Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185

Obituaries as reliable sources
In the article for Juliano_Mer-Khamis, several bold claims are made about incidents in the subject's life. The claims come from an article by Adam Shatz printed in the London Review of Books. The LRB is not a news source, it publishes essays and reviews. The fact-checking for an essay is not the same as a newspaper. The claims that I have attempted to delete from the article (myself and two other editors have been discussing the issue on the talk page) include the idea that Mer-Khamis, while a soldier in the Israeli Defense Force, was conducting target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it. There are plenty of sources for the IDF being cruel, but this doesn't seem like a realistic claim.

I looked for other sources to back up this and other claims from the Adam Shatz obituary, and I've found none. There is no record of Mer-Khamis ever mentioning this incident. There is no other source, including obituaries from Al-Jazeera, the Economist, and Haaretz, that mention the shocking and damning incident. Only Adam Shatz has made this claim about the life of a dead man in an essay/obituary.

Am I wrong to say that the obituary is not a strong enough source for this type of claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSWP1 (talk • contribs) 02:19, February 18, 2015‎


 * It was in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 2007. --GRuban (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that "[he] was conducting target practice" is not quite the way it was put in the article. The other solders were, and the implication was that he didn't approve. Anyway, the LRB does do fact checking. Here is a source on that, about another controversial story. Shatz himself is a reputable writer who has written for top-flight publications, so I think he qualifies as a reliable source. Whether it belongs in the article or not (due weight) is another question. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not confident enough in the reliability of this source for such a bold and contentious claim about a BLP. It smells fishy, though I can't tell where the stench is coming from. It has a "Foreign Policy Committee" filled with politicians and the its self description is exceedingly complicated. It states that it covers stories that nobody else does (a common statement in POV pushing publications). Their About Us reads like the kind of thing you see from political front groups.
 * The London Review of Books appears to rely heavily on "contributors", which is almost never reliable as they are basically crowd-sourced. However, he use to work for The New Yorker and I am not sure if a person that worked for a reliable publication once is therefore reliable at other publications that are less reliable. I would lean towards it being reliable for most things, but not such a bold claim as accidentally killing a girl with a bazooka. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note, it's not a BLP.  nableezy  - 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a description of the LRB for librarians. Under editorial process, it says that "All articles are closely edited and rigorously fact-checked by a team of professional editors led by Mary-Kay Wilmers, who has been an editor at the magazine since it was founded in 1979." The "contributors" are "many of the leading writers and intellectuals of the modern age." This is true. It's probably the leading intellectual publication in the UK, so I wouldn't describe it as crowd sourced. Shatz is a freelance journalist with an excellent reputation, but if we are still not satisfied with the LRB's fact checking we can attribute it to him instead of stating it as a fact. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason why this is not reliable. The information may be startling, which is I guess why the author chose to include it in the obituary and sifted out all the occasions on which Mr Mer-Khamis ate a sandwich. But it doesn't seem implausible and, absent anything to suggest it isn't true, there's no particular reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem implausible to you that a military unit would conduct target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it as a target? Really? Can you name a single instance, reported by reliable sources of something like this happening? In any military? I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk)
 * Bold claims require bold proof. If the events Shatz wrote about (again, in an obituary, not a news article) actually happened, there should be other sources. But there aren't. In fact, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has Mer-Khamis himself telling a different version of the story. His version is much more believable. For example, he says that the donkey was hit accidentally, while Shatz claims the unit was aiming for the donkey (that had a little girl on it). I think the more believable story is the one the man told himself, not the one from the obituary.
 * In fact, now that a more direct source has contradicted Shatz's article, it calls the whole obituary into question. Although LRB is normally a reliable source, each citation in Wikipedia must be independently evaluated. An emotional obituary with at least one known error is not strong enough for its assertions to be repeated in a factual, encyclopedic voice. CSWP1 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

London Review of Books is a highly prestigious literary journal, and I don't see any basis for claiming that it is not as thoroughly fact-checked as a news source. In fact publications such as LRB (and comparable ones such as New Yorker, New York Review of Books, The Paris Review etc) are highly selective in who and what they publish, and given their longer preparation times, such publications (as well as obituaries in first-tier publications such as NYT) should be regarded as more reliable than news-articles published on a tight deadline. This is not to say that such publications never make mistakes; and one should be aware that as literary publications the articles published often represent a POV (which is not an issue of reliability per se) and thus may require attribution. However dismissing the source as crowd-sourced or "an emotional obituary" is thoroughly uninformed. PS: User:CSWP1 appears to be misreading the WRMEA article in claiming that it contradicts the LRB article. The former says that "soldiers accidentally shot dead a 12-year-old girl sitting on a donkey", which is consistent with "shot at a donkey, but instead killed the 12-year-old girl who was sitting on it.". In both sources the implication is that the shooting of the girl was unintentional, though perhaps careless, and improperly covered-up. Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem implausible to you that a military unit would conduct target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it as a target? Really? Can you name a single instance, reported by reliable sources of something like this happening? In any military? I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My, or your, subjective opinion is not really relevant here; that is why wikipedia relies on reliable sources such as LRB. But for what it is worth, IMO errors and cover-ups by military units are neither that rare to raise WP:REDFLAG concerns, nor so common to be be passe and not worth noting. Abecedare (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, but we are not discussing errors nor coverups - the LRB claims this military unit was conducting target practice for a shoulder-launched missile, using a donkey with a little girl  riding it. See WP:REDFLAG for why such an implausible claim needs much stronger references. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is not a shadow of doubt that both Schatz and the LRB are extremely good sources. There is nothing unusual in the report, which we have in two versions. Children are deliberately shot by IDF soldiers quite often (Iman Darweesh Al Hams, Khalil al-Mughrabi): there are even statistical analyses of head/heart shots that show a remarkable incidence of accurate fire, killing on average a child a week during the second intifada, take as one example of the latter this. There is a slight variation in two sources, so one simply gives both versions, Schatz's and WMREA's. Neither should be pushed as 'the truth'. That is a very simple prose exercise, gentlemen.Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of your examples are remotely similar to a case of a unit conducting target practice with an anti-tank weapon on live persons. The only thing we can state, based on the two sources, is that Mer-Khemis says this fantastic  incident happened. But unless multiple reliable sources can attest to this actually happening, it can't be stated in the article  as fact. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk)
 * 'Fantastic'. Do you ever read the news? 'Neither' refers to two distinct items. I referred to 4 sources. That is dumb grammar. Your objections are silly. You are saying nothing can be referred to on Wikipedia unless (a) an identical incident is attested to show such things can happen and (b) there are multiple sources for the incident. IDF targeting of Palestinian children has been widespread, everyone knows that. It has a considerable academic literature. That you think something odd about a soldier's memory of shooting a donkey for target-practice and, accidently, killing a child on it is suspect, shows unfamiliarity with that weird universe that is the I/P killing fields. Killing donkey drays by firing missiles at with people on board is not rare in the I/P conflict, and it is reported that on occasion suicide bombers have approached Israeli positions on a donkey loaded with explosives: while occupying Lebanon the IDF put out a military order forbidding farmers from riding donkeys, after one such incident, so there is a military rationale. In the latest war, Israel systematically targeted all of Gaza's poultry and livestock farms. Anyone recall what happened to all the exotic animals in the Rafah zoo when the IDF smashed it? You can see the aftermath on youtube.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Organharvesting.net
On the Falun Gong page, a user keeps reinserting propaganda website [] as a cover for deleting edits from voices who have said that there's no evidence of organ harvesting of FLG members. I've been arguing that the site is not reliable for any matter other than the opinion of the (potentially notable) participants. I seek further input though rather than engaging in editwarring. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , that link doesn't work. I think the site you mean is organharvestinvestigation.net  (Matas and Kilgour). As to reliability, this is beyond what we can decide on this noticeboard. We have an article on that report – Kilgour–Matas report. If anyone has evidence for reliability (or the reverse), it should be discussed in that article. And then the corresponding section in the Falun Gong article should be based on the report article. My own impression of the corresponding section is that it is too long. Since we have an article about it, it should be possible to write a shorter summary. If necessary, the summary should mention both sides of the reliability question. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * David Kilgour, David Matas and Ethan Gutmann are the 3 key investigators of organ harvesting in China. Its common for transplant professionals and others to refer to the Kilgour–Matas report. On the US National Library of Medicine site there are 4 articles that reference or mention it.
 * On annual Congressional-Executive Commission on China reports, its mentioned or referenced - 2006 report 3 times, 2007 report twice, 2009 report twice, and 2012 report once.
 * The Government of China's 2 rebuttals of the report are listed on the Kilgour–Matas report, Falun Gong and other wiki articles with organ harvesting info. Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, you know what, let the editwarrior have the Falun Gong page. Because I'm tired of this conflict. And it never ends. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Josephine Joseph
Hello. Most of the material on the Josephine Joseph article comes from this blog post, which I am not certain counts as a reliable source. If you scroll to the end of the blog post, the author admits that they are going to add all of their findings to Wikipedia once they posted their entry (and it seems they did). Is this permissible? Because it seems like good information, but I'm not sure if it violates WP:OR or not. Thanks. 76.79.198.106 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the blog itself is just an aggregation, and can/should be left out of the loop for purposes of the article. That is, the blog itself does appear to contain other sources, so those could be cited for directly supportable statements in the WP article. Each statement (and underlying source for it) would stand or fall by the usual WP:V/WP:RS. But the blog itself, and any unsupported statements or synthesis of supportable statements, do not seem reliable in that regard beyond being a good place to find a collectionof other sources and possible useful information gleaned from them. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Frank Waters, Brave Are My People: Indian Heros Not Forgotten
I'm seeking input regarding the reliability of  Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to our biography of him, Waters was not a college graduate, but became a moderately successful writer. He was primarily a novelist, but also wrote non-fiction. Here's how our article describes one of his books:


 * "For instance, in 1975, he wrote Mexico Mystique: The Coming Sixth World of Consciousness. In the book, he makes the case that December 24, 2011, a date he got from Michael Coe's The Maya, will be the closing date of the Mayan Long Count cycle and would initiate a new wave of human consciousness."


 * This indicates that, in at least some of his writing, he embraced fringe views. I recommend caution about using his books as sources for anything more than his opinions. If he makes a factual assertion, please try to find a better source to back that claim. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response, but 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the above claim isn't even cited in the unreliable article, and 2) Are you calling Hopi prophecy fringe views? That work is about religion, and all books about religion are fringe-like. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Are all books about religion fringe? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, I am not saying that his Wikipedia biography should be used as a source in any other article but rather that the biography raises the concern I mentioned. Quite a few books have been published about Hopi religion and we ought to use those from high quality academic sources as much as possible. I consider much of the discussion of the Mayan calendar in popular books to be fringe views. I certainly would not use a book that argues that Moses really did part the Red Sea as a source for any factual assertion, but only for the author's opinion, in a biography of the author, for example. As for the claim that "all books about religion are fringe-like", that simply isn't true. There are countless objective academic books about religion that are descriptive and include no preaching or religious advocacy whatsoever. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that books can be about religion without being fringe-like, but what I meant was that all religious beliefs are fringe-like in Wikipedia terms. Certainly belief in a man who died and was resurrected would be a fringe belief for our purposes, but the Wikipedia article asserts that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. I also meant that to use a Wikipedia article to declare an author is unreliable is wrong. If Waters is an unreliable source, that information should be confirmed by something other than a Wikipedia article that does not even source the claim that made you distrust Waters in general. 2012 phenomenon was on the Wikipedia main page, BTW, but I suppose the article's tone is dismissive. Waters' book on the Mayan calendar asserts that it does not predict the end of the world, but rather that the calendar marks a period of change starting c. 2012, so I'm not sure the book is fringe-like after all. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any assertion that a calendar developed long ago has predictive value for events of 2012 is a fringe view. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not a fringe view to assert that the Mayan believe this, which is what Waters wrote about, not that the calendar actually predicted anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in two ways. First of all, mainstream scholars of Mayan culture agree that the Mayans predicted nothing about any events that would take place at the end of their long calendar in 2011/2012. Assertions to the contrary are fringe, held by a small group of crank enthusiasts. Also incorrect is your claim that Waters was writing just about Mayan beliefs instead of about his own beliefs. I found a review of the Mexican Mystique book in an academic journal published by the University of Nebraska Press that said that the book is "almost cranky in its dismissal of traditional scholarship and embracing of esoteric lore", and saying that the book enters the "no-mans land of esoteric theology". The subtitle says it all. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All that being said, Frank Waters was, by all accounts, a respected novelist and engaging writer with a very long career. I have problems with the reliability of the specific book we have been discussing, and that must be considered when evaluating his work overall. But that does not mean that everything he wrote was unreliable. Context matters. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I agree with your assessment of these particular works and Waters in general. Thanks for the guidance! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

D. M. Murdock or "Dorothy M. Murdock"
There is a debate at D. M. Murdock on whether or not to use her first name (she has clearly stated on her Facebook page that she doesn't want her Wikipedia article to use her first name, and prefers to go by her pen name of Acharya S, the current name of the article link) However, many scholarly sources use her full name.

Maurice Casey, page 21 in his text "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" published by T&T Clark, has a consice biography of her stating her real name and her pen name.

Question - Is this a reliable source to clarify the first name in the article instead of using the initial of "D" as the author prefers for her Wikipedia article? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This really isn't an issue of this book being a reliable source but outing a controversial author who uses a pen name to avoid harassment, which she explains on her Forum:

"In the first place, it is true that for some years I was safe in my anonymity from the crackpots and stalkers who later threatened to obtain my credit report, for example, and post it online, along with my home address and phone number. Anyone who knows my story knows that it was none other than Dr. Robert Price who outed me in 2001, which I discovered to my horror one day while sitting home alone, pregnant. All of a sudden, I get an email from a stranger with my real name and home address and phone number, saying that it had been released by Dr. Price to a Christian network. My first reaction was that I would need to flee my home. I was terrified for my life at that point."
 * As for the book being a reliable source, there are many negative reviews of the book and the two paragraphs cited by Ism schism, above are dripping with contempt. Here's how she responds to the two paragraphs:

