Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 83

Norman Naimark's bias regarding Central and Eastern Europe
Norman Naimark is a respected historian in the USA and partially in Germany, he isn't quite popular in several other countries. Hubert Orłowski quotes E. and H.H. Hahn's critics, a summary of their 2007 article  uses the word "völkisch". Norman Naimark has obtained a number of German distinctions and prizes. Compare also "Bloodlands" by T. Snyder. Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the question, and does it have anything to do with RS? I don't even see any discussion at the article talk page or recent edits to the article itself which would enlighten me as to why this is posted here. Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is about citations in Rape during the occupation of Germany, particularly Rape during the occupation of Germany. Discussion at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany --Habap (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The cited sources above, and the essays they are referencing are not the sources being disputed in that Rape/Germany article. Nothing in these cited sources say anything about "bias", whether Naimark is or isn't respected in one country and not another, nor or about his popularity or lack thereof. The cited sources concern a strong disagreement between two academics - Naimark and Hahn over an essay about a different, though certainly not totally unrelated question. So, I am left still wondering what the question is supposed to be for RSN. Fladrif (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Norman Naimark is involved in "Expulsions" debate on German side, in another words he is "biased". An example From Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II "Yet as the war went on, Lower Silesia also became a Polish war aim, as well as occupation of the Baltic coast west of Szczecin as far as Rostock and occupation of the Kiel Canal." The main Polish war aim was to survive and to regain independence in stable Europe. Poland wasn't able to achive any war aim and moving responsibilty from the US administration to a group of brige players in London is non-academic propaganda. I don't use the word "lies" because I believe that Naimark ignores elementary knowledge of Eastern Europe. Quotes from Naimark aren't accidental, the neutral part of his texts isn't interesting, the quotes are selected to support anti-Polish BDV-type propaganda. About the rapes: there are plenty texts about Polish men raping German women, Naimark is quoted even if he doesn't directly write about the rapes, why?Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Naimark appears to be a reliable source, and sometimes reliable sources have bias. Historians are known to disagree, so I see no fundamental problem with using Naimark as a source. I also see no support in the article for "Poland wasn't able to achive any war aim and moving responsibilty from the US administration to a group of brige players in London is non-academic propaganda," what is your source for that statement? Where is Naimark quoted regarding rapes, and what does that have to do with the quote you provided, ""Yet as the war went on, Lower Silesia also became a Polish war aim, as well as occupation of the Baltic coast west of Szczecin as far as Rostock and occupation of the Kiel Canal." --Nuujinn (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And what is Naimark's source? Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. I have no idea from any of these posts what the "Explusions" debate is; what "sides" there may be to that debate, assuming it exists, on what basis one would conclude that Naimark is on one or another "side" assuming there are sides; and why, assuming he is on one side or another, that constitutes "bias". I am completely baffled about how the quoted language from the Expulsion article sourced to Naimark is supposed to demonstrate any of the foregoing, even assuming Xx236's unreferenced assertion that Naimark is wrong about the Polish government-in-exile's war aims (realistically achievable or otherwise). I am likewise baffled as to how the two articles cited in the original post, in which Hahn disagrees with one of Naimark's essays on historical roots of ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe have anything to do with bias. But, more to the point, as Nuujinn points out, even if Naimark is "biased" as alleged, his books and articles are reliable sources, and that is the limit of RSN's scope. Fladrif (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you don't understand, don't know the subject, but Naimark is reliable. Xx236 (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourced removed because it was hard to find & lack of a requested quote
See where a source has been removed as unverifiable. A quote was requested in June 2009 but has not been found. At Talk:Vile Vortices there's a bit of discussion about this also dating back to last year. It is available in a number of UK libraries and easily available from Amazon, so I don't think that the statement that it is "only held by a very few, generally obscure, libraries" is correct. Is the issue the supposed difficulty in finding the book (the editor who removed it wrote "is there anywhere where this material is accessible by Wikiepdia's readership/editorship?" or the lack of a quote? Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Vile Vortices? Not notable. AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the quotes can't be verified, AfD for lack of verifiability. --Habap (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the article fails WP:N miserably, regardless of the verifiability of the disputed source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easy (and cheap) to get hold of this book . I can see no reason for deleting a source that anyone who is not penniless can access if they want to. Paul B (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I dare say the book is easily available. Does it pass WP:NBOOK though? I doubt it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOTABILITY of a book is irrelevant to its reliability. There are probably millions of books that are perfectly valid reliable sources that aren't notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Which I don't mean as an argument in favor of this source. And I doubt this crackpot theory deserves an article either. Dlabtot (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a crackpot theory, but see - it's easy enough to source and to debunk. I'd argue against an AfD, we just need a better article. Larry Kusche's book on the Bermuda Triangle, for instance, has a short chapter debunking it. And although I don't know if it was specifically mentioned in Lost (TV series) it was discussed a lot by its fans, eg., A good article would be a service. And I see no reason why Begg wouldn't be a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book series appears to be readily available, so it can be verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked for it via inter-library loan. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about a youtube link
I was writing on the page for the Transformers: Timelines comic book series. The company that published that comic book posted a video on their youtube account which was the lead-in to one comic story book mentioned on the page. So I posted an external link to it. I have another editor upset because he says you can't link to youtube as a source. I'm not using this a proof of notability, just as an external link. What's the best way to post this link? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were posting it as an external link, it needs to follow the external links guideline and you should post your question at the external links noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the company that owns the content put up the video, it should be no problem. And an EL is not a source and doesn't have the same rules that a source does. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually might be possible to use as a self published ref but keeping it as an external link shows some good restraint on your part. Why do you need an external link though? How about just pointing to the official site if there is one. Or in the body, use a ref from a reliable secondary source. Although there may be better options, there still could be precedent to use the EL as you are trying (you need to verify that it is the official channel). And see WP:VIDEOLINK for more info (disclaimer: an essay I wrote).Cptnono (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous Board More Statistics
RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous

On the AA page pro sentiment appears strong, information is be nixed by group consensus much like an AA meeting. Need clarification for editing purposes.

Issues with what is reliable and what is not for wiki purposes. under the heading AA Data: A source Loran Archer is being cited and  has been quoted verbatim from the reference source here:

this:http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAHistoryLovers/message/4447n Reliable source??

When I researched Lorne Archer I discovered a review by  Stanton Peele that had been published  earlier in a Journal.

http://www.peele.net/lib/denial.html

"The second Rand report (Polich et al., 1981) responded systematically to criticisms of the original report; again, the investigators found substantial numbers of what they termed 'nonproblem' drinkers. Criticism by the NCA and related groups was somewhat muted this time around, while a large number of social scientific reviews in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and the British Journal of Addiction were almost uniformly positive. The most remarkable consequence of the second report was that the Director of the NIAAA, John DeLuca, and his executive assistant, Loran Archer (neither of whom had a research background), offered their own summary of its results. This summary emphasized that abstinence ought to be the goal of all alcoholism treatment and that AA attendance offered the best prognosis for recovery, statements the report explicitly rejected (Brody, 1980"

Peele sources previously published in psychjournals. Are they a reliable source, would he be considered fringe.

Bankole Johnson http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html t again He was deemed unreliable and quickly edited off.

Reasoning for Peele not reliable cited here:

"Peele's self-published criticism of Archer and Deluca is vague, general, incomplete and seemingly out-of-context. Just what are the 'honest differences', and how have the Rand researchers 'called out [Archer] for fudging research data'? Peele is mute on the particulars. If we had reliable and relevant sources, they would be welcomed.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)"

Reason for Archer being considered reliable cited here:

"Removed primary sources and replace them with reliable secondary sources. See edit summaries for explanation of restoration and additions. Unless there is a RS to counter the validity of the Triennial Surveys, there really should be no discussion of the analysis of AA's data. This talk page is not a forum to argue about AA. or editor's opinions of AA's data unsupported by RSs. Also note that a valid self-published source is used. I've seen editors summarily dismiss any self-published source, and in this case, that would be a mistake. Finally, The talk page is the place for further discussion, not edit summaries via a revert war. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous

for reference purpose only: Previous source deemed by group consensus as reliable has already been ruled on  http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf which I verified earlier a decision was made on the source earlier on 6 December 2010 (UTC) This looks like a classic example of lies, damned lies, and statistics. The site cvannot be considered a RS. - Nick Thorne talk 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I would like a link to a wiki board that deals with information being posted being taken out of context. Once a decision ruled on, I assume I can safely edit. Regards Jayseer (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jayseer, I don't really like being quoted in the way you have done so here - please link to previous disucssions, rather than lift one small part of it and place it in a different context. Secondly, the issue has not been "ruled on" as you put it.  I have expressed an opinion, that is all, I have no authority to "rule" on anything.  Wikipedia works by consensus and towards that end I am happy to contribute my opinion.  But please do not ascribe to me any authority to make determinations on behalf of the ommunity.  Until and unless enough other people also post on the point so that a consensus can actually be established, there is no such consensus.  Certainly one opinion does not make a consensus, any more than one swallow does a summer make. -  Nick Thorne  talk  04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Questionable master's thesis?
A graduate thesis “Doing it for the lulz?”: Online Communities of Practice and Offline Tactical Media is being used in the article Facepalm (an internet slang term). Since I deleted the other sources which were clearly not acceptable (urban dictionary, etc.), this thesis now remains as the sole source.

My first reaction was "Wow, somebody spent their entire grad school career browsing 4chan and ED, and then he managed to pass it off as an MS thesis?" This reaction alone makes me biased in reviewing this reference, so I don't want to delete or modify it based on my own opinions. I thought it might be an elaborate trolling attempt hosted on student webspace at the university, but it checks out as a genuine Georgia Tech publication, albeit a surprising one to me. My understanding of a published student thesis is that they are acceptable on their specific topic and then should be used sparingly on other, related topics when alternatives cannot be found. In this case though, the nature of the subject makes it seem less reliable to me - whereas most theses are completed under ostensibly close supervision of the committee, it's a little hard to imagine such supervision producing content like this:
 * One example of Anonymous trolling involved sending particularly inflammatory messages to the messageboard of The Oprah Winfrey Show...The apparent misreading of the post by Oprah led to many members of Anonymous re-appropriating the clip, re-mixing the audio with music or using the image of Oprah in the episode and mixing it with other elements familiar to Anonymous such as the “Over 9000” meme and the “pedobear” meme.
 * (The entire section is unsourced, but followed by an image macro which is also unsourced.)

