Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180

Media as RS for their own controversies (GamerGate)
Something that occurs to me after reading about all this GamerGate stuff -- is it appropriate to consider pieces of media reliable sources for controversies that they themselves are the subject of? Extending that, what about pieces of media owned by the same company (for example if a Gawker property is subject of a controversy are other Gawker properties RS)?

It seems...inappropriate to consider something an RS for a topic when it has an express business interest in taking a particular bias in it's coverage, which is always going to be the case when it's the subject of a controversy (in the case of GamerGate, Kotaku [for example] needs it to not be about ethics in journalism and alleged misbehavior of some of it's writers as much as possible because it makes them look terrible, and so have an express interest in not representing it as being about those things, as potentially does Gawker as a whole). Schadrach (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It depends on the particular situation. See our policies on questionable sources (note the footnote about conflicts of interest) and on using such sources as sources for statements about themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since every other uninvolved RS says it's not about journalism ethics, I don't see why Kotaku and Gawker can't be RS as well on it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As DrFleischman says, it depends on the situation. Ultimately, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  Generally speaking, Wikipedia prefers third-party sources.  WP:V says to "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources" (emphasis mine).   And as DrFleischman points out, WP:V cautions against using sources with an apparent conflict of interest.  OTOH, sometimes, first-party sources can have an excellent reputation for reliability.  Consider, for example, the US government's 9/11 Commission report is a highly respected (if not definitive) source about the September 11 attacks.  When in doubt, you can use in-text attribution.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * DrFleischman and Quest are correct. In this case, media outlets that were targeted by GamerGate prior to writing anything about the controversy (Gawker as a whole, for example) cannot be considered third-party sources for the subject, but any that wrote about it before being targeted (Washington Post, etc.) were third parties at the time of writing, and are thus better sources to use. Random th e Scrambled (?) 05:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That logic falls apart when gg makes the same baseless claims against NYT / Guardian / BBC anyone else who writes about them in a manner they dont like. The allegations of being not a reliable source have to have some basis or third party confirmation before they are given credence in knocking established publications from the RS category. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All three of those sources you listed were uninvolved before they wrote about GG, so no, it doesn't. The issue isn't general reliability - it's that they weren't written by a (then-)third party. Random th e Scrambled (?) 06:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kotaku was "uninvolved" before GG made demonstrably-false and discredited allegations about one of its employees. The fact that GamerGate has attacked something does not render it unreliable for our purposes. If anyone *besides* GamerGate considered the accusations to be meaningful or well-founded, we might have a different discussion. But literally everyone not in the tank for GamerGate (ranging from Columbia Journalism Review to PBS NewsHour) has examined the claims made against Kotaku and found them to be specious nothingburgers. So we helpfully quote all those other sources refuting the claims, along with Kotaku's own report on its investigation. We are not solely basing the statement on what Kotaku itself says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gamergate didn't exist before the "gamers are dead" articles, which Kotaku among others ran. (The related Quinnspiracy stuff was much smaller and under a different hashtag.) Kotaku's been the primary target of Gamergate boycotts.  Whatever the truth of the specific allegations that spawned Gamergate, pretending Kotaku is reliable about a consumer revolt AIMED AT BOYCOTTING THEM AND PUSHING AWAY THEIR ADVERTISERS is bullshit. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank TRPoD for pointing me here. Anyways, I'm probably using this for the fivethousanth time, but "Employee X of Gawker media did not do y. [1] Source: Gawker Media". Gawker Media and its network of news/blog sites, depending on which day of the week it is, should not, under any circumstance, be considered reliable, being described as a tabloid. Additionally, the only instance where Gawker should be cited, is for the section on Operation Baby Seal (in which gamers and others are emailing Google and Amazon themselves to report proven violations of their ad systems). If anything, Gawker media should be blacklisted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, if anything, given their low, low standards of "reporting", bloglike nature, and otherwise low quality "news". Clickbait. It's nothing but clickbait. --DSA510   Pls No H8 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS please. Furthermore, for all it's faults, Gawker is still a reliable source than Breitbart, Youtube videos, 4chan posts Gamergate love to spam.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More reliable doesn't mean reliable, and Gawker has a long history of posting false and defamatory articles, getting sued, and settling out of court. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

India News Co.
I wish to know whether this is a reliable source in the context of establishing Sarbajit Roy's notability, the article is facing a RfD. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It may depend on which report you intend to rely on. For example, this one won't do the job because it is yet more self-publicity from Roy. Same with this and this. The man is clearly capable of getting his press releases into a fairly minor news agency service but that isn't going to do much for WP:GNG given what we already know about him. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Need third party uninvolved opinion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Notability requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources". Passing mentions of a person do not do that.  TFD (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the source good? As the subject's name is in the report title which is significant enough. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not clear that this is a reliable source for any purpose and there is good reason to reject it outright as a reliable source concerning Roy. The website describes the India News Co as partly transcribing content from TV stations and providing material for the use of "news professionals", but there is no indication of its clientele or of relioable news sources using India News Co content. The website has a narrow focus as summarised on that page, and little content - just 12 pages of "slugs". The website says India News Co was established in 2004 but the domain was registered in 2013. It is particularly disturbing that the registrant's address, Apt. B-801, N/P CGHS Ltd., Plot 28, Sector 4, Dwarka, New Delhi, is the same as that used by Sarbajit Roy in 2013. It seems likely that the website is under Roy's control and used for purposes of publicity and authentication. NebY (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * IndiaNewsCo is currently used as a reference in three articles.
 * National Technical Research Organisation, added 21 August 2013 (though with an access date of 21 August 2012) by, blocked April 2014 for personal attacks on over IAC and after apparently posting on behalf of IAC.
 * Right to Information Act, added 12 August 2013 by TheWikiIndian.
 * Anna Hazare, added 14 August 2013 by TheWikiIndian.
 * I haven't attempted to check the content those references are used to support. NebY (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * good detective work there, thanks. It looks like another of Roy's stooge sites, like this one. However, the redirect has been deleted and the page is create-protected, so this thread is now redundant. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow! Great sleuthing NebY. And if the subject ever returns, we should be extra-careful not to take any source, url or claim at face value. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * People should also be wary of clicking on any links. Several domain names associated with this farm have been found to be phishing sites etc and, of course, Roy claims to have written India's first virus. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NebY after my faux pas with Hindustan Today I wanted to be a little careful and the agency didn't look perfect so I brought it here. Regardless of the outcome of the said discussion, I feel the subject is notable enough, for a stand alone article, and I will be more careful if/when I appeal the deletion. Thanks one more time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Barelvi
Is this reliable to use in the Barelvi article? It seems to be the site of the movement :http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/waseela.php" (it is to be used to add that they have a practice called "Waseela")

& is this a reliable source: https://www.academia.edu/7643961/Anti-Americanism_in_Indonesia_and_Pakistan" (to be used to add a link to Nahdlatul Ulama in the see also section of the Barelvi article with the headline "similar traditional movement". Lagoonaville (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , this was already being discussed at Talk:Barelvi. You've been reverted by three editors on this point now and the issue was already discussed at that talk page. That doesn't mean the majority view is necessarily correct, but out of politeness you should have informed at least one of us that you would take the discussion elsewhere so that all views might be heard. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We are well aware of your thoughts on this matter. I would like to hear feedback from the users on this noticeboard. Lagoonaville (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No clue about the discussion on the articles in question, but here are my takes on the two sources:
 * Academica.edu has no editorial oversight and appears any user can upload to it. No way of verifying the truthiness of anything posted there. Not reliable.
 * Alahazrat.net could be used as WP:SPSSELF without issue if it is indeed their official page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The first source is not necessarily representative of Barelvi opinion or scholarship, and the second source is just an unpublished opinion. You seem to be pushing an agenda contrary to the advice of several editors. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the Barelvi opinion on this matter? Can you provide a source that is contrary to this? Lagoonaville (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is on you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  is right: it is your responsibility to prove the reliability of your source. I have not added a source, so I'm not obligated to defend something I haven't presented. As I asked on the Barelvi take page: would a post on a local Anglican-affiliated website (of unproven official authority) be a good source for establishing a certain official Church of England doctrine? Clearly not. It doesn't make sense to me to use your source (Alahazrat.net) to prove a Barelvi doctrine. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If the information is accurate and backed by other sources why wouldnt it be? This website is dedicated to barelvi movement. Lagoonaville (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Who says it is accurate? It isn't reliable, so we have no means of determining accuracy other than "one editor likes it."
 * 2. Anybody can create a website and dedicate it to anything. What is the proof that it is official? We already had non-official attempts at representation of the Barelvi movement throughout the whole User:Msoamu fiasco a few years ago. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources insupport of barelvi practicing tawassul or waseela***

'"Barelvi Islam is closely tied to the devotion to pirs and belief in their powers of intercession (wasilah)"'. State and ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan. Page 84

"Darul Uloom (Pretoria) was the first fully-fledged Barelwi madrasah. It was established in 1989, at a time when the Deobandi-Barelwi confclit in South Africa was at its peaks. During the 1980s, Deobandi attacks had heightened against popular Sufi practices such as the visitation to shrines of Sufi saints, the celebration of Muhammad’s birth (mawlid), and against beliefs in the intercession of saints (tawassul)"' Muslim Schools and E'ducation in Europe and South Africa).page 76

"According to Barelwi scholar, Muhammad is no mere mortal. He possesses ‘ilm al-ghayb (knowledge of the unknown) and is the primary focus for tawassul (intercession) with God". Encyclopaedia of Islam.page 88

'"Barelvis believe in the wasilah (higher standing or great religious status) of dead saints and their brakkah (spiritual power, blessings, holiness), to be found in their shrines". Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Egypt and Iran. page 399


 * Source in support of Barelvi & Nahdlatul Ulama being similar movement

"The only reformist school which has vindicated the full Sufi heritage, is that of the Barelwis who have been joined by the Naqshbandis; their practice of Sufism may be compared to that of the Indonesian Nathdlatul Ulama.” Varieties of Religious Authority: Changes and Challenges in 20th Century Indonesian Islam. Page 8 Lagoonaville (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas. You are welcome to join in on the conversation; reliable sources are also welcome! RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

is this web page reliable?


All the specs in that site of the motorcycle are been used to expand and as a source to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_GPZ305 wikipedia article

Thanks Orendona (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Times, Washington Post and Guardian Reliability regarding GamerGate
These sites, used as a reliable source in the Gamergate_controversy, claim or insinuate, in these articles

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate The Guardian Quote: ''The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda, None of you fucking #gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I’m not even a tough target, he tweeted. Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her.''

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/24/gamergate-targets-felicia-day-after-she-expresses-fear-of-being-targeted/ Washington Post Quote: Day was worried that if she spoke up about Gamergate, she would be viciously harassed by the same torch-bearing misogynists who have targeted feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and developers Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn. Well, she was right.

My emphasis. The 'vicious harassment' attributed is based on the same as the Times and WP: a post who claims no affiliation.

http://time.com/3535619/felicia-day-writes-about-gamergate-gets-information-hacked/ Times Quote: ''Supernatural actress and avid gamer Felicia Day took to her Tumblr to talk about #GamerGate on Thursday and, perhaps unsurprisingly, was immediately harassed. Though #GamerGaters claim that they are''

that the movement GamerGate is reponsible for harassing and doxxing her, something that the Gamergate article in Wikipedia reflects. However, they are based on a commentary (which one of the articles link: http://imgur.com/UAcmAg1) that do not claim affiliation to any movements, nor makes reference to a movement. At the very best this is rumor mongering and at worst it's straight dishonest, and spreading lies isn't the characteristic of reliable sources. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum. If you wish to ask whether Wikipedia contributors consider a particular source is reliable for a particular statement, do so, providing all the necessary details. Otherwise, find somewhere else (off Wikipedia) to express your personal opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But I just did that. The evidence, the quotes the news used, and everything that is asked is right there. I posted this here to find out whether Wikipedia contributors consider a particular source is reliable for this topic. The quotes they use and the source they claim did everything. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You have not stated what specific text the sources were being cited for. Instead you made a vague statement about article content and then went on to accuse well-established and reputable news providers of 'rumor mongering' and 'spreading lies'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole point of reliable sources is that they have publishing standards and editorial oversight. Do you really believe that The Guardian, Time, and the Washington Post didn't do due dillegence on stories they released? Parabolist (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I did specify the quotes. I will make it more clear now. And yes, Parabolist. They all point to one comment, and the comment doesn't reflect what they say. You can check it yourself. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. I asked what specific text in the Wikipedia article the sources were being cited for. You have not told us this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought you are asking for the quotes the sources gave. Well, as I said, it's used as source 47, 48 and 49 in the article. One unsourced claim is also implied that it relates to the article but only Day was singled out for harassment. and o the draft it's sourced on the same comment. The other quote is After actress and gamer Felicia Day made a blog post noting her concerns over GamerGate and how she has avoided discussing it due to fear of the backlash, her address was posted in the comments section. which is under the article Further harassment and threats, which implies (and the sources outright say too) was made by GamerGate. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. Maybe you should consider that if all of these incredibly experienced and reliable news organizations came to the same conclusion about a topic, that they might actually be right? This is the second topic about Gamergate on this page and they both are media conspiracy nonsense. Parabolist (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your question is confusing... are you asking if the three articles linked are RS? If so, of course they are. You don't get much more reliable news than those sources. But we seem to be saying they are somehow reliable in this one instance for some reason I cannot quite glean. If that is the case, please briefly explain further.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying these entire media outlets are wrong, but that in this topic, regarding the image they are using, it is. The comment they use as a primary source doesn't not imply any affiliation yet it is used as proof. How is that reliable? Did you even check the stuff? If so, care to explain how the comment they used lead to GamerGate? We are here to discuss the reliability of sources, not to attend your conspiracy theories that if everyone reposts the same hoax, it's the truth. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning their reliability in this issue, since the three articles base off a comment that declared no affiliation, yet the sources put one affiliation. Attributing something to someone that doesn't exist isn't quite reliable. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * - Sources do not exist in a vacuum. Everything has context. I HAVE looked at the stories here, and I have seen Day's original post. It is extremely obvious to see the connection. Journalists are not wikipedians, they're capable of making conclusions based on research and evidence, that's the entire point of secondary sources. Parabolist (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Zakkarum, neither the sources cited nor our article state that anything was 'made by GamerGate', if only for the very good reason that 'GamerGate' isn't a person, and nor is it an organisation with a defined membership - there is no such thing as a 'GamerGate affiliation'. The sources state the facts - that Day made a blog commentary on the issue, and promptly had her address posted. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should refrain from suggesting that the two events were self-evidently connected, any more than anyone else would. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources do claim that. It's even on the title. gamergate-targets-felicia-day-after-she-expresses-fear-of-being-targeted. That's the washington Post. The guardians says The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda The Times quote is also there, and they use twitter quotes who claim the same thing.  So they say the harassment was made by gamergate, and it's used in the wiki article to prove that point. Felicia Day also didn't say she was harassed or doxxed, even though the three journals say she was. The article uses the sources as an example of "other harassment and doxxing". When you use that in the article, not only the source showed it was unreliable, but putting the source under the "Further harassment and threats" section of an article about GamerGate implies what? That this is a harassment linked to gamergate, even though that link doesn't exist. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

BDSM enthusiasts' websites as RS's for BDSM page?
Hi, folks.

I deleted some long-unsourced material from BDSM page. The material had been tagged for 2 months or more, but no RS's came forth. (There remains still more unsourced and tagged material.) User:RobinHood70 wants to restore the deleted material, using as sources amateur websites maintained by BDSM enthusiasts, and acknowledging that "I take it as a given that some sources will be less than ideal for the simple reason that BDSM is not often covered in mainstream non-fiction literature."

The sites User:RobinHood70 proposes as sources are:
 * http://www.xeromag.com the author of which describes himself here.
 * http://www.evilmonk.org the author of which describes himself here.

Although I am sympathetic to the problem, my own view is that WP is not a fan cite and that if the material does not receive coverage by RS's, then the material does not belong in an encyclopedia. That is, we don't lower are standards to justify material; we have a standard and include the material that meets it.

The exact statements being restored are:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDSM&diff=635567721&oldid=635560808
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDSM&diff=635560808&oldid=635349778

(Other material being restored properly sourced there is no issue with.)