"If he did know my work, rather than being a dishonest poseur full of bile, Casey would also know that I've backed up pretty much every major and many minor contentions since that book was written over 15 years ago. Hence, I do NOT rely on secondary sources. In fact, I'm quite sure that I read more primary sources in their original languages than does Casey, or he would be FAR better educated about the history of religion and mythology than he is. It is HE who is relying on outdated and specious sources in trying to uphold PATENT FAIRYTALES from antiquity."
 * Again, this isn't about RS, it's an attempt to "out" someone. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, this page is specifically about reliable sources. You may have other issues, but on this page we discuss RS issues. On this specific question the publisher is a well-known academic publisher, long established (1821), publishing a book by an academic in his field. I would suggest that this is highly reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, negative reviews by anonymous persons on Amazon (which you cited at the talk page) or on the personal webpage/blog of the subject don't really add weight to RS discussions. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything, citing Amazon reviews, and blog and forum posts can be an indication that one either has not read WP:RS or no longer cares.
 * If this book did not use Murdoch's name, and was arguing for the CMT, would you still be opposing it's use? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note When this discussion resolves, if the book is deemed reliable, please post to WP:BLPN/ In the meantime, I'm going to close Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard to avoid wasting other editors' time. --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have already commented at Talk:Acharya S please hold back and let uninvolved editors provide feedback. We don't need cumulative arguments. Jehochman Talk 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This book is a very high quality source and meets WP:RS to a high standard. It does an excellent job of establishing that this person's name is Dorothy Murdock.  There's a comment above saying that it's published by T&T Clark.  That might be true, but I find it listed at Bloomsbury's website, a publisher I know fairly well and one about which there shouldn't be any doubts.  Whatever the other arguments one might want to make about this issue, we shouldn't find any problems in regard to RS here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does seem reliable enough to verify that the D stands for Dorothy. I also found a passing reference to "Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S)" in
 * Callahan, Tim. "Did Jesus Exist? What the evidence reveals." Skeptic [Altadena, CA] 19.1 (2014)
 * Is there any reason to doubt this as a point of fact (as distinct from whether the subject prefers that name, or what wikipedia style/BLP guidelines dictate)? Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This to me seems very reminiscent of similar controversy at Stoya -- where some sources considered reliable thought they knew Stoya's true name, and were wrong as it turned out. Are we up to the possibility of falsely exposing somebody as a controversial figure, if they simply happen to share a last name and first initial of one? Pandeist (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perusing Talk:Stoya I see sources such as "all over the web", imdb, google knowledge graph, xmdb.com (defunct) and starnostar.com being cited; all of which are obviously unreliable (esp. in a BLP). So I am not sure how the situations are comparable, at least as far as the issue of reliable sources is concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to other discussions (including the first post in this section) the individual doesn't dispute the notion that this is her real name -- she simply prefers that it not be used. I don't think we're risking being wrong here, at least in being accurate.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is more than one comment in the talk page discussion that she denies this being her actual name. Pandeist (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, if we have Murdock specifically denying that D stands for Dorothy (as opposed to her not using Dorothy), then we should consider the possibility that the two sources cited above got the information wrong. Can someone point to Murdock's specific statement? Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Following links from the article talkpage I found this facebook posting in which Murdock repudiates "any and all instances of my purported name online".
 * My reading of the topic (which I was not familiar with earlier) is that:
 * We have reliable sources calling the subject Dorothy.
 * The subject clearly does not like being referred to by (apparently any) first name, raising issues of undue familiarity, safety and error.
 * This eventually is not a question of reliable sources per se (because I believe the sources we have cross that bar), but how to balance our mission of being an encyclopedia with being sensitive to the wishes of the article's subject. All the best in that. :) Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think now the BLP Noticeboard is the right venue, now that we know the sources are reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for going through all this effort to ensure this subject is treated fairly. Jehochman Talk 21:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Start a new section, with a suitably descriptive heading. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal website use as source
At Yasser Al-Habib article, it had been used of The drop (the office of sheikh Al-Habib) website as a source. In other words, most of sources of the article about one person is his website. Imagine the person is alive. Is it reliable source? Is it true using of the website of person for referring contents in his article?Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please guide me. Thanks!Viator313 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on how the source is used. If it his opinion, then it is okay. If it is some claim or accomplishment that needs external proof, then it shouldn't be used. Specifically, regarding the article, and looking at this version - footnote 7 is about Al-Habib expressing his views on Fadlallah, hence the use is permissible. Same with footnote 5. Footnote 3 is again material he produced, though we'd not recommend youtube as a source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper website list of articles contributed
Hi. I wanted to add the text "He is a regular contributor to the Japan Times." to the Gregory Clark (author) article, but my source would have been a list of articles and I figured that would have violated NOR, so I settled for adding the link to the bottom of the page.

Was I right?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to source that. Everyone knows he contributes regularly to that newspaper.Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that experienced editors do not always demand sourcing on facts which can be uncontroversially verified, but your approach seems prudent. What policy says is that the thing you write without sourcing should not be seen as non-obvious to other editors (and other editors should be able to read, think, use google etc). What we have all experienced over the years are editors whose argument for something being non-obvious (which they want removed for other reasons) is that they are an editor and they are saying it is non obvious. It is difficult to discuss then. But this does not happen all the time, and if you expect no controversy... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill Hicks' "Hitler had the right idea" rant
I am wondering if it is acceptable to source the statement "Another of Hicks's most famous quotes was delivered during a gig in Chicago in 1989 (later released as the bootleg I'm Sorry, Folks). After a heckler repeatedly shouted "Free Bird", Hicks screamed that "Hitler had the right idea; he was just an underachiever!" Hicks followed this remark with a misanthropic tirade calling for unbiased genocide against the whole of humanity." with this clip from Youtube. I don't think it satisfies WP:RS so I was bold and removed the link from the article Kevin Matthews (radio personality) and replaced it with a "citation needed" template. I, then, checked Hick's article and saw that that the same link was also being used for essentially the same thing. If I'm wrong, I return the link to the Matthew's article, but the clip appears to be a bootleg of Hick's Chicago show. Instead of the YouTube clip, I am wondering if either this, this or even possibly this would be acceptable per WP:RS. Thanks in adavance. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it is reliable or not, the YouTube clip cannot be cited - we do not cite links to copyright violations. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks AndyTheGump. It seemed like an obvious copyvio to me, but just thought I double check before removing the link from the Hick's article as well. Any opinion on the three alternatives that I listed? Do you think any of them would be acceptable as a RS? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These two YouTube clips were also be used as inline citations in Hick's article. This one says it's licensed for fair use and this one says it's from a BBC interview. Are these also copyvios or would they be OK per WP:EL/P? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Copyright is an issue, but it's also a primary source. Including it means we're relying on original research to determine what's worth including. In other words, we can't say something is one of his "most famous quotes" or representative of his style if reliable secondary sources haven't said so. If copyright weren't an issue, we could include the primary link for good measure, but it's not enough to include anything at all on its own. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Rhododendrites. Would any of the three sources I gave above, in your opinion, be sufficient to use in support of the ""Another of Hicks's most famous quotes (...)" statements in both the Hick's and Matthew's articles or should the two statements be removed altogether? Also, do you think the other two YouTube links I mentioned that were being used in the Hick's artice (the BBC interview and the "fair use" ones) are also copvios? Should the information they are being used to support in the Hick's article be removed? FWIW, there are also two other YouTube links being used as inline citations. The "Bill Hicks on Austin Public Access" clip is being used in the lede. It appears to be a copyvio to me, but I'm not sure if the "public access" makes it OK to use. The other clip is "Bill Hicks Outlaw Comic Documentary" is used to support NBC at the time about a certain topic Hick's was using in one of his jokes. Again, I'm not 100% sure if this is a copvio. If these both are copyvios, then the satements they support should also be removed, right? If they are not copyvios, then the question is whether they satisfy WP:RS, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to go to YouTube. If you do a Google search for, it pulls up plenty of reliable sources that discuss the clip.  I didn't notice anyone specifically call it is his most famous routine, but there was plenty of commentary on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info NinjaRobotPirate. I actually did google that which is how I found the three alternative to YouTube I listed above. But, most of the commentary I saw was user-generated stuff that basically linked to the same YouTube clips. BTW, do you think the three sites I listed above are reliable? - Marchjuly (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A lengthy description/transcript of the rant can be found in Hick's biography
 * True, Cynthia American Scream: The Bill Hicks Story. London, HarperCollins, 2002. ISBN 0380803771

around page 140. Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Abecedare. That would work fine. I'll check if that book is available online just to get the actual page number. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um -- the Google search on it does not show that rant inthat book. AFAICT, it is a "squelch line" frequently used by comedians.  Many of Don Rickles' best lines, quoted out of context, sound pretty horrid.   Casey Kasem did a Hitler impersonation in honor of Rickles.  Tweet: Don Rickles on polite Bob Newhart: If Hitler had lived, Bob would have chatted him up.  I suspect Wikipedia is cooperating in making a mountain out of a comedic molehill. Squelches are generally meant to throw a monkey wrench (or barrel of monkey wrenches) into the heckler's position. If we ran an article on squelches, it might fit in.  In a biography? Not. As for calling for the destruction of the world:  However, why should anybody want to save the human race, or damn it either? Does God want its society? Does Satan? (Mark Twain) See also,  "Every comedian has a different opinion. George Carlin talked about his preferential method of vanquishing hecklers. He said “Some comedians like to have a stockpile of witty lines stored to use when they need them. I always prefer to use a verbal sledge hammer to the base of the skull.”  Collect (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is in the book, on page 127. I don't think anyone doubts that it is used to squelsh the heckler, so I've no clear idea why you are arguing that point or what you mean about "making a mountain out of a comedic molehill". The question is simply whether or not the line is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in his biography. It does seem to be one of his best known. According to the biography it was an important moment in his career, but the issue at the time was that he was ranting at the heckler by repeatdly calling her a "drunk cunt", which is apparently what caused most of the audience to leave. No-one seems to have cared about Hitler at the time. Paul B (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure it is - but Google books search does not let me find it. Some of the other cites I found trace straight back to Wikipedia <g>, or to people remembering bootleg recordings. I suspect he said close to that a number of times - but as to whether he did it out of actual belief of any sort - dubious.  It should not be used except with the nature of the interaction being clear, for sure.   Collect (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't think there's any suggestion that it implies pro-Nazi or genocidal ideology on Hicks' part. Paul B (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Try the Amazon 'Look Inside' reader and search for 'Hitler'...although you perhaps will need to sign in and there may be user/region based restrictions. And agree with Paul that there is no implication of Nazi-sympathies in Hicks' (quite funny) rant as the context, as well as the full quote after the underachiever line, makes clear, "Kill em all, Adolf, all of 'em. Jews, Mexicans, Americans, Whites, Kill'em all. Start over! The experiment didn't work" Abecedare (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- usually Google does a "full search" showing stuff not in preview mode as in plain sanserif form -- rarely does it miss like this. Can't tell precisely how the book attributes the material though - does it say it used a transcript or used a report from another source?  Amazingly enough, sometimes "quotes" have a mysterious life of their own, and I would prefer a more solid source if this book does not tell what source it used for the transcript.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's (bootleg) video of the event, so transcribing it would not have been a problem (although we cannot use or cite primary/copyvio sources on wikipedia, that's not an issue for biographers, scholars, news-media etc). And agree that the line needs to be contextualized properly, but that is best discussed on the article talkpage IMO. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the original source is a copyright violation, any copies are still copyright violations. News Media have certain rights about "speeches" being quoted  at the time, but if you write a book with the "I Have a Dream" speech in it - prepare for a major copyright suit.  Cheers.  "I Have a Dream" is copyright until 2038. Collect (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting into a discussion blind-alley here over the issue of copyrights. Bottom line: HarperCollins is responsible to make sure that the biography they are publishing complies with copyright law and that the appropriate permissions have been taken; and their lawyers surely know more that enough about the issue. We just need to treat the reliable secondary source just as we would any other (ie, cite it properly, not over-quote etc). Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just want to thank everyone for the feedback and help in sorting this out. My primary concern was the YouTube clips, and those have been sorted out. Squelchers and all of that stuff didn't even cross my mind. Anyway, WP:N doesn't extend to article content, right? So, whether the rant deserves to be in the article depends on consensus and its coverage in reliable sources. Since the latter appears to have been resolved by the finding of the biography, the former is probably best left to discussion at Talk:Bill Hicks. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Technology Tell
Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silver seren C 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please respond to this?
Wow, this section was just archived because nobody responded. It's not like i'm asking a complicated question here. Can someone please respond?

Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silver seren C 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Daily Kos Elections
We've long established that Daily Kos is not a reliable source in general due to the self-published nature. In doing some cleanup, I tripped up on Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014 and Nevada gubernatorial election, 2014, both of which use Daily Kos Elections for electoral race projections, often putting them in the same breath as well-established, highly reliable political specialists like the Cook Report and Larry Sabato. Are their projections reliable for this sort of commentary, or should they be handled similarly to other Kos uses? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, polls are the detritus of election campaigns, and the fewer used, the better. Yet some articles have several hundred poll results listed - which I consider  outrageous.  You will find some people who say "If I find it on the web, it must be notable enough for Wikipedia" and they can be quite obdurate.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * These should be treated differently than other Daily Kos pages, since they're being used as primary sources about Daily Kos polls rather than as secondary sources about non-Daily Kos subjects. From a verifiability/RS standpoint they can be used, but only carefully and they should generally be avoided in favor of secondary sources reporting on the same polls, when possible. From a neutrality standpoint these polls might not be robust enough to be placed alongside more widely accepted polls such as Cook and Rothenberg. And then there are the valid WP:RECENTISM and WP:CBALL concerns that Collect identified. But those are other matters. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What about them makes them somehow more reliable than standard Daily Kos pages, though? This isn't a situation of polls, but of electoral race projections, which, while based on polling, are a different beast. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry, you're right. I believe Daily Kos does do some polling and without looking too deeply I thought these were poll results, but instead they're poll ratings and analysis. Self published, not reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, DrFleischman is correct, SPS and not reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Easy call - Kos Elections one of the LEAST reliable parts of Kos, not a WP:RS by a long shot--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above - not reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