Two questions, first does the questionable academic value of this thesis make it unacceptable? Obviously I don't think too much of it, considering 4chan itself and various anonymous posters are cited by post number as part of the references - though it does contain legit sources as well. However I don't want to remove it simply because of my personal thoughts on the quality. If this were a book by a reliable publisher, it would be acceptable no matter how "bad" it is, and the fact that four Ga Tech professors accepted it certainly establishes an editorial process...still, well, it's a thesis about memes.

Second question, even if this ref is acceptable, is it enough on its own to establish notability for the article? The subject of the article (facepalm) actually occurs as an unsourced footnote within the thesis in question. In other words, the information came from the student's own general knowledge (presumably from browsing the aforementioned websites). Personally I think that is inadequate to establish third-party coverage, but I'm just a lowly IP and some moderators seem to disagree strongly about this so I'd like to hear what others' think. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, we don't consider a Masters thesis a reliable source. Even a Doctoral dissertation can be iffy. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doctoral dissertations are acceptable once they are published. It is unfinished dissertations that are not allowed. See WP:Reliable_sources.
 * And when the dissertation is published, the reliability is a function of the academic journal in which it is published, not on the fact of it being a dissertation. Wikiant (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most doctoral dissertations aren't published in academic journals, but by UMI, as stated in that section I linked to. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as a masters thesis, it conceivably could be used as per the above guideline as long as it has been published. MA theses--even unpublished ones--at one time were routinely cited in published papers, but they are not seen as often nowadays. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * HAs it been published?Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication that it has been published in any publication. Georgia Institute of Technology is listed as the publisher, but that's it. Siawase (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgia Institute of Technology is an acceptable publisher, IMO. Looking at the thesis itself, the second page lists his committee members, all of them doctorates, so it fulfills the requirement of being vetted by the academic community. For the purpose of this article, I would say it is WP:RS. Whether the topic is notable or not is a different question altogether. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree. In the US, IME, a thesis is usually only a local publication, and the committee that approves it does so in the limited context of passing it as one requirement for completion of the degree. Mine sits in my uni's library, and a copy is in the department's library if the shelf hasn't gotten too full. It is far from an equivalent to publication in a peer reviewed journal. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Masters and doctoral theses are both published "locally", yet doctoral dissertations (also just one of several requirements for completion of the degree) are acceptable once they are published in that manner. MA theses are available in the same place PhD theses are: UMI (you remember that fee you had to pay them, right?), and neither of them are published in a peer-reviewed journal unless the recipient revises it and goes through the publication process.
 * And as WP:Reliable_sources states, "The term 'published' is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online", which means that when read in context with the rest of WP:RS an online publication by a reliable source (in this case Georgia Institute of Technology) is an acceptable source as long as it meets the rest of the criteria. The policy itself in that section states that the examples given are not exhaustive, and it also says that "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." I think in the context of this article, Facepalm (an Internet slang term), this source is more than acceptable. For an article on, say, Philosophy, Politics and Economics? No, but Wikipedia policies encourage us to use common sense and editorial judgement, and IMO that is what is needed here.
 * And again, that has no bearing on whether the topic is notable enough to have its own article. If it were up to me I'd have to say no to that question. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "does the questionable academic value of this thesis make it unacceptable" Wikipedia editors are not practicing sociologists, cultural studies academics, or anthropologists while they are editors. We rely upon the institution (GIT, a research intensive institution) and the proof of acceptance (yup, it was accepted).  However, definitionally, Masters Theses are not original scholarly contributions to knowledge.  They aren't held to that standard.  I would be very reluctant to allow a Masters thesis be used to establish notability.  Additionally the discussion on "published" status is a bit septic.  Publication covers two things, "Has the work been reviewed by an external body prior to publication, such as by editors or by peer reviewers?" Yes, it was assessed by a scholarly committe.  "Is the work available for consultation?" In this case yes.  Not useful for establishing the notability of facepalms, really. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tom Reedy, "you remember that fee you had to pay them, right?" No, as a matter of fact, because I didn't, and they don't have my thesis, as far as I know. I just looked for it, and can't find it via proquest. At my uni, paying that fee was required for the dissertation, but not the thesis. Please note that Rs mentions dissertations, but not master theses, and notes that dissertation are cited often in other scholarly works. Theses, generally, are not. Also, I looked up the author and the title of the thesis in question on proquest, and no joy. Have you verified that the thesis has been published by UMI, and if so, can you provide a link to same? Also, if you believe the subject isn't notable, why argue for reliability of the source? If there's significant coverage in reliable sources, GNG is met. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your distinction between "dissertation" and "thesis" which is not present in my academic system? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why am I arguing? Because it's an interesting topic, it's not simple, and I want to find out. (IMO Wikipedians need to get back to the Socratic idea of argument instead of the in-your-face toxic idea that arguments are only to convince someone that your side is right and theirs is wrong.) Also back before a PhD was required for being a custodian plenty of respected and widely-published scholars held only an MA (also the fact that I only have an MA myself might be an unconscious motivation!).

But as I suspected, this topic has been thoroughly discussed, and more than once. It appears to me that the consensus is that a masters theses should be avoided if there is any other source, but that on some occasions they can be used with great care when they are recognized within the field as reliable sources. I doubt this one meets that standard. As far as PhD dissertations, they are specifically allowed by WP:RS policy. (And the difference in usage is that of geography: In the U.S. a thesis is written for an MA and a dissertation for a PhD; in the UK it's usually the opposite.) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A master's thesis is pretty much on the edge of RS. They might be useful to cite on subjects that are highly technical and matter-of-fact, or in pop-culture articles where sourcing is thin.  But it provides only a weak claim to notability.  I'd treat it almost like a primary source, OK for non-contentious facts, but not enough to establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that while some Master's Theses are undoubtedly fine works, the oversight process at least as far as I am familiar with it in the UK context, is not strict enough for silly opinions or syntheses to be struck out in the final version. People can pass with a poor thesis that doesn't drag them down into failing. There isn't typically the formal reiterative process of viva voce, outside independent input, followed by revisions, followed by a further submission and so on, which tips PhDs, in my view (and depending on the country) over the line in terms of RS. (Meaning I think they're useable if there is nothing better available). On the other hand, I think Masters' Theses can provide excellent bibliographies. Is there nothing in the thesis you could raid for use here? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First, thanks to all users who responded, the discourse was very helpful. Personally, I don't really care if an article like Facepalm exists or not, but I do care about what the acceptance of certain sources says about the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. It's not my wish to personally attack the student that wrote the thesis either. (If it were my university I'd probably voice my concern regarding the acceptance of such a thesis, but it isn't, and I'm not -- after all some departments will give you a thesis for just about anything.)
 * The real issue seems to be the context of how the thesis is used. In this case, the article cites a footnote placed in the thesis, in which the student explains the slang term for the committee faculty (who are, presumably, unaware of the term's meaning). While I'm not arguing the "truth" of this statement, I am questioning the verifiability since there is neither demonstration of independent research nor sources cited for the author's claim in this case. In other words, the author simply stated it based on his own general knowledge as a point of clarification. Other types of publications could rely upon the author's own knowledge and the presumption that the author is an expert in his/her field, but by definition that is not yet the case for a student writing a thesis as a degree requirement.
 * Regarding VsevolodKrolikov's question: The only part of the thesis which has anything to do with the article in question is aforementioned footnote, and again it was given without any explanation of where it comes from. In the article in question, there were two moderators who seemed keen on stopping the article from being deleted, despite a positive vote in the RFD - and this thesis is the only thing keeping that article alive. For me, a lowly IP, to delete the reference without some consensus on the source's acceptability would be stepping on their toes. I'm trying to play nice. :)
 * Let me put forward as a consensus that a thesis for an M.S. degree is acceptable in some cases where (a)it is needed to support an important point, (b)no suitable alternatives can be found, and (c)the methods and results leading to the specific conclusion for which the thesis is cited are clearly stated. Because of this specific instance not meeting criterion (c), the thesis is not an acceptable source for this particular subject. It seems like the takeaway from this discussion regarding the article in question, but if someone feels I'm in error please say so. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late with this, but see WP:IRS. Also (out of purview here), WP:N says, "[Sources] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability", and "Multiple sources are generally expected", with clarifying footnotes there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have marked some absolutely rubbish Masters theses. One problem is, what is a Masters thesis? In the UK it can be a relatively short paper done at the end of a taught course, where the grade is mainly based on an examination. I'd say that unless it has been cited multiple times in reliable sources it shouldn't be used. In this specific case, it appears that either a thesis or project work is 1/6th of the credits required for this 2 year degree. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it looks like we might need to reword the relevant policy. I'm in the southeastern US, and my experience is that the masters thesis is primarily a demonstration of the candidate's potential to complete a doctoral dissertation. I would suggest that one requirement for use as a source under WP:V would be that the paper in question be published fairly widely, for example, be available via Proquest, or in multiple libraries. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the policy needs to be made clearer, especially since this question seems to be an evergreen on the noticeboard. If I had to choose between an outright ban on using MA theses or allowing them all, right now I lean toward a ban. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Only rarely to be regarded as reliable sources. We can make an exception if there is evidence that the thesis has been referred to by other scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. It sounds like there are instances where it could be used sparingly, but in a case like this where the quality is more like an ED article than a scholarly work, it is a definite no. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I have proposed a wording change in the scholarship section, see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the idea of a masters thesis being an RS should remain a gray area, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at the thesis in question. It's a thesis about the online group Anonymous and theories of how memes work. It only mentions the "facepalm" meme in passing, one sentence in a footnote. It certainly doesn't confer notability on the "facepalm" meme, but it might make a good WP:EL on our article on Anonymous. I thought the thesis was pretty decent, and it cited quite a few scholarly articles on memes and RS reports about the group; it did cite a few websites as primary sources but that's what research is.

I would also say that while I don't agree with the removal of the primary sources from facepalm, it is not notable and should be merged to a article on memes, an article on emoticons, or even an article on body language.