Thanks for any input. — James Cantor (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether it's BDSM, model trains, or container gardening, sources for non-BLP hobby articles just need a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:SPS can be used from recognized experts who have been published by reliable third-party publications, but not purely self-styled experts. I'm sure there are "amateurs" that have strong reputations with a history of being published, but I don't see that demonstrated with these two on first glance. I wouldn't necessarily start blanking sections, as these seem like very general claims that seem like they could be sourced from books on the subject. The topic is salacious, but it's also a topic that's been extensively written about at all levels of academic or editorial seriousness.__ E L A Q U E A T E  00:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Elaqueate has hit on the very problem that the page faces. What's common knowledge and/or wide practice within the BDSM community is hard to find reliable sources for. Simple things, like what constitutes a "top", "bottom" or "switch" are easy to find unofficial sources for, and with a little more work, it's not too hard to find official sources that at least mention what they are in passing. But then you get into the harder ones. Words like "play party" that are everyday terms within the community are almost impossible to find official sources for. That doesn't mean they're unverifiable, just that you have to accept that the definitions given on hundreds, if not thousands, of non-WP:RS-compliant BDSM sites are, in fact, the definitions that everyone in the community uses. The same things goes for a lot of the descriptions of the various related activities. Who, outside of the community itself, actually ever mentions the use of negotiation and contracts within a BDSM context, for example? That doesn't mean it's not true or verifiable, but finding a secondary source will be difficult, at best.


 * As for topic experts, the only one that I've cited so far, Jay Wiseman, is a well-known BDSM writer with several books to his name. I'll be the first to acknowledge that what I'm citing is blog-like, but it does have a good discussion of negotiation from a recognized expert in the field.


 * James obviously wants to help the article, and I agree with several of his edits, but within half an hour, he removed roughly 1/6 of the existing article based solely on the fact that it was uncited. This left a lot of gaps or misleading presentations of the information. My aim is to restore the relevant and useful information with at least some kind of citation, but as discussed above, that's not easy. I'd be grateful for any suggestions on how to proceed here. – RobinHood70 talk 02:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Take another look at WP:SPS. If someone's been published by reliable third-party publications, then they can often be considered a reliable source in their other, self-published works, including blogs. There needs to be some rough consensus, but blogs written by experts (as evidenced by a clear history of being published by third-party RS) are used as sources throughout Wikipedia. There has been much written about BDSM, so it shouldn't be that hard; just show that any expert has been taken seriously and published by other RS. Also, give Google scholar a look. Don't worry overmuch about removals as long as there's still a collaborative atmosphere; the article will probably emerge stronger with more direct sourcing to people who are more clearly considered experts.__ E L A Q U E A T E  02:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Elaqueate is correct. SPSs by legit experts (such as RS book authors) are generally good as RS's.  Are those website authors also book authors?  I read each of the bio's they put on their websites, and although they mention the essays they have on their own websites, neither mentions writing any books or other RS's.  It is indeed true that I deleted a substantial portion of the BDSM page...but said another way, a substantial amount of the page was unsourced and long tagged as such.  (I have not, however, thus far deleted any of the portions that were sourced to the above websites. I deleted only entirely unsourced passages.)  Is there anything that suggests the cited websites count as SPS's?— James Cantor (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A small side note that's not really about RS: Without prejudice to anyone, I'd caution against taking material out solely because a sentence is without a citation. We're only supposed to remove material if it's unsourced as well as somehow likely to be challenged. If the sentences look like they could be considered fairly accurate and easily verifiable from sourced material on a related Wikipedia page, then it can be left in while discussed (since this is not a BLP). The next sentence is a good example that doesn't necessarily require an additional inline citation: The term sadomasochism is derived from the words sadism and masochism (see Etymology). __ E L A Q U E A T E  03:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, there's nothing that suggests that the entire sites constitute SPS sites. The glossary, I chose because it looked reasonably accurate without any...let's go with "unexpected"...images appearing on the page. I fully acknowledge that it does not meet reliable source criteria, but as I said, what does? If there are other BDSM glossaries or terminology dictionaries out there that do, I'd very much rather use them for the terms that need them. Which leads my to my next point: I question whether most of these definitions need to be sourced at all. If all BDSM glossaries we can find agree on the general definition of something, do we really need to cite it? I'm not talking about those statements that could reasonably be challenged, just the sections that define what something is in the generally understood way. After all, even if we do cite that the sky is blue, we don't normally cite the definition of "sky" or "blue".


 * As far as the Jay Wiseman material goes, I have no idea who the author of the site as a whole is, nor do I believe that that's especially relevant unless there's some reason to think that the author is deliberately misquoting Mr. Wiseman. This seems unlikely given that I was able to find the same material on two other blogs, though of course, there's always the possibility that one or all of them are copying from the others.


 * As I said, there's no doubt that these are not ideal sources—far from it—but at least they're some kind of sources that support the definitions used and the other information on the page. I tend to believe that it's better to have poorly sourced material that's easily verifiable with a web search, or by logging onto any of the various BDSM-friendly websites and chatting with someone knowledgeable, than to have missing information that could lead the reader to the wrong conclusion about what BDSM is about because all unsourced or poorly sourced information is removed. Poor sources can be improved over time whereas information that's missing entirely is not going to be obvious to a less knowledgeable reader.


 * Having said all that, I'll check Google scholar tomorrow and see what I can dig up there. In the past, I've had poor luck with finding things like this there, but perhaps things have changed. – RobinHood70 talk 04:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Angelfire usage at Ludovico Arroyo Bañas
At the article Ludovico Arroyo Bañas, there are several usages of a source from Angelfire, which I believe falls under WP:SPS. The source is as follows: http://www.angelfire.com/pq/telecommunications/. It appears to have a bibliography, but no in-line citations. Please provide opinions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is self published and, given the surnames and apparent relative ages, there's a chance there's only one author, with the other being a younger relative that mainly helped with the webpage. Inline citations aren't an issue, as long as we can get happy that it's reliable.  That's the sticking point though, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.  I haven't been able to find anything else by Oquindo that would establish reliability.
 * I did find mention of it on a news site, for what that's worth. "A surprisingly comprehensive history of the Philippine telecommunications industry", (The Philippine Star).  Tangential mention here, "Federico Oquindo wrote".  So news organisations in the Philippines seem to treat it as reliable (not that that works for us).
 * I'm not sure that there's a single suitable source in that whole article. Next time you're in the Philippines you might be able to verify the veracity of the docs stored, so they're fine as primary sources.  However, as  stated, that doesn't make LAB notable. Bromley86 (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the bio on angelfire is less than reliable... I note, however, that the angelfire bio contains a bibliography, which lists several reliable sources. I would suggest that those reliable sources be reviewed... as it is likely that they can be used to support at least some of the information currently cited to the angelfire bio. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

discussions.apple.com
Just want to confirm that opinions on the discussions.apple.com website would not constitute a reliable source. I know this is a simple one, and is realistically cut and dry WP:USERGENERATED but an IP user insists it's reliable. The subject item is https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-3036 and is related to MacKeeper.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * confirmed. not a reliable source Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is Blueboar an admin, meaning is he in a position to give a definitive opinion?
 * Should we all add IMO to our sigs? Anyway, confirmed (IMnon-adminO).  "Find and share solutions with Apple users around the world" means it's the same as any wiki.  User Klaus1, the author, appears to be a (well informed) user rather than an official agent of Apple/Apple Support Communities.  Bromley86 (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette health claims

 * Source 1 of 2 ("Hajek 2014")


 * Article
 * Electronic cigarette, with talk page discussion archived at


 * Content statements (first two of four)
 * A. "Electronic cigarettes are likely to be much less harmful to smokers than cigarettes."
 * B. "Health care professionals should support smokers wishing to switch to electronic cigarettes and emphasise the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine."


 * Source 2 of 2 ("Polosa 2013")


 * Article
 * Electronic cigarette, with talk page discussion archived at


 * Content statements (last two of four)
 * C. "Smokers switching to electronic cigarettes find them helpful and will likely achieve large health gains."
 * D. "Even if they are effective for only a quarter of smokers, electronic cigarettes could save millions of lives over the next decade."

EllenCT (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the objections to the material above were due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT basis, and not due to a question of reliability, so a discussion about reliability is unlikely to solve the actual objection to the material. Yobol (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the sources are reliable and the statements fairly represent them, but you believe that WP:WEIGHT and the WP:ASSERT essay can somehow overrule the WP:NPOV pillar policy requirement that all points of view be represented, and the WP:LEAD guideline directive to summarize major controversies in article introductions? EllenCT (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First, WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT are part of WP:NPOV so your question makes no sense. Second, NPOV issues are not appropriate for discussion on RS/N. As this has been discussed already on the talk page, I will leave it to others if they want to waste their time further discussing it here. This will be my last comment about the topic here. Yobol (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yobol does not explain why WP:WEIGHT might apply, and I don't see anyone other than Yobol having raised WEIGHT and ASSERT issues. Claiming that WP:ASSERT applies implies that the statements are opinions instead of facts, which strongly suggests to me that this is a question of reliability of the sources and their support of the statements, appropriate for this noticeboard. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Both sources are review articles in journals. Nothing to really address here in terms of reliability sources, although it does look like caution is needed in separating fact summarized in the reviews from the opinions and conclusions made by the authors. As Yobol mentioned, seems like the current statements picked are a matter of weight and not really the purpose of this board. Especially since we're dealing with statements that all appear to be pro-e-cig (or really whenever you are saying something is a positive or negative) that's an obvious question for weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of indiegogo campaigns as a source for the existence of themselves
I have been repeatedly trying to update the wiki Matt Taylor (scientist) to mention the existence of an IndieGogo campaign relating to him. As evidence that this campaign exists, I have cited it as a reference. The edit keeps being deleted on the pretext that IndieGogo is not a "reliable source", and the evidence should come at second hand from, say, a newspaper website. This is obviously absurd. What more reliable source could there be for the existence of an IndieGogo fundraising campaign than the thing itself? How can providing the primary source for an assertion be seen as unreliable? Specifically I am trying to quote the rationale stated by the campaign organiser for starting the campaign. The evidence for this is on the campaign page, and nowhere else. If the actual, primary evidence for it is regarded as "unreliable", then that is tantamount to saying that this information can never be placed on wikipedia. But why shouldn't it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)
 * Sources should ideally be independent secondary sources, to establish that the topic actually matters. IndieGogo is (at best) a self-published primary source. A mainstream news article about the IndieGogo campaign (but not press-release or advertisement disguised as an article) is a more reliable sources because it demonstrates that anyone besides Matt Taylor and his supporters has really noticed or cared about it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a deeply questionable stance to take for all sorts of reasons - pehaps primarily the assumption that something only matters once the mainstream media have noticed it and decided to talk about it - although in this particular case an independent secondary source (Yahoo news) has noticed it and mentioned it in a report. My point, though, was about the absurdity of the idea that the existence of something (in this case a crowdfund campaign) cannot be reliably attested by primary reference to that thing, which was the pretext for removing my edit. The discussion now seems to have moved on from there, but I still think it should be noted in all future such cases that primary sources are allowed on wikipedia: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - and that there is a common sense clause in the policy. It must therefore be regarded as in compliance with policy on sources to prove an assertion that an IndieGogo campaign exists by providing a link to that campaign in the references as a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)
 * That opens the doors to Wikipedia being hijacked by zealots and advertisers.
 * Zealots: Religious texts are primary sources, and if we allow citation of primary sources it opens the door to different sects arguing that their interpretation is the only correct one. Relying on academic secondary sources allows the articles to stick to what scholars have found to be historically common or noteworthy interpretations.  There are also a number of new religious movements or schisms of older religions that like to pretend they're much larger or older than they really are.  Then there are Conspiracy theorists, who regularly make claims about primary sources that are "obvious" to them.  The easiest way to stop that is to say "if it's truly obvious, there will be a secondary or tertiary source documenting it."
 * Advertisers: "Our (website/product/fundraiser) exists!" Suddenly, Wikipedia becomes the new Craigslist.  The easiest way to stop that is to say "anything advertised is only noteworthy if there is outside and independent observation."
 * It is hardly questionable. Your purposed policy will not be noted any time in the future, as the current policies work just fine for those who aren't trying to spam the site.  If you have a Yahoo news article, try citing that.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Except I wasn't talking about any of those irrelevant things you just dragged in, I was arguing specifically that where a claim that an IndieGogo campaign exists is made, providing the link to it as a reference is an entirely reasonable way of verifying the claim, and this really ought to be acknowledged as not being in contravention of any policy on sources. The common sense policy is for the birds, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)
 * But those supposedly "irrelevant" things are the very reason why we cannot rely on primary sources, and the advertising issue is the core of why we do not allow the IndieGogo campaign to be cited to demonstrate that it's noteworthy. Existing is not simply enough to merit inclusion on this site, or else we'd become Facebook.  We're not a collection of random information, we're an encyclopedia.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you shifting the goalposts again there? I wasn't citing it to demonstrate that it was noteworthy, I was citing it to prove it exists. The noteworthiness is a separate issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)
 * Hardly shifting the goalposts, merely pointing out that you're not aiming for the proper goalpost. At no point have I said that proving something exists is enough, I have consistently said that what matters is outside and independent observation and documentation.  All of my posts in this thread have specifically argued against including something just because it exists, and if you didn't catch that you must not be paying any attention.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not listening to me. I agree that not everything is necessarily worthy of mention in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia comes to decisions on whether things are worthy of writing about in a vague, mutual way. I'm not seeking to change that, but it is separate from how assertions are validated in articles. Assuming that the existence of this campaign were adjudged noteworthy, how else could or should it and its aims be attested other than by reference to it? I am pointing out a specific instance of where your policies are not working sufficiently well, for someone who is not trying to "spam the site" (unless you are using a very creative and individual definition of "spam"). In discussion with someone else I encountered the view that "it's... unreliable because it's a primary source". What that says about the way wikipedia sources information is really quite worrying. It is obviously in everyone's interests that common sense should be applied in such cases. I'm surprised that this point has encountered such bloody-minded resistance. And I wish you would stop assuming bad faith about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)
 * When you said "I still think it should be noted in all future such cases that primary sources are allowed on wikipedia..." -- common sense would call that 'trying to change things.' Your only actions on the site have been to try and add a link so someone can get money: in effect advertising the campaign.  Common sense says that you're spamming.
 * The examples I've given above explain why it would be worrying if we relied on primary sources.
 * I have not moved the goalposts, you have been kicking the ball shorter and shorter. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This exchange appears to be fruitless since you're not prepared to engage in an open spirit, and also since the discussion on the relevant article has (I hope) moved on to the more material questions of noteworthiness and the neutrality of my edit (which I have tried to address with a suggested new wording; and I am happy to acknowledge that I support the campaign, but there is no valid reason why that should preclude me from writing about it, and it has no bearing whatsoever on its noteworthiness). But I find your attitude to this perplexing and not at all reassuring.

Association football club size
http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/bundesliga/startseite/616467/artikel_bayern-mitglieder-feiern-abwesenden-hoeness.html was used to support the statement that FC Bayern Munich has "over 251,000 members" and therefore is considered "the biggest club in the world". First some background. Not all football clubs have memberships. So some clubs may have more supporters, or rank higher on Forbes' list of most successful sports franchises. This is only about members. Second, one fan of a club that doesn't keep accurate records, Portuguese club Benfica, has taken offence to the change. He claims that UEFA doesn't support that statement, but doesn't offer any proof from the organization. He claims that Guiness World Records doesn't support it, but again, no support. I believe that even if they offered contradicting claims, it doesn't nullify the new RS and their claims may need to be updated. Also, even if they contradict, it's not incorrect to use the source unless it's not reliable. We add additional statements with the countering claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's FIFA, not UEFA (my mistake). Do you have proof that the club doesn't keep accurate records? Benfica will recount the number of members in 2015 (source). I don't claim FIFA doesn't support the statement, I claim that Bayern itself is not neutral to say they have more members. I have a reliable and neutral source which compares many clubs and shows that Benfica is the biggest club by membership: http://www.fifa.com/mm//Document/AF-Magazine/FIFAWeekly/02/27/86/02/LowRes_eng_Woche07_2014_Neutral.PDF page 29. SLBedit (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that source.
 * It is from July. The new one is from November.
 * That source indicates that Benfica has 235,000. The new source indicates that Bayern has 251,000, which is more
 * In short, is the kicker.de reliable? Can it be used to support the statement that the club is now the largest in the world? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Walter Görlitz said this to me on a discussion: "Don't bother posting another word here". SLBedit (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was only part of what I wrote. The exact phrase was: "In other words, if you can't find a reliable source that states that your club has more than 251,000 members your old sources are no longer relevant and I'm done talking with you. Seriously. Don't bother posting another word here unless it's a RS that supports that claim." Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Is "Speaking of Science" at the Washington Post a WP:NEWSBLOG?
I am currently in a dispute with another editor (who seems to have walked away from the discussion) over whether the quote from Rachel Feltman in the "Shirt controversy" section of the Matt Taylor article is from a newsblog at The Washington Post or from The Washington Post itself. I maintain that the text "Rachel Feltman runs The Post's Speaking of Science blog." at the end of the Washington Post article clearly identifies that Speaking of Science is a newsblog and not the Washington Post itself. The other editor responded here that the format of the URL indicates that it is not a blog, but part of The Washington Post's news reporting.

