Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 60

East Bay Express
I've been contacted on OTRS (2010022610053185) regarding the veracity of citation to East Bay Express in Van Jones. The correspendent argues that East Bay Express is a fake news source, with no White Pages/Yellow Pages or office prescence. What do others think? Kevin (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks real, if alternative. We've got an article on it: East Bay Express. CNN seems to think they're a real newspaper, if one with a sense of humor (they nominated Gary Coleman for Governor of California). They win awards. Methinks someone doesn't like what they have to say. --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with GRuban. The East Bay Express is a member of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, and I see no reason to believe that they are any less legitimate than their fellow members, which would normally also be considered reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The East Bay Express is a well-known and respected alternative newsweekly. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourcewatch
Is Sourcewatch an EL that should be used? It appears to be a partisan source. It appears to be an open wiki and per WP:EL open wiki's are to be avioded. It uses content from wikipedia in it's articles and thus is a double redirect. Arzel (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say no under WP:ELNO#12. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also say no per their own about. There is no fact checking, no verification that anything on the site is accurate.  I don't think it could ever be used as a an type of source.  Arzel (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not as a source, but possibly as an EL. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to peruse Sourcewatch during our sourcing discussions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not on our blacklist? It should be. It's a blended site and even hate site with no fact checking, anyone can write what they want, and it's an open wiki. It should only be allowable as a source or EL on its own article. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The spam blacklist is for spam. "Hate site"?  Where are you getting this from? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is certainly an open wiki and should not be used in ELs. Richard  ( talk ) 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ELNO #12 allows open wikis with a history of stability. Sourcewatch seems pretty stable; I don't think I've ever seen material there that doesn't belong. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless things have changed in the last year, it's not stable. At that time it contained articles that were unfinished rants, poorly written biographies, libelous material, unsourced material, etc. I'm not saying that was the majority of stuff, but there was obviously little or no fact checking. Here's an example. Compare it with our article National Council Against Health Fraud. Note that their article is a rant by a chiropractor who reprints libelous conspiracy theories that have been the subject of libel suits. Many of its "articles" are more like blogs or social networking sites. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some good articles there that popped up in various searches I'd done when researching other topics. Though when I hit the "random article" button a few times, there seems to be a long tail of stub articles that aren't so great.  I wouldn't blanket-ban the site, but if a particular article isn't stable or if it's just a rant, then you can invoke ELNO as an "attack page". Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This wiki fails ELNO #12. It can neither be used as a source, nor included as an external link. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Celebheights.com
We have an editor arguing on Mike Tyson that Celebheights.com is a more-reliable source for Tyson's height that a BBC "Tale of the Tape" report. Do we have an opinion on this site in general? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to consider the site non-reliable. Apparently, anyone can just email the owner of the site any titbit of information.  There is no description of what kind of fact-checking, if any, is done.  Favonian (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From that sites FAQ And folk should really take me (Rob) and my comments as if my tongue is in my cheek half the time. So no not reliable. mark nutley (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS. No indication of reliability. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ofcomswindlecomplaint.net is not wp:rs
Is it? It has been set up for the sole purpose of This website contains details of the most comprehensive of the complaints to the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) regarding Channel 4’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle This is a single purpose site and i am sure it does not meet wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears be run by Ofcom. It might be usable as a primary source, but WP:WEIGHT (which is beyond the scope of this noticeboard) should be addressed.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No AQFK they are not even remotely related :) this is ofcom this is not ofcom who runs the swindle site


 * Depends on what it is used for. If it is used to show an example of critique of the great global warming swindle, or is used to source a specific request to OfCom about TGGWS - then it can be reliable. You will always need to provide the context in which the reference is used. The site is pure opinion - but in this case (where it started an OfCom case) it may be reliable (and certainly is reliable to the wording of the complaint). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No kim it is not, it is selfpublished, it is as you say pure opinion, and of course no editorial control, it totaly fails wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, WP:RS is not a bright line. There is no way to sort sources/references into those reliable and those who aren't (which is why we do not have such a thing). It all depends on the context in which they are used. A blog is unreliable for most things - but not all things. A self-published site is unreliable for most things, but not all things. An article in the Times may be reliable in general, but can be unreliable in a specific context. Please read some of the discussions on this board, and some of the archived cases, to get a general feel for what aspects that are taken into account when judging the merits of specific sourcing and contexts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ofcomswindlecomplaint.net Reset
Unfortunately, all three of the editors who've responded so far (this includes me) are probably involved in one way or another. Can we have some uninvolved editors weigh in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am uninvolved.
 * http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net is the publication of a protagonist in a dispute. WP:RS looks for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but this is clearly not a third-party site, so is not an RS for the substantive facts, only for the opinions of that group.
 * However, note that RS says that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". So that site may be used as evidence of the existence its own assertions, but not of their veracity, as in this fictional example:
 * The complaint group BADGUYswindlecomplaint described the programme as "selling a bizarre conspiracy theory to the British public"{ref badguyswindlecomplaint.net}, and MyTVstation responded with a assertion that its program was a "fair and balanced investigation"{ref MyTVstation}."
 * Note that WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm uninvolved too. BrownHairedGirl's analysis of the site is correct. However, I would add, that Wikipedia doesn't actually care what the assertions of non-reliable sources might be, unless reliable secondary sources take note of them. And in that case, we would cite the reliable secondary sources, not the unreliable primary source. So, it can't be used in any manner on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipolitique
Is Wikipolitique a reliable source for National liberalism, Conservative liberalism and Conservatism? It is used in the article National liberalism in order to define the topic. Here is a link to the source used. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say no, although to be fair I deleted it from the article in question before hearing about this request. Wiki editors are anonymous, even though this one requires that editors create an account.  Consequently, we cannot evaluate whether things posted to them are the work of an expert or poorly-educated loon.  It is only our own RS policy that makes Wikipedia trustworthy.  If Wikipolitique cites a reliable source in support of a statement, we can refer to that source, but not to Wikipolitique itself.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with RJC. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikis are not considered reliable sources. Not even Wikipedia; we can't use our own Wiki as a source. Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

exxonsecrets.org
I am finding this site used as a ref all over the place. There can be no way this site meets wp:rs is there? Even with attribution? Also they appear to have been hacked and turned into a phising site? Their home page currently has the halifax bank login page on there :) mark nutley (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In general they are acceptable, but--as with just about any source--there may be instances where they are not acceptable. (Whether one page on their website has been (hopefully temporarily) hacked, has no bearing on their reliability). I think they are mostly used as a source for funding information for "contrarian" global warming groups. This seems perfectly fine to me, as the website is the work of a major international organization and all the funding information that it discloses is usually sourced back to I-990s, company and foundation annual reports, etc. I am not aware of anyone seriously disputing the accuracy of the information presented by this website. Yilloslime T C  21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed them to let them know of course. Now from the front page ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem This is obviously a pov pushing advocacy group who has a terrible reputation for fact checking (most recent i know of being their contribution to the himalayan glacier fiasco) They breach wp:blp guidelines and i can`t see how they ca nbe considered wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Mark nails it... it might be reliable, in limited instances, for an attributed statment as to Greenpeace's opinion, but not for statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just because you don't like greenpeace, that doesn't mean this website can't be used a source in certain circumstances. And you seem to be confused about WP:BLP: It's a wikipedia policy that applies to wikipedia pages. Saying that a source "breach"es WP:BLP doesn't make any sense and has no bearing on whether it's reliable. Sure, the way a source is used on a wikipedia page could be BLP vio, but we don't and can't require other websites to follow our policies.Yilloslime T C  21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a clear wp:sps, and would require additional source support for inclusion, by its self the site has questionable opinions. Whether Marknutley likes them or not, that is how Wikipedia operates. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly another issue ZP5, it is self published and the rules from there say Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer Now given all of exxonsecrets.org refer to living persons it also fails wp:rs there. And also from wp:BLPSPS Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we accept that greenpeace is a notable organization which has notable opinions on the matter of global warming then there is no reason to disallow inclusion of their opinions in relevant articles. WP:SPS doesn't apply as long as it is directly attributed to them. I find it a bit disturbing that User:Marknutley seems to have dedicated himself to removing information and sources from global warming related pages. Especially considering that his first edit was to assert fraud on the basis of a blog we have here every indication of an WP:SPA. Unomi (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It`s a bit sad that you need to try and dig up dirt on me to try and cast doubt, please asssume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks. This is not about greenpeace this is about exxonsecrets, tell me is there editorial control? Who checks the data which is sent in and put on that site? The rules are very clear here as pointed out above, please comment on those and not on me mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)The rules are very clear and I suggest that you read them. WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS concern themselves with WP:ASF, not with directly attributed opinions. Greenpeace remains an organization with notable opinions on the matter and while I agree that their statements should not be used for WP:ASF for anything but about themselves, this does not afford you the ability to remove information sourced to them. By all means, rewrite where necessary, but please revert your removals and WP:PRESERVE. Unomi (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not removed any text apart from in one article which was a rewrite (since reverted by WMC) all i have done is remove unrelaible refs and added a cite needed tag mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Wikipedia WP:BLP would like to avoid notable organizations from libeling non-public figures. If the BLPs are public figures than the info has a lower standard for inclusion than if not. Best policy is to have multiple sources for contentious info when dealing with questionable sources. WP:SPS always applies to self-published sources.  Again, this is about the sources please avoid making it about the editor. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would kindly suggest that you review marknutleys [edits. The vast majority of them do not concern themselves with blp in the slightest. [[User:Unomi|Unomi]] (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would ask again, comment on content, not editor. This is not about me, it is about exxonsecrets mark nutley (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did, please point out which edits you have made regarding exxonsecrets that you believe addressed blp violations. Unomi (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change&diff=prev&oldid=348618001
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlas_Economic_Research_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=348589515
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Africa_Fighting_Malaria&diff=prev&oldid=348572477
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Climate_Report&diff=prev&oldid=348571953
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research&diff=prev&oldid=348568926
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research&diff=prev&oldid=348567868
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=348548715
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greening_Earth_Society&diff=prev&oldid=348578867
 * These are but a few from your last 50 edits. I don't see that these constitute blp violations, but perhaps you can explain that to me. Unomi (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If ExxonSecrets is officially sponsored by Greenpeace, then I think it can be used as a source to give Greenpeace's opinion on something, and attributed that way. I think it can be used to give Greenpeace's opinion on living people, also, as long as it is attributed. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, they all breach wp:blp It is not just companys or think tanks being named, everyone who works in those companys are in the lists. You can`t accuse people of taking money to push an agenda for "big oil" or "big coal" or "big tobacco" without breaking wp:blp All the exxonsecrets articles do just that mark nutley (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, it's clear that your are confused about the applicability of WP:BLP. Yilloslime T C  23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry what part of this do you not get? wp:BLPSPS Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject i fail to see how that is confusing mark nutley (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Greenpeace is an advocacy group and involved party in environmental issues. At best it is reliable for its own opinions per WP:SPS but not for statements of fact.  WP:WEIGHT needs to be established.
 * I don't know if this is helpful in this particular case, but I would like to point out that writing Wikipedia articles should be easy. If you're having difficulty finding third-party reliable sources to support some content, then that's a strong indication of something that should not be in Wikipedia.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding attribution, but to claim that you cannot write about the funding for a particular organization because they have people working for them is not a valid argument. Unomi (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding attribution, but to claim that you cannot write about the funding for a particular organization because they have people working for them is not a valid argument. Unomi (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Marknutley, what part of "A company or organisation is not a living person" don't you get? They fail both "living" and "person". Your interpretation is so bizarre that it's not even worth discussing. Hans Adler 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Hans but no, exxonsecrets do not just print a company name, they also print the names of the people working for said company. How is that bizzare? We are linking to a site which accuses people, not companys of being shills for big oil mark nutley (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, we routinely accept the opinions of sources on people. You are trying to deny the use of a source on funding for a company because that source also has pages describing the affiliation of people. I suggest you test your assumptions at WP:BLPN. Unomi (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps. Also as has just been pointed out to me the use of exxonsecrets may als ofall foul of wp:undue If this is the only secondary source to mention these donations and most reliable sources don`t make much of them then they fail on weight as well. This was pointed out to me here mark nutley (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that funding for pressure groups could ever fall under WP:UNDUE? Please stop trying to make the facts fit your desired outcome. Unomi (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who says they are pressure groups? mark nutley (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I hate to break up your fun, but this is the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to discuss WP:BLP issues, try BLP noticeboard.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda This from greenpeace`s TAQ about exxonsecrets But the scientists named on ExxonSecrets rarely publish peer reviewed scientific work. Same FAQ, which is blatently false. With such a singular POV how can anyone consider this lot a reliable source for WP? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)
 * And this on their front page ExxonSecrets is hanging here in the Big Apple with DeSmogBlog, as the Heartland Institute, flush with cash from anonymous planet hating foundations and corporations, is putting on the second annual global warming Denial-Palooza With a view like that can they really bu considered reliable? mark nutley (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. For their opinions. They are a notable source. Just because you insist they are liars and don't agree with their stances doesn't make them an unreliable source. DreamGuy (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not interested in the opinions of non-reliable sources unless reliable secondary sources cite them. In that case, we would cite the reliable secondary source, not the un-reliable primary source. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Comment on content not me please. A partisan group with no fact checking who`s stated aim is to destroy peoples reputations because they thing they are planet killers ca nnever be a reliable source mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hedd Wyn
Please advise if this is a reliable source sufficient to note that Hedd Wyn is a Welsh film and that this is a reiliable source sufficient to note that Wales is a country for the articles List of films based on arts books and List of films based on war books — 1898–1926. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My reason for asking is that an edit noting that Hedd Wyn is a Welsh film (and citing these references) was reverted (here) with the edit summary "An encyclopedia is a place for fact, not personal politics". Daicaregos (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would someone from the Noticeboard mind taking a look at this please. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would someone from the Noticeboard mind taking a look at this please. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a better reference for the film being Welsh, as it is the BFI .  As to Wales being a country, one can pick and choose sources about the  status of Wales as a country. The document One Wales,  issued by the Plaid / Labour coalition uses the word country, as does this 2003 document from the Wesh assemby  government; No 10 web-site should I  believe be considered reliable; the BBC regards it as a country; the Welsh Conservatives use the word country.  The bestc  thing to do is to usen high quality references.  –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate it. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some other impeccable sources (UN and EU) for Wales being a country in the lead of the Country article.  Roger Davies  talk 10:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article relating to Gohar Shahi, Younus AlGohar and MFI
A persistent sock block evader, this time Newatwp, has come up with this new source which supports his viewpoints: "Could you please look out, which is a reliable source to be used in this article." edit diff

I am concerned that this article was "written to order" by the sock or an associate, as it uses the same information (details about death for which no RS had been found); the same phraseology; and the same vehement opposition to Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International as the blocked sock user. I am also concerned that future socks and IPs will attempt to use this "reliable source" and would like a ruling on its reliability, please.

Background SPI and AN/I

 * SPI reports
 * AN/I about block evasion
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamsaa

Evidence
From the article: "(who was kicked out by Shahi ...)" Compare with:
 * edit diff by banned sock Falconkhe.
 * edit diff by banned sock Spiritualism.
 * edit diff by banned sock Truefighter.

From the article: "Younus has started preaching self-made teachings". Compare with:
 * Falconkhe: edit diff "Stop preaching self-made teachings."
 * Spiritualism: edit diff "I think you seriousely need to read Wikipedia: Five Pillars, wikipedia is not a platform to be used to preach your self-made teachings and by using this sort of names you are preaching your dogmas."
 * Truefighter: edit diff "Stop preaching self-made teachings."

Many thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  14:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is to foculs on whether this source should be used in articles regarding Gohar Shahi, Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International, I've hat-boxed the SPI info so we don't get derailed...
 * The linked source is an editorial in the States Times, which identifies itself as "basically a US based news portal". &mdash; Scientizzle 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence this source has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No indication that it should be considered reliable, do we even know who the editors of State Times are? Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I couldn't find anything linking the author, Sayyed Aamir Ali, to professional journalism.  The whole site looks like a blog, and has numerous copy editing errors. MutantPlatypus (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He did have a WP article, but it was deleted for lack of notability.  Esowteric + Talk  10:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It appears to be a WP:SPS. No indication that it is reliable in any way. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At least its better than those WP:SPS sources used in Younus AlGohar and MFI.--Serfrosh (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The sockmaster has shown a willingness to comply and is negotiating with Scientizzle to be unblocked; hopefully fruitful discussion addressing these concerns will follow.  Esowteric + Talk  10:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to one and all.  Esowteric + Talk  10:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Two separate books report 1990 Nelson Mandela quote
This sentence has been rejected from an article because it is apparently inadequately sourced, despite two notable books discussing the quote: In 1990, Nelson Mandela said of the PLO, "We are in the same trench struggling against the same enemy: the twin Tel Aviv and Pretoria regimes, apartheid, racism, colonialism and neo-colonialism." The sources used for this statement are the following:


 * The Jewish wars: reflections by one of the belligerents pg.76, Alexander, Edward (1996).


 * The Scientifization of Culture pg.258, Riedjik, Cornelis Willem (1994).

Note that these books source the quote from two different newspapers, both on the date of 20th June 1990 - the first The New York Post, the second Wall Street Journal Europe. This is plausible because Mandela was in the United States at the time and was bound to be asked his opinion on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He had previously met Yasser Arafat and warmly embraced him, and upon Arafat's death praised him as "the greatest freedom fighter of his generation". So the quote is quite plausible.

Another user is arguing that the quote is fabricated, but both books are completely different in subject, tone and origin yet refer to the same date but different newspapers. The Scientifization of Culture is by a Dutch author and was likely originally written in Dutch (I am not sure). The Jewish Wars is written by a strongly pro-Israel author and it is not clear why a pro-Israel advocate would fabricate a quote seemingly associating the PLO with a highly popular, praised figure like Mandela. Who fabricated and why? If it was fabricated it should appear in pro-Palestinian literature, which it does not.