SEC filings: corporate 10-Ks and non-profit form 990s as a source for financial information
Are financial statements submitted to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission reliable sources for the finances (revenue, expenses, amount spent on marketing, etc.) of an organization? Specifically I am referring to the annual statements (10-K) and quarterly statements (8-K) of companies, and the annual statements of non-profits (Form 990). The Corporate forms are independently audited, usually by one of the Big Four accounting firms. The Form 990s will be audited or not audited depending on the organization, and the auditors are likely to be local CPAs. thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * They are reliable sources for the reported statistics of the company in question, but do not demonstrate the notability or relevance of the figures in question. They are primary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Can you expand on that? I'd like to understand your thinking better, but don't want to ask more specific questions so as not to influence the answer. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 10-ks and 8-ks and 990s are reliable sources for the filers self-reported metrics. I don't know how I could be any more clear than that. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * They are reliable sources, but primary sources, which means they often require quite a bit of interpretation before non-experts (our presumed readers) can understand what they mean, and we, the editors, can't do that interpretation ourselves, we need secondary sources to do that for us. Also since pretty much all companies and most organizations file forms like these, they are usually not important enough to include in our articles ("do not demonstrate notability or relevance"). Finally, they're self-reported, which means they are often slanted by the company or organization (in many complex ways, for example by deciding whether to take a gain or a loss in this period or the next). In short, we usually don't use them, for all these reasons. But in theory we could, in certain limited ways and cases. What exactly do you want to use them for? What article, and what statement in that article? --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * well, I was going to try to avoid saying much to avoid influencing direction, but I can see that won't work. I can certainly see the need for caution as indicated in your remarks.  Would statements like "Spacely Sprockets reported $2.3M in revenue in 2013, with $500K, $1.2M, and $500K coming from the widget, sprocket, and interplanetary tourism divisions respectively" be acceptable provided that the revenue was allocated in the source in that way? Formerly 98 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is that important or notable? If it were important or notable, wouldn't someone other than the company have commented on it? For instance, Apple did 42.1bn of revenues in the quarter that ended Sept. 27 - Source NYTimes, not Source Apple . Reliable secondary sources provide explanation and context that primary sources do not. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Different take: I guess it's okay to consider those primary sources, but primary sources CAN be used, with care (per wp:PRIMARY?). Those statements about Spacely Sprockets reported revenues would definitely be okay, in my view, for use in an article about Spacely, as they are a) uncontroversial b) not yet contested by any other editor c) sourced and absolutely verifiably true:  the documents show that Spacely did report those numbers.  You don't need them to have been discussed in secondary coverage.  And it does not require an expert to pick out the revenue number or other basics.  Note the 10-k documents are probably on-line and directly linkable and should be linked in footnote.  And the nonprofit 990s, if not too old and also not too new, are probably available for free at Guidestar (requires free account), and that should be noted in footnote.  It's POSSiBLE that the "true" revenue numbers could be different (due to fraudulent reporting or error not caught by any auditors), but what was said is that Spacely reported those numbers, which is proven. Further, unless there's a sourced reason to suspect fraud or other cause for doubt, the numbers simply can be stated to be the actual revenues: "Spacely had $2.3m in revenue in 2013", etc.  That is practice in Wall Street Journal or any other news publication discussing firms;  it's understood that those are the reported numbers, and it is very rare for there ever to be any restatement/change later.  All the 10-k numbers would be audited by SEC requirements, and some nonprofit 990s are audited (other 990s may be merely "reviewed" by a CPA or may be self-reported without any review.  The existence of 10-K report does go indirectly toward establishing notability of Spacely, as it must be a publicly traded company and there is therefore investor demand for info, and it is pretty well assured there will be coverage by analyst reports and so on, perhaps not yet found or not widely available.  The existence of form 990 report for a nonprofit is less helpful, as there is typically little/no demand for that info and little/no coverage can be expected.  However the size of a nonprofit in revenues or assets is relevant to establishing its importance;  there oughta be a rule-of-thumb that any charitable nonprofit of size greater than $1m or some other cutoff is notable, but that's not established.  Hope this helps. -- do  ncr  am  17:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with the "filing a 10-k is evidence of notability." Filing a 10-k is evidence that the corporation is a public company - nothing more. Every public company must file a 10-k. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that 10-k and other filings required for a public company are not multiple independent sources establishing notability of firm under wp:GNG (or wp:COMPANY. About automatic notability of public companies, wp:LISTED indicates there's no consensus;  my belief is that we know there exists a lot of coverage and anything publicly traded should be assumed notable, while you disagree, which is fine. -- do  ncr  am  18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view tax filings should be attributed in-text to make clear that they come from the subject being discussed. Effectively they fall into WP:ABOUTSELF. They can be used if they aren't unduly self-serving, but should generally be avoided in favor of reliable secondary sources when possible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As primary source documentation they are of limited usefulness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not really disagreeing. The question was not about using financial information to establish notability.  It was about whether it can be used in an article, and we all seem to be agreeing that it can.  I'm sorry I brought up my view that financial info could help establish notability, which was a tangent.  Over and out. -- do  ncr  am  03:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only are 10-ks reliable sources, they are the best possible source (most up to date) for infobox data such as revenue, profit, assets under management, and other items. However, they should only be used by information that belongs in the article by de-facto, and not where weight and neutrality may be an issue. For example, you wouldn't want to use an annual report to discuss a controversial issue or talk about how great the company's prospects are, or create a massive amount of information about their finances in the article-body. It would be useful if you shared the article in question and the exact use of the source. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Without context, it is difficult to comment. Primary sources should not be used to assess or assert notability. If an organization is notable, you don't need a 10-K as a source. And if a specific figure in the 10-K is notable, you need secondary sources to assert the importance of that figure to be added to the article.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The information is as accurate and reliable as any we can find on organizations, but that isn't the same as WP:RS. You will never use all the information on any of these forms, and there is no commentary within it, so inevitably it is the WP editor, not the source that determines what the editor is including - the primary problem with primary sources. If there is information that undeniably HAS to be in the article, and it can be sourced to the federal filing, that is fine; otherwise, you have good information, but no justification for including it.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources, asking for opinion.
In the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article, new information is being introduced based on one questionable source. Other RS reporting the story cite the same questionable source as their source of information. The information presented is a conspiracy theory that hasn't been released yet, but according to the source, it will be released later. The story is based on a report they claim to have in their possession, that no one can confirm, and no one knows where the report came from. According to policy, WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Can you please weigh in with an opinion? Here is the actual info in the article and these are the sources being used to support it. . Thank you. USchick (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Diff in question tells that "Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that it obtained documents" about plans for the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. It does not claim that the documents are "the truth". There is no questions that newspaper indeed "reported" that it has the document, because this is something asserted by its editor in chief, Dmitry Muratov during his interview at Echo of Moscow (the reporting appears to be a fact). This has been republished in numerous other sources on several languages, such as this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed with those sources, with the possible exception of McClatchy. Tried to find more in a Google News search, but that seems to be all there is. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "exceptional" about the statement that Novaya Gazeta has said it posses this document. "with possible exception of McClatchy" is like saying "with the possible exception" of Reuters or any other reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fringe and extreme conspiracy theory that isn't repeated seriously by reliable sources. As such it fails both notability criteria and WP:EXCEPTION as it would require multiple high quality sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is nonsense. It IS repeated seriously by reliable sources. They're in the article. How in the world can you show up here and claim "(it) isn't repeated seriously by reliable sources" when the actual reliable sources are right there in plain sight for everyone to see? This looks like some bad-faith "if I say something wacky people will automatically believe it even if it's false" tactic. Again - the sources are right there.
 * And you, or USchick, repeatedly calling it "conspiracy theory" is bullshit too. Have you got a source which calls it a "conspiracy theory"? Please provide it! Do the reliable sources which have been already provided refer to it as "conspiracy theory"? No? Then quit making stuff up. Wikipedia isn't a place for original research or for venting your own personal opinions and prejudices. This is just some POV "WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT so I'm gonna call it names and hope some naive people believe me". Sources please or stop obfuscating.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. USchick (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Asking for more uninvolved editors to weigh in please to establish clear consensus. Thanks. USchick (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is original publication and comments as they appear in Russian language sources. That was reliably published. If the plans were true is another matter. Some of the stated goals have been already accomplished, others apparently failed.My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to be clearly reliable for the edit in question. It isn't even close, really. Has there actually been a disagreement about the reliability of mcclatchy, etc... at the article's talk page? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. One disagreement is about whether or not a secret document reveals a conspiracy theory if the sources don't call it a "conspiracy theory." The other disagreement is about sources citing a report of unknown origin that may or may not exist. USchick (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see a problem with the sources. McClatchy and VOA news are highly RS. Stating that a Russian newspaper has annouced that they have certain documents does not fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have provided a direct reference to Novaya Gazeta publication, apparently it was only published today (25 Feb). Novaya Gazeta is a major Russian semi-opposition newspaper, they expect every vaguely anti-Putin publication to be challenged in courts (that are very sympathetic to Putin), so their fact checking of such publications are usually very solid. It is as good Russian source as it can be, certainly good enough to say "Novaya Gazeta reported..." Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good, thank you. Based on this information, I may come back with a follow up question about another article. So what you're saying, is that reliable sources don't have to have proof of authenticity, just report about it. Ok, thanks. USchick (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? What is this suppose to mean? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the context and gravity, I'm predisposed towards caution. Yes, there are RS reporting on these documents but, given the high level of global interest, it will certainly be picked up on by further RS if there is merit in the findings. While it's been attributed inline in the article, I do see this being a case where we should stave off for the time being on the grounds of WP:REDFLAG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the RS noticeboard. The discussion is whether this is RS. The consensus is yes. Other content disputes should be at the talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll have to excuse me if I've misunderstood the point of the RSN - that is, it is required that the context be provided, being that of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and that a couple RS qualify as 'multiple' in such an event. As has been noted, the news has only just broken. Is this not meant as a venue in which to address what constitutes RS on a case by case basis, and in context? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) [EDIT] No, you're quite right, Capitalismojo. Admonishment taken as being merited. Any quibbles regarding the use of RS is definitely for the article's talk page, not for the RSN. The sources in question are definitely RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm open to the consideration of whether this is significant enough to go in the lede and article, or just article body itself. However, it is significant, related, and well sourced so it should be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. The RS are good. The question of where isn't that urgent. We can review it over the next couple of days on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is now also in the New York Times. Can we just drop this? It's IJUSTDONTLIKEWHATRELIABLESOURCESAY and nothing more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. The newspaper did not publish any pictures of the memo or provide any proof that the policy described in it had actually been adopted.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This was my original question. This is a recent event, and newspapers are chasing the latest story, so reporting is often inaccurate. Recentism applies in this case, but it's not a policy, only a guideline. Does common sense kick in at some point, or do we go with what one news report said? Every other news report is based on the first one. And the entire military intervention is based on propaganda, which this may be also. If this is a real story, should we wait for confirmation of some sort, or simply go with what everyone else is saying? It's hard to tell the difference between news and gossip. USchick (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Desperate Passage: The Donner Party's Perilous Journey West by Ethan Rarick
The google preview is here. According to the NYT: "His is the first significant book, written, like Stewart's, in a novelistic mode and likely to gain popular readership, to incorporate this new data.... Rarick's account is not really about science; it's about humanity.... Rarick has done his homework."--New York Times Book Review. The publisher, Oxford University Press said: "A fast-paced, heart-wrenching, clear-eyed narrative history, Desperate Passage casts new light on one of America's most horrific encounters between the dream of a better life and the harsh realities such dreams so often must confront." Is this book basically a historical fiction? I don't see any footnotes for all the quotes, so this looks like reconstructed dialog. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

, what do you think? This strikes me as pretty much the same vein as Waters's books. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the outcome here I feel it will benefit the article either way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * How will it benefit the article exactly? The sources were scrutinised when it was submitted at FAC, so what's changed since then? Eric   Corbett  14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll bite. OUP describes it as "narrative history," not "historical narrative." More to the point, and better than the NYT review, check out some of the scholarly reviews the book received: in the Western Historical Quarterly, for instance, or California History. The review in Western American Literature, what's more, notes that "Rarick prefers to let characters speak for themselves, and when the record is silent, he bases his conclusions on thoughtful analysis." So it seems far from a matter of reconstructed dialogue or fictionalization. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jbmurray that it's a reliable source, published by a leading university press, not a work of historical fiction. Shame that you had to let your issues with Eric Corbett spill over to here. Can we close this now? BencherliteTalk 12:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , it is generally best practice to put a note on the talk page of an article when there is a concern about sourcing, if only to link to the discussion on the noticeboard. I wouldn't have known about this if another editor hadn't given me a heads up, and I was the one who actually read this book for the collaboration that produced the featured article.    It is absolutely not historical fiction.  It is written more like a popular history (i.e., it's an easy read), but sources are clearly discussed.  He also included a section in the book detailing the sources that he relied on:  from my notes, per Rarick on p 247, this book written mostly on primary sources written close to event; secondarily, letters and memoirs written later by those involved; tried to avoid relying on third-hand accounts.  The book also included a criticial examination of the third-hand accounts (i.e., newspaper articles written in the months/early years after) for accuracy vs sensationalism.
 * Just FYI for the future, generally when I'm evaluating a source, I first look at the publisher. If it's a university press, they get an automatic point toward reliability (although if it is a popular history series, that point gets taken away).  If it is self-published, it goes back on the shelf.  If it's another publisher, I take a much closer look.  I look for reviews in scholarly journals, as  pointed out.  Sometimes the scholarly reviews say the book is fringe, etc., and then it gets put back on the shelf.  I check whether or not the book has been cited by other authors.  If possible, I read a wide range of books on the topic; if one seems to have a lot of errors compared to others, that book gets put back on the shelf.  Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it better to mention it here before at the article talk page, as I was looking for neutral and uninvolved input. That the editors who originally thought the source was reliable have weighed-in here is not that helpful, and it certainly helps to sway consensus. But to clarify, when I saw it referred to as narrative history, it sounded like less than straight history. "Novelistic mode" and "is not really about science" should raise flags, but I knew there was a chance the NYT had this wrong. Still, Oxford called it a "narrative history", so what exactly does that mean in terms of RS? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I closed this on the basis that RO wanted "neutral and uninvolved input" and she had had that. She doesn't accept it, or the scholarly reviews of the book that show its reliability, so she has reopened this accusing me of being "involved" and closing it for "spurious reasons". The irony of continuing to flog a dead horse on this, of all topics, should be obvious. It is clear that nothing will satisfy RO that this book is reliable, so I see no point in keeping this discussion open, frankly. BencherliteTalk 17:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And as I was leaving this message, SchroCat was re-closing the discussion. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, and contra the suggestion here, I personally am not one of "the editors who originally thought the source was reliable." I have had nothing to do with the Donner party article hitherto. Meanwhile, in answer to the question as to what "narrative history" is, here you can find a simple explanation, aimed at undergraduates embarking on academic historical study for the first time.
 * I saw that, but "good storytelling" reinforced my concern., did you look at Rarick's notes? He explains that much of the narrative is constructed from sources not pertaining to the Donner Party, and some is "fleshed out narrative" based on assumptions.Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied to some of your concerns here, which is perhaps a better place for this (now closed) discussion. As for the rest of your concerns, E H Carr's What Is History? is an old book, but still a good one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is (still) done. Use by academic sources (as shown above) is considered suuitable. End of story. Please do not consider making further comments: that reeally wuld be moving into disruptive territory. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Book review by Kerry Clare, reliable source for WP:BKCRIT?
is being used as a source in Draft:Battered Soles, an article about the book reviewed.

Kerry Clare is a professional author and editor whose book reviews appear regularly in The Globe and Mail and The National Post. This particular review, however, appears in her own literary blog. At present, the review is being used to support this statement:

... and reviewer Kerry Clare comments: "As might be expected by a novel whose title is a pun, the humour throughout is a bit goofy, the wisdom folksy. I frequently laughed out loud as I read (it occurs to me to note: there is no other way to laugh, is there?) and enjoyed traveling alongside Mason and the colourful characters he meets."

It is also being counted as a review in a reliable source for the purposes of the notability criteria WP:BKCRIT. It has been argued that the review is unusable for notability purposes, regardless of who wrote it, because it appeared in this blog. That's not my reading of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, but I could be wrong. I would welcome opinions from other editors.
 * My biggest concern is that while she's written for various outlets, this is her own blog and she doesn't undergo any sort of editorial process other than via Clare herself, so I see it as a self-published source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thing is, books tend to get eaten alive when they get taken to AfD. Even trade reviews tend to be controversial at AfD, as many people consider them to be too short for notability purposes, so blog sources are viewed with an even higher level of scrutiny and I'm just concerned that if this draft article is approved on these sources, that it'd likely fail an AfD because the sourcing is a little too weak for comfort here. Getting these approved as RS is fine, but I'd be more comfortable if there were some other more concrete sources found. I can just see the sources on the articles getting torn apart at an AfD - especially as an AfC article, as so many of those get nominated for deletion to the point where not a lot of people (from what I've seen at AfD, which seems to mirror a lot of concerns elsewhere) have much faith in the approval process at AfC. That's why I'm being so harsh about the sources: I want to make sure that if it is approved, that it goes out with its strongest foot forward. I'm tired of reading some of the comments about the AfC process at AfD, some of which are extremely disparaging about the project as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Tokyogirl79 that as a self-published, and relatively non-notable blog, picklemethis.blogspot.com would not be a reliable source on wikipedia even though Kerry Clare has published book reviews in mainstream publications. While WP:SPS allows for some exceptions for citing acknowledged experts in the subject area, IMO such exceptions in case of book reviews should be limited to cases like Maria Popova Brain Pickings blog that themselves have been extensively and (mostly) positively reviewed (and some may disagree with me even in such cases). Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Books reviews are rarely reliable sources, except for the opinions of their writers. So the question is how notable is this view.  TFD (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How do we define an "expert in their field"?
Does the "expert in their field" rule for self-published sources require that the author have been published by a reliable third-party source? Or would it be appropriate to use material self-published by a professional in their field, in an article related to that field, even if said professional has never been published by a reliable third-party source? As a specific example, I'd like to use information from an animation blog, maintained by professional animators, in an article about an animated film. --Jpcase (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the information that I would like to use would come from an interview that the blog carried out with the film's directors. --Jpcase (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the expert must have published, because one cannot be considered an expert unless one's work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Professional animators are not experts unless they also happen to have published works about animation.  Experts would be people like professors of fine arts who specialize in animation.  TFD (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Patheos
Is a reliable seondary source for the phrase
 * "After the attacks on the World Trade Center" in Sam Harris (author)?

I, in general, find using cites for a phrase of that ilk to be somewhat unusual, and personally fail to find any particular relevance nor need for this particular cite in a BLP.

Is this a reliable source for a claim of fact in the BLP? (I think the only fact in the phrase is that "the World Trade Center was attacked at some point in the past"?)  Is there a need for any such cite? I this cite of relevance to such a fact? Is this cite of value to the BLP per se with regard to any claims of fact?

