are the result of a cryptographic operation that creates a ‘fingerprint’ unique to both the signer and the content, so that they cannot be copied, forged or tampered with. This process provides proof of signer identity, data integrity and the non-repudiation of signed documents, all of which can be verified without the need for proprietary verification software."

2) Source: Bio-IT World Content: "Industries of focus include life science (particularly research and clinical trials"

3) Source: EngineeringNews.co.za Content: "Cosign is used in...Africa"

4) Source: DataManager.IT Content: "In August 2014, CoSign became the first remote / server-side digital signature solution to receive Common Criteria EAL4+ certification"

Drcarver (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on document from StoryNT

 * 1) Source: Word document available from
 * 2) Article: HMAS Southern Cross
 * 3) Content: See this diff

I have just reverted these two edits from to the article HMAS Southern Cross, which were attributed to this document.

The document is available from "StoryNT", which appears to be a Northern Territory government project to collate and present online user-submitted stories and documents. I am concerned that this document (and documents from StoryNT in general) do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, particularly as the project is soliciting user-submitted content, and does not appear to exercise any editorial control or fact-checking of submissions. The Disclaimer/Conditions of Use document includes ominous statements like "... although the Northern Territory Library (NTL) endeavours to monitor the quality and integrity of the information on this site, it does not guarantee that the information is complete or correct." and "The information in these collections does not constitute endorsement by NTL, as the sources are outside our control." Submissions to the project are usually released online after 1 working day.

In regard to the source in question, although framed as a document about the ship in question, the content focuses more on the activities and experiences of one of the sailors. The author appears (based on surname similarity) to be a descendant of the sailor in question. The content added to the article was from after the sailor's service aboard the vessel, so is likely to be of unspecified secondhand origin.

Was I wrong in reverting this content, or are my concerns about the quality of the source valid? -- saberwyn 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Technically correct, but it seems a shame to lose the information. Perhaps as a External Link?  Incidentally, I'd assume the newspaper article included in the document is reliable and calls into question the reliability of the Miramar Ship Index entry on this particular ship.  That entry says 1D, presumably where the 1 diesel engine fact was sourced.  However, the SMH article says "engines", which would support the selfpub document's assertion.  It also gives the total length and cost, which may be useful in the WP entry.  Further, there are a number of articles on Trove written on 4th September 1933 (published 5th/6th September) which refer to the launch of the Southern Cross, e.g., including this one written on the 4th that specifies "launched today"  This is further evidence of the unreliability of that Miramar entry, which has the launch date as 4/7/1933.  Likely this is a September-is-the-seventh-month sort of data-entry error.


 * BTW, what's the current source for the armament? Because, if it's unverified, it seems sensible to change to that suggested by the unreliable source (unreliable>no source when there's no reason to actually doubt the information).  Bromley86 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Eric Diesel
The article on Eric Diesel contains many sources that don't seem to be reliable. For example speeches (or introductory biographies given at speeches):

"He directs the T.H. Huxley and Aldous Huxley Family Foundation, works and lectures in the field of neuroethics, and is active in political issues involving Korea, California ecology, and care for the elderly and dependent adults."

Some of the sources don't reference any publication, for example:

"In 2009, he received the Meritorious Service Medal from Korean Veterans, and the Ambassador for Peace Award from the Republic of (South) Korea in 2007. In 2006, he received a Certificate of Appreciation from the City of Los Angeles for “exemplary achievement in his field and notable contributions to society”."

Another issue is that, throughout the article, references are clustered together making it impossible to tell which source refers to which specific information.Lampuser (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)