If anyone has access to the archives of either of the news publications mentioned going back to 1990 we could settle this matter for good; and even other newspapers at the same date might have mentioned the quote. Factsontheground (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I just found an article about Mandela praising the PLO written on the 22nd of June 1990 - two days after the other quote is alleged to have been made - in the The Seattle Times. In particular the following is interesting: NEW YORK - On his second day in the United States, Nelson Mandela showed why he is not only one of the world's most admired figures, but also one of the most controversial.

At a town hall meeting in Harlem televised nationally last night, the deputy president of the African National Congress praised Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and Cuban leader Fidel Castro. He called them ``comrades in arms'' in black South Africa's struggle against the white minority government.

Mandela said the three leaders, viewed as enemies by the U.S. government, have been friends in need to the ANC, which is seeking to end apartheid's policy of racial separation in South Africa.

Mandela's comments, on the second day of an eight-city U.S. tour that is to take him to Washington Sunday, seemed all the more controversial because the rest of his New York visit has been wrapped in a cocoon of celebratory rhetoric and cheering.

Arafat, Gadhafi and Castro ``support our struggle to the hilt,'' he said. ``There is no reason whatsoever why we should have any hesitation about hailing their commitment to human rights.''

Mandela said his attitude toward any country is shaped by that country's support of the anti-apartheid movement.

``They fully support our struggle, not only with rhetoric, but by putting resources at our disposal,'' he said.

Mandela's support of the PLO has angered U.S. Jewish leaders and prompted demonstrations against him here.

This proves that the original quote would have been perfectly plausible for Mandela to have made at that time, given his then- political beliefs. In particular, Mandela mentions apartheid in the original quote and here as the reason for his support of the PLO. Factsontheground (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the quote in an unsigned editorial titled "Mr. Mandela's Friends", page A20, in the June 19, 1990 Wall Street Journal. The editorial does not provide any further context, such as when and where Mandela said this. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nelson Mandela's words are listened to by millions, and only a tiny number of sources record that sentence?  The source I found is a syndicated column from Pat Buchanan, which  is probably the New York Post "article" cited by one of the books  in question. The Seattle Times article is assembled from wire  reports and other sources, and I question its veracity . — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the research Gamaliel and Malik, I appreciate it.


 * But I have to say I am confused. Why would editorialists in high-circulation newspapers like the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal fabricate a highly controversial quote and attribute it to a public figure? If the quote was a fabrication then why didn't Mandela's lawyers sue Buchanan/WSJ into oblivion? Both newspapers are read by thousands, the NY Post in particular is read by many Israel supporters, and nobody thought to complain about a fabricated quote saying that the massively popular Mandela supported a hated figure like Arafat?


 * Anyway, it seems odd that if the quote was fabricated by Buchanan that an editorial in the WSJ on the very same day would also mention it; or vice-versa. If it was fabricated there had to have been an earlier source both Buchanan and the WSJ got it from. Which would have been what?


 * "Nelson Mandela's words are listened to by millions, and only a tiny number of sources record that sentence?" No offence, Malik, but this seems like an argument from personal incredulity. Perhaps the massive controversy about the later statements he made on the 22nd overshadowed his earlier comments. But it's just one sentence. There's probably many sentences he made that are not recorded in many sources. Factsontheground (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I found the quote in the Chicago Tribune now. . This is conclusive, IMO. Factsontheground (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You've hit a right-wing trifecta: The Wall Street Journal editorial page, Pat Buchanan, and Mona Charen. Polemicists, but not reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So all these different people wrote incendiary editorials about a fabricated quote and nobody thought to complain, particularly not Mandela himself? Even if those 3 are individually unreliable, why would all 3 choose to fabricate exactly the same quote? It just doesn't make sense at all unless Mandela actually said that.Factsontheground (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (written before the following section) What I'm saying is that Mandela's "quote" was one of the conservative "talking points" that week, intended to detract from his historic visit to the U.S. Ask yourself, why hasn't this quote appeared in any of the hundreds (thousands?) of books written about Mandela? Why can't you find it in a book about Palestine? The fact that this "quote" appears only in syndicated columns and right-wing newspaper editorials should give you a hint that there's something fishy about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The current situation
The Mandela quote has been sourced back to the editorial of the Wall Street Journal and two opinion pieces in the New York Post (by Pat Buchanan) and in the Chicago Tribune (by Mona Charen), the first 2 on June 20 1990, the latter on June 25. This can all be confirmed with Google news archive.

Malik Shabazz is arguing (apologies if this is a misrepresentation) that because each source is individually unreliable that the quote is not acceptable. I am arguing that the combination of the 3 sources, particularly the WSJ editorial (which is fact-checked by the WSJ editorial board), is reliable enough for the quote to be acceptable on Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no fact-checking that is undertaken to verify syndicated columns or newspaper editorials. That's why they are not considered reliable sources, ever, except for the opinions they express. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, I guess I assumed that because the editorial board took responsibility for the uncredited editorials (as opposed to the credited opeds) they would have the columns fact checked. It's disappointing that such high circulation publications don't bother to do fact-checking... Factsontheground (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't dismiss Malik's concerns. I have them as well.  If a quote only appears as a talking point and can't be traced to it's original source, I wonder how useful and valuable this particular quote is for an encyclopedia article. Do other sources not cover the same ground?  What is the encyclopedic necessity of this particular quote? Gamaliel (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I should add that plenty of fabricated or incorrect quotes by famous figures have made their way into editorials, speeches, etc. That doesn't mean this is one of those cases, of course. Gamaliel (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can find, there are two possible places for the "original" quote. The book above sources it to a NY Post article from June 20, 1990. Another article (an editorial by then president of the Zionist Organization of America, Klein, Morton. "Inciters of anti-Israel violence should be condemned, not rewarded" The Jewish Advocate Nov 4, 1999) cites it to an article in Commentary Magazine in Oct 1990. There is an article in that issue about Mandela, "Mandela in America", but I dont have access to the full article. If somebody who does have access can check if this line is in that piece that may help clear this up. Personally, I think we would find more sources, and higher quality sources, if this were real, and the multiple places being cited as the origin of the quote dont exactly give me greater confidence that this in fact genuine.  nableezy  - 07:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The encyclopedic importance of the quote is indicated by the incredulity shown by many Wikipedians; it's a surprising thing for Mandela to have said. It is also an early example of a public figure making the apartheid analogy and may be of interest in the Israel and the apartheid analogy article.
 * But since the consensus seems to be forming that the quote is not reliable I will accept that. Factsontheground (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The points made by Factsontheground are sound, yet the fact that only a couple of references can be found to support such a red-hot statement raises significant doubt. I would expect that if a person of Mandela's stature had unequivocally made that statement that there would be 200 reliable sources verifying and debating the issue, not just 2 or 3. I have not taken the time to work out how it is intended that the text be used in the article, but I raise another point: it is not satisfactory for an editor to pick isolated statements (however well sourced) and use them to make suggestions in any article, particularly a BLP, because that is essentially WP:SYNTH. There must be a ton of reliable material written about Mandela, and if no reliable source has an analysis discussing Mandela's views on the subject in question, it is not valid for us to inject such an inflammatory statement into an article. For example, a person could be in an unusual frame of mind such that given persistent probing, the person might blurt out a statement that they genuinely reject the next day: sure, they made the statement in some possibly provocative circumstance, but do they really believe the words as they came out? Given such a controversial statement and such a prominent person, I do not think a couple of sources reporting the same public statement in 1990 are adequate to introduce a statement as if it is a reasonable summary on the subject's views. Of course if we were writing a blog, considerations such as whether the statement is a fair reflection of the subject's views would not be relevant, but since this is an encyclopedia, they are. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote is reliable, the threshold of inclusion is ridiculously impossible. The counter argument is weak. One good quote doesnt become true just because 2ooo people say it. Many statments get excessive copy b/c they serve a specific political agenda. EVen in SA many things which "hurt" the rainbow get less press. So reasons r many. And why have this imposible standard just because the content is ultimately against Israels interest?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be the first time somebody has said I oppose material because it is "against Israels interest". Thanks for that, makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. The reason I have questioned the quote is because from what I have seen there is some confusion as to where it is actually from and no real solid source has this quote. You would expect something like this to get reported in real news stories, not just op-eds, and in the real sources that discuss apartheid and Israel.  nableezy  - 10:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not saying U r guilty of that. But think of your key argument premise. "you would expect ..." that condition there r so many other concerns and I am saying generally politics and hush tactics are at work. Mandela has press people that do damage control, he is criticized widely in SA but yet I struggle to find that content on the net. I think if it comes from a solid place it should be accepted, Not only that it seems in line with Mandela, if it was some werid stuff then i understand. Tutu echoed the same thing these ideas are not strange for Mandela.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "comes from a solid place" being the operative phrase there. Ive looked for better sources but have so far been unable to find one.  nableezy  - 10:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that we can't include this surprising quotation as a fact because of WP:SYNTH. There are good reasons for this: He may have said something different and have been misunderstood. (Wouldn't be the first time something like this happens.) He may really have said it, but as an introduction to scathing criticism of PLO's methods. (In this case the right wing commentators would have taken it out of context in order to damage him.) He may have said it unplanned, and retracted it the next day. In all these cases other media would very likely not have reported about the matter either way, and even if there was a short notice somewhere explaining the situation, we are unlikely to find it.

What might be possible is mentioning that two opinion pieces attacked him, claiming that he had said that. But it would be important to give this hardly any weight at all, because we are so unsure about the context. And it still seems better to ignore it completely. Incidentally, simply ignoring it because of the uncertainties is probably precisely what most of the biographies did. Hans Adler 10:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor disagrees, include it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post also has the quotation in an opinion piece by "prominent NY journalist" Sidney Zion (24 June 1990, page 4). Actually I don't know why people find it surprising. Zerotalk 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a very silly argument here. If multiple reliable sources have reported the same quote by the same person, and it is in line with comments he has made in the past (e.g. Mandela has been a vocal critic of the hypocrisy of Israel being allowed to keep its nuclear weapons while S. Africa was forced to abandon its program), then what exactly is the problem here? Tarc (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the editor who originally removed the quote from the article. I did so because I simply do not believe the source. As someone who has long  described Israel as an apartheid society, I have frequently expressed my  disappointment that Mandela has never made such an unequivocal  statement; and I don't see how I could have missed that one if he really  had made it twenty years ago. The sources that cite this all appear to  be right-wing pro-Israeli polemicists, who are attempting to smear both  Mandela and the PLO. Look at the context in the first book cited:  "Barring the resurrection of Hitler, it is difficult to think of a  figure more likely than Arafat to arouse the loathing of ordinary Jews.  If the Jews were a normal, a self-respecting people, Mandela's defiant  embrace of this Jew killer would therefore seem to have been an unlikely  way to ingratiate himself with  them".  And so on.


 * The New York Post archive only goes back to 1998, so I have been unable to confirm the veracity of this quote online. But it is a  sensationalist tabloid, and on an issue like this I would be very  reluctant to takee its word unsupported by any other source. This is a  muckraking attempt to present anti-Zionism as antisemitic, and I'm  surprised that some other editors uncritically accept the veracity of  this surprising statement. RolandR (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The original sources are opinion pieces (not news articles) so they're not reliable sources for whether Mandela made this specific statement. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So far the earliest possible source of this quote is the October 1990 issue of Commentary Magazine mentioned by Nableezy. This seems plausible given that the 3 opeds (edit 4 with the J Post quote mentioned by Zero0000) seem to all be referring to an earlier source of some kind. I'm not going to push this any further on the page - not just because of the unreliability of the quote's sources, but because on further reflection I have doubts that Mandela (if he did say the quote) was indeed purposefully making the analogy or just being rhetorical. However if anyone has access to that issue of Commentary and could confirm/disconfirm the quote I'd be interested just to get to the bottom of this; the provenance of the quote is quite mysterious. It would also be interesting to see exactly how reliable the original piece containing the quote was - who the author was and was it an opinion or straight news piece itself? Factsontheground (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the October 1990 quote would be the latest, no? The flurry of opeds were from June 1990. Anyway, just for interest sake, yes, the Commentary Magazine does repeat the misquote (see below for Nableezy's find about this).--Slp1 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes me very cautious here is that, although this quote appears to strengthen the argument that use of this analogy is widespread, the only sources that we can find are right-wing, even neo-con, and definitely anti-Palestinian polemicists. If the quote was genuine, I would have expected more use to be made of it by those who agree with it, rather than by those who are using it to attack Mandela and the PLO. RolandR (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a similar quote in a Newsday article, Les Payne "PLO, S. Africa Struggles Compared", Mar 1, 1990. The article contains the following:"'If the truth alienates the Jewish community, my position is, it's too bad,' Mandela said. 'I sincerely believe that there are many similarities between our situation and that of the PLO.' He also said, 'We live under a unique form of colonialism in South Africa, as well as in Israel, and a lot flows from that fact.' Asked about Mandela's remark, Arafat said, 'We are in the same trench, struggling against the same enemies against apartheid, racism, colonialism and neo-colonialism. Israel and South Africa are cooperating in everything, and {there is}all kinds of cooperation between the two regimes.'"(the Arafat quote can be seen in the abstract) Here we have almost the exact same quote as what is claimed Mandela said, "We are in the same trench struggling against the same enemy: the twin Tel Aviv and Pretoria regimes, apartheid, racism, colonialism and neo-colonialism." but it is reported to have been said by Arafat. I dont think we can use a collection of op-eds claiming a living person said something.  nableezy  - 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent find that is more credible than the original. It casts sufficient doubt over the situation that the quotation definitely should not be used. Zerotalk 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that's the last nail in the coffin. Factsontheground (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done all. I must say that this is the sort of thing about Wikipedia that inspires me. A bunch of volunteers scattered about the world, armed with common sense, healthy skepticism and research skills, provide better editorial oversight than mainstream sources have. --Slp1 (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and it's also a good example of the strength of the reliable sources policy. It appears that the opinion pieces in question, which do not qualify as reliable sources for this "fact", had it wrong because of poor fact checking. Which is exactly why they're not reliable sources. Even in a case like this where three opinion pieces say the same thing, it doesn't mean the information is any more credible - it may just be a pattern of repetition without fact checking. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have overlooked the possibility that it was Mandela and Arafat who used talking points, and simply quoted or paraphrased one another during their public speaking engagements. The October 1990 Commentary Magazine attributes the quote to Mandela, together with several other controversial remarks that were made during a program that aired on New York's WABC television station. It is not identical to Arafat's statement that Nableezy cited above. Commentary Magazine does exercise editorial oversight, and the author, Joshua Muravchik, was a research scholar and Fellow at AEI. He is currently a Fellow at the Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute. harlan (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is so close to the Arafat quote (the exact same opening and the exact same order on "apartheid, racism, colonialism and neo-colonialism") that the difference is almost negligible. I think there is enough doubt that we should not use the quote.  nableezy  - 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no strong conviction either way. I was just posting information about the Commentary Magazine article. harlan (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Debrett's People of Today"
Is "Debrett's People of Today" a reliable source? In particular, my concern is whether http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/search/results/16134/Fidelis+MORGAN.aspx is a reliable source for Fidelis Morgan. Woogee (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think so... Debrett's has a good reputation for a long time. Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find where they get their information, though. Woogee (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are concerned about whether this is an SPS (ie entries written by those featured)... no... Debrett's has staff who write their entries and an editorial staff who vet what is written. They get their information by doing research. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, great, thanks. Woogee (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Now Magazine ; Toronto Weekly
Now Magazine is used as a source for multiple somewhat inflamatory reports in a BLP: Rob Ford

e.g. "Controversy erupted when several councillors reportedly heard Ford call Mammoliti "Gino boy" in the debate over the 2002 budget."

I live in Toronto and the magazine is thought of by many as being a local Natl. Inquirer. So, maybe some Editors here could have a look? Itabletboy (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I live in Toronto and think of it as Toronto’s Village Voice. —  Spike Toronto  04:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Spike on this. NOw has been around for 30 years or so. The Globe and Mail it isn't, but neither is it the National Enquirer. Don Wanagas has been reporting on local politics for a long time, too. I think he used to be with the Toronto Star, which many people think is reputable. I recall the Ginoboy story being reported widely. Ground Zero | t 11:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, this why I asked and I did not know about Wanagas' credentials. Thank you. Itabletboy (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cardiff as a 'primate city'
User:Welshleprechaun recently added Cardiff as an example of a primate city, citing what appears to be a self-published website on climate science. I would welcome comment on whether this meets WP:RS criteria or not, especially as the source is not directly relevant to the topic.--Pondle (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The self-published website of Patrick J. Tyson is not a reliable source on whether or not Cardiff is a "primate city". Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-biblical scholars in Genesis creation myth?
The sources are to numerous to list, but do the sources removed count as reliable sources for statements in the article Genesis creation myth about whether the first chapters of the Book of Genesis describes a creation ex nihilo or an organization of pre-existing chaos? A more detailed analysis of the sources themselves is available. Gabbe (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes one does not have to be a scholar. One just needs to be able to read. Biblical scholars have no other approach either. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 11:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you do not "have to be a scholar", to be sure, but if you aren't, you have on claim to have your work cited on Wikipedia. We have rules for a reason.
 * if Cush thinks that all it takes to make a scholar is "being able to read", he has a very long way to go before he will understand what Wikipedia is trying to do.
 * Genesis is obviously a book of the bible, hence the only field of scholarship applicable in a discussion of Genesis is biblical scholarship. This is not limited to denominational scholarship of course, and does include secular study of religion and Hebrew philologists in general. Hebrew philologists are the only people qualified to comment on the original text. Of course, a medievalist scholar will be qualified to comment on the reception of Genesis during the Middle Ages, a scholar of modern sectarianism will be qualified to comment on the role of Genesis in US Christian fundamentalism, etc. --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a specious argument. The editors here have had no problem with mythologists or historians being quoted in the article if they support creation from chaos. Their problem isn't the refs, but what the refs pertain to: creation ex nihilo.

Regardless, the point being made in the article (and I made sure this is the point) is that creation ex nihilo is a widespread view. Biblical scholars are quoted, but scholars in other fields are quoted to show how pervasive this view is in our culture.

