Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 199

stats-sh.gov.cn used for number of high-rise buildings in Shanghai
http://www.stats-sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nj14.htm?d1=2014tjnj/C1104.htm is being used to source the statement that there are 14,479 "high rise" buildings (defined as 12 or more stories) in Shanghai in List of cities with the most high-rise buildings. This would make that city first in the world in number of high-rise buildings. posted to the article talk page, and at the Teahouse, expressing disbelief of this figure.

Note that the figure 14,479 does not appear in the cited page, nor does it seem a simple sum or difference of any relevant figures that do appear.

The page seems to be in Japanese. I used google translate to get a rough idea of its contents, and it does seem to be a table of number of buildings with a given range of stories, but I can't tell what area this table covers, nor whether this is a reliable source for these statements. Any advice, particularly from editors with knowledge of Japanese Chinese, would be helpful. DES (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A Chinese government page is written in Japanese? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have said that is what was displayed by Google Translate. You are correct,, that doesn't make sense. No doubt it is actually Chinese, or one of the forms of Chinese. In any case, I can't read any Asian language, so "it's all Greek to me". Any assistance from someone who can read it properly would be welcome. DES (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While discussing reliable sources on that page, we should also address whether the other source frequently used on that page- the commercial site emporis, actually meets the criteria for reliable sources as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Any comments on the reliability of Emporis for such figures? seemed to regard it as a highly reliable site. DES (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On looking a little further, Emporis says that it "collects" information about buildings, but doesn't say anything about a process of fact-checking or who it collects that information from. Moreover, it doesn't appear anywhere to claim that its statistics are complete -- it seems to be focusing on individual buildings that a commercial user might be interested in, not on city-wide statistics. For example its page on Shanghai (from its "building directory) lists exactly 1 church. I find it very hard to accept that there is only one church in a city that large, so I am doubtful about its other totals representing accurate figures for how many buildings of a particular type there are in a particular city. DES (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think its only a city official claimed for Shanghai. Other cities in India, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc also claimed their cities had thousands highrise. Only Emporis completed with the name of the building and with their stories. So we can trust Emporis not just city claimed. This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking In this source Shanghai only had 1,232 building. Emporis data completed with list the name of the highrise so we can verified not just city claimed. Somebody claimed Shanghai had 14.000 higrise. But cant give the name of the building just number claimed which is cant verified. Shanghai is international city why no single foreigner report it to Emporis ?? For example in the year 2014 Emporis count the highrise in Moscow only 3000 buildings. But there is a report completed with the name of the building. So Emporis change highrise count for Moscow more than 10.000 highrise. There is a pattern for building more than 180 metre : Hongkong had 143, New York had 100, Chicago had 50, Shanghai only had 70. For the city without height restriction there is impossible Shanghai only had 70 buildings more than 180 metre but had more than 14.000 highrise building. New York had 100 building more than 180 metre but New York only had 6.000 highrise building. Except city with height restriction such as Sao Paulo.--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ZeroHedge Blog post by "Tyler Durden"
A user is repeatedly adding a a blog post from "Tyler Durden" of ZeroHedge to support the following statement:

The blog is a primary source written by a pseudonymous author "Tyler Durden" -- not suitable in accordance with WP:BLP. Secondly, it doesn't really support the assertion that the net worth for Holmes is approaching $0. The exact quote from the blog:

Need a third opinion on whether this is an acceptable source or not. utcursch &#124; talk 20:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, Zero Hedge does not appear to meet the threshold of being a reliable source. No evidence of editorial oversight, the actual author is unknown (the "Tyler Durden" has been claimed to represent multiple writers) meaning there's no means to validate their actual qualifications to provide expert opinion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:V and WP:RS and shouldnt be used as a source - especially in a BLP. Minor4th  15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If Zero Hedge is not a reliable source, why does it have its own Wiki entry?


 * That entry states:






 * These scenarios are precisely on-point with the current situation - analysis of key financial facts missed earlier by the mainstream financial media. That's the situation where Wiki's own entry of Zero Hedge supports the credibility of this site.
 * Rkaplan (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That argument makes no sense: notability is a different concept altogether. The Bible is not a reliable source for Evolution. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a reliable source for history of Jews. Both of these have their own Wikipedia articles.
 * And like I've said, even ZeroHedge doesn't support your assertion: that blog post does not say that Holmes net worth is approaching zero. It says that the investors will not invest any more money in Theranos, whether its valuation is $9 billion or $0. utcursch &#124; talk 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good analogy.. The Wiki entry on History of the creation–evolution controversy does indeed reference the Judeo-Christian Bible in order to provide context.  My point is - if you disagree with the Durden article, then add your own references to refute it rather than censoring the reference I have added.  I already added an additional reference which additionally supports the theories in the Durden article:




 * As for your comment that Zero Hedge does not say Holmes' net worth is approaching zero, look at the title of the article itself: The Beginning Of The End For Theranos?


 * Bottom line - Please add your thoughts to the article rather than censoring or deleting mine. The combination of references from Zero Hedge and The Economist is a reasonably referenced part of the Wiki entry. Rkaplan (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The article History of the creation–evolution controversy doesn't use the Bible as a source. It uses secondary sources that discuss the Bible as a reference. If a reliable source discusses this ZeroHedge blog post, the ZeroHedge claim can be added to the article.

"The beginning of the end of" is an expression, and even that line doesn't mention anything about the net worth of Elizabeth Holmes. (Not that this matters -- even if it did, ZeroHedge still fails WP:RS).

And there is no "censorship" here. You actually removed some of the content portraying Theranos in a negative light from the article. The only issue here is the "$0 net worth" bit, which is your interpretation of a source that's not acceptable.

utcursch &#124; talk 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Google Maps and Streetview
I'm pretty sure they can't but I just wanted to make sure. Can Google Maps and Streetview be used as reliable sources? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For what information? Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For any article. I saw it being used as a reference in Newbattle Viaduct. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In that article it's being used as follows:

The last arch at the south end is a skew arch to accommodate the A7 public road, which runs parallel to the viaduct before cutting underneath it. The viaduct is nearly straight, but with a slight curve at the northern end where it crosses the river. To the south of the viaduct is a caravan park.


 * I'm not sure that all of the information based on the source is immediately intuited form the map. Hope this helps - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what bit of information the citation is intended to support... google street view does not appropriately verify that the last arch is a "skew arch" (this is not a fact that anyone can verify just by looking at the street view) ... however it does verify that the road runs parallel to the viaduct before cutting underneath it. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At most I can see GM and Street View as a check against other sources, maybe as a source of coordinates (though I personally don't go that far either). But Street View in particular is the equivalent of going to the spot and reporting back what you personally saw here. It's one thing if you went to the location given by some source and discovered that there isn't anything there, or that what's there isn't even remotely like the subject of the article; then you can say that the source which gave you the location is plainly wrong. In this specific instance the part about the skew arch is not only an analysis of what's seen, but a supposition as to why it was built that way (it's possible, after all, that the road was put through that way because of the arch, or even that the arch originally accommodated a different road/path/whatever). Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a second source given here which backs up all the statements made, except that it refers to the road just as "a turnpike road", rather than the A7, a name which would not have existed at the time. The skewness of the last arch is not obvious from street view but is very obvious from the aerial view. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Al Jaffee's brother Harry
"His oldest brother Harry, who also had artistic talent, had long been coping with various mental illnesses&mdash;for a time he had been committed to Bellevue." User:Modernist is adamant that "mental" not be mentioned, and deleted it. He claims to have personal knowledge of the family, and says the book "verges on libel" on this issue. See Talk:Al Jaffee, where he is claiming that he knows personally that the book is wrong on this point.
 * 1) Source.
 * 2) *According to the dust jacket, Weisman and Jaffee have been friends for more than 30 years. The book was written in close collaboration with Jaffee.
 * 3) Article. Al Jaffee, the famed Mad magazine cartoonist.
 * 4) Content.  replaced "mental illnesses" with "various illnesses".  The sentence in full read:

(Previous attempts at resolution at ANI and DRN have been punted, with the suggestion that this is the proper forum.) Choor monster (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added content to the sentence above which currently reads: His oldest younger brother Harry Jaffee (1922-1985), who also had artistic talent, had long been coping with various illnesses&mdash;for a time he had been committed to Bellevue.


 * Harry died in 1985 and he was one year younger than Al. I fail to see what Harry's condition needs to even be included on any level in this article. Harry worked with Al; but Al is an enormously successful cartoonist; well deserving of an article; and his brothers condition is irrelevant to the article anyway.


 * My position is - essentially what is stated in the Weisman book is the primary sources opinion; and I am stating that that opinion needs corroboration and that I have personally heard objections to that opinion. I have been told by people close to all involved that there is more to what happened then what is stated in the book. Weisman takes the primary source at his word, however I am stating my objection to that as a reliable source. I'm not bad mouthing anything by the way - these are extremely private matters, and my suggestion is to respect those objections...Modernist (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that we follow WP policy and guidelines. I will point out that two other editors have accepted the Weisman book as an RS, see ANI (User:Only in death) and Talk:Al Jaffee (User:KoshVorlon).  Choor monster (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What are relevant and reliable source to describe someone's theory?
I want to describe a theory - the first theory published about some topic. The theory was published more than 200 years ago and it is related to the alternative location of Great Moravia. Are the studies about a historian who published this theory and his work (including a detailed description of his theory) considered to be a relevant and reliable sources? They were published by reliable and recognized historians.Ditinili (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , it would have been helpful to other editors responding to your question if you had included, as specified in the instructions, information on the exact source you are asking about: "If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc." and "If it's an online source, please link to it."
 * To clarify, individual historians cannot be "reliable sources" as Wikipedia defines that term; a reliable source is a publication or publisher with editorial control and a history of fact-checking. This is why we need to know who published the work(s) by historians that describe the theory. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We'd have to know more details, but if a theory is extensively discussed by other notable historians (and by this I mean of course in reliable sources) then it possibly merits inclusion in an article. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi - third-party publications
In May 2014, User:Soul Crusher made a posting to this noticeboard, generally pointing out that Scaruffi's writings on music had been accepted as authoritative by several unrelated sources. That posting is here.

With this posting, I am adding information about Scaruffi's publications by third-party publishers. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Scaruffi was being published by Arcana (Milan, Italy). In 1991, it published Guida all'avanguardia e alla New Wave (Guide to Avant-Garde and New Wave). According to WorldCat.org, print copies of this book are held in the university libraries of Princeton, Pennsylavania, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgia, as well as the city libraries of Seattle and New York (plus other libraries in Italy, Germany and Switzerland). One edition of this book was coupled with a CD from Nonesuch Records.

Aracana also published a multi-volume series Grandi opere rock (the exact number of volumes is unclear, but it is at least 22). Scaruffi wrote one of these volumes -- Enciclopedia della musica New Age (1996, volume 16 of the series).

Comments on this will be welcome. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bob Mosher
Source: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=65438816

Article:

This source was recently added to the page to source the names of Mosher's parents. However, the edits adding the source also removed any mention of Mosher being Jewish (backed up by another source of dubious reliability), presumably because the source claims the elder Mosher to be an Episcopalian. My instinct is that Find A Grave is unreliable due to its user-editable nature, but I'd like to get a few other opinions if possible. clpo13(talk) 03:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?
There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...


 * "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...


 * "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Maan News
Source. Maan News ['Locals: Settlers prevent Palestinian farmers from olive harvest,' [[Ma'an News Agency]] 31 October 2015]. Article.  List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015]. Content. : **Farmers in [[Burin were  blocked from harvesting their olives by settlers, who reportedly also stole olives and agricultural equipment in the Bab Sanna area of Burin, <

Is this source reliable for this claim?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be? Also, to be clear, Ma'an is reporting what locals in Burin said and attributing the info in the quote you mention above to those locals. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

See for serious questions regarding their reliability. It looks like NGO Monitor and Palestinian Media Watch have found serious cases of quoting untrue reports and for espousing hate propaganda. I suggest they are not used as reliable sole sources for Wikipedia articles.


 * template added by GrammarFascist   contribs talk 16:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiki is not a reliable source. The NYTs article mentions Ma'an Network which uses a Ynet video, hardly anything in this checks out. They do not cite the Ma'an newspaper on line we use, which is far more cautious. By the same token, all Israeli newspapers we use are not RS because in at least 7 cases they have unanimously reported throughout the day that a 'terrorist' was killed in a stabbing attack in cases where it is known or suspected no attack occurred or appears to be underway when the 'terrorists' are killed. Amnesty International has made the point. For that matter, the NYTs is not a RS, either, by these standards.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Every source in this area has critics. Ma'an News is routinely quoted in major media, including Vox, NYT, Wash Post, Guardian, Al-Jazeera, and Israeli newspapers, like JPost, Times of Israel. Links can be found by simply Googling for them, so I am not giving them explicitly. There is absolutely no evidence that Ma'an is unreliable in general. If there is evidence that it is unreliable in this particular case, one should provide it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the Arabic language site (whcih seems to be the focus of the thread you linked to), but the English language version of Ma'an News is a very valuable source for detailed coverage of the Palestinian territories and is a source of local (and sadly routine) stories that major international news simply don't cover. In the same way that Israeli news networks have value for local coverage of Israel, Ma'an News is valuable to the news coverage of Palestine. Nothing to me indicates that Ma'an is unreliable, even with that recent story where they reported a Palestinian teenager had been killed by Israeli soldiers, instead of wounded. Most news sites have made mistakes here and there, but that doesn't classify them as unreliable. If there is a real pattern of false or exaggerated reporting or racism, then I would consider that there is a real problem with reliability. That has not been demonstrated and again, I'm referring to the English language version. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Give In to Me
There is a dispute over whether to include Slash as a featured artist on this song. The (not to mention the Discogs entry) indeed has Slash listed, but some users disagree. (I brought the issue here because that article's talk page doesn't see much activity.)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott
1. Source. Peter Dale Scott's essay "Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia; Bush’s Terror War and the Fixing of Intelligence". 2. Article. Safari Club 3. Content.
 * a) "Jimmy Carter discussed public concerns over secrecy in his campaign, and when he took office in January 1977 he attempted to reign in the scope of covert CIA operations."
 * b) "Thus even as Carter's new CIA director Stansfield Turner attempted to limit the scope of the agency's operations, Shackley, his deputy Thomas Clines, and agent Edwin P. Wilson secretly maintained their connections with the Safari Club and the BCCI."

After explaining that the War on Terror should be called "Bush's Terror War", Scott writes: "This essay will demonstrate that before 9/11 a small element inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit and related agencies, the so-called Alec Station Group, were also busy, 'fixing' intelligence by suppressing it, in a way which, accidentally or deliberately, enabled the Terror War." He heavily cites not only himself but 9/11 conspiracy authors Anthony Summers, Kevin Fenton, John Farmer, Jr., and an article in 911Truth.org by truthers Rory O'Connor (filmmaker) and Ray Nowosielski.

Regarding the content in question, the only statement in the article that mentions Jimmy Carter, Stansfield Turner, Theodore Shackley, or Thomas Clines states: "Then senior CIA officers and ex-officers (notably Richard Helms), who were dissatisfied with the CIA cutbacks instituted under Jimmy Carter’s CIA director, Stansfield Turner, organized an alternative network, the so-called Safari Club. Subordinated to intelligence chiefs from France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran, the Safari Club provided a home to CIA officers like Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, who had been marginalized or fired by CIA Director Turner." Edwin P. Wilson is not even mentioned in the article. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not rs. The main determinant of rs is the publication, whether or not it has a record of fact-checking.  If it does not then it then the articles it publishes should generally not be used.  It is best anyway to avoid claims that only appear in obscure or non-mainstream sources.  TFD (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese tank pages and Chinese news sites
Type 99 talk page

Hi. I'm a new user here so I'm not very familiar with the rules but it seems like the the Type 99 pages has been embroiled in a back and forth and edits. Thus I seek clarification about a particular contentious source here.

Documentary This biographical documentary/interview of the Type 99's lead designer by CCTV has labelled propaganda and thus unreliable. I find it disturbing because although the documentary was filmed to achieve some kind of propaganda purpose, the source was not cited to support propaganda but to support other sources in explaining the development of the Type 99 tank.

I understand that CCTV has been in the news for continuous gaffes and being a state mouthpiece in general. But shouldn't this film be treated as a primary source first and foremost? The separation of fact and fiction would be harder than other news media but until contradictory information appears, must we not take the state media at face value? Shouldn't prefixing an "according to" or "it was claimed by" be sufficient, as seen by other claims on the page made by non-Chinese sources?
 * China doesn't have freedom of the press. I would say that Chinese sources about topics prone to government interference are sort of like self-published sources published by the Chinese government, because nobody other than the Chinese government has editorial control.  Such self-published sources are unreliable for most purposes.  Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

zeroto60times.com
From what I can tell https://www.zeroto60times.com (WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/zeroto60times.com, search results) is just another scraper site. They appear to use bots or crawlers to scrape data from any websites they can find and put it together on easily-referenced tables, which generate traffic, which is for the ads. The ads and offsite links look sketchy to me, if not malware. Their About page claims they're better than other similar sites, but I don't see how. There's nothing naming the authors of the content. They say they average data from different "credible" sources to produce a "unique" result, but they don't cite their sources, or explain what their criteria for credibility is. Anyone know of a reason we should keep citations to this site? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Site Fails WP:RS They refer to using reliable sources, but mention none. I can only conclude that they are at best a secondary source and therefore there is a better source available. There is nothing particularly credible about the site and therefore I can only conclude that it is not a reliable source. NealeFamily (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above user, not a reliable source. Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Domestic Violence - reliable sources
An IP address editor added a 2014 British Psychological study found here http://www.bps.org.uk/news/women-more-aggressive-partners-men to the domestic violence article, some months ago now and was recently removed with no real explanation or logic? The study conducted by the British Psychological Society examined intimate partner violence and concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men. I'm neutral on the topic, and realise this is a primary source, but it appears the British Psychological Society is a reputable organization. Can some neutral editors have a look at the source and make a neutral, objective judgement. I'd rather post the question here, than get anywhere near the chance of an edit war. Thanks ahead of time.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This has now been sorted at the article talk page. No need for comments. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we use Marco Merlini as a source for relating Mary and Artemis
At Mary (mother of Jesus) I removed a statement linking the two because I thought Merlini to fail WP:RS - partially because I think that the version of "archaeomythology" he represents and the journal is fringe, but he mainly because he has no qualifications for such a statement. An IP hopper has twice replaced it. As it read now, it says:

" The continuing association of Mary and Artemis is shown in a paper by Dr. Marco Merlini "A Post-Byzantine fresco of the XVI century from the most important monastery, the Great Lavra, depicts a very unusual Annunciation. Not a Christian saint or martyr but a pagan goddess, Artemis, attends at the fatal encounter between the archangel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary" "

The link to the Institute of Archaeomythology, established by a student of Marija Gimbutas, seems to be there to establish Merlini's credentials. These are:

2008 Doctorate cum laude, ” Lucian Blaga” University, Sibiu, Romania. 1976Masters Degree in Political Science, University of Turin, Italy. Degr ee of Csi (Centro studi informatici):“Statistica e programmazione.” 1974 Degree cum Laude and Honorable Mention in Political Sciences, University of Turin.