It's not often we would use a masters thesis as a source. I couldn't see using them for something like history or theoretical science. However, I could see using one for uncontroversial, matter-of-fact information. For example, an engineering or business graduate student writing about a weather radar or a city's water utility will have information on how these things work, which will have been checked over by a professor. I could also see using them for literary criticism in pop-culture articles.

I've proposed in the past the idea of a "weak secondary" source to encompass, along with masters theses, certain types of citizen journalism, letters to the editor, in-house newsletters, fan-oriented zines with a volunteer "editorial board" and other situations where there is some acceptance process, and the idea of using those sources only for matter-of-fact details. It's also possible a masters' thesis could be seen as a "budding expert" SPS, especially if it was cited by other works, or seen as a primary source about the research activities of the academic department. But it normally falls just shy of RS, and when we decide whether to use a master's thesis, we need to take into account whether it's for a controversial academic claim, or whether it's for details used to augment what's already well-cited. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't removing primary sources as such. Yes they would be considered "primary" for the most part, but each individual source had some reliability issue that wasn't complex enough to bring here (except for the thesis). Info like this entry is a textbook case of original research and needs no lengthy discussion to remove it:
 * "Double and triple facepalms have also been observed. [the ref's simply link to image macros]"
 * Just wanted to clarify that. I wasn't on a hunt to take down every source, and the article can stay up if no one is motivated to re-AFD it after it was somehow undeleted. Personally I don't care about a non-notable article but I do care about what passes for a source because that affects the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

gamasutra.com
Is this website considered reliable, especially for BLP? It appears to have user-contributed content and to publish on an "as is" basis. I'm thinking of Tim Sweeney (game developer), for example, for which it's the only source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article for Gamasutra, and the website itself, I'd say it's borderline but probably okay for reliability. Notability might be a different story, and if it were a request for deletion, I'd call Gamasutra too "fringe" and vote delete. They list the email addresses of five individuals, which probably could be considered an editorial process, but there's no way to know if every article is reviewed by more than one person (as with any fringe publication). I'd say it can be used when no alternative can be found, but if it's the only article and you've made a good faith effort to find other sources, put up a RFD.
 * Not sure what else to tell you. The article for Sweeney's company, Epic Games, is horribly under-cited; otherwise, I'd say use whatever citation that article did. As it is now, they might as well say the board of directors consists of Boba Fett, Queen Elizabeth, and Captain Morgan since there's no way to check it. Wikipedia articles require some 3rd-party coverage beyond a single publication for that particular industry (otherwise, every published professor and corporate executive could have his/her own wiki article). If this particular game developer isn't mentioned in something more widespread than an article in a game development industry magazine, I'd say he's not notable. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At the Video Game project, Gamasutra is considered a highly reliable source - there is editorial oversight and it is the website frontend of a major game development magazine. Mind you, whether one source is enough for notability, that's a different issue, not a question of whether the website is reliable or not. --M ASEM (t) 07:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Masem on reliability of the source (I subscribe to the electronic version of the magazine). I found another article using dogpile that identifies Tim Sweeney as "co-founder of Epic Games and the brains behind every iteration of the widely licensed Unreal series of 3D game engines", so will add that to the article. --Habap (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I had a look at it again, definitely seems more reliable on the second glance. Sometimes smaller companies will just take whoever is in the office and list them as the editorial board -- a speculation which is not feasible to investigate for a Wikipedia source, I know. What I don't want to see is webmasters of open sites (like mobygames but less well-known) grabbing a few emails addresses in the nearby cubicals and listing them as editors in order to improve the appearance of their product. As long as there is a legit editorial process and not just individuals doing a glorified blog (the former appears the case for Gamasutra) then it should be deemed reliable. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a conflict of sources?

 * This discussion has been relisted at WP:OR/N.  Night w   11:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Private, commercial sources?
A small edit war has erupted with a new user and discussion has been started here:


 * Talk:William Harvey Lillard

Please take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please follow the RS/N instructions at the top of the page Fifelfoo (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the talkpage being linked to does not make clear what is being sourced, and from where.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This page isn't for dispute resolution or anything related to edit warring. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue was about the reliability of the sources NorCalGirl78 wanted to include, which were from two self-published chiropractic websites. I believe Brangifer was trying to assist a new editor who was unfamiliar with sourcing policy by bringing the issue here so that she could hear some outside input. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) that was me Ocaasi (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The source for details about the discovery of the burial place of William Harvey Lillard is this private, SPS, chiropractic website.

This is the section involved, which needs correction to remove dependence on information from this SPS.

Here is where the discussion is occurring.

Also here.

I have been searching for an independent source, such as a book or newpaper, but without any luck. All I find is duplication of this article in chiropractic sources and mirrors of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No luck. Can we use a source like this this private, SPS, chiropractic website, without independent confirmation in other sources? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. It's a personal account, published on a web site with no apparent expertise in the subject, there are no footnotes/citations to indicate source material, and it's a primary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS by a non-expert. Fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.aaruk.info/
Can I please get some opinions on the appropriateness of this site. It's currently found on the following pages, added by the website's owner or someone associated with him: Regards, Lara  01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Architects Registration Board (reverted from this page earlier today, based on previous reversions by two IP editors)
 * William H. White
 * Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938
 * Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom
 * Architects Act 1997
 * Chartered architect
 * Architects Registration in the United Kingdom


 * Website is not subject to editorial control; fails to meet reliability standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Since the name of the editor adding these links is the same as the owner of the website whose links he keeps adding, it appears to be a spam and COI problem as well as a RS problem. Fladrif (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Lara  02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fifelfoo and Fladrif. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Subject's web site as a primary source of her marriage and her two kids
Tope Alabi


 * Alabi has married to Soji Alabi, a studio engineer and producer, in 2000. They have two daughters, Ayomiku and Deborah.

This (above) text, which was my edit, was deleted, along with two primary sources from the subject's own web site, by an editor. Her rationale was: "Please don't source such personal information on a living person to a personal website, no matter whose it is." She even said PLP violation.

I see on many BLP articles, where that kind of marriage information and the kids are being mentioned, in the end of the Bio section. It seems to me. it's a common practice.

My question: Was it wrong to add this information with the confirming source from her own web site? Thanks. Fusion Is the  Future  11:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We have really strict rules on biographies of living persons, but the info about her marriage doesn't reflect badly on her. Keep looking for an independent source. Don't include the children's names; it serves no purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be one of the instances in which a SPS might be used in a BLP per WP:BLPSPS assuming that there is no question as to the authenticity of the source and no question as to its accuracy. I agree with Itsmejudith that you should omit the children's names. Also, do not link to the source in that manner. Use foonotes instead. And try to find a secondary source in preference to the SPS. Fladrif (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that if it is not "out there", I question whether it should be used in the article. People have the right to try to keep family members out of a public life, and to a certain extent we should respect that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful advices. There was an inadverdent mistake in my above statement. The editor deleted given text with this source I provided, from modernghana.com, and editor said this on the subject's talk page. Then I found artist's web site and first hand information about her husband and her two kids. I asked editor again, and editor said "Please don't source such personal information on a living person to a personal website, no matter whose it is."