In support of creation from chaos, the primary "biblical scholar" isn't even talking about Genesis, but rather instead 2nd Peter!

So, the,


 * 1) Creation ex nihilo is supported by a biblical scholar analyzing the book of Genesis.
 * 2) Creation from chaos is supported by a biblical scholar analyzing 2nd Peter (and not Genesis).
 * 3) Creation ex nihilo is shown to be pervasive in our culture by references to writers in other fields.
 * 4) Creation from chaos is shown to be parallel to mythological Mesopotamian texts by reference to mythologists and historians.

All of these are fair.

The editors questioning the fairness of one set of refs are merely trying to return the article to the state it was in when creation ex nihilo was routinely deleted on a daily basis as not being a notable view at all!

You'd never know this from the original framing of the question here, though. While the point sounds like it could be reasonable, in context it is not.EGMichaels (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me again say that the purpose of this thread is not to settle whether the ex nihilo view should be expressed in the article or not. Also, I don't think anyone is actively disputing the scholarly sources (such as Wenham). The purpose of this thread is merely to find more opinions as to whether the sources mentioned at the top (the non-biblical scholars) are reliable with regards to statements about interpreting the Bible. Gabbe (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gabbe -- the purpose of this thread? The purpose of THIS thread???  Gabbe, you need to be stopped.  This is completely unacceptable.  You know full well I took my wife to the hospital this weekend.  Hitting me with a sockpuppet accusation while I'm taking care of my wife and new child is just beyond the pale.  Yes, folks, that's ANOTHER "thread."  Notice that Gabbe called this game just another "thread."  It's called a content dispute, folks, and Gabbe is playing every Wiki trick in the book to win it.  This is unaccetably bad behavior, and after some admin comes in and clears me I expect him to stop you.  You at least need a lecture on how to keep content discussion "threads" in their proper bounds.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the proper forum for questions about sources, actually. -- King Öomie  17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but that's the problem, everything "proper" has been simply used as a "thread" to a content dispute. These are ALL distractions.  ANIs, RSNs, Sockpuppet accusations.  Maybe one might be "proper" but too much propriety is using Wikipedia rules to destroy collaboration.  Wikipedia rules should be followed to help each other, not to subvert collaboration.  As I said on the article talk page, the problem isn't the propriety of the sources.  They are all reliable.  The problem is that most of the stuff being referenced has nothing to do with mythology.  The old article was sabotaged.  We need to accept the sabotage and limit the scope to that sabotage.  Creation according to Genesis content is still stuck in there with a Genesis creation myth title.  It was a clever and successful campaign.  Now the CONTENT needs to be limited to the TITLE.EGMichaels (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * please let us sort out the creatio ex nihilo thing at the Creatio ex nihilo article first. I am convinced that it isn't possible to argue creatio ex nihilo for any text predating 400 BC, including Genesis. But I am most willing to be convinced that serious scholars contradict this impression, just put the sources on the table. I see absolutely no evidence of any serious support for the ex nihilo in Genesis as of now. At the Genesis creation myth you are currently trying to score by producing "many references" instead of a single good reference. Tagging ten(!) footnotes to the claim, all of them dodgy, does nothing and falls under WP:POINT.
 * nobody, I hope, disputes that creatio ex nihilo is a notable interpretation of the Genesis narrative. However, it is an interpretation that dates to Hellenistic Judaism, 300 BC and later, it isn't the "truth". --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You see, expertism isn't going to be a basis for valid PsOV if the respective experts (i.e secondary sources) contradict the primary  sources. Proving that an expert is right is difficult, proving that an  expert is wrong is kids play. There simply is no ex-nihilo story in  Genesis. How do I know that? Because I can read.
 * And really, what expertise could anybody need in the study of a book except reading ability? I have never understood what a "biblical  scholar" is. I mean it's not like an archeologist or historian where you  have to actually know your business. Heck, I'm a Silmarillion scholar  for Nogod's sake. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH ·  11:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * sure, you can read. Read this: ברא. It's three letters. So much for the reading. Now you have read it, tell us what you have read and how it relates to the ex nihilo question. Or better yet, don't tell us, write a book about it, get it peer-reviewed and after that we'll quote you in the article. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Above, there is quite a lot of talk from users already frequenting Talk:Genesis creation myth. Would other, more uninvolved, editors care to give their opinion? Gabbe (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Other opinions?
 * On a topic like this, it's probably best to stick to Biblical scholars and scholars of religion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment- There are several articles on Genesis already in this encyclopedia, and this particular article - by definition - needs to focus on Genesis as a Creation myth, and the term "creation myth" is a formal term used by academics meaning a story invented by humans which has literary/sociological/political meaning. Several editors seem to be trying to add content to Genesis creation myth that implies "no, this is not a myth, the world really did get created this way".  That is a respectable viewpoint, but it belongs in the other articles on Genesis, such as Book of Genesis or Creationism, or perhaps a new article could be created specifically to address that viewpoint.  --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed with Noleander here -- but I need to add to his comment. The only people who are going to read this article are people (like myself) who wanted to see references to the mythological parallels with Genesis.  Certain editors are trying to treat "Genesis creation myth" AS synonymous with the "Genesis creation narrative."  While that's a respectable viewpoint (and possibly the best one), it's still one viewpoint among others.  Right now editors on both sides of the aisle are trying to jam into the article things that have nothing to do with mythology.  The article should be limited to mythology, and allegory should go into another existing article, and creationism should to into the creationism article.  Personally, I think that "Mythological parallels with Genesis" would be a better title, or "Genesis creation as myth."  Either one of those LIMITS the article to Genesis and mythology.  We need that limit.EGMichaels (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * EGMichaels makes a very good point... the article needs to better define exactly what its focus is. A renaming may help with that.  If there is disagreement over what the focus should be... then perhaps we need several articles, each devoted to a separate focus. (note... I am not calling for the creation of POV forks. I am saying that there are different ways to study Genesis, and each of these different ways to study it might deserve a separate sub-article.) Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Everyone agrees that several articles are needed; and everyone agrees that they would not be POV forks.  But the article's name already includes the phrase "creation myth" and so clearly the article should remain devoted to treating Genesis as a Creation myth.  It is senseless to rename it, then create another article named Genesis creation myth.  It is telling that all the proposed re-names change the title to a wording that suggests that Genesis may be literally true (which it may be, but that viewpoint should be the focus of other articles such as Book of Genesis or Creationism).   The editors that believe that Genesis is literally true should spend more time editing and improving  Book of Genesis or Creationism, or creating a new article devoted to that viewpoint.   --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

uninvolved, outside view: Take this with a grain of salt, as I know nothing about the Bible, but I'm definitely persuaded by the idea that Biblical scholars are the proper authority on interpreting the Bible, and we should give their views more weigh than the views of non-scholars. Sure, at first glance those sources referred to at the top of the post appear reliable, as they are all books published by mainstream, reputable publishers. But I'm not seeing that they're as relevant as the works of reputable biblical scholars published in reputable places. The more I think about it, the more I think this is a WP:WEIGHT issue: how much attention should the article give to the views of scientists, and other non-biblical scholars vis-a-vis biblical scholars. I don't have answer for the questions. But maybe the article should say something like, "Most biblical scholars think X,Y, Z. Many scientists have argued that A, B, C. The Church itself takes the position that..." or something like that. Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  18:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are good suggestions. I think there is a balance issue underlying the original question:  The article is supposed to be about Genesis, analyzed from a Creation myth viewpoint, which is a scientific/literary/sociological/historical viewpoint.  Good sources would be scholars versed in  ancient mesopotamia and ancient mythology, and biblical scholars as well.  The problem, however, is that some editors are "stacking" the article with many Christian scholars and  are thus  pushing the viewpoint that Genesis is literally true.  Inclusion of a few such scholars is okay, but since the article is focusing on Creation myth aspect, those  viewpoints need to be kept in proportion.  --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander -- we're agreed, the two primary sources should be 1) mythologists and 2) biblical scholars (and I also agree with literary and historical and sociological sources). There are pros and cons given to the mythological parallels, with mythologists more prone to show parallels and biblical scholars more prone to show the differences.  Heck, we could do the same with an article comparing greek and roman mythology.  Greek mythologists would be more prone to show parallels and Romans would be more prone to show the differences.  BOTH aspects are applicable and relevant.  The topics not addressing mythology -- pro or con -- should go to other existing articles.EGMichaels (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't Biblical scholars explore the "scientific/literary/sociological/historical viewpoint"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They would, which is why they are one of the two primary reference points for the subject of Genesis in terms of a creation myth.EGMichaels (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

'Inclusion of information in the Guinea Worm Wrap-up does not constitute "publication" of that information'
I've found a source called the Guinea worm wrap-up (http://cartercenter.org/news/publications/health/guinea_worm_wrapup_english.html) very helpful for the Dracunculiasis and Eradication of Infectious Diseases pages. It's almost always the first place where estimates will be reported, before more formal publication in the WHO's Weekly Epidemiology Record (www.who.int/wer), the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or elsewhere, and it's been pretty reliable in my experience. However, at the foot of each issue of the wrap-up is the caveat `Inclusion of information in the Guinea Worm Wrap-Up does not constitute “publication” of that information.' Does this rule it out as a Wikipedia source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinator supreme (talk • contribs)
 * The source looks reliable to me as it's a publication of the Carter Center and the CDC. I think that disclaimer is just so that researchers can contribute their data to the Wrap-up without have it "count" as prior publication. When you submit a manuscript to an academic journal for publication, you typically have to declare that your results have not been previously published elsewhere. Presumably the disclaimer in the Wrap-up is there so that researchers can contribute their data to the Wrap-up without having to worry that a journal might reject a future paper on the basis that the data have already been published. Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  06:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ozfootball.net
I know this is a broad question, but would ozfootball.net be considered to be a reliable source? It does identify some "notable" contributors on one page, but it mostly looks like a fan created site. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally not: "In all this time OzFootball has been by the fans, for the fans. ... OzFootball is not an official site of any club, organisation or company, we speak for nobody but ourselves, and you. If you wish to submit a match report or have something you feel would make a positive contribution to the site we would welcome your input." Doesn't just look fan created, says it's fan created.--GRuban (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Squash sites
Hi there. (Gosh, this page is awfully busy and somewhat heated!)

I'm trying to review, and help improve, the article Nicol David with a view to promoting it to 'Good article' status.

I am concerned with some of the sources, which are websites about squash; I'm told that they are reliable and 'trusted' within the world of squash, but I'd like some feedback on whether other people think that they are appropriate reliable sources.

Some examples are;


 * Squashweb
 * Squashsite.co.uk
 * Squashtalk
 * Squash player

The context and nature of the sourcing can be seen within the article,

I appreciate any feedback. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

GULAG statistics
We have discussion abou GULAG statistics. In my opinion based on eyewitnesses accounts, works about reliability of soviet statistcs in general there was no properly head count and bacause the number of victims is an estimation and there is no reliable source even in closed russian archives.98.166.128.202 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific. What is the proposed source that you are questioning, what is the information it is being used to cite, and what article is involved? --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite likely so. You better ask the people who actually recover the names of the dead, one name after another. Back in 1926 the village were my grandmother grew up was herded into cattle trails, taken to the Arctic circle and dumped in the tundra. Few men survived the first winter, women fared a bit better. Guess what? None of them were part of any statistic. It just "didn't happen". NVO (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

External links deleted repeatedly by a single user
Hello,

I have a desire to contribute to the content of a particular page, but a single individual (who appears to have originated the page) shows a long history of undoing contributions of others, and has deleted one of my contributions repeatedly. I really don't want to start a battle with this person - in fact, I'm not going to name them or the page here, specifically to avoid a conflict.

This party is using the excuse that the link is to IMDb.com and therefore not valid, but I am not reporting gossip, I am attempting to identify an individual in the film industry who had a hand in the promotion of a specific film (I assure you, he's a real person, he just doesn't have a Wikipedia page).

Is it better to bracket an individual's name and allow it to show up in red text (anticipating that a Wikipedia page will eventually be created), leave the name plain text, or try for a third time to enter the link? This last option seems like it would prompt a negative response from the person who hovers over the page.

Your advice?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factinator (talk • contribs) 15:53, March 18, 2010


 * First, if you add ~ after your posts, they'll turn into your user name and date, making it easier for others. Now out of the three choices you've given, I'd recommend the red link if you think the person is individually notable enough to get an article, and no link otherwise. But, is this about this edit? If so ... er ... is it really important? I'm no movie expert, but to me, telling someone to double the advertising budget on a movie doesn't seem to be that notable. I imagine for any given big budget movie there are four people who think the advertising budget should be doubled, and three who think it's too big already... --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

REVIVED 'Underminingdemocracy.org a reliable source or not?'
Note: apologies that it was necessary to revive this, but the editor who disputed it said that one person certifying the source's reliability is not enough. More views would be welcome. Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute on the Propaganda in the People's Republic of China page about whether "" is a reliable source on the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda work. argues that it is not, since "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US". I disagree. This is a question about the reliability of the source, not about whether the source has been used in a fully appropriate manner in the article. Please share your considered opinions. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it would be relevant to note who these people are. Here's Kurlantzick's profile; and Perry Link. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable. a) is perfectly fine; our sources had better do original research, it's only Wikipedia editors who are not allowed to. b) could be an issue, so noting that the source was funded by the US govt would probably be appropriate, though I doubt the second part of that objection. The article says COUNTRY REPORTS: CHINA IRAN PAKISTAN RUSSIA VENEZUELA - it's highly debatable whether Pakistan is a political opponent of the US, it's a very important backer of the Afghan war; and if the source was merely a critic of everyone the US didn't like, surely Cuba and North Korea would be more prominent than China and Russia.) --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So please share ideas on whether the source is reliable, taking into account the authors (Link and Kurlantzick) and the publisher (Freedom House). I am sorry to bother the noticeboard again. I already started an RfC on the individual disputing the source's reliability. He has been doing this for years. Thank you. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that here's media coverage underminingdemocracy.org has received. The authors' of the report on China published an op-ed in WSJ. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that the source comes from a political website that lacks scholarly review, and a search on google scholar showed no results. Furthermore there is an undue emphasis disproportionate weight and being place on the source, with like 15+ citations on the respective article.--PCPP (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say it would be fine to cite it with attribution, but not for bald statements of fact. Dlabtot (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxford, Harvard University Presses v. Greenwood Publishing
Should we consider books published by prestigious university presses like the Harvard University Press to be more reliable than those published by the private academic press, like Greenwood Publishing, Routledge, etc.? This dispute has arisen at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) The conflict is whether the Democratic Party is an ideological party. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources disagree, we report the disagreement, as per WP:NPOV. Dlabtot (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, remember that we consider the reputation for fact checking and accuracy of "the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer)", as well as the publisher of the work, to meet WP:V. . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally for the publishing houses you cited here (Harvard University Press, Routledge, Greenwood) there is no doubt that they are of a comparable quality as all of them are up to the same scholarly standard. Harvard University Press might be more prestigious, but not more reliable. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel&#39;s Demons (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dlabtot. Specifically for the question of whether the US Democratic Party is really liberal, that is a notable point of debate (just ask Ralph Nader and John McCain), and worth a bit of text saying there are two sides to the question. --GRuban (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Frank as a source in the Tobin tax article
There is this discussion about quotes from the economist Ellen Frank used in the article Tobin tax.

One editor presented this Wikipedia guideline with this quote: "Questionable sources are ... websites and publications expressing views that are...promotional in nature"

On the other hand I presented this Wikipedia policy with this quote: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions..."

Ellen Frank's article appears in a magazine which promotes the Tobin tax in a sidebar to her article, and gives the contacts to get involved in the promotion of the Tobin tax. But Frank was not involved in setting up those sidebars and contacts.

Can she still be used as a source -- as long as it is clearly stated that we are reporting on her opinion (as opposed to "facts")?

Or are we prevented from quoting her at all (due to concerns about "promotion")?

Note: The question is about this article in the magazine called New Internationalist.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence that the New Internationalist is at all reliable? It can generally be assumed that an article represents the opinion of the author, but, even in mainstream publications, that opinion can be altered beyond recognition.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, NI is a reliable source by our standards... it certainly seems to meet all our criteria on reliability. Is there reason to call it unreliable?
 * I don't think you need to worry about the "promotional" part... a sidebar that discusses a particular tax policy in a favorable way is not what we mean by "promotional".
 * As for it being used in support of an attributed statement of the author's opinion... it clearly is reliable (however, please note that reliability is not the only issue when it comes to opinions... be sure to read WP:UNDUE) Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fansite Question
When adding content to Neighbours's fictional character articles there is a website that holds quite a bit of information. Fansites are not encouraged, but this website Perfectblen.net has been running for years now, along the way it has managed to get exclusives from producers, interviews with many cast members, exclusive video content and so on. Is it okay to cite it as a source, for information on casting and character development from exclusive interviews carried out by the website? Obviously it won't be used to cite any other information that is available elsewhere, or is not an exclusive peice on their behalf. Isn't it the primary source if it's the one who has the exclusive interview? RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 00:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hazy on what the boundaries of a "fansite" are. To some editors a fansite is a personal website run by a fan, which would be unreliable, while other editors might consider any news outlet intended for fans as a fansite.  It seems to me that if the site is important enough that it gets interviews and exclusive content, it's a lot more than just somebody's personal site.  You may want to see if the site is run by a media company, that will help with justifying that the site is "published".  Also see if news media and other reliable sources quote the site you want to use, that helps. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Computer chess forums as sources
This edit uses three web forums as sources, and was thus speedily reverted. Although the general policy is to not allow web forums, I believe these three sources were appropriate:
 * 1) The CCRL fact is sourced from the CCRL forum (a direct response from the testers involved).
 * 2) The CEGT fact is sourced from the CEGT forum (again, a direct response from the testers involved).
 * 3) The CCT fact is sourced from the CCT tournament director, Peter Skinner, who uses the TalkChess.com forum to coordinate and organize the tournament entries and advertise tournament policy.