More detail is at this site which states that his PhD was in “NeoEneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe: an Inquiry into the Danube Script”. Nothing to do with art history or classical mythology.

It's hard to deal with an IP hopper for obvious reasons, but instead of reverting again I'm bringing this here. Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Striking comment as the IP has taken it to the talk page but I'd still like comments here. Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Merlini's cv says this about him: "Marco Merlini, Ph.D., is a cultural manager, journalist and archaeo-semiologist. He is Executive Director of the InnovaNet and EURO INNOVANET research institutes and is General Director of the Prehistory Knowledge Project in Rome, Italy. He is the Coordinator of M.U.S.E.U.M. — the network of the archaeological, historical and prehistoric museums of European capital cities — and the “Virtual Museum of European Roots.” He is also Director of Communications of the Institute of Archaeomythology and is the author of La scrittura è nata in Europa (2004) and numerous articles on the Danube script." I don't think that Dr Merlini is making a relationship between Mary and Artemis, this is purely factual both goddesses are in the painting the relationship was put there by the artist. Ephesis was the major centre of Artemis worship, it became a centre of Mary worship and mythology. Merlini's paper is about a fresco at a prominent Orthodox monastery and the quotation made merely establishes the fact that such a fresco exists and that it contained both Mary and Artemis. (The article can be downloaded here http://www.academia.edu/3035438/The_Pagan_Artemis_in_the_Virgin_Mary_Salutation_part_I or here http://www.archaeomythology.org/publications/the-journal-of-archaeomythology/2011-volume-7/2011-volume-7-article-9/) As to the rest of Merlini's article, that has not been incorporated. I used the factual quote not his conclusions (good or bad). There are photos in his article which show that the facts are accurate. I'm sorry I wasn't able to read the link for the suggested alternative reference as Google wouldn't give it to me. The Wikipedia Mary article contains mostly Hagiography and quotes from the Bible as though it is a factual document. Here and there extra information is in the article such as the fact that Jesus was estranged from his family and rejected them and they him. The Mary of popular worship is a myth. To be even more blunt, a "virgin story" was created in order to fulfil a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. Personally I find Artemis a far more interesting figure but that's a POV I haven't put in the article. This article is at least twice as long as it should be and the last person to try to do an overall edit was Editor2020 and that was only partial. I'm not a Wikipedia habitue but have attempted to add a little salt here and there. Hopefully against a tide of irrationality, and without being offensive, people can draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.71.17 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't particularly disagree with a lot of the comments made by the IP. However, the only mentions of an "archaeo-semiologist" relate to Merlini, so I'd say that's a label he's invented or someone's invented for him. Maybe someone else can find "M.U.S.E.U.M.", I can only find it mentioned alongside his name. The link the IP can't reach, probably due to geography, is I'm puzzled that I can't find any mention of this fresco elsewhere. If we can't, I am even more dubious about using the source. Doug Weller (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

On closer examination, the source is not as good as I had thought. I didn't see any wild theories, I scanned over it rather than reading it in detail as it is fairly long. There was some interesting material about Hittite beliefs that preceded Artemis in Ephesus when it was a Hittite town. In the ancient world there was no universal culture, so even national gods were modified by local traditions. The Universities that he cites in his museum project are apparently minor Italian Serbian Bulgarian and Romanian ones. http://www.archaeomythology.org/about-the-institute-of-archaeomythology/fellows-honorary-members-associate/ http://europeanvirtualmuseum.net/evm/documenti/research_1.pdf The article he wrote reads like a popular Archaeology magazine, perhaps a little higher standard. I'm happy to have it replaced with the source that you provided but in the meantime someone else has protected it. My purpose was to bring in some intellectual material to this article, looking at it from different perspectives than blind belief. As you provided the reference perhaps you would like to make the edit. "Gordon Laing argues convincingly that the worship of Artemis as both virgin and mother at the grand Ephesian temple contributed to the veneration of Mary." seems adequate.


 * Done. Thanks for being so cooperative. I think that the protecting Admin may have looked at earlier real vandalism as well, he might unprotect if you ask. Otherwise just use the talk page. I noted in my edit summary that we'd worked this out together. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem and sorry about being an "edit warrior", having observed previous vandalism I thought it more of the same.

Is Breitbart reliable for its own opinion.
My understanding is that a source is generally always reliable for its own opinion, but numerous people at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian appear to contest that. Is Breitbart reliable for the statement: The conservative website, Breitbart, was critical of Sarkeesian's ability as an art critic. sourced to Thanks, Second Quantization (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is generally considered a questionable or unreliable source, especially when it comes to claims about living persons. The publication is also not known for its opinions regarding art criticism. It would not be appropriate to source claims about a living person to a non-expert questionable/unreliable source. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Breitbart is about as unreliable a source as it is possible to be. Per WP:RS a reliable source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Breitbart has a reputation for fabrication and defamation; and should never, ever, be used to source what seems to be criticism of a living person. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source as the above users have already stated. It is especially not reliable when it comes to BLP's.   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we can't rely on Breitbart to reliably report their own opinion despite WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author")? Second Quantization (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people have their own opinions, but that doesn't mean we must include them, especially when the sources aren't experts. In addition, claims regarding living persons require a higher standard for sourcing, fact versus mere opinion. Woodroar (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that this is not a statement by Breitbart about its own opinion but by Mytheos Holt about his own opinion. Not that that changes the arguments above greatly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinion sources are generally usable for opinions cited as opinions. Those who think that a source can not be used for its own opinions are mistaken. For material about celebrities in any nation on earth, it is hard to find any truly reliable source for contentious facts or claims of fact. Mao was a reliable source for the opinions of Mao - yet I would not use him for claims of fact about his reign (yes - I know he is dead, but I am referring to written opinions here). If the issue is "what is art criticism?", then we may consider whether the person (apparently Mytheos Holt) holding the opinion is notable enough for his or her opinions about what is or is not art criticism (in the case at hand whether the person holding an opinion can state that the material is not construed by him as art criticism), but that has nothing to do with whether the opinion is printed by the NYT or the Daily Mail  -  the opinion at issue belongs to the person voicing it, not to the publisher. One might note this is exactly the same position I cite for all such matters and sources from RT onwards. Collect (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of ink was spilled on pretty much the same question last year. Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we have an FAQ section, we really need an FAQ section -- ℕ  ℱ  02:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Even bothering to mention somebody's opinion of somebody else's art criticism as posted on breitbart.com is a violation of WP:UNDUE anyway. A reputable art critic, published in a reputable, reliable source: that might be relevant to the article. But breitbart.com is not known for discussion of artistic issues any more than Juggs is known for tofu recipes. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Being reliable for its own opinion does not justify injecting it into every article it has an opinion about. You would need to show that the opinion was signficant.  Similarly, you can post your opinions on your Facebook page, and that will be a reliable source for your opinions, but that does not give you licence to then post those opinions to articles about every subject on which you hold an opinion.  TFD (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable for its own opinion? Yes. On its own article. On other articles you have to ask not if it's reliable but if it's notable, which is different. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Reidinger
Is the above a reliable source? See and. 32.218.47.132 (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia can't be reliable (circular reasoning), let alone a fork of Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, those are not reliable sources. See WP:CIRC - "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources." Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Using WP:BLP to stop debate of a living source's reliability
A source used on Killing of Cecil the Lion, Johnny Rodrigues, was challenged based on the ground that he had apparently contradicted himself. A response (from an administrator) has been that it's not allowed to "bad-mouth living persons", and at my objection that this interpretation would mean the inability to challenge the reliability of any living source, the editor confirmed that this is policy.

Can you confirm that too? Is "scaring an editor away" from challenging a source because the source is a living person acceptable and part of policy? LjL (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly acceptable to discuss the reliability of a source provided that we do not engage in personal invective or use the talk page as a platform to repeatedly complain about the source outside of the context of the discussion. It is acceptable to raise concerns about facts or sources known to be unreliable, but generally I don't think it's acceptable to "disqualify" an RS based on personal conjecture or your own internet detective work, but that's an RS matter, not a BLP matter.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Got you about the main WP:BLP point.
 * I'm not too sure about detective work... I certainly know about WP:NOR, but that doesn't apply to talk pages; that, to me, means by extension that it's acceptable to make "original reasonings" there, including about why sources might be (for example) internally inconsistent; plus, at some point, what other recourse is there to determine whether a source is or is not reliable other than doing some actual research about the source? Note that a given source may be reliable/unreliable in general, but unreliable/reliable to source a specific fact (I'm pretty sure there is a piece of policy about this but can't recall which right now), so it's not always enough to gauge whether a source is in turn "considered" reliable by other sources. LjL (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say where the line is. In Gamergate, I saw a lot of editors try to "disqualify" RSes because of connections or conjectures they made based on Tweets from the author of a particular article.  That is inappropriate, but what would be appropriate would be to point out than an RS has a reputation for reliability or unreliability based on other RS reporting.  In between, in gets a bit murky.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) This has become a long-standing issue, and is once again bleeding into too many venues (there's currently an unanswered RFPP ticket for the article and a thread at BLPN). has extensively used the talk page to attack that source, and has made some claims about the source that do not appear in RS. The source has been picked up by virtually all reporting on the topic, and is therefore at this point impossible to avoid for us who can only rely on RS. DHeyward has complained about WP:BLP and COATRACKs in other contexts in the past, but is now using an article about Cecil to attack that source. It's gotten to the point where the problem clearly goes beyond individual edits. Samsara 15:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, in this particular request for discussion, I'd like to focus on the particular point raised of whether WP:BLP is valid grounds on which to silence discussion about reliability of sources who are living. LjL (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the discussion is inappropriate, it is perfectly valid grounds.  The question should be instead "is the discussion about living individuals being conducted in an appropriate manner?"   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I meant a blanket ban on discussing their reliability. But fair enough: is it? What is your opinion? (Please focus on the talk page though, as I'm definitely not going to defend the actual addition of some unsourced material about the "incorrectness" of the source within the article itself, which did happen). LjL (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I note this passage in WP:BLP:
 * Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.
 * I interpret this passage to mean that any source that fails the Verifiability standards should not be relied upon, and the the instances spelled out in the first part of the sentence are specific examples of sources that fail Verifiability. But the Verifiability policy only applies to the article, not the talk page. So, by extension, WP:BLP only applies to the article, not the talk page. Of course, there are laws about defamation, and the practices one would expect from encyclopedia editors, so there are limits on what can go in the talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP does apply everywhere, including on article Talk pages, but, as points out, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss reliability of sources. My own opinion is that I do not see an egregious violation in this edit; one might request that sourcing be provided for the claims he's said the cubs would be killed by Jericho, then said Jericho was Cecil's brother, then said Jericho was killed too. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The full quote is In addition, he stated that Jericho was Cecil's brother and that Jericho was killed by poachers. None of those statements were correct., which reveals this to be a case of No original research. The examples given there are directly comparable. Samsara 16:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR most definitely does not apply to talk pages, though (it says so right there in the first paragraph), and even if it were, WP:SYNTH is definitively not about simple adjoining of material. Of course, the "None of those statements were correct" part would need sourcing, within an article. LjL (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That quote is not from the talk page, it was inserted into the article, and it was not sourced. Maybe you should follow what is going on before starting board threads. Samsara 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Getting back to why this moved from the article talk page to this noticeboard: Talk page comments like "Sourcing anything to Johnny Rodrigues should be viewed with extreme caution" in no way violates the BLP policy. Saying a living person's opinions fail our reliability standards is not "bad-mouthing living persons", as Samsara erroneously asserted. The fact is that very nearly everyone fails our standards for reliable sources on almost every subject. It is a relatively minuscule fraction of people, on a small set of topics, who meet Wikipedia's RS standard, and so can be cited on a narrow range of topics. Asserting a person is not a member of that tiny club is not a personal attack and it's obnoxious that an Admin would misuse the BLP policy this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis, with all due respect, before you comment on the case in the manner you just did you should probably study the entire history of that talk page w.r.t. previous comments by DHeyward. There is a lot of history to this. Regards, Samsara 16:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "that quote is not from the talk page", "maybe you should follow what is going on", I will quote myself from just above: "Please focus on the talk page though, as I'm definitely not going to defend the actual addition of some unsourced material about the "incorrectness" of the source within the article itself". So given no one here is defending that material that was added to the article, who are you even arguing against? Maybe you had a lapse in following what was going on.
 * Re: "history", there ight be "a lot" of it with that particular user, but that doesn't prevent me (and others) from taking issue with some specific edits/statements you made, about sources and challenging them per BLP, which make me very uneasy. That is what this section on this noticeboard was started about, not DHeyward's potential history. LjL (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: the Killing of Cecil the lion article has now been protected such that only administrators are allowed to edit it. It may be relevant to mention that User:Samsara is an administrator. been semi-protected. LjL (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As I stated before, Rodrigues is not reliable and it's mainly because he's quoted in breaking news stories and is a primary source per WP:RSBREAKING. For his own sake, we should not be using him.  Just read this Time piece and it becomes obvious.  We, as an encyclopedia don't have the ability to sort out which of the many sources that quote him are right on any particular day so rather than having a number of conflicting quotes and attributions that WOULD be a BLP violation as it casts him in an extremely unfavorable light, we should not use him at all.  "Time" magazine is a very reliable source but using them to quote “Cecil’s death is a tragedy, not only because he was a symbol of Zimbabwe but because now we have to give up for dead his six cubs, as a new male won’t allow them to live so as to encourage Cecil’s three females to mate,” Johnny Rodrigues, head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, said. “The two people who accompanied the hunter have been arrested but we haven’t yet tracked down the hunter, who is Spanish.” does not put him in a favorable light.  We now know there are many errors in that statement but it's not for us to to pick and choose.  Therefore, other sources that have corrected the errors are more reliable and are used to source facts about the hunter, Jericho, the cubs, the pride, etc, etc.  What method would we use to pick and choose Rodriques statements that were all issued as breaking news with variable degrees of veracity?  He's not being maliciously wrong and there is no malice in his errors, he's just not reliable.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the sources, I would suggest that they are reliable, but only for the opinions of Rodrigues; we have no reason to suspect that these fine news organisations have misquoted him. Those opinions appear, however, largely speculatory, and one might question if the article is enhanced by their inclusion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * BLP is not relevant when discussing sources because a person is not a valid source. Only published material, such as news articles, are actually sources. So when discussing the reliability of a source the subject of the discussion is the published article, book, report, thesis, etc. - not the author or any person quoted or referred to in the source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * But surely if the source uses an author or person quoted, then unless we're just verbatim quoting the author with in-text attribution, we need to take the author's reliability into account to decide on the source's reliability. If the author patently contradicted him or herself, that's a problem (not saying that's necessarily the case here). LjL (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While appealing to BLP is completely spurious here (if accurately attributed quotes make someone look bad, that's not Wikipedia's problem) there seems to be a strong case for deprecating this person's statements per WP:RSBREAKING and WP:Inaccuracy. Rhoark (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, it looks like that to me as well. Now the discussion about that is spread among three pages (two noticeboards and the article's talk page), which makes things complicated... my focus on this report, though, was to ensure that people agreed that WP:BLP shouldn't get in the way of discussing sources' reliability and trustworthiness (within the boundaries of civility of course). LjL (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strangely, the RS discussion appears to be taking place at BLPN, and the BLP discussion here. Concur with, , and many other fine editors above that a discussion of whether a source is reliable is not a BLP violation. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's confusing, sorry. I think it's my fault, I started it first at RSN but focused it on whether BLP was usable to silence a souce. LjL (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dale Carnegie Training Center / Millennials
Does a Dale Carnegie "Training Center" source meet the criteria of a reliable source i.e. either (1) academic, (2) journalistic or (3) experts in their field. Dale Carnegie Training "serves the business community worldwide" and according to their website "The franchisees around the world use their training and consulting services with companies of all sizes in all business segments". They are not experts in defining generational boundaries.

They have a "clients" page which suggests they're not academic or journalistic nor experts in this particular area. See http://www.dalecarnegie.com/about-us/clients/

There are experts such as Strauss and Howe who have written over 10 books on the subject, including a New York Times bestseller. We can't include anybody who decides to write a white paper on generations. This source doesn't meet the criteria and they are in business to make money on consulting. It's not a University it is by their own words a business "franchise".

The source is self-published and doesn't qualify. Here's the policy on self-published sources. The policy states self-published sources must be "expert(s) whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications".

See the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610a:9000:8547:5b6e:711:e5e2 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 November 2015‎

Cleaned up version (of the above as of 1:26pm 11/12/15) that does not change the interpretation:

Does a Dale Carnegie "Training Center" source on the Millennials page meet the criteria of a reliable source i.e. either being (1) academic, (2) journalistic or (3) experts in their field? The source is self-published. Dale Carnegie Training "serves the business community worldwide". According to their website "the franchisees around the world use their training and consulting services with companies of all sizes in all business segments". They have a "clients" page which suggests they're not academic or journalistic nor experts in this particular area. See http://www.dalecarnegie.com/about-us/clients/ It's not a University. They're in business to make money on consulting. They're not experts in defining generational boundaries. Cant find any reliable third party who has published the work either.