If the cite is being used to introduce opinions into the BLP, then I would think it would only be usable for opinions cited as opinions, but it seems not to be used for such a valid purpose here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, the quote by Chris Hedges is recited verbatim in this Guardian piece by Greenwald, and therefore is in no way dependent on Patheos, a fact that Collect is aware of per my clear indications thereof, such as here and here.
 * Second, the text "After the attacks on the World Trade Center" was used to replace in the lead was "In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam,", which is and unduly broad not to mention unsourced.
 * Third, there are other sources, some quoting from Harris' writings that support narrower language, such as these quotes related to the "war on terror", and "war against Islam" from 2005 book where he makes arguments for the use of torture --  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 07:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In short - Patheos is not RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't necessarily follow. In short, it is not necessary to evaluate whether Patheos is RS or not regarding the quote, which is cited in other reliable secondary sources.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Day One: Garry's Incident
This discussion could use additional participants. CorporateM (Talk) 06:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Walter O'Brien
Since the RfC is really about reliable sources, I'm asking for those who keep tabs on this page to take a look at the following RfC and comment there:. Looking at the discussion(s) prior to the RfC might help in getting the gist of what prompted the RfC. Thanks, -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The main news sources all trace specifically to CBS, which is airing a series "based on" the life of this person. The series itself is clearly fiction (although the CBS press releases blurred that line) and the question is - are CBS news sources "reliable sources" for claims of fact about a living person where the person is being promoted by the entertainment division of CBS?   Is there a strong enough wall between the two divisions such that the CBS news claims about a CBS entertainment product are still regarded as "reliably sourced"?  Would  be a salient example of the connection between the divisions? Collect (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Casey reliable for Acharya S. article?
Warning that extensive canvassing and meatpuppeting forms part of the background to this question, by an author who does not want WP:FULLNAME included in author article lead. Nevertheless, the question here is does this 2014 publication on the T&T Clark imprint by Maurice Casey pass RS? And can this source be added to article under "critical reception" section. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Tokyogirl79, User:Silver seren as active here could maybe take a quick look at publisher and author creds please? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The book was apparently written by Maurice Casey and published just a couple months before his/her death if our Wikipedia page on Casey is to be believed. Again, if Casey's Wikipedia page is correct, and they are a British Scholar and a professor from the University of Nottingham, that absolutely looks like a reliable source to me; just about the best kind around. I will note that the book has a tint of advocacy in its description and should be balanced with other similar books from different academics with different perspectives regarding the primary subject of christianity. CorporateM (Talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * * headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* Yes, it is reliable. This discussion has had been had before on multiple pages, I think we can just go on and tell the people who WP:DONTLIKEIT that it's not the book that's the problem.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User_talk:CorporateM User:Ian.thomson thanks. Unfortunately Tendentious_editing is difficult when an author is running an active campaign on and off Wikipedia to have academic sources criticial of their scholarship excluded from their bio article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Palgrave Macmillan history book
An editor is claiming that this book The New Atheist Denial of History by an academic historian published by Palgrave Macmillan is not a monograph, and therefore not peer-reviewed.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * AFAICT that book would be counted as a monograph under the Palgrave Macmillan publishing categories (don't see why that is relevant though). In any case, Palgrave says that all their publications are peer-reviewed and as a respected academic publishing house, I don't see any obvious reason to doubt that. The author himself is a history professor, and though he does not seem to have a extensive bibliography of original work, a JSTOR search shows that he has written quite a number of book reviews for history journals; so he is definitely qualified to review the writings of Harris, Dawkins et al. Given the author and publisher, the book would pass the basic reliable source test. On the other hand, I didn't find any reviews of the work (not surprising given its specialized topic and recency), and it is held by only a few libraries, so be wary to giving the work undue weight and be sure to attribute any opinions you cite. Abecedare (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. It looks like a book by a historian writing about his area of expertise, albiet on a controversial topic. If the point is whether it's "peer reviewed", there's no indication in the book whether it was reviewed as part of the publishing process. But that's normally the case – academic publishers don't disclose the names of their reviewers. And the lack of a formal post-publication review isn't disqualifying either, as it is still a new book. But given the nature of the topic, the author's qualifications are 100% certain to be challenged. So without the imprimatur of reviews by other historians it should be used with attribution – an academic book by a Christian historian on the errors made by non-historians (atheists). – Margin1522 (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.
 * As per this link, the book is a monograph[], which their website specifically states are peer-reviewed, and as per this link Rigorous peer review is vital to this. We will support you with a thorough but fast and responsive peer review process. provided by Abecedare, all of the academic press's publications are peer-reviewed.
 * The book was only published three months ago, so there are no citations of it, not even a review as far as I can tell. He is a mainstream historian writing in his field of expertise. Yes, he is an Episcopalian lay priest, but he acknowledges that in a sort of disclaimer in the preface stating that he is writing as a career academic historian, follows that with a statement opening the Introduction as to his position on Harris, and cites other mainstream historians in supporting his statements, etc.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no doubts the book is peer reviewed for it's historical content, I just simply doubt it's an academic monograph rather than a book for a public audience (they may also call them monographs but that's hard the point), a point you seem unwilling to concede. I've seen plenty of academic monographs (albeit not in history) and they don't read or look like this. It's clearly for a public audience. It seems to me to be the equivalent of trying to treat the the Selfish Gene as an academic monograph (OUP also peer review their books). As I already stated here:, the book is also just out and lacking reviews/citations. You are also using this book to say a generic statement like "Harris is bad at history for some reason according to someone", which as I have already mentioned, is just a lazy way of writing (and to clarify, I'm saying you are making the lazy additions, not that the author of the book is lazy).  Second Quantization (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Could we have some context here? Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Context: Ubikwit has been editing the Sam Harris (author) article with the apparent intent of adding critical or negative content (he has complained that he is combatting "whitewashing"). Harris is an outspoken atheist who is particularly critical of Islamic religion, which is presently a rather active subject in news cycles. Ubikwit has introduced this book published 90 days ago by a priest/ex-history teacher which purports to criticize "new atheists" (including Harris) for their lack of knowledge on, or disregard of, history. Ubikwit says he hasn't read the book, but has found Harris mentioned in it through Google searches, and has quoted on the Talk page passages from the book which criticize Harris' knowledge of history. Ubikwit did introduce a single sentence and a citation to the book into the Harris article to, as far as I can tell, introduce and lend credibility to lesser quality sources he wished to use (Lears):
 * Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.

It's yet unclear as to whether Ubikwit intends to cite the Painter book for assertion of fact. Hope that helps. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm curious to know which editor is claiming it's not peer reviewed. Perhaps you should notify him or her, Second Quantization (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As noted above, Palgrave-Macmillan does publish peer-reviewed texts, but also non-peer-reviewed texts (contrary to Ubikwit's assertion) in the academic fields like History/Historiography. While the text doesn't have all the hallmarks of being peer-reviewed (the preface and introduction mention only that his wife and daughter reviewed it), I haven't personally worried about whether the source is officially peer-reviewed or not yet because, frankly, I am more concerned about what specific information from the book we're talking about using. If the proposed information is somehow problematic, maybe then I will look further into the credentials behind the source. A quick phone call to confirm if it was "peer-reviewed" informed me that Chris Chappell, the Palgrave representative who handled the publication of that book, is no longer with the company, but I was assured that "the book passed their basic academic review". When I pressed for specific confirmation that the text underwent a peer review process rather than a publisher review, the question was sidestepped and I was asked instead if I had a specific issue or concern with the publication they could help me with. Of course, none of that matters until the original poster informs us as to '''"The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting", per Step 3 above. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, even though the Painter book, given the author and publisher, should be regarded as a reliable and pertinent source for the Sam Harris article its arguments and conclusions still need to be properly represented, summarized, attributed, and not given undue weight... which is best discussed on the article talk-page. I don't think you and I have any disagreement on that point.
 * However some of the other issues being raised, such as whether or not the book is a "monograph", or whether the concerned editor at Palgrave still works at the company (?!) etc are non sequiturs not really relevant to the issue of reliability on wikipedia. Most of the sources currently cited in the Sam Harris article are newspaper/magazine articles that aren't always written by specialists; aren't peer-reviewed; and don't receive post-publication reviews. Yet, barring exceptional circumstances, they are generally considered reliable sources on wikipedia for such contemporary biography articles. Of course better sources should be used whenever available, and this book as a lengthy review of Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens work by a history professor and published by an academic press is one such preferred source. I am not sure why novel standards are being invented in judging this particular source.
 * Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with anything you have said. As I'm sure you are aware, when contentious information is proposed or introduced, the sources for that information will be scrutinized — nothing novel about that. I've seen in discussions here where an author's personal history is reviewed; funding sources questioned; educational institution is compared; publisher's reputation is evaluated; and, yes, whether or not the source was subjected to rigorous academic peer review and post-publication citation. The intent is usually to qualify or disqualify the source. So why the judging of this apparently otherwise reliable source? As evidenced below, and as I mentioned above in my context summary, this book is being used primarily as a vehicle to usher in Lears material as a credible source. Objections have been raised to that because Lears has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science (see positivism). While Painter does cite Harris and other atheists when presenting his criticism, his overall critique is of New Atheism, so that article is probably where such information should be introduced. Both text proposals below, Ubikwit's escort of Lears version, and Abecedare's much improved but equally vague version, say nothing other than: "Historian says New Atheists distort history", without informing the reader as to how or why. But that is indeed a matter for the article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Xenophrenic's misplaced comment, which is why I didn't address it in my previous response.
 * He has again, flagrantly, misrepresented Lears by insinuating that he "tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics". Repeating that misrepresentation is extremely tendentiousness. Xenophrenic is the only individual to make such "objection" again here in a misplaced comment. I'm going to post the relevant text from Lears at AN/I.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again with the lies, Ubikwit? Lying doesn't work here, as everything you say can be easily looked up and checked. A quick look at Lears review of Harris' book shows that he has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science:
 * ''Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.” Every schoolkid knows about what happened next: the catastrophic twentieth century. [...] The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. [...] The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, injected positivism with a missionary zeal. [...] one cannot deny that [Hitchens] embraced, from a safe distance, the “war on terror” as an Enlightenment crusade. He was not alone. Other intellectuals fell into line, many holding aloft the banner of science and reason against the forces of “theocratic barbarism.” Most prominent were the intellectuals the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists, a group that included Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. [...] As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire.
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's some additional context. Painter is a secondary source for Jackson Lears, who has written an a comprehensive review of three of Harris' books, first of all. Both Painter and Lears are "mainstream historians", and academics.
 * NI haven't read the book yet, so I've proposed using only minimal information from the previews.


 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This matter is best debated on the article talk page, but Ubikwit, I don't think your extract is very good in terms of conciseness or readability (besides missing some required quotation marks). For example my summary (having only read the intro to Painter's book) would be along the lines, "In his book The New Atheists denial of history historian Borden Painter Jr argues that Sam Harris, and other New Atheism authors, present a selective and distorted slice of history that does not match the historiographical practices or understanding of mainstream historians." Now the exact language and content is best discussed on the article talkpage, but this is to give you an idea of what I would consider fair and comprehensible. Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advice. (Talk discussion)I haven't read the book, which seems fairly involved, so I primarily cited it as secondary source support for Lears, whose comprehensive 17-page review is available online, and to frame the perspective of "mainstream historians", which both painter and Lears are. There are also insuficient secondary sources that cite statements by Harris in addressing his positions, so the quote seemed to help balance per DUE. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Concern: The book is self-described as
 * "This book is the first to challenge in depth the distortions of this New Atheist history. It presents the evidence that the three authors and their allies ignore. It points out the lack of historical credibility in their work when judged by the conventional criteria used by mainstream historians. It does not deal with the debate over theism and atheism nor does it aim to defend the historical record of Christianity or religion more generally. It does aim to defend the integrity of history as a discipline in the face of its distortion by those who violate it."

thus it specifically intended as an attack on the named authors, and not as a general objective review of the topic. That a book which is stated to be intended as an attack on named persons actually attacks them is a tad useless. I would be far more interested if it did not attack them. It is not stated to be a neutral source of any sort here, so I find it not to be especially useful when all it does is what its purpose was. This appears to be Painter's first book on such a topic, thus we do not know whether it will gain any scholarly acceptance at all. As there is no deadline, I suggest the best course is to lay it to the side for possible future use when it has been examined by others. We do not use initial studies even from peer-reviewed journals as a rule. Our goal is to "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." and "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields." Collect (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Collect. I am myself a theist and no particular fan of Sam Harris, but I would think that we in this case can wait for further comments either about the book itself in reviews or comments about the points it raises in the relevant academic journals. No rush here. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, it is a peer-reviewed monograph, and per WP:RS"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."The fact that it is an initial "in depth" study does not mean there haven't been others, with Lears being representative, as per Steve Pinker, Martin E. Marty, Painter and others.
 * Secondly, the book has not been used for anything controversial unless stating its premise, with reference to a quote from Harris, is controversial, and introducing Lears via another mainstream historian, instead of through Pinker.
 * The source is absolutely usable at present according to policy, and it is somewhat tendentious to state otherwise. The current state of academic consensus is well represented by Lears and Painter. If you dispute that, then bring reliable sources.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that the only proposal you've given (so far) for the use of this Painter book is to introduce another source (Lears) as credible, and to make the rather uninformative and un-encyclopedically vague assertion that the New Atheist case against religion conflicts with the "conclusions of mainstream historians" (without mentioning anything about what those conflicts entail)? Also, I am seeing some conflicting information as to whether the text has been "peer-reviewed"; could you point me to the specific information you have on the review for this work? (Note: I'm not disagreeing that Palgrave-Macmillian is generally regarded as an academic press.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The book is a primary source for the author's opinions - as for its eventual weight when examined by those scholars knowledgeable in the field, we have no idea yet. So let us obey the Wikipedia deadline - and wait.  Collect (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "Wikipedia deadline", that's a fabrication of a false pretense to try and prevent the use of a high-quality source that legislates against the promotional screed supported by primary sources that bloated the article before I arrived and cleaned it up.
 * Now you're trying to prevent the use of a peer-reviewed monograph by an academic representing the current state of scholarly consensus against the pseudo-historical rantings of a media icon whose Wikipedia article appears to serve as an advertisement for that, though popular, have been widely criticized by academics in the and scholars in the fields to which the topics of Harris' books published by the non-academic press Simon & Shchuster relate.--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:DEADLINE which is a frequently mentioned essay.  That you seem not to have heard if this before is odd, alas. I understand that you main goal in life is to attack the pseudo-historical rantings of a media icon but such wording appears on its face to indicate that you might actually be promoting your own personal point-of-view to an excessive degree.  It is better for us to adhere to WP:NPOV than for us to rail about those whom we "know" to be loony so that we may make sure readers only get the truth.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is RS, and only advocates are trying to exclude its use. Stick to the sources, and don't falsely accuse others of editing for the truth when you are one of those out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on the article by excluding the critical statements of academics.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 23:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am frankly appalled and more than a little disgusted by the last comment above. It seems to me to jump to any number of absurd and unsubstantiated conclusions for no other purpose than rhetoric. At no point has anyone said anything about "excluding" anything, despite the false accusation above. What has been said, so far as I can tell, is that there is no particular rush as per WP:DEADLINE to include information almost immediately upon publication. It could well be, and, honestly, I think is likely, that in the next few months this book will receive significant attention of some sort, either positive or negative, in the relevant academic journals of all sorts. That tends to be the case, actually. If, in so doing, they support the book, then by all means we can not only include the statements from the book but also the indications of their support. If the statements are found to be "fringey", then we can say that. If, as could well be possible, one of the journal articles presents maybe even a better or more damning criticism of Harris, then there would be no reason not to include that stronger criticism. All that is being said so far, from what I have seen, is that there is no urgent immediate need to have this content added immediately. We can wait, as we regularly do with matters regarding topics where there doesn't exist any real hard "evidence" like in some sciences, and I think the concensus opinion around here on this thread is that in this case the consensus is that we can wait a few months to see how much material regarding this, and possibly other sources which might arise in that time, when the academic community has published its opinions on the book as it had been published. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you read the Talk page and AN/I threads before making errant statements based on your own misguided opinions.
 * WP:TE is a more applicable essay than DEADLINE, and RS is the policy that matters here.
 * I haven't bothered to read add the text or a different representation of it along the lines of the suggestion of Abecedare because the text I inserted from Lears hasn't been challenged, but that was not the statement deemed most contentious. I'm currently reading other collaborating academic sources, and will re-add the source when that information has been collated. The consensus here is that the source is RS, and that means it can be used now.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Source used as reliable on points of fact which are contradicted by its own endnotes.
I think it would be most straightforward to simply link to another, dormant, mediation page [|Reliable sources/Noticeboard archive 109] (Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_109), the remainder of the somewhat acrimonious discussion is already archived.