These are not random web fora, but very specific fora which have the weight of scientific journals for the topics of computer chess testing and research. For the purposes of this edit, I can think of no more reliable sources. --IanOsgood (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no conceivable justification under our policies and guidelines for considering these to be reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Could you expand on this or direct me to somewhere that explains why these can't be treated as primary sources? (In the esoteric little community of computer chess testing, there aren't many other sources available. Especially on a topic that is close to being a blacklisting.) Also, doesn't WP:SELFPUB apply to the above sources? --IanOsgood (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden is actually not upon anyone to explain why they are not RS (proving a negative); rather the burden is upon those who want these to be considered RS to come up with some justification under WP:V and WP:RS to explain why they are. Nothing you've said above even approaches the neighborhood of doing that. To give a concrete example, if they were cited in  already established reliable sources, such as Chess Life, that would be a point in their favor. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain. I guess there are certain things that Wikipedia just can't talk about until they are "digested" by the wider world. The primary/secondary source distinction made by Wikipedia was also new to me. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree weith Dlabtot... I don't see anything that would tell me that these are any different from any other niche forums. I would need something more to call them reliable.
 * Ian, I think you hit the nail on the head in describing computer chess testing and research as an "esoteric little community" ... have you considered that the topic may be too specialized for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to discuss in any depth. Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If these organizations (CCRL, CEGT and CCT) are otherwise (i.e. independently) notable, then WP:SELFPUB would make statements by their officials on "official" sites like these "reliably sourced" with respect to themselves. The problems here are that notability is not established, and even if it were, it would still be off-topic: none of these purported statements about testing policy pertain to the subject of the article (Rybka).  The only relevant point that you need to document here is the general suspicion that IPPOLITE et al are clones or ripoffs of Rybka, for which the forums cited are definitely not reliable sources. rudra (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the funny thing. The fact that these organizations are not accepting an engine is itself evidence that it is considered a clone. But how to source an absence of data? I accept that I must wait until some other agency publishes this before it can be mentioned on WP; it is WP:OR otherwise. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be great if a third party (e.g. an article somewhere else) cited these facts as evidence :-) (That's what you need, in a nutshell). rudra (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is a loaded word which really means notable enough to have its own article on WP. But what you need is a secondary source that introduces those particular organizations with regard to Rybka or at least computer chess engines in the large, then you might be able to cite the organziations as primary sources for statements about themselves.  Forum posts would have to be by representatives of the organziation.  But the article is already out on a limb by that point; the article is about a chess engine called Rybka, but the details are about a program called IPPOLIT, and it's unclear if there's a relationship between those two.  I would say leave it out, unless you are writing an article about IPPOLIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Source balance at Gun laws in the United States (by state)
I am curious about third opinions regarding the question as to whether the ratio of 3rd Party sourcing relative to advocacy sourcing matters at Wikipeida. See Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29 for more detail, but I am wondering if the aggregate ratio of all the sources matters. In this case I see that the advocacy sourcing exceeds the third party sourcing and I wonder if that is a "red flag". I would appreciate hearing the opinion of some neutral editors about this question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is part of the issue. The article contains a table for each of the 50 states. Each one of those tables of course needs the nformation to be sourced. Part of Saltybotr et al's complain is that primary sources are being used.Normally, I'd agree, that is an issue. But I believe this is an exception. In this case, the primary links that they are complaining about are links straight to the a states official website, to the statute in question. No interptation. No opinions. Just "here is the law". What possible better source could you ask for? In this case, a primary source would be prefereble to a third party one. Why would a reporter writing a story where he interprets what the law says be a better source than the actual law itself. The example I used is saying that the Farmville Gazette would be a better source for the content of the State of the Union speech than the White House website would be. The state website would be the least biased, most accurate source available. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The core policy is WP:V which says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Presently the article is sourced 11% to third party sources and 89% non-third party sources.  My question here is whether a ratio of 1:10 for third party to non-third party is out of line with the intent of the "third party" requirement of WP:V.  What is the point of mentioning "third party" in WP:V if 1:10 is an acceptable ratio?    SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interpreting laws is not easy. For example, when a court finds that a statute is unconstitutional, the statute remains on the books; it just can't be enforced. So a state legislature's official site for statutes may be misleading. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Our policies are quite clear that primary sources may be used, with caution. See WP:PRIMARY. "the "third party" requirement of WP:V" does not exist. Dlabtot (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, our policies are clear that primary sources are problematic, and secondary sources are preferred. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which in no way contradicts my comment. Dlabtot (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayjg says "secondary sources are preferred", yet WP:V says "third party". That article has only about 1/10th of the sourcing being third party.  How does that comport with "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."?  I still don't know what to do with that sentence in WP:V. Is this an exception to that WP:V policy described in that sentence?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the vast majority of our articles should be based on third party sources... but we do have a few exceptions to that rule... Probably the best known exception are articles on works of fiction. I see a strong parallel here with the "plot summary" exemption for fiction.  In most of our fiction articles, the plot summary makes up the bulk of the article.  And thus the bulk of the article ends up cited to the work itself and not some "third-party" source.  The reason we allow this is because we recognize that for purely descriptive statements about the plot of a work of fiction, the most reliable source is the work itself.  In fact, that is so obvious that most of the time we don't actually bother to cite the work... we simply assume the citation.
 * I think the same can be said for a purely descriptive statement as to the language contained in a statute. For this the most reliable source is the statute itself.  Now, if we wrote a separate article on each State's gun law, this would not be a problem.  What makes this appear improper is that this article tries to cover all 50 states at one time.  Thus we end up having 50 separate purely descriptive statements about each State's statute.
 * To go back to the fiction analogy... imagine a fiction anthology volume that contained 50 short stories... you could write 50 articles on each story, each with a plot summary ... or you could have one article on the entire anthology... with 50 sub-sections, each outlining a different plot summary.
 * Of course, just like an article on a work of fiction, you have to be careful. If a statement goes beyond pure description and ventures into analysis or interpretation... then you do need an independent "third-party" secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, regarding works of fiction, we don't have "exceptions to that rule", but rather have many articles not in compliance with the rule, which is significantly different. Articles should comply with the rule, regardless of whether or not other articles do so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of the sources, but how prominently they're placed. For example, you would use the secondary sources for general statements, and the primary sources for specifics.  In something like a table of details by state, you would expect to see a high number of primary sources.  I would prefer that secondary sources be worked into that table as well ( because they can weigh in on how the laws are applied ), but the primary sources should stay.  There was also a question about advocacy groups and whether it was appropriate to have more cites to pro-gun groups.  That may be appropriate; the pro-gun sources would be expected to discuss more details of the law, because those publications are intended for people who actually own guns and have to stay legal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I look, the Brady Campaign spends a lot of effort discussing details of gun law too. And this may be unrelated, but the most used pro-gun advocacy source at that article is USAcarry.com, which when you check Whois you see that domain is owned by a parent company that also owns the domain of a handgun holster manufacturing company.  Presumably with an interest in encouraging more people to carry handguns who would buy their product.  So, the advocacy source intention might not simply "people having to stay legal" but it also could be advocacy efforts by commercial vendors promoting their product.       SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Access to developer information that is behind a "pre-order" door
For Sam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse (an upcoming video game series), there are a number of developers (we have no doubts to their identities) providing encyclopedic information on the tech and design of the game on their own forums (again, helping to assure of the validity of the developers) but that require the reader to have paid for a pre-order of the game to view that site. It is unknown at this time whether that forum will become public upon the game's release.

Can this be used as a reliable source at this time? Obviously if the forum becomes public, that's less of an issue. --M ASEM (t) 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paid sites such as Jstor are perfectly fine, so the fact that one has to pay for access shouldnt disqualify the source. The question is rather whether it is a reliable sourcebe a hurdle - provided that it otherwise meets all criteria of a reliable source. From what you say it looks like a primary source, so I would be somewhat. In the end, why not just wait until the game is actually released on April 10. I assume by then some secondary sources will have written and reviewed the game. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel&#39;s Demons (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources to expand reception isn't going to be a question upon release (they will happen, the series has more than enough popularity), and likely there will be some development information that will be published through third-party sources. But, information on the paid forum, while primary, is of additional development information that presently, and may not, end up in these additional sources. That's the stuff of most concern (the rest of the sourcing will come naturally on release). --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm if it's not know if the forum will be made public (have you tried asking?) and this could be intended to be the pre-order bonus kind of thing that once the game is released no one who didn't pre-order it will have access unless the publishers later change their mind then surely that's a problem. Unlike with say Jstor where you can argue anyone with enough money can gain access, there is only a limited pool of people who have access and no way for anyone new to gain access after the game is out. Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Phobia
Just so that this will be archived here and searchable by the keyword "phobia", hereby I am notifying you that I started a list of bad and good sources ( <Link to list removed as inappropriate> ) which can/cannot be used in various articles about specific phobias (see List of phobias), so that a wikipedian can be quickly cured when struggling with, e.g., prostitute phobia :-). - Altenmann >t 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to this... we have made it clear on numerous occasions that there is no such thing as a source that is always "bad" or always "good". Instead we have sources that are generally reliable, or generally unreliable... but in both cases context must be considered.  Even the worst source can be considered reliable in a specific situation (for a specific statement, in a specific article), and even the best source can be unreliable in a specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with blueboar. While there is nothing wrong with maintaining a list of your own opinions regarding the reliability of particular sources in your own userspace, attempting to enshrine it as something more than that is inappropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar and Dlabtot are correct that reliability is not a binary "on/off" model. Editorial judgment is required to determine if a particular source is reliable for a particular claim.  OTOH, it doesn't hurt to keep a list of potential sources to simplify your life.  The editors of the video game articles keep such a list and I do as well.  But reliability must still be determined on a case-by-case basis.  That said, I didn't actually look at your list too closely.  Oh, another thing to keep in mind is that medical articles have a stricter definition of reliability than non-medical articles.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but "editorial judgment" sounds like handwaving, as if a potential problem were solved, when more often it has just begun. Yes, "editorial judgment" is some combination of familiarity with the subject matter and common sense, but what if someone insists on the letter of the law, so to speak, and simply refuses to accept that what is only technically "reliably sourced" is actually aberrational?  This is a little more than the "verifiability versus truth" chestnut.  Typically, the issue is not verification or truth - yes, so-and-so indeed said/wrote such-and-such wherever - but credibility: the information content is plainly wrong, or the person is not an expert in the relevant field for such an opinion to be notable, etc.  This is simply a loophole in the existing set of policies and guidelines, and one that "good faith" does not plug. rudra (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Determining reliability of a source can be a tricky business and there is no 'one size fits all' rule. As for WP:TE, I'm not aware of a solution.  I've been involved with such a problem for 4 months now and despite being brought to the attention of the admins, ArbCom and Jimbo, next to nothing has been done to resolve it.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Paper advocating using themselves as a Wikipedia source = Entire paper not considered reliable?
I recently encountered this article and in the comments section, someone mentioned that said paper had advocated that readers use their site as a source for the Maui County Department of Liquor Control. Turns out....they were right. Now this poses a question; i'm currently gathering offline materials for the Mokuʻula article, and they have a great article that I can use to help corroborate offline sources. But because of this article and accusations that their reporters aren't quite up to snuff in fact checking, is this automatic grounds to dismiss the paper as a legitimate source? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly indicates that we should approach that paper with caution... but I think you may be missing the bigger picture... if you have high quality offline sources, there is no need to corroborate them with the iffy online source. Just cite the offline ones. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something, but why is the fact a newspaper is noticing that we have a poor article on a subject they cover better a sign that they aren't reliable? Press coverage is full of newspaper articles mentioning things wrong with Wikipedia articles for years, and we generally rush to fix them. But when they actually suggest it, that's suddenly a red flag? Maui Time Weekly is an alternative newspaper, which isn't quite the New York Times, but surely noticing we exist, and that we write articles from newspapers like theirs, doesn't suddenly make them any less reliable. --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

World Vision as an RS
World Vision is one of the world's largest humanitarian organisations and charities. Would the World Vision website be acceptable as an WP:RS for information about a program with one of their largest corporate donors? In particular I'm wanting to use this page where it states "For more than a decade, Network 21’s humanitarian arm Network of Caring has been a partner with World Vision in touching the fragile lives of some of our world’s neediest children and families." and this page about the program in support of the claim in the Network TwentyOne article that "Network of Caring was founded ... as the charitable arm of Network TwentyOne" and including information on NOC in the article.

Network 21's corporate web site (a usable source under WP:SPS) also states that NOC is a part of Network 21. This page says "Network of Caring has been kind of a behind-the-scenes charity of Network 21" and this this page says "Network of Caring, an organization founded by Network TwentyOne". Inclusion of the material is being challenged on the basis that there is no independent RS confirmation that NOC is connected to Network 21, but simply has the same founders (Jim & Nancy Dornan). In support of this assertion is the fact Network 21 isn't explictily mentioned in this manner on the NOC website though in the "about us" page the CSO is quoted as saying about working with NOC - "Without a doubt, Jim and Nancy Dornan and the Network 21 family are people who want to make a difference" and this page is also referring directly to Network 21. The related trade organisation IBOAI on their official website also states "...when they realize success they share it, as Network 21 does with its global good-works effort, Network of Caring".

It's my contention that official reports of World Vision suffice as WP:RS WP:V independent confirmation of the Network 21-NOC connection. Failing agreement on that, if the NOC website confirmed the connection (I've written to them and suggested it should!) would that be sufficient?--Insider201283 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To add to this, Google News has more than a dozen media references citing World Vision in the last month (march 2010) alone. Google scholar reports 58 occurrences of the phrases "according to World Vision" or "World Vision reports", including in many peer-reviewed papers. There are nearly 300 references that cite http://www.worldvision.org, again including many peer-reviewed papers. WP:RS states How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it.--Insider201283 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Using twitter as a source for BLP info
There has been a slow edit war over many months regarding the birthdate of Jack O'Connell. As the date was a matter of contention I removed it and posted a note on the talk page that a birthdate should only be included if a reliable source was also included for verifiability. Today an editor has added a birthdate based on a twitter message. I just want to double check to make sure the twitter reference meets sourcing and WP:V policies. <b style="color:#FFB521;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:navy;">shhh 15:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Dlabtot (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. 94.196.105.19 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my thought as well, but wanted to make sure. I've removed the contentious info. <b style="color:#FFB521;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:navy;">shhh 14:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if you can prove the Twitter account belongs to the subject of the biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes imo you don't need proof this twitter is being used on Peaches Geldof to cite her correct name as she was fed up that people kept adding additional names. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So in the Paula Yates article, Contact Music is cited as saying that her "full name is PEACHES HONEYBLOSSOM MICHELLE CHARLOTTE ANGEL VANESSA GELDOF", and the article says she "resents her bizarre string of names", and on her own article, her own assertion that she does not even have "a bizarre string of names" is taken as more authoritative?  I think this actually highlights what's wrong about using twitter feeds in this manner. Dlabtot (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an argument against using self-published sources in certain circumstances, but not an argument against using Twitter as a self-published source. The question is whether Twitter is acceptable as a WP:SPS under WP:V, not whether it's always okay to use a sps.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." -- to me that doesn't sound anything at all like a celebrity's twitter feed.  Also, WP:SELFPUB says the material should not be "unduly self-serving". Dlabtot (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dlabtot, those are both things to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to use a self-published source. Obviously the average celebrity wouldn't often qualify as an expert under the first passage you quote, in which case we shouldn't be using their blog or website, either.  But we're talking primarily about the sub-section below, where the second passage you quote is found: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.  If there's a concern that material is unduly self-serving - say a claim that a celebrity gave half their income to charity last year - then we would need to look to a third party source for verification.  But neither of these statements support disallowing twitter feeds altogether.  Have you had any luck finding those multiple discussions where consensus was established that Twitter is not an acceptable source of self-published material?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 02:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've had luck, I pointed you to the earlier discussions, and you've already expressed your disagreement with me about them. There's no need to be disagreeable about it as well. Dlabtot (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. You linked to the archive search, which I had already used to check for the discussions where the 'long standing consensus' you mentioned was established and hadn't found them.  I didn't 'disagree' because it's not a matter of opinion - I was either able to find the discussions you referenced or I wasn't.  I wasn't, which is why I asked for a direct link to them.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 13:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am entirely comfortable with the idea that you believe that you "didn't 'disagree' because it's not a matter of opinion". Dlabtot (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless we have a specific rule against using Twitter, it can be reliable for someone's birthdate per WP:SPS if the twitter account is the official one by the person. But you have to make sure that it's their real account and not a fan (or enemy for that matter).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, twitter is never a reliable source for any content, personally I usually remove it on sight, but there are occasions where I would allow it to sit there in an unconfirmed link to support a small uncontroversial comment that we could well also cite to another citation. Twitter should not be added as an only claim for a birthdate. Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain why. Unless we  have a specific rule against using Twitter, it can be reliable per WP:SPS.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a rule; it's a long-standing consensus. Do a search of the archives and you'll see. If you want to overturn that consensus, you'll have to make a persuasive argument that convinces a preponderance of editors.  Dlabtot (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that WP:V can be overturned by editorial consensus. Unless you can point me to a specific Wikipedia rule, I see no reason why WP:SPS should be overturned.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee it's like you didn't even read my comment. This has absolutely nothing to do with overturning any rule.   Dlabtot (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SPS, we can use self-published sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. A self-published source is fine in many cases, like for sourcing certain biographical information about the subject and for the subject's opinions on a given matter.  If the account is verified then it's just as good a source as the subject's blog or website. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 04:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The current consensus, per many, many prior discussions, is that twitter feeds do not qualify as self published sources. Since the publisher is twitter.com, it seems a reasonable position.  If you wish to challenge the current consensus, you will have to make some sort of argument as to why it is wrong. So far you have failed to do so. Personally, I don't actually agree with the current consensus, so I would be interested to hear your argument. If you have one. Dlabtot (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really would suggest that you read the multitude of prior discussions on this topic. Pretending that there is a blank slate is unproductive. Dlabtot (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Since the publisher is twitter.com" I don't care for that argument at all.  If person's official web site is their Facebook account, does that rule it out because technically speaking, it's hosted by Facebook.com.  Come to think of it, I would bet that a lot of official websites are hosted by an outside IT company.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried this search and the first archived discussion I found was this one. Which discussion would you point to for your categorical statement (of consensus) that "twitter feeds do not qualify as self published sources"? rudra (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do link to these discussions, Dlabtot; if you're using them in your argument it's your job to provide them, not ours, and saying 'per consensus' without showing us where that consensus was formed is unproductive. It looks like the upshot of the past discussion Rudra linked was that Twitter is as useful as any other self-published source.  Really not that extraordinary a claim. Archived sections I found here, here and here might also be informative; all seem to come to the same conclusion.  I think this 'Twitter is never a RS per consensus' meme may not have any basis in reality. But even if it did, WP:V is policy and any consensus to change or make exceptions to it needs to happen on WP:VP/P and nowhere else.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 14:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any argument. As I said, I don't really agree with the current consensus, so I certainly feel no need to defend it. Here is the link to past discussions: . Dlabtot (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are claiming that Twitter is not usable under WP:SPS based on past discussions, so yes, you're making an argument. You may not agree with the consensus you believe exists, but if you aren't willing to provide evidence that it does exist you shouldn't use it to support a position, even one you don't agree with.  I've used the search function you linked to and have not found any discussions which support the claim that there is an existing consensus against using Twitter as a self-published source, which is why I'm asking you for help.  Could you please link to them directly so we can discuss their contents?  Right now the only discussions I've seen seem to find that Twitter is as useful as any other self-published source.  So far as I'm concerned, that is the current consensus.  Can anyone find a past discussion that reached a different conclusion?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 15:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The link given by Dlabtot is exactly the same as the one I gave (the search I tried): the result of searching the WP:RSN archives for the word "twitter". Thus, the first hit is this very thread, and the second is the one I suggested was actually contradicting the claimed consensus. rudra (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the discussion, (which seems to be the most recent) I see Jayjg saying they're reliable per WP:SPS. Siawase says they're unreliable and makes a good argument about WP:WEIGHT.  Squidfryerchef cites WP:SPS.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says tweets should be treated the same as blogs which I read as WP:SPS.  Wikidemon says they're self-published but should only be used as a last resort, for uncontroversial information.  WN30MON agrees with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.  Johnuniq says they're unreliable.  Off2riorob says they're unreliable.  I don't see the consensus that they're unreliable.   Assuming the birthdate isn't controversial, I think that using an official Tweeter account is fine.  It's not ideal, but WP:SPS allows it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my view is that they can be used as a WP:SPS, so long as it it 100% certain that this is the account of the individual in question. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Especially for a date of birth if a self published source is all we have and it is not reported elsewhere that is very poor verifiability, the subject is according to herself 20 years old, worthless really, we have a twitter post from the subject at Tinsel Korey here and there is a dispute about one year difference, there doesn't appear to be a citation of any value for the other date, the twitter date is of such little value as to be not worth adding, according to the subject of this article they say they are 20...not very good is it, the idea that we even need to add weakly cited content is wrong or that such content has much value and must be presented to the general pubic. I have to say though that I do like the way subjects are attempting to communicate to us through twitter. In this case of Korey we have moved to the date she is claiming and added citation required tags, the citation required tags can sit there until a reliable independent source is found and the wheels won't drop off. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, a self-published source is perfectly acceptable for basic biographical information. Putting a citation needed tag on information as basic as a birthdate because the only source you have is the subject him/herself is just silly - though not as silly as removing it all together.  Is your argument that Twitter in particular is not acceptable under wp:sps, or that the policy itself is wrong?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 20:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just using my common sense it the situations I have mentioned, in one of them the twitter link is left in as harmless, in the other the date of birth in the film industry is controversial and actors and such like have been known to want to portray themselves younger, shock horror, we have no reason if a date of birth is disputed to accept what a subject simply tells us on twitter. The silly thing is the idea that the exact birthday of a semi notable celebrity or subject cited to their (unconfirmed/confirmed) own twitter page is a fantastic piece of weakly cited content that the world is desperately in need of. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just an argument for being careful. If there's a controversy about someone's birth date, don't use an WP:SPS. But unless you aware of a controversy about a particular actor's birth date, I think it's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Again, this is an argument against using self-published sources in certain circumstances, not against using Twitter as a self-published source. In the case cited in the OP there is no legitimate reason to doubt the truth of the subject's statement about his month and day of birth (the year is citable to a third-party source).  The full DOB allows us to use the automatically updating age template in his infobox.  It's certainly not an undue weight issue - dates of birth are often included in the infobox in this way.  There's simply no reason to exclude this information.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