The policy states self-published sources must be "expert(s) whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications".self-published sources

See the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610a:9000:8547:5b6e:711:e5e2 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 November 2015‎


 * Here is the source in question. I quote from it 'Over the course of two years, Dale Carnegie Training and MSW Research....'  MSW Research seems to be a legit market research company .  The source, as it is a primary source, should be used with care, as I think it is in the article.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A "legit market research company" is a business. We don't use self-published sources "with care".  We use sources published by reliable third-party publications". 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's only partly correct. What WP:SPS says is: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", so self-published sources can be used under some conditions. Do these conditions apply here? Well, Dale Carnegie Training was certainly published by reputable third parties before, see for instance this book published by Simon & Schuster (but Google Books suggests there are many more). So I don't see a problem here. LjL (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed we use say political polls done by market research companies all of the time. We don't analyze them though, we just present the numbers.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * LjL you are confusing a book written by the man Dale Carnegie with a marketing company. The two are not the same.  The marketing company is not a University.  It's a franchise.  The Wikipedia policy says we are not supposed to use self-published sources.  The rule is clear even if others are breaking it with "political polls done by market research companies" on Wikipedia.  The standard and language is VERY clear.  The marketing company is NOT an expert in generational studies.  It does not meet either standard of (1) being experts on generations and (2) it's white paper wasn't published by a reliable third party.  You are wasting alot of time over a simple rule. 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not confusing anything. The book isn't written by Dale Carnegie, but it is a book by Dale Carnegie Training, the entity in question. It is published by a reliable third party. The Wikipedia policy says we can use self-published sources under certain circumstances, as I pointed out above, so stop saying it simply "doesn't", thanks. This particular paper is self-published but the same entity has a number of non-self-published books about related topics. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have "simple rules". LjL (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The book you cited is not about generations. What is the connection?  How does that show the white paper isn't self-published? Can you show me one book, course or anything else from the Training Center that discusses generations?  How are they experts on the subject? 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Generations" isn't a self-standing field of study, as much as you'd like to believe the contrary. Your favorite Strauss-Howe source is almost the only one that seems to consider "generational studies" an independent subject; that doesn't automatically make it one, rather, it makes them the odd one out. It has already been argued elsewhere that the Dale Carnegie Training source is adequate within the broader, much better established field of demographics. LjL (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You still have not shown that The Training Center meets the expert standard in the field, area, or subject matter. You've offered zero proof of that.  People like Emile Littré, Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Karl Mannheim are though.  Strauss and Howe have more credibility because they wrote 10 books about it.  Yet you removed them from the generation page by reverting an edit. The Training Center is self-published so it should be removed UNTIL a reliable third party like reports on it. If that happens then we can restore it.  That would be following what Wikipedia wants on it's site 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's not confuse separate matters: I didn't revert your edit to remove that source, I reverted your edit because you were aggressively edit warring against other editors (as shown by the fact that admins had to semi-protect the page) as you had done on various related articles (as shown by the fact that admins had to semi-protect more than one). LjL (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You've made that point numerous times on different pages. What about answering the above proposal: let's remove that source UNTILL a reliable third party reports on it -- what do you think? 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I keep having to make that point because you keep ignoring it or acting as if it didn't matter every time on every different page. What about not bringing it up continuously given you were clearly in the wrong with edit warring? As to removing it, as I've told you on my talk page: since the article(s) is/are protected, first gain consensus on the relevant talk pages (and here), then make an WP:Edit request. That's the proper procedure, and I'm not going to skip getting consensus from other editors (who generally supported keeping the source, see article talk pages) just to side-step page protection for you. LjL (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to get other opinions from more experienced editors. When did consensus start trumping the clearly written rules for reliable sources? What's the point of the rule if a small group of editors can override anything with their "consensus". 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Local consensus doesn't trump global consensus, and you are, as a matter of fact, free to wait for other opinions from the wider community (here is a good place), but that's almost exactly my point: I'm not going to single-handedly do what you request without you going through the process and getting other opinions, since so far, the opinions we have are against you. LjL (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The four opinions (including you) trump the clearly written reliable source rule? I thought the rule is central to the entire Wikipedia site, one of it's core principles? 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The four editors seem to think that the source is reliable, and have given reasons for why they think it. Now, other editors can provide their own opinions here. Nothing is trumped. Just wait and stop asking me to trump current consensus by doing your edits while the page is semi-protected. I won't do it. LjL (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Why we shouldn't use newspapers as a source of history
This is a comment as much as a anything, but I invited responses. Although newspapers are generally reliable for news, and sometimes contain articles written by subject experts, they also contain a lot of "background" material appearing as article filler which is not at all reliable. One thing that people don't want to believe, but is true nevertheless, is that journalists often use Wikipedia for background without citing it. Even the best newspapers in the world do it, as the following example from The Guardian shows. In red is a text from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as it was before today] and in blue is text from this article in the Guardian yesterday. Incidentally, the newspaper copied one of our errors (the Protocols don't identify themselves as the minutes of a meeting, that was done by its publishers) and added one error by not reading Wikipedia carefully enough (there aren't chunks of text copied, but there is a lot of close paraphrase). Zerotalk 11:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Protocols of the Elders of Zion was supposed to have been first published in Russia in the 1900s, translated into various languages and disseminated internationally in the early 20th century.
 * The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders discussing their goal of global Jewish hegemony by subverting the morals of Gentiles, and by controlling the press and the world's economies. It claimed to be the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders, in which they discussed their goal of a global plan to subvert the morals of gentiles and control the press and the global economy.
 * It was studied, as if factual, in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power in 1933, despite having been exposed as fraudulent by The Times of London in 1921. Journalists and historians exposed it as a fraud in the 1920s, showing it to contain chunks of text lifted from other books. It was nonetheless studied in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power in 1933.
 * Most newspapers just don't check facts. Sad, but true. DreamGuy (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Citogenesis is a severe issue in modern journalism as they are forced to compete with blogs and more crowd-sourced information systems; journalists of today have to work faster and they have to appeal to more readers, making research a lower priority than crafting the article's narrative for the most page hits. --M ASEM (t) 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's "good sense". A journalist is not an historian. Whether he reported carefully what (an) historian(s) wrote and therefore the information could be found and should be sourced from this/these historian(s), or he didn't report properly and in that case, the journalist is not reliable. In both case, he should not be used as a source. Newspapers are acceptable sources for recent events (not yet studied by scholars) or as primary sources to illustrate information reported by reliable secondary sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What you illustrate is a great example of WP:CIRCULAR. It pertains not only to newspapers but also to books, even university press books. I rooted out a circular fallacy in regard to the hoe article,  of all things.  There was a false fact that had been in the article in Wikipedia, then picked up in a book about garden tools,  then deleted from Wikipedia but then re-added using that source which had copied Wikipedia to begin with.  I wrote to the book's author and thereby solved the mystery and corrected this small fact about hoes. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, here is the discussion on that.
 * I think that newspaper articles can be useful sources for history, but like any other source,  they need to be used carefully and if possible,  triangulated against other sources.  SageRad (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources on Presley
Recently multiply removed from Toilet-related injuries and deaths:


 *  Elvis Presley was found dead on his bathroom floor on August 16, 1977. According to the medical investigator, Presley had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died"; he had been using the toilet at the time. Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick writes, "It was certainly possible that he had died while 'straining at stool.' " Elvis' personal physician, Dr. George Nicopolous, wrote in his 2009 book, The King and Dr. Nick that "We believe Elvis died from a normal physiological event brought into play called 'Valsalva Maneuver.' This ... caused the heart to stop when the body strained. When Elvis compressed his abdominal aorta by straining, his heart, in response, went into arrhythmia and quit working suddenly." According to Guralnick, "the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested ... that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death ..." 

Is this use of Guralnick and/or Nicopolous proper? (I ask here rather than on the article's talk page because there have recently been similar removals and replacements elsewhere.)

Pinging. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Several problems here:
 * Onefortyone is misquoting the medical examiner, who merely conjectured that Elvis was using the toilet at the start of the ordeal based on the location of the vomit. The source then reads "it looked to the medical examiner as if he had 'stumbled or crawled several feet before he died'". We're definitively writing that Elvis was on the toilet and did stumble and crawl based on the conjecture of the medical examiner. That's a misinterpretation and misuse of Guralnick.
 * It's Guralnick's own conjecture that Elvis died "straining at the stool" and is actually counter to the opinion of the medical examiner. Guralnick isn't an expert, and he's merely spreading a rumor based on zero scientific evidence. His opinion shouldn't be taken seriously or used to source text in an encyclopedia.
 * Nicopolous seems to be OK to back up the claim that Elvis had a bowel condition, but it's not cited properly (I had to go searching for the page number) and it's being improperly mixed with Guralnick in violation of WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that Elvis died on the toilet.
 * In conclusion, Guralnick needs to be thrown out completely in this context and the bowel condition sections belongs elsewhere. This passage does not belong in this article. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from Guralnick and Nicopolous, several other independent sources say that Elvis died on the toilet, among them studies published by university presses. See . Do you really think that these sources are not reliable enough? Onefortyone (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that you're misinterpreting them or cherry-picking because you want to write that Elvis died on the toilet. The preponderance of what you've provided indicate that he was on the toilet (again, this is popular extrapolation from the medical examiner's conjecture and repeated across sources) and that he stumbled or crawled several feet before dying. So, he didn't "die on the toilet" and there is no scientific evidence to that effect. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not much about the source, I even failed to find many of these quotes if they exist or not. It is more about the information which is indeed unreliable. When we give such undue weight to these theories, we must also give similar weight to theories that the singer died from bone cancer, but that is clearly not going to take place. Excelse (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found the quotations in the sources given without a problem, although I've come across a couple of page number mismatched. This may be attributable to different versions of the book. The real question is whether the sources are reliable (probably yes) and whether they're being used appropriately (likely not). -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * user:Laser brain, I couldn't find the quote at google books though. Information is being incorrectly used. That's what we can say. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream biographers are of the opinion that "Elvis died on the toilet". See Greil Marcus, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (Harvard University Press 1991), p.154. If you have a problem with the fact that Elvis had a heart attack while straining at stool (a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver) and, after suddenly having risen from his wallhung ceramic toilet, stumbled or crawled several feet before he died, his pyjamas still being around his ankles (as is common when using the toilet), what about this version:
 * Elvis Presley presumably died while using the toilet in his bathroom. "Most sources indicate that Elvis was likely sitting in the toilet area, partially nude, and reading when he collapsed." See Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (Springer Science 2010), p.211. One plausible cause is "a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use)." See Frank Coffey, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Elvis (1997), p.247.

This wording, including direct quotes from some reliable sources, should cover the opinion of most medical examiners. Interestingly, the people around Elvis tried to hide the real cause of his death. Here is a statement by Billy Smith, Elvis' first cousin, cited in Alanna Nash, Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia (1995): "we never really wanted to say this, but Elvis was actually sitting on the toilet, with his pajama bottoms down. His colon was bothering him. And he fell over, and, best I understand, he crawled several feet. So this was not an instantaneous death. Or a painless one. They know that from all these little hemorrhages he had from the waist up, where the blood vessels had burst after he fell. That goes along with a drug death." (p.719) Onefortyone (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mainstream is not actually buying this theory. You need to have a source for it, one source saying that it might be "plausible theory" is not authentic. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Query: did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments for his massive removals of content? No, he didn't. Where are his reliable sources contradicting my edits? I have cited many independent sources supporting my view. And this is what counts on Wikipedia, not the personal opinions of some Elvis fans who don't like the circumstances of Elvis's death. Furthermore, it should be noted that it was another user who added some additional details to the article on 'Toilet-related injuries and deaths', quoting Elvis's personal physician, as the history of the article shows. See and  These passages were also deleted by Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we're making headway here. My main issue is that we not repeat various non-medical opinions or misquote sources. I like "Mainstream biographers are of the opinion" because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina are medical doctors. Nicopolous, Elvis's personal physician, wrote in his 2009 book, The King and Dr. Nick that he and another physician believe that Elvis died from a physiological event called "Valsalva Maneuver" while sitting on the toilet. Guralnick, one of the most important Elvis biographers, has studied all official medical reports about the death of Elvis before drawing his own conclusions. Therefore, his conclusions are of much importance. Onefortyone (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments"... You have been asking this same question on three different forums. If you are going to count how many "added" similar content as you, I would say that number is effectively very low compared to those who have removed these few opinions claimed to be facts by you. Not to mention that your sources/information are so unpopular and fringe that they are not recognized by anybody else other than you. Billy Smith was also pointing to Lamar Flike, "Lamar means well, and we never really"... especially when quote ends with "And he fell over, and, best I understand, he crawled several feet." Not that it seems to be any authentic. Lamar Flike says on the same book that "Elvis had that reading chair in the bathroom" and "From what I understand he was sitting there and the load hit him, and he fell forward. Some people say he was on the commode, not in a chair. If he'd fallen forward from the commode, he would have been directly in front of it. But he was in the middle of the room." Now debunked? Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it is understandable that the people around Elvis, for instance, Lamar Fike (not Flike) from the Memphis Mafia, tried to hide the real circumstances of Elvis's death. Therefore, the opinion of the singer's first cousin, Billy Smith, is of much importance, as he says, "Lamar means well, and we never really wanted to say this, but Elvis was actually sitting on the toilet, with his pajama bottoms down." And most Elvis biographers are buying his version, as the many reliable sources I have cited show. I am aware that these sources are "unpopular" among Elvis fans. However, what counts on Wikipedia is what is written in the mainstream biographies, not the view of a fan like Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How you know that Lamar is unreliable if you take other individual to be reliable but not him? Some reliable source said it? Excelse 06:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an eyewitness account by Ginger Alden, the first person who found Elvis slumped over on the bathroom floor: "Elvis looked as if his entire body had completely frozen in a seated position while using the commode and then had fallen forward, in that fixed position, directly in front of it. ... It was clear that, from the time whatever hit him to the moment he had landed on the floor, Elvis hadn't moved." See Ginger Alden, Elvis & Ginger: Elvis Presley's Fiancée and Last Love Finally Tells her Story (New York: The Berkeley Publishing Group 2014). Onefortyone (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And how that would fulfill the criteria of reliable source? She was not the only witness and she is contradicting the actual investigation report, thus unreliable like other sources of yours. You realize that these few are not enough compared to nearly every source that contradicts your theory? Excelse (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are questioning the reliability of the only eyewitness who found Elvis in exactly the position in which he died and before his dead body was moved into a different position by others who in vain attempted to restore him to life. Very interesting. Concerning the official investigation report, it has not yet been published in its entirety, as the autopsy report belongs to Elvis's estate, not to the state. At Vernon Presley's request, the results will remain sealed until the year 2027. In his recent study, Elvis Presley: A Southern Life (2014), Joel Williamson has shown that it was only Dr Francisco who told the news people that Elvis apparently died of heart failure. However, when this was said the pathologists were still working on the body. "They knew that he did not die of the usual causes, and they knew that addiction to drugs was the probable cause, but they could say nothing with confidence until they got the results back from the laboratories, if then. That would be a matter of weeks." "Dr Muirhead thought that Francisco would say that they would need to study the lab results before they could complete the autopsy and offer their judgment. Instead, Francisco opened with the flat statement that 'the results of the autopsy are that the cause of death is cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat.' Muirhead could not believe his ears. Francisco had not only presumed to speak for the hospital's team of pathologists, he had announced a conclusion that they had not reached." "Early on, a meticulous dissection of the body revealed what Elvis did not die from. It was not heart failure, stroke, cancer, or lung disease— the usual killers. It also confirmed what his doctors already knew: Elvis was chronically ill with diabetes, glaucoma, and constipation. As they proceeded, the doctors saw evidence that his body had been wracked over a span of years by a large and constant stream of drugs. They had also studied his hospital records, which included two admissions for drug detoxification and methadone treatments. Over time, Elvis had, in effect, been poisoned. The bloated body, the puffy eyelids, and the constipation reflected the slow death." So Frank Coffey has written in his Elvis biography "that Elvis died from polypharmacy — multiple drug ingestion. Other examinations of the evidence have yielded other plausible causes of Elvis' death, including: a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use)." Elvis's personal physician and a doctor from the autopsy team come to similar conclusions. Onefortyone (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wired magazine story and insistence by editors to follow apparent misrepresentation
At the Kevin Folta article, content was added that misrepresented the Union of Concerned Scientists as having made a statement against the FOIA requests against Kevin Folta, implying this source which doesn't mention Folta or these specific FOIA requests at all. When i questioned this misrepresentation of the UCS source, an editor introduced an Wired article that claims that a blog post by a UCS member is a UCS organizational position statement. The Wired article says:

(In the above quote in the original, "February 20 statement" links to this blog post.)

In general, i respect Wired magazine as a reliable source, but here, in this one point, it's clearly mistaken in representing this blog entry as a UCS "comment" which implies an approved organization position statement.

So, the question at hand is this: Wired is generally a reliable source, but does this mean that Wikipedia editors can force content based on an obvious misrepresentation in a Wired article into Wikivoice on a controversial article, and then demand that other editors provide another reliable source to contradict this mistake, in order to remove it? That is where the dialogue on the talk page went. I pointed out this distortion of reality in the article, and the response by other editors was to demand that i provide a reliable source saying that this blog post is actually not an organizational UCS position statement. Is that good Wikipedia editing practice, or is it onerous? Is there a guideline that speaks to this?

The full discussion on the Kevin Folta article's talk page is here.

My reason for posting here is to ask about guidelines and policy in how we treat generally reliable sources in which there are apparently an error. Are we as editors obliged to find opposing reliable sources to point out the error, in order to prevent another editor from including the error if they insist on it? Or can we simply not use the claim that's disputed?