I am sorry about the mix-up. Can we use Modern Ghana's article, along with these two sources from her own web site then? I could also mention about her marriage in the footnotes section as Fladrif suggested. Thanks. Fusion Is the  Future  15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that technically it's a violation of WP:SPS since you're using it to source information about third-parties. This might be an example of where policy is out of sync with community practice.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely the policies are clear that one thing even poor sources can sometimes be "expert" about is themselves?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SPS says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...so long as...it does not involve claims about third parties." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case, the source is not making a "claim about a third party"... the source makes a claim about herself (that she is married to a particular person, and has children with given names). I really don't think that this is a BLP issue either.  Nevertheless, I also think it is probably best to rephrase the sentence to say: "She is married and has two children"... without mentioning names. The fact that our policies and guidelines may allow us to state something does not mean we must state it. There are things we shouldn't include, even if our rules allow us to include it. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This comes up fairly regularly. The children on notable people aren't themselves notable (or at least, they aren't unless for other reasons). As non-notable people, they shouldn't be named. The name of the spouse might possibly be relevant, but shouldn't be included automatically. BLP policy requires privacy for non-notable persons AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we violate someone's privacy simply by mentioning their names in an article (if the subject wanted to keep the names of her husband and children private, she would not have put those names on her web page). However, I completely agree with the notability issue... unless her husband and children are notable on their own, mentioning them by name is trivia. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, although I'm hard-pressed to come up with a real-life example. But if I wanted to write a real biography of, for example, Michael Jackson, it would be extremely incomplete to not include his relationship with his father or his children.  Of course, this is a bad example for a number of reasons including the fact that there are secondary sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A personal website is not a reliable source for information about other people. Claiming to be married to a named individual is a "claim about a third party".  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Here I found a secondary source, an interview with Tope Alabi, and she reveals her husband's name as Soji Alabi, question #4, line 5: Alabi Interview Would that be sufficient, including her web site info, to mention about her producer husband and her kids? Fusion Is the  Future  19:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How come you chose to do gospel music?
 * No. Her husband and kids aren't notable people, so we don't name them. Notability isn't transferable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fusion is the future's isn't suggesting creating separate articles for her husband and children so notability has nothing to do with it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the WP:NOTE policy applies to all subject matter in articles, not just that in the titles. OTOH I would say that if a notable person has children that is probably a notable in that person's life. Note: noting that someone has children seems reasonable, but the names seem unnecessary unless the children are well-known in their own right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A Quest For Knowledge, you'll find that BLP policy applies to any living person mentioned in any article, not just one about them. Unless the subject person was notable for having children (octuplets?), they shouldn't be named. It is probably reasonable to state that the subject has children, but no more than that, unless it is significant in regard to what he or she is notable for. Sadly, A lot of BLPs currently contain trivia, but that is no reason to continue this when the policy is clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Unless the subject person was notable for having children (octuplets?), they shouldn't be named." I don't think WP:BLP says this, but I could be wrong.  Can you refer me to the section that says this?  Anyway, I think we need to take a step back.  Are people seriously suggested that a person's spouse and children aren't important to a person's life?  Granted, this article (Tope Alabi) is practically empty, but any decent biography should cover things like this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.": WP:BLPNAME. If the article is about footballer X, then footballer X is presumably notable for playing football, not for having children. Footballer X's kids may be important to him, but their names aren't important to us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that WP:BLPNAME is about people known for primarily one event. I don't think that's the case here.  Also, that section is about privacy.  If the person is going around doing public interviews talking about her family, then obviously they're not concerned about keep this secret.  Finally, WP:BLPNAME doesn't say 'never'.  It's left up to the discretion of the editors working on each article, so you can't make blacket statements like that.  I think the real problem here is that the article is so short. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Attempting to pad out an article by including peripheral facts seems a little desperate. I took a quick look at the article, and it states that Tope Alabi has been involved with the Nigerian film industry. How about finding some details on that. Surely more relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was on instinct, really, that I gave the advice, above, not to give the children's names. But I do think it is best practice not to. For one thing, I don't think it looks very professional. For another, those kids will one day grow up and may then ask why their names were plastered over the Internet. And it really doesn't convey any necessary info. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) All of which is very interesting, but this is the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Is there a consensus that (as I believe) a personal web site is not a reliable source for the name of someone's spouse and children? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, getting off-topic, sorry. I'd say that since we don't actually know it is her website (without WP:RS that says so), it can't be, regardless of any other issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By any sane definition of "reliable", the subject's own statement are a reliable source for who her husband and children are. (Unless there is some reason to believe she's lying or not responsible for the site.)  The issue isn't really whether we can find reliable information, i.e. information that is likely to be true.  The issue is whether or not we should be including personal information that affects not only her, but also her family. That is a WP:BLP issue, and BLP generally says we limit personal information to those facts that have already publicized in secondary sources.  That prohibition is not primarily about accuracy or reliability, but rather about protecting personal privacy from unreasonable intrusions.  Regardless, that issue really belongs on the BLP noticeboard, not here.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...I'm not 100% sure that modernghana.com isn't a reliable source. They don't appear to be the website of a print publication and their "The Team" page doesn't inspire confidence.  But they have been cited by other reliable sources such as Time magazine, Times Higher education, and if Google's search engine isn't lying, possibly some peer-reviewed academic journals.  I'm not sure since I don't have accounts with these journals.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning the point of principle I think a personal website, if we know it is real, CAN be a reliable source of information about that person. People (and organizations) are "expert" about themselves, but we would be careful of self-serving information for example. If there are doubts about the website really belonging to the person that is another matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I started it, and after many-good advices, here is my suggestion, and let's please vote on it. Support or oppose.
 * Alabi has married to Soji Alabi, a studio engineer and producer, in 2000,Alabi Biography Alabi Interview Question #4, line 5 and they have two daughters.
 * Take up the actual language at the article talk page, not here. That is not the function of this noticeboard. "Voting" is not the way things work. Fladrif (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "By any sane definition of "reliable", the subject's own statement are a reliable source for who her husband and children are." Well, WP:RS talks of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which seems pretty sane to me, and then goes on to say "Self-published or 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 (such as people, organizations, or other entities); ...". Now a claim to be married to a third party is certainly a claim about that party.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My reading of the consensus here is that the names of third parties are best kept out unless there is a better source - and then of course there should be a reason as per WP:NOTE. I agree, as also already mentioned, that it not good to use such a source for self serving material. Of course if there are other sources to back things up, notability doubts, or doubts about the authenticity of the website, that is all another matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote in News Article as a Source
I'd like to use this source [] as a statement that "The bags are produced in Italy" for Belen Echandia in the Products section. The specific text mentioning Italy comes from a quote from the founder of the company. Is that statement properly backed up by the source? AuroraHcky (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Vogue is a reliable source. Is there some reason why you might think it wouldn't be? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I phrased my question wrong. Is the quote in the article "Our bags are all hand-made by artisans in a small Italian atelier using old-world methods." a reliable source for "The bags are produced in Italy".  So I guess I'm not questioning Vogue's reliability, but more the reliability of a quote by the founder of a company in the Vogue article for a statement about the product of the company.  A similar statement was removed before in the article, so I want to make sure it can be properly supported before adding it in again. AuroraHcky (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just attribute it to the source. "According to the company's founder, all its bags are produced in Italy". Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What Jayjg said. AQFK (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Court documents
I have used this document: submitted by the plaintiff in a legal dispute as a source of biographical detail about said plaintiff.

The source is used to cite four items of biographical detail only, and the legal dispute is not referenced to it; the four items are:
 * the museums he has worked with/in
 * the fact that he spent 37 years photographing butterflies in the Natural History Museum
 * the number of images and species he has photographed
 * that he has described over 100 new species and subspecies and several new genera

It seems to me that court documents submitted by someone constitue a WP:SPS, and should be considered in that context. For example if a document is submitted to a court by John Smith saying 'I, John James Smith, born January 1st 1952 in Aruba' then that is a reliable source for that biographical information for the Wikipedia article about that John Smith.

I have suggested that court-submitted documents are perhaps more reliable than other self-published sources - for instance an ageing popstar might claim to be 35 on his website, whereas in court he is unlikely to lie if he is in fact 43. Whether they are more reliable or not is perhaps unimportant - the issue is they should at least be considered a perfectly good WP:SPS for an article. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty unequivocal about this: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. But I'm not talking about 'assertions'.
 * If I make a court submission saying 'I, John James Smith, was attacked by Fred Jones', then it would clearly be wrong to cite 'Fred Jones attacked John Smith' to that submission, because it's an unproven assertion.
 * What I am talking about here is uncontroversial biographical detail - for example the fact that John Smith's middle name is James. I do not believe such things fall under the category of 'assertions', nor indeed do my examples above.
 * And right below WP:BLPPRIMARY it's acknowledged that it *is* ok to use primary sources in some circumstances about the subject of the source.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No. What someone says about themselves in a court document would not be considered a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So if I write it on my webpage it's reliable about me, but if I say it about myself in a court document it's not? Would you care to explain your logic? Sumbuddi (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "So if I write it on my webpage it's reliable about me" No, not necessarily. As for explaining my 'logic' - I'm not using any convoluted 'logic' that needs explaining, rather, I am simply reading the simple, plain, clear-cut language of the relevant policies. Dlabtot (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The policy, as written, does not differentiate in the manner you describe, in part because what to you is uncontroversial may in fact be disputed by those on the other side of the court case. The section about self-published sources that you describe does not include court documents, which, as Nomoskedasticity, are excluded as sources in BLP. If it is important information about the man, then it will have been published by a secondary source. --Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, someone's name and date of birth may be precisely what is in dispute, as in the case of the Tichborne Claimant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Court documents are primary sources. If the case has been covered in published secondary sources, then you can use the court documents for additional detail.  One exception being accusations against another person; we would need a secondary source to mention those allegations before we could pull them from a primary.
 * The idea expressed above that a court document, handled by judges and attorneys and sworn under the pains and penalties of purjury, is somehow less reliable than an off-the-cuff remark made on Twitter, is a pretty bizarre one. I understand the reason for BLPPRIMARY, and I know that we don't want Wikipedians looking up things in public-record databases that may not be the same person and so forth.
 * It seems to me that the crux of this is whether a secondary source reported on the case. If that's so, then we'll know this is the right person and it's a proper use of primary sources.  If no secondary sources reported on the case, then we're just fishing through raw data and BLPPRIMARY applies. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The general thrust of this is correct but the issue is more than just the correct identification of the person involved. Yes, a secondary source about the case is an important criteria. However, just because the case has been mentioned by a secondary source, doesn't mean that the court documents suddenly become fully usable for pretty much anything. The policy is much more cautious, noting that the material needs to have been discussed for the primary source to augment it.  From BLP: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies".--Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's best to avoid court documents, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. And frankly, if secondary sources haven't reported on it, it's not clear that Wikipedia needs to list someone's middle name either. Jayjg (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Slp1, I would say that when an RS mentions the case, the filing of the case is the material. Something like "I, Mr. P, a plumber from Peoria, am seeking damages of X for torts Y and Z." should be OK to use in an article if the case is mentioned in a secondary source.  Whether that extends to every exhibit in the case and the testimony of every witness is less likely and needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.


 * Also, I would suggest that an individual's court filing is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. The sorts of things that would be allowable under SPS, like basic biographical details, would still be allowed.  Filing something in a court of law does not make it less reliable than filing it on Facebook.  Of course, some parts of a court claim would be too contentious to meet WP:ABOUTSELF, and that information would have to satisfy BLPPRIMARY. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are fairly close to holding similar views in some things. A secondary source mentioning a court case would like be summarizing the reason for the case, so yes, your plumber comment would likely be useable. However, I think WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty clear that we should only augment what is in the secondary sources, not trawl through the exhibits and testimony of the case for information that has not been published elsewhere.
 * As always, it is easier to deal with specific cases. The questioner above wanted to know if a filing by the subject of a BLP could be used in that person's article. As there is no secondary source mentioning the court case, it appears that the court filing fails BLP policy, so the answer is no. But even if there were a secondary source mentioning the case, we should not be using the material. In this case the very practical reason that we should not is that the filer is literally making a case about what an eminent butterfly photographer he is (and thus why he should win the case). We need somebody else to make this point.
 * BTW, nobody has suggested that Facebook or Twitter are reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There has historically been some confusion on this by certain editors, but I agree wholeheartedly with Squid. Other views tend to miss by a wide margin the goal of the guidelines, and just seek to apply their understanding of the language of the guidelines without sufficient attention to the guidelines' purpose.  As stated by Squid, when an RS mentions the case, the filing of the case is the material, and court filings (especially those that have been sworn to; something we rarely see even in an RS) should be OK to use in an article (though case-by-case analysis may in certain circumstances yield a different result).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the BLP policy is to require editors to give the "greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research" in BLP articles. It is precisely because of potential and observed problems with OR, NPOV, V etc that there is very little support (including above) for the view that the mere mention of a court case in a secondary source means that the court filings etc "should be OK to use in an article" as you put it- though I acknowledge you note exceptions. Even Squidfryerchef, above, indicates that using the filings etc is "less likely". Indeed, when you argued from this perspective at the BLP talkpage,  including the affidavits and filings used in a BLP you had heavily edited,, you had one supporter, while other editors and even an arbitrator disagreed with your views, citing policy concerns.  However, assuming I and these others do indeed "miss by a wide margin the goal of the guidelines" (policy actually), then please suggest a change to the BLP policy to clarify the issue for all concerned.    --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is indeed a good treatment of the issue, including the rationale underlying it.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