TLDR, but twitter can be reliable under SPS the same as a website or self published book. Extra care should be taken because of all the accounts created by normal people with the name of celebrities. A good reliable source that confirms whose twitter account it is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly – there are several cases where someone has claimed to be Some Celebrity and then posted stuff which was plausible but not necessarily acurate. There is generally no way to know that a twitter account is what it claims to be, although a link from a very reliable source may suffice (but did the reliable source really check the twitter account? how?). Another critical issue is that twitter posts generally show little sign of care or concern for long-term reliability: someone might say they were born on April 1, 1992 but that statement may very well be a joke, or wishful thinking. In particular, if there is a controversy about when someone was born, it is not satisfactory to resolve the issue from a "by the way" twitter post. A self-published website where there is clear intent to post biographical information does not have to be evaluated in the same way, although if some controversy about a date is raised by reliable sources, it is hardly appropriate to claim that a SPS conclusively proves that the birth date is accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously the statement being used as a source needs to be evaluated individually, but that's always true. In the case being discussed here the account in question is linked from an official website, and the subject was using his most readily available way of self-publishing, his twitter account, to clarify is exact age, having apparently been reported in the media as being 'about twenty.'  There's no reason to consider that unreliable.  Every source needs to be evaluated by the criteria laid out in WP:SELFPUBLISH, but there is simply no reason to consider an entire self-publishing method unreliable just because some people use it carelessly.  And incidentally, if you have reason to doubt that a reliable source has checked that a twitter account belongs to who it claims to belong to before publishing it as genuine, they probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 13:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is if you accept the premise that using the Twitter service is a "self-publishing method". Dlabtot (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're arguing pretty hard for someone who says he doesn't agree with the alleged consensus. Why wouldn't you consider it a method of self-publishing?  I know you've said that's an argument that's been made against using twitter as a source in the past, but could you either elaborate or point out where others have made the argument?  Why shouldn't one consider Twitter a method of self-publication? Why is using it different from using, say, Blogger?  Twitter isn't a publisher, it's a publishing service, just like any blogging site.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 12:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said Johnuniq. Dlabtot (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Twitter has Verified Account's you know where major celebs like Obama Barack and Stephen Fry are verified(top right on there page). It's only those I'd be using as a SPS. Everything else I'd ignore as fan stuff. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, even twitter themselves admit that they don't have much time or resources to devote to their beta 'verified account' program, and that they only use it in cases where the account owner has already had problems with impersonation.  A verified account definitely belongs to who it claims to belong to, but it doesn't follow that an unverified account doesn't.  What about twitter accounts that are linked from the owner's web site or those of their band/tv show/whatever, or accounts that can be verified as genuine through another reliable source? -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 12:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it is possible some accounts could be verified in some other way. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq's post contains a lot of speculation and very little facts. If there's a controversy about this particular actor's birth date, then point me to some WP:RS that say such a thing.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An unconfirmed twitter account is not a reliable source for anything and we should not start lowering our standards to include it either, it is a BLP snowball disaster waiting to happen, the site itself has recently been the target of multiple hacks, even if the twit account is linked through confirmation on another page that is not to say the subject is active there or if he takes responsibility for anything there at all. Twitter is what it is, a place where unidentified people post little comments in a chat to your mates type style, the less we link to it the longer we will have any claim to be a worthy education web tool. The desire accept twitter as a reliable self published source to add a birth date that the subject tells us in an unconfirmed tweet when we have a reliable citation for the year is a mistaken one and will result in a clear lowering of all round standards, unless we are to become a reporter of tweets.Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Using a Twitter account whose ownership is dubious as a self-published source would obviously be irresponsible (as would using a blog or website that can't be clearly linked to a subject), but Twitter's spottily implemented 'verified account' beta program is simply not the only way to tell if an account is genuine. There are many other methods of confirming that the person operating an account is who they say they are.  Any account on any service can be 'hacked' if it has a weak password, that's not a problem that's unique to Twitter.  I don't understand your argument that an account that's verifiable through a source other than the 'verified account' program might not be actively used.  Do you think that a blog is less likely to be neglected?  Do you think that Twitter-verified accounts are more active than one that Twitter hasn't gotten around to yet?  As for your 'slippery slope' argument, any self published source needs to be evaluated carefully, and there is simply no reason to consider a Twitter account a less viable means of self-publication than a personal blog.  Our goal is to provide accurate information.  WP:V is policy and that policy states that self-published sources are acceptable for certain kinds of information.  Arguing against using Twitter in particular as a source of self-published information sounds like simple snobbery.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I would not call myself a snob but I do have a degree of standards, which this level of verifiability clearly fails.Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Rob, it very clearly doesn't. It is verifiably true that this account belongs to the individual in question, which makes it permissible under the section of our verifiability policy on self-publication.  See also WP:TWITTER. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 18:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the account can verified, it's allowable under WP:SPS. Thanks for the link to WP:TWITTER.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Spamhaus
I am considering writing a brief article about a man who the Swiss media report to be a major e-mail spammer and who is the subject of a Spamhaus ROKSO entry. Is this database, notably the information apparently written by Spamhaus itself considered a reliable source for BLP purposes, i.e., do they have a reputation for fact-checking, or should it be disregarded as a self-published source?  Sandstein  06:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO it probably depends on what you want to say. A quick check on google news and google scholar shows Spamhaus being referenced by many RS sources. I suspect there may a big risk of WP:OR or WP:SYN though. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Article on Amir Hamudi Hasan al-Sadi
Under the Amir_Hamudi_Hasan_al-Sadi section in this article, there are a couple of links to a blog. My initial reaction was to have those links removed since blogs are generally not considered as reliable referencing points. However, I decided to come here for other opinions before removing that link as it would affect the whole article section. So, any thoughts? Bejinhan Talk   10:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note The blog was the Media Blog of the Year in 2005 and the Press Action Website of the Year in 2006. Does that add any credibility to it? Bejinhan  Talk   10:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs are never appropriate sources in a biography of a living person and should be removed. The blog may have won its awards for reasons that aren't related to the criteria we use to establish reliability (it may be lively and challenging, but not have a reputation for fact-checking). Any info on the blog must have come from somewhere else? Can you track it to its source, and then see if that is reliable? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Uranium from coal
Is Gabbard, A. (1993) "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger" Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review 26(3-4) a reliable source for the purposes of describing the amount of uranium released by burning coal? If so, how much uranium would you say it says burning coal releases? 99.56.136.197 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes, assuming there aren't more recent studies that supersede it, and as long as the word "estimate" or similar, is stuck in prominently, since it doesn't seem to be a measured figure, but one extrapolated from other calculations. One possibly useful paragraph for numbers:

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.
 * --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

TCN News
I do not know if this is the correct board, but someone has been inserting news-items from Two Circles Network in the External-Links-section of several India-themed articles. See for examples Aligarh Muslim University, Asghar Ali Engineer and Syed Ahmed Khan. My questions are: a) Could we see TCN News as a reliable source? and b) if so, do these news-articles have added value in the External links-section? I should say we should delete them as for WP:NOTLINK; after all, Wikipedia is not meant to draw attention to the Two Circles-website. But maybe I am somewhat too harsh on it. Please tell me what's the best thing to do.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a job for the Spam_blacklist, not RSN. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Media Watch
Is it a reliable source? Its being used to support this edit:. Please note that while the author is listed as Isabel Kushner and the paper as the New York Times in the edit, I could find no such mention of those at the link provided.  T i a m u t talk 09:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, or at any rate not for this. Something's either in the New York Times, in which case reference it directly, or it isn't. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PMW is an Israeli organization dedicated to "exposing" the evil of the Palestinians by careful selection of material from Palestinian media. In other words, it is a political organization not a news organization.  I believe that answers the question. Zerotalk 11:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether it's a reliable source and given the methodology they employ, simply to regurgitate Palestinian and Arab media, there is nothing controversial. In the same way, MEMRI just provides Arab media sources to a larger audience. There's no reason it shouldn't be a reliable source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely clear what the second source in that diff is, but the NYT article would appear to be this one? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is RS and if used should be referenced directly and not through any third party. If people want to use PMW to do their source-research then that is fine, but references in the encyclopedia should be to the news media in which the stories originally appeared. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as far as citation goes... but what about linking to it as a "convenience link"? Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

On-line class notes and OR statements
Are on-line instructor class notes reliable sources for Wikipedia articles?

These two sources are being claimed as RS for the article Biographical criticism by editor Smatprt (talk):





The first is an undated and unsigned sheet of notes apparently from an unamed West Texas State University class.

The second is from a 1998 University of Mississippi class on Critical Approaches to Literature.

As this diff shows, I removed them from the article (which is a stub) and they were replaced by Smatprt (talk), who told me to seek an opinion.

In that same article he insists on using this ref to support the statement, "In the opening decades of the 21st century it appears to be undergoing a significant renaissance in Walt Whitman studies," even though nowhere in the cited source can I find that statement or anything like it, which appears to me to be an original comment on the paper. I removed the cites and tagged the statement, and the original editor deleted the sentence:, but this same editor Smatprt (talk) restored the material and refs:

Another question I’d like to ask is this: is seeking an opinion on what I consider non-RS refs necessary for each individual case like this? I have a history with this editor, who is adept at using Wikipedia guidelines against other editors and whom I have caught using marginal or even outright bogus refs, and I’d like to avoid what I foresee is going to be a tedious waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think those sources are RS, and I agree with you about the renaissance comment. Dlabtot (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The two sources are marginal at best, and should be avoided in this case. Also, the "significant renaissance" statement appears to be obvious OR, but you might want to confirm at the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In addressing this, I'd like to raise a related issue with this board. As Tom mentions, we have a long-running history. Part of this involves Tom adding fact tags to non-controversial items like this. He does not like the concept of Biological Criticism being brought up as part of another article so is demanding a fact tag for the definition of the term here at this article. It's a common term in lit criticism and the subject is discussed by the educational system on a regular basis. Why does it even need a fact tag in this article when anyone can just look it up in an online dictionary [] (See section 2 on Criticism, paragraphs one and four. This link is sourced to The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2004, Columbia University Press). So why is this term controversial? Smatprt (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying the term is controversial, just that your refs are. As to why it needs a reliable source, study WP:RS. If the school of criticism is "discussed by the educational system on a regular basis", whatever that means (and I don't recall the term from any of my lit classes, but my memory is not perfect), it should be simple enough to supply a reliable, verifiable source. The ref you have substituted is not sufficient, because it does not support the definition statement. You seem to think that any casual mention of a topic will suffice for an RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not Generally speaking, on-line instructor class notes, are way down the list of sources that ought to be used. If it is in class notes, normally, the subject, if it is notable, will be covered in a textbook or two or three.  Any specific fact that is too new for textbook recitation should be able to be found in academic literature.  If not so found, it is doubtful that it belongs in an encyclopedia.  There is a big difference between on-line class materials specifically provided by a known professor with acknowledged expertise, and a student's regurgitation of what they thought they heard in a class.  If a document is undated an unsigned and does not appear on the website by the professor, then it is not a reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More things students heard the instructor say. (Complete agreement with Bejnar, BTW.) --GRuban (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful. I found a textbook with the ref and it appears that Bejnar found some as well. I'm still not sure why a fact tag was placed on the term "biographical criticism" in the first place, but these additional refs should end the matter. I am still concerned about the overuse of fact tags and wonder if any uninvolved editors here have some advice as to how to determine if unreasonable source requests are being used as a form of harassment? Smatprt (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are good refs. If you had used them to begin with it would have been fine and I wouldn't have challenged them. Also defending obviously unsuitable refs with the message "theses are RS. if you want to challenge them, go to RS noticeboard" is not the way to go about it, and if anything smacks of "a form of harassment," the automatic defensive attitude of "If you don't like it, tough, I couldn't be wrong about anything" mode of communication does. Wikipedia has standards, and they aren't that hard to learn and comply with; it's as simple as that. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Class notes should be allowable, though they may fall under expert SPS as opposed to being "published" by the university. If these are notes from an undergraduate history or biology course, it would be better to use a more traditional published source instead.  But on the other hand, in something like a law or business class, there could be more esoteric information presented where the class notes would be the best source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be usable as WP:SPS, it has to be self-published "by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".... so as long as the student who made the notes meets that criteria, I suppose they would be usable. I imagine that would be an extremely rare case. Dlabtot (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume the expert would be the professor, not the student. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Census
Is a census a reliable source? An editor added a birth date to a biography of a living person, citing "Israeli census"—no website, no document name or reference number, no way to identify what record they looked up—just "Israeli census". My concern is that (a) there's no way to know if they found the right person with that name (as in, how can you tell one John Smith from another), and (b) how would we ever verify this? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is not a proper citation. As you point out, the reason we cite sources is so that the material can be verified. Just adding a footnote that says "Israeli Census - Verified March 23, 2010" is not substantially different from adding a footnote that says "I read it somewhere". Dlabtot (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for verifying! ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dlabtot is correct. Also, only published works can be reliable (where "publish" can mean in print format or electronic).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * However... if the Israeli Census is published, then the information may be verifiable. This sounds more like a case of incomplete citation (needing a tag and fixing) as opposed to a case of unreliable sourcing... has anyone checked to see if Israeli Census info is published?
 * The information at Census doesn't sound as if they publish any individual answers to the questionnaires, so I guess (1) it's a hoax, (2) it's confidential information illegally published by a government employee, or (3) a different source was misleadingly referred to as "census" for some reason. Hans Adler 13:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably this issue is still ongoing; I've raised it at WP:BLP/N. If you have any views on the matter, please feel free to contribute to the BLP/N discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-opening of old case
Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_40

The original question did not mention that the Alaya Rahm case was treated by several other reputable sources apart from the BBC TV documentary Secret Swami. These are
 * Divine Downfall, by Mick Brown, October 27th, 2000, in the Daily Telegraph, UK (under pseudonym Sam Young) http://web.archive.org/web/20031003134741/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2000/10/28/tlbaba28.xml


 * Seduced, by Danish Radio TV Documentary aired January 30th, 2002 http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/articles/sam%20young%20in%20seduced.html (under pseudonym Sam Young)

I think this significantly changes matters, because neither the BBC nor Danish Radio and Daily Telegraph retracted the Alaya Rahm/Sam Young case.