To summarize: user:Spearmind cited a work by James Howard Kunstler which advanced a certain view. The book, "The Geography of Nowhere," is a polemic social commentary on the suburbanization of the US, which has some scholarly dressing. The cite was stovepiped back to a source which all the other active editors had agreed was not reliable.

The editor first denied that there were any reference cites in the piece, claiming that the work was completely original to the cited author. When shown what the cites existed, and what they actually said...well, I think it would be best if you just read it below. He does not seem to see any problem with indirectly citing a refutation of his thesis as proof of it. He has now, since, placed other cites with the same issues of bad underpinning on the article.

The other editors currently involved are user:PeterEastern and user:Trackinfo. Issues involve reliable and unreliable sources, and due weight to each source. The block quote below does not look quite right; feel free to change the format as needed.19:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC) From []

Anmccaff (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Its really difficult to work with the editor. He tries to delete stuff again and again, adds personal notes to the article instead of searching cooperation and agreement in discussion in advance, and without adding material in a constructive way and works against the majority of editors. PeterEastern and Trackinfo are the "dinosaurs" here. Dont think that he has informed them properly about the new subject here. Furthermore he is using terms like "conspiracy theorist" trying to discredit people und uses far from neutral subject names, see articles talk page: "dubious" "not a good source" or even using usernames in the subject. It is really my opinion that the editor is overweighing his personal opinions and thats not in favor of the article, trying to discredit voices not representing his personal view on the world. I think that PeterEastern and Trackinfo worked so great for the article spending hours of their private time. And I think they earn some respect.

a) I ask again that he tells exactly where Kunstler quoted what from who and why this is explaining terms like "dubious" or "not good source". I have no clue why he comes up with whole blocks of citing Flink and dont know what it has to do with Kunstlers statements reasonability.

b) "The editor" (*thats me) first(*?) denied that there were any reference cites in the piece." Thats correct, the sentence represents the authors very own opinion. I always! denied the opposite. its about that sentence:

"James Howard Kunstler says, in 1925, with the acquisition of the Yellow Coach company, the General Motors Corporation undertook a systematic campaign to put streetcar lines out of business all over America. According to Kunstler, GM erected a byzantine network of subsidiaries and holding companies to carry out its mission, using its financial muscle to buy up streetcar lines, scrap the tracks, and convert the routes for buses.[5]

There is no polemic at all in this sentence. Understand it is based on the articles content just above:

"In the early 1900s, General Motors' long-time president, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., began implementing a plan to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, Sloan established a special unit within GM that was charged with, among other things, the task of replacing the United States' electric railways with cars, trucks, and buses. Consumers who no longer had the option of taking the streetcar turned first to the bus lines and, eventually, to owning and driving their own automobiles.[1][2][3][4]"Spearmind (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I've provided Kunstler's references cites above, and an easy way to verify the. Kunstler uses a cite that explicitly refutes his own assertion.  That isn't a very good sign.Anmccaff (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagreed: I will not stop to ask you that question: where Kunstler quoted what from who and why this is explaining terms like "dubious" or "not good source". I have seen no answer at all. And thats the way this always goes around and comes around. Please inform now the other users involved by putting a note on their page, its simple, since you opened up just another bottle here.Spearmind (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've started looking into this. The author does seem to be more political commentator and advocate than neutral academic, however I agree that no claims about his source of information should be made without a very specific link and compelling evidence. A couple questions: Are there other sources with similar information? Also, are there other sources independent of this book author regarding his views on the controversy? CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many other sites, and cites. They tend to be very poor quality; almost all of the central scholarly work disputes it, and most of the anti-Big "C" Conspiracy cites are good.  One major exception: there's some lock-step government-can-do-nothing-right writers who work from their political beliefs out to the facts, instead of from the facts to a reasonable conclusion.  There is also real support among some serious scholars -George Smerk is the best, I'd say- that GM's sheer size, and integrated YMAC and GMAC financing, had a disproportionate effect on transit.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That said, this is a staple of conspiracy believers, and has wormed its way into tangential scholarship, and into politics and political activism. (The whole concept grew out of a Nader-related attempt to prohibit yearly model changes, believe it or not.)  It's also a mainstay of a certain set of Urban Legends.  Finding cites for it is quite easy; finding cites with scholarly weight for it reduces you two 3 names out of a hundred-odd.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Flink's The Automobile Age is digitized at several university libraries, and very rapidly will confirm that the Kunstler's use is an "anti-cite" that refutes rather than supports his position.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think he is a political commentator (and he never said so) but you may have another opinion. A personal label is not something really needs to be discussed. See Here. he is described as journalist and novelist. There are some statements about him you can watch them. See the the content in the article built around the sentence, thats the context building a bridge to the cite. Notice that the user tried to open a case at the DRN board about Kunstler which is in archive by now. It remains unanswered why for only one user Kunstler is "not a good source" or "dubious" or not a reliable source, well for a short statement made.Spearmind (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Kunstler uses a cite that explicitly refutes his own assertion." This kind of argument is WP:SYNTHESIS. You are putting A and B together and saying they are contradictory. But if Kunstler makes an assertion, that's his assertion, and he asserts it while using the cite. If you can find another source that says he's contradicting himself, we can use that, but we shouldn't say it. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a look at it? It isn't a judgement call, or a tendency.  It's a flat-out refutation.  That doesn't happen much in quality sources.Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, to put in better Wiki-ish, it's a question of Evaluating Sources  If ever there were a question of unclear and inconsistent, that am it.Anmccaff (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, TLDR. I will look at it later. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, now I see, this is the General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I have already stated my concerns with that article on its talk page, that it reads like a debunking article and has problems with its non-neutral tone. According to the dispute resolution discussion cited above, editors are having trouble working with each other because of that. That's beyond the scope of what we can deal with here, so all we can do is hope that this dispute gets resolved in some way that's acceptable to all parties and that they abide by it.
 * As for Kunstler, yes, IMO he is a reliable source for his assertions, which after all are the topic of the article. The assertions may be wrong, but that is not grounds for keeping them out of the article. If that is the question here, other editors should be allowed to describe his assertions in a neutral way, without hedging them with warnings to the reader to the effect that "Watch out folks, this is wrong." If necessary, which it probably is, they can be attributed to Kunstler instead of being presented as facts. And anything that the article wants to say about Kunstler should be attributed directly to secondary sources who are specifically talking about Kunstler. It is not acceptable for the article to say that Kunstler relies on Snell, and Snell is unreliable, and therefore Kunstler is unreliable. We need to quote someone else saying that.
 * As to whether we can use that reasoning on the talk page to decide what should appear in the article, yes, that is OK. But there should be a consensus. I think this will be settled if and when the dispute cited above gets settled. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, As I see it, the problem is that the Streetcar conspiracy doesn't have a subject. It has at least 4 of them, and the ones that involve attitudes rather than fact have to be given a certain amount of leeway with regards to sources.  Kunstler's a perfectly good example of a vector of the story from its '90s revival, but several other names, Jane Holtz Kay, for instance, would be better.  (Notice, BTW, that Kunstler's brand new to the subject, and the article has been around for at least a decade.)
 * If this were, say, the "Vaccination Controversy" article, where it's understood that the subject is about a controversial idea that most medical experts feel should be mentioned only to condemn, that would be fine. When it comes to public presence, I'm sure Jenny McCarthy has as much notability as Jonas Salk.  But this is also like an article on real immunology, and for that, Moms Mad at Mercury doesn't have a place.
 * Kunstler has no standing as a historian, and the ideas he's quoting have an obvious provenance. They are not reliable sources of fact, yet they are being used as such.  I suspect as the other editors see just how bad the stuff recently sourced is, most of it will slowly make its way out of the article, until it comes back in from a new source, which, ultimately, was probably based on old, bad info from Wiki; and a new editor, who also doesn't understand why citations are important, lols his way through the article; "diligently" adding more self-published, self-contradictory, low-weight "facts."
 * Thus endeth the rant.Anmccaff (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: the citation problems, which are why I brought this in here, are not normally treated in articles about mainstream research as OR, are they? I'd like an authoritative answer on this, even if means digging up Jimbo's sacred great-great-grandmother's bones, and letting a conjure woman divinate with and over them.  If ordinary, plain-vanilla scholarship is seen as "original research" and   A Bad Thing, then Wiki is doomed.Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine controversies
I used the following article to provide reasoning as to why people are hesitant to vaccinate in accordance with the US vaccination schedule. The article clearly finds a correlation. Other editors argue that causation needs to be found in order to explain people's hesitation.

Since Vaccine controversies is about the controversy and not the safety of vaccines, I think it is prudent to include the articles commonly referenced by both sides.

Title-Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Author-Miller, Neil Z; Goldman, Gary S Published in Human and Experimental Toxicology30.9 (Sep 2011): 1420-8. Publisher-Sage Publications Abstract-The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year--the most in the world--yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23, and 24-26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12-14 vaccine doses and those giving 21-23, and 24-26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.Dcrsmama (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Dcrsmama's edit pretty much speaks for itself, with its direct comparison of Andrew Wakefield to Galileo.
 * Dcrsmama received a thorough explanation of the problems with her edits and her insistence on trying to use this particular (low-impact, low-quality, primary, cherry-picked, discussed-previously-on-talk) paper as a source at Talk:Vaccine controversies. At this point, we're now into forum-shopping and IDHT territory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What does this particular source have to do with Galileo? TenOfAllTrades, you are being prejudicial to this particular secondary source.  The explanations provided are from people claiming ownership of a page making it very biased.  The link you provide as an archive for talk was an overwhelming mass of good and bad arguments designed to chase away a viewpoint other than yours.  As it is, this is a secondary source from a reputable publishing company.  Why should reasoning using this (and other) correlations behind the opposing viewpoint not be explained?Dcrsmama (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What does it have to do with Galileo? Nothing whatsoever, along with the entire article subject, which is why your misuse of the article talk page for facile comparisons between Galileo and Wakefield received the response they did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As already explained at Talk:Vaccine controversies, Miller is a primary study.  There are scores of secondary reviews on this topic.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As explained in WP:OR this is a secondary source. The raw data gathered from each country's mortality reports are the primary sources.Dcrsmama (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You clearly misunderstand WP:OR - the interpretation of the mortality reports as data regarding vaccination is primary research, by any definition whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dcr, by your interpretation everything would be a secondary source. The source you want to use is clearly not a secondary source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had done the work myself and gathered the data and tried to publish it here, then that would be WP:OR. Further, this a peer reviewed journal which is stated as a reference usually allowed.Dcrsmama (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "I used the following article to provide reasoning as to why people are hesitant to vaccinate". It does not seem to specifically support that unless you have a specific quote from the article which directly verifies that sentence. So what you appear to be doing is original research. More importantly a piece which is primarly a primary source is the wrong source to use when there are secondary sources from higher reliability journals etc. "The raw data gathered from each country's mortality reports are the primary source" No, the raw data is a primary source and the paper is a primary source for the opinions and interpretations of the paper. It goes without saying that a study is a primary source for the study (almost tautologically). A secondary source for the epidemiology study would be a review paper. It goes without saying that epidemiological studies are one of the shakiest forms of evidence and causation can't be taken out from it (personally comparing different nations against each other seems inherently problematic for a variety of reasons which would seem difficult/impossible to control). The journal appears to be a bottom tier journal and shouldn't be used on wikipedia, particularly when better sources are available. Second Quantization (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a quote about infant death in the wiki article that is directly addressed by the citation. I described original research before.  Miller did the research and it was published in Sage Publications, which is indeed a well known and respected publishing house.  There is also no evidence that supports the number of vaccinations given to US children is safe.  This article clearly calls for more research, which is the crux of the controversy.  Again, not an article on vaccine safety..an article on the controversy.Dcrsmama (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many people have simply cited WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:MEDRS and other sites which I have reviewed thoroughly, in addition to having taken and tutored classes about research. I reviewed these sites just in case there was something different than what is taught in universities about primary, secondary etc sources. It appears to be the same information.
 * WP:PSTS states, "A secondary source provides an author's(Miller) own thinking based on primary sources (mortality data)".  I see no such corroboration under the primary source bullet.  Please state exactly where it states this peer reviewed journal article from a reputable academic publishing company separated from the primary source both by distance and the author's own thinking is a primary source.
 * WP:MEDRSstates similar things about primary, and secondary sources. In reference to medications it has an extra stipulation of needing follow-up references to the original article.  This article fits into acceptable criteria.  It has been referenced no less than nine times in the past four years by follow-up studies.  Further, no other study (a few opinion pieces, yes, but no study) has been done to explain the correlation between immunization and infant mortality in first world countries.Dcrsmama (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Miller's paper discusses the research he did into any supposed correlation - census data does not include any such discussion, or even include data on vaccination. That is primary research - there was nothing prior to it, and accordingly it can only be primary, by simple logic. And why, if you have "taken and tutored classes about research" did you state that you "had an assignment to keep up with wiki page for school" on User talk:Alison? Are you still at school, and tutoring classes? Try to be consistent... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry AndyTheGrump, you continue to be vague. Where is your wiki quote from the books that are in opposition to what I have stated?  To answer your completely irrelevant question; I am a non-traditional older student pursuing a second degree.  Last semester was my class on research, which as part of the honors program I tutored other students.  This semester I'm taking a class on history of the digital past which had the wiki assignment. Seems completely consistent to me.Dcrsmama (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we've heard from a number of people explaining why the Miller/Goldman paper is not a suitable source for our vaccine controversies article. At this point, continuing to hammer on about it is just getting disruptive on the part of User:Dcrsmama. This is not a forum to argue the validity of the paper's findings, although authors elsewhere have thoroughly debunked them. Basically, the authors are claiming that Storks Deliver Babies, p=0.008, but with a straight face. MastCell Talk 18:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * With your explanation you are saying a blog is a more reliable source than a peer reviewed journal article. I have continually seen how people disagree with this view of the topic.  One person stated that Sage Publishing is not a well respected publishing house as a basis.  This is a curiosity since, well it is well respected and used in academia worldwide.  Other than that, the general consensus seems to disagree with the content, and the secondary vice primary seems an effort to support personal belifs.  As far as the storks go, there are many correlations such as this.  However, the stork correlation can be easily explained by population trends and stork nesting habits.  No study has been successful in finding another reason for this correlation.  People seem to think that causation needs to be proven.  In fact, it is correlation that is noted, and you wait until there is a reason for the correlation before moving forward.  Snarkiness seems to run rampant here.  It really does not add to the conversation. Does it make you feel better?Dcrsmama (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that some blogs are more reliable than some peer-reviewed journal articles. (In fact, a number of peer-reviewed journal articles, even in very reputable outlets like Nature and Science, have collapsed when bloggers pointed out flaws that had eluded detection during the peer-review process). As I said, I'm not going to argue the paper's merits with you; others have already debunked it in what is, to my mind, a conclusive manner. Perhaps you might wish to explore the criticisms next time you study, or tutor, a class on research methodology? As far as snarkiness, I think you're seeing humor being used as a defense mechanism to cope with your relentless flogging of this paper in clear disregard of unanimous feedback that it's inappropriate. MastCell Talk 20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A primary research study (as opposed to a review article), in a second-third tier journal, by authors who are not qualified/established in the field, making controversial claims in a area where authoritative sources are available is certainly not usable on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So although Miller's work is reviewed by doctors, and he is a notable researcher, You can decide he is not qualified when a group of his peers decided he was? That seems odd.  Also, according to your conflict of interest link, All studies funded by pharmacology companies, or funded by the government by congressmen supported by pharmacology lobbyists?  Someone is always doing the funding.  Dcrsmama (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to add my !vote that this source fails MEDRS, and note that the material in question has been added in conravention to numerous guidlines and policies including WP:NPOV (specifically WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE in addition to MEDRS. The galileio treatment was just icing on the cake of how unsuitable this material is for Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