Thanks for any comment. SageRad (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One approach would be to tag it with . DrChrissy (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because a source says something doesn't mean our hands are tied. You'd need a reliable source to say in the article that Wired is wrong. Other editors should be willing to consider any kind of evidence that a source is mistaken. Rhoark (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To play devil's advocate here, how do we know this isn't their positional statement? There does not appear to be a disclaimer on this blog post saying these are her personal views.  Does the website clearly distinguish between personal blogs and positional statements?  That said, this blog/statement does not mention Kevin Folta and should not be used in that article.  The Wired piece appears to link to additional USC material so those materials should be used instead.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's part of the nuance where the "bloggers" in this case are in the same ballpark as editorial staff at a newspaper to represent the organization as they were selected to write rather than just open opinion pieces. It's different than the organization putting out an official position statement, but not to the point they aren't representing the organization. Other sources often refer to these articles listed under the blog as a response from the UCS specifically, so this is not the only source using that language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the author, Gretchen Goldman, is not just any member, but a lead analyst with the UCS's "Center for Science and Democracy". It's a relevant blog post, but it's still not a statement by UCS in general. Looking at the UCS articles tagged with "FOIA" gives some idea of the nuanced position of UCS which was misrepresented when the article followed the Wired article's lead saying "UCS decried the FOIA requests" whereas the reality was that an opinion piece by one of their lead analysts called the request "overly broad". This got twisted in the article into the following


 * That content mixed a UCS statement that was unrelated to the FOIA requests in question with a blog post that didn't say what was said, and then a previously uncited Wired article was used by an editor to justify this. SageRad (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems a textbook case of WP:SYNTH.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the used the Wired source as a reference, which had previously been used in other parts of the article (Wired). If this was a misunderstanding as to what source was being used for the information, I hope this clears it up. Adrian [232] 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

← Even by the standards of incessant squabbling that prevail on GMO articles, this seems like a silly dispute. The fix is as simple as adding two or three words to the text: "An analyst from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA request..." Come on. MastCell Talk 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is that is not how secondary sources characterize it. Another source (retractionwatch.com) uses the same language, "The Union of Concerned Scientists posted its own response August 14 . . ." indicating that secondary sources are attributing these posts to the UCS. If the primary sources were being focused on the attribution would have more consideration, but that's not what's being used here contrary to some synthesis comments above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43, i think the argument that one other source linking to a UCS blog and saying "UCS says" isn't a strong enough argument that blog posts by UCS staffers are official UCS statements. SageRad (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) @MastCell, the article does not mention Folta. To add it is SYNTH. The article would, however, be useful for an addition to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, since it mentions BP's intimidation of Woods Hole researchers. Is my interpretation of SYNTH mistaken?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this article is being referenced here at all. The source has always been the Wired article at here which does in fact talk about Folta, and the UCS is clearly talking about a case that involves Folta. Adrian [232] 21:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, here i must admit to a mistake in my framing of this issue. The original source does appear to be the Wired article. I think that i was fooled because the text' of the content said "in a February 2015 statement" and then i looked up their 2015 statement on FOIA requests, and noticed that it said nothing about Folta or the other USRTK requests at all. Sorry for that mistake, Adrian. I swear it was an honest one. However, i remain concerned about misrepresentation of a general UCS position or "statement" when the source that Wired refers to is a blog post among by one of their lead analysts, and basically says the requests were "inappropriate" because they were "overly wide" and in other blog posts on the same topic by UCS staffers, similar nuanced expressions about the FOIA requests are echoed. I don't know if "decried" is an accurate verb. SageRad (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you should keep the UCS contributor statement in some form. Writing for the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)s' blog, Gretchen Goldman decried the FOIA requests made by USRTK against researcher Kevin Folta. Goldman is a regular author of UCS reports, Folta is a professor of food and agriculture science, and the USRTK is an anti-GMO advocacy group. Wired attributed Goldman's statement to UCS overall. you removed Goldman's comment on Folta's page, but the appropriate action in my view would be to attribute the statement to Goldman, who regularly authors reports for UCS. Relevant to this issue is the fact that Goldman has a close relationship with UCS, and the content on Folta's page effectively comes to his defense and explains his position, surely important for a WP:BLP. -Darouet (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WIRED was clearly wrong to attribute a blog post to the entire organization. The content on our WP page was:
 * The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science.
 * Sage was right to take issue with this framing, even though one WIRED article made the same mistake. I support the addition if the reader is told the actual source, as Darouet argues. Although a blog post is still just a blog post, and her standing within the UCS doesn't make it a broad statement, otherwise they would have posted it more prominently.
 * It's important, however, to look at weigh here. Scientists have a good reason to be defensive and to "decry", when you've got Kevin Folta literally saying stuff like "I'll sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like" to Monsanto reps. (pg 144 This is part of a series of emails uncovered by through the FOIA request. )   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow - thanks for the NYTimes link. As someone who strongly supports GMO technology (but not necessarily GMO companies - a totally different thing) I believe that Folta's well documented links to the agriculture and GMO industry should be documented here. -Darouet (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind people of WP:BLPSTYLE's advice to beware of accusations of guilt by association. The NYT did not use that quote in their article, but that quote is frequently being cherry-picked by people pushing a particular POV, leading to the harassment of the subject of the BLP. And this is the precise reason why so many scientists are jumping out in support of Folta and against the use of FOIA in this manner, particularly by activists who are funded by industry advocacy groups as is the case here. Adrian [232] 07:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Moments ago, as a result of this, I went searching and found this, an Op-ed in the LATimes where scientists defend transparency:
 * Besides, sometimes the bullies have a point. A few months back, the Union of Concerned Scientists called out a small nonprofit funded by organic food growers for sending FOIA requests to several dozen pro-GMO scientists; it claimed that the requests were inappropriate and implied that they constituted harassment. But these emails revealed that at least one of the scientists, Kevin Folta, had some of his expenses picked up by Monsanto, despite claiming that he had "nothing to do" with the company.
 * And this, in PLOS.
 * Last week, Nature reported that the University of Florida had provided them with emails that U.S. Right to Know had FOIA’d on one of their researchers. Written by the same journalist who had reported on the FOIA request previously for Science, the story noted that the researcher has received money from Monsanto to fund expenses incurred while giving educational talks on GMOs. The article also noted that the PR Firm Ketchum had provided the scientist with canned answers to respond to GMO critics, although it is unclear if he used them.
 * The article does not report that the scientist has repeatedly denied having a financial relationship with Monsanto. The article also does not report on an email titled “CONFIDENTIAL: Coalition Update” from the researcher to Monsanto in which the scientist advised Monsanto on ways to defeat a political campaign in California to require labeling of GMO products.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * you're absolutely right that we should be careful not to imply "guilt by association," or anything rashly. But if it can be documented carefully, Folta's associations at least (not necessarily guilt), should be noted. I'm not sure exactly what that will mean in the context of appropriate weight, reliable sources, and the fact that this is a BLP. -Darouet (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding weight given to Folta's association with Monsanto, know that this wouldn't be a BLP, there would be no reason for this scientist to have a WP page, were it not for the controversy he finds himself in. Here is the WP page as it first appeared, just prior to Folta editing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&oldid=679773826 Other BLPs, for instance Joseph Mercola and G. Edward Griffin, that have wide approval in the community, do not shirk from displaying controversies front and center. I am afraid Folta is getting special treatment and that editors pushing for NPOV and a factual article are being denigrated unfairly.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One has to wonder if this article shouldn't, in fact, be deleted altogether. Does one single controversy merit a WP page? Maybe, but does this one?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure Folta's being treated with kids' gloves - the issue occupies a major space on his page right now. I won't make any comment on notability generally, but even if he's notable for this event, we still have to tread carefully on his bio. -Darouet (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There seems to be a growing consensus on the Folta talk page to dismantle the BLP altogether, salvaging what we can, and that this incident really may not be sufficient reason to host a standalone article.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Worldnomads
Is World Nomads - https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/jordan/Crime-and-Terrorism-Jordan a reliable source for the statement 'As a result of the increased police and military presence to combat terrorism Jordan is one of the safest countries in the Middle East.", in 2005 Amman bombings? It seems to be a commercial travel insurance vendor, which hosts  travel-related blogs, but I am interested to learn if it meets our reliability guidelines. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the claim that something is safe is against business interests of insurance company. :-) On the other hand, for statements of this kind one does not an opinion of a business. If it is as safe as claimed, I am sure there should be plenty of non-partial (i.e., not related to travel business) sources, especially if the safety there is as exceptional as claimed. In any case this information belongs to "Tourism in Jordan" page. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

www.throng.co.nz
www.throng.co.nz is an astroturfing website (see http://www.throng.co.nz/about/). It's currently widely used as a source in New Zealand television articles, particularly soap opera and reality tv related ones. Particularly problematic, appear to be the cut-and-paste sharing of Nielsen ratings, which I strongly suspect to be a copyright infringement of this proprietary info. Am I correct in thinking that this site should not be used at all? If so I'm planning on removing most of them. A sister site has previously been discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not be used. DreamGuy (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Worldnomads
Is World Nomads - https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/jordan/Crime-and-Terrorism-Jordan a reliable source for the statement 'As a result of the increased police and military presence to combat terrorism Jordan is one of the safest countries in the Middle East.", in 2005 Amman bombings? It seems to be a commercial travel insurance vendor, which hosts  travel-related blogs, but I am interested to learn if it meets our reliability guidelines. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the claim that something is safe is against business interests of insurance company. :-) On the other hand, for statements of this kind one does not an opinion of a business. If it is as safe as claimed, I am sure there should be plenty of non-partial (i.e., not related to travel business) sources, especially if the safety there is as exceptional as claimed. In any case this information belongs to "Tourism in Jordan" page. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

www.throng.co.nz
www.throng.co.nz is an astroturfing website (see http://www.throng.co.nz/about/). It's currently widely used as a source in New Zealand television articles, particularly soap opera and reality tv related ones. Particularly problematic, appear to be the cut-and-paste sharing of Nielsen ratings, which I strongly suspect to be a copyright infringement of this proprietary info. Am I correct in thinking that this site should not be used at all? If so I'm planning on removing most of them. A sister site has previously been discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not be used. DreamGuy (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Help in a discussion
I need some help here. I'm in a discussion at Draft_talk:The_Crown_of_Ptolemy. The article is at AfC and while I do think that the work is overall notable, there's some question over whether or not we should use self-published sources (blogs, etc) to back up claims of popularity. My problem with using these is that while the SPS aren't being used to show notability, they still have issues with verification. They're opinions, but we can't use them because we can't verify them like we could a post in a newspaper or other trusted source. (My point was that anyone could write a blog, meaning that someone could be writing it simply to promote the material, have taken the material from elsewhere, or other issues common to SPS.)

There was also questions over whether or not to use an author's blog post about the book. My opinion on that was that if the author is notable, we have more wiggle room about that since a review/article from a notable person's blog could hold more weight. It might not be notability giving, but it could potentially be seen as reliable enough to use. I was going to see if I could find enough sourcing to justify an article for the author, but I haven't had the chance to do that.

Also in question is whether or not the site Geek Insider is usable as a RS. The site's contact page does mention an editorial staff, but gives no information about the staff or the editorial process - it just says that they have one. I tried searching to see if there's any coverage or mentions of the site elsewhere, but I don't really see anything out there, which doesn't really help establish that it's a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines.

Finally, bestseller lists are also questioned. These were recently added as a notability giving RS to WP:NBOOK, but merchant bestseller lists were specifically excluded because they're frequently dynamic (meaning that there's no set list date like there is for the NYT) and can be swayed easily. Because they're so hard to actually verify and keep up with, they were specifically excluded from the criteria as a reliable or notability giving source. The only one that might be potentially usable is this one from iTunes, but even then that's sort of iffy. Another thing that was brought up (although this might be more appropriate for the NBOOK talk page) is the question of whether or not a NYT bestseller list for the entire series could be used to show notability and popularity for the specific work. My thought on this is that while a series' overall notability arguably should give an individual work at least a tiny bit of notability, this is not currently part of the guidelines and as such cannot be used to actually verify notability for an individual piece of the series.

There's other stuff up for debate on the page and I'd prefer that a more full discussion take part on the talk page itself, but I wanted to get something started here as well. Again, I'm not arguing that the book is non-notable (I personally think that it is), just that the sourcing that was in the article (which I'd removed) wasn't usable/reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I just don't like the idea of using SPS and other potentially unreliable sources on an article because people do model articles after pre-existing articles, so it'd be easy for someone to argue that a source is usable and could give notability because they've seen it on another page. Plus this also opens the floodgates for people to add their SPS to articles, claiming that if X blog is used, why can't they add their's (or someone else's). It's not a science article, but we still need to be able to have verifiable sources like we would on a science article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I judge books using worldcat, which is the union catalogue of all the large / very large automated libraries in the English speaking world. http://www.worldcat.org/title/crown-of-ptolemy/oclc/920829407 gives three holdings, which is laughable, even for a self-published ebook. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Louis E. Johnson

Reference: http://www.discogs.com/artist/321966-Louis-Johnson

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not reliable source?
Please comment at Talk:Muslim_history_in_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. We have vast academic sources on all aspects of history, and snippets from government bureaux have zero value, since they are simplistic, spun, and dumb. I've fixed the edit content by using a few obvious sources for that period, which anyone who wanted to add such content could have done with a few seconds googling Google Books. Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur. Government info, if used, needs to be put in context by a historian. Same goes for memoirs. Both governments and individuals are 'interested parties.'--K.e.coffman (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not for history, its a reliable source for the views of the Israeli government, but thats it.  nableezy  - 21:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reliable - there should be plenty of other reliable sources pertaining to all aspects of Israeli history. We shouldn't rely on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website for that type of historical information.  Government pages are full of bureaucratic information and there is no way we could 100% trust information stated on their page. Like one of the above users has already stated, the government is considered an "interested party."  Hope this helps and good luck. Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As others have said, it's not reliable for statements of fact. It could be used as a WP:PRIMARY source for the views of the Israeli government, with appropriate inline citation (eg. "The position of the Israeli government on this is that..."), but not for stating facts directly about third parties.  And even when just describing its views, it would be best to have a secondary source to establish that those views are relevant, since not everything a ministry publishes is going to matter -- there's a risk if WP:OR if a user is digging through primary sources and pulling out anything that backs their viewpoint, since generally we're supposed to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources for that.  Given the high profile of the conflict, any claims or counterclaims of any significance ought to have extensive coverage by secondary sources anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason editors posted here? I mean, the first post clearly asked to comment at Talk:Muslim_history_in_Palestine! Debresser (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

An Poblacht as reliable source??
I would like to know if An Phoblacht ("AN") or its American cousin, The Irish People, are considered reliable reflinks, as certain editors, @Gob Lofa at the moment comes to mind, continue to use or maintain such links. "AN" is an Irish republican propaganda mill, edited by the IRA Army Council. I will add more as it becomes available. Quis separabit? 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Tim Pat Coogan, an expert on the IRA, wrote in his The IRA ("Green Book" section) that SF and the IRA (the Provisional IRA after the split) are "inextricably linked".
 * Judge Haight (U.S. Justice Department) ordered NORAID to register as an agent of the Irish Republican Army and demanded in court that the group issue more detailed reports of where its money comes from and how it is disbursed. NORAID's chief at the time was Martin Galvin, publisher of The Irish People, the American version of An Poblacht. Noraid claimed it [had] channeled $1 million to Irish charity [sic] since 1972. In court papers submitted before Haight, the government said it could not figure where the money went. The Justice Department also noted that Noraid had listed the Northern Aid Committee of Belfast as its 'foreign principal', but had never bothered to give a street address for it. ... No one in Belfast ever saw or heard of it", a Justice Department spokesman in Washington said. The [U.S.] government said a search of Noraid documents failed to come up with any correspondence to or from the Belfast committee. No canceled checks were found indicating money had been sent to the Belfast committee, the Justice Department said, and there was no proof the money had even left the country."
 * "Along the way, Noraid officers Daniel Cahalane and Neil Byrne were convicted of illegal transportation of arms. Michael Flannery, a Noraid director, was arrested and charged with conspiracy to ship arms to the IRA. A document submitted as coming from Noraid's Rochester, N.Y., chapter said, 'This is an authentic committee chartered by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (and the only one) to collect money for their cause. We guarantee that all monies collected will be used for that purpose. '
 * Charles J. Haughey [former Taioseach] of Ireland, said in 1980, "There is clear and conclusive evidence available to the government here from security and other sources that Noraid has provided support for the campaign of violence and indeed direct assistance in its pursuit ... On the basis of these activities, it stands condemned and I appeal to all in America who have the interests of Ireland at heart not to give this body any support financial or moral."
 * Sinn Féin is closely associated with the Provisional IRA, with the Irish Government alleging that senior members of Sinn Féin such as Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris, have held posts on the IRA Army Council. The US Government alleged that Sinn Féin and the IRA were linked (see Sinn Fein says IRA may cease to exist, Kennedy tells Sinn Féin to end links to IRA).

Quis separabit? 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear that in virtually all contexts, An Plobacht is not a reliable source. An exception could be for the position of Sinn Féin. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of the above bulleted points, which seem to be about Sinn Fein and the IRA, not An Poblacht or The Irish People. Both magazines are clearly reliable sources, in the sense that they have a clear editorial structure, carry serious journalism and are accountable for their news articles. All news sources have a bias and that does not make them "unreliable" per se. Sionk (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sionk: RE: "All news sources have a bias and that does not make them 'unreliable' per se." -- well, that is your OR, but even if true, that is not what I am questioning/contesting. Sinn Fėin is the political wing of the Provisional Irish Republican Army -- according to The IRA ("Green Book" section) by Coogan, one of the most exhaustive 20th-century researchers of the IRA -- and who has his own increasingly blatant POV, an increasingly triumphalist support for the PIRA and vicious contempt for anyone, almost always "crypto-unionist" "colonial"s, according to the comments he made, commissioned by publisher Niall O'Dowd to mark the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising-- who take issue with anything he writes. Hence the lawsuit against him by Ruth Dudley Edwards, but I digress -- and it is a house organ of Sinn Féin, which is the political wing of the PIRA, to repeat myself. That is not unique -- Granma (in Cuba) and Pravda (in the USSR) were the house organs of the Communist Party (among many others, doubtless). Are/were they reliable? It is not even so much what they report as what they do not report, which is anything that would (have) redound(ed) negatively on the party or the PIRA. The sole exception was of the Poppy Day Massacre at Enniskillen, which the editors criticised tactically as "a disaster for the IRA". These are AP/RN mirror sites: cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com, longkesh.info, derrysinnfein.ie, republican-news.org, issuu.com, among others. How can a publication that always identified PIRA volunteers anonymously, was the beneficiary of information regarding PIRA activities, and published information (sometimes from stolen British military intelligence), putting certain individuals (Kevin Fulton) at risk of harm or death, possibly be seen as anything other than what it is? I don't object to the An Poblacht page's own (historically and traditionally) almost exclusively self-referencing reflinks in its Wikipedia article. I get that, and without them there would be almost no reflinks anyway, which kind of tells you something. Quis separabit?  02:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Sionk. I could not disagree with you more. Your answer is not based in policy found at WP:RS. An Poblacht (sic.) is the official publication of Sinn Féin. Could you clarify a)how and whom are the accountable for their news articles to b) in what contexts do you believe the publication to be reliable and c)how you define "serious journalism'? AusLondonder (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Their views generally represent those of Sinn Féin, and will in some contexts be useful for that. They should generally be identified in the text, and quotations may be best in many cases. They don't pretend to be a neutral news source, and are the publication of a political party. Nuff said. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments @Johnbod but not the snarky, dismissive "Nuff said". I think we have time to hear some more opinions. Quis separabit?  03:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, but not for the paranoid misreading of tone. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, John, thank you for your contributions, but not the flawed psychiatric analysis. Quis separabit?  03:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In effect it is a primary source for the views of the Sinn Fėin so use needs to take that into account. It would not be a reliable source for anything controversial relating to the politics of that organisation.  Snowded  TALK 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we agree it is a reliable source for the views of Sinn Fėin, however some editors such as User:Sionk had suggested it was completely reliable. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understood Snowded's point to be that it is a reliable source except where the views of SF are concerned. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And black is white Gog Lofa? What I said is very clear and AusLondonder and I are in agreement. Snowded  TALK 09:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I find Gob Lofa to be very disruptive, disagreeable and non-constructive regarding Northern Ireland issues. He disputes absolute basic facts as he is doing right now. He disputed the European Parliament source about Northern Ireland MEPs. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I understood "it is a primary source for the views of the Sinn Fėin so use needs to take that into account. It would not be a reliable source for anything controversial relating to the politics of that organisation" to mean that AP would not be a reliable source on this issue. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. Are you saying it is not reliable now? AusLondonder (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop playing silly games Gob Lofa. It's is childish (and that is a pattern on multiple editors from you). The meaning is clear and I'm not wasting any more time on explaining the obvious to an editor who really doesn't want to engage with other editors or the normal use of language  Snowded  TALK 10:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, in some instances, it's a primary source. See Identifying_reliable_sources. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying above is that the two newspapers represent a world view (Irish republicanism) which is one amongst many (and a popular one in many parts of Ireland). Simply because you may disagree with Irish republicanism (I'm guessing that you - AusLondonder and Quis separabit? - clearly do) doesn't make the view unreliable, or irrelevant. Of course their views have to be taken in context with other views from other commentators and publications. When I say the publications are reliable, I'm saying they have editorial oversight, employ journalists and are fully accountable for their views/articles - as the overview of WP:RS says "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians".