www.truthaboutscientology.com usage in BLPs
Question has arisen at Talk:Jamie Sorrentini about using this as a source. Consensus in the past at Scientology-related talkpages has been that it is not an acceptable source and fails WP:RS. As the issue is now revisited again at this particular WP:BLP talkpage, essentially using the attempted argument "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", I thought it prudent to ask the community, here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The diff in question is this edit. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Self-published; absence of recognised expertise; no editorial oversight. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt, can you provide links to past discussions which show the consensus you say exists about this source? Not that I doubt you, but I am fresh to this and it might be helpful for us not to go over old ground. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was disputed in several locations and there was not consensus for usage of the website. Here is one example, from 2007, relating to another BLP: Talk:Catherine_Bell/Archive_1. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that the site is reliable. BE——Critical __Talk 06:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I read over the discussion you linked to and there does not appear to be consensus either to use or not use the source in BLPs. I guess your statement "there was not consensus for usage" is therefore accurate, but that seems at odds with your earlier strong statements about consensus. I note that you supported the use of the source in that discussion and you have subsequently added to other articles (including BLPs) to show that individuals are Scientologists. I am a bit taken aback that within minutes of my adding it to an article that you created, you have removed it, started this discussion, and notified involved wikiprojects. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. There is not consensus now, there was not consensus then, and I have not added links to that website in quite some time. -- Cirt (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I do not understand your sentence above which states "Consensus in the past at Scientology-related talkpages has been that it is not an acceptable source and fails WP:RS". Perhaps you can explain the apparent contradiction? If there actually is no consensus on this source, I will restore the disputed edits at Jamie Sorrentini until this discussion completes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of past discussions, consensus above does not support the usage of the website. -- Cirt (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Despite above comments by myself, and and, that the website fails WP:RS and should not be used on BLP pages,  has gone against above consensus and violated BLP by adding back this site, see diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is beginning to become farcical, Cirt. You yourself just stated that "There is not consensus now,..." but minutes later claim I am going against "consensus". I hope that a consensus is in due time reached here about the use of the source, bu until then I fail to see how it is a violation of WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * is now reverting against consensus and adding back in a questionable source to a WP:BLP page, adding controversial info to the BLP page, from a website that violates WP:RS, where 3 editors above have consensus not to use the source, and where only one editor,, has advocated repeatedly to use this source, with no explanation yet as to why. Please, undo this edit, now. -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed it, again, see diff link. Per the 3:1 consensus, above, and per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, please do not add it back. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I am hardly "advocating" the use of that particular source. I merely made the mistake of adding it to an article that you created. It is currently used in other BLPs. I have already provided two diffs where you added it to articles as recently as August of 2009. If it is fine for you to add such information to articles -- using the exact same source -- why is it suddenly a crisis if I do the same? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * seems to be willfully ignoring comments against usage of the source website by the three editors, above in this subsection itself. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I am hopeful that this discussion will end in some kind of consensus about the use of the source. I honestly don't care what it is, but I will follow it. I am not willing, however, to be cowed by your ridiculous hyperbole about the situation. The source is currently used in other BLPs (in part because you added it), if there is a genuine BLP issue with it, I'm sure that someone other than yourself will simply remove it from the article. I don't see how this is any different from any other case here and why it can't be resolved similarly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already stated I ceased that practice myself, and support removal of the website as a source, as do two editors above, aside from yourself. -- Cirt (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Deprecate source and remove from all articles. I'm not sure how reliable the source posting is, but there's another problem. Internet chatter (from unreliable sources) suggests that Sorrentini may be an ex-Scientologist. Now, my problem with truthaboutscientology.com is two-fold. It doesn't appear to be updated, and it certainly isn't dated. That means what we have is the claim that Sorrentini WAS a Scientologist at the time the data was compiled, but we don't know if that's current (it doesn't seem updated) and we can't say "as of" (because the material isn't dated). If we use the source to call someone a Scientologist, we may make a false claim, since the source is not testifying to their CURRENT relationship to the Church.--Scott Mac 09:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Scott Mac. Maybe as an act of good faith User:Cirt can remove this source in all the various locations he placed it prior the time he says he has stopped using it.  Cirt I'm sure you know better than anyone else where you have used this source.  In the future, it would be nice if you did this kind of thing at the time you realize the source is no longer considered an RS.  Letting non-RS sources linger in BLP entries is not good practice at all.  Thanks and cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE -- I should have checked Cirt's edit history. He has already done this.  Now, next time please don't let such sources linger.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott, as I understand it, Sorrentini has broken from the Church of Scientology, but still considers themselves a "Scientologist". I was not aware that there were schismatics in Scientology, but it seems to be possible. It is a moot point if no reliable sources are available, and I agree that the source under discussion appears not to be reliable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are, at least so far as I can remember, at least four or five groups which have broken away from the Church of Scientology while still practicing and following some of the core principles of Scientology. There is a reasonable question what to call them, as I don't think there is necessarily an easily-identifiable umbrella term (like "Christian") available for such groups and related individuals. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo and Becritical are correct here, there's no indication this website meets the requirements of WP:RS, and in particular it should not be used for information regarding living people. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP Problems remain in two entries
Perhaps this should be taken to the BLP/N, but two of the entries Cirt purged the source from (thanks for that) have BLP issues that remain. These are Lee Baca and Harry Palmer (author). The Lee Baca entry contains a section called "Connection to Scientology" which is filled with non-notable facts about Lee that tenuously connect Lee to the Church of Scientology, like once speaking at one of their events. Harold Palmer is perhaps worse in that it contains a large section called "Scientology background" which is not completely unsourced. The previous sources for the section were comprised of the one Cirt removed and three court documents, which for a BLP are a distinct NO NO. I'm hoping Cirt can fix these issues now while we're discussing this so that a BLP/N thread does not need opening.Griswaldo (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * , I thank you very much for the above assumption of good faith, and for noting above that I have already gone and removed the website as a source across multiple pages. I was not the editor who had initially added the website as a source to all of those pages, but nevertheless have removed it. We can move discussion of the two remaining individual pages, to their respective talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I have gone ahead and removed the poorly sourced sects in question from both pages of Lee Baca and Harry Palmer (author). Okay? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the existing thread at ANI to point out some issues that were introduced by Cirt's removal of this source. See here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is www.tv.com a reliable source?
Hello I have been trying to source the airdates for List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes but do not know of a reliable source for them. Someone on the talk page is saying that tv.com is okay, does it pass WP: Reliable sources? I would post this in a wikiproject but most are dead that have to do with this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This has come up a couple times before. Some sections are user-editable which are not reliable.  But there is another section of tv.com that is written by staff writers. They generally have a URL in the form of tv.com/story/####.html.  (This is assuming that they haven't reorganized their website since the last time we looked into it.)  So it depends on which article you want to reference.  Is it written by the staff or by the users?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion Piece a RS for facts?
In the article Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines), the following source is cited numerous times:

This is clearly a position paper, but is used in the article (reference #11) in such a way as to appear to be factual, because the principal author is a university professor (although this is clearly not a scholarly work). On Talk:Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines), the opposition is saying "He's a professor, and its a journal, and that's good enough." I think it is important that each time this source is cited, it is made clear that these "facts" are merely the opinions of the authors, and have not been independently verified. I think the source is a good example of the opposition's claims, but it must be stressed that these claims are opinions. What are the opinions of the RS Noticeboard watchers? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What section of the Table of Contents of the journal is the text in? Is the journal peer reviewed?  On the website for 2005, the text is filed as a "Position Paper" marking it in that ordering as opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of "these guides tell writers..."
I want to challenge as not WP:Reliable the source for three specific statements in the Sentence spacing article. Since the previous posting here did not get a response, I'm not listing the two additional sentences from the article, in order to clarify the decision.

Searches for previous discussion about webword.com have revealed one case. This case is relevant in that an unverified report on webword.com was the original source of a previous Wikipedia faux pas [See "one single reference"].

Let me note an objective for the Article, "the standard of reliability will be held to a higher level than normally seen on Wikipedia" (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sentence_spacing/archive2).

1. A full citation of the source in question.

Rhodes, John S. (13 April 1999). "One Versus Two Spaces After a Period". Webword.com. http://www.webword.com/reports/period.html. Retrieved 21 March 2010.

2. A link to the source in question.

http://www.webword.com/reports/period.html

The quote from the source being used as the reference:
 * Many people told me about the various rules and style guides they follow...Apparently, the vast majority of these guides tell writers to use a single space.

3. The article in which it is being used.

Sentence spacing

4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.


 * 47 Soon after the turn of the century, the majority of style guides indicated that only one word space was proper between sentences.[47]
 * 52 The majority of style guides prescribe the use of a single space after terminal punctuation in final written works and publications.[52]
 * 85 Most style guides indicate that single sentence spacing is proper for final or published work today,[85]

5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.

[webword.com does not satisfy WP:SPS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:RS]

This diff analyzes that the quote from the source being used as the reference is [unverifiable research].

Regarding the talk page discussion, I don't quite know how WP:NORULES applies when the "standard of reliability will be held to a higher level than normally seen on Wikipedia," but this position represents the opinion of at least a key author and possibly also the FA committee.

It is the point of this noticeboard submission that there is no relevant WP:Reliable statement based on this unverifiable research by this self-published author, that can improve the encyclopedia (WP:NORULES). A key author of this Article believes that there can be a "consensus among writing styles" (see the comment in bold in "average visitor".), but a "consensus among writing styles" is, I would say, a WP:SYNTH. Another WP:SYNTH is the relevance of such a "consensus" to the general-population/average-visitor. Neither this "consensus" nor it's relevance for the general population seems to draw the attention of secondary reliable references. Fladrif [here] notes, "When reliable sources aren't convenient, convenient sources start to look like they're reliable."