It is obvious that we have a disagreement and I am bringing the issue here to get someone else to look at it, since no one else has commented in the discussion. The discussion is at the article talk page 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's listed as a blog on the Washington Post website here. ElKevbo (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece. "Newsblog" means the newspaper is hosting an opinion writer, and it can generally be used the same as another opinion piece published by the paper. WP:NEWSBLOG means that you treat newsblogs as slightly more reliable than non-newsblogs (regular blogs), but that you attribute the statements to the opinion writer, still connected to the paper somehow. "Newsblogs" offer viewpoints from a more reliable source; it doesn't mean they should not be used in an article. It's the same substantive type of opinion piece as the "Daily Telegraph" opinion piece that's used just after it... __ E L A Q U E A T E   03:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, a Washington Post newsblog is not somehow less reliable for informed opinion than a Guardian "Commentisfree" opinion piece, or a Daily Telegraph editorial opinion piece. If you're using those in that article, then this piece is at least as acceptable.__ E L A Q U E A T E  03:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But nor is it somehow more reliable, and all of the other opinions cited in the article are simply attributed to individuals. The Feltman quote is, at least partially, attributed to The Washington Post, and the justification for that attribution that had been given when I challenged it was "Speaking of Science is not a WP:NEWSBLOG — it is specifically a part of The Washington Post's regular news coverage and is reported and edited as such" which is what brought me here to ask if it is a newsblog.  How we use opinion pieces is also important.  None of the other sources are being used to support a one-word quote like the one in which she described as "sexist" just prior to the long quote from Feltman's piece. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion here pointed the way to an "olive branch" solution that seems to have worked. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Editor Reviews" and affiliate marketing (on CNET)
We're currently discussing Yet Another Cleaner and its pending deletion and the only so-called reliable source we have mentioning this (IMO Rogue) software is an "Editor's Review" by CNET Staff. Unfortunately, I can't agree that this would constitute a reliable source because of the fact that the article contains affiliate links, meaning that for every purchase this article promotes, CNET makes a commission.

Examples: "Get Winzip Standard", "MS Office for $139.99" , "Upgrade to YAC Anti-Malware Premium for only $20.00"

These are all clearly affiliate links which earn CNET financial reward for virtually any software it praises. I find it hard to believe that these would be considered good things to cite, let alone being the deciding factor on why obscure software should have its own article on WP. Opinions? - JakobusVP (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Newspapers, magazines, TV shows, etc. take advertising money from companies they sometimes cover. For example, the "Wheels" section of the local paper is full of ads for cars. That's how the section is financially justifiable. That doesn't mean the reviews can't be reliable sources, your piped link notwithstanding. Reputable media companies have a wall between content and advertising. --Neil N  talk to me 18:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * NealN is right. CNET is generally a respected source. If it's notable, it gets to have an article. I don't know if that's the case here, but CNET would be a good source. If the software is still too obscure to be noticed in multiple RS, then it can wait. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * JacobusVP, the case you seem to be making for the unreliability of CNET is that they've been corrupted by what they're paid to review a product. But unless you know for sure that some reviewers aren't paid for doing so, according to you all reviewers of software must be judged as unreliable on similar grounds of corruptibility.
 * What if anything do you see as distinguishing CNET from other reviewers of software, that would would make CNET any less reliable than those other reviewers? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

EMDR - "Other Applications"
Hello, If I am correctly understanding, this noticeboard serves to check the authenticity of a particular source used in an Wikipedia article. The source in question is: Brown KW, McGoldrick T, Buchanan R (1997). "Body dysmorphic disorder: Seven cases treated with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing". Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 25 (02): 203–207. The reference is being used in its entirety simply to demonstrate one of a number of psychological conditions other than Post-traumatic Stress Disorder under investigation with EMDR therapy. Thank You Saturn Explorer (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're questioning whether the cited source even exists at all, the resource exchange board is probably what you want. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The context is use in the Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing article, so I suspect this is more a question of whether this is a proper source for the way it will be used. To judge that, we need to see an example of how it will be used. Saturn Explorer, please provide the content you'd like to add using this as a source. Just place it in this thread and we can then judge if it is a proper way to use the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BullRangifer. Here is the usage of the aforementioned reference. As you can see, reference #32 was tagged: "Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder,[28] anxiety disorders,[29][verification needed] somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain,[30][31] body dysmorphic disorder,[32][verification needed] depression[33] and psychosis.[34]Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder,[28] anxiety disorders,[29][verification needed] somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain,[30][31] body dysmorphic disorder,[32][verification needed] depression[33] and psychosis."[34]Saturn Explorer (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that reference #29 has very recently been tagged as well: Gauvreau P, Bouchard S (2008). "Preliminary evidence for the efficacy of EMDR in treating generalized anxiety disorder". Journal of EMDR Practice and Research 2 (1): 26–40. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.2.1.26. Thanks you, again.Saturn Explorer (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are likely running into conflict with our WP:MEDRS guideline. Our sourcing demands for biomedical claims in any article are even stricter than for other types of information. The result is that we demand better sources for such information in our articles than even scientific and medical journals do for their articles! That's a pretty high standard, and is likely part of the explanation for why most MDs now use Wikipedia articles before medical textbooks.
 * We don't normally allow "preliminary" or "inconclusive" sources. Why? Experience has taught scientists that 95% (a guestimate) of all research ends up not panning out, even though it started with preliminary "positive" results. That's why we don't trust research until it has been confirmed by multiple, independent, researchers who also publish their results. If that process confirms the results, then things really start to happen. It becomes exciting. Such results start to influence policies and guidelines, and that's when we too, here at Wikipedia, start allowing those results to be used as sources.
 * That's why we prefer reviews of multiple research projects published in high profile, reputable journals, and the Journal of EMDR Practice and Research is a junk journal, akin to chiropractic's Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research. The starting premise for both journals is pseudoscientific. They are in house journals, preaching to the choir. They don't have any credibility in the wider scientific and medical communities. EMDR researchers need to publish their research in major, high impact, journals.
 * We don't want our articles cluttered with the 95% speculative and temporary results. Any editor can engage in original research and synthesis violations by cherry picking the results they like out of those 95%, and we don't allow that practice. It only encourages pushers of fringe POV to load long lists of junk results into articles. The homeopathy article is a place where such attempts happen all the time. The talk page history and archives are loaded with hundreds of such sources which we don't allow in the article.
 * So, be careful about sourcing. Follow the MEDRS guideline, and when in doubt, you can float your ideas here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Thank you BullRangifer.Saturn Explorer (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I should say this makes sense from the perspective of matured scientific publishing and from a perspective that seeks to both inform and protect the public from misunderstanding or even inadvertently misleadking implications. This is the venerable perspective of Wikipedia and the whole reason for your comments. However, I would refrain from blanket labeling JEMDR as "junk science." JEMDR has many serious contributors and it is peer reviewed. True, it does not react the level of excellence of a JAMA or Nature, etc., but it's intent extends beyond self-promotion. I rather think of JEMDR as a laboratory for a variety of contributors and contributions exploring a serious subject of both science and healing art, shich has already shown very significant effectiveness, at a relativel early phase of that subject.Saturn Explorer (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper sources
These sources  are actually reliable for claiming Pakistan's victory during the Battle of Chawinda?

Until the introduction of these sources, the result parameter was referred as "Stalemate" due to the UN mandated ceasefire.,, But I really doubt if other two  are reliable enough for claiming the results, since they are outdated and they cannot overlap the sources that are dated and have enough expertise in the field.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * They are reliable sources. As to whether they're suitable or not, that's a different question that also needs to be applied to the other cites currently in use.  I.e. [3] is the diary of an Indian minister, which might not give a balanced view; even then, the language it uses (lack of initiative of Indian commanders, Pakistanis reinforcing strong defences) indicates that the Pakistanis may have been achiving their aims in a defensive battle.  A quick read of 138-9 of [4] makes me think it's fairly pro-Indian in its language (not least, it frequently refers to the Pakistani side as the enemy).  Even then, those pages indicate, to me anyway, that India did not achieve it's aims in the battle of Chawinda.  Therefore, they lost.  And [5] has a single sentence on it; there must be more authoritative sources than that.  Bromley86 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that each of them are reliable sources and the tone may differ, I had mentioned those 3(google books source) just for suggesting that how "Stalemate" was result. I have just edited by main comment, and clarified that I was actually asking about the 2 sources that I had mentioned from start. Are they reliable enough for claiming "victory" for Pakistan? Since first one is just an image and 2nd is based on what a military commander{WP:PRIMARY} had told.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The first one is a news source, the image is of the news clipping left there as a courtesy to you (but not required).. see WP:SOURCEACCESS. It's a news source not an image. -- lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Images cannot be used as WP:RS, especially when they are hosted on a unreliable source. When you search "Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory", you find 5 results that are WP:SELFPUB blogs or forums.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not an image... you need to know the difference between citation link and the source. The citation link has an image of the source (the newspaper). If I remove the 'image' of the source, it will still be a complete reference as far as wikipedia is concerned. So if you want.. you can ignore what the image says and only read the reference (ofcourse you'll need to verify what the source says yourself per WP:SOURCEACCESS). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is just an image, with no reference on any WP:RS. Now that's being said. WP:SOURCEACCESS applies only on those sources that have some base, or they are actually possible to find out.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the source ""Confidence" (The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995)). Canberra Times. AAP-Reuter. 16 September 1966. Retrieved 2 November 2014." A complete citation per se. I can not believe you would just turn any source to any image by taking a screen shot or scanned copy of it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When I was referring to "Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory", I was referring to this reference, and the other one I had referred as the representation of a WP:PRIMARY, so either you are WP:TROLLING or just lacking the competence to follow up discussion. So once again, how a image could be considered as a credible one, when it is hosted on a WP:SELFPUBLISHED site and the named title has no sources?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave the first source cited in the article... though you've changed the order, it doesn't change anything. The first source in your links in original post is ""Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian (364). 14 September 1965. p. 1." (this is the source, what does it have to do with link that gives a copy of it? it is just a courtesy scanned copy). So, my question still stands... why would you call a scanned copy of a source an image source... that's just bad behaviour in addition to lack of assuming good faith above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Read from start. is not referring to any kind of "Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory", it is . A completely different URL that has no mention other than the en.wiki article and some forums, social networking sites, totaling only 6 mentions.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for one last time, I'll try to be clearer assuming that you really have no clue of the way it is referenced. The source in question is ""Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian (364). 14 September 1965. p. 1.". It is a complete source (ideally it should have had no link / url to it but I added one from a talkpage discussion as a courtesy so that people may read if they do not have that 50 years old newspaper in their library). The nativepakistan link (that you copied from this mentioned source), the second one in your above comment, has a scanned copy of the same and has nothing to do with its own credibility because it is not the source rather just a copy of it for verification. Is that easy enough to get? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I already know that. What I originally suggesting that the image link had to be backed by a WP:RS or same report should have been mentioned on any other WP:RS. While (from 16 September 1965) is hosted on a WP:RS,  (from 14 September 1965) doesn't seem to be.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The Australian is backing the image (as clearly the image is linked to the citation - rather the image is off The Australian). Isn't The Australian an RS for you? URLs are not sources.. they are just links for verification. With or without the image, the source is complete. I'll let you have WP:LASTWORD on it.. because I can not believe you can't understand this. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It cannot be completed or usable over here until it has been backed by a WP:RS, otherwise we should be using any images from self published blogs as sources. Even charts and maps have to be backed by a WP:RS.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The second source you mention (from nla.gov.au) is borderline. That would support that Pakistan has claimed victory "Pakistan troops were reported confident today of scoring a major victory..."  I did some brief google searches, hoping I'd find something from the US Army War College or a similar organization that would be a strong review of the battle.  I didn't see anything like that, but I found several analysis articles that seemed to be from the Pakistan perspective.  The difficult part on saying victory one way or the other is the UN ceasefire which essentially ended the battle.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since it is not providing any evidence of the victory, and it has only based its view on the statement that was made by a commander from start, "Pakistani commander at Sialkot claimed", it is reliable enough for claiming Pakistani victory? Especially when the author is unknown and it has only reprinted what a Pakistan' military men{WP:PRIMARY) had said, including his claim of 150 - 200 tank losses, not supported by any other sources.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a distinct paucity of reliable, secondary, third party sources. I'd suggest reliance should be sources such as this and this. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Kindly do not confuse the 'stalemate' of the war at large with the 'Pakistani victory' of this last battle in the 65 war. They are two different things. While the war was concluded as a stalemate, this battle in specific was a Pakistani victory as reported by multiple WP:RS (and neutral ones such as the aus news paper). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One newspaper report from 1965 that has parroted a military commander, with attribution is not reliable enough for claiming "victory", neither is an image of a newspaper that is hosted on a unreliable blog. You haven't read the sources, "and another at Chawinda involving over 600 tanks, the outcome of which was inconclusive". It is actually reliable, not a WP:PRIMARY source that you are referring to.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, the image is a courtesy, you can verify the news paper from a library if you want as the source here is the newspaper (an RS) not the site. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the credibility? There are only 6 sources for "Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory" including Battle of Chawinda, and others being forums, social networking sites. If you can find a scholarly source that has attributed it as a Pakistani victory, then only it can be used. Read WP:PRIMARY carefully, any column of a newspaper that has represented and attributed the view of a WP:PRIMARY is not reliable enough for claiming overall results. Above two sources that has been referred by peacemaker67 only refer it as Pakistan's halting of Indian invasion.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of WP:OVERKILL? If it is a reliable source, it's credible. We are talking about the Australian newspaper here (again so that you do not confuse), the image can just as well be an email from me to you just so that you can see that it actually is in the newspaper (hope that clarifies the difference). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you were successful in verifying that the sources were WP:RS which is the scope of this noticeboard, would you follow up on the dispute at the talkpage on what to use? The split discussion is becoming difficult. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it much better to say that it is not WP:RS for claiming anything about this particular article.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - If the image has been supported by a reliable source, then it would be actually proper to refer to it, but as usual, if whole article was available it could have been much easier to verify. At this case, it must not be referred. Newspaper that has cited the opinion of a military men can be reliable for the biographical article about the person itself, but not about the military conflict. VandVictory (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the full citation of the source is present in the article (""Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian (364). 14 September 1965. p. 1.")... I know it is feels easy to us editors (and even readers) when sources are online, but they are not required to be online to be reliable. The snapshot in the image shows the newspaper to be a headline / conclusion by the publisher and not cited as an opinion. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't said that the source doesn't exists, I am not actually sure, I am only saying that none of them are reliable sources as they are not even dated. In these contentious matters, you required to have relevant and scholarly references. VandVictory (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse they are dated, see the source in bracket in my comment above (14 September 1965). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @VandVictory... Sources do not necessarily need to be scholarly... they simply need to reliably verify what is said. Different kinds of statements can be reliably verified by different kinds of sources.  For coverage of events, contemporary newspaper accounts (primary sources) can reliably verify that the event took place and what occured ... but are not really reliable for analysis of what those events meant in the long term (what the impact of the event was).  That kind of statement needs reasonably scholarly sources (ie secondary sources). In other words... the type of sources that are considered reliable depends on what is being stated in the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Online dictionaries

 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/New%20World?s=t


 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new%20world


 * http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/new-world?q=New+World


 * http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-new-world#the-new-world_1


 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/New-World?q=New+World

Another editor has accused these sources of being unreliable in the context of the New World article. Are they?