If you really want to debate the links between Sinn Fein and the IRA I'm sure there are many better, more suitable forums for this. Sionk (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know how a view can be unreliable; it is sources which count. If An Poblacht picks up stories from reliable sources then I have no problem with that, because the original reliable source is the one that should be used as it would be unnecessary to use a derivative source. Most of AP's stories are self-generated or derive from other republican propaganda mills or mirror sites (such as those mentioned above), or quotes from individuals (often anonymous, at least as concerned with anything related to the actual violence of the Troubles), and I know because I used to read it back in the day (as you wee ones put it) before it went digital. Quis separabit?  21:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "If you really want to debate the links between Sinn Fein and the IRA I'm sure there are many better, more suitable forums for this" -- That would be correct but that is not really what this is about, and it is kind of dismissive of you to ignore the question of the reliability of AP/RN (or just AP) as a source into some kind of a litmus test. Quis separabit?  21:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case I'm sure you wouldn't mind removing all of the bulletted points at the start of the discussion, which are all about the well-documented links between Sinn Fein and the IRA. They seem to be a distraction and nothing to do with the discussion of WP:RS. On your first response you have completely lost me. What on earth do you mean when you say the news articles are 'self generated'? Are you saying they're making them up?! The main news article on their site at the moment, just for example, is a report of a white poppy laying event in Dublin and quotes from two World War II veterans. Did they make this up? You can find similar stories about wreath-laying events (and quotes from veterans) in every major British and Irish news publication at the moment. Sionk (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The bulleted points were basically designed to point out the history of AP/RN, which was a focus of attention by the US Department of Juctice, which regarded the paper as being a PIRA owned and operated entity. I may not have gotten that message across the right way, but that's what it is. Quis separabit?  22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never expressed a view about republicanism in Australia, the UK or Ireland so it is presumptuous and uncivil of you to suggest you know my position Sionk. In fact, I obviously support the right of all people to self-determination. I seek to edit according to WP:NPOV. Given that I have no associations with the matter I feel that I have a more neutral view on this than certain editors. Again, I ask you who are they accountable to? Are they a member of a press regulator? Do they publish a wide range of opinions? How many full-time members of a journalists union do they employ? AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "How many full-time members of a journalists union do they employ?" Good point, AusLondonder. Not once I would have ever thought of so I must give credit, regardless of how this whole thing plays out, for your perspicacity. Quis separabit?  22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you have answered Sionk's questions. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I did, to the best of my ability; see comment dated 22:43, 11 November 2015. Quis separabit?  00:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Sionk's questions were "What on earth do you mean when you say the news articles are 'self generated'? Are you saying they're making them up?! The main news article on their site at the moment, just for example, is a report of a white poppy laying event in Dublin and quotes from two World War II veterans. Did they make this up?" Gob Lofa (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh........... OK.
 * Q:"What on earth do you mean when you say the news articles are 'self generated'? Are you saying they're making them up?!"
 * A: Many of the articles that appeared in The Irish People were traditionally credited to AP/RN, which in turn rarely provided bylines from reputable news organs or sometimes didn't even have columnists' or authors' names. And as far as making things up, let's just say that I have made it clear that AP/RN has traditionally been an Irish republican propaganda mill. That, by 2015, AP has expanded its coverage somewhat (i.e. the "white poppy laying event in Dublin and quotes from two World War II veterans", which is very nice, thanks for telling me about it, although I thought the Remembrance Day poppy is red) and/or been able to take advantage of declassified information, is not saying much. AP is what it is, no matter how you try to enhance it. Quis separabit?  00:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at the articles on the front page of An Phoblacht's website; all have the columnists' names. I'm not disputing they turn out propaganda (they're pretty open about that); I am disputing that this somehow sets them apart from bigger Irish papers like the Independent, and that this is the same as making things up. You're right, it is what it is. And so are the rest. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, it is 2015. That they now feature all their columnists' names and even have advertisers would hardly be a monumental accomplishment for a normal reputable publication. I can't speak to the Irish Independent and don't know what kind of propaganda you claim they are pushing. Quis separabit?  01:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's 2015, so why are you objecting to its use as a source? As for the Independent, it's all ahead of you. You could start here: Sunday_Independent_(Ireland). Gob Lofa (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying two contradictory things about AnP; that we can't trust it, and that we don't need it anyways because we can reference other papers instead for the same events. What's worse, neither is true. For example, I haven't seen that story about the laying of the white poppy (distinct from the militarist red one) wreath by the anti-war veterans in any other paper. And please don't refer to Independent News and Media papers as reputable again. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not insult the Remembrance Day poppy. It is not "militaristic" -- a term of denigration here -- but honors and pays tribute to the military war dead and lost. Is the Easter Lily militaristic because it is a symbol of the Easter Rising? The red poppy represents the blood spilled in war, as opposed to the Salvation Army's use of the color to symbolize Jesus's sacrifice on the cross as per Christian doctrine, but that does not make it militaristic. I respect the antiwar white poppy in and of itself but not as a bowdlerized Remembrance Day tribute if that is what the AP article in question to which you made reference was about. Quis separabit?  20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never read the Irish Independent as far as I know and your disdain for it for whatever reason(s) is your own business. As far as AP/RN or AP go -- you're right I don't trust it. Given its sordid history and bias I don't think it should be used if other references exist. If there is a story which is encyclopedic, unbiased, and which only AP has covered then I guess it would be a valid source but that remains hypothetical as far as I can discern. (I will check out the poppy story.) As to "And please don't refer to Independent News and Media papers as reputable again" -- please don't dictate terms to other editors, especially when they have no idea what you are talking about. If you contend that the Irish Independent is NOT a reputable or reliable news organ then open an action and get a majority to agree with you (I don't care one way or the other) and extirpate its links by bot from this encyclopedia. Quis separabit?  16:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeking such extirpation; I bring it up to show you that, despite its sordid history and continued lapses into bias, I recognise the Independent's value as a source of journalism. It may try to spin things to make its friends look good and its enemies look bad, but it can only go so far; it's still a newspaper. So it's generally reliable, if not quite reputable. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure whether this is going anywhere now. It seems to be drifting off the main topic (which was never really addressed in the first place). If the original question was generated by a disagreement about the content of a specific article, then maybe there is a better forum than this one where specifics can be addressed. If anyone disagrees with Irish republicanism, it doesn't mean they have a right to silence it. That would simply be denying a sizeable minority of the population of Ireland a voice. Sionk (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect @Sionk -- I believe I have some more to add then we can close, I guess, as no new editors have appeared. I have to do some more research and text to compose. A little while longer won't make a difference, this issue and certainly the larger ones date back a long, long time, so no reason to rush now. My workload on Wikipedia has been increased by a third party and I need to hear back so I can know how to proceed. Yours, Quis separabit?  21:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sionk: RE: "If anyone disagrees with Irish republicanism, it doesn't mean they have a right to silence it. That would simply be denying a sizeable minority of the population of Ireland a voice" -- that comment might hold water if it were a true refection of the conflict dispute here. This is about Wikipedia not electoral politics. It is about whether or not a source in question (in this case, AP/RN or AP) is reliable and encyclopedic in nature. I have posited and argued that it is not -- for various reasons, including who owns it; who controls its news reporting and/or editorship; whether it relies on reliable sources itself in its news reporting; whether it is a genuine tool of journalism or a propaganda mill, etc. This is independent of any other publication's reliability, which would entail a separate and distinct noticeboard discussion. Some editors have drawn attention to an ostensibly different style or quality of journalism in AP, than that which was present in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s when it plainly and blatantly was the propaganda wing of the PIRA, does this mean we accept new news articles from AP while banning those from before some arbitrary date or year? That does not seem feasible. Quis separabit?  20:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you've successfully avoided making any of these arguments. A publication may be unreliable in your eyes because you don't like its point of view, or don't like who controls editorial policy, but that is surely not a definition of 'reliability' (that sounds more like AusLondonder's concerns about NPOV, which can be addressed by using news sources from all points of view). You have repeated that you think its sources are unreliable, but you don't explain what you mean by that (I asked whether you thought they simply made all their news stories up). Your argument that "it is the paper of Sinn Fein, who have links to the IRA, therefore it is the paper of the IRA" is your own synthesis. I assume you will continue to take the view that any publication that has supported the IRA/PLO/ANC/PKK etc. position is 'unreliable'?! Sionk (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sionk: "I'm sorry, but you've successfully avoided making any of these arguments" -- I don't understand -- seriously -- what this means.
 * For me, I have made my arguments as best and as cogently as I can. I am not an expert at debate or apologetics or tautologies. As far as your comment that a "publication may be unreliable in your [i.e. my] eyes because you [I] don't like its point of view, or don't like who controls editorial policy, but that is surely not a definition of 'reliability'", that sounds reasonable but if "who controls editorial policy" means that an entity regarded by international law as terrorist in nature, not even merely seditious or subversive, then yes I consider that to be a mark of unreliability. AP or AP/RN was regenerated in the 1970s as a propaganda outlet for the Provisional IRA, exactly as Pravda (Cuba) and Granma (USSR), and many others I am sure whose names I don't know, were for their respective movements, in their own times. The only difference would be that Cuba and Russia are recognized nations, but the PIRA is not a country or a nation but a philosophy which is not avowed by any legitimate government, including the Republic of Ireland. Do you consider Pravda and Granma to be reliable sources? If ISIS and Hamas were to establish their own media outlets, would they be considered reliable? I am not comparing the IRA to ISIS, I hasten to add, lest anyone take offense. Quis separabit?  01:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You reckon we should only use corporate media? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean the "mainstream media", or is that something different? No, I reckon we should use reliable media. I mean, I disagree, for instance, with The Nation, but I still could not impeach it as a reputable source. BTW, I read the article about the white poppies. Interesting but still propaganda and referring only to WW1, not WW2. I also browsed through these article among others . AP is reliable, I guess, in the sense that it is mostly consistent (which is one dictionary definition of reliability) but I cannot say more. Quis separabit?  01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Using terms like 'corporate media' or 'mainstream media', is not an argument. It's a cheap trick used by politicians and pundits to simply apply a derogative label instead of going through the effort to argue a point. Please try better at making your point. This is an encyclopedia. We should be better than politicians. Objective3000 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

sources for touring with a band
An editor made an addition Dan Johnson (musician):
 * In late 2015, Johnson performed in multiple shows with American rock band Seasons After.

I don't mind the use of Facebook as a source here, although I know many others would. The problem is that the three sources are images and do not mention the subject, except one in a user-added comment that is unclear. Are these reliable? Do I need to be improved? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * https://www.facebook.com/danjohnsondrummer
 * https://www.facebook.com/1005KTED/photos/a.160298554078745.32404.106599749448626/830196423755618
 * https://www.facebook.com/seasonsafternation/info?tab=page_info


 * I think the main issue here is that Facebook is a self-publishing platform, and that it's thus not a WP:RS for practically anything except "X said Y on Facebook", and even then, it's not necessarily clear that Facebook accounts might belong to who they purport to belong to. Given that, the photo issue is secondary, and we need not consider its merits one way or another. -- The Anome (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Universal Life Church ministers
RFC started here on two questions, one of which is asking about a source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Linux Information Project
The article GNU Compiler Collection is using the Linux Information Project for the extraordinary claim that

"It [GCC] has been ported to more kinds of processors and operating systems than any other compiler"

Is this a reliable source? The Project promises in its Colophon that it employs "highly experienced writers and editors" but its articles are all anonymous and typically cite no sources.

The source has been marked with since April 2013. Linfo.org is used as a source on various other pages. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO the source is gravely outdated. (eg the page you cited is marked as last updated in 2006) And hence definitely not a valid source for this statement. It may be credible about basic technical information, but today we have way better sources about Linux. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * would you call this source reliable for an "as of 2006" statement? Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Formally, "as of" is your OR. We have no idea how it is maintained by the authors and what's the level its peer review.  Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Judging from this "native" page the number 60 is a gross underestimate. In addition, the number depends on how you count. I can easily count ~240, under some liberal detalization. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So basically would I agree with the statement, just attribute its authorship. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a source (I don't know if anyone has counted both) but for a lot of new processors the first compiler available is FORTH, because adapting FORTH to a new architecture is so easy. It may very well be that more systems run FORTH than GCC. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Today. Especially with blurred lines between processors/microprocessors/embedded systems, I bet nobody counted. But this is not the issue raised. Historical "pissing contest" claims are interesting for encyclpedia as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Omar Regan appearing in an independent non-notable film.
Omar Regan appears in Claws For Alarm, an independent film that is non-notable. The only evidence for this is the video itself.

Does this constitute reliable evidence that the actor appeared in said movie to allow for said movie to appear on their filmography?

Thanks :) -- Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Imagine+Wizard&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would merit inclusion, if the video itself is the only source. If absolutely no one else is writing about Regan being in this film, then it's not a very significant film, and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If he is in the credits of the film, that provides verification of his participation in the project. If he is not in the credits and identification of being in the film is by Wikipedians observing the film and stating "That looks like Omar Regan" then it is not appropriate verification. But in any case Verifiability - if no reliable sources have ever discussed his participation in the project, it is unlikely that it merits inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So he is in the credits of the film. Reading WP:ONUS, could argument be made that, considering the actor has appeared in relatively few films, including this appearance would ensure that the list is complete? -- Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Imagine+Wizard&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 05:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My own view would be it would not, since it's impossible to tell from the source alone (and without original research) if it's the same person, and it's not reliable (even ignoring the fact that it's a WP:PRIMARY source.) FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Solar Power Portal used for statement about a controversial solar farm
Can this page of the "Solar Power Portal" be used in the Rampisham Down article to support this statement:"On 9 July 2015 British Solar Renewables published the results of an ecological study of the site. The study, which British Solar Renewables had commissioned in February, stated that it was likely that the proposed farm would have 'no impact on the grassland at the site or the surrounding environment'. The study findings were backed by botanist Sir Ghillean Prance, who stated his confidence that British Solar Renewables would 'maintain and restore the habitat at Rampisham Down'."There is a brief discussion here which highlights some concerns, though it is perhaps worth pointing out that the recent history of the article has seemed to involve opposing factions. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

NYT obituary
Please comment at Talk:Israel_Meir_Kagan. Please notice that you are kindly asked to comment there, not here. I specify this, since the simple request to comment somewhere else has been misunderstood by some in the past as meaning they should comment here (yes, I was also taken aback by how people could be that careless), which led to discussion being held in distinct locations, with parties not being aware of each other. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to post here anyway to make it easier on those that are attempting to follow this discussion. The source in question appears to be this one: http://www.beyondbt.com/2006/11/03/the-chofetz-chaims-obituary/, a 2006 re-posting of the September 16, 1933 obituary of Israel Meir Kagan on someone's blog. - Location (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Difficulty confirming source used in several articles.
I was attempting to check for out of date URLs and found an unlinked reference, but cannot seem to confirm its existence. The reference reads: ''"Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union San Diego, Calif.: May 17, 1993. p. A.7''

It can be found supporting The San Diego Union-Tribune noted "the news report found seven U.S. churches - all with ties to Jack Hyles, it said - involved in sex scandals." in the article Preying from the Pulpit.

Three articles (Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana), and Hyles–Anderson College) contain an identical claim attributed to to the source and two others: [the Preying from the Pulpit news series] examined fresh claims of sex abuse in five different fundamentalist churches where church workers who molested children were traced back to Hyles-Anderson College.

There are a few things that trigger my skeptical circuitry. I find the wording of the title to be odd. The San Diego Union had merged with the Tribune prior to 1993 to form The San Diego Union-Tribune and quote is attributed to "The San Diego Union-Tribune". There appears to be some copy-paste in which content may not have been checked. I searched for the article, unsuccessfully, and that is sufficient to raise the concern that there is at least one significant error in the citation if it exists. I ran a search that was more than superficial, but which I do not consider exhaustive. While there is a reasonable chance that I'm the source of my own difficulties, I figure that this is important enough to warrant another opinion. I also realize that there may bigger issues which make one source into a minor detail, but this is the one I've been attacking futilely and sometimes cleaning up small details clarifies the bigger issues. If confirming the source is not an RSN issue, can you refer me to the appropriate forum? Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

United Ireland
I was watching a show that is based in Ireland. My knowledge of the Island is pretty slim so I clicked through several articles until I happened upon this one. One thing I noticed immediately is that this article stated that there was "strong support" for a United Ireland within the United States, and used this article as a source. This is a sneaky claim, as State legislatures only speak for their state. There is a stink of POV pushing all over this article, and a derailed review to verity the claims in the article match the sources is needed.Which Hazel? (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that anything connect to Niall O'Dowd is definitely POV-pushing. Quis separabit?  00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BLPSELFPUB question
Just would like clarification if https://karenroseberryforsenate.wordpress.com/ is considered a reliable source for to United States Senate election in California, 2016 per WP:BLPSELFPUB. It seems to be, but just would like a second opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC) I would also be inclined to say not noteworthy for a majority of the information in the article. Lists of potential candidates are a little too close to what we are WP:NOT. We could do better by only listing the running candidates. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to say not reliable for the addition of this information. If this were an official website, or verified by an independent, secondary source, the opinion might be different; but I do not see how this can be verified as the true work of the person named.
 * Thanks for taking a look . FWIW, I agree with your "NOTNEWS" comment and would post at the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Is an Islamic Historian a reliable source for an Islamic Fascist's record, in Europe during WW2
Is Michael Sells, 'HOLOCAUST ABUSE:The Case of Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husayni,' Journal of Religious Ethics, 2015  Vol 43, No. 4, pp 723–759 a reliable source for Amin al-Husseini's role in WW2 and the historiography on him.

Sells has the John Henry Barrows Professor of Islamic History and Literature in the University of Chicago Divinity School. His curriculum is here He was awarded the 1997 American Academy of Religion Annual Book Prize for Excellence in Historical Studies, for one of his historical works, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia, University of California Press, 1996.

Notwithstanding all this, some editors deny he qualifies as WP:RS. See here on the talk page.

I find the objections unbelievable given this scholar's background and qualifications, and the fact that the paper in question not only covers the relevant scholarly literature in several languages, but harvests his research on primary sources in the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, and several other archives. Could experts in RS with no horse in this race assess the merits of this scepticism? Thank you Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Highly reliable. The author is an expert, working as an endowed chair at one of the top universities in the world, has written several books and countless papers, is well-cited, and the source in question is an article in an academic journal. No red flags, not even pink ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The endowed chair is with the School of Divinity - how is that relevant, let alone reliable, to the history of the Holocaust? Bad Dryer (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean this graduate school that is ranked number one in the field of the study of religion according to the National Research Council's measure of faculty quality in its survey of all doctoral granting programs in religious studies?  nableezy  - 16:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, that's the one. Are you saying the Study of Religion gives one expertise in the history of the Holocaust? Bad Dryer (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you admitting you haven't read the article? The essay is also about the Holocaust as part of what is called America's civil religion (see the first page). 'In recent years, American civil religion has come to embrace the memorialization of the Holocaust'. Tom Segev once argued that the Holocaust was the civil religion of Israel, understandably so. There's a notable literature on this, and it is the subject of extensive scholarly study by historians of religion. But this is immaterial. His chair is in History, and that it is in School of Divinity is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read the article, and I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth,as that makes you come off as some sort of bozo. The article is not being used to suport statements about this supposed "civil religion" of Israel or the USA, but about historical facts related to the Holocaust and Husseini's conduct during that period. I am interested in hearing how an endowed chair in religious studies of a school of divinity is a reliable source for those. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I never try to enlighten editors if they show a persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Everyone on Wikipedia knows that editing in the I/P area makes insane demands on any serious person's WP:AGF, commonsense and courtesy, as opposed to making no demands on one's intelligence, but, as someone noted, the reply to the question re RS I posed has met a unanimous agreement that the text in question is RS. One should not tilt against windmills in pursuit of the impossible, as here in trying to pettifog with patently specious objections.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, when you come here to a noticeboard, you are going to have to explain yourself, regardless of your (irrelevant) personal opinions of other editors. It is long established that there is no such thing as a carte blanche "reliable source" in a vacuum. A source may be reliable for one thing, but not another. That is why the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say that you must supply "The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: "text". Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".