Andries (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the earlier archive discussion link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_40#Question
 * You seemed to have missed all the details from the earlier discussion. If you read the earlier archive carefully you will see that I have mentioned that Alaya Rahm case was covered in Seduced documentary, Daily Telegraph along with BBC.
 * The fact that BBC nor Daily Telegraph did not retract the statement does not change matters. In most cases unless there is a Class Action Lawsuit you may not hear any retractions or apology. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also strongly disagree with the statement made here
 * "The trial was set for April 28, 2006. In the following trial's thorough investigation it was found that Alaya Rahm and his family members had praised Sathya Sai Baba in number of recorded retreats and conferences during the years '1995 - 1999' contradicting Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse claims"
 * The Rahm family were totally immersed in the Sathya Sai Baba movement and of course they keep up appearances until they have made up their mind. I have been in a similar situation and I had the same behavior. Andries (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your WP:COI is playing a big part here. Inspite of this case being discussed for a week and conclusions being made by very respected outside wikipedia you still seem to disregard all the conclusions and have reopened this archived case to favor pushing your personal agenda in to this BLP article.
 * The Earlier conclusions by User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark and User:Jehochman must be upholded. As per their conclusion since this is a BLP article, to prevent any BLP violation, if the BBC is used then the secondary source Daily Pioneer covering 'Alaya Rahm' case should be mentioned in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You omitted giving important information the first time. Andries (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that one minor source (The Pioneer) is able to discrete three major reliable sources (Daily Telegraph, BBC, and [Danish Radio]])is highly unusual. Andries (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did we remove BBC mentioning the Alaya Rahm case from the article? No. Its still there. Its a definite BLP violation as repeatedly mentioned by all these outside wikipedians if the 'Alaya Rahm Case' is not mentioned.
 * We must include Secondary Source 'Daily Pioneer' covering the Alaya Rahm trial as mentioned by User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark and User:Jehochman. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the problem is BLP then let us treat it at the BLP noticeboard. Andries (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The wikipedians who discussed earlier all agreed to User:Priyanath proposal. When we have clear discussion and agreement by several neutral highly respected wikipedians there is no need to go from forum to forum. The Earlier conclusions by User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark and User:Jehochman must be upholded. Do you know how many BLP articles are facing lawsuits in wikipedia just because a few people try to push their personal agendas and violate BLP policies? That's exactly the case here. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP has to do with the weight of sources. That is a different thing than having one reliable source that denies certain accusations. There is a long list however that makes allegations of sexual misconduct by SSB. The assessment of the weight of sources should not be done here and is different from assessing whether a single source denying accusations is reliable. Andries (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'Alaya Rahm allegations' are already mentioned in the article. These allegations were circulated between 2000 - 2005. But in 2006 When Alaya Rahm took his allegation case to Superior Court nothing was found. He self dismissed his case. This also has to be in the article to prevent BLP violations. We have the secondary source Daily Pioneer covering this case as well as the Superior Court website public records for Alaya Rahm case (Primary Source) for the Secondary Source. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Daily Pioneer "article" is a joke. Sandhya Jain, the author, clearly has no understanding of the U.S. legal system, as indicated by her other op-eds. We should not be citing an unreliable newspaper op-ed for a factual issue. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your POV. The Daily Pioneer is one of the leading NewsPapers in India. Its linked in 675 sites. You have been claiming this article was op-ed though it is not. The Daily Pioneer adds a special disclaimer at the end in its op-ed articles.
 * You keep complaining about Sandhya Jain. In Wikipedia user's don't judge the editors. For instance BBC documentary by Tanya Dutta had a number of incorrect factual information. It was telecasted all around the world. Inspite of all those factual inaccuracies we still use BBC as reference in the article. User's POV about an editor cannot be used as standard for disqualifying an article. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Popularity does not denote reliability.
 * The article is written with the style of an op-ed. It is written with the opinions and non-factual judgements of an op-ed.
 * Severe factual mistakes are not a POV. The author does not know what she is talking about. This is an objective fact. She is ignorant about US law. That is not a POV. Bhimaji (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that there is so much fight over two sentences in the article that come from a source that per wikipedia rules can not be completely ruled out because of certain editors opinions of that source. Especially since the article reports an undisputed fact, that the Rahm family dropped their suit. Are you saying they didn't drop the suit? Are you saying that Sai Baba has actually been charged, convicted for wrong doing? No media organization what so ever has published anything new since 2004 about the "allegations." Sai Baba not being charged or convicted or under investigation for any crime is fact, the Rahm's dropping the case is a fact. I really don't get your argument. Can't you be satisifed with the article as it is, there is already enough unjustified accusations in it already. Also can a sensational documentary be considered reliable. The BBC documentary wasn't a news or reportage piece at all. It was more like an "inside addition" with speculation, accusation, underhanded and devious tactics but no hard facts, just some questionable testimony. Sbs108 (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy that you find this amusing. I'm unhappy that you still don't get what this is about. This is not the 'Factual Accuracy Noticeboard.' This is the 'Reliable Sources Noticeboard.'
 * You give a list of facts that you claim to be true. Can you find a single reliable source that has said those things? Have you looked?
 * If you claimed 1+1=2 and cited some drunk guy outside of a bar, I would challenge your citation. Similarly, Jain has a track record of publishing terribly inaccurate and poorly researched stories.
 * Nobody is claiming that her article is false. Rather, we are asserting that she is an unreliable source, and that she should not be cited. She's probably right, but flipping a coin is about as accurate as she is. Bhimaji (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bhimaji, I only hear more and more POV. Wikipedia does not really care about User's POV.
 * The first complaint was that this article was op-ed. Its not. Daily Pioneer adds a disclaimer in op-ed in the end.
 * The second complaint was that Sandhya Jain's other article had errors. Again this is POV. Similarly I find a lot of factual errors in Tanya Dutta BBC documentary as well as in Michelle Goldberg. For instance another user may find issues in Mick Brown's article stating that its written like op-ed. You know very well that User's POV cannot be used as a standard for determining the reliability of an article.
 * Daily Pioneer is leading Newspaper in India. As I mentioned before it is linked in 675 sites. This article was published in Sunday Pioneer. In the earlier RS discussion it was discussed and accepted as reliably sourced. We even have the Court documents with Alaya Rahm case number (Primary Source) backing up this secondary source.
 * We all very well know that there is nothing wrong with this newspaper nor anything wrong with this article written by Sandhya Jain. Its definitely reliably sourced. The only real issue is that there are self interested activists who are trying to push their personal agenda in to this BLP. These BLP violations will land this article very soon in a BLP lawsuit. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you making a legal threat here? That is not a good idea. Let's stick with the facts:
 * Jain, writing in her column in the Daily Pioneer, has stated as a fact that blacks do not have the automatic right to vote. Only by renewing the Voting Rights Act do black people get to vote in the US.
 * Racial restrictions on voting were banned in 1870 with the 15th amendment
 * Thus, Sandhya Jain was objectively wrong. That's not a POV, that's a fact
 * Radiantenergy would like to use an article by Jain as the sole citation for claims about the US legal system.

Those are the facts. Bhimaji (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Electronic parts catalogs?
A number of articles I contribute to on automotive subjects have technical details sourced from an electronic automotive parts catalog, specifically Volkswagen Group's ETKA system. This system is intended for dealerships and car mechanics, and is available on a subscription basis only, although pirated (hacked) versions are available on the Internet. It comprises a Windows application, a local database, and an online service, providing regular database updates among other things. The database contains much technical data about engines, parts, part numbers, production dates, car model-to-part number relationships etc. Does a system such as this qualify as an RS by Wikipedia standards? If so, what is the best way to cite something like this so that it is a verifiable source? Most of the articles have a fairly meaningless citation such as "ETKA official factory data". I'd expect at least an update number (all ETKA database updates are numbered sequentially) and some kind of description of how to navigate to the relevant data in the application. Comments appreciated Letdorf (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC).


 * Could you give an example or two of:
 * In which articles is the source being used?
 * What are the exact statements in the articles that the source is supporting?
 * Where are the relevant talk page discussions? Dlabtot (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Example articles would be List of discontinued Volkswagen Group petrol engines, Audi A8, Audi S4 or SEAT Exeo. The statements are mainly production dates and technical specifications, although there are a few more general assertions (like "a Torsen-based system has been the most commonly used" or "The standard initial measuring unit for establishing the rated motive power output is the kilowatt") that could be interpretations of a primary source. The only talk page discussion I've had so far on this subject has been on Talk:SEAT Exeo, but that is mainly concerned with listing future variants of cars in WP articles that have not entered production yet. Thanks, Letdorf (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC).
 * It's hard for me to say without seeing the source, but it might be usable as a primary source... see WP:PRIMARY... which means no interpretation... if the source doesn't say "a Torsen-based system has been the most commonly used" then we can't either. Might be worth posting on the OR noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

News Organisations section
I have made an edit to the section about news organisations. It is poorly defined and needs some concensus and expansion to define it clearly. ~ R.T.G 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion should probably go here Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources ~ R.T.G 18:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fazle Haq
I question whether he was the noddle of drugs activities. But I don't know. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the statement... first because I am not sure what is meant by "the noddle", second because it is sourced to another wiki, which is not a reliable source. If someone clarifies the statement and citation, then they can return it. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Halifax Initiative in the Tobin tax article
In the talk page for the article on Tobin tax, there is this discussion about an article by Robin Round (probably a psuedonym). At the bottom of the article, it is noted that she acts on behalf of the Halifax Initiative and heads their campaign to try to establish a Tobin tax.

The Halifax Initiative is a coalition of huge organizations which represents a huge number of people in society. On of its members, the Canadian Labour Congress, has 3 million members. As Wikipedia editors, it is our job to document what happens in society. See Notability.

One editor presented this Wikipedia guideline with this quote: "Questionable sources are ... websites and publications expressing views that are...promotional in nature"

On the other hand I presented this Wikipedia policy with this quote: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions..."

Can she still be used as a source as long as it is clearly stated that we are reporting on her opinion (as opposed to "facts")?

Or are we prevented from quoting her at all (due to concerns about "promotion")?

Note: The question is about this article in the magazine called New Internationalist.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the rule about promotion is intended to govern organisations seeking to increase their sales or membership, rather than seeking to influence policy.Martinlc (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the New Internationalist is at all reliable? (If the "author" is a pseudonym, then we probably can't use this article, but we could use publications of the Halifax Initiative, if we have reliable sources that that group really is as stated.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above... I think the more appropriate question is "is there any reason not to consider NI as reliable?" Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments.
 * At this UN link is solid evidence that “Robin Round” is not a pseudonym: She appeared with that name at the UN conference entitled “Geneva 200 Forum,” June 22-30, 2000.  It was held at the same time and in the same vicinity as the United Nations General Assembly held its 24th Special Session entitled "The World Summit for Social Development and Beyond: Achieving Social Development for All in a Globalizing World" (WSSD+5), from 26-30 June 2000 in Geneva. The UN Non-Government Liason Service (NGLS) Roundup, no. 57, September 2000, records Robin Round at that event at this UN link (Navigate to THE GENEVA 2000 FORUM, Progressive Taxation and Globalization, Paragraph 6.) - Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it was a pseudonym, it does not disqualify. I had a question some months ago about a news column in a 1950 newspaper by a columnist named "Frank Observer".  It was deemed acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank Observer?... isn't that old Neutral Observer's boy... I used to date his sister, Impartial. Nice family the Observers. :>)  Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Getting back to the subject). No, the question is first, is there any reason to consider NI as reliable, such as, perhaps, a stated editorial policy of fact-checking?  If there is, we can attempt to determine if that policy is followed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blueboar, New Internationalist is a quite well known established dead-tree publication, with well-known respected contributors like Ignacio Ramonet and (past) ties to organizations like Oxfam, with some articles in it getting hundreds of scholarly citations. Stated editorial policies of fact checking are basically worthless, what matters is reputation among other sources, and nothing critical has been brought up, or appears to be easily findable. Squarely stating one's POV is a sign of honesty if anything, just as it is here. Here is some praise as a selected source for general information in a logic and rhetoric textbook . There is nothing extreme or unusual or dubious in the Robin Round article, or its usage in our article, which is sometimes even attributed when not clearly necessary. It is clear when it is recounting facts and what is the the opinion of Round etc. This isn't at all a questionable source. There doesn't seem to be an actual factual matter in dispute here, which is a sign of  questionable questioning.John Z (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A reliable author on a unreliable medium (blog)
A dispute on Propaganda in the People's Republic of China is about whether a well-known academic's analysis of the propaganda aspect of the Beijing Olympics published on a blog is a reliable source. The blog is www.thechinabeat.org, run by a bunch of China scholars. It's the "high end of the market" as far as blogs go. The question is whether this author's opinion on the subject is allowed to be used in Wikipedia, since she published it on the blog. Here's the link, here's the text:

"According to Haiyan Lee, assistant professor of Chinese literature in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at Stanford, the Olympics opening ceremony 'openly paraded the specter of... Mao’s China.' She argued that much of the “Chineseness” in the program was invented or 'airbrushed,' and that the synchronized movements of thousands of people recalled the images of mass formations 'dressed in regulation garb, chanting in unison, marching in lockstep, waving the little red book, or doing what George Orwell calls “physical jerks”' of the Maoist era. 'To date, only the North Koreans can rival the Chinese in staging such spectacles of sheer numbers. It is the totalitarian aesthetic at its most beguiling and frightening. It is the power of ritual.'"