In contrast, here is what a secondary reliable reference says, "most publishers' guidelines for preparing electronic manuscripts ask authors to type only the spaces that are to appear in print &lt;i.e., one space>...As a practical matter, however, there is nothing wrong with using two spaces after concluding punctuation marks unless an instructor or editor requests that you do otherwise." MLA FAQ3. So compared with webword advising about "these guides" and "writers"; MLA talks about "publishers' guides", and "authors" and "electronic manuscripts." MLA goes yet further to "practical" considerations. RB 66.217.117.162 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the cited piece at winword.com is not reliable (in our sense) and doesn't claim to be, but it is written by an intelligent observer. So, either the reference should be retained and the information should be included in the article as a straight quote, attributed to the author at winword.com; or else a different source should be found, one that cites the style guides about which a generalization is being made. And rew D alby  12:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of two sources
I would like to add information to some pages. I found two sources. One is a website for biography of people - Hollywood Auditions.com and other is a CD - Spoken Word CD. Are they reliable? Novice7 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone, please.. It's really important. Novice7 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * At a glance, Hollywood Auditions is not reliable. The public-library site is probably reliable for discographic information on the CD but do you mean you want to use the CD itself as a source?
 * To enable us to make a better judgement can you tell us what assertions you want to back up with these two sources? Barnabypage (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have the CD and it is an unauthorized biography of Jessica Simpson. I don't think it has anything else. As Wikipedia allows usage of Books (including Biographies) for sourcing articles, I really hope this can be used too. It's the same, but an audiobook. About hollywoodauditions, it has many quotes, so I thought I could use it. Novice7 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see in principle why an audiobook should be any less reliable than a printed book. Is there a printed version - I presume so? Of course, its reliability still depends on the author and publisher - some celebrity biographies are notoriously inaccurate.
 * The trouble with Hollywood Auditions is that it seems to basically be a service for aspiring actors - it's very unlikely that there is any editorial oversight of what goes on the site in terms of accuracy. Maybe you could try Googling for the quotes you want to use and see if you can also find them in a more reliable source? They may well have appeared in a magazine or newspaper before Hollywood Auditions picked up on them. Barnabypage (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually have another book, and when I compare these two (both are of different authors), I don't hear any exaggerated information on the audiobook. About Hollywood Auditions, I will try not to use it. Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 13:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Novice, you asked on my Talk page how to cite the audiobook. The short answer is I don't know if there's a precedent for this, but I'd be surprised if there isn't. A quick search suggests this is probably the solution you need: Template:Cite_audio. Incidentally, it's generally better to ask questions like this on the appropriate Noticeboard rather than on an individual editor's Talk page, because putting the query on the Noticeboard means many more people, one of whom may have the answer, will see it. Barnabypage (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Le Monde diplomatique and "mondediplo.com"
Hi all,

First question here - please be patient with me if this isn't appropriate. I've just added a reference to Allies_of_World_War_II citing Le Monde diplomatique as source but with context from mondediplo.com, as if they were one and the same. Referenced at The Battle of France in May–June 1940, which resulted in the defeat of the French Army, the fall of the French Third Republic and the creation of the rump state Vichy France which received diplomatic recognition by the major part of the international community, including the government of the United States. It would seem to me that mondediplo.com may well be an editorialised third party reporter of content from Le Monde diplomatique, and thus not a reliable source. (I do admit I have elided questions about whether Le Monde diplomatique is in itself a reliable source.) Your thoughts about this, all?

Thank you! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to believe that mondediplo.com is anything other than what it claims to be - the English-language edition of LMD, which is undoubtedly a reliable source. So it's fine. Barnabypage (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly Agree. Xavier449 (talk)
 * Also agree. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Orlando Sentinel
Is this a reliable source? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, yes it is. Can you tell us the Wikipedia article you want to use it in, the Orlando Sentinel source you wish to cite and the specific statement its being used to source?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a principal source for the article being created on Lawrence Holofcener. There are astonishingly few other sources which I regard as independent. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously the more sources you have for an article, the better. FWIW, I tried find some more sources for this article, and didn't find any that the article wasn't already using.  Sorry! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Orlando Sentinel meets the general requirements of WP:RS. It's a well-established newspaper, published since 1876, has won Pulitzer Prizes, etc. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

idlta.com
In 1992, Lawrence Holofcener, wrote a musical play "I Don't Live There Anymore". Is http://www.idlta.com a valid source Lotje ツ (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it looks like it is self-published. Self-published sources aren't supposed to be used for claims about a third-party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The website appears to be run by Julia Holofcener, the play's producer. It's a WP:SPS. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.albanianhistory.net/
I would like an opinion on Dr. Robert_Elsie page on Albania : http://www.albanianhistory.net/ Background is this discussion : This edit that I dispute : [] and this unfinished discussion User_talk:Mdupont Please tell me what you think about this source, and if any what problems are with it.

see his information here Robert_Elsie.

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tricky...this is all self-published which should be used with extreme caution, and generally dropped when challenged. The opinions of editors on who he is carries very little weight; what matters is the editorial process involved in publishing that source. First and foremost look for alternative sources - from his bio page, he appears to have many published books. Are any of those sources usable for the edits in question? If not, one needs to ask whether the information is notable if it can only be attributed to a website.
 * Key issues here: does Dr. Elsie cite his sources for what he puts on the website, or is it only from his own memory? One could assume that he is sitting at his desk with dozens of textbooks at hand writing away, but without citation we don't know that it's still a personal website. Realistically his professional achievements carry some weight, but SPS is still SPS. I looked around, but don't see any mention of peer review or editing help on his website - that means it's all on him. No matter who authored the website, it's better to err on the side of "delete" when it comes to taking one person's word for it. Even a distinguished expert such as Dr. Elsie can make errors, and if those errors are made in a book or journal there is a fact-checking editorial process in place for that reason. When he puts it on his personal website, any accidental mistake he makes would be propagated as fact on this encyclopedia, which is the whole point of WP:IRS guidelines. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, we need to unpick a bit of what is going on here. The order of events is as follows. In 1913 the Bishop of Skopje made a report to the Vatican of ill treatment of Albanians by Serbs. This source was used by "Austrian Social Democrat" Leo Freundlich in his book Albania's Golgotha, published 1913. Then in recent decades, the historian Robert Elsie has used Freudlich's work in his Kosovo: In the Heart of the Powder Keg and his Historical dictionary of Kosovo. Elsie has also translated the original letter and put it on his website alongside many other sources for Albanian history. The solution is to use Elsie's books, as suggested above, as reliable recent academic history. A link to the original letter, reliably translated and hosted on Elsie's website, can be included alongside as a primary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. So the solution will be to cite the book where appropiate. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that his books should be cited, not his website. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont have the books. please help me here. Someone is trying to remove information about the supposed war crimes. I would like some help on this. first they remove the refs, then they remove the data. There seems to be no checking or thought going into this. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now gotten pdf files from the books of him. also there is a relevant one here http://www.elsie.de/pdf/B2002GatheringClouds.pdf, THe webpage just quotes existing materials and contains References. It is a real shame what is happening here. I have requested protection of this article, there is alot of work to be done on fixing it up. But the people removing references like this must be stopped. If you look at the bottom of the page of the links they removed you will find citations and sources of the quotes. I will need time to process all these docs, please help. The factual accuracy of the wikipedia are at stake here. James Michael DuPont (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Surfin' Safari Blog
A post to the Surfin' Safari Blog, specifically Full Pass of Acid3, is being used to verify the claim that Safari passes all aspects of the Acid3 test. This blog is written by WebKit and Safari developers about the Safari browsers. An editor claims that this blog is a self-published source and thus is not reliable. I and another editor claim that this source is not self-published and is reliable. -- Schapel (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is about it. Safari software developers post on there own blog to say there own product passes a test. The passing claim is a promotional tool for the software. I believe this is self published material which is self-serving and given there is some doubt to the claim is therefore not a reliable source. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From the discussion below about the Google Chrome Releases blog, it looks like the Surfin' Safari Blog is also not self-published and not self-serving, but is a primary source. -- Schapel (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Mexidata.info
Can self-published articles on a site such as Mexidata.info (here's an example) be considered reliable, or does this run afoul of [[WP:BLOG].  Grsz 11</b> 19:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable for what statement(s) in which article(s)? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer on the About Us page states:
 * "Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by columnists in MexiData.info are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of MexiData.info. Please note that each author retains copyright to his/her own work. MexiData.info does not control, and is not responsible for, any third-party site to which the Web site links."
 * So, there's no editorial oversight, and the website disclaims responsibility for the contents. It is, in effect, a group blog; see WP:SPS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