 * You, and a couple of other editors who commented here, seem to not understand that basic concept. Alternatively, if they do understand it, they (and you) need to explain how an expert in ethics of religion can be used as a source for contentious issues related to Holocaust history. And, contrary to your false claim that there is unanimous agreement the that source in question is reliable for the text it is being used for, the only editor who properly examined this question according to the requirements (source, author and statement it is being used for ) -Rhoark-  said this is NOT an RS for those statements is not an appropriate use of this source. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, thats not what Rhoark said. He or she said The author and journal seem perfectly suited to the topic area He or she brought up another issue, not the reliability. But thanks for putting words in another editor's mouth moments after complaining about words being put in yours.  nableezy  - 18:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, I've amended my statement. Are you going to respond to the question I asked you? Bad Dryer (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think its already been answered by any number of people here. A well qualified historian writing an article in a peer reviewed journal that is specifically related to the topic of the article is a reliable source for that topic. Or the author and the journal seem perfectly suited to the topic area. Thats kind of a basic concept, if you need more explanation I can try to dumb it down for you.  nableezy  - 20:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think it has been answered. To be sure, people have been making assertions, as you are doing above, that this is a reliable source, but they haven't explained why or how. Take for example your assertion above that the source is 'a peer reviewed journal that is "specifically related to the topic of the article ". The topic of the article is Amin Al-Husseini, who was 'a Palestinian Arab nationalist' , and more specifically, the source is being used to evaluate his actions during World War II in the context of the Holocaust. I am very interested in learning how  the Journal of Religious Ethics, is "specifically related to the topic of the article' ". There no need to dumb anything down - just a need to answer the question. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I said the article is specifically related to the topic, not the journal. That would be foolish to think that there is a journal dedicated specifically to the study of Amin al-Hueseini. As far as why, well because thats what the policy says. 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. This is a peer-reviewed journal published by Wiley and edited by professors at Florida State. I dont think any of that is in dispute, and it fits exactly what the policy says is a reliable source, under the heading scholarship. The article is specifically about the topic of the subject of our article.  nableezy  - 04:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this thread is going to continue, i ask BadDryer to please be civil, and please listen more closely to Nableezy. I hear heavy contention here that is not needed, and not friendly. This should be a collegiate place. SageRad (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For what claims is he used? Rhoark (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see how he has been used by checking this revert and all that it excludes.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The author and journal seem perfectly suited to the topic area, but were mostly used to repeat rumors of which the source itself is apparently skeptical. That's undue. Rhoark (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. The author analyses the origin of the rumours. What source is skeptical? The phrasing is completely oblique.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that the source does support the claim in the article's content. The claim is not that Nazi's and Bosnian Muslims share those four traits, or that Germany had not colonized any Muslim people, but rather that Husayni said these things. The source certainly does that that Husayni said these things. The source supports the claim. It's another matter whether the source is reliable (i am included to think that it is on quick look), and it's another matter whether this content is due or WP:UNDUE. I happen to think it may be due, though i'm not very familiar with the topic area or the article. Another question is whether this source agrees with most other sources that may speak to this question, or if it's an outlier or significantly minority view. Another question is whether it's pushing a point of view or is rather neutral. It seems of historical note what sort of memes Husayni used to form this alliance of strange bedfellows, though the context is complex, but let's separate these questions out, in a spirit of generosity to each other. One thing at a time. SageRad (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether he's reliable for historical facts outside his area of expertise (which is Islamic Literature) and the area of study of the journal this was published in (Journal of Religious Ethics). For example, al-Husseini's role in the Holocaust, who supplied the information about him and and what he allegedly did, and other general stuff like that. All this unattributed and stated as fact in the encyclopedi'a neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure experts in RS are required. Any old fool could tell this is a reliable source. Brustopher (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * what exactly makes an academic journal dedicated to Religious Ethics a reliable source on the History of the Holocaust? Bad Dryer (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The page seized up and was flooded by reverters the moment I added that source. Since there is no sign of commonsense policy application and numerous blow-ins are reverting Sells, the appropriate place to get a neutral assessment and consensus on him is here. So wide input would be appreciated.  Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note this source is now being used in various BLPs, such as here and here. Is this guy now also an expert on current events, or are we extending his Islamic Literature expertise only to the Holocaust? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If a qualified academic historian publishes a history article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it is a reliable source. Everything else is basically irrelevant. Once we start deleting peer-reviewed professional literature because we don't like what it contains, the outlook for the encyclopaedia is very bleak. Incidentally, a summary version of Sell's article also appeared in the rather-right-wing Jewish magazine The Tablet; that is also a citable source but with the journal version at hand we don't need it. Zerotalk 00:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So any "qualified academic historian" (regardless of specific field) published in any peer-reviewed academic journal (regardless not only of field, but of discipline), is a reliable source for any historical event? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Operation Camel's Nose Into the Tent - Status: Probing.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, when you take an academic whose body of work is in the area of religion, who has a chair in a university dedicated to religious studies, and use something he published in a journal about ethics and religion as a source for historical fact unrelated to religion, you are opening the door to much worse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking about? Not Sells, who writes on thought, poetry, Islam, religious violence, Bosnia as an historian, more or less as Bernard Lewis did. We quote him more or less as we quote Lewis. If you actually read the article you might learn that Husseini was an Islamic religious figure, whose thought and actions are intimately related to his milieu, which is what historians study. Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating the silly comparison with Bernard Lewis as if that will make it true. Lewis is a historian of the Middle East. Sell's main focus is Religion and Literature.
 * You have now used Sell to make a point about Alan Dershowitz, a living person, with information so outside Sell's areas of expertise, it's not even funny. But no worries. As I've told you guys before, I don't care what the rules are, as long as they're applied equally to everyone. If the consensus here is that anything and everything published by an academic in a peer-reviewed publication is considered a reliably sourced, that's fine. Just don't be surprised when it happens somewhere you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs)
 * (a) Um, both literature and religion have histories, and historians study them. Sells is a historian of both, that's why he got an endowed chair. If you can't grasp that ask any University graduate to spell it out for you. (b) I did what every editor who actually reads sources and contributes by adding information in them to the construction of articles, note several useful remarks relevant to other articles in Sell's paper. I duly added them. Sells quotes Dershowitz's book, and then comments on one of D's theses. So I added both the remark from Dershowitz regarding Palestinians and Husseini, and Sell's comment to the criticism section. This is absolutely normal for anyone who actually contributes to articles.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, literature and religion have histories, and if Sells was being used as a source on history of religion and/or literature, I don't think I'd have an issue with it, even though I doubt he qualifies as an "historian". But he's not. He's being used as a source on the history of the Holocaust, a topic he doesn't seem to have any qualification for. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the reference to "Operation Camel's Nose..." etc. SageRad (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, two of you have repeated that a dozen times. All other editors disagree. Let's wait for more external input.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Sells is the John Henry Barrows Professor of Islamic History and Literature at the University of Chicago's divinity school. His about page at the university says: "His work on religion and violence includes: The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia; The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy, which he coedited and to which he contributed; "'Armageddon' in Christian, Sunni, and Shia traditions," Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence (2012): 467-495; and  "Finhas of Medina: Islam, 'the Jews', and the Construction of Militancy," in Fighting Words: Religion, Violence, and the Interpretation of Sacred Texts, ed. John Renard, (University of California Press, 2012): 101-134." He is about as eminent a scholar of the history of religion and violence as one can find. Husseini, the subject of the Wikipedia article in question, was a prominent and important religious figure in Jerusalem. He published a peer reviewed article about Husseini's connection to the Holocaust (an act of violence if ever there was one) that is being objected to. Sells' CV speaks for itself. Any objection to his reliability as a historian, commenting on Husseini, is beyond insane. Trying to disqualify his use as a source on a website that cobbles together endless second-rate news articles and partisan sources in its articles, should be grounds for an immediate topic ban. That it won't be, and that this type of gamesmanship is tolerated, is why serious people don't contribute here.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dan Murphy. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sells is obviously reliable for matters relating to Husseini, for the reasons given by Dan Murphy. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like he is eminently qualified. I think you'd need a time machine to be more qualified. Objective3000 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there other sources that contradict the claim being sourced here? Is there any reason to believe that the claim in question is POV pushing, and that the Sells source is unreliable because it's a POV source? Why is this question being contested in the first place? If these are concerns, then let us open up the questions honestly, instead of dickering about whether a scholar in a divinity school can write reliably about history, and let's name the issues explicitly if there are any. SageRad (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * reliable source. demands that someone be a chair in Amin al-Husseini's Islamic Fascism During the Holocaust to be considered a reliable source on Islamic Fascism during the Holocaust is just ridiculous. Well qualified academic in a reliable source without any indication of this particular information being a claim that is outside of academic mainstream (and even if there is opposition to his position, he is significant enough that not including his interpretation would be WP:NPOV violation of not representing the major viewpoints) and a big WP:TROUT to Bad Dryer.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you having fun yet erecting these strawmen in order to knock them down? I did not suggest that he needs to have a chair in Amin al-Husseini's Islamic Fascism During the Holocaust. But I did suggest, correctly, that the peer reviewed journal being hailed here as proof of reliability, should be an academic journal devoted to history of the Holocaust, or to history of World War II, or at a minimum to history of Europe, rather than you know, being a journal of religious ethics. And similarly, I would like the good professor to be an actual historian of the Holocaust, or of WWII, or of European history, rather than, as he describes himself on his CV - a " Professor of the History and Literature of Islam,"  WP:TROUT right back at you.
 * I concur with No More Mr Nice Guy - if the consensus here is that an academic, regardless of field of expertise, is a reliable source for any materiel he publishes in an academic journal, regardless of journal focus, that's fine. It opens the door to many things I would have liked to use but have refrained form, apparently based on a misunderstanding of reliable sources. I will refer back to this discussion as support for the above position. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 'I concur with No More Mr Nice Guy - if the consensus here is that an academic, regardless of field of expertise, is a reliable source for any materiel he publishes in an academic journal, regardless of journal focus, that's fine.'
 * No, that is not what the consensus is affirming. Anyone knows that, as Kingsindian often points out, evaluation of RS appropriateness is contextual, and not an iron rule, for the simple reason that RS scholars -experienced editors should recall many examples-can err even in their own areas of specialization. The consensus here is that Michael Sells's field of expertise extends to writing about an Islamic figure, known for preaching religious reasons for violence. He is an historian with a published and much cited record for studies and a book, on ethnic conflict and religious violence, and that is sufficient. Only 4 editors deny his qualifications extend to this area:13 affirm that they do. That doesn't translate into the reading both you and NMMGG are making, which is a distortion of what most editors are arguing.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Sell's article is being used to support statements related to religious reasons for violence? We both know that is not true. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I suggest no such thing. Learn to read what I write.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Sells's field of expertise extends to writing about an Islamic figure, known for preaching religious reasons for violence." - but that's not what we're using him for. You have, as one example, used the Sells article to introduce negative commentary about a living person, in order to accuse them of preaching discredited narratives. Does Sells' expertise extend to that? Bad Dryer (talk)
 * As I said 'learn to read'. I also wrote:
 * He is an historian with a published and much cited record for studies and a book, on ethnic conflict and religious violence, and that is sufficient.</blockquote
 * It is a rather dull predictably abused gambit in rhetoric to cherrypick and niggle to death perceived last minute implications that that might give one leverage in an otherwise spent argument. Henry Laurens, Bernard Lewis and Michael Sells are all experts on Middle Eastern history, societies and culture,  and we use them in the article when there is a nexus between that, and WWE2/the Holocaust. Your rhetorical gizmo is called 'grasping at straws'. The consensus is obvious, and you dislike it. To insist is to waste your time, and what is more important, that of other editors. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the notion that because he may have written something relevant in a different venue, he is automatically a reliable source for anything and everything he writes in an unrelated publication, like derogatory commentary about living persons. I believe that is an incorrect reading of WP:RS, and in that sense, yes I don't like the emerging consensus. But that said, as I wrote earlier, if that is the consensus, so be it. Just don't come running here to whine about an economist being used to debunk Palestinian's claims of poverty, or a professor of English or an historian of New England economy criticizing the scholarship of a Pro-Palestinian academic. That would be rather outrageous hypocrisy. Bad Dryer (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you two give it a rest? This is an informal forum: Brad Dyer is free to interpret the consensus here however he wants, but don't be surprised if other people don't share your reading. Try using that argument "because he may have written something relevant in a different venue, he is automatically a reliable source for anything and everything he writes in an unrelated publication" in any future discussion (linking to this one) and see if people share your reading of the consensus. My guess is that people will reply: "fat chance". Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure people will be quick to disavow the views and reasoning used here when it comes to views they don't like. Hence my prediction about the forthcoming hypocrisy, you proven case in point already having been presented, above. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop the hypocrisy accusations. The attempt to extract some leverage from a failure to convince anyone of your thesis, by opening up the floodgates with deductions that this thread means 'an academic, regardless of field of expertise, is a reliable source for any materiel he publishes in an academic journal, regardless of journal focus,' is wholly unfounded. No one said that, it is not implied. What this said is what everyone save 4 predictable editors said, i.e. Sells is an historian, and competent in the area he is used for.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will call a spade a spade. Sells is an historian of Islamic literature. That's his own self description, on his CV. He is being used to state, unattributed, in Wikipedia's voice, contentious claims about the history of the Holocaust, and about living people, two areas that are quite clearly outside his area of expertise, published in a journal of religious ethics. I can and will use the logic presented here in support of such usage to justify similar usage I have in mind, in areas you will no doubt find less palatable. And if you come here to whine about it, I will point out your hypocrisy. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Retorsive threats to 'get back' at perceived enemies, vindictiveness, claims of hypocrisy (WP:AGF)when your reasoning re RS here is totally at odds with your reasoning re RS here. 14 people say you, the other chap and someone else are plain mistaken. It's called WP:CONSENSUS and serious editors, while reserving their right to disagree, do not make threats, which is only evidence of  hissy resentment.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are fond of telling others, learn to read and comprehend what you are reading. In the argument you linked to above, I was sourcing facts to the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College, described as "an expert on the Israeli security establishment" talking about an IDF security operation, published by an academic press in a book deducted to "the history of Israeli security operations" . This is clear relevancy to the topic . If I was trying to cite some Israeli professor of Yiddish Literature (as you are doing here, in citing a professor of Islamic literature on historical events related to the Holocaust on on BLPs), then your analogy might have some validity, but as it is, you come off as some illiterate per-schooler. I recognize what the consensus is here, and will abide by it. I'm not making any threats- I am explaining to you what the natural consequence of such consensus will be. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And indeed, I looked at that page, and endorsed your judgement that the contested source was more than acceptable. I don't make judgements based on antipathy or animosity to editors or sources.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Zero citation in ISI shows that he is not a recognized expert Search in ISI database produces only four publications on political/religious subjects by this author (MA Sells) since 1998 (and five publications in 1995-1996). All of them have zero citation. Probably this source is OK for religious subjects, but the author is not a recognized expert in anything. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The author is not a recognized expert in anything." Astonishing. Blech. (For the ideologically driven folks here...