umm not pertinent to this article specifically, but okay. As far as WP:Fringe, this is a vaccine controversy page. Not a vaccine safety page. The page as is reads like a CDC guideline and gives no credence to the controversy. But that has nothing to do with this peer reviewed scholarly journal article.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, what do you expect to gain for in regard to your studies concerning the "history of the digital past" by devoting so much time and effort to this single paper? As far as I can see, this is the digital present we are arguing in, and history has next to nothing to do with it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I know I'm new and all, but this is not the forum for personal questions. Dcrsmama (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone specify what and where is the next place to deal with IDHT? I'm unclear on where one finds the arb enforcement page or statements for fringe articles, or what is the next step if the IDHT continues (and the FORUMSHOP is expanding as well). Enough time has been spent on this. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked for a low level mediation for this a while ago. I agree this is not working.  I truly wish I could understand why you all think this is a primary source despite the quotes and evidence otherwise.  If I'm understanding your reference to IDHT, you are thinking that facts should not be allowed unless there is a majority consensus.  Then why have a controversy page if it is just a mirror pharma marketing and not really presenting the controversy?Dcrsmama (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As this is not a study of people's hesitancy, it is not a suitable source for claims about the reasons for people's hesitancy. It would appear to be at best a study making claims about vaccines themselves, not a study about hesitancy or about controversy. If this study is the reason for people's hesitancy, then we should be pointing to a reliable third-party source that states that it's the reason, not to the study itself. If we say people stopped going to the beach because of the film Jaws, we use as a reference the source that makes that statement, not the film itself. So no, it's not a reliable source for what you claim you want to use it for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That has got to be the clearest explanation yet. So what you are saying is cite a source that says there is controversy over the vaccine schedule because there is a correlation with infant mortality, then cite both sources?  Or should I use opinion pieces like most of the other references in the article?  Even the journal of medicine piece is an opinion piece.  Is this where wiki gets the facts, from opinions, then excludes peer reviewed journal articles because it is WP:OR? It is built by popular opinion of the editors, from opinion pieces, not allowing facts...if this is indeed true....though I hope notDcrsmama (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying cite both sources. References are there to verify the facts that are being stated in Wikipedia's voice. If the statement being sourced is that there is a controversy due to correlation with infant mortality, then we cite a source that is discussing the controversy - there is no need to cite the study. Even if the source says that there is a controversy because of this particular study, we might mention this study in the text, but the study itself is not reference for the statement. And I am addressing the specific request for input that you made in your initial posting. If you have concerns about the other sources in the article, you may wish to raise them in a specific post about the specific concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your civility and clarity in explanation.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, in addition to the other problematic conduct, Dcrsmama is now experimenting with WP:CANVASSing:, . Regarding this article, apparently "it is like Pharma is paying people to own that page", and "there are too many people making it an advertisement for pharmaceutical companies." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comment was removed for vandalism and irrelevance to this topic. Though, I'm honored you are stalking my comments from other user talk pages; you are proving my point.  It would be naive to believe pharmacology marketing does not have wiki editors on their payroll, same as politicians, and many other large companies.  Further, much of the behavior demonstrated by many of the people that followed me here from Vaccine controversies (without stating anything new) is textbook psychological marketing. This is not an accusation, but an observation. Dcrsmama (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not WP:REFACTOR others' comments. TenOfAllTrades comment was not vandalism nor a personal attack.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:refactor give permission for removal of 'Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material', which his comment clearly is. It is back now, and I have wasted space and time responding to his, and your message.  From here on out all off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material will be removed via the wp:refactor rule.  Thank you for the reference.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Radar Online an unreliable source and where is that notated?
I had a Fashion Police edit reverted and the reverter said that Radar Online is not a reliable source. How or where is/was that determined? Is there a list of sites not to use? Wickorama (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A 2009 discussion of Radar Online here suggests that it can be used, with considerable caution, for pop culture content. A few more recent threads such as here and here assume that it's not a quality source but don't go into details. But with respect to the current Fashion Police edit, you have the added concern about reporting something that's expressly reported as unattributed gossip ("insiders told Radar Online that . . . ") and relates to a living person. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch, for the nth time
Despite the fact that RSN continually finds Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch unreliable for bare statements of controversial fact, at Shaar HaNegev school bus attack we have users re-inserting the claim that "Hamas released a video of the attack, which confirmed the use of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile against the civilian target." So here I am again, asking RSN, "are these sources, which are known for their agendas over their journalism, reliable to state anything like this as fact?" –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The farthest I think would be allowable with those sources is a statement akin to "Hamas released a video of the attack, which claims to show the use of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile against the civilian target." That sort of wording would be allowable with such sources, I think, since it places it on the source and doesn't state it as fact. Silver  seren C 01:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think your comment more addresses whether or not Hamas is a reliable source, but we also need to consider the likelihood that Arutz Sheva and PMW are not accurately reporting. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you questioning the reporting on whether Hamas released a video with said claims? Or that the source is misrepresenting the claims in the video being reported on? Silver  seren C 20:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Either or both. There's a video on Youtube, but these sources are not strong enough to link it to Hamas or report on its content. RSN has found repeatedly that these propaganda organs are not reliable for controversial statements of this kind. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call them propaganda organs. There's no Israeli government news organ that I know of, or even standards of censorship in Israeli news publications thee days, just a bunch of sensationalist news organisations that regularly engage in yellow journalism and tabloid reporting. I would say that, all except possibly Ha'aretz, are poor quality publications though you can rely on them for many Israel-related non-political local topics like archaeology and new public works projects (I actually don't know of any news source anywhere where you can get neutral political news about Israel). Artuz Sheva/Israel National News though, I would not trust for anything, especially things relating to Palestinians, Arabs, liberals, Tel Aviv, etc. as they are known to hate all these things, and the settlements, where they are the official news source, and understandably feel threatened at times, and write as such (though even if it's understandable, it's no reason to use them). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one ever (as far as I know) have accused PMW of faking a video and the video is similar to many others released by Hamas. The logo is there. The terrible Hebrew scary quote is there. I am not sure about the 'Kornet' statement - What does israelnationalnews bases their analysis on? Though it does look like the picture on 9M133 Kornet page.
 * [Here is a similar video which became [[Shock Israel's Security||viral in Israel]]. The Hebrew is awful :) Ashtul (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arutz Sheva, which began and persisted as an illegal settler propaganda organ outlawed in Israel, and, when 'legalized', was returned to that status by the Israeli Supreme Court with overturned the Knesset, thrives on reporting extremist claims, such that the Obama administration is penetrated by Muslims,(see also here); that when major Israeli newspapers, relying on direct videos of the abduction, were attributing the Kidnapping and Murder of Abu Khdeir to settler revenge, they persisted in holding out (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182494#.VPXOhps5Dcu implicitly) for the (Arab) pedophile killing rumour. This place customarily gives a hard time for any site like the Jewish liberal-left Mondoweiss, that has excellent reportage, yet is relatively at ease with Arutz Sheva. Consistency in principle would suggest that nothing from Arutz Sheva can be cited as a fact.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Palestinian Media Watch is widely regarded as a reliable source. major news sources including the Chicago Sun-Times the Associated Press,  The Telegraph  and the Washington Post cite it regularly for it's reliable translation or the Palestinian Arabic-language press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arutz Sheva is a national news source with a large readership/listenership. It is neither more political not less reliable than Fox New or The Guardian (i.e. not always).  It does sensationalize in a Daily Mail, New York Daily News sort of way.  The remedy to this is not to brand it as unreliable, but to write "According to Arutz Sheva..." or "According to The Guardian..." taking all news sources with a grain of salt since they all have biases.  And striving to source facts to multiple sources.  However, we have to recognize that the biases of newspapers show most vividly in the matter of which stories they choose to cover.  Sometimes a biased source like Al Jazeera or Russia Times is the only source for a fact.  In that case you write "According to..."  But you do not, as Rosecaleese is attempting to do here, attempt to disqualify a news source in a country with a feisty, free press simply because you do not like it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arutz 7 articles about Abu Khdeir doesn't include the word 'pedophile' 'gay' or 'homo'. The article about Obama reports of a story on 'Rose El-Youssef'. Ashtul (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If their reports were reliable, much more newspapers and other reliable sources would refer to them. What I mostly see are that some refers to statements others give there etc. and a few other mentions and this is nothing in such a well-covered conflict. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Unreliability of Metacritic
This isn't so much a question but an unusual problem I came across that is relevant to this board so I thought I'd share it. Lately, there has been a flurry of blocking of socks of Jemima West and they were primarily working on an articles called Alisha Heng, Alisha Heng (I), Alisha Evelyn Heng and Alisha Estelle Heng, all of which were deleted because they were created by socks. I was curious to know who this person was so I found a cached version of the last article on Google and the article had plenty of references for acting credits for this 17 year old model/actress. When I checked up on them, Heng was mentioned by the reviewers and sometimes singled out for praise. But when I checked IMDb, it was if she didn't exist. How did this teenager end up in all of these movie reviews from regular film reviewers who review dozens if not hundreds of films for these sites and newspapers?

Later today, I discovered that although she didn't have a fleshed-out IMDb profile, she did have one on Metacritic and I guess it is possible for a user to add themselves to the casts of films. Then, I'm guessing, when these film reviewers went to get details about the movies they were reviewing, they just took it directly from Metacritic without checking to see if it was accurate. So, when she created her bio article on Wikipedia, she had all of these movie reviews (from the U.S. and UK) which substantiated her career when, it appears, she has never been in a film.

It just makes me wonder how often this has been done. It actually shows how, because it is consulted regularly, IMDb can have more accurate information than other film sites. If I added myself to the cast of a major film on IMDb, someone would connected to the film or a fan would notice and correct it. But I guess, as long as you credit yourself to a supporting part of a film, on other sites like Metacritic, no one checks to see if the information is accurate. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Metacritic should only be used as a reliable source for the aggregate film review score that it produces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds wise, TRPoD. I searched the archives to see if Metacritic had been discussed as a reliable source and couldn't find much. I thought it was important to get this website manipulation noted in case questions come up in the future. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Locals said..." on Ma'an news - RS or not
On Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir the following statement appears "On Thursday evening, Palestinians of Shu'fat reported that four settlers from Pisgat Zeev had attempted to kidnap a 7-year-old local child, Muhammad Ali al-Kiswani, and had fled on being thwarted". The source is Ma'an News which seems to be identified on WP as RS.

The issue with this particular article is that it states "Locals said" which to me seems like a disclaimer of - we didn't verify this story. Basically the equivalent of Wikipedia to WP:Attribution but to 'locals' to whom one may believe or not. In other words - not RS.

It contains paragraphs such as "Witnesses told Ma'an" and according to witnesses". But clearly Ma'an wasn't comfortable enough with the quality of information to put they name behind it and say it actually happened. So if Ma'an didn't WP:VERIFY it, the fact they report it as an WP:RS is meaningless and it should be deleted. Ashtul (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ma'an is a RS for what the locals said. The fact that needs to be verified here is, did the locals say that or not? Whether the event actually happened is another question. Ma'an rightly does not claim that it did, and neither does Wikipedia. We say that Ma'an, a RS, reported what the locals said. This is the normal way to deal with possibly biased sources. You report what they say and reserve judgment on whether what they say is true. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Margin1522, I respect this opinion but according to this, any source will be reliable to say "locals said...", not just RS such as Ma'an. Ashtul (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How to put it, a reliable source for rumors? But basically, yes. It's not our business to pass along every rumor. I think what the guideline says here is appropriate: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true)." (WP:NEWSORG). In this case, it should be treated a rumor because it was a non-event – nobody was kidnapped, nothing happened, all we have is what the locals said. Whether it should be mentioned is a matter of judgment. How much weight to assign to the fact that rumors were flying, and what that says about the situation at that place and time. Ma'an thought it was important enough to write a story about, so that should carry more weight than a partisan site known for passing along dubious stories and outright falsehoods. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, Ashtul was advised as a condition of his return here that he keep a respectful distance from myself, and yet he persists in going through my edits, one by one, and taking things he questions to various forums, in violation of that condition. Ma'an News, in this case, reports what local Palestinian people say happened. A rumour is something that circulates widely as hearsay: the reports of people who are described as being witnesses in an area to what occurs in that area cannot be dismissed simply as 'rumours'. Almost all reportage from eyewitnesses in news sources, not only for this area, is conflicted. Israeli police reports change by the hour, but we put the first in, and rarely take care to follow up. What Ashtul is challenging is the reliability of (a) the source (b) Palestinians. We simply cannot know, of course, but this is true of a huge amount of reliable mainstream reportage. The answer is not to weed out 'stuff', esp. from one side of the conflict, but simply supply the reader with an attributed and linked source to what is reported, as I have done in a corrective edit now here in response to his worries, and then wait till academic scholarship, as it will, revisits this in book form with meticulous research.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you put it in. This have sat there for a few months now. You give me too much credit. Ashtul (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, okay. Let's call it a coincidence. But in any case, I have slightly adjusted the text to meet a part of your complaint, and added a further RSNishidani (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Close? This discussion has rambled ooutside of the purview of this venue. I'm not a regular at RSN, so I'm not going to close it. It seems to me, though, that the discussion ought to be closed here and discussion on wider ranging issues ought to take place as Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. I've created a talk page section at Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, it is indeed a coincidence. Your new source states "according to local media", basically pointing back to Ma'an and raising the same question. I think this should be addressed in the policy as this may come back in many other articles, in I/P conflict or elsewhere.
 * Wtmitchell, what would be the right venue to bring this up? I believe this might fall under "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." under WP:NEWSORG. Please advise. Ashtul (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, discussion specific to the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir article and relating to improvement of that article ought to take place on the talk page of that article. Such discussion might involve the impact on such articles by details of WP policies such as your "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value ..." quote from WP:IRS. Discussion of the policies themselves, including proposals for changes in the policies and discussion thereof, ought to take place on the talk pages for the relevant policy pages. Also, WP:VPP is an appropriate venue to to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've already tried to discuss this subject when Nishidani brought some event as a fact even without such "Locals said" (see en:Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015).
 * I do not think there is a place in Wiki for all of these rumors even "sanctified" by dubious credibility of Ma'an (as well as by any other source). --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm fine with closing it. Ashtul (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I verify/cite Voris Marker's dates?
So, I've been taking advantage of my new Wikipedia/Newspapers.com account to put together an article on Voris (designer). However, I've come across a few sources for her birth/death dates and her husband's dates that I can't verify in other sources. There is this Ancestry page but Ancestry is not considered a reliable source. I then found this site which confirms much of the information on Ancestry.com, with cited sources. There are some issues - Voris is stated to have been born in Baker, Oregon, although the reliable sources say Montana, or "near Billings, Montana" (to be more precise). In 1961, she's being reported as married to Clifford Marker, but other sources claim Clifford was divorced by 1930 (does this mean Voris was his second wife? It would explain how he managed to marry Beryl "secondly" in 1924 per the Boneshadow page, before he is supposed to have married Voris.) This page, with lots of citations, does give a fuller picture of Clifford, but sadly no info on his wife/wives, although it does note he was divorced by 1930.