Thanks! --Whattheheyhey (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that, as far as I know, you're correct in your assertion that the New World refers to the Americas, those are all reliable. Bromley86 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They are all WP:TERTIARY: good to get a general sense from a general summary, but shouldn't be heavily relied on for content in place of better secondary reliable sources. These definitions are simplified summaries that may not reflect what is found in more substantive and authoritative sources. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  13:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers. Looking at WP:TERTIARY I think the usage was appropriate. --Whattheheyhey (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article currently outlines how the term changed over time, evolving in scope and nuance, and that it didn't have a single universal set meaning. A dictionary definition is not going to reflect the level of historical detail attempted in that article. We have to use better sources and not build articles about history and sociology out of dictionary entries, <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wholehearted agreement with ELAQUEATE above. Dictionaries provide a good snapshot definition of a term, but in most cases, with perhaps exceptions for the Oxford English Dictionary and a few others, that's all they do. On articles like this, where the definition of the term has changed over time, other sources are probably preferable. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being more specific. The issue at hand was a question of current usage.  Another user wanted to add Australia to the New World, refused to provide any source, and instead demanded that I find sources stating that New World means the Americas. When I did, the user claimed the sources were "unreliable." --Whattheheyhey (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. In that event, it probably would not be unreasonable to use these sources as at least a current snapshot of the definition of the term, and it would seem to be incumbent on that other editor to meet WP:BURDEN requirements and provide good sources which specifically support his alternate definition and, apparently, alternate criteria for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Thanks! --Whattheheyhey (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Librarian as source for history at Madoc
Some time ago one Ellen Pugh was added to Madoc. At the time I wrote "In a rather odd footnote, an editor writes " Ellen Pugh career: Western Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve University), Cleveland, OH, cataloger, 1943-45; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, cataloger, 1945-47; Cincinnati Public Library, Cincinnati, OH, branch librarian, 1955-58; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, order librarian, 1958-63; University of Oregon, Eugene, cataloger, 1963-65; University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, cataloger, 1965-68; Washington State University, Pullman, serials librarian, 1969-" - she was also described as a Welsh historian, although she obviously isn't. She was a librarian with evidently no training in history. Emory & Henry College emeritus professor of history Eugene L. Rasor said of her that she "speculated about Prince Madoc but not convincingly". I can't see any way that she can be a reliable source for anything historical. Dougweller (talk) 11:59 am, 15 April 2013, Monday (1 year, 7 months, 18 days ago) (UTC+1)"


 * She was removed and has now been replaced, and another editor on the talk page considers her sufficiently "credentialed". She is used as a source for "" A Flemish writer called Willem, in around 1250 to 1255, identifies himself in his poem Van den Vos Reinaerde as "Willem die Madocke maecte" (Willem, the author of Madoc, a/k/a "Willem the Minstrel". She isn't qualified in this field and shouldn't be used as a source, but since 2 editors disagree it seems, I've brought it here. Note that this is a fringe article. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see any basis for saying that a serials librarian, whose job is to basically maintain newspapers, journals, etc., at a library, is necessarily a reliable source for material relating to a 13-century Flemish poet. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see her as a reliable source for anything controversial, but the statement itself is surely uncontroversial. Of course that also means it can be easily sourced elsewhere. As it happens, I created the article on "Willem die Madocke maecte". As a source for that particular fact, I used André De Vries, Flanders: A Cultural History, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007, p.100. Paul B (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the edit, the editor in question seems to be adding Pugh to cite the assertion that Willem is also known as "Willem the Minstrel". I never came across this designation when I was looking up material for the Willem die Madocke maecte article, and in any case it seems to have no relevance to the Madoc article at all, just adding pointless verbiage unrelated to the topic. I strongly suspect that the useless information that Willem was also known as "Willem the Minstrel" is being added soley to justify the inclusion of the Pugh source in the citations. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I provided the source that Pugh got her material from, who is Zella Armstrong (an authority on Madoc). I provided also the exact wording of Armstrong from her book "Who Discovered America, the Amazing Story of Madoc" of page 3.I also provided the wording from the encyclopedia Britannica reference concerning Willem the Minstrel. This would be a good additional reference for Paul's article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If Willem is also referred to as "Willem the Minstrel", I can see why it would be relevant to the Williem article. I can see no point to it whatever in the Madoc article. Describing Chattanoogan amateur and self-published historian Zella Armstrong as "an authority" on Madoc is somewhat problematic. She is certainly no authority on Middle Dutch literature. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "William the Minstel" seems to be a romantic label for the poet that now only circulates in Madocite literature, which is full of fantastical claims such as this and this. I never came across the term in recent scholarship on Willem. It seems to derive from the 1911 Britannica . Paul B (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Had you obtained Pugh's book from the library like I did, then you would know that some of her sources she used for reference material were the Library of Congress, Smithsonian, Yale University, National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth, Missouri State Historical Society, Chattanooga News-Free Press, and the curator of Fort Morgan, Alabama. Didn't list all her sources for her book on The Story of Prince Madog of Wales and His Discovery of America in 1170 as it is quite extensive.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Had you read WP:RS you would know that what you have just said is utterly irrelevant. It does not matter how many sources she says she has used. A long bibliography does not turn fringe into mainstream, or an amateur into an established scholar. Fringe writers are just as capable of going to libraries and listing sources as anyone else. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And after her list of sources, Pugh acknowledges her publisher: Those who encouraged me are too numerous to cite, but one person must be named - my non-Welsh but enthusiastic editor at Dodd, Mead and Company, Joe Ann Daly. Her interest in this project sustained me through many frustrating hours, and I wish to express my appreciation publicly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Doug, I know you are not new here, so why are you persisting is listing things that have no relevance whatever to the question of reliability? On what planet do you think a personal acknowledgements page has anything to do with determining the reliability of a source? Not this one. Your responses to issues raised are actually unresponsive. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above shows that the acknowledgements of her sources were done by her publisher. It obvious you don't have and have never had her book in hand. Pugh's ancestry line is from Wales. Her husband's family line is also that from Wales. In 1967 as a research project from the University of Rochester she spent four months in Wales researching Madog. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None of that, unfortunately, says anything about whether this individual meets the standards of reliable sources for this particular topic. I am assuming that the general topic under discussion here has been discussed in at least a few recent reference sources, hopefully since her book came out. Is that so, and, if it is, have the articles in those sources given much weight to her ideas, or included her in their bibliographies? John Carter (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for acknowledging that I am an experienced editor. I have set a few records, as my User Page shows. Under my picture I have videos on how I do research with the extensive use of actual hard copy books for reference material. Some of my DYKs get thousands of views. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's great, but it's still pretty clear that Pugh doesn't meet our sourcing policy. Also, being from Wales does not make one a reliable source on Welsh medieval literature. And it's not just Pugh, it's also Zella Armstrong who you added to a related article you created, Cronica Walliae. She's not a specialist in the area and she published the book you use. I also see at Talk:Cronica Walliae that you have a pending DYK, nominated by another editor, at Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. It says "that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae Prince Madoc had already made two trips to America from Wales in the year 1170, long before Columbus?". I've edited the actual article to remove the 'long before Columbus' and the suggestion that Prince Madoc was real. As it stands the DYK is pushing a fringe position because it is written in an NPOV fashion. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Experimental Psychopathology
This ejournal resembles the Journal of Experimental Psychology in title. It claims PsycInfo listed, but does not appear there, nor in PubMed. Is it credible as a MEDRS? LeadSongDog come howl!  13:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had read this particular reference before. Links may dead now, there are no available archives so at least for now it would be better to just avoid. VandVictory (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with access to the archives back to 2010 which is when the journal started http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?mi=7 . It is listed under PsycInfo http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/coverage-full.aspx but doesn't appear to have any cites as LeadSongDog pointed out. It has an impressive editorial board http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?mi=3 however Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also the EMDR article in question is available full text at http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?art_id=113#.VH5bRdyUd8F Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WorldCat shows only 8 locations, mostly in Europe. On the other hand, most of the articles are from reputable people. MA van den Hout, the senior author of the article, has a distinguished career. The article itself has only 12 citations in GScholar. 10 other articles from various issues checked have similar or lower citations. EMDR in G Scholar gives many articles with many hundred cites from APA journals. I agree with ((U|VandVictory}} that it should be possible to do better.  DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you all, especially Woody for spotting my error re PsycInfo. It is indeed listed there--not sure how I missed it. Still, the low citation rate is problematic. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of devicespecifications.com references
I noticed User:McGeddon recently removed all references to the website http://devicespecifications.com in at least the MediaTek article, because this user believes the site is not a reliable source because of the disclaimer about accuracy it displays. An earlier discussion about this is present in the archives Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179. In the previous discussion, several people made the point that such disclaimers are common and do not suggest that the information on the website is inaccurate.

While the website seems to be a fairly anonymous, large collection of information about smartphone models and there are likely to be a few errors on the website, I believe the site is generally accurate with regard to the information about processor chips used in smartphones, for which it was used as a reference in the MediaTek article amongst others, although I understand that better references such as manufacturer's websites would be preferable.

While one could question whether the exhaustive lists of devices in, for example, the MediaTek article are a good idea, I don't think the references should be deleted because the Wikipedia Reliable Sources guideline does not apply in this case. Calamites (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, why do you think WP:RS does not apply? It looks like the website isn't just fairly anonymous, it looks like it's completely anonymous. There's no indication who's responsible for publishing it, and a quick look at the sources for reviews show basic links to Russian commerce sites or cellphone manufacturers. It should probably be removed if it's an anonymous link-farm. At best it's a purely amateur database, at worst it's a clickjacking malware site. Unless you can show it has an actual author or reputation, it should go.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  00:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was looking just at how accurate the information on the site is. The site seems to be relatively accurate with respect to the information that it has been referenced for (the SoC chips used inside smartphone models).


 * While I agree that the site appears to be anonymous and is one of the type that collates links and information from different sources, it not entirely clear to me that this completely disqualifies the site according to WP:RS. I don't think it is likely to be a "clickjacking malware site". Ideally better sites should be used as references for the chips used in smartphone models, but I guess it was just convenient for the user (User:Datasupplier) to add the device lists with all references to the DeviceSpecifications website. Obviously providing the best references for each model in a long list would be a lot of work. There are other websites such as http://PDAbd.net that is of a somewhat similar nature but more professional, less anonymous and probably more reliable in most respects, but covers a smaller amount of smartphone models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamites (talk • contribs)
 * This is a completely unusable source. There's no way to show any verifiability with a completely anonymous source, even if you think some percentage of it is accurate. This is also true of material you're adding sourced to self-published websites of no reputation like this one you added here. User:McGeddon was absolutely correct to remove this. WP:V means that someone can go to our citations and see that a reliable source backs up our article material. If the source gives no indication it can be trusted or has been trusted by others, then it's not a reliable source. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  14:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: You wrote, "the site seems to be relatively accurate." How do you know this? If it's because you confirmed it in another (reliable) source, then we should probably use that other source. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As suggested by my edit summaries, I removed it on the strength of the entire linked conversation, not just my initial question over the disclaimer. That if devicespecifications.com is taking its data from manufacturer websites and manuals, we can and should just use those sources instead; that there's no indication of who operates the site or how much editorial control is exerted; and that all links were added by the WP:SPA account User:Datasupplier who occasionally used an accidental http://localhost/cmvc/public_html/devicespecifications URL (suggesting that devicespecifications.com is a site that's running on their own machine). --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Given your arguments, I can now see why references to the site are unwanted, that User:Datasupplier has been practicing self-promotion and that better references are appropriate. Calamites (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable professional source?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp Is this source legit for academic or professional purposes, and how can I check if it's up to date? (N0n3up (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC))


 * The website sources the information to a book from 1972, and the webpage appears to date from 1996, so clearly it is not up to date, but then again the evidence may not have changed drastically since then. In other respects I see no problem with the website or the source uesed. Paul B (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would look for a newer source. Such estimates are based in large part on archeology, and the archeology of medieval Europe is enormously more detailed now than it was in 1972.  DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you intend to do with the info? It is a primary source, so it has limited use.  TFD (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ,, I've tried to look for more up-to-date sources but had a hard time finding one. The article of Medieval demography in regards to population is mostly based in this website, thus I wanted to look for a more up-to-date, if not, more reliable source. More specifically, a source that explains the population of medieval region, for example England, Germany, Italy, Spain. (N0n3up (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

Or what about this?: http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/MEDIEVAL_GROWTH.pdf Even though it was probably from 2010, it might serve as a better or a recent source. Then again in the population section, I don't know how to tell exactly the population numbers. (N0n3up (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC))


 * I find the best and easiest approach to articles is to let the secondary sources drive the article. In this case, find sources about medieval demography and summarize what they say.  Primary sources are good for correcting earlier estimates or inclusion as a link or as a source for a table illustrating demographic change.  But you can't really comment on it because of synthesis, for example saying that the population declined because of the Black Death.  TFD (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, but I was looking for a more general info in the population of medieval countries, specially Italy and Flander, whose info in here say that Italy and Flanders the most urbanised regions, and for example, the population of Italy seems similar from the two sources provided here (N0n3up (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC))


 * ,, , by the way, Fordham University deleted the first out-of-date source from their homepage. (N0n3up (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC))

Usage of TechWhirl as a source for basic information on related articles
I couldn't find anything in the archives on TechWhirl, so I wanted to open a discussion here before using it. The site has some basic information about Content management, Technical writing and Technical communication. The site's History page provides information about its founding and ownership, and the articles published there are written by experts in the field, but there doesn't seem to be any information about editorial policies. The information they provide is accurate, but I understand that my assurance of that isn't a valid means of proving a source's reliability; I'm just one editor and that's just my personal opinion. Does anyone see any potential problems with using this as a source? Or will it pass? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was initially a little wary of it, as this and this say that they take articles from the general public (as you can see from the large number of different author names for their articles). Still, they do have an editor and an editorial policy, the bios for their contributors are generally pretty impressive and the contributors that I looked at were not single-article contributors.
 * I'd use it. Bromley86 (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to check out the link, User:Bromley86. I suppose I will use it as a citation for already-existing info in the articles with minimal changes to text. If nobody else objects in the coming days, I might start adding new material to the articles based on the source as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Casa particular
Is casaparticularcuba.org a reliable source? User:Songonero wants to use it in the article Casa particular, specifically sourcing it to the content found here (permalink). Our conversation can be found User talk:Apparition11. I think that it looks like simple ref spam, but the editor adding it (also the creator of the article) used it to write the article and wants further input on its reliability and appropriateness. Thanks. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 21:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not suitable. There's infinitely better, non advert, stuff.  For example Rough Guide (although the prime page, 114, isn't in the preview), Frommer's Cuba, another Rough Guide.  Couldn't find anything on an official tourist site, which might be better.  Bromley86 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Simple question.. can using a journalists interpretation of a quote be used in an article?
Just looking for some clarification, as I am not sure. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-31/breakaway-buddhists-take-aim-dalai-lama is the article.

Quote is: Barnett says the Dalai Lama discouraged rituals aimed at Dorje Shugden starting in the 1970s, but some members of the clergy ignored him and carried on with the tradition. So in 1996, he prohibited his followers from engaging in Shugden rituals altogther.

What has happened since then, Barnett says, is that Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community have faced persecution. And he says the Dalai Lama’s administration hasn’t dealt with that very well. This is reporting by the Journalist, but issue has come up whether it is usable in a wikipedia article because the journalist doesn't put it in direct quotes ("Barnett says "The Dalai Lama discouraged.." To use it the article wouldn't mean saying this is a DIRECT quote from Barnett, but that its reported this was said. The article in question is Dorje Shugden Controversy. Thanks! Prasangika37 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even things in direct quotes very often aren't the subject's actual words (see e.g., this discussion at the American Journalism Review), so that's somewhat of a non-issue. If it's a responsible mainstream reporter then it should be OK. Partisan or low-quality sources are another issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Matthew Bell of PRI (Public Radio International) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_%28radio_program%29 is the program. Seems like a "go" ? Prasangika37 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources for media blackout of Kermit Gosnell case
has the sentence "In April 2013, 71 other Members of Congress joined Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn in a letter condemning the media "blackout" on the Gosnell trial". The sources are which is a pro-life website, and The Hill. I don't see the pro-life website as an RS but it does link to copies of the letters, eg. The letters don't actually use the word blackout, although Blackburn used it in a statement. There was some media coverage but not much until April 15th, according to the article. Her letters were sent on the 17th. Hm, this is one of those reports that as I write it makes me wonder if I'm at the right board, as it looks as though this was more for publicity than anything else, being done 2 days after major coverage started if I've got that right, and might be WP:UNDUE. Still, there's certainly the issue of lifesitenews as an RS. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Lets see, LifeSiteNews was founded 17 years ago, there haven't been any significant problems with their checking the facts that I am aware of, they have an editorial staff consisting of:
 * editor-in-chief John-Henry
 * managing editor John Jalsevac
 * managing director Steve Jalsevac
 * U.S. Bureau Chief Ben Johnson
 * Associate Editor Patrick Craine
 * They are not a self-published source, Alexa Rank overall US Rank of 8,225 (not required, but nice to know they are not a tiny organization).  They were owned by Campaign Life Coalition, but they appear to have fully split from that organization.  They are clearly a very WP:BIASED pro-life source, but that doesn't mean they can't be a WP:RS.  So far I don't see any reason they wouldn't be a WP:RS.  --Obsidi (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Iconic Photos
1. Source. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/moorman-polaroid/

2. Article. Mary Moorman

3. Content. "Moorman sold her original photograph of the assassination for $175,000 in an eBay live auction in January 2008."

Alec Selwyn-Holmes, the author of the Iconic Photos blog, posted this July 21, 2009. Conversely, Christopher Bonanos, an editor at New York Magazine and author of Instant: The Story of Polaroid, stated on February 2, 2012: "Moorman still lives in Dallas, and reportedly still has her original print, despite a report (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) that she sold it in 2008 for $175,000." Thank you! - Location (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian Media
Hi! I am mediating a case concerning Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on WP:DRN. This case has an interesting sourcing issue, and I would like some advice. It appears that a lot of media sources in Russia -- and not just the ones officially controlled by the government -- tell a completely different story than sources in the US and EU. How do I determine which, if any, are reliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi - unfortunately the editing environment surrounding the Ukraine/Russia dispute is almost as rancorous as the political situation in southeast Ukraine. I've been involved in editing on the subject since the spring. Not surprisingly, Russian and western media have mostly lined up behind the foreign policies of their respective governments. This has led Russian media to place undue emphasis on far-right participation in the Ukrainian conflict, and western media to often deny it completely.