thanks. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence from otherwise WP:RS sources that Lee is a "recognized expert" on Propoganda in the People's Republic of China? Is she published on the topic in peer-reviewed journals and cited by others? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that criterion not somewhat narrow? She is clearly an expert on China if she teaches Chinese literature at Stanford. I'm not sure that anyone is ever an expert precisely on propaganda. People who write on cultural studies often touch on issues related to propaganda. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Has she published anything previously on Chinese propoganda though? That's the topic of the WP article, not China or Chinese Literature. Has she published anything about say, the Defense of Harbin during the Manchurian war? No? Then she wouldn't be considered an expert on that article either, and quite reasonably I think you'd agree. The standard for self-published articles like blogs is narrow, yes. She needs to have been published in RS sources as "an established expert on the topic of the article". Unless she's a recognized expert on Propoganda in China, her opinion doesn't qualify for inclusion. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Itsmejudith... narrowing the criteria like this seems contrary to the spirit and letter of the policy. The analogy to the Defense of Harbin also seems strained. It is a long leap from  literature to military history, but from literature to propaganda requires merely a shift of focus.  Dlabtot (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but even literature itself can be overly broad an area for SPS opinions. Do you have some examples of what her area of expertise is? I would imagine there's a fair chance, if she writes broadly on chinese literature, that she *does* have published works on chinese propoganda, but IMO that really needs to be demonstrated first. The "spirit" (and letter) of the policy is that self-published sources should be avoided --Insider201283 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "letter) of the policy is that self-published sources should be avoided" - actually no, that does not appear anywhere in the letter of the policy. Dlabtot (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable". Do you really think there is a significant difference between Insider201283's formulation and the letter of the policy? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, but that is besides the point. The point was that what was described as "the letter of the policy" was not, in fact, "the letter of the policy". Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The more controversial the claim, the more narrow the focus of the expertise of the author should be when it comes to WP:SPS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite true. How does it relate to this discussion? Do you find Haiyan Lee's claims to be controversial? If so, to what degree, and why? Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have any other sources made the claim that the Beijing Olympics "openly paraded the specter of... Mao’s China" etc.? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that meant in some way to be an answer to my question? I have no inclination to scurry off to do research at your behest, rather, I'm trying to have a dialogue. You are the one who raised the controversy issue. Why? I certainly don't see anything even slightly controversial in what was quoted. Do you? If so, what, and why? Dlabtot (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not serious, are you? My opinions about China's actions aren't particularly relevant, but claiming its opening ceremonies "openly paraded the specter of... Mao’s China" is clearly a controversial statement. The only serious question here is whether or not she's considered enough of an expert on the topic to have her blog postings quoted in a Wikipedia article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain in future from questioning my 'seriousness' or making any other belittling comments. Again, you are the one who raised the controversy issue, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask you why you did so. Apparently you do believe there was something controversial about it although I fail to see what. Your assertion that it 'clearly is controversial' convinces me of your earnestness, but doesn't do anything to tell me why you believe that. However, I'll press the issue no further. Dlabtot (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It may help to recognise that Haiyan Lee's "Revolution of the Heart: A Genealogy of Love in China, 1900-1950" won the Association for Asian Studies 2009 Joseph Levenson Book Prize for the best English-language academic book on post-1900 China. The SPS policy says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I would submit that her work has been published in the relevant field by reliable third-party publications (her book, and the awards it has received). In 2006 she published "Governmentality and the Aesthetic State: A Chinese Fantasia"—so clearly she is qualified to have an opinion on Chinese cultural communications/propaganda etc. IMO. And the observation that the Beijing Opening ceremony was an echo of Maoist ritualism is not very far out for anyone who knows a thing or two about the Chinese Communist Party.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * asdfg, would you consider an expert on 20Tth century romance novels to be qualified to comment on 21st century politics? Give me some examples of her published work that are relevant to the topic and I'll be more than happy to support the inclusion of her opinion. Has she been quoted by any main stream media sources?--Insider201283 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comparison is rather strained in my view, Insider201283. She has published books and been given awards for them about Chinese culture and literature. As Dlabtot says, it's a change of focus and not much more. This isn't a staid analysis of the bureaucratic machinations that were behind Deng's reforms, it's an opinion on the propagandistic elements of the Beijing opening ceremony. The connections between Chinese literature and propaganda are far closer than the example you provide. And it's not a contentious claim that the games can be called a display of propaganda. Anne-Marie Brady is the foremost Chinese propaganda researcher and she published on this, too (related, not quite the same). Here Lee is published in a peer reviewed piece writing about a Chinese newspaper:
 * "Haiyan Lee’s contribution “‘A Dime Store of Words’” discusses Ziyou zazhi (自由雜誌 Liberty magazine, 1913) a spin-off from Shenbao’s (申報) successful literary supplement Ziyou tan (自由談 Free talk). Liberty marketed itself as a forum of free speech, a portal of knowledge, and a source of entertainment; it featured a diversity of genres including satirical essays, historical anecdotes, technological digests, doggerels, language games, mini-stories, and plays. Running for two issues before changing its name to Youxi zazhi (遊戲雜誌 Pastime, 1913-15), Liberty offers us a concrete glimpse into the world of leisure-oriented periodical publishing in the second decade of the twentieth century. Through a close examination of the only two surviving issues of Liberty, Lee seeks to understand its formal, topical, and social attractions and also how it negotiated changing conceptions of public and private and the conflicting pursuits of leisure and social engagement."
 * And one final note on the blog. This is a blog co-founded by Jeffrey Wasserstrom, who teaches in the Department of History at the University of California, Irvine. So it's not a cheap blog, and it's not like anyone can just publish what they want there. The stuff she wrote needed to be approved by her peers. I'm unsure why Haiyan Lee's opinion is not valid. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Her opinion may be perfectly valid, that doesn't mean it's necessarily notable and worthy of inclusion on this particular wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't a place for opinions unless from someone particularly notable in the field, and an expert in the topic of the article. Others may disagree but so far I don't think you've demonstrated that with Lee yet.--Insider201283 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A general rule of thumb in academics: an opinion, regardless of the author, is valid if and only if it has been peer reviewed. If the opinion is vaild, then other reliable medium should be able to critique or affrim the information from the unrelialbe medium. If the opinion is notable, then it should be footnoted by other experts on the same field. Jim101 (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your comment has to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We certainly have no such rule. Nor do we even attempt to weigh the 'validity' of opinions. Dlabtot (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to assess the quality of the source. So yes, I'm saying that the source was not meant to be taken serious scholarly, thus even if it quailifies WP:RS, it is still one of very low quality...and WP:Rs did say "exceptional claims require high-quality sources". Jim101 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does include that 5 word phrase, along with many others. What is the exceptional claim here? Dlabtot (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhm, statement top of the topic? My point is simple, if the claim is not exceptional, then a higher quality sources other than a blog should be readily available. If someone has to resort to a blog to support a statement that is disputed, then why is the claim not exceptional? Jim101 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking in to it further, Lee's opinion is not only opinion, it's apparently an inaccurate one. According to the section under dispute, Lee claims "the synchronized movements of thousands of people recalled the images of mass formations ... of the Maoist era" and "only the North Koreans can rival the Chinese in staging such spectacles of sheer numbers" According to 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony the Beijing ceremony involved 15,000 performers, with the largest individual groups consisting of 2008 performers. 2000 Summer Olympics opening ceremony says the Sydney ceremony involved 12,000 performers, with the largest individual groups consisting of 2000 performers. Not much different. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're really running this into the ground, Insider, my friend. She writes "such spectacles" - presumably the Sydney Games were spectacles of a different nature. Rather than parading the spectre of Mao, they paraded the spectre of overweening Australian nationalism. Or some other sprite, spectre, or hobgoblin. We've established that the author is not an expert on propaganda, so I think it's case closed. I think that's a rather restrictive definition, given where her article was published etc., but I reckon we are done here. And I appreciate the time of everyone who chipped in. Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Baidu Baike
Baidu Baike is a Chinese online collaborative encyclopedic effort. As such it has generally been described as not meeting WP:RS. At Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17 it was argued that because an "edit" tab existed, anyone could edit it, and therefore it was not reliable. However, Baidu administrators review all edits before approving them. (Partly to make sure someone doesn't post something bad about Hu Jintao) Doesn't that make it more reliable? That's more review than a lot of sources we cite get. If I saw some evidence of total BS being posted on Baidu Baike, I'd be more willing to say okay, it is not a reliable source. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 10:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Review by administrators" doesn't add anything to reliability. Neither does flagged revisions, nor de-wiki system. NVO (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? When an unsigned editorial gets published in a newspaper or magazine, it is reviewed by (usually) one editor who remains anonymous. Why does that make it more reliable than an article written/edited by an anonymous netizen and reviewed by an anonymous administrator? These administrators are not like Wikipedia administrators. They are Baidu Baike employees. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTCN)
 * Unsigned editorial, by definition, is an opinion normally shared by the newspaper's board. You may cite it as an example of this paper's opinion, political affiliation etc. - that's what they worth. NVO (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good answer. Thank you. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 11:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Just as Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a reliable source, Baidu Baike has the same issues making it unreliable. Ngchen (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're doing a good job of restating the party line, but I'm looking more for a critical assessment. If Baidu Baike is reviewed by an employee prior to things being posted, it is not the same as Wikipedia. Tell me what the difference is between an employee of a newspaper reviewing information and the employee of Baidu Baike doing the same. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 09:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Baidu Baike does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There is no evidence that the editors of Baidu Baike do even rudimentary fact-checking, or that they are remotely qualified to do so. If Baidu Baike is the only source reporting on something, it's not clear that that thing is true. Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you source those statements, or show me a Baidu Baike page that is inaccurate, or otherwise support your claims with evidence? Because there is also no evidence that they don't fact check. 222.127.203.96 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. We've got an entire article, Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not twist WP:SPS into WP:RS. Jim101 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record here, no wiki style sources has ever passed the RS check here. The reason is simple since it is a matter of editorial standards. In general, no wiki style sources has ever demonstrated it has the editorial standards employed by publishing houses or university peer reviews, nor has any information from wiki style sources ever get republished by other reliable sources or picked up by experts. Unless someone here demonstrates that Baidu Baike has the editorial standards of a publishing house, or the information from Baidu Baike has been cited widely in academic sources, the consensus on wiki style source will not change. Jim101 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For something of a counterexample, I think it is fair to say that the consensus here was that the "hybrid" online Den Store Danske Encyklopædi can be reliable, see the discussion for details and caveats, so if one can find comparable support for reliability of (articles in) Baidu Baike, they might be OK. Not having looked into it in detail, I have serious doubts. As Hipocrite emphasizes, we need evidence of qualified editorial supervision.John Z (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Curriculum vitae
Is a curriculum vitae (CV) a reliable source? What can it be used for? And how can we determine if a CV is published by the person themself, or someone else? The specific CV I'm curious about is this one (in Hebrew; Google translation to English). I've used it in the Nahum Shahaf article's background section for the following statements: "'Shahaf served as an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) paratrooper from 1964 to 1966. He attended Bar-Ilan University from 1970 to 1977, where he earned Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in Physics. After graduating, he spent two years working on computerized tomography at Elscint. From 1981 to 1988, he worked at Tadiran on unmanned aerial vehicles for the IDF. He then worked on attack helicopter missile systems at Israel Aerospace Industries from 1989 to 1991.'" Is that a fair use of a CV? I'm slightly worried about using this source, because I don't have any way to verify if Shahaf himself posted it to this site (which looks like his personal site), so any input would be greatly appreciated. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 21:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. See WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt it's his CV, then it would be OK to say "according to his CV ...". WP:SPS says self-published articles "may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". See some of the provisos about use though --Insider201283 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's self-published, but by someone else. Someone (who could be him or might not be) simply posted his purported cv on someone else's blog.   Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, no.--Insider201283 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not someone else's blog. How Dlabtot came up with that estimation is beyond me. Other sources list him already as working in the UAV and CT industries, and the CV is used, for example, to add the names of Tadiran and Elscint and not anything problematic/exceptional that hasn't been discussed (with less detail) in other published sources.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you are right it is his blog... mea culpa. Dlabtot (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Technorati
A user has been e-mailing me constantly with suggestions on improving Jaron and the Long Road to Love. He states that he writes for technorati.com, and wishes to add this to the article. My first instinct is that it's not reliable since it's credited to a three-letter pseudonym. What do you think? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Technorati.com bills itself as a blog aggregator: "The leading blog search engine, Technorati.com indexes millions of blog posts in real time and surfaces them in seconds." Though the content of the particular post in question seems fairly acceptable, it can't be cited directly to technorati.com.  Next course would be for the editor to track down the true source, and then to evaluate it against WP:RS.  A second look shows the author RJF claims to be "Executive Editor for Riddled Phantasms Magazine", so we'd need to demonstrate (1) the article was published in said magazine; and (2) said magazine passes WP:RS.  I'm unfamiliar with the magazine specifically, so I'll defer to others for the legwork there.  ;-)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom
Are articles written by Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom reliable? While this question is borne out of a dispute regarding this article and this one (used at Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy), my question is general.

I think the two are questionable, because their views are extremist, hence unreliable ("Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties").

Spencer is author of The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion. I can produce a host of extremist quotes by him if necessary.

With regards to Andrew Bostom, I'm referring to his reliability in Islam-related matter, not matters related to medicine (he's a professor of medicine). Bostom, similar to Spencer, holds extremist views on Islam.

VR talk  14:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If Tantaway's thesis is quoted, it should be quoted directly, and you will want to ensure that the translation is agreed upon. The original Arabic can go in too as a footnote. There is no reason to go to it second-hand via either of these writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Should this be sourced
I am currently in a debate with another editor over whether the DVD release dates for a television show need to be sourced or not. According to the other editor, since "release dates and air dates are almost never vandalized", and since release dates do not have "political, social or economic significance", then we don't have to source them. In addition, because the source of those release dates takes up "20% of the article size", that's another reason not to source them.

I am of the opinion that since release dates can be easily manipulated by any passerby, then they should be sourced. Verifiability is about things that could "likely be challenged", and in my opinion how am I to know that a show aired at a specific date, or was released on video at a specific date if I don't see a source confirming that? For all I know the date is made up. I have seen plenty of times where IPs have come to articles and just put in random dates for DVD releases that I could not find mentioned on any website (let alone a reliable one).

The other editor just keeps reverting all of the sources back out of the article. When I even offered up alternative sources, because the editor does not appear to like Amazon as a source for a release date, they just shot it down with the comments about how we don't need sources for release dates or air dates.

So, I ask, "Do we need to source home video releases and air dates for Television shows?"  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, a debate that Bignole did not bother to mention he started here, or that he posted, not in direct response to my edit in List of Smallville episodes or to a message that I notified him of:, but without my knowledge, to an editor handling spam.


 * User Bignole is constructing a strawman. No one is questioning the air dates, and the dates are rarely, if ever, subject to vandalism. WP:CITE states "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Quoting WP:SPAM "Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor". I.e., there is no reason to include many links to amazon.com, and a definite reason not to include them. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First of, I posted this to answer a question about whether we should cite release dates or air dates in general. I was not asking about Smallville, or about the use of Amazon. I was more trying to find out whether the consensus was actually that we don't have to source release dates or air dates, as that's kind of a big thing to me. Thus, notifying you is not a requirement, and why I didn't bother with it.


 * Second, I really don't appreciate your baseless acquisitions in edit summaries and on user talk pages that I'm vandalizing the Smallville page, or spamming it. You lack of good faith is appalling, and frankly I find your personal attacks to be unwarranted an unnecessary. I think you need to read up on your etiquette.


 * That said, there are two questions here now. Should we cite the home video release dates and air dates for TV shows, given that they can be easily manipulated and down right incorrect without something to verify them with. Two, is it considered "spam", if you are using the same baseline source (e.g., Amazon, MSN.TV, TV Guide, etc.) to source individual release dates?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll call a spade a spade. You are employing extremely deceptive arguments. What are we talking about, if not List of Smallville episodes and this edit, where you restored dozens of links to amazon.com? I can understand you don't appreciate that. You are an out-and-out liar. You have been employing deception from the start of this, going behind my back, when I, in turn, was completely clear about what I was doing. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, since you're so aware of when something is considered "spam". Per WP:OTHERLINKS, "Links to commercial sites are often appropriate." And since you wanted to throw WP:REFSPAM in my face earlier, here's the entire quote: "Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references in a manner inconsistent with accepted standards. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." - Let me point out the key differences. First, "Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation." -- Guess what, every source in there was verifying article content. None of them were used for "promotion". Lastly, and I leave you with this and allow others to voice their opinions since everything coming from you tends to involve personal attacks, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia."   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not all information on Wikipedia is sourced, but an editor is entitled to remove unsourced information whatever its nature. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An editor is entitled to dispute facts that are doubtful or contested. There's nothing doubtful or contested about the air dates. The article List of Smallville episodes starts with 260 words, most of which is uncited. But I don't contest that Clark Kent has superpowers. Nor do I contest when the shows were aired.


 * Editors Bignole and ChaosMaster16 (who has been recently blocked for edit warring) are acting in very bad faith here to maintain ownership of Smallville articles. This is closer to an ANI discussion, than about sources. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is contesting them then they are contested. If the information isn't important enough to have to be verifiable then perhaps it isn't notable enough to be included.  The "default" setting is to include sources, so I suggest you leave them in for the time being and file an RFC and see if there is consensus for your position. Betty Logan (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Betty, do your homework. NO ONE IS CONTESTING THE DATES. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that without sources the dates can be legitimately removed. Broadcast and DVD dates are not "common knowledge" so editors are perfectly within their rights to insist that they are verifiable.  If you don't agree with that then do as I suggest and file an RFC and see if there are editors that agree with you.  Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll just go over all your recent edits, shall I? Hmm. I don't see a single reference in any edit you made. In fact, much of the time, you don't even bother to give an edit summary. Not an especially convincing editing history, considering the topic.
 * Could we please have some opinions from non-partisan, non-film editors? Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know which of my additions to articles didn't include references. If there are any then they've obviously slipped my notice. Betty Logan (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As for not giving an edit summary? Half of your edits. References?Not quite as bad as I imagined ... since you were updating figures on existing references ... without explanation ... but also no explanation, or reference at all for: ,
 * The point, however, seems to be escaping you. (Glad you're all outfitted for a confrontational argument though.) There is significant financial gain to be made by claiming that a movie was more or less successful than it was. That needs a reliable reference. There's no percentage in changing a TV show air date. And? Consequently? I can't recall an instance in thousands of edits where a change to air date was made. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In those two edits I restored the amounts which had been changed to values not backed up by the pre-existing references. I don't file edit summaries for edits that are self-explanatory.  You can instantly check the references themselves to see why I changed the amounts back.  The Troy one was part of a sequence of erroneous edits by the same editor, and I reverted them all back and left a message on his talk page explaining why I had done so.  When I alter the structure or wording of an article so that the reason for the alteration isn't self-explanatory I include a reason in the edit summary. Betty Logan (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Self-explanatory" is a red flag. What is means is "I'm too busy and important to explain myself to other editors". Piano non troppo (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Allowable Use of Self-Published Material: NAVY CRUISE BOOKS Request Evaluation
Request a review/evaluation of the use Navy Cruise Book references in Wikipedia Navy Ship pages, where the cruise book is referenced in the Navy Bibliography of Cruise Books to prove it's authenticity and the article is not based primarily on the cruise book as a source.

I. EXAMPLE FOR EVALUATION - USS Tennessee BB-43 Wikipedia Page

The USS Tennessee Navy Cruise Book should be allowed to be cited as an inline reference on the USS TENNESSEE (BB-43) wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tennessee_(BB-43)) under Wikipedia's Allowable "Use of Self-Published Material" standard because: 1) it is not unduly self-serving, 2) it does not make claims about 3rd parties, 3) it doesn't involve claims about events not related to the subject, 4) the authenticity is not in doubt (it is listed in the US Navy Official Bibliography of WWII Cruise Books which is referencable, 5) the article that referenced the Tennessee cruise book is not based primarily on the cruise book only - a few tables of statistics are proposed to be added to the "End of World War II" section of the page.

II. MAJOR POINTS

1. Wikipedia provides for the allowability of Cruise Books - Cruise Books qualify for use under Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources by meeting all five criteria for use.

2. The US Navy Considers Cruise Books as reference material - The Chief of Naval Operations OPNAV Instructions identification of Cruise Books as important historical information supporting the contention that Cruise Books fall under the allowable use of self-published sources

3. Libraries consider Cruise Books as reference material - The existence of Prominent Libraries maintenance of cruise book reference collections supports the contention that cruise books fall under the allowable use of self-published source

III. EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FINDING OF ALLOWABLE USE OF SELF-PUBLISHED MATERIAL

I. Wikipedia's Published Criteria

Per Wikipedia self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving 2. it does not involve claims about third parties 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Cruise books are not unduly self-serving, they do not make claims about 3rd parties, the don't involve claims about events not related to the subject, the authenticity is not in doubt, and the article that referenced the cruise book is not based primarily on the cruise book. Because of this Cruise Books fall under Wikipedia's allowable self-published rule.

II. Chief of Naval Operations OPNAV INSTRUCTION

To bolster this case please see Department of the Navy Office of the Chief of Naval Operations OPNAV INSTRUCTION 5070.1C which identifies cruise books as extremely important "historical material" and requests their collection.

http://www.cruisebookcentral.com/content/dod-opnavinst-5070-1c-nonfillable.pdf

The United States Navy considers cruise books as reference.

III. Prominent Libraries established use of Cruise Books as reference material

Additionally, please note that the Navy Department Library maintains a collection of Cruise Books for use as secondary sources (reference material) on par with deck logs and ship muster rolls.

http://www.history.navy.mil/Library/special/cruise_main.htm

Navy cruise books collections can be found as reference material at some of the most important libraries in the United States such as the New York Public Library and the library of the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island.