Please can you advise me whether any of these sources are admissible - I think the last linked page is probably OK for Clifford's dates as it cites a lot of sources and describes the reasoning, etc; but I'm more concerned about getting Voris's dates right as she is the subject of the article. Can I use this for Voris's dates? Or are they all unreliable/inadmissible sources? Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to what Wikipedia finds reliable, but in terms of vital records, scholars find contemporary records preferable to secondary or tertiary sources. (This is not Wikipedia's usual position.) The marriage license of Clifford H. Marker and Voris Linthacum can be found at familysearch.org (it is Marriage License #7384 issued in the County of Flathead, State of Montana), and states that at the time the license was issued, 25 November 1936, Clifford had been previously married and divorced, and that this was the first marriage for Voris. Voris is said to be 28 and born in Baker City, Oregon. The ceremony took place on 29 November 1936 at Kalispell, Flathead Co., Montana. (For the record, it names Voris' parents as Charles E. Linthacum and Rose née Cunning). I would be inclined to say that the SSDI (the last item you linked) ought to be considered a reliable source for birth and death dates, though further judgement may be needed if it conflicts with other sources. - Nunh-huh 03:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you! I must remember this resource. Mabalu (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Composed of, in political union, within political framework?

 * Sources.
 * 1. "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296. Ellis Katz, “Overview of the American Federation” in “Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in Federal Countries”, Majeed, Watts and Brown, eds., 2006, McGill-Queen’s Press,


 * 2. Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined “in political union with the United States of America”. p. 2 State Department 7 FAM 1120 Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions. (2013)


 * 3. Non-state Northern Marianas, like Washington, DC, is “within the political framework of the United States.” (item 27). State Department report to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011..


 * Article. Talk:United States

"The “Current composition” Info box date of the U.S. should be dated from November 3, 1986, the entry of the Northern Marianas (CNMI)."TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Content. The “Current composition” date in the U.S. info box is the admission of Hawaii. I would like a confirmation of my three sources as reliable arguments that the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI, Northern Marianas) was admitted as a territory of the United States, — and because it is within the U.S. "political framework” as is DC, as sourced,


 * The overwhelming majority of sources say something like, "The Supreme Court concluded, in a series of decisions known as the Insular Cases, that [Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samos] are dependent lands and are neither "foreign" countries nor "part of the United States."" (Ediberto Romn, Citizenship and Its Exclusions, NYU Press, 2010, p. 97). Searching for sources that appear to contradict the mainstream view is cherry-picking.  Using terminology such as "within the political framework of" to imply without actually stating that the territories have been incorporated into the U.S. is misleading.  TFD (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Referring to the Insular Cases a century ago for modern territorial status is misleading. Romn's treatment of the "Insular Cases" of 1901-1922 does not contradict Katz "the U.S. is composed of [territories]" in 2011. Territories remain "unincorporated" for the limited purpose of federal taxes and tariffs. Congress has expanded self-governance and protections, GAO rept. Jon M. Van Dyke in the Hawaii Law Review (1992) includes the five major territories by name as "a part of the United States".
 * - The District of Columbia is a part of the United States though it too is not a state, but "within the political framework of the United States" as sourced, so are the territories politically. Congress has politically, --- not economically---, incorporated territory, see Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review (2009). Puerto Rico is the paradigm of an modern "incorporated" territory as modern jurisprudence understands the term. p. 1175.
 * - Insular Cases in 1901 and 1922 do not speak to the sourced political union of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 1986, the point of the request here as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ninth Circuit Court determined in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands v Atalig 1984 that the Insular Cases applied to CNMI. As a result, the guarantee of jury trials in the United States does not apply there.  OTOH, the CNMI has a Covenant with the U.S. under which U.S. federal law does not apply there unless (1) it specifically mentions CMNI and (2) the CMNI approves.  You can read more about the relationship between the United States and its territories in Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations
 * DC is a strawman argument. Indeed it is possible for territories to be part of the U.S. without being states.  But in that case, as in D.C., the constitution applies in full.
 * TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Leibowitz in his “Defining status” (1989) notes that the CNMI is in “Political Union” with the United States (p. 520), and it “made more explicit the mutuality of consent principle. The Covenant...was approved in a U.N. observed vote in the Northern Marianas” (p.67). The Mann act is applied in DC and Puerto Rico in the same manner, unlike in states. (p.364) Reliable sources to date reinforce those posted in this Noticeboard request.


 * TFD has followed me contradicting the subject sources without a scholarly source to support non sequiturs. He asserts in error that the constitution applies in full in DC without a source -- it has a delegate Member of Congress, Congress reviews DC legislation before it takes effect. The State department source says DC and CNMI are alike "within the framework of the United States", -- DC is not a straw man to dismiss, another non sequitur, the reliable source supports DC and Northern Marianas constitutional equivalence in an international context.


 * Domestic economic "unincorporation" for federal taxes and tariffs is a non sequitur to territorial "political union" as sourced. No territories in U.S. history have had either uniform privileges nor full constitutional privileges of statehood until admission to statehood, that is a non sequitur to territorial status in "political union" as sourced. "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." TFD comments are to date disruptive of the purpose here.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Dead Rock Stars Club
I came across this site being used as reference for the death of the original drummer of the band Umphrey's McGee. I then searched Wikipedia and noticed that the same website is being cited in quite a few articles in a similar manner. I searched the RSN archives and found no menton of the site, so I am not sure if has been discussed before. Anyway, the site bills itself as "a list of dead rock musicians and singers, dead people associated with rock and dead people whose music helped influence and create rock (which I feel includes Jazz and Country artists), sorted by the date of their demise. This is a tribute to them." and it seems to be a personal website or database, but I can't find out any more about it. It also seems to be a repository for various links to official artist/band pages as well as other sites including Wikipedia. I'm not too sure how accurate the information is because no sources are being cited to support the information provided in individual entries thus making it hard to verify. For example, the entry for Jimi Hendrix links to Jimihendrix.com which is a dead link while the entry for John Lennon links to Wikipedia. Finding reliable sources which discuss the deaths of very famous musicians like Hendrix and Lennon is probably not a big deal, but this site looks like it's being used on Wikipedia for less famous types like the drummer of Umphrey's McGee. It doesn't seem very reliable to me at all, but I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . I picked a page from that website at random, and clicked on ten musician's names, to see how the information about the death was referenced. In every case, Wikipedia was the reference. Accordingly, I conclude that this is not a reliable source. They base their accuracy to a large extent on linking to Wikipedia. It would be unacceptably circular for us to cite them as a reliable source. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking . These musicians no longer techncially fall under WP:BLP since they are dead (not recently dead at least in many cases), right? Should the cite just be removed and replaced with a citation needed tag or should the both the information and the cite be removed? Would the relevant policy be WP:UNSOURCED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CIRCULAR or something else? Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I recommend removing any references to this website, searching for a better reference, and if one is not available, placing a citation needed tag. I think all the pages you link to are relevant to this matter. Accuracy of dates of death is a BLP issue, unless the person was born over 130 years ago. If somebody digs up an obituary of a person with the same name, and we incorrectly report the BLP as dead, that can cause major problems for an elderly musician's comeback tour, among other things. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again . I've cleaned up a few pages and tried to added reliable sources where I could (at least I hope they are reliable), but I noticed that there are literally hundreds of pages citing this website. That's a monumental clean up job for dozens of editors, let alone a single person. Anyway, since this site is being used so often, it seems to me that there should be someplace somewhere on Wikipedia that says something such as "Don't use this website because it's not reliable" like they have for WP:EL/P, WP:YOUTUBE, etc. Any suggestions on how best to bring this to the attention of others besides the two of us and post to make such a suggestion? The Village Pump perhaps? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just came across this thread. Having used DeadRockStars to check information on many occasions (probably hundreds of times), I would say that it is highly reliable as well as being constantly maintained.  In fact, I personally can't recall finding any errors there, in terms of death dates - which contrasts with almost all other sites I have used regularly, such as Joel Whitburn's books or Allmusic.   The links it provides to WP pages are, I believe, not the sources of the death dates or details - they are simply links to additional biographical information.  The sources for the death details are, I believe, not set out in the database itself - which I accept is a flaw.  It should always be checked against other sources - but it is a valuable and reliable resource.  Perhaps it's fair to identify DRS citations with a warning that a better source should be found, but it would be unfair to call the site as a whole unreliable, or to remove all references to it entirely.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with Ghmyrtle. I may well be guilty of utilising this site as a reference for many musicians, and their like, over my time here. In almost ten years of referring to it, I can not recall a single error therein - accepting that it must, by human nature, contain a few of them.  Whether it is accuracy that we strive, or religiously sticking with some supposed 'reliable source' (many of which are often lacking in basic detail), is a matter of debate.  To put it another way, is the site 'unreliable' if it is consistently accurate ?  One final point - whilst removing the DRS source might be easy, if somewhat time consuming, I would be very interested to hear if such editors found copious amounts of other, more 'reliable sources', particularly for the more 'obscure' individuals covered therein.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the input Ghmyrtle and Derek R Bullmore. I understand what you both are saying, but the site has to be getting its information from somewhere, right? Isn't it better to try and find collaborating sources in newspapers or other well-established publications and use those instead. For sure, WP:UGC does say "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Is the argument then that Doc-Rock, who I guess is the owner/operator of the site, such an expert? Is the reliability of the site commented upon by third-party sources or are we just assuming it is reliable for the sake of convenience? FWIW, I've seen a few articles where the website is not only being used to cite the date of death, but also the cause of death as well as other personal and career information, which seems a little strange to me.
 * Finally, and this is mainly for Ghmyrtle, I'm not sure what is meant by "warning" editors that "a better source should be found". That's seems to be like saying "this source might be a little questionable, but if it's all you can find then use it, at least until something 'more reliable' is found to replace it". This seems totally contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. If the consensus is that the source is reliable, then it should be able to be used without any conditions attached; On the other hand, if the consensus is that the source is only sometimes reliable, then it shouldn't be used as a place holder until something better can be found. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that the source is, in fact, reliable - as reliable as any other source in relation to death details (not necessarily career details). No-one "assum[es] it is reliable for the sake of convenience" - that's somewhat dismissive of those of us who use the site and (having checked) are confident of its accuracy.  But whether it meets the established Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources may be a different matter, and if editors wish to find sources which meet those criteria better (such as, I guess, Allmusic - which I think is far less reliable, on almost all criteria, but which seems to be regarded here as generally reliable), then they should do so.  As I said, it is a failing of the DRS site that it does not set out its sources, but that does not mean that its information is inaccurate.   So, it is fair both to accept the DRS information as reliable, but also to flag up that sources that better meet WP criteria might be available.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ghmyrtle: First, I didn't intend my comment about convenience to be dismissive, so I sincerely apologize if it sounded like that was my intent. The point I was trying to make is that if there's a need to check whether a particular site is accurate, then perhaps we should be using something else. The information on a site may be true and accurate, but the question is whether it can be verified or whether it can be assumed to have been verified through some sort of established editorial control. Many individuals have websites or blogs which are well-maintained, regularly updated and for the most part pretty accurate. Wikipedia itself seems to be pretty accurate for the most part. Yet, none of these are considered, for the most part, to be a reliable sources for use on Wikipedia.
 * How would you, techinically speaking, flag something like DRS if it was being used? Would something like self-published or better source be used? If the consensus is that a website is reliable, then we should just take it as being reliable like we do for something like a major newspaper or magazine; There should be no need to flag it. Similarly, if the consensus is that there's a need to "flag" a website in such a way right from the start, then perhaps we shouldn't be using it to begin with in my opinion. Anyway, I'm not trying to impose my will on Wikipedia. I'm perfectly happy to go along with whatever consensus is reached. I only removed the DRS site from a handful of articles and tried to replace it with better sources, or at least what I felt were better sources, wherever I could. If you feel my edits were unwarrranted, then please revert them and re-add the DRS cites. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Cooper article
Two editors User talk:Hga and IP 99 who are likely the same keep putting in fringe sources from blogs to the Jeff Cooper article. They have had several years to find better sources and have not done so. Hga appears to be owning the article as well through tendentious editing. Several editors over a long period have challenged his edits but he reverts them calling them vandals. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The "fringe sources" are sub rosa but apparently accurate on-line copies of Cooper's Commentaries, which I'll admit are dodgy (although I can only remember myself adding one or two of these references, and the one about his rules of gun safety has, per my memory, been changed into two different ones since I fixed up that section long ago (people not trying to "improve" the rules were using corrupt texts)). But since there are now official copies available as part of a three volume set, I've got those books on order and will be fixing up all the citations to Commentaries.
 * But while we're here, what about Fr. Frog's bibliography of Cooper's writings? You claim that's linkspam;I don't see that, but I'll admit I have only a vague notion of what linkspam is. Hga (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That Fr. Frog site is a terrible source. Lightbreather (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? I just glanced at the bibliography, and at least the books page looks OK, and the magazine with the most references is the one where he has his longest running column, to my memory.  Is there a better bibliography? Hga (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rappler
Is Rappler a reliable source? It is presently used to "verify" a partner of the deceased Zulkifli Abdhir. Here is the website being used, and it is being used to verify the name "Zainab Dongon".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say no. The facebook origin, the focus on "news and action site", the reliance on social voting for stories all lead to the reputation of a publisher with a focus on clickbait rather than fact checking and accuracy. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring that Rappler.com is made and run by award winning journalist Maria Ressa and is very often cited as a legitimate source of news from the Philippines. It's voting emotion system is no more than a streamlined comment section which is widely used on other websites despite their established credibility. True, the source in question may not be the exact one referring to Zainab Dongon which is http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/83258-marwan-ties-family-global-terrorism which is also linked on the page. In conclusion calling Rappler.com an unreliable source of information is entirely ridiculous when compared to other "reliable" sources that have been used on this site, such as Fox News for instance. Breckham101 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So what if the what if the editor is notable, so is the editor of The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, but that doesn't change it in the eyes of most here as it being a reliable source (which I may disagree with). Also how is it "often cited" what other news sources that are generally considered reliable relying on Rappler like they do say Associated Press or United Press International? Please provide examples.
 * And just because Fox News is a reliable source, doesn't automatically make Rappler a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to prove that this is a reliable source, it's your job to prove otherwise. You were the one initially making the claim that Rappler.com is an unreliable source based solely off of attention grabbing article names (which tons of other "reliable sources" do much worse than Rappler. i.e. Fox News, again.) and the emotion setting, which I have argued is nothing more than an experimental alternative to the comment section on news articles on sites such as The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and many others. This is, in my opinion, a preferable alternative to the vile idiocy left in news comment sections. Furthermore, Tucker Carlson is a political pundit, who IS NOT notable for actual journalism. Your arguments are invalid. Breckham101 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, in fact it is the other way around. Presently there is a consensus that it is not a reliable source, only a single user says it is. Furthermore, I marked it as not a reliable source not based on "attention grabbing article names", as I have been accused of (please stop), but because it doesn't meet WP:IRS. Therefore, the above statement by Breckham101 holds no weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on WP:IRS, I do think that Rappler, being prima facie a news organization (albeit having only an online presence), can be considered as a reliable source for their news articles. The only reason we Wikipedians can consider a news organization to be unreliable is because the organization is known to consistently fabricate or misrepresent facts, or is widely considered to be part of yellow journalism. I have not seen any discussion here on Wikipedia or elsewhere that says Rappler is unreliable. —seav (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now it's two against two. As with all ongoing discussions there is not a consensus until such a consensus has actually been reached. Please stop acting as though the opinions of two users can undermine one of the forefront new publications in the Philippines for all of Wikipedia. Breckham101 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've used Rappler as a reliable source for things such as WP:DYK. I've gone lazy on creating WP:GAs for a while now (far longer than right after Rappler started), so I don't know if it can be accepted as such on that level, but considering GAs can become DYKs lately, that means de facto it can be accepted. No one has raised questions on using that website as a source on the articles that I've written. The fact that people had accepted it as a reliable source for DYK means it's good to go for most articles which aren't being rated. – H T  D  17:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.rappler.com/bulletin-board/41751-corrections Reliable. Rhoark (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SwitchUp - YouTube Clip
In this clip from the Malaysian SwitchUp-Channel Prem Rawat is presented with the Asia Pacific Brands Foundation BrandLaureate International Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award. Can it be used as an additional secondary source for a corresponding statement in the Prem-Rawat-article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJdEa1TTF8--Rainer P. (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As an official YouTube channel of "The Star", its reliability is essentially that of "The Star", so probably yes. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Mail Online
Just wanted to mention one journalist's account of how Mail Online articles are put together. Not sure if any ramifications for WP --Cedderstk 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources, particularly news media are frequently wrong. However errors are corrected.  If one wants to explain what happened today in articles, then these are the only possible sources.  TFD (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know its been discussed before, but the Daily Mail is just about the bottom feeder of "mainstream" news sources. If a better source is available, use it instead.  If the Daily Mail is the only source reporting something, it should be treated with extra skepticism.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would avoid almost every source (even the NYT) for contentious claims about "celebrities." For basic nes, the MailOnline is fine and meets WP:RS.   And if it is an opinion - it should always be cited as an opinion, ascribed to the person holding it. Collect (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The part about headlines sometimes being misleading is true of pretty much all newspapers - they are written by headline writers whose task is to grab readers. Collect (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please respond to this?
Wow, this section was just archived because nobody responded. Can someone please respond?

Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silver seren C 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Silver  seren C 02:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unfamiliar with the website but will make a few observations: First, they describe themselves as a "blog" which is not a strong indicator of reliability. On the other hand, this page lists editorial staff, which is a good sign. I will let others comment on how professional that staff is, and whether they have a good reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * According to their About page, they are "published by the Consumer Technology Publishing Group (CTPG), a division of NAPCO Media. CTPG also publishes leading consumer technology industry trade magazines Dealerscope and Technology Integrator." Silver  seren C 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find where Technology Tell calls themselves a "blog". Not saying it isn't there, just wasn't able to find it. Also, just being published by Consumer Technology Publishing Group doesn't automatically deem Technology Tell as an RS. It seems credible but back to what Cullen stated, we'd need other users to research the editors and whether or not they fact check. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:USERG, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." That seems to be the case here, and the claim being made is not contentious. In the absence of any specific indicator that the source is WP:INACCURATE or WP:QUESTIONABLE, there's no reason to consider it unreliable. Rhoark (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If it helps, the gaming editor in question that wrote the articles, Jenni Lada, also writes for Cheat Code Central, Siliconera, and GeekParty. Silver  seren C 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

World Heritage Encyclopedia
I accidentally run into this super-aggregator of encyclopedias when loooking into Stevens County, Washington: the WHE page looks like a complete rip-off of ours. Two problems:


 * WHE page does not have have the word "Wikipedia" as reference (nor vice versa :-) How is it to be handled?
 * What is more interesting, this is a rip-off with all our external references removed.
 * In view of the previous, their statement " Unlike many online encyclopedias, World Heritage Encyclopedia is crowd sourced, referenced and edited, making our information reliable." is clearly a blatant lie.


 * Wikipedia has several references to WHE and the number will grow, since WHE seems to be a 2014 project. This poses a famous problem of circular referencing.

Therefore IMO WHE is of immediate interest of this noticeboard: is WHE an admissible reference in wikipedia?.

Are there any other venues to discuss the peculiarities of WHE? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look at the top of the Stevens County page, it says "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source" - and the phrase "Citational Source" is a link to the revision history for our article. Clearly a mirror, and thus clearly not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. So can I go ahead and strip wikipedia of references to WHE? If "Citational Source" leads to no-wikipedia source I have to consider releability of this redirect, right? If it is reliable, then replace the citation of WHE by the 'origin', right?  Staszek Lem (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Geoengineeringwatch
An editor claims that geoengineeringwatch.org is a reliable source. I dispute that view. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I know what article you are referring to, but you should let the rest of us know.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need to know the article to see that the website concerned isn't going to be a reliable source for any assertions of fact - it is clearly promoting fringe conspiracy theories. If a notable proponent of such theories needs quoting, maybe it would do for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arthur, if it makes a difference, it's at, where it is proposed as a source for notability and to counter the idea that he is a conspiracy theorist, because this site endorses his views on chemtrails. But I was happy to discuss it in isolation, because I cannot think of any situation in which I would use this as a source for facts. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability for a proponent of fringe views is demonstrated by coverage in non-fringe sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my view, too. So: you agree this site is unreliable? Guy (Help!) 10:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It has a veneer of empiricism that almost made me want to go to bat for it, but a little digging quickly got to a thick and squishy core of FRINGE. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see anything here that's usable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't consider this source reliable though it does provide links and documents to reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliably sourcing basic book details
What's the preferred way to source basic details about a book - publication date, ISBN, publisher etc? I mean in an article about the book or its author, not for books used as sources in other articles. Are worldcat.org or isbnsearch.org considered reliable for this? Is a link to Special:BookSources considered sufficient to source these details?

Whatever the answer, is this written down somewhere? GoldenRing (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would use the book itself for that sort of thing, unless the information is disputed for some reason. Rhoark (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Suitability of a source sponsoring its subjects
In the past few hours, there has been something of a dispute brewing on 2015 Formula One season over the use of the website GP Update as a source. GP Update has sponsored racing drivers and teams in the past, which I believe creates a clear conflict of interests and renders them an inappropriate source to use. The following is taken from their "About Us" page:
 * "Along the way, staff and readers alike have also enjoyed seeing the site’s logo in the heart of the action, thanks to sponsorship connections with F1 teams Minardi (2005), Midland (2006), Spyker (2007) and most recently 2010 debutants Hispania. A number of up and coming drivers have also been backed along the way, including Britain’s Sam Bird and Dutch GP2 race winner Giedo van der Garde."

Of specific concern to me is their sponsorship of Giedo van der Garde, as the dispute centres on content specifically relating to him as published by the site. This represents a clear conflict of interests, and another source would be more appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A news site about a sort sponsors teams and drivers involved in the sport. This would be akin to claiming ESPN is biased because they give money to sports teams, leagues, and colleges.


 * The point was raised because an article regarding the driver Giedo van der Garde was cited using GPUpdate. The statements in the GPUpdate citation are backed by several other sources, they all state the same thing.  This is changing the URL for the sake of changing the URL.  Nothing in the GPUpdate article uses a POV to promote Giedo van der Garde.  GPUpdate is also used as a citation for Formula One information elsewhere on Wikipedia not related to Giedo van der Garde.  The359  ( Talk ) 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So if another reliable source without any potential for conflict of interest is reporting the same thing, why do we persist in using a source with questions over its conflict in interest on the grounds that it might not have a conflict of interest? Please prove to me that van der Garde received no financial support in this instance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the quotes used, specifically "most recently 2010..." these have NO impact on 2015. Twirlypen (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the section more carefully:
 * "thanks to sponsorship connections with F1 teams Minardi (2005), Midland (2006), Spyker (2007) and most recently 2010 debutants Hispania"
 * The 2010 reference only refers to the site sponsoring teams. The remainder of the quotes specifically relating to sponsorship of drivers gives no dates:
 * "A number of up and coming drivers have also been backed along the way, including Britain’s Sam Bird and Dutch GP2 race winner Giedo van der Garde."
 * Please be more careful. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think such sources need to be discarded out of hand, but they shouldn't be used for contentious or unduly self-serving claims. (Self-serving is not just complimentary but also distortion, hyperbole, or deceptive omission.) Rhoark (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And the story which use is currently being contested does not contain any such claim. It's entirely supported by what other reliable sources write about the event. Tvx1 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is an article by Moign Khawaja on foreignpolicyjournal.com an RS?
The statement "Comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto and the wartime uprising there are not uncommon" was added to Gaza Strip based on this source. (see  - added by --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

It's 'About page reads the following "Foreign Policy Journal is an online publication dedicated to providing critical news, analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its purpose is to challenge the narratives and narrow framework for discussion presented by the U.S. mainstream media that serve to manufacture consent for government policy. FPJ offers information and perspectives all too lacking in the public debate on key foreign policy issues." and is owned by Jeremy Hammond, a hacker that was sentenced to 10 years (it may actually makes it more reliable :).

The author himself, Moign Khawaja, write this about himself on his blog.

foreignpolicyjournal.com seems to be a blog which might be RS if the author had credibility but a glance at his portfolio doesn't show any major publications. I will appreciate any input. Ashtul (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Still can't refrain from following me around, huh? It was one of the conditions for suspending your topic ban set by HJMitchell.
 * What you leave out is that the article is not by Moigne Khawaja but by Mark LeVine professor of history at the University of California, and a regional specialist with a command of all of those languages. Moign Khawaja merely introduces the topic.
 * There is nothing controversial about the analogy. The earliest analogy was made by a Captain in the IDF, who said this;:


 * "In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.'(Amir Oren, 'At the gates of Yassergrad,' 25 January, 2002 )Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)"
 * That is the earliest example I know. A senior staff officer planning war strategies with regard to the Gaza Strip, imagined the study of Nazi strategy against the Jews of Warsaw's ghetto might provide some hints as to how to fix the Palestinians, That was picked up by Norman Finkelstein, and after that, fed into the news world, and into books. The only positive thing about it was that it made a lot of Arabs look up the history of what the Jews suffered in Warsaw under Nazism. But the responsibility lies with that staff officer.
 * LeVine doesn't agree with the analogy by the way, but he remarks on its frequency of its use after the 2008 military destruction of Gaza. Nishidani (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a legitimate RSN request.
 * The officer mantions dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw. Not that the siege on Gaza is similar to Warsaw. Ashtul (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "(1:LeVine)A 1943 photograph of Jews in a ghetto in Warsaw, Poland. Israeli forces and Jewish settlers withdrew in 2005, turning the 41 kilometer long strip literally into the world’s largest prison. Around the world people are beginning to compare Israel’s attack on Gaza to the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.' Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)"
 * "(2=Officer)In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example, not linked to the strategic dialogue that the defense establishments of Israel and Germany will hold next month."
 * You also get the officer wrong. He is not reported as 'dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw.'
 * He is raising the idea of dealing with Palestinians along the lines of the way Nazis dealt with Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.
 * Please read texts precisely, and do not misconstrue them.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (1 LeVine) The question whether the source is RS is viable. Not sure why you write such an essay.
 * (2 Officer) He speaks about dealing with Palestinian terrorists years before the blockade. Putting his words into the context as you did is WP:OR at best or completely wrong.
 * Now, please allow uninvolved editors to comment. Ashtul (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is irrelevant. Mark LeVine is an eminent historian specializing in the Middle East. It doesn't matter what venue he chooses to publish his views in.
 * The officer does not speak of Palestinian terrorists. The WP:OR was to construe it that way, as you did. Now, I'd be happy to listen to what third parties say, since your misrepresentations of the sources have been clarified.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "one of the Israeli officers in the territories said..." - is it RS at all?
 * Moreover, in 2nd, more full your quote one may read: "The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example..." So?
 * I'd remind you that we're already talking about such "comparisons" and your willing to equate Israel with Nazis. Now you do the same thing (as well as using & reverting Ewawer here) based on such pro-Hamas propaganda "source" netto as Khawaja and on Mark LeVine whose opinion isn't so NPOV. What else are you willing to bring to Wiki?
 * I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera
 * But as I've already mentioned, his Al Jazeera's article cannot be considered as an academic secondary RS because itself has no appropriate sources and tells us only about LeVine's own opinion.
 * And you by youself have referenced here Philip Seib's book where he not only wrote about LeVine's contradiction to such comparison, but describes its Hamas, Al Jazeera, Assad's, etc. origins :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS
because both they made false use of the source(/s?) mentioned in their articles. See appropriate :( Nishidani's edit, 16:03, 2 March 2015, based on them ((what is interesting else here that Nishidani uses here the same ITIC, what he so criticized before :): The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified. The Israeli government’s argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a five-month old ceasefire has been challenged by observers and think tanks alike...
 * as well as their text : Khawaja :

Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled “Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report” on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged, not just by observers in the know such as Jimmy Carter, the former US president who helped facilitate the truce, but by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks.
 * LeVine :

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report," confirmed that the June 19 truce was only "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".

Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day. Now let's see what ITIC really wrote in its report : ii) The escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement, November 4 to the time of this writing, December 17 2: On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets. Since then, 191 rockets and 138 mortar shells have been fired... --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You haven't noticed that I no longer use Khawaja. I use Mark Levine's original article in Al Jazeera. My minimalist use of LeVine is perfectly consonant with the source text, which is, in my view, mostly unreliable but in the view of editors with a different POV wonderful because it sees terrorists everywhere, and disagrees with everyone else about the statistical breakdown of civilians/'terrorists' in the recent Gaza war.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not correct: I have noticed :
 * (see "I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera[2]...", 5 March 2015 above),
 * as well as you've used it in other articles
 * ("See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here", 5 March 2015)
 * --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ????????????????Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * foreignpolicyjournal.com is obviously WP:BIASED and possible WP:QUESTIONABLE, but there's also WP:USEBYOTHERS. I would treat it as offering a significant minority viewpoint and use/attribute it as WP:RSOPINION. So for example it could be reliable for Khawaja's opinion that Gaza is analogous to the Warsaw Ghetto, but not reliable for saying this is a common opinion. It's a separate matter whether Khawaja's opinion is WP:DUE. LeVine's writing in Al Jazeera is specifically tagged as opinion, so the situation is pretty much the same. His credentials make it a little more likely to be WP:DUE. Seib is reliable for the factual claim that Al Jazeera published LeVine's comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto; however, it would be WP:CHERRYPICKING to cite him for this without also mentioning that Seib calls Al Jazeera's coverage ridiculous, outrageous, absurd, and inaccurate. Rhoark (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not only Rhoark, please pay attention for the next discussion of this issue initiated by Nishidani: Talk:Gaza War (2008–09). --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * With dueling sources, just report what each says and don't try to litigate the truth. Rhoark (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rhoark. Moign Khawaja and Foreign Policy Journal have been removed and replaced some time ago, so this part of the argument is dead. LeVine is a major scholar of the area. Articles are optimally based on such sources. We very rarely paraphrase each of such sources with attribution. LeVine did not make the Warsaw Uprising/Ghetto like Gaza Strip analogy. He stated that that analogy is frequently made. LeVine even might not concur with that analogy (one source says as much), but he does note what any googler can rake up in seconds, that this analogy is frequent. Since the topic is the Gaza Strip, and the analogy is attested as one made with regard to it commonly, there should be no difficulty in adding it. I have refrained from overegging the pud by adding RS that attribute to, for example, an IDF officer the idea that Israel should learn from how Nazis handled the Warsaw Ghetto in order to see if they can get pointers on how to handle the Gaza Strip. Too specific, but since that was stated in 2000, it has entered discourse, and one duly notes it.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * IMHO, this his article doesn't approve at all that "LeVine is a major scholar of the area". --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We are all entitled to our opinions, but they shouldn't affect editorial judgement. There's not a skerrick of doubt to challenge his qualifications.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If he has work in a peer-reviewed journal that appears to be academic consensus, it's okay to WP:ASSERT. In the context of an interview or public speech, an expert status makes his opinions potentially worthwhile, but does not remove the need for inline attribution. Rhoark (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)