 * The issue in this particular case appears to revolve around the JIT secret treaty described by Elsevier, a Dutch paper, in August. Malaysia's exclusion from the secret treaty caused anger and disquiet in Malaysia (e.g., ), where culpability has never been a foregone conclusion . Furthermore, the authority of Ukraine (considered a suspect in the downing) to veto information in the final report caused an uproar in Holland and Russia.


 * I don't know how the plane was shot down, but I really don't believe that western press should be given more credence than Russian, or vice-versa. "Conspiracy theories" may well describe dubious skeptics of science, but in politics the epithet is often a mechanism of shutting out opponent voices. This is a political issue, and unfortunately there are few clean hands to be found. -Darouet (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's sort of looking like the Russian media vs, the rest of the world's media. But I am not sure yet -- I have only been studying this for a day, and most of that has been wading through the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This has led Russian media to place undue emphasis on far-right participation in the Ukrainian conflict, and western media to often deny it completely. - this is completely not true. When the trouble in Ukraine started there were a TON of stories in Western media about some far-right groups on the Maidan side, like Right Sector or even Svoboda. But the facts of the matter are that these are actually pretty marginal groups (witness the results of the few last elections) whose presence has been amplified by Russian government media. Western media has NOT "denied it", it just, after a reporter or two actually figured out what was going on in Ukraine moved on to other, actually notable stories.
 * On the other hand, there is a TON of far-right and even neo-nazi groups supporting the Russian government here. The National Front in France, Jobbik in Hungary, and a whole assortment of far right fringe parties have squarely lined up to be the first to lick Putin's boots. Not surprising since by all accounts, Putin's been funding a lot of them for the past few years. And then you got folks like Aleksander Dugin or Alexander Prokhanov who are quite nasty anti-semitic/neo-Nazi characters and who pretty much epitomize Russian government's current foreign policy. So you've actually got it backward. It's the Russian media who's been downplaying the extremist nature of its own politics, while Western media... well, actually not there much either, although reliable scholarly sources are plentiful.
 * The idea that western press (what is that anyway?) should not be given more credence than pure propaganda outlets like RT or RIA Novosti (which are NOT synonymous with "Russian sources"), which have been caught red handed reporting fake news, photoshopped pictures and all, is silly. If we have a Reliable Sources policy then it has to mean something. And it means "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".
 * This has actually been discussed previously. To reiterate, whether a source is "Russian" or "western" (whatever that is) is completely irrelevant. Guy, as someone who's been around on Wikipedia for some time you should be well aware of that. There are Russian sources which are not reliable. There are ... let's say American, sources which are not reliable. There are Russian sources which are reliable. There are American sources which are reliable. The focus on the "ethnicity" of a particular source is completely misguided and signals a total lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if we eliminate all Russian sources, there are plenty of Malaysian, Japanese, Irish, German and Dutch sources that report the same thing as the Russian sources. None of those are state owned. USchick (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First, as I say above, nobody's talking about "eliminating Russian sources". Please stop pretending otherwise. Second, it is not true that Malaysian, Japanese, Irish, German and Dutch sources (aren't these, except for the Malaysian and Japanese, the same as "western sources"?) "report the same thing as Russian (government) sources". So stop pretending otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not a single Russian source in the diff that is the basis for the DRN case in question. The sources in the diff/passages in dispute are all Dutch. Thus, as far as I can tell, the reliability of Russian sources is irrelevant to that dispute. – Herzen (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict. Stickee (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * lol, can we move on now? USchick (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories, and a final decision has not been reached. The thing we normally do in such a case is to write the most representative and prominent versions of each story, and who supports each. If, for example, all the major sources supporting story A are from one country, we should make that clear. --GRuban (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And the article does do that, but probably gives the minor view a bit too much prominence. It should probably be reduced. Stickee (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The incident we're discussing occurred well into a brutal propaganda war between the west and Russia. Media from all parts of the world was already playing its (sometimes unintended) role in that propaganda war. The plane's crash simply caused a massive escalation in that propaganda war. It's a time when almost all media must be consistently questioned. My recommendation has therefore always been for that article to ignore ALL speculation about the crash from anyone, along with all statements from politicians. Removing such content from the article would remove problems with sources, would do no damage to the genuine informational content of the article, and would make it overall a much better one that Wikipedia could be proud of. Right now it's a propaganda tool itself Of course the Russia haters among the self-appointed owners of the article detest my approach. One can only wonder why. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree, I'm afraid. Ten years from now, someone reading this article won't get a full picture of what happened if we don't write that there was a propaganda war. I entirely agree that most of the "expert speculation" and almost all of the politicians' statements, on all sides, are blatant misinformation. Unfortunately that misinformation is important to the story. We shouldn't leave it out, we should only make sure we are clear we don't consider it the truth. --GRuban (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you were disagreeing with there, but I at least partly agree with you. We should definitely mention that there was a propaganda war underway when the crash occurred. However, I don't see the point of adding any of the propaganda nonsense and political statements to the article. It adds no information. And leads to some editors finding fault with every source that doesn't support their obviously strong views on who did it. (Or who they want us all to believe did it). HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is "a brutal propaganda war between the west and Russia... It's a time when almost all media must be consistently questioned." This is like telling: "hey, there is a brutal propaganda war between the Big Lie of Stalinist/Hitlerite/whatever propaganda and the rest of the world. It's a time to question all media". This is ridiculous and against all our policies. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Guy Macon. Good news sources are ones by independent and reputable journalists. There are very few of them in Russia, because independent journalists are killed and badly beaten on a regular basis. One of the best sources is Novaya gazeta (short English version) - three famous journalists from this newspaper were killed. Another decent place is grani.ru ; it is currently blocked by the Russian government for readers from Russia. That one and a couple of others are good, but it's all in Russian. There is also RFE/RL (see this, for example) - a lot of contributors are Russian. My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict." I am fully aware of who is involved in the the conflict and who the regulars here at the RSNB are. While I don't in any way discount or devalue input from the former, I have heard much of it already as I have been crawling through the article talk page archives. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I make very few contributions to discussion on that article these days. I don't enjoy the bullying, threats, and being shouted at. It's a very unpleasant place. Some editors who have posted here have followed me to my talk page to continue the harassment. Sadly, bullying and harassment seem to be guiding the content of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on whether or not the above is accurate (as a DRN volunteer I need to stay strictly neutral). I can assure you that on WP:DRN there will be no hint of any such behavior, and in fact editors are not allowed to talk about other editors. Please feel free to join the conversation -- you can post a single comment and leave if you wish -- and help me in my attempt to resolve the content dispute. Your input would certainly be welcome.


 * You can ask an editor to stop posting to your talk page, and if he continues, you can go to WP:ANI with the usual result being that that user is warned and then blocked if the behavior continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have said my piece. The problems with the article are obvious. The bad behaviour is obvious. The guilty parties are obvious. If the artificial boundaries of this process prevent anything being done about it and them, the POV pushers are winning again. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

More generally, I'd like to point out that you can't ask about the reliability of "Russian media" in general. That's not what this board is for and that's not how we evaluate reliability of sources (by their nationality?). What you can do, is take specific sources and ask about them. Obviously, some Russian media will be reliable, and some Russian media will be unreliable. Just like some American media will be reliable and some American media will not be reliable. So you have to ask about or discuss specific sources not a blanket category such as this one. The question is ill posed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the main point of that post, that each outlet needs to be considered individually. I would also argue that the issue under discussion is also relevant. British tabloids are excellent sources - for soccer results - but not much else. (Maybe the date, and the price of the paper too?) Sadly, however, that post frames the issue as a US vs Russia one. As far as we know, the USA had almost nothing to do with this incident. (The plane was built in America?) Framing it as a US vs Russia issue is seeing it as part of the propaganda war, not a plane crash. The problems surrounding this article are highlighted yet again. HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Factual, but a blog, and entered into Wikipedia by said blog author
A blog entry is being inserted as a source in several articles by User:StephMac1981 when the blog itself is written by a Stephen T. McErleane. While I must say I agree with his assertions that the "French fort" was indeed actually an Indian fortification (other Native American villages in Upstate New York were called "castles") there is no reliable source that states this. His blog entry fails our RS standards based on being published in an open blog that is not peer reviewed in any manner. Plus the fact that the blog itself advocates its very use by individuals for the purpose of being the source to link to. It is a blatant end run around our OR requirements by creating a pseudo-RS to "publish" one's own OR and then link to it. Plus, the problems inherent in any possible link between StephMac1981 and the author Stephen T. McErleane. Just because one's personal research is correct, and Stephen's research IS, that doesn't mean Wikipedia can use it as a source. Unfortunately, a preeminent scholar on Albany history Jack McEneny (literally wrote the book on Albany) uses the story of the French fortification. The best we can do is simply ignore the story and omit it entirely, but we can not claim it has been debunked or false.Camelbinky (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The "StephMac1981" username isn't actually registered? What articles? Where does this McEneny use the story? What? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Stephmac1981. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a registered account. The name is red linked because they have not created a user page. User talk:Stephmac1981.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a capitalization error by Camelbinky, not a redlink issue. It's all understood now. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

− :: x2 Actually they haven't edited their user page but the person is registered. There's a difference. I have now posted on their talk page about this discussion, so you can find them that way. I forgot to put User: that is my fault. The articles in question include, but not limited to- Fort Nassau (North River) which I have reverted, and Castle Island (New York) which I have not as I am waiting for this discussion. May also include other Albany, New York articles specified in the blog as articles that should be edited, and which the author states he may and that his blog should be used as the link as the reference source. McEneny uses the story in his book, Albany: Capital City on the Hudson.Camelbinky (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing the challenged material (fort and no fort) until an independent RS can be found looks like the most appropriate thing to do. If editors decide that the blogger is considered an expert with a history of being published by third-party RS, then it might be okay, but someone would have to make that case (and preferably not the author himself).<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * His bio lists him as a PhD student who also helps manages the website with one blogpost. I don't think that qualifies him as an allowable "established expert" of reputation and history of being published, per WP:SPS. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A few things: 1) I did not write that the French fort was actually an Indian fortification. I wrote that there is no reliable evidence that the French fort existed and that the likely source of this myth is woefully unreliable for reasons I explained in the blog post. My point that the island was likely named after the Indian fortifications is tangential to my main point. (I did not edit the Wikipedia article to say such a thing.) What I wrote was that Charles Gehring, who has 40 years of experience with such things, surmised that it was. I trust the reader to do with that information what he'd like. 2) Perhaps Wikipedia does have a policy that prohibits using blogs as a citation. The great irony here, of course, is that McEneneny's book is wrong. 3) I can't use my research as a source. Again, if Wikipedia has foolish policies, so be it. The blog post is an elaboration too long to put in the page. It has citations. Citing a statement does not give it validity. (Even if it is some awful 19th-century book from Google Books.) It gives it a basis that can stand or fall based on the reader's evaluation. 4) The myth is in the public memory as evidence by its presence on 3 (or more) Wikipedia pages. So at the least my assertion that the first European fortification was not French could have been changed to something like "The story that the first European fortification was a French castle is of questionable authenticity." Then one can site my blog post. If one dares. Stephmac1981 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your blog post won't, and can't, be used. Wikipedia has policies, and as an encyclopedia for good or for bad those policies include that third party sources are preferable, reliable sources based on peer review or published by major publications that put their reputation at jeopardy and therefore have editors or fact checkers, or peer review in magazines and journals. To do as you suggest as an alternative to use each of your individual sources on your blog post becomes original research (which is not allowed per WP:OR. I'm sorry you either don't understand or accept our policies and guidelines, but over all they have worked to make Wikipedia work. For the most part. Continue your education (which happens to be at my alma mater) and publish your own book. Until then, yes McEneny's wrong book (and that's not the only thing he got wrong in that book) does get preferential treatment to your correct blog. And for the record yes it was an Indian village that lends the name castle to Castle Island.Camelbinky (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We could cite Charles Gehring, who does have a reputation as an expert, if his work on this is published in any way that other readers could theoretically access (even if it was in an offline physical public archive), but not you at this point. I'm sure you're convinced of your own arguments, but we have to show that historical material is supported by sources with more of an established reputation. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  23:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Which book presses are reputable? Just curious.Stephmac1981 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Best are ones which specialize in books on the general topics at hand. Unusable are "vanity presses."  All university presses, etc. are generally fine.  Collect (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I get the policy, and I get why it exists. However, editor discretion should be permitted. But I don't want to get bogged down in that discussion.... I initially thought that my assertion that there was no French fort was removed. Fair enough. But then Camelbinky just reverted the page back to the old version that says that the French had a castle on the island, something that s/he knows to be false. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do would be to remove the reference to the French fort altogether. Stephmac1981 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally when some thing is added that is not allowed one is to revert to the previous version. When I realized it was more than one article involved I took the issue here. As I stated above I have no problem with removing info about the fort until a reliable source that explains the historical aspect of the French fort myth can be added. Even false myths about a locations history becomes history because of how it shapes the resident's views. To simply dismiss it as ridiculous and force people to stop believing in it denies the fact that for 300 years people of Albany believed it to be true. As Karl Rove once said "It doesn't have to be true, I just have to say it enough times that people assume it is".Camelbinky (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"For 300 years people of Albany believed it to be true." What's your source for that? Stephmac1981 (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down there skippy, this is a noticeboard, sources for statements of hyperbole are not needed. We're having a friendly discussion, it's best if you're going to stick around rather than be a single purpose account that you make some friends around here, since they can come in handy. As just happened when I took care of an editor who reverted your removal of the French fort information because he thought you may have been vandalizing an article or accidently deleting sourced material because you are new. Having some one who knows more about Capital District history on your side can help more than if you piss me off.Camelbinky (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might have had a pearl of information hidden in your lecture to me on public memory. I've spent enough time worrying about Wikipedia. Take care. Stephmac1981 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stephmac1981, start with a look at WP:V and hopefully you won't let your opinion be shaped by a single editor; Camelbinky keep yourself to the right side of WP:BITE, calling someone Skippy and warning someone about why they shouldn't "piss you off" is not collegial on someone's first day editting. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E
 * Sorry, but a WP:SPA whose own POV agenda is spelled out right on the blog gets under my skin a bit more than it should. I apologize and have given a bit of advice on their talk page, and have as I state above protected this editor's further edits from good faith reverts.Camelbinky (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Children's book only source to describe SWAT police?
At SWAT, the only source used in the lead, and the only source providing a general description of SWAT police, is a children's book called "Police Swat Teams: Life on High Alert," a part of the "Extreme Careers" series. The Rosen Publishing Group explains,

''Twenty Attention-Grabbing Career Titles Guaranteed to Get Your Middle Schoolers Thinking About Their Future This compelling new series for the middle school reader is designed to appeal to the thrill seeker in all of us. Each book includes information about a different extreme career, with a focus on safety and training. Readers will learn what it takes to get into these professions and what to expect when embarking on one. These volumes also provide information on the exciting aspects of these extreme careers and highlight the possible dangers and risks involved. Colorful photographs and informative sidebars help to make these books an invaluable resource for those young readers looking for a thrilling and fun-filled profession.''

I have found two academic textbooks on police or policing and a dictionary of law enforcement that describe SWAT police, and another academic book specifically about SWAT police , all describing SWAT police and policing in quite different terms. These books were all published more recently than the children's book. There's a lot of resistance to using different sources or language however, and my edits trying to remove the children's book have been repeatedly reverted. Advice would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Juvenile titles are rarely "best sources". Use best source - which means the academic ones here. Collect (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal "Saturday Essay"
At Talk:SWAT we've been having a discussion about trying to provide reliable sources for the SWAT article, which is mostly unsourced at present, except for some part of the "history" section and for content describing SWAT armaments.

One question which has been raised by is whether this Wall Street Journal "Saturday morning essay" might be more of an opinion piece or editorial than news. The essay is written by Radley Balko, author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop." Mark's concern is important, as it's quite plausible the "Saturday morning essay" is editorial: I'm not familiar enough with the WSJ to know how to approach this issue.

More concretely, would the article be a reliable source for the raid described in Ogden, Utah? What about for describing raids in Georgia, Virginia or Connecticut? Also, the article compiles statistics gathered by others: should we rather cite those original sources than this article, or perhaps verify them? -Darouet (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Opinion piece, citable as opinion. Clue is the use of first person writing. Collect (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, here and below! -Darouet (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Masters' theses of a bibliographic nature
There are several theses available at archive.org which are apparently works of bibliography relating to specific topics. Would such sources be considered reasonable and acceptable for the material they include in similar articles of a bibliographic nature here, such as those in Category:Bibliographies? Yes, I know this is a general question, but I think the question is probably a rather straightforward "yes/no" type. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll defer to those with more experience on this issue, but I'd say that if you could verify the institution where the masters thesis was completed, and check to be sure the thesis was vetted by a panel of qualified scholars, then using it to support information that is routine, minor, or non-controversial could be feasible. A bibliography sounds like it could be a reasonable application.