ASCAP
Is ASCAP a reliable source for Lawrence Holofcener? Presumably the picture itself would be a copyvio? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on what you wish to use that source for. Use of the picture there would be a violation, but I think you could use that source to say that he is a lyricist and sculptor. I do not think you could use it for much, since I believe the artists manage their own information, so it's one variant of a self-pulished source. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Business Insider reliable?
Specifically, is Business Insider reliable in terms of this publication? It's being used as a reference for the list of information, which is just a factual list. Does it matter that Business Insider is considered a "blog" in this case? Silver seren C 21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Addition: I'd also like to add this publication in too as a question. Would this count as a reliable source for referencing some of the items on the list? Silver  seren C 04:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As you know I'm not very neutral on this issue ;) and the Wikipedia article might exaggerate the degree to which they are cited; even so the first reference it gives is in fact a case in which the New York Times cites them - though, true, that too is a blog. Wnt (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Leading) publications, the U.S. government, cite us all the time, and that doesn't make Wikipedia reliable. B.I. very well may be, I'm just saying I don't think that's a good indicator.  Grsz <b style="color:red;">11</b> 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. But do you have an opinion on whether that article would or would not be reliable? Silver  seren C 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Business Insider and the article you cite, qualify as reliable sources. It has editorial overright.  It's been cited by other reliable sources such as New York Daily News, The San Francisco Chronicle, Bloomburg, and Reuters which indicates that it has a reputation for accuracy and fat-checking.  It's been cited by as many as 377 articles which indicates that many other editors in the community find it reliable.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. What about this, which is an Armenian based news service? Silver  seren C 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there is good reason to doubt its credentials, I'd say it's fine at least for Armenia-related matters - by its own account it is independent, written by professional journalists and has editorial oversight - see http://news.am/eng/about/. Barnabypage (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another user had questioned the validity of both of those on the talk page, which is why I brought it here. Thanks for the help, both of you. Silver  seren C 22:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The three lede paragraphs are reliable. The body of the article is a republication without emendation of a (for wikipedia's purposes) PRIMARY source and isn't reliable.  The slide show is the addition of graphical data, and appears to have undergone editorial scrutiny, but it is hard to see what it would be reliable for. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above user is highly involved, just like Wnt. Please see the side-linked discussions in order to show that. Silver  seren C 02:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Care to substantiate that?  Or do you mean that commenting, "The cables are PRIMARY. Articles written from PRIMARY sources are SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Warn the editors; Speedy or AFD the articles depending on current deletions policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)" as an outside editor at AN/I makes me "highly involved."  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any user involved in the linked discussions is highly involved. I'm trying to get the opinion of users who have had nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. We need fresh eyes on it. Silver  seren C 02:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like forum shopping and an assumption of bad faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it forum shopping? Elonka said that she wasn't sure if the Business Insider source was reliable. If there is a dispute between two users about whether a source is reliable, you take the discussion to RSN. That's how it works. The purpose of RSN is to have users who have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion put in their opinion on whether the source is reliable or not. And i'm not assuming bad faith. We already know the opinion of everyone involved in the linked discussions. The purpose of this one is to get the opinion of outside users. Silver  seren C 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Fifelfoo's response is illuminating. Business Insider is a reliable source - except for the thing he doesn't want in the article.  Does WP:RS/N even have that resolution option?  The way I see it, Silverseren asked whether Business Insider is reliable and Fifelfoo's answer is a Yes vote! Wnt (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've done this here are RS/N Many times before when people have quoted transcluded slab quotations as if they're from the quoting work not the quoted work. We've done it before with the differentiation between scholarly introductions in source books and the sources contained in source books which remain primary sources.  If the issue is the peculiar notability of a particular list, then you've got that from the various news mentions.  If your aim is to transclude a primary source, your aim will always fail, wikisources is for that.  You can probably use the slide show for "key sites of interest identified by the media from this list include, "x, y, z".  Fifelfoo (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So by that logic, any media source which gives an official set of vote counts for the election is copying the primary source (the local board of elections), and we shouldn't use the primary source; therefore, we should only provide secondary-sourced information like "54% Democrat 44% Republican 2% Other" in an article about the election, no matter how many secondary sources reprint the election board's results.
 * As for me, I think that the original source isn't really a primary source, and if it were, it would still be sufficient to source the full list, and due to the notability of the list we still can reproduce it here in full. It is true that the same can be done at Wikisource; but here we can add more value to the list by more thoroughly reworking the format (for example, by converting the list into a table).  But the merit of demonstrating the publication of the table by secondary sources is to show that the list in full has been considered by a general publication's editorial process, and found to be accurate and free of various legal problems such as libel, copyright violations, or bizarre theories about classified information. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On that note, would some more outside users please weigh in about the two sources above? Silver  seren C 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to look at this but from what has been written I can't see what is wanted to add and to what article, and without that I can't answer see the actual situation? Can someone clarify the article and the content? Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. The conflict is that users disagree that the primary source should be used as a reference for the list from said primary source. In response to that, I found this source from Business Insider that includes the list in it. I am asking whether Business Insider counts as a reliable secondary source. Silver  seren C 19:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Replacing my comment was vanished in a wiki glitch - :::I don't see any problem in this situation in using the Business Insider to source the list, we can see from the primary that its correct. It doesn't seem in itself that the complete list is actually very notable if it hasn't been republished in other reliable locations. Off2riorob 8:09 pm, Today (UTC+0) - Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been published in other places, it just hasn't been published in its entiriety, other than this Business Insider source. We have sources for most places, there's just a few, like some in Mexico and Canada, that haven't been really mentioned in any other secondary source. However, removing those few because of that would leave a gaping hole in the list and wouldn't be very encyclopedic. Silver  seren C 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

cornwallgb.com
This website has been cited as a sole reliable source in a few articles for Cornish ancestry of celebrities (search) but it is unclear why this amateur website would be considered suitable. Some independent opinions would be useful before challenging its use. Fæ (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the site seems to think that Cornwall "borders England across River Tamar to the east...", I'd suggest that it might be a little non-mainstream. Cornish separatism is of course a perfectly legitimate political viewpoint, though, so that needn't necessarily matter. As you say, it looks like an amateur website, and as such unlikely to be accepted as WP:RS, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it looks like a self-published web site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at some of the uses. Is it perhaps mainly being used as an external link rather than a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS, with no indication of editorial oversight. Fails WP:RS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Its being used as a source still on half a dozen articles and was removed from a few. It may be noted that removal of this source wasn't easy in every case. Is there any place where the source can be reported? I believe there is a list of unreliable websources somewhere on the Wikipedia (a blacklist?), but locate it right away. Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is what you're looking for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Book reviews
What websites could i use as a reliable source on international book reviews? Simply south (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lots of types of books and "international" leaves a lot of space open. Can you please explain your question a bit more?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. English book reviews on fictional books not by users who have read books but by organisations and famous critics. I am trying to come up with a criticism section for an articvle i am about to write. Simply south (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why?Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is really a reliability question, but if you Google "Book Review Index" you find Book Review Index Online (a paysite) and some similar indexes that are free. Anyway, you probably don't want to cite these indexes in your article; you probably want to quote from, or cite, some of the reviews that they list. And rew D alby  14:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one you will find useful for authoritative reviews of fiction: http://www.kirkusreviews.com. Barnabypage (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've tried searching there and the book based on the cat does not come up. Simply south (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would start by googling the book title, in quotes, +review. If nothing comes up, it means the book wasn't widely reviewed. Important works of fiction are reviewed in The New York Review of Books, and Times Literary Supplement, as well as in other mainstream books and magazines. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found one in TheBookBag here but again i'm not sure if it is reliable and many others are just user reviews from general people. I'm not sure if this and this also count. Simply south (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TheBookBag looks like a self-published source and Goodreads seems to be a kind of social networking site, so they're not really usable. The article from The Times is certainly fine. Have you tried checking the local newspaper of wherever this adventurous cat lived? I'd be surprised if they hadn't reviewed the book. Barnabypage (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then again i didn't notice the date of The Times review so it can't really be added to that section either (too early - the book was published in August). I think I'll accept it hasn't been reviewed widely although i am still including the book in the article for other reasons. Simply south (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It look also according to the local paper it may be turned into a movie. Simply south (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