Prominent Libraries consider cruise books reference material.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq14-1.htm


 * We have discussed cruise books before (check the archives)... they are considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The New Indian Express and CPI(M)
Hi,

This is about a discussion on the article Communist Party of India (Marxist).

Sources under question: The New Indian Express and The Pioneer

Articles: Users questioning reliability:
 * The Salwa Judum of Bengal - March 07 2010.
 * BJP to campaign against CPM violence
 * User:Soman
 * User:Nithinj
 * User:Vrsrini

The New Indian Express and The Pioneer are very popular newspapers in India. I have attempted to discuss my edits many times and at all possible fora. I have initiated discussion on the talk page and also one the user pages of the above users. But still my well sourced edits are being reverted giving reasons like 'defamatory article', 'editor is a member of political opponent', 'nonsense is written to sully the party' etc. Some have even gone to the extent of saying that violence is a norm in rural Bengal politics and hence use of violence by CPI(M) should not be mentioned. I have another reference that shows that CPI(M) uses violence. here is another report |xOZ5Y=&SEO= Four CPM men get life term

Please look into this dispute. --Deshabhakta (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What are the exact statements in the article that the source is supporting? And what are the particular citations? Diffs would be helpful, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions. Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes ( ~ ) Dlabtot (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The diff can be viewed here diff

The talk page. Section header: Criticism about the party

The statements from the sources:
 * From The Salwa Judum of Bengal


 * From BJP to campaign against CPM violence


 * From |xOZ5Y=&SEO= Four CPM men get life term

--Deshabhakta (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should state that there are different issues here. Some that are relevant for WP:RSN, but there is also a broader POV issue. From a reading of Deshabhakta's list of recent edits, a rather clear picture emerges. In cases of the RSS, he's arguing for limitation of 'criticism', whilst he seeks to add identical commentaries to the lead of the CPI(M) articles. I.e having two sets of standards depending on were on the political spectrum the article subject is located.
 * Secondly, we should recognize that Indian politics, especially at local level in some areas, is highly violent. There are accusations of political violence between all major parties, CPI(M) itself has a long list of grievances against Congress, TMC, BJP and RSS. To make a synthesis from the different articles that Deshabhakta cites would, just that, a synthesis. The Kannur case is completely unrelated to the West Bengal situation, and as (almost) always, there are more than one side of the coin: . Would Deshabhakta agree to using quotes from Deshahibmani or Ganashakti (which are major press organs with wide readership in Kerala and West Bengal respectively) to characterize BJP or RSS?
 * Thirdly, I googled around regarding the 'Harmath' accusation. A picture emerges that the word is a nickname given to sectors close to or being accused of being linked to CPI(M) in rural West Bengal. Even the article cited by Deshabhakta from TNIE leaves more ambiguity than the edits he's made in the CPI(M) wiki article. Another TNIE article, by the same author as the 'salwa judum' one, says "The villagers have a name for the CPM frighteners — harmath". Likewise the ADPR representative cited in the 'salwa judum' article speculates about the origin of the term. Another quote ""I don't know who did what? But what I know and what the BUPC members tell me is that this was by the 'harmat bahini' (as locals call the CPM cadres)," said a sobbing Rinku Mondol", from sify.com. None of these articles support the wordings that Deshabhakta sought to include in the CPI(M) wiki article (such as "Harmath is the armed militia of the CPI(M) in West Bengal."). The ambiguity expressed in press clips is distorted into blunt statements, as if 'Harmath' would be a structured, self-identified paramilitary organization.
 * The case of Trinamool-Maoist links is analogous to the 'Harmath' accusations by Trinamool. This is part of the polarized political reality of West Bengal. There is no shortage of accusations that the political opponents are murders, thugs, in canoots with mafia, linked to terrorists, etc.., and both sides have press outlets to redistribute their claims. The question is how we should process this? Cherry-picking out the gooiest details for the sake of pushing our own POV is not the answer, imo. --Soman (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They appear to be reliable sources for the citations. As it says at the top of the page, POV issues are for the NPOV Noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was Vrsrini and Nithinj who had raised questions regarding the biases of TNIE and Pioneer. Their comments can be found at Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist). My opinion though, is that this is rather a POV issue than a RS issue. --Soman (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Having solved the reliability issue, lets move to the NPOV notice board to resolve the POV issues (if Soman so wishes). Thanks Dlabtot. Issues was raised here first as the users had questioned reliability of named sources. Some even called the report 'defamatory', a POV feeling. Comparing TNIE with Deshabhimani is illogical. And, The Pioneer is not BJP mouthpiece. FYI, BJP has "Kamal Sandesh" which I am not quoting here. I have quoted nothing out of context from the named sources; hence it cannot be called 'synthesis'. TNIE has clearly reported that CPM men have murdered RSS activists. No ambiguity. If there are issues with the use of the term 'Harmath' you can cite reliable sources to add that the term is based on usage and not an officially maintained machinery. --Deshabhakta (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle
There is a dispute on concerning whether the Jewish Chronicle, of all things, is a reliable source. As one can see in the article history and talk page, some editors are taking the view that a passage regarding Marzel's use of the phrase "dilute the Jewish race" is not true -- overlooking the fact that it is nonetheless verifiable. The edit in question is here and the source for it is linked here. I would have thought this one is obvious: the JC is a reliable source and the information in question is verifiable -- particularly with additional sources for that passage available elsewhere:,. Any thoughts? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If it were the only source, I would go with the quote, but there are two other reliable newspapers that seem to be clearly reporting on the same event, and one even gives the text of the letter, without the phrase. I tend to agree with the others on the talk page, it looks like the Chronicle reporter rephrased Marzel's words. Especially since removing the quote doesn't really change the meaning of our coverage of the event in our article, I'd leave it out. The other sources you cite don't use it as a direct quote, and, frankly, one is The Sun (newspaper) ... not the most respected of newspapers ... and the other is specifically reporting about the article from The Sun. --GRuban (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I get this straight: are you saying that the JC is not a reliable source that can be used to verify the quote in question? It sounds like you think the information is simply not true.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jewish Chronicle is a highly reliable source, but what editors seem to be saying here is that it may be mistaken (about a few words in a letter) on this particular occasion. Ha'aretz is also reliable. If the JC report conflicts with the Ha'aretz report and/or with the content of the Hebrew original of the letter, then you cannot simply follow the JC report. A BLP so proceed with extreme caution. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict. What appears in Haaretz is not an entire letter, and it does not say that Marzel's letter does not contain that passage.  The fact that in Haaretz the passage does not appear does not establish that the JC report is mistaken.  I would agree with you on caution if there were an actual conflict.  As things stand, however, I fail to see on what basis one could conclude that the JC is wrong -- so I don't think we have here even "verifiable but wrong", instead I think what we have is simply "verifiable" with a reliable source.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it the case that the whole text of the letter is available online, in a form that all can agree is genuine? If so, then even though that is a primary source it should be taken into consideration. There are enough Hebrew speakers around here to translate it if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire text of a letter is available here. As I have acknowledged on the Marzel talk page, that text does not contain the word dilute.  But the same point still holds: The fact that in this text the passage does not appear does not establish that the JC report is mistaken.  It is entirely possible that the JC is reporting about a different version, and there is no reason to think that the version at "Israel National News" is somehow definitive and a different version isn't.  It matters that the JC article does not say that it is reporting on a letter by Marzel published by Arutz Sheva.  Again we get to the conclusion that there is no contradiction, nothing that tells us that the JC is wrong.  There is no getting around the core of WP:V: it can be verified with a reliable source that Marzel wrote the passage in question, the one quoted in the JC article.  Any other approach rests on truth, not verifiability -- and even less than that, it doesn't even work to say that it is untrue.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By leaving it out, we're not saying it isn't true. We're saying we don't choose to use it in our coverage of the event. We can't use every quote, can we? We need to pick and choose, summarize, etc. Adding the quote doesn't materially change the meaning of our coverage.The very next sentence in our article says the same thing, without using the questionable quote. "Representing the Lehava organization which works to prevent intermarriage, Marzel tried to remind Refaeli that she is the descendant of grandmothers who would not dream of seeing her marry a non-Jew and perpetrate assimilation." The point is that Marzel is against intermarriage, and wrote Refaeli an open letter about it; we can say that without using the questionable quote. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I am tending to agree with Nomo now. GRuban's point may also be valid but it's about weight, not reliability. Better to work that out on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote that Nomo insists on including on Marzel's page paints him, in this event, as much more extremist as his letter is worded. The letter is very easily understood to be written in a fatherly/uncle advice-like tone directly to the lady and not some rabid letter warning her not to dilute the Jewish race. Adding this expression without explicit knowledge that it really exists is a violation of BLP (besides the fact that this whole issue is really NN). It is apparent that the Jewish Chronicle writer, like many bloggers, have decided to assume that since Marzel has strong nationalist sentiments, that this letter 'must' be seen in the same light. The Jewish Chronicle source is very poor paraphrasing. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your arguments about weight need to be pursued on the talk page. Nevertheless, the Jewish Chronicle is RS, whether bloggers are pursuing the same line of argument or not. I'm not sure what you mean by poor paraphrasing. Normally a Wikipedia editor wouldn't be qualified to judge. The letter itself is available but it is a primary source, and we should be able to rely on the Jewish Chronicle to report its contents accurately. If you think that this is an isolated case where a normally reliable source is mistaken, then you will have to present arguments on that. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While agreeing with Itsmejudith in most respects, I'm going to have to insist that a letter (not "the" letter) is available. This is one of the reasons we give more weight to secondary than to primary sources.  As for the rest of it, other contributors to the talk page there (and Shuki here) continue to mount an argument that reduces to nothing more than that they think the JC report was wrong: thus, (un)truth, not verifiability.  I'm wondering how much longer that approach is going to be tolerated here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An RS can be wrong and this page has many times discussed how an RS might not have that status on certain issues. If we are to include a potential violation of BLP, then there should be other RS available to back up this one. Other RS have not confirmed the use of the word 'dilute' in their reports, leaving this source to stand out in its interpretation of the letter. --Shuki (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No one has produced any evidence that the JC report is wrong. As for whether the JC is a reliable source on this issue, I get the sense that certain people here (okay, Shuki, perhaps among others) think that what puts in doubt a source's status as "reliable" is whether it has published something they don't like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Student Journals?
I am a Member AAR, and got this in the newsletter and wondered about sources like these:

''New Student-Run, Peer-Reviewed, Online Journal of Religious Studies The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies is designed to promote the academic study of religion at the graduate and undergraduate levels. The journal is affiliated with the religious studies program at Utah State University. Their academic review committee includes professionals from universities throughout the United States specializing in the religions of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism, as well as specialists in the fields of psychology, anthropology, and sociology of religion.'' From

Just a thought, i know student newspapers Vary but what about journals like the one above? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe many law journals are run by students, so there's no problem with being student-run per se. Lets see if this one earns a reputation of being cited by various RS's. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

National Review a reliable source on China? MA thesis cites primary sources--okay or not?
Is the National Review unreliable on China issues? It was alleged that it is "an anti-China U.S. conservative publication." Is this the case?

The article in question is here, written by Ethan Gutmann. The claim it makes is that Luo Gan, public security chief, is brother-in-law to He Zuoxiu, who wrote some media articles that caused protests that escalated to a persecution against Falun Gong.

The claim (and claimed significance of it) is also repeated in a thesis by anthropologist Noah Porter (commented on by a top Falun Gong scholar). It was claimed that because that author's anthropological study "cites Falun Gong website clearwisdom.net throughout his book" it is an unreliable source. I dispute this, because it's natural for a thesis on a subject to actually cite primary sources from that subject.

The other issues can be resolved on the talk page--about whether what these sources say is useful and if so how--but I seek an outside opinion on whether the claims about these two sources have merit or not. The discussion on this is here. These may seem like very trivial, even inane questions (is the National Review a reliable source? Is an MA thesis that cites primary sources still reliable?) but it just needs some outside input or the dispute will go around in circles. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please quit these roundabout ways to get that the Luo Gan reference inserted into the article. It's an issue that's been beaten to death and resurrecting it is not going to get us anywhere. We've already established that even if it is a reliable source, it doesn't make it significant, doesn't automatically lend something the due weight it deserves to be in an article. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the repeated reasons for rejecting the information was your initial excuse that the sources are no good. The rest of the discussion was kind of derailed cause of that. Right now I just want to know whether that's valid or not. After it's established that these sources are reliable (or, are you saying they are? because we can pack this up now if that's what you mean), we can revisit the discussion about why, exactly, all this should be excluded. There are a number of sources all presenting this alternative explanation of the lead-up to Zhongnanhai, and this is one element of it. Nevermind, you'll see what I mean. I just want to know whether the sources are okay or not. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the National Review is RS. It may be conservative, but having a point of view that only means that it should be cited with attribution.  The real question is whether it is important enough to include in the article.  Now I'm no expert in the controversy being written about, but a brother-in-law is pretty much immediate family, and if they are involved in the same political matters it's pretty hard to deem that as unencyclopedic.  I mean, if this were a biography of a musician, whose brother in law was in the record business, we would certainly mention that in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "I saw it on TV" a reliable source?
Two editors have decided that they don't need to provide a source for claims made by Ryan Seacrest on American Idol (season 9). He said that Usher will be appearing next week, but other than his claim on the show, these editors don't feel the need to provide a source, since "Ryan said it." Woogee (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if they can and you can somehow verify I see no problem. In the big scheme, next week is not that far away. Google news or the primary source (show's site) might also turn something up considering the prevalence of the competition and that artist.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: this was faster than you coming here and me replying.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lack of civility. Why bother to respond if you can't do anything but criticize?  Woogee (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Incivility doesn't mean hold your hand to help you find a source which would have taken less time then all the complaining you did. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  05:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not incumbent on me to provide sources when you are the one making the assertion. Woogee (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not an assertion. You yourself said you didn't know if he said it or not, yet you took it upon yourself to revert people and ask that they provide a source. That sounds like incivility to me. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  05:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

alk ) ]] 05:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Didn't mean for it to come across overly dickish. I was surprised at how easy it was to verify so there was only supposed to be a tad of poking for dragging the dispute between you and the other editor here. Apologies if it was too much. At least my first answer was nice :( Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, "I saw it on TV" is not a reliable source. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Something out of the electronic media stream fails WP:V unless there's an archive somewhere to cite. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ComixTalk
This website is quite often used as a source for articles about webcomics. Due to the general lack of mainstream coverage of the area it is often the only third-party source that covers an individual comic or artist. However, the about page on the website says nothing about editorial structure and there isn't much in the way of third party sources describing the website. Anyone can sign up to the website but I think only to post comments not content, all the reviews in the review section for about the past year have been contributed by Xaviar Xerexes, the "publisher, editor and all-around web monkey for ComixTALK" who also has his own website/blog. Can the site be considered reliable? It lacks third party coverage from established reliable sources and a lot of the content seems to be effectively self published. Having said that it is probably one of the oldest resources dedicated to webcomics (lauched as Comixpedia in 2003) and its list on contributors includes professional freelance writers as well as published authors such as T Campbell. Any thoughts? Guest9999 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I looked the site up to see if it was owned by a media outlet. The domain comes back to something called "Burnt Dog Radio Services" out of Phoenix, but I couldn't find much information about it. This may just be a group blog; there are volunteer editors but they also write most of the articles. This might not meet the RS guideline, and wouldn't count for establishing notability. However, as these are articles about comic books, and if there's no reason to doubt the source, the regular editors of an article could get a consensus to IAR. The website still meets the WP:V policy, just not RS. Either that, or the articles could be demoted to ELs instead of sourcing facts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say no, it's not a RS, simply because there's no editorial policy and the main reviewer is of dubious standards. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not a reliable source. Pretty much the definition of a self-published, questionable source with a poor reputation for checking the facts and no editorial oversight. Starblueheather (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Guardian Games Blog and CVG
I'm posting a question following a discussion here (permanent link) earlier in the week and a suggestion to bring the discussion here. My question concerns whether it is possible to use the following links as sources for comments which were made by the article's subject on a daytime television show. The first is a blog so possibly unreliable, although it does come from a reliable newspaper and includes video footage of the full discussion. The second is from Computervideogames.com, whose reliability appears to be unclear. Any thoughts? Cheers in advance. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Alan Titchmarsh: not a fan of video games from The Guardian (includes a recording of the debate)
 * Julie Peasgood acted in horror video game from Computerandvidegames


 * Newspaper staff blogs aren't really "blogs" as far as RS, and could be used to authenticate the Youtube posting of the talk show being discussed. Computerandvideogames.com appears to be owned by Future Publishing Ltd, of Bath, UK, and it looks like the other person from the talk show debate is from CVG.  However this looks like trivia to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WWII Navy Cruise Book Images: Fair Use?
I'm seeking guidance as to whether WWII Navy Cruise Book scanned images/pictures and the original pictures that went into a cruise book are considered fair use and may be used in Wikipedia articles.

SPECIFIC EXAMPLE: I would like to update the Jesse B Oldendorf article with some historically significant pictures of the Admiral taken by a Navy Photographer during WWII and included in the USS TENNESSEE Cruise Book.

Pictures of a fighting admiral during historical actions are very rare and extremely historically important. To my knowledge no pictures of Admiral Jesse B. Oldendorf during WWII have ever been seen except by a few researchers in the National Archives and the lucky few who have access to the very rare USS Tennessee cruise book.

Please note, the Reliable Sources board has taken up the question of Navy cruise books and consider them reliable but I couldn't find if the question of fair use of Navy cruise book images has been determined previously by the board.

Please Advise. --Ussrangercv4 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pictures taken by US federal employees as part of their duty are in the public domain. Fair use does not apply, the images can be used freely. This is off-topic for this noticeboard, however. If you still have questions, see WP:IMAGEHELP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stephan. Your response is much appreciated. I wasn't sure which board advises as to image use so I thought I'd try here since the board was very helpful with advising about Navy cruise book reliability. Cheers --Ussrangercv4 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One caution... Images can be misused... see WP:No original research. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)