 * Certainly in my field, there are a series of excellent masters theses that provide the only comprehensive geological site overviews for a number of remote field locations. The theses have been reviewed by top people in the field. Nevertheless you wouldn't want to use them for extraordinary or controversial claims, or if journal articles or reviews were available instead. -Darouet (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how often the author of a Masters thesis could demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. WP:SCHOLARSHIP warns that PhD theses should only be used with care and always treated as primary sources. As far as Masters' go: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Without evidence of that, they shouldn't be used, and with evidence, still only as primary sources.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with User:Elaqueate. I'm sure that there are many excellent Masters' these, but there are also many execrable ones. As our article on the subject says, "The required complexity and/or quality of research of a thesis or dissertation can vary by country, university and/or program, therefore, the required minimum study period may vary significantly in duration." I've seen some very trivial ones. So the rule of thumb should be as Elaqueate suggests. If it is significant, others will have discussed it or used it as a reference. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy" at Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science
Recently, a wall of text has appeared at Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science which is labeled a "Controversy". It contains a few citations (mostly to TX state laws), but in my opinion the gist of the controversy is unsourced. In particular, there don't seem to be any sources offered that actually advance the same complaint being mentioned in the article. Some of the included text may be usable, but I suspect that a lot of the issue is only in the mind of the IPs that added it. As I attended this school and still feel strongly about it, I consider myself to have something of a COI here and don't really want to get into it myself. I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look and make whatever edits you feel are appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. A 'controversy' based entirely on a reading of primary sources, as far as the evidence presented goes - which is to say it is synthesis. It may well be that there is genuine controversy over the Academy's admission policies etc, but we need sources that discuss this directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kanzenshuu reliable?
Is Kanzenshuu considered a reliable source, since it is a fansite for the Dragon Ball series? There seems to be some sort of disagreement (which I am uninvolved) over at the Dragon Ball page using it as a source for the actual publication dates. The discussion is at Talk:Dragon_Ball. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is reliable for information it gathers and references in its guides and features, but the forums are clearly not. The site is operated by Michael LaBrie, who is both a contributor to Anime News Network and Mania.com, and has been a recognizable figure for more than 15 years since founding the Dragon Ball fan site. This was prevalent even a decade ago, as evidenced by an informative panel on the topic that was hosted in a large convention (Anime Next). Kanzenshuu is also host to a key discussion on the ouster of Kenji Yamamoto from Toei Animation in a very public music plagiarism issue. However, an excellent example is this well-written document on Dragon Ball Kai using Toei's fiscal reports to provide an analysis of the market, success and intentions of the company. Kanzenshuu not only gives context and insight into matters - but always cites its sources. The quality can be seen by these informative pages that actually corrects errors or provides details that are verifiable, yet critical to comprehension. Sometimes this means giving a break down of the production credits and the English mis-translations of staff names to a breakdown of the remastering process. It is not the greatest source there is, but the content is verifiable and intelligently put together and managed by an expert who has been doing this for over fifteen years. Seems to meet the basic requirements to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right off the bat the site is to be avoided because it is self-published; WP:USERG. This actually makes it completely unacceptable as a source for information about any living individual, such as the above mentioned Kenji Yamamoto or anyone else involved in the series. I'll also just point out that Toei's fiscal reports are publicly posted by themselves, and are reported on by other more reliable sources. This fansite has what I believe to be a troubling number of copyright violations. Notable examples being; watermarking their (former, in this case) logo onto images they do not own, and fully republishing 147 interviews they do not own the rights to. Leading to WP:V, which says "If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it." Xfansd (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you just proved you do not understand U.S. copyright, fair use and Wikipedia policies while making my argument stronger? The site is clearly not USERG, and you violated WP:COPYLINK by directly linking to the image which is from Toriyama's contributions to the anime-only content. This removes the fair use rationale and glosses over the fact that the site operates within all concerned parties (including Toei's) wishes. Now, can you please remove your infringing link and stop making borderline WP:BLP violations against the operator? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an edit notice on this page that says to link to your sources, it would seem that I took it too literal. I believe the people who create the site's content make that content available to the general public themselves, making it selfpublished. "Personal web pages are World Wide Web web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature". This site states "Our mission and goal continues to be to spread our love and enjoyment of the original Japanese version of the Dragon Ball franchise". Is operating a site solely about your interests not personal? Xfansd (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kanzenshuu is an entity with an editorial board, so it is not "self-published". The site does not further the interests of its maintainers however, but it is a fansite which prides itself on accuracy and serving a community. Though even self-published works, like Litten's academic work, just needs to be scrutinized instead of believing that the content inherently "okay". Again, a publisher such as Rolling Stone is normally a "reliable source", but that is not always true. WP:IRS and others are very conservative, but remember it is "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If Kanzenshuu's content is inaccurate or flawed then you should provide evidence. I'd be happy to reject Kanzenshuu as a whole if you can prove that it cannot even refer correctly to the source material. Though you seem to acknowledge the data is correct, verifiable and also indisputable in the case of the manga dates. The date issue did spark this debate after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It has been two days, any evidence of inaccuracies or errors in the guides or features that show poor editorial control and writing? Otherwise I think it apt to assume that it is a reliable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked that site, and as a source, it depends on the material in question. It may be a reliable source for some aspects, and not reliable for others. Blanket statements about a source like this are not useful; editorial judgement and discretion still applies. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

LoneSentry.com

 * http://www.lonesentry.com/
 * StG 44
 * being used to support this

This personal website is run by an individual and is advertising supported. It contains photographs and text that the site claims are reprints of government documents, but there is no supporting information such as a scan or photostat for this particular source of the original document text, just the transcribed text. There are scans of images and I assume that since its a government publication that its in the public domain and thus not a copyright violation.

This site itself carries a disclaimer, "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website."

Granted, other areas of the site do have scans or images of the original documents such as these, but not the series of source articles referenced above.

I am not disputing the information, assuming it was taken from the original government document, but without any means to verify what is posted, how can all portions of this site be considerable reliable? According to one, this website is cited and referenced by numerous authors in books and magazines and for the sections backed by scans of the original material I can see how that is the case, but that does not seem to remove the verifiability issue for posted sources that do not. Since there are government documents being referenced, shouldn't there be a better source available? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view and makes unreasonable demands.
User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view. The lonesentry.com site is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents. A simple Google search reveals that it is widely used as source material in many articles, books and other publications (with approximately 80,000 hits). I then composed a list of the first 25 books that popped-up using lonesentry.com material as sources. Scalhotrod rejected the list, denounced the writers stating that "Authors want to make money too" and demanded that I produce additional evidence. I now believe that Scalhotrod is toying with me and that no evidence will satisfy him.

Also, it should be noted that many "personal websites" are routinely used as references on wiki. One http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html is a website run by one man. This website also uses..."Site mission satement (yes, statement is misspelled) and legal disclaimer 1. I do not sell or buy any weapons. This site is for education only! 2. In no case I shall be liable for any damage or harm, caused by use or misuse of any information, facts and opinions, placed on this site. 3. All information is gathered from the open sources" He offers no supporting documents whatsoever for his facts and opinions. Whereas, lonesentry.com simply proves digital copies of government documents. User:Scalhotrod, has provide no evidence that lonesentry is manipulating the data other than to claim that its own legal disclaimer somehow invalidates the information provided on the website. Below is a copy of the relevant conversation on the StG 44 talk page.--RAF910 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gewehr means "rifle" ?
Oh hoh hoh, so "Maschinengewehr" is machine... rifle ??? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A look in the dictionary tells us that "gewehr" can be translated as both "gun" and "rifle". Words can have multiple meanings. Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How about sturm?
But apparently "sturm" can only mean "assault" in this article (another look in the dictionary) or maybe there's another explanation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sturm = storm...as in "have fun storming the castle". In this context, the most commonly used translated synonym is "assault". Therefore, the most common english language translation for "sturmgewehr" is "assault rifle". See...the fifth definition in the verb section of the above source (another look in the dictionary). This is also well referenced within the article. As Sus scrofa said above..."Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text."--RAF910 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate the intention of a catchy phrase, but the lead says "(abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German assault rifle...". Aside from being grammatically redundant and poor writing, its a misnomer considering that how the name came to be is detailed in the body of the text. So in this context, since the term did not exist until the creation of this firearm (but I'll acknowledge that it is responsible for the terms future popularity) it is misleading without explanation which is what I attempted to do with this edit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of LoneSentry website
Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html Machine Carbine Promoted," Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945. This is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents, it is widely used on wiki and in books and other publication (a simple google search will prove this). I believe that he cannot accept the fact that the German word "sturmgewehr" is commonly translated into English as as "assault rifle" and believes that it should be translated as "storm gun" instead. Also, he seems upset that the source states that Adolph Hitler coined the term (see assault rifle page). And, since the reference in question is the first time that the term "assault rifle" is used, he is attempting to discredit it.--RAF910 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you basing the phrase "well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents" on? The reference pointed to text that claims to be a reprint of the Government document, but even the LoneSentry.com website states, "As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text." How is this a WP:RS? The source you are pointing to is just text, not a copy or photostat of the original. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * With regard to "storm rifle" vs. "assault rifle", from a historical and encyclopedic standpoint, I believe that this (and only this) article should use the phrase "storm rifle" simply because this rifle is the origin of the entire category of firearms. Furthermore, I only tried to insert the phrase ONCE in the lead to emphasize the fact that this firearm was origin of the term that became popular or common much later on. I'm not trying to discredit anything, I'm trying to better explain something within the proper context. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you forgot to write the first and last sentence of Lonesentry.com disclaimer...so for my fellow users it states "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website." U.S. War Department publications are by definition reliable sources. The website simply puts a standard disclaimer at the top of each article.

Also, Lonesentry.com is clearly an established and reputable source of information. A simple Google search reveils that numerous books use Lonesentry.com resources as references (see sample list below...I'm afraid there are too many to list them all).

MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid

Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab

German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab

Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke

Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn

Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide

West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco

Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty

A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs

The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix

The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte

Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold

World War II By Walter A. Haze

Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson

Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons

Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman

One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin

Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison

Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry

Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore

Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman

--RAF910 (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the first and last sentence change the fact that the website admits that its contents may not be accurate. I'm not contesting that the original source of the information is the U.S. Government, I'm challenging that LoneSentries reporting of it can't be trusted as a WP:RS by the site's own admission. It's reposted text without any proof of the original source.


 * As for your list of books, OK, so what? Without the context of how each and everyone of these publications is citing the information, this is a baseless assertion. You seem to be accepting blindly that the LoneSentry site is 100% accurate, but not offering any verifiable evidence as to why. Authors want to make money too, why wouldn't they use sources that back up their writing. Would you mind posting links to your research and better explain your opinion?


 * Back to the subject of "sturm" for a moment, I asked about this on the Lead talk page and also looked up the translation here. If you click the "More translation" link to show the full list, it pretty clearly shows that another use of the word "sturm" is attack or assault. So my apologies for the misinterpretation, "sturm" = "assault" in German. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this...the hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty resources as references are all a bunch of hack-writers and you expect me to prove their research. While you...who now by your own admission could not correctly translate the German word "sturmgewehr" to the English term "assault rifle" (despite 70 years and countless books and articles on the subject), alone possesses the knowledge to invalidate the research of hundreds if not thousands of writers. I don't think so...and, I will no longer entertain you.--RAF910 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , just show me (and everyone else who might be reading this) a link that supports any of what you are saying. If there are "hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty", then lets see it. Please try to calm down and have a rational discussion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RAF910, it is neither necessary nor helpful to copy-paste large quantities of text from the talk page - particularly when much of it doesn't even seem to refer to the matter in question. The only question we are addressing here is whether the LoneSentry site is an appropriate source for the material cited. And concerning that question, I'd have to agree with Scalhotrod that the website appears to be a personal one - and accordingly per WP:RS not likely to be acceptable without strong evidence that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I can see no particular reason to assume that it isn't accurate, but it would clearly be better to find a source that isn't in doubt. LoneSentry cites the original U.S. government document, and the obvious solution here is to locate that, and cite it instead. If that can't be done, we may have to discuss the suitability of LoneSentry as a source further - in a manner that doesn't involve accusing Scalhotrod of being involved in 'a crusade'. Disputes about the validity of sources are common on Wikipedia (as I'm sure Scalhotrod would agree, we've had a few ourselves) and they are best settled by presenting the evidence, rather than making negative comments about an opponent. You have listed a number of books which cite LoneSentry - could you provide further details of specific cases where it is being cited, so we can get a better idea of its "reputation"? Given the circumstances (what appears to be a personal website), the burden rest with you to convince us that the source is valid. We are after all writing for our readers, rather than ourselves, and accordingly we have to err on the side of caution when in doubt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have already provided a list with 25 books that use lonesentry as source, how many more do I need to provide? With ~80,000 hits on a Google search, I could probably provide a 100 more in the next day or two. How much time do I have?--RAF910 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid

Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab

German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab

Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke

Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn

Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide

West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco

Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty

A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs

The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix

The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte

Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold

World War II By Walter A. Haze

Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson

Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons

Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman

One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin

Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison

Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry

Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore

Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman


 * Plus...


 * Combat Medic: Nonfiction, None Needed By Vernon L. Parke


 * The Box from Braunau: In Search of My Father's War By Jan ELVIN


 * World War II: The Last War Heroes: From D-Day to Berlin with the men and ...By Stephen Bull


 * Same War - Different Missions: WWII Memories and Letters Home By John Foertschbeck


 * The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement ...By Perry Biddiscombe


 * M3 Medium Tank vs Panzer III: Kasserine Pass 1943 By Gordon Rottman, Ian Palmer, Giuseppe Rava


 * Střední tank M3 vs Panzerkampfwagen III - Průsmyk Kasserine 1943 By Rottman Gordon L. (in German)


 * Massacre in Malaya: Exposing Britain's My Lai By Christopher Hale


 * Hell Hawks!: The Untold Story of the American Fliers Who Savaged Hitler's ...By Robert F. Dorr, Thomas D. Jones


 * Given Up for Dead: American Gi's in the Nazi Concentration Camp at Berga By Flint Whitlock


 * Scouts Out!: The Development of Reconnaissance Units in Modern Armies By John J. McGrath


 * The 784th Tank Battalion in World War II: History of an African American Armored Unit in Europe By McFarland


 * In the thick of the fight: York County, Pa. counters the Axis threat in WWII By James McClure


 * The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement 1944-45 By Alexander Perry Biddiscombe


 * Battle Exhortation: The Rhetoric of Combat Leadership By Keith Yellin


 * The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II By Charles Glas


 * The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalter


 * Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton By Robert Wilcox


 * Shelldrake: Canadian Artillery Museums and Gun Monuments By Harold A. Skaarup


 * Mollie's War: The Letters of a World War II WAC in Europe edited by Mollie Weinstein Schaffer, Cyndee Schaffer, Jennifer G. Mather

For the record this is extremely time consuming. I will continue to add books when time allows.--RAF910 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't. A list of books with no further details isn't going to tell us anything we don't know already, and nobody is going to look through that list themselves for the necessary information. And I have to agree with Glrx below that 'Tactical and technical trends' doesn't appear to be a particularly appropriate source to be using anyway - primary-source documents on the enemy's ordnance created during wartime are inevitably going to be based on incomplete information, and of questionable merit as an accurate historical assessment of the weapon. That wasn't their purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment
(e/c)

The discussion above seems to slightly miss the mark in several ways.

The source whose reliability is in question should be the 1945 article and not the reliability of republisher, LoneSentry. There appears to be a concession that if an image of the article were published, then it would be accepted as a true copy of the 1945 source. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the republisher would have changed content. I could expect some small transcription errors, but I would not expect gross content changes.

To put it another way, if the citation just identified the 1945 article (and did not link to LoneSentry.com), then would there be any debate about the reliability of the source?

The disclaimer about accuracy on the webpage seems to be the republisher denying responsibility for the original content. That does not impugn or praise the content of the 1945 document. The statement does further the belief that the republisher is providing an accurate copy: "No attempt has been made to update or correct the text."

Reading the document at LoneSentry (and assuming it is a copy of 1945 document), it appears to be a primary source with a significant bias against the weapon: "cheap stampings"; "dents easily and therefore is subject to jamming"; "Germany's unfavorable military situation"; comparing weight to the M1 carbine (how about Thompson's weight); "may have been intended to be an expendable weapon and to be thrown aside in combat" (really? what does the soldier have left to shoot?). I might use the 1945 article for some statements, but I would not give its opinions about the weapon much weight. They do not seem to be founded in any significant tests or research.