M ichael Sells CV 1 Curriculum Vitae MICHAEL A SELLS 2 6 S eptember 20 15 John Henry Barrows Professor of the History and Literature of Islam Professor of Comparative Literature University of Chicago Divinity School, Swift Hall 1025 E. 58 th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 msells@uch icago.edu EDUCATION The University of Chicago. . . . 1978 – 1982 . . . . . . Ph.D. 1982 Center for Arabic Studies Abroad, Cairo, Egypt. . . . 1977 – 1978 The University of Chicago. . . . 1976 – 1977 . . . . . . M.A. 1977 Gonzaga University . . . . . . . . 196 7 – 1971 . . . . . . A.B. 1971 (Florence Italy Program, 19 69 – 70) POSITIONS HELD • 7/05 – University of Chicago, John Henry Barrow Professor of the History and Literature of Islam, Divinity School; and since 2009, Professor of Comparative Literature at the University of Chicago. • 5/95 – 7/05 Haverford College, Professor of Religion and Emily Judson Baugh and John Marshall Gest Pro fessor of Comparative Religions . • (7/97 – 7/98 John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship, in residence) • 7/92 – 6/96 Haverford College, Chairperso n, Dept. of Religion. • 5/90 – 5/95 Haverford College, Associate Professor, Department of Religion. • 8/84 – 5/90 Haverford College, Assistant Professor, Department of Religion • 8/82 – 8/84 Stanford University, Andrew W. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow. • 8/72 – 6/7 4 Peace Corps, Tunisia. Lycée de Medenine. Lycée de Foum Tatahouine. M ichael Sells CV 2 HONORS • 2004 Choice “ Academic Book of the Year ” Award for The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy (Columbia University Press, 2004). • 2003 Andrew Mellon New Directions Fellowship: for Work on Religion and Conflict in Bosnia - Hercegovina. • 2002 Annual Selection of Approaching the Qur'an for the Required Book of the Year, University of North Carolina Summer Reading Program. • 2002 Paul Hanly Furfey Lectureship, Association for the Sociology of Religion. • 1999 Fulbright Fellowship to Morocco , Tunisia, and Sy ria. Project: Ibn `Arabi's classical heritage and contemporary influence. Spring, 2000, seven month award. • 1997 American Academy of Religion Annual Book Prize for Excellence in Historical Studies , to The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia, Pr esentation Ceremony, November 21, 1997, San Francisco, American Academy of Religion Annual Conference. • 1996 John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship for 1997 - 1998. Project Title: The Poetics of the Classical Arabic Qasida (Ode). • 1995 American A cademy of Religion Prize for First Book in the History of Religions (Honorable Mention)

Mystical Languages of Unsaying (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994) • 1994 Emily Judson Baugh and John Marshall Gest Professorship in Comparative Religions, Haverford College • 1993 NEH (National Endowment of the Humanities) Fellowship: Studies in the Classical Arabic Qasida • 1992 Lifetime Honorary Fellow
 * the Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi Society

• 1990 Nominated for the Lewis Galatière Prize from the American Literary Translators Associati on (for Desert Tracings) • 1990 Nominated for the Harold Morton Landon Translation Award from the American Academy of Poets (for Desert Tracings) • 1987 Emily Judson Baugh Gest and John Marshall Gest Lectureship in Comparative Religions. • 1985 Arabic League Translation Award , Translation Center, Columbia University. • 1985 NEH Summer Grant, Arabic Ode Translation Project. • 1982 – 1984 Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship , Stanford University. • 1982 Honors (the highest designation), PhD Dissertation Defense, University of Chicago • 1982 Arabic Translation Prize , American Association of Teachers of Arabic (AATA). • 1981 Arabic Translation Prize , American Association of Teachers of Arabic. • 1981 – 1982 Whiting Fellowship , The University of Chicago. • 1979 – 80/1978 – 79 NDEA Title V I Fellowship, Arabic. • 1977 – 1978 CASA Fellowship (Center for Arabic Studies Abroad). • 1977 Honors (the highest designation) MA exams, University of Chicago. • 1971 Magna cum Laude, B.A. degree, Gonzaga University. M ichael Sells CV 3 PUBLICATIONS, BOOKS Qur ʾ ānic Studies Today . Co - edited with Angelika Neuwirth. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, in pre ss, scheduled for February 2016 . Stations of Desire: Love Odes of Ibn `Arabi and New Poems. Original poems by Michael Sells and translations of love qasidas from Ibn `Ar abi's Interpreter of Desires (Turjuman al - Ashwaq) . Jerusalem: Ibis Press, 2000. Fourth Printing, 2003. The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy . Co - edited with Emran Qureshi. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Introduction by Michael Sells a nd Emran Qureshi. Essays by Fatema Mernissi, Edward Said, Roy Mottahedeh, John Trumpbour, Rob Nixon, Mujeeb Khan, Maria Rosa Menocal, Neil MacMaster, Norman Cigar, and Michael Sells. A Choice "Academic Book of the Year" for 2004. Approaching the Qur'an: Th e Early Revelations. White Cloud Press, 1999. Renderings of the hymnic suras, with an introduction, a facing commentary on each Sura, essays on sound and meaning in Qur'anic language, sound charts for use with Qur'anic recitation, and an annotated glossary and a CD with examples of Qur'anic recitation. Seventh, Printing 2003. Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations , Second Edition, with a new chapter on Surat al - Rahman , including a full translation of the sura , and a preface covering the 2002 UNC - Qu r’an controversy (Ashland, OR: White Cloud Press, 2006). Cambridge History of Arabic Literature, Al - Andalus. Co - edited with Maria Rosa Menocal and Raymond Scheindlin, and contributor. The volume includes 24 essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20 00. The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia. University of California Press, 1996. An examination of the use of religious mythology to motivate and justify genocide against Bosnian Muslims from 1992 - 1995. 1997 American Academy Religion Award f or Excellence in Historical Studies. Second Edition with a Preface on Kosovo and BiH. University of California Press, 1998. Bosnian edition: Iznevjereni most: religia i genocid u Bosni , translated by Zoran Mutic,(Sarajevo: Sedam, 2002). Early Islamic Mysti cism. Paulist Press Classics of Western Spirituality Series, 1996. Introductions and translations of the Qur'an, Mi`raj Accounts, Arabic Poetry, Tustari, Ja`far as - Sadiq, Muhasibi, Junayd, Hallaj, Rabi`a, Bistami, Sarraj, Qushayri, and Niffari, with an Int roduction to Islamic mysticism. 3rd Printing 2003. Mystical Languages of Unsaying. University of Chicago Press, 1994. A philosophical and literary study of apophatic language in Plotinus, Eriugena, Ibn `Arabi, Eckhart, and Marguerite Porete. With original translations from the Greek, Arabic, Latin, medieval French, and medieval German. 1995 American Academy of Religion First Book Prize (honorable mention). Desert Tracings: Six Classic Arabian Odes. Wesleyan University Press, 1989. Second Printing, 1996. Ori ginal Translations, and Critical Commentary on early Arabic odes by `Alqama, Shanfara, Labid, `Antara, Al - A`sha and Dhu al - Rumma, with a General M ichael Sells CV 5 • “Day Falls Night” a translation of poem #39 from Ibn al - `Arab ī ’s Turjum ā n al - Ashwāq , OccasionalReligion. c om, 2 9 November 2011 Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi Society 51 (2012) i - ii . • “Flight Four,” poem, Occasion al Religion. c om, 1 September 2011 . • “For You Alone,” a translation of a Persian ghazal by Hafez of Shi raz, OccasionalReligion. c om, 27 July 2011 . • “Dead on the Trail in Dhát al - Áda , ” a translation of an Arabic nasīb from Ibn al - `Arabi’s Turjuman al - Ashwāq , OccasionalReligion. c om, 9 June 2011. A revised version of “Dead on the Trail in Dhát al - Áda , ” J ournal of the Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi Societ y 50 (2011): v - vi. • “You the Dawn and I,” a translation of a Persian ghazal by Hafez of Shiraz, OccasionalReligion. c om, 22 April 2011, under the title “Ghazel.” • “Mark Twain’s Palestine ,” freq.uenci.es: a collaborative genea logy of spirituality , 3 November 2011, http://freq.uenci.es/2011/11/03/mark - twains - palestine . • “Forward,” in Prophecy in Islam by Fazlur Rahman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), vii - xviii. 2006 - 200 8 • “Tigris Song,” and “Baghdad Song,” Poetry 1 92.1 (April 2008): 26 - 29. [translations from the Arabic of two poems by Ibn al - `Arabi from the Turjuman al - Ashwaq , along with a translator’s note] • “Return to the Flash Rock Plain of Thahmad: Two Nasibs by Ibn al - Arabi,” Journal of Arabic Literature 39 (20 08): 3 - 13. • “Iraq and Yemen Intertwined: Poem #20 from Ibn al - Arabi’s Turjuman al - Ashwaq (interpreter/translator/biographer of longings) ” in Studies in Arabic and Hebrew Letters in Honor of Raymond P. Scheindlin , eds. Jonathan P. Decter and Michael Rand (Pi scataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007) , 175 - 180. • “War as Worship, Worship as War,” Religion and Culture Forum , December 2006, online publication, http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/122006/com mentary.shtml. • “ Pilgrimage and ‘ E thnic Cl eansing ’ in Herzegovina, ” in Religion and N ationalism in Iraq , eds. David Little and Donald Swearer ( Harvard University Press, 2006) , 147 - 158 . • Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations (White Cloud Press, 2006), New Edition, w ith preface on the 2002 UNC - Qur’an con troversy and a new chapter with a commentary on and full translation of Sura 55. 2003 • “ Crosses of Blood: Sacred Space, Religion, and Violence in Bosnia - Hercegovina, ” The A nnual Paul Hanly Furfey Lecture, Association for the Sociology of Religion, Sociolo gy of Religion 64:3 (2003): 309 - 331. • “ Sacral Ruins in Bosnia - Herzegovina, Mapping Ethnoreligious Nationalism, ” in Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity , ed. Craig R. Prentiss (New York: New York University Press, 2003) , 211 - 233. • The New Crusade s: Constructing the Muslim Enemy , co - edited with Emran Qureshi (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003). M ichael Sells CV 6 • “ Christ - Killer, Kremlin, Contagion, ” in The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy , eds. Emran Qureshi and Michael Sells (New York: Columbia U niversity Press, 2003), 352 - 389. • "Introduction: The Clash of Civilizations and Constructing the Muslim Enemy," co - authored with Emran Qureshi , in The New Crusades
 * Constructing the

Muslim Enemy , eds. Emran Qureshi and Michael Sells (New York: Columbia Univ ersity Press, 2003) , 1 - 47. • “ Ibn al - `Arabi and the Clash of Civilizations, ” Rabat, Morocco, 2003 (in press). 2002 • Iznevjereni most , translated by Zoran Mutic (Sarajevo: Sedam, 2002), translation of The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia . • “ The Infinity of Desire: Love, Mystical Union, and Ethics in Sufism, ” in Crossing Boundaries: Essays on the Ethical Status of Mysticism , eds. William Barnard and Jeffrey Kripal (New York: Seven Bridges, 2002): 184 - 229. • “ Islam in Serbian Religious Mythology and Its Consequences, ” in Islam and Bosnia , ed. Maya Shatzmiller (Montreal: McGill - Queen's University Press, 2002) , 56 - 85. • “ Irremediable Ecstasy, Modes of the Lyric in Etel Adnan's The Spring Flowers Own & Manifestations of the Voyage , ” in Etel Adnan: Cr itical Essays on the Arab - American Writer and Artist , ed s. Lisa Suhayr Majaj and Amal Amireh (Jefferson, NC
 * McFarland & Company, 2002): 50

- 66. • “ The Wedding of Zein: Islam through the Modern Novel, ” in Teaching Islam , ed. Brannon Wheeler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) , 145 - 167. • “ Ibn `Arabi and the Clash of Civilizations, ” Journal of the University of Riyadh Muhammad V, forthcoming. 2001 • “ Serbian Religious Mythology and the Genocide in Bosnia ” in In God's Name: Genocide and Religion in th e 20th Century , ed s. Omer Bartov and Phyllis Mack (Berghahn Books, 2001), 180 - 205. • “The ‘ Work ’ of Love: Marguerite Porete, Nizam, and Ibn `Arabi ” ( Tres seguidores de la religion de l'amor: Nizam, Ibn `Arabi, y Marguerite Porete ), translated into Spanish by Ana Iribas Rubin , in Mujeres de Luz: Proceedings of the Congreso Internacional Sobre Mistica Femenina , Avila 29 - 31 Octubre, 1999, ed. Pablo Beneito (Avila: Centro Internacional de Estudios Misticos, 2001) , 137 - 157. • “Preface” in `Umar Ibn al - Farid: Sufi Verse, Saintly Lif e , ed. and trans. Emil Homerin (New York: Paulist Press Classics of Western Spirituality, 2001), xi - svii. • “ Preface, ” in Anatomy of Genocid e by Alexandre Kimenyi and Otis Scott (Edwin Mellen, 2001). • “ Sound, Spirit, and Gender in Surat al - Qadr, ” anthologized in The Qur'an: Style and Contents , ed. Andrew Rippin (Aldershot UK

Ashgate/Variorum , 2001), 332 - 353. 2000 M ichael Sells CV 7 • "Meister Eckhart and Ibn `Arabi on the Mysticism of Perpetual Transformation," Eckhart Review 8 (Spring 2000): 3 - 18. • "A Literar y Approach to the Hymnic Suras of the Qur'an: Spirit, Gender, and Aural Intertextuality" in Literary Structures of Religi ous Meaning in the Qur'an , ed. Issa J. Boullata (L ondon: Curzon Press, 2000), 3 - 25. • "Vuk's Knife: Kosovo, the Serbian Golgotha, and the Radicalization of Serbian Society," in Kosovo: Contending Voices on Balkan Interventions, ed. William J. Buckley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 133 - 141. • The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature, Al - Andalus . C o - e ditor, with Maria Rosa Menocal a nd Raymond Scheindlin, and contributor. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). • "To al - Andalus Would She Return the Greeting: Ibn Zaydun's Nuniyya (Poem in N), Complete Translation," in The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: The Literature of Al - Andalus, ed s . Maria Rosa Menocal, Raymond P . Scheindlin, and Michael Sells (Cambridge: Cambrid ge University Press, 2000), 489 - 496. • "Love," an essay on love poetry in Islamic Andalus, in The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: The Literature of Al - Andalus, ed s . Maria Rosa Menocal, Raymond P. Scheindlin, and Michael Sells (Cambridge: Cambri dg e University Press, 2000), 126 - 158. 1999 • Stations of Desire: Love Elegies from Ibn `Arabi and New Poems (Jerusalem: Ibis Editions, 1999, 3rd printing 2002 ). • "Balkan Islam and the Mythology of Kosovo," ISIM (International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World) Newsletter, no. 3, 1999 . • "The Wiles of Women and Performative Intertextuality: `A'isha, the Hadith of the Slander and the Sura of Yus uf," c o - a uthored with Ashley Manjarrez Walker , Journal of Arabic Literature 30.1 (Spring, 1999): 1 - 23. • Approaching the Qur'an: The New Revelations , selections, translations, and commentaries by Michael Sells (Ashland: White Cloud Press, 1999, new printi ng 2000) • "Sufism Toward the Year 1240 CE," in Jewish Mystical Leadership in the Thirteenth Century, ed. Mortimer Ostow (Jason Aronson Press, 1999). 1998 • "Preface on Ko sovo and BiH from 1995 - 1998," for the new, paperback edition of Michael Sells, The Bridge Betrayed, Religion and Genocide in Bosnia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). • "Serbian Religious Nationalism, Christoslavism, and the Genocide in Bosnia, 1992 - 1995," in Religi on a nd the War in Bosnia , ed. Paul Mojzes (Atlanta: Scholar s Press, 1998): 196 - 207. • “ Four Poems Translated from Ibn `Arabi's Tarjuman al - Ashwaq (Translation of Desires), ” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi Society 23 (1998): 53 - 57. • "Heart - Secret, Intimacy, and Awe in Formative Suf ism," The Shaping of An American Islamic Discourse: A Memorial to Fazlur Rahman, ed s . Earle Waugh and Frederick Denny (Atlanta: Scholars Press, Studies on Religion and the Social Order, 1998), 165 - 188. 1997 M ichael Sells CV 8 • "Longing, Belonging, and Pilgrimage in the Poe try of Ibn `Arabi," in Languages of Power in Islamic Andalus , ed. Ross Brann ( CDL Press: Occasional publications of the Department of Near Eastern Studies and the Program of Jewish Studies, Cornell University, 1997 ), 178 - 96. • "'Christ Killer' Mythology and the Tragedy in the Balkans," Explorations: Rethinking Relationships Among Protestants, Christians and Jews 11.3 (1997): 5. 1996 • The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia (Berkeley: Univ e rsity of California Press, 1996 2nd edition, 1998). • "T oward a Multidimensional Understanding of Islam: The Poetic Key," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64.1 (1996): 145 - 66. • Early Islamic Mysticism (New York: Pau list Press , Classics of Western Spirituality, 1996). • "Religion, History, and Genocide in Bosnia - Herzegovina," in Religion and Justice in the War over Bosnia, ed . G. Scott Davis (New York: Routledge, 1996): 22 - 43. • "The Mu`allaqat ," in Harper - Collins Great Literature of the Eastern World, e d. Ian McGreal (New York: HarperCollins, 1 996), 457 - 61. • "Early Islamic Mysticism," in The Muslim Almanac, ed. by Azim Nanji (Det roit: Gale Research, 1996), 215 - 21. • "Bewildered Tongue: The Semantics of Mystical Union in Islam" and "Response," in Mystical Un ion and Monotheistic Re ligions: an Ecumenical Dialogue, ed s. Bernard McGinn and Moshe Idel ( New York: MacMillan, 1989 2nd edition, New York: Continuum, 1996 ) . 1995 • "At the Way Stations, Stay," Translation and Commentary on a Poem from Ibn `Arabi's "Interpreter of Desires," Journal of the Muhyiddin ibn `Arabi Society 18 (1995): 5 7 - 65. • "Lacan and Bion: Psychoanalysis and the Mystical Language of Unsaying,” co - authored w ith Richard Webb, Theory and Psychology 5.2 (1995): 195 - 215. Reprinted in the Journal of Melanie Klein and Object Relations 15:2 (1997), W. R. Bion Centennial Issue (1897 - 1997): 243 - 64 • "Ibn al - `Arabi, Rabi`a al - Adawiyya, Al - Qushayri, Shahrastani," in Harper - Collins Great Thinkers of the Eastern World, ed . Ian McGreal (New York: HarperCollins, 1995) , 435 - 38, 453 - 56, 461 - 64, 475 - 479. 1994 • "The Pseudo - Woman and the Meister: 'Unsa ying' and Essentialism," in Meister Eckhart and the Beguine Mystics , ed. Bernard McGinn ( New York: Crossroad, 1994), 114 - 46. • Mystical Languages of Unsaying (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994). • "Mysticism and Emanation in the Writing s of Meister Eckhart," Listening 29.3 (1994) 174 - 85. • "Like the Arms of a Drowning Man: Simile and Symbol Worlds in the Naqa Sections of Bashama's Hajarta Umama ," i n A Festschrift in Honor of Professor M ichael Sells CV 9 Ewald W agner, Beirute r Studien , eds. W. Heinrichs and G. Schoeler (Beirut/Istanbul, 1994) 2: 18 - 41. • "Guises of the Ghul: Dissembling Simile and Semantic Overflow in the Early Arabic Nasib, " in Reorientations, Studies in Arabic and Persian Poetry , ed. S. Stetkevych (Indiana University Press, 1994) , 130 - 164. • "Bosnia: Some Religious Dimensions of Genocide," Religious Studies News 9.2 (May 1994): 4 - 5. Reprinted in Common Era: Best Religion Writings of 1994, e d. Stephen Scholl (Ashland: White Cloud Press, 1995), 114 - 26. 1993 • "Along the Edge of Mirage: Tra nslation and Interpretation of al - Mukhabbal as - Sa'di 's Mufaddaliya, Dhakarta Rababa, " in The Literary Heritage of Classical Islam , ed. M. Mir (Prin ceton: Darwin Press, 1993), 119 - 36. • "Sound and Meaning in Surat al - Qari'a, " Arabica 40.3 (1993): 403 - 43 0. • "Towards A Poetic Translation of Fusus al - Hikam: The Adam Chapter," in Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi: A Commemorative Volume , ed. S. Hirtenstein (Ox ford: Elem ent Books, 1993), 124 - 39. • "From a History of Mysticism to a Theology of Mysticism," Review Articl e on B. McGinn's The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism, vol. 1, Journal of Religion 73.3 (July 1993): 390 - 399. 1991 • "Sound, Spirit, and Gender in Surat al - Qadr, " Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.2 (April - May 1991): 23 9 - 259. Anthologized in The Qur'an: Style and Contents , ed. A. Rippin (Varioum: Aldershot UK, 2001): 332 - 353. • "Ibn 'Arabi's Ala Ya Hamamati l - Arakati wa l - Bani [Gentle Now, Doves]," Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi Society X (1991): 1 - 11. Anthologized in the Harper - Collins World Reader 1:1009 - 1011. 1986 - 1990 • " Banat Su'ad: Translation and Interpretive Introduction," Journal of Arabic Literature 21:2 (1990): 140 - 154. • Desert Tracings: Six Classic Arabian Odes by `Alqama, Shanfara, Labid, `Antara, Al - A`sh a, and Dhu al - Rumma (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1989). • "Bewildered Tongue: The Semantics o f Mystical Union in Islam" and "Response," in Mystical Union and Monotheistic Religions: A n Ecumenical Dialogue , ed s. Bernard McGinn and Moshe Idel ( New York: MacMillan, 1989) , 87 - 124, 163 - 173, 219 - 230, a n d 248 - 239. • "Ibn `Arabi's Polished Mirror: Perspective Shift and Meaning Event," Studia Islamica 66 (1988): 121 - 149. • "The Qasida and the West: Self - Reflective Stereotype and Critical Encounter," Al - `Arabiyya 20 (1987): 307 - 357. • "The Semantics of Universality in the Writings of Ibn `Arabi," Proc. of the Ibn `Arabi Society, 1987. • Majkl Sels, "Ibn Arabijeva: basta izmedu plamenova, Broj 7, " Kulture Istoka: ( Beograd: januar - mart, 1986), 7 - 13. (Translation of "Ibn 'Arabi's Garden Among the Flames "). • "The Mu`allaqa of Tarafa," Journal of Arabic Literature XVII (1986): 21 - 33. M ichael Sells CV 10 1982 - 1985 • "Apophasis in Plotinus: A Critical Approach," Harvard Theological Review 78:1 - 2 (Jan - April 1985): 47 - 67. • "The Mu`allaqa o f Labid, " Translation 13 (Oct/Nov. 1984). • "Ibn `Arabi 's Garden Among the Flames: A Reevaluation," History of Religions 23.4 (1984): 287 - 315. • "Translation and Interpretation: A New Version of Shanfara 's Lamiyya ," Al - `Arabiyya 16 (1983): 5 - 25. Ess ay and Translation. Winner of the 1982 AATA Translation Prize. • "Dhu al - Rumma's 'To the Two Abodes of Mayya...'," Al - `Arabiyya 15 (1982): 52 - 65. Essay and Translation. Winner of the 1981 AATA Translation Prize. ENCYCLOPEDIA and OTHER REFERENCE ARTICLES • “ Spirit” ( ruh ), Ency. of the Qur'an, vol . 3 (Leiden
 * Brill, 2006): 113

- 117 . • “Memory” ( dhikr ), Ency. of the Qur'an, vol . 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2003): 272 - 274. • "Ascen sion ” ( mi`raj ), Ency. of the Qur'an , vol . 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001): 176 - 181. • "Ibn al - `Arabi," Harpe r's Dictionary of Religion, 475. • "Baraka," Harper's Dictionary of Religion, 104. M ichael Sells CV 11 REVIEWS • The Universal Tree and the Four Birds: Treatise on Unification ( al - Itti ḥ ād al - kawnī ), by Mu ḥ yiddīn Ibn ` Arabī . Introduction, translation , and commentary by Ange la Jaffray. ( Oxford
 * Anqa Publishing, 2006

) Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi Society 50 (2012), 140 - 146 . • Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: T he Global Rise of Religious Violence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001) JAAR 70.4 (Dec ember 2002): 909 - 913. • Rusmir Mehmutcehajic, Bosnia the Good: Tolerance and Tradition (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2000) Slavic Review 61.2 (Summer 2002): 393 - 394. • Ger Duijzings, Religion and the Politics of Identity in Kosovo (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000) Religion, in press. • D. Campbell, National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1998) The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (July 2000): 137 - 138. • J. Stetkevych, Muhammad and the Golden Bough MESA Bulletin 32 (1998): 60 - 61. • F. Friedman, The Bosnian Muslims: Denial of a Nation Journal of Church and State 40.3 (Summer, 1998): 687 - 88. • Shams C. Inati, Ibn Sina and Mysticism: Remarks and Admonitions JR 78.1 (January 1988): 72 - 73. • The Way of Abu Madyan: The Works of Abu Madyan Shu`ayb, Trans. by V. Cornell JMIAS in press, 1997. • Salma Khadra Jayyusi, ed. The Legacy of Muslim Spain JAOS 117.4 (1997): 757 - 59. • Tone Bringa, We Are All Neighbors (videocassette) RSR . • T. Bringa, Being Muslim the Bosnian Way: Identity and Community in a Central Bosnian Village RSR . • Akhavan, P. and R. Howse, Yugoslavia: The Former and Future Journal of Peace and Justice 8.1 (1999): • H.T. Norris, Islam in the Balkans MESA Bulletin 29.1 (1995): 112 - 13. • J. Stetkevych, The Zephyrs of Najd: The Poetics of Nostalgia in the Classical Arabic Nasib Al - Masaq 7 (1994): 305 - 309. • S. Stetkevych, The Mute Immortals Speak: Pre - Islamic Poetry and the Poetics of Ritual IJMES 27.1 (1995): 138 - 40. • William Chittick, Imam Zayn al - `Abidin, The Psalms of Islam: Al - Sahifat al - Sajjadiyya RSR . • M. Idel, Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid JQR 85.3 - 4 (Jan - Ap, 1995): 459 - 61. • J. Stetkevych , Zephyrs of Nejd, Suzanne Stetkevych, Reorientations, Emil Homerin, From Arab Poet to Sufi Saint, Mustansir Mir, The Literary Heritage of Classical Islam review essay, JMIAS XVII (1995): 96 - 99. (A review essay discussing the implications of these works f or the study of the poetry of Ibn `Arabi). • R.S. O'Fahey, Enigmatic Saint: Ahmad Ibn Idris and the Idrisi Tradition MESA Bulletin 26 (1992): 71 - 72. • Stephen Tabachnik, Explorations in Doughty's Arabia Deserta JAOS 111.4 (1991): 791 - 92. )Dan Murphy (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not telling that Michael Sells is not notable. Perhaps he deserved a WP page. I am only telling that no one uses his recent publications (during last 15 years) for referencing, judging from the standard ISI database. Therefore, using his recent work (dated 2015) for referencing in WP is probably not the best idea if there are other and presumably better (more highly cited) sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse me. That is not a reply but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Zero noted the difference between your ISI database argument, and what Stephan Schultz cited from Google Books, which comprehensively shows how frequently all of Sells' work is cited, making your inference invalid, based as it is on data re scientific publications, not a humanities' citational database. You just ignored the point, and repeated yourself.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if indeed you ever read it, you didn't understand the word 'zitiert' in German (=cited) in Stephan Schulz's remark above, which covered all bases, let us know. Click on it, and if you can keep a straight face in insisting that 'no one uses his recent publications', well, there's no helping Wikipedia's pretense to sanity.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually ISI has 14 of his publications, but anyway ISI is a newcomer in the humanities (as the S=science in the name hints) with very weak coverage so far. Moreover there is a warning there that only citations from the Web of Science Core Collection (overwhelmingly science journals) are counted. Nobody who understands the citation business (and it is a business) would use ISI to judge a historian. Zerotalk 00:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummm, he kinda seems to be cited since 2000.  nableezy  - 21:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Google searches are misleading. Some of that are his own publications (yes, there are many of them), many are publications by other people with the same name. Actually, the ISI search retrieves a lot of publications by other people with exactly same family name and initials. I am not telling this is not an RS by WP standards. I am only telling than none to few people referred to publications by this author during last 15 years based on the standard ISI search where his publications are present. This is usually an indication that the work has not been widely accepted by the scientific community. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but he is not a scientist and acceptance by the scientific community is not relevant. It is clear from Scholar that many of his books and articles are well cited. The difference is because ISI is very weak in the humanities. Zerotalk 01:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable. Who am I to judge? The author holds an endowed chair at a top university, and has published a paper related to his area of expertise. The editorial board of the journal notes the names of various notable scholars who we can assume have reviewed the paper prior to its publication to determine that it fits within their purview and is academically sound. If there is material that runs into WP:REDFLAG, then there should be further discussion on the talk page. - Location (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reliability of a source depends on many factors, among others, the author, the place it appears, how much is it cited, etc. The author is a well-regarded historian in the Divinity school, the journal is peer reviewed, but a religious rather than a historical journal. It seems to be relatively new, so I can't find any citations to it. I would like a better source for it, but it is by no means inadmissible. I hope this is not another of the petty disputes where people argue with Nishidani for the sake of arguing. The claim on the Hajj Amin Al-Husseini page seems to me banal, is there some dispute over the claim itself? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Compare this interpretation of a source contested by other editors, with the remarks by the same editor who, above, adopts a diametrically opposed position. As good an example of incoherent application of policy depending on whether one likes or dislikes a source.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Obviously reliable. Just make sure to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the materiel in the is currently attributed, It is presented as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, and used for 4% of ALL the reference in that article. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Obviously WP:RS. I agree with My very best wishes that this does not seem to be a particularly influential scholar, but that is not an WP:RS requirement. Jeppiz (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. However, in WP environment sourcing is everything. By quoting source A by author X a participant essentially repeats views by author X. If there are numerous sources in the field, it makes a lot of sense to select sources very carefully. I prefer using books that became classic in the field, whenever possible. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Highly reliable. Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable - Based on the discussion here alone, a highly reliable RS. (Disclaimer: I have not touched the article in question, so hopefully an objective voice).Zezen (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hypocrisy test, take 1
On a closely related topic, Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world, a claim was made sourced to a book published by Cambridge University Press, and written by an actual historian of the Holocaust, who currently holds the Hillel A. Feinberg Chair in Holocaust Studies at the University of Texas, Dallas. The material was removed today with an edit summary that says "Patterson's book is popular junk." . The editor who did this is, surprise surprise, someone who has commented above (not 3 days ago) that "If a qualified academic historian publishes a history article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it is a reliable source. ". I invite comments on the double standards being employed. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And so what? I don't agree with that user's removal of that book, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether Sells is WP:RS or not. Jeppiz (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So now User:Zero0000 is also an hypocrite? This is quickly degenerating into an hypocrisy-waving jihad.


 * Both you and NMMGG, losing the argument, have claimed by way of recompense, that the verdict here allows any scholar with an endowed chair to be cited for anything, implying Sells lacks direct competence for the subject he analyses, something 15 editors reject. This is a good example: you claim editors are hypocritical for accepting an historian with profound competence in Islamic studies when he comments on an Islamic figure involved in the Holocaust, who has competence in German, Arabic and does archival research but don’t accept a Holocaust specialist commenting on that Islamic figure and Islam, who happens to know nothing of the culture, society or languages, and for that book did no original archival work on the Islamic figure.
 * That one is accepted and the other rejected for this topic is not a trace of hypocrisy, but of familiarity with the literature. You cite David Patterson, who has an endowed chair in Holocaust studies, but knows nothing of Islam, for his A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad,'' Cambridge University Press, 2010


 * To note just one problem in that disastrously incompetent screed, Patterson quotes 17 times, for key facts on the life of the Mufti, a book by David G. Dalin and John Rothmann, Icon of Evil Transaction Books 2009, with an introduction by the ever present  Alan Dershowitz. That book earned Dershowitz’s hyyperbolic eulogy, and was slammed for its blithering incompetence by numerous historians, Benny Morris and Tom Segev, for example. That Patterson simply ignored  what his fellow historians, specialists in the area, dismissed as trash meant that large swathes of his polemic rest on discredited claims. Sheesh, Rothman is a talk show host and Patterson should know better than to cite  him for historical claims on the Holocaust.


 * For that reason Patterson in turn got some devastating reviews, such as that by Jonathan Leader Maynard, A Doubtful Genealogy The Oxonian Review Issue 15.3 14 February, 2011
 * "Patterson’s misguided contribution to the debate, founded on an utterly absent methodology and frequently lapsing into mendacious and polemical tactics, all the more dangerous an intervention. . . bedevilled by the persistency of poor interpretive method."


 * And by Sanford R. Silverburg, 'Review,' in Digest of Middles East Studies, Spring 2011 Vol.20, Issue 1, pp.109-112.
 * "Patterson's work . . will be subject to strong criticism from those whose expertise is Nazi-Muslim relations."
 * I,e. Patterson is out of his depth, and has dropped all scholarly caution in stepping out of his field. Sells, by contrast, to verify poor claims, went and trawled through the relevant archives, rather than relying, as does Patterson, on second – and third-hand reports in a popular genre of literature by discredited non-historians.
 * As User:Zero0000, User:Kingsindian and myself keep repeating, RS is always contextual, even with the best scholars. They are generally accepted, but never if the books they write are known to be defective or full of frequent factual errors. This would apply to Sells as well, if anything ‘factual’ quoted from him turned out to be flawed in the view of other competent scholars.
 * Reply by all means, but I've wasted enough time correcting or responding to irrelevant remarks, and, as the above indicates you don't assume good faith in anyone who consistently disagrees with you, so you are not a valid interlocutor.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Zero did make the comment which Brad Dyer attributed to him. I think it is false and rather simplistic, because reliability depends on many other things than simply the author and the venue of publication. So, yes, Zero0000 did misspeak on this occasion. On the other hand, his practice is rightfully different than his simplistic statement. He made a case for unreliability of the source in this instance on the article talk page, and that can be answered there. Nishidani also gives some valid points in their statement. This has little to do with the Sells discussion because even if we discount Zero's contribution there, the consensus is basically the same. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A book by an academic published by a reputable press is an RS. In view of the later controversy about the content, the article could peafec his views with 'Pattersonwrote.. and then cite the debate.Martinlc (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did say "If a qualified academic historian publishes a history article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it is a reliable source" and I did write that Patterson's book is junk. I stand by both sentences (though the first is misleadingly worded), but to explain why that isn't a contradiction I need to describe my sourcing philosophy.  I interpret the wikipedia definition of "reliable source" as a minimum standard. Sources that pass the threshold are by default reliable and can be used in articles. But that is (i.e. should be) only the start of the story. The correct way to write articles, especially on controversial topics, is to use the best sources available for that topic. No other path is consistent with a desire to make the encyclopedia as good as possible.  For this reason I'm not satisfied for a source to pass the official threshold. If an academic author is highly controversial, or receives terrible reviews from other academics, I won't use him/her.  I'm proud to have the highest sourcing standards you will find in the middle-east section of wikipedia. Sells' journal article seems to be a perfectly good piece of archival research and no adequate argument has been presented that it isn't a fine source.  Patterson's book on the other hand received about the most damning reviews I've ever seen for a book published by an academic press, is pointedly ignored by other historians bar the islamophobic fringe, and anyone with experience of serious history writing will immediately see that it isn't an example. Basically Patterson did no research at all but just reported as factual every anti-Islamic or anti-Arab claim he could find in other secondary sources. He even cited material to internet hate sites. Wikipedia should be ashamed to cite such a book, and the fact that it technically passes the "reliable source" rule should not be used as an excuse for including it. Zerotalk 23:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zero's statement and approach to reliability, though mine differs in various ways. Indeed, I alluded to this before, when I said that their practice is different from the rather simplistic statement they used above. I remember them saying that they don't use Ilan Pappe or Efraim Karsh for reasons of them being too polarizing, even though they are perfectly good sources, who publish in perfectly good venues. Reliability is always in context, and even university presses can put out all sorts of trash, and one way to determine their quality is the reviews and citations. Ultimately, there is no mechanical procedure for reliability, it is always an argument which needs to convince other editors. The author and venue are but one step in the argument, which can often be enough for relatively banal statements. People who want to reduce this procedure to simple recipes to be followed strictly are bound to be disappointed. another way of thinking about this is that Zero's statement can be read as following WP:ONUS: even if the source is verifiable, people may give an argument for exclusion. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 07:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Comments are requested at Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System as to whether documents uploaded to romhacking.net by the main author of the article constitute reliable sources. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Documents at romhacking.net are self-published and therefore unreliable. They would only be valid to use if the author is an established expert. As the author is a Wikipedia editor, answering that question would be outing. The claims these documents are used to support would probably be better spun out to Super Nintendo Entertainment System technical specifications anyway, looking at the broader context of improving to FA. The documents could also be used as external links per WP:ELYES #3 or WP:ELMAYBE #4 Rhoark (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Media-Vision magazine (a Russian publication) as a reliable source
Is the Russian publication MediaVision magazine a reliable source? An article from the magazine can be found here: http://mediavision-mag.ru/uploads/06%202011/65-67%2006_2011.pdf This article states that Robinzon Kruzo (1947) being filmed in color is just a myth. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources in Operation Keelhaul
Sources in question

[2] Hornberger, Jacob (April 1995). "Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on August 11, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070811230525/http://www.fff.org:80/freedom/0495a.asp

[3]Skousen, Joel. "Historical Deceptions: Operation Keelhaul". World Affairs Brief. Archived from the original on 15 February 2013. Retrieved 2014-07-04

https://web.archive.org/web/20130215214414/http://worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Keelhaul.shtml

Article

Operation Keelhaul

Content

"The term [Operation Keelhaul] has been later applied – specifically after the publication of Julius Epstein's eponymous book – to other Allied acts of often forced repatriation of former residents of the USSR after the ending of World War II that sealed the fate of millions[2] unwilling to return to the Soviet Union.[3]"

I would like to remove these two sources as fringey - for example, the article Future of Freedom Foundation refers to the forced repatriation as "one of the worst holocausts in history" and "Allied holocaust." The word holocaust appears 7 times on this page.

Instead, I'd like to use a reference from Nikolai Tolstoy (1977). The Secret Betrayal. Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-684-15635-0., along the lines of what's used in the Victims of Yalta Wikipedia entry:

"Tolstoy estimates that overall two or more millions Soviet nationals were repatriated." --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove those sources; this kind of article should be using books by reputable historians, not pressure groups. I'm not familiar with Tolstoy's work and cannot comment on his reliability. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I removed both sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not archive this just yet. An editor recently reinstated these sources and related content. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe Tolstoy is a perfectly good source here. I remember the media controversy when Tolstoy published, which re-opened the entire debate. However, Tolstoy as a reputable source was never criticised, it was the painful subject itself which caused something of a storm Irondome (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I was looking for opinions on Hornberger (The Future of Freedom Foundation) and Scousen (World Affairs Brief) - the ones that are linked above. Any thoughts on these? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with your assessment and that of Qwertyus. An historical work is better than what appears to be advocacy/pressure group websites. WP:RS wise, I don't think they would pass muster. Irondome (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will alert the editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input about the inclusion of a high school in a political biography article
Sorry in advance if this is the wrong place to post this. An editor and I are having a disagreement on the article Ted Deutch about whether the article subject's high school should be included. I've added a half-sentence reference to the "Early life and education" section, as well as a category identifying him as Liberty High School alumni, but the editor has repeatedly reverted it. In the talk page, he says that it's "silly trivia of no importance" and "not important enough to include in his article", with which I obviously disagree. I'd like to gather more input to determine a WP:CONSENSUS as to whether this information should be included, so any feedback at Talk:Ted Deutch would be appreciated. I was hoping to keep the conversation there, not here on this noticeboard, so it's all in one place. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where's the reliable source that is needed to meet WP:V and WP:BLP? --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.tedforcongress.com/about/ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Ted_Deutch.html http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf?/base/news-2/127277328951760.xml&coll=3 http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/rep_ted_deutch.html take your pick. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sourcing looks fine. You might want to look at WP:GA articles for similar people to decide on if it is worth including, but that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)