Also troubling is that in the StG 44 article, Musgrave (an apparent secondary source about German weapons) overrules the primary source opinion as not "an accurate view of the weapons characteristics". To me, that brings in a WP:UNDUE weight concern. At this point, my inclination is secondary sources are needed to state the weapon is inferior; otherwise Musgrave's assessment should prevail and primary sources should not be mentioned. I looked in Hatcher, and he says nothing about the family's reliability; if it were a bad weapon system, I'd expect some remark.

Glrx (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.worldcat.org/title/tactical-and-technical-trends/oclc/36536250
 * http://www.biblio.com/book/tactical-technical-trends-number-57-april/d/721486831 USA
 * http://www.abebooks.com/Tactical-Technical-Trends-57-April-1945-ebook/1064688951/bd UK
 * http://www.military-info.com/Aphoto/Ttt3.htm (states title is "Machine Carbines Redesignated"; price $0.50)
 * http://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Tactical%20And%20Technical%20Trends%22 (does not have 57)
 * http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003929101 (does not have 57)
 * Glrx (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More trouble. I cannot find the Musgrave book cited in StG 44. Consequently, it should be tagged with fails verification. I can find Musgrave and Oliver, German Machineguns, 1971 + 2nd rev 1992. Given author's pubs, I would accept Musgrave as an authority if the statement can be found. Glrx (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Added by an IP editor(diff) a good while ago. Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm doing this right, no book was registered with the US Copyright Office in 1985 by Daniel Musgrave. Bromley86 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment, favoring use of "Tactical and Technical Trends" material
The LoneSentry.com transcription of the War Departments Tactical and Technical Trends should be accepted as a reliable copy of that government publication unless and until some other editor has accessed a printed or microfiche copy of that same publication and reported some error in the transcription of the document. It is unreasonable for an editor to object material that has been converted into an electronic format for the Internet. The verifiable rule means that other editors have the opportunity to verify. The burden for the editor objecting to this material is that he or she should find a copy of "Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945," and if he or she finds that the material quoted in the post is inaccurate, then and only then should that source be disputed. -GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The LoneSentry transcription is not trustworthy. The book by Joseph Balkoski called From Brittany to the Reich cites the Tactical and Technical Trends article announcing the promotion of M.P. 43 to Assault Rifle 44, but Balkoski writes in his book that the weapon had an effective range of 300 meters, while LoneSentry says 400 meters. Furthermore, Balkoski is dismissive of the U.S. assessment which gave the reader the incorrect impression that the weapon was not very effective, which is patently untrue, since the weapon "fundamentally alter[ed] the way armies fought in the postwar world", according to Balkoski, who says the weapon led to the AK47 and was thus foundational in reshaping conflict. So not only does LoneSentry show the possibility that they got the effective range wrong, modern thought on the weapon has superseded that contemporary assessment which was in any case biased against the weapon. I say throw out the TaTT 57 source and instead use more recent books which discuss the weapon. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Or retain the TaTT 57 assessment as a historic curiosity, shown to be inaccurate and biased. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document. It seems that User talk:Binksternet comments and evidence (be it unintentional) suggest that it is indeed a TRUE transcription of the original document. Also, User:Glrx comments above suggest that he also believes it to be a TRUE transcription of the original document.--RAF910 (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you missed the discrepancy I pointed out between the effective range figures of 300 meters vs 400 meters. That number may be wrong in the LoneSentry transcription, so I don't think the whole transcription is reliable. The parts that are confirmed by other authors can be accepted as reliable. The LoneSentry version of the TaTT article should not be used as a source, only later authors who quote it. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And the bigger picture is that we are writing an encyclopedia. We should follow the most modern consensus found in the literature rather than make extensive quotes of biased and outdated sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On range, you're misquoting.  Tactical and Technical Trends says 400 yards, which is 365 metres.  Balkoski says "about 300 metres".  So they're not that far off.  Bromley86 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I see that now. But Balkoski cited the study, and yet he wrote 300 instead of the closer 400, which causes me to think that LoneSentry may not have transcribed the old text perfectly. And it doesn't solve the larger problem that some editors here want to quote an old, biased source extensively despite it being proven demonstrably wrong in light of the succession from Stg 44 to AK47, and in view of the fact that the Stg 44 was extremely effective—a game changer. So let's drop the silly kerfuffle about the old 1945 article and instead go with modern observers. Binksternet (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems I was misquoting as well, as TaTT also says about! Anyway, what seems likely is Balkoski took his 300m from a different source.  No need to suggest that the Lone Sentry page is not a faithful reproduction of the TaTT article, especially as effective range is clearly not a precise art (look at the range cite in the StG 44 infobox; I've seen other sources state similar things, e.g.).  That said, it has been convincingly argued that it shouldn't be assigned much weight - the article currently contains a paragraph that deals with Allied reaction to the StG 44, including a sentence that should use the TaTT source as its cite (A late-war U.S. assessment derided the weapon as "bulky" and "unhandy", prone to jamming, and meant to be thrown away if the soldier could not maintain it.).  We just need to find a modern reliable source that addresses the fact that this was (a) likely propaganda and (b) reflected the US military's dislike of an intermediate cartridge (and if it could also deal with the British 1948 objections, that'd be useful).  Bromley86 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document...As for the idea that Joseph Balkoski's book From Brittany to the Reich is indisputable and trumps all other sources of information is nonsense and irrelevant to this discussion.--RAF910 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not the RS question for me. Let's assume the transcription is TRUE. The problem is the TaTT's article (1) is a primary source and (2) is apparently not reliable. LoneSentry exercises no editorial judgment when it transcribes the source; LS cannot turn an unreliable source into a reliable source merely by quoting it. If it is the case that the weapon system was flawed, then it should be easy to find many (secondary) reliable sources that say that. Glrx (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming, the transcription is true...It accurately reflects the U.S. military opinion of the StG44 in 1945. It is also the first time the term "assault rifle" is used in an English source. As such it is an important historical document. Yes, over the next 20 years the U.S. military's opinion of the StG44 changed and by 1970 the "M16 Rifle Case Study. Prepared for the President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel. March 16, 1970. By Richard R. Hallock, Colonel U.S. Army (Retired) http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/02.pdf" opinion was that "The principle of this weapon -- the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat -- was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder." However, going back to the subject at hand. If this source is rejected as unreliable, then it can no longer be used on Wikipedia for any reason. The source may be deleted wherever it's used and anyone attempting to add the source in the future will be considered a vandal. This action will give some editors the ability to deny historical facts and impose their point of view on other editors. Which is in fact the reason, that we are discussing this issue in the first place.


 * If this is the case, then it needs to be clearly explained in the body of the article. "In 1945, the U.S. Government's stance on the StG 44 was that it was..." "By 1970, this assessment changed. Retired Colonel Richard Hallock stated in his "M16 Rifle Case Study" (prepared for the President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel) that the "The principle of this weapon -- the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat -- was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder." or something to this effect. We can't go around using Wikipedia's voice to state opinions as fact. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not on this noticeboard to discuss the content on the StG44 page. We are here (at your request) to declare the lonesentry TaTT information an unreliable source and to ban it. If you have changed your mind and want to withdraw your challenge, then do so.--RAF910 (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, this is the reliable sources noticeboard, and we can and do comment on what is or isn't an appropriate use of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree ^^ Not every source is reliable for every content.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with that...The source was used in the article because it was the first time that any English source used the term "assault rifle". Which User:Scalhotrod rejected as an incorrect translation of the german word "Sturmgewehr". The source was also used to explain the U.S War Department opinion of the rifle in 1945. Which User:Scalhotrod also rejected.--RAF910 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Algemeiner (The)
Source: Article: 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt Dubious Content: "'Around 25,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt that year (1956)'"

The article states that the entirety of the Jews who left Egypt in 1956 were expelled. No source was provided. Two other sources (Mainstream British newspaper and an Israeli college academic) agree that a minority of the Jews in Egypt - estimated at 500 - were expelled in 1956. The Algemeiner has therefore introduced an extreme POV, grossly distorting the best historical indications.

Previously I had come across other publications by The Algemeiner which I found to be dubious at best. Some examples are: º Calling Norman Finkelstein a "Holocaust defamer" (Finkelstein is the son of a holocaust victim) - http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/02/14/harvard-needs-some-schooling-on-the-middle-east/ º "During the Mandate, “Palestinian” referred to the Jews, while the Arabs were simply Arabs." - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/28/failure-of-the-two-state-solution-a-reply-to-ian-lustick/. In reality (see "Survey for Palestine" Jews are referred to as such; Arabised Palestinians are referred to as Arabs; and citizens of Palestine are referred to as Palestinians. º "(Falk) blames America and Israel for the Boston terrorist attacks" - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/03/princeton-university-must-fire-professor-richard-falk/. Nowhere in his article does Falk use the work 'blame'. He mentions Israel exactly 5 times, and never in the context of responsibility for the Boston bombings.

Is this patern one of a disturbing propensity by The Algemeiner to massage the historical facts? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this video an RS for damage done by Greenpeace to the Nazca Lines?
The sentence "Greenpeace responded with apologies, claiming that demonstrators took care to avoid damage, but this is contradicted by video and photographs showing the activists wearing conventional shoes (not special protective shoes) while walking on the site" is sourced to. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a raw primary video can't be used to support a specific secondary interpretation of what the video means or signifies without it being textbook WP:OR. The video is not directly saying they are "non-protectve shoes". The claim may be true, but the extra interpretation can't be supported only by a video. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Neither the evaluation of the shoes nor the effect of the shoes is evident from a video. Nor would even a direct statement on the shoes by a RS necessarily contradict the original statement - they may (or may not) have taken other measures to avoid damage (e.g. choosing where to walk). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirkus Reviews
I note that kirkusreviews.com is currently cited by around 290 of our articles, and have to question the wisdom of using this source - they appear to publish reviews in return for a substantial payment from the author/publisher. Am I right in assuming that (a) such payment means that they are not an independant source, and their reviews cannot be cited as evidence of notability, and (b) such payment is sufficient reason not to consider them worth citing at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kirkus has two business models: unpaid and paid. If it appears in Kirkus Indie, it's a paid review, and, as such, can't be counted as evidence of notability. If it appears in the main Kirkus review site, it's reasonable evidence of notability.
 * As for whether Kirkus Indie is worth citing at all, that's more debatable. Kirkus uses the same business model as their competitors in the paid review industry: they do not guarantee a good review. If, after buying the review, the author decides that he would be better off not letting that review be seen, he has the choice of not approving the review. Kirkus doesn't change the review, but won't print it, either. That means that, at least in theory, a positive review in Kirkus Indie is a legitimate positive review by someone that doesn't have his compensation dependent upon writing a favourable review.
 * I'm experienced with the paid review industry, but haven't ever gone through the cycle of getting a bad review that I needed to reject. I can't speak to how often it happens. I do know that Kirkus has a reputation as a premium paid reviewer, and their ridiculously high price reflects that. I think their business model depends upon making certain that favourable reviews are only given to good books.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This recently came up at Articles for deletion/Dmitri Borgmann -- it seems a lot of editors here are confused about whether and when reviews from Kirkus are acceptable to cite here. As you can see from the AfD, my assessment is pretty much the same as User:Kww's -- any Kirkus reviews published between 1933 and 2009 are reliable and can be used as evidence of notability.  Starting from 2009, however, the journal introduced a split business model: while it continued to produce independent, unsolicited reviews of traditionally published books, it began to offer reviews to self-publishers for a fee.  It's therefore important for us to distinguish between reviews from these two streams; we should never use a Kikus Indie review as evidence of notability, though in some circumstances it may be acceptable to cite one for some other purpose. Psychonaut (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kww, Psychonaut: I believe all of the material I have used from Kirkus is for books published prior to 2009, but I'm not sure if I have even stumbled across Kirkus Indie. Could you link to an example of a Kirkus Indie review? Thanks! - Location (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a distinction, it isn't obvious. How for example are we to judge whether this is a paid-for review or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see "Kirkus Indie" at the bottom, but I agree that it is not obvious. - Location (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah - I'd missed that: thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Do contemporary Buddhist teachers (with no western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism) count as primary or secondary sources?
Do contemporary Buddhist teachers (with no western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism) count as primary or secondary sources?VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 02:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If these are only two options, then it has to be considered as primary. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 03:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The question, of course, relying on the word "if", and it has not been clearly established that is the case. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My guess is it depends on context. If the Buddhist teacher is saying "this is the dharma," it's probably primary.  If they're saying "according to lama (someone else), this is the dharma," it might be secondary.  It's possible for texts of such nature to be alternate between being a primary and secondary source even within the same sentence (e.g. "according to lama (name), this is the dharma, but that also means that is the dharma").
 * Going outside Buddhism, a papal encyclical would be a primary source, but Pope Francis commenting on an encyclical by a previous pope would be a secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ian is completely right. And remember primary sources are completely ok to use despite some people's wrong belief that only secondary and tertiary sources are ok to use in an article.Camelbinky (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are OK to use, but we need to be careful not to rely on any original research and attribute primary sources as only what that document says (if there are additional sources to support it, then we have secondary sources and don't need to cite the primary). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi folks, there is an ongoing discussion of this topic on the Wikiproject Buddhism page. Please see :See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Your input on the RFC would be greatly appreciated. There seems to be a great misunderstanding on the meaning of a secondary source, and it has importance consequences for all of the articles on Buddhism. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes just to say - recommend the RfC. The thing is, that it is not a question about teachers who are just religious teachers. But the Eastern equivalent of our theologians, who are trained in Eastern institutions of learning in Eastern methods of scholarship. E.g. is it appropriate to use some of the best Thai, Sri Lankan and Buddhist scholars as secondary sources, when they have had a training in their own traditional methods of scolarship? For instance Tibetan Buddhists have a degree course of about ten years duration you do, as a qualification. And examples would be the Dalai Lama who is widely regarded as knowledgeable about the Tibetan texts, not because he is the Dalai Lama but because of his training and his recognized in depth understanding of the texts. Another example would be Paryudh Payutto, a brilliant Thai scholar, but not trained as a western academic. But they use modern methods, is just that they were not originally trained in the West seems to be the issue. More input to the conversation and RfC greatly appreciated there! Robert Walker (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this then symptomatic of a bigger issue that Wikipedia is too Western-centric (for lack of a better word) when it comes to what we treat as authority authorship? Should a bigger more generic question be dealt with at the village pump, possibly with new wording in our policies?Camelbinky (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think it might be reasonable to say that in cases like this, which are topics which are substantively covered in reference works and overview works which are often written by authors who are not themselves within the tradition in question, I would say myself that any work cited as a reference in a long work or included in a reference in an encyclopedic or other short article would reasonably qualify as a preferable source. I am myself not sure whether that would necessarily be something which requires address in policy or at the village pump. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ian is completely correct: it depends on context. As an additional question though, why on earth does the fact that they don't have western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism matter?  Why was it even brought up in the first place?  Whether or not someone has academic (or any other sort) of credentials speaks towards reliability, not whether someone is a primary or secondary source. And even then it wouldn't discount the source - there are plenty of reliable primary and secondary sources whose authors have no formal academic credentials in the field whatsoever, and plenty who have no formal credentials at all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wholehearted agreement with the above. In some areas, particularly those dealing with the subject of non-Western religions or philosophies, what we consider "academic" training is alien to that culture, and more or less by definition those "academic" standards need not be applicable, or even relevant.
 * Also, I rather question the apparent insistence on the differentiation between "primary" and "secondary" sources in general. In topics of major world religions, there are no lack of overview sources and reference sources devoted to the topics involved. That being the case, the more effect way to my eyes to deal with such topics is, like I said, to look at the relevant topical overviews and/or reference works and see what sources they use, and more or less follow their lead where that seems reasonable. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kevin Gorman! There has been tremendous misunderstanding of these issues among some of the editors of the articles on Buddhism. We are trying to clear up the misunderstanding, but it has not been easy. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It does, indeed, depend on context. The context here is the overusage of quotes. Dorje has a habit of editing by piling up quotes, presenting them as "In Buddhism, [follows a short statement, and then two or more quotes, most of them from Tibetan teachers]." For the past year-and-a-half several editors have expressed their concern about this, without avail. The discussion on "primary" or "secondary" is side-tracking this problem.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WSJ essay and children's books as sources
Hi All, I made two posts above asking about the viability of WSJ and children's books as sources, and haven't gotten any comments yet. Just a request for someone to look before these go to archives! -Darouet (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A link would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing on Electronic cigarette
It has been proposed on electronic cigarette that the following text be added:

"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013. "

based on the following source:

Convenience link to PDF here; relevant material in first paragraph of page 1982. It is published in the medical journal (Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world). A question of reliability of this as a source has been raised that since this is a medical source and the text being added is not strictly medical in nature. Comments on the reliability of this source for this text is appreciated! Yobol (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a review article in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't really get higher quality in terms of reliability for content in general. It would seem kind of odd if someone is opposing this because it's in a medical journal. It appears the paragraph you mention is not based solely on author opinion as they are citing examples and documenting some occurrences, so it would seem this could be place pretty solidly as content based on a high quality secondary source. If it appeared to be more just the unsourced opinion of the authors, then I would call that content based on a primary source (within the review), but that doesn't not appear to be the case here. Seems pretty cut and dry that it should be fine. While the journal may be medical, it is commenting on a related topic and is nothing like a sociology journal commenting on astrophysics where we'd say the scope of the journal isn't in a relevant field either. I don't see any issues here in terms of reliability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The question is dealing with this section link The overall consensus of the editors who are discussing it is against inclusion because the medical journal is being used to make claims outside its expertise. Per WP:RS/MC a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims. WP:MEDSCI tells us to "Be careful of material published in a journal.... that reports material in a different field.". A side note of concern is that some the sources the review used to come to these opinions are studies by the authors of the review. If this had WEIGHT suitable, non medical sources should be easy to find. AlbinoFerret  21:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except this is a related field, which is what I was commenting on above. It is often the job of scientists to be a sort of balance against industry when they're out of line in a respective field. As an example in my area, if a pesticide company was pushing a particular unneeded pesticide formulation on farmers, we'd not only report in an agricultural journal that it wasn't needed, but also what tactics were being used that are problematic in pushing it. That's what scientists do. In this case, a journal like this would be the venue to discuss such things. It's not directly on medical information, but it's within the scope of such a journal and such a review. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I still have concerns that the medical journal is basing its opinions of medical studies by the authors of the review. I would like a different source. That would also prove it has sufficient weight. AlbinoFerret  21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about your comprehension of RS/MC, which says "Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim." It does not say "a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims".  It says "if it's not making a medical claim, then it's not a medical source (as far as our sourcing rules are concerned), even if it's a publication that often makes medical claims/is often used as a medical source".
 * As usual, if you've been supplied with any (one) reliable "source that [another editor] believes, in good faith, to be sufficient," and you want a better/different/additional source, then the burden for finding another source is on you, not on the other editor. WP:BURDEN requires the editor adding the source to supply exactly one source that s/he believes to be sufficient.  If you want more sources or other sources, then you get to find them yourself.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would perfer a source that isnt based on its own authors previous work. That should factor into reliability. AlbinoFerret  22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Every source is good for supporting some kind of content; no source is a "blank check" for all kinds of content. In my view the source you bring is very reliable for anything health-related.  But the content you want to write is about politics, and this source is no better, and possibly worse, than high quality news sources like WSJ, NY Times, etc.  As an aside, I find it bizarre that anybody would be challenging the statement much less its sourcing. This is like "the sky is blue".  Everybody lobbies, even Mr Rogers.  And that includes astroturfing. the sad state of the e-cig article, i guess. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I'm talking about reliability above. In isolation, the proposed text is fine with the source, but including it within the larger article becomes a question of weight where there could be more of a political tinge to a section rather than scientific. Weight's not the purpose of this noticeboard and isn't really something I'd like to delve into in the e-cig article at all either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * more sources for same content: NY Times, NPR, WaPo, Bloomberg, public interest groups like center for public integrity... so many!  the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All of those sources except one, the NYTimes article are addressing companies lobbying efforts, not getting consumers to push an agenda. The NY Times article has a very questionable link to a website ran by a previous employee, only mentions one company, and no mention of tobacco companies in the past doing similar things. But the center for public integrity puts the lobbying in perspective, e-cigarettte companies are mostly small businesses that are not lobbying or pushing any agenda. Placing the activities of the few against that of the many is questionable. I also question if the lobbying is any different than any other company, like say a pharmaceutical company. AlbinoFerret  22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This entire text is arbitrary and prejudiced WP:FRINGE opinion by a well-known anti-tobacco activist and does not belong on Wikipedia in any article. Particularly, the statement "showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers" is nothing more than magical thinking and has no factual support. None of the proposed text is medical - so WP:MEDRS is irrelevant. Rather, it's unsubstantiated propaganda and in violation of multiple items in WP:ISNOT, in particular, WP:SOAPBOX. This statement is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG and has no place in any WP article. In addition, extensive discussion has occurred on the article’s talk page here, and I’m concerned that the opening of this discussion here without informing the original participants is dangerously close to WP:CAN. Mihaister (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's impossible for a discussion here to violate the canvassing guideline. On the question of UNDUE weight, if it's undue, then why are there so many sources (see Jytdog's links) that mention this?  DUE means we pay as much (or as little) attention to the issue as the reliable sources do.  If a lot of them mention this, then it's DUE for us to mention it, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But it can be canvassing if instead of notifying the other parties, a location is chosen to inform uninvolved editors.link AlbinoFerret  22:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "a location is chosen to inform uninvolved editors." That's where you are. It's not canvassing by that very definition, and is entirely appropriate when there has already been discussion going on at the article's talk page already. Part of that involves potentially notifying relevant Wikiprojects if it's in their topic area. That's the whole point of this page when questions can't be resolved at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Jytdog's links - the first 3 and the last are about e-cig or tobacco companies hiring lobbying firms, a practice which is common and legal. The Bloomberg link is actually about Pharma doing the same thing. None of them provide support for painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills. Mihaister (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills-- I do not get that the proposed content based on the source is saying this, at all.  03:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what is it saying then? The claim is that vapers are opposing regulation because e-cig and tobacco companies are enrolling them to do so, and this simply isn't true. More e-cig companies supported the EU TPD than campaigned against it; it's users who are angry.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 08:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is merely saying the companies are recruiting consumers (in thus and such a way, and toward thus and such ends, etc.) It is not saying that everyone who's active was recruited. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's saying that based on a newspaper article, which is hardly WP:MEDRS.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised that it is being said that its acceptable to notify WP:MED of this discussion without notifying other interested parties at the article talk page. Anyway that is a separate issue, with regards to the source's reliability, surely a marketing strategy claim by a public health official is not as reliable as a medical claim? I understand that public health officials regularly voice their opinions on such issues but this fact surely doesn't make them experts on a non-medical topic? Lots of people regularly voice opinions on many things without being experts. Also does the disclosure that one of the source's authors "is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert witness in litigation against tobacco companies" affect the reliability in relation to marketing strategy claims about e-cigarettes?Levelledout (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the last bit, not particularly. If it was the consultant self publishing something then there would be issues, but since this is published by a peer-reviewed journal, there's enough separation to call it reliable. Now if you were looking between this and another identical source that didn't have the consultant, the latter would be a bit more reliable, but both would still meet a minimum reliability threshold. In this case, the editor and other scientists in the field have vetted the article, so that is supposed to remove author conflict of interest concerns for the most part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Review articles are high quality sources for both medical and none medical content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly reliable, especially for the very basic and unsurprising content it's supporting. It is very normal and well within the expected range of coverage for a high-quality review article to cover political and regulatory topics, so the idea that it's a "medical journal ... being used to make claims outside its expertise" is simply unfounded.   03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the review paper provides a summary of expert opinion, it should be included. My one concern is the equivocal wording.  "A review study stated that" waters it down, and there should not be in-text attribution except for direct quotes.  TFD (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a strong source and it findings can be simply asserted, unless there are correspondingly good sources that give us reasons for doubt. Alexbrn talk 12:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * except of course that the review paper doesn't do a summary of expert opinion in this particular section of the paper. This particular information is cited in the paper to a The New York Times article (ref. 112), not to an academic review, examination, summary or likewise. It is purely the opinions of the authors of the paper, just as the policy recommendations given in the paper is the same. --Kim D. Petersen 03:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kim, actually, in the paragraph the content is summarizing, Grana is using four sources. Two sources, one from JAMA and the other from Tobacco Control, cover the background of marketing by tobacco companies using "astroturfing".  The third is this, a recent research article from the BMJ titled Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?, and that covers the online marketing and lobbying.  Source 112 is the fourth, and it is indeed a New York Times article (any reason to think that wouldn't be a reliable source?) which covers the lobbying in Europe as plain fact, not opinion.   05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * that is actually incorrect. You are confusing tobacco and e-cigs.
 * Ref 22 (BMJ) is about e-cig marketing/advertisement, not lobbying/collusion/grassroots.
 * Ref 110 (JAMA) from 1991, so can't be about e-cigs but is purely about tobacco, and to top it, it is written by one of the authors of Grana (Glantz).
 * Ref 111 (Tobacco control) is also about tobacco alone as well, and is written by 2 of the authors of the Grana paper (Grana & Glantz), where the only mention of e-cigs is " In 2012 NCPPR was continuing efforts, such as its ‘Occupy Occupy D.C. Smoke-in’ to protest about taxes on smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes ".
 * Ref 112 (NYT) which is the only one about collusion between tobacco and e-cig grassroots and that is the one i mentioned. A newspaper article!
 * So no, this is not a summary of expert opinion - it is based entirely on an NYT article, and the authors opinions. --Kim D. Petersen 05:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When I worked as an analyst one of the things we were most wary of was "circular corroboration", when an apparently well-backed source turns out to be essentially backed by itself. What we have here is a clear example of that; the work of Grana and Glantz is solidly based on the work of Grana and Glantz. Ethics aside, we shouldn't rely on a "review" that couldn't find any independent support and was reduced to citing the work of its own authors.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not up to us to question the accuracy of reliable sources. We use reliable sources so that we do not have to conduct our own original research.  Of course an expert in a field can write a review study that mentions his own work.  The publisher sends the paper out to peer review and people far more knowledgable about the subject than us determine if the reference is circular.  Similarly expert sources can use less than expert sources.  Their writers have the judgment to determine what is believable and what is not, something else that Wikipedia editors cannot do.
 * The only way to show that the facts in a paper are wrong is to provide an equally or more reliable source that presents a different set of facts. That has not been done.  If the paper is wrong, that is unfortunate, but the guiding principle is verifiability not truth.  If you disagree, then get the policy changed.
 * TFD (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "It is not up to us to question the accuracy of reliable sources" is incorrect. Of course we need to measure the reliability and accuracy of the information in the context of the source - that is what WP:RSCONTEXT tell us. This source is reliable and highly useful within the context of medical and pharmacological information - but not within the context of policy, history economy and sociology. Thus to determine the point-reliability we must examine the information given, and here it falls short. Editing is specifically about assessing the reliability and accuracy of sources within contexts and weight given to it in respect to other comparative sources. --Kim D. Petersen 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CONTEXT has no relevance here. Is the source about the safety of electronic cigarettes?  Yes.  Then it can be used as a source for the safety of electronic cigarettes.  It if were a passing reference to the safety of electronic cigarettes in an article about an unrelated subject then it would fail context.  If we are going to question the scientific literature on electronic cigarettes, why stop there?  Maybe everything the scientists are telling us is wrong.  TFD (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've lost sight of the context of this discussion. The text this source is supposed to be cited for is not about safety of e-cigarettes, but instead about policy, legislation, astroturfing and tobacco-companies. And that is why WP:RSCONTEXT is relevant. --Kim D. Petersen 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. But the same point applies.  The discussion in the paper about what the vaping industry has done is not so far removed from the safety issue.  There is no reason to think that the authors lack the competence to provide a factual explanation of these actions.  And if they are wrong, then you should find another rs that provides a different set of facts.  It could be that the industry does not interact with consumers for their policy agenda.  It does not use websites or social media to oppose anti-vaping laws.  TFD (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in reverse we can get lawyers and politicians to make medical claims! After all they should be able to figure it out. AlbinoFerret  18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the same point does not apply. You do not cite a mathematics paper for medical claims, or political science paper for mathematics, etc etc. As for your "then you should find another rs that provides a different set of facts" that is a requirement to prove a negative. --Kim D. Petersen 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One does not cite a mathematics paper for medical information because it is too tangential. Public health is cloesly related to health.  And I am not asking you to prove a negative.  All you have to do is provide a reliable source about how the vaping industry responds to attempts to restrict it.  TFD (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats asking to prove a negative. Because the vaping industry isnt the few manufacturers of cigalikes, but thousands of small buisnesses that do nothing but make things and are not political. This points out a problem of medical experts commenting on political action, they have no idea of the industry, yet make comments based on a few players. AlbinoFerret  20:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD, you hit on the one argument that keeps coming up for some reason. This source is not too tangential for the proposed content, but I'm not sure why that isn't getting across even after all the time this thread has been going. Aside from being closely related fields as you said, if someone is an expert commenting on a particular product, it's generally going to be within their expertise about general marketing practices on it as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it is quite tangential, since it is not about marketing (which i btw. can't see why medical researchers should be experts in either), but is instead about a conspiracy/collusion claim about astroturfing. Something like that is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require better sourcing than normally. And all of the evidence presented in the paper is based upon a single NYT article, not on thorough research by experts. --Kim D. Petersen 08:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors here believe the source is reliable for the claim. There was a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 19. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Erh? Not from what i can read above. --Kim D. Petersen 12:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if some uninvolved editors agree with you, and I am not conceding they do. The claim has other hurdles like weight, and consensus of the editors of the article before inclusion. That short list should not be thought of as all inclusive either. AlbinoFerret  18:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both Kim D. Petersen and AlbinoFerret are involved editors. Please respect the opinions of uninvolved editors. The source is clearly reliable for the claim. Please read the comments by other editors again. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was going to this mention more than a week ago, but hoped things would fizzle out. In this case though, it looks like it would have been better if all the involved editors would hold off on commenting so much at RSN. Obviously folks are entitled to post here regardless of involvement, but it's very difficult to see what uninvolved editors actually gauged of things. It looks like the contentiousness at the article and enthusiasm of the editors has spilled over here. So far, posts by uninvolved editors (as much as I can tell at first glance) include: WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Doc James, TFD, Alexbrn, and myself. All state to some degree or another that the source is reliable for the proposed content or that there are other sources that do the same as it is from experts in a journal commenting on a very closely related field. Best to use that to inform your work over at the article talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that Doc James is a very involved editor on electronic cigarettes, and several of the others are involved as well (alexbrn,jytdog)... so there isn't really a consensus of anything. And afaict we haven't had a single non-med/e-cig editor to comment so far. --Kim D. Petersen 07:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, every editor of the medical wikiproject could be considered as an involved editor in defending medical sources. AlbinoFerret  11:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

B-47 wreck Feb. 1059
I don't see mention of a B-47 that crashed on Goose Bay Labrador around Feb 11 1959 The aircraft was from Witman AFB, enroute home from

Europe, landed for fuel, and failed to lift of in time catching an outrigger wheel in a snow bank, flipping the aircraft killing all aboard

How do I know this? I was in the Air Police stationed there, and had to work the site. Leo McCauley McNabb, IL.
 * Hi Mr McNabb. Was it in any local newspapers that you may have seen? We need what are called WP:RELIABLE SOURCES to put that in. Please register and we can add that if you know of anything that was printed about it. We can communicate better too. Would be glad to help. Looks like you would be a great addition as an editor on related subjects. Regards Irondome (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added a mention of the 11 February 1959 accident to B-47E 53-6215 at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–59) referenced to http://b-47.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Boeing-B-47-Losses-and-Ejections.pdf but could do with a better reference if you have one. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jews for Justice for Palestinians
I would like to reference data from this website in an article. My checks on this noticeboard reveal negative comments dated from 2007, so I need to revive the opinions. From their website, JfJfP claims the following support "At the end of 2010, our over 1,600 signatories included six rabbis; 110 professors (including five Fellows of the Royal Society and two fellows of the British Academy); 150 medical and academic doctors; several OBEs, CBEs and MBEs, six knights, one Member of Parliament and one member of the House of Lords. The list includes Prof Zygmunt Bauman, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Rex Bloomstein, Jenny Diski, Moris Farhi MBE, Bella Freud, Stephen Fry, Roger Graef OBE, Dr Julian Huppert MP, Prof Mary Kaldor, Nicolas Kent, Baroness Beeban Kidron, Baroness Oona King, Prof Francesca Klug OBE, Peter Kosminsky, Mike Leigh, Miriam Margolyes OBE, Mike Marqusee, Dr Jonathan Miller, Rabbi Jeffrey Newman, Sophie Okonedo OBE, Prof Susie Orbach, Prof Jacqueline Rose FBA, Mike Rosen, Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, Alexei Sayle, Prof Lynne Segal, Will Self, Sir Antony Sher, Prof Avi Shlaim FBA, Gillian Slovo, Sir Tom Stoppard, Dame Janet Suzman and Zoë Wanamaker CBE" I find it difficult to believe that a) these illustrious people would not have been alerted if the claims are fraudulent, and b) that they can all and cumulatively give support to an organisation that publishes unreliable data - IN GENERAL - so I am going to conclude that the website is WP:RS in general. I fully appreciate that on individual specific issues it may contain errors, as does the NYT. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an advocacy group, with a self-published website, so no, not a reliable source for facts. Brad Dyer (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)