2 sources
Currently I'm reviewing a FLC here, and I'm wondering whether romaniansoccer.ro and napit.co.uk qualify as WP:RS as napit doesn't seem to have any information regarding how they collect the information and romaniansoccer.ro editorial section does raise concerns, any comments are appreciated. Afro ( Nice Beaver ) 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The editorial page you found presents the website's editorial team and i'm pretty sure it isn't a fansite. Bine  Mai  08:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I brought this to the attention of anyone who comments is how notable the editors are, for example Sebi Răducu just turned 18 in September, I doubt he could be specialized in the subjects given. Afro  ( Nice Beaver ) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. We shouldn't hold the guy's youth against him, but combined with the lack of job titles, the fact that one of the team gives a Yahoo address disguised as a CNN address, and a number of other factors, I get the feel of a fansite playing at being a professional publication. I'm asking a Romanian-speaking friend to take a look and see if she can glean any more about it. In the meantime here's a list of sources that probably are reliable and could maybe be used instead: http://sport-newspaper.blogspot.com/2006/08/romanian-sport-newspapers.html. Barnabypage (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this reliable?
Is this a reliable source? It's being used pretty strongly here, reverting a widely quoted book biography on the subject. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see absolutely nothing to suggest that it is anything other than a privately run website with no fact checking. The part called "Cornwall.University" is certainly not a part of the UK university system. It might be good as a source of information that can be properly sourced from other places but not as RS in itself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Private web site, no official status so not a RS -- Snowded TALK  16:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Private site, not a reliable source.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No details of who's behind it, and it does seem to be rather single-mindedly talking up Cornish separatist claims, both of which cast much doubt on its reliability. (To be fair I don't think it's asking us to believe that "Cornwall University" is a real university.) Barnabypage (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No indication of reliability, and indications to the contrary. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too. Interesting, but unreliable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It was asked here that " http://www.cornwallgb.com/cornwall_england_mansfield.html is a reliable source. Provide unequivocal evidence to the contrary instead of reverting". How can it be "unequivocal". I tried posting policies the the discussion on article talk page. But, it fell short of the defending editor's standards. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From reading the talk page, it seems that consenses has been reached that the website is not a reliable source. --Habap (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Aftermath of World War II
There is disagreement over the reliability of Ambient Conflicts: History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems, Yefim Chernyak, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987. Additional input would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks reliable to me. I am going to guess that the argument against is... it's a Communist source and therefor "unreliable" (yes?)  If so, that is a false argument.  The fact that a published source supports a particular POV does not make it unreliable.  The trick is to make the reader aware of the source's POV and to balance it with statements based on sources that support other POVs. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Progress is a widely known international publisher of professional and academic texts. Basic snippet analysis of the google books entry indicates that it is an academic volume.  Given its era (1987) the work is unlikely to contain fundamental methodological flaws.  However, like all academic works, it will represent a methodological and theoretical tradition.  Read, classify according to the literature typography of the field, represent opinions contained within the work as scholarly opinions from the discrete literature group.  As reliable as any other HQRS.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RS/N editors should be aware of Arbitration/Requests/Case in this context. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RS. Only a handful citations in the West; the Russian original edition Вековые конфликты is somewhat more widely cited by Russian scholarly sources. -- JN 466  13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite many Russian authors have Soviet background and repeat Soviet propaganda. One has to be an expert to understand the difference between Russian nationalists, post-Soviets, independent scholars. Some writers work for FSB, Russian Army, Russian government. The Russian texts you quote are - 80 anniversary of Chernyak, Tobolsk teacher's college curriculum, a Renaissance article, nothin serious. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any Soviet and Soviet Block book was censored, both negatively - removed parts of the text, and positively - either the whole book or parts of it were designed by political leaders. Zhukov's Diary has several versions, all of them manipulated. Brezhnyev's "deeds" were created and described by many authors, including standard WWII books. So any censored text should be described as censored and quoted with extreme caution. Many Russian authors reject Soviet texts.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not quite correct. All books published in the USSR were officially censored, but for most books that involved only "negative" censorship - the censors checked for material that could be viewed as ideologically problematic or could contain some sort of sensitive security information. Relatively few books were actively "positively censored" in terms of inserting some fabricated or semi-fabricated information at the insistence of the censors or some higher level political leaders. Such "positive" censorship would only really occur for books dealing with important Soviet leaders or sometimes with some particularly sensitive ideological issues. Of course, there was always a degree of self-censorship involved, both in literary and in scholarly works. However, in post-Stalin era, particularly in the late Soviet and perestroika periods, people writing scholarly papers, even on politicized topics, generally did not engage in deliberately falsifying or misrepresenting data. Their methodological framework was often wanting and inadequate, and they had to represent their work with a particular ideological slant. But, as a general rule, they did view themselves as honest scholars engaged in pursuit of truth and they tried to exercise corresponding standards. Usually, censorship and self-censorship primarily resulted in avoiding talking about certain issues and topics that were viewed as taboo or too sensitive. E.g. in the coverage of WWII this included not talking at all about mistreatment of Soviet civilian population by the Soviet partisans operating behind the German lines; not talking about the reasons for the catastrophic start of the war for the USSR, not talking about mass rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Europe, etc. There were some exceptions, of course, where entire fields of research were so ideologically contaminated as to be completely unreliable from the modern perspective. This would apply, for example, to all Soviet-era writings about the history of CPSU, all writings on communist/marxist philosophy, "scientific communism", etc. But in many other fields, such as medieval and ancient history, much of the stuff published in Soviet times represents first-class research.  Without seeing the book Ambient Conflicts: History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems itself, it is hard to make any judgement on its reliability (in terms of the data being presented, if not in terms of its interpretation given in the book). But the title does sound very ideological to me. If the book comes from the school of "political science", as it existed for most of the Soviet period, I would probably regard the book as too ideologically contaminated to be reliable, even though it was published just as perestroika was beginning to gather steam. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any Soviet citizen was trained since kindergarden to be Soviet, so he/she didn't need any direct control to know, what is allowed, he/she could have been the source of Soviet propaganda. However almost everything in the SU was planned rather than left to individual Communists, eg. research plans in Universities, so if you have a subject "UK imperialism", you rather don't describe UK values in your text. Any book translated into foreign language was cheched additionally. BTW, has anyone checked if the English languge text is the same like the Russian one? I agree that some fields were less ideological, the book has been quoted recently in a Russian text regarding the Renessaince. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) "honest scholars" - I don't know the SU academic world, but in a quite liberal Poland several historians worked for the political police SB. Some others wrote totally different texts after 1989. Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my concern. Books published under totalitarian regimes discussing the views of their ideological opponents can't be assumed to be free of censorship, and better sources should be available for the material in question. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... have you read any US Sovietology? The problem isn't confined to "totalitarian" regimes, in itself a problematic and US biased theoretical construction of social ordering. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo is right on target. Totalitarian regimes don't have a monopoly on dubious sources. Consider for instance the Cold War incorporation of US Information Agency (USIA) into the US government’s Psychological Operations Co-ordinating Committee, and its funding of a book publishing programme in the late 1950s at a cost of $100,000 annually. American readers were unaware that many of the supposedly independent books they were buying and reading were actually subsidised with their own tax money. When books condemning the "Red menace" did not meet commercial standards, USIA obligingly eliminated the publisher's risk by surreptitiously buying up sufficient copies to cover production costs.) (Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967, p.12.21)) .The CIA considered books to “differ from all other propaganda media, primarily because one single book can significantly change the reader's attitude and action to an extent unmatched by the impact of any other single medium." (Thomas C Sorensen, The Word War: The story of American propaganda, New York, Harper and Row, 1968, pp.69-70). Communicat (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a correct copy of the Saturday Evening Post article, it does not support anything that you say. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the link you've provided is not the correct link to the item I cited. However, you have helpfully provided a link to a related topic that mentions specifically the British cultural journal Encounter. As the linked article states: The editor was a fulltime CIA agent, and funding of the publication "came from the CIA, and few outside the CIA knew about it." Communicat (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Correction: Ignore citation Saturday Evening Post, 22 May 1967. It was included in error. The Sorensen attribution is correct. Communicat (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not know if there ever was a Saturday or an Evening Post on May 22, 1967, but the article Edward321 lined to is used as a reference in the article Operation Mockingbird
 * Quote: Operation Mockingbird  was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence domestic and foreign media beginning in the 1950s.
 * -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The British and American secret services, with covert British and US funding, also established an ostensibly "independent" publishing house in Munich to produce anti-Soviet literature throughout the 1950s, including books that were used to influence public opinion in America and throughout Western Europe. A certain Vladimir Porensky was employed as head of this publishing house. Porensky, a leading figure among East European fascists, had been imprisoned for war crimes in 1945 and then released just a year later with the co-operation of British intelligence. According to a declassified US State Department study, Porensky enjoyed the reputation of being a "200% Nazi". (Christopher Simpson, Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988 pp.224-5ff). Communicat (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have both the date of publication and the publisher wrong for Blowback Only 2 works, one by the fringe theorist Stan Winer, seem to mention Vladimir Porensky at all, the work you cite does not seem to mention Porensky at all. Edward321 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC) (Striking own comments. Google failed me; Communicat listed correct date and publisher.Apologizes to all for the error on my part.) Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, Fifelfoo's point is well taken. Reliability of a source does not imply a source is neutral in it's point of view. Fox News is a good example. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My source reference to Blowback by Christopher Simpson is completely accurate. Edward321 is badly mistaken. He may be confusing the Simpson book with a completely different work of the same title -- even though the link he provides proves that the author and title as given are accurate. I don't know what's his problem. The Simpson book Blowback as already accurately cited by me, the was published in London by George Weidenfeld & Nicolson in 1988, ISBN 0 297 79457 . I recommend it highly. A good companion piece would be Philip Knightley's The First Casualty, London: Quartet 1987, especially the section that deals with censorship and books about Korea around the McCarthy era, p.331. Communicat (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is regretable that Xx236 Nsk92 have taken it upon themselves to refactor this thread with needlessly argumentive postings that are in any event becoming TL;DR Communicat (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is regretable in informing the redaers about the context of Soviet propaganda? The Western propaganda wasn't in any way comparable to the Soviet one, babies opposing wolves.Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The evidently confused Edward321 and any other interested parties might find this Simpson page quite helpful. Communicat (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a Soviet joke - a Soviet activist answers any critics of the Soviet system with words "But you persecute Afroamericans", this reminds me your argumentation. Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The terrible CIA financed a number of best Polish writers allowing Czesław Miłosz to get the Nobel prize rather than washing dishes.Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Former Nazis were used in the Soviet Union and GDR. So USA Nazis are wrong and the Soviet ones seem to be O.K.. BTW the Soviets murdered more civilians than the Nazis, why do you think than "NAzi" or "Fascist" is wrong And "Communist" O.K.?Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of this is irrelevant. Who's propaganda fung fu is better is not the issue, even if we could determine that (and I will simply point out that in the US, I would expect propaganda to be more subtle than that in under the average totalitarian regime, and thus that much harder to spot and that more dangerous), as is whose nazis were worse. Seems to me that there's not a RS issue here, but rather matters of due weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The propaganda was only a part of the cold war, the Soviets had a better ideology, were more crazy to risk a WW to control the whole world. But Western jeans and washing powders won, at least in Europe.Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yefim Chernyak was a Soviet victim himself, never free, survived several waves of terror and WWII. Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have some reservations about this book as HQRS but at minimum it seems fine as POV source. Schneierson appears to be a prominent author though some of his citations seem a bit spammy (getcited.org, sheesh). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am very troubled as I review Communicat's statements above - in particular the ones from 16:04, 3 December 2010 and 12:33, 5 December 2010. Communicat appears to have taken his argument directly from Stan Winer's Between the Lies. Check pages 131 & 132 of and what Communicat wrote on 3 December. These three searches show it: "American readers were unaware", "cover production costs" , and "unmatched by the impact" . He changed the sentence order and a few words at the beginning of the first sentence, but it is a direct quote. I don't think it's a violation of copyright since it's just on a talk page, but it is disturbing. Note the "p.12.21" at the end of Communicat's citation for the Saturday Evening Post article. In Winer's book, it is footnote 21 and page 12 falls within the actually article's page numbers.


 * On 5 December, again he lifts almost directly from Winer . Winer, page 131-132 "Using the talents of former Nazi collaborationists, the CIA employed as the head of its Munich publishing house one Vladimir Porensky, a leading figure among East European fascists who had been imprisoned for war crimes in 1945. Porensky had been released just a year later with the co-operation of British intelligence. According to a declassified State Department study, Porensky enjoyed the reputation of being a '200% Nazi'."
 * From Communicat,"A certain Vladimir Porensky was employed as head of this publishing house. Porensky, a leading figure among East European fascists, had been imprisoned for war crimes in 1945 and then released just a year later with the co-operation of British intelligence. According to a declassified US State Department study, Porensky enjoyed the reputation of being a '200% Nazi'."
 * I don't know if posting nearly verbatim quotes without attribution on a talk page constitutes a copyright violation, but I think it might at least constitute plagiarism. --Habap (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I comb through Communicat's contributions to the article itself, I'm finding loads of direct cut-and-paste from Winer. From page 110, this is awfully familiar:"In China the Western crusade against national self determination followed suit. The Commanding General of US Forces, General Albert C Wedemeyer noted that the post-war disarming of Japanese troops by the Chinese failed 'to move smoothly' because fully armed Japanese forces were being employed to fight Mao Tse Tung's Chinese communists. In Truman's words: 'If we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison ...'"
 * We're going to have to check everything in the World War II and Aftermath of World War II articles to make sure we're not infringing on Between the Lies. --Habap (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To get back to the original source being discussed Efim Cherniak's Ambient Conflicts, Communicat plagiarized Cherniak in the Aftermath article, found here (to get the best look at the duplicate text, enter 'in directive 432/D' in the box). --Habap (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interested parties please note:
 * In response to the above postings by Habap and Edward321, I would point out the texts refered to by them, were contributed by me were in early stages of iteration. I was in the process of copy editing, (viz., paraphrasing, reworking etc, to bring the texts in line with rules concerning plagiarism), when I was suddenly and unexpectedly blocked for a couple of weeks for accidentally misspelling the username of one editor. The blocking effectively prevented me from fixing the texts in question. I suggest the concerns expressed by the two World War II editors above arises more from subjective political objections to the content than it does from any copyright infringement or plagiarism. Interested parties might care to take this into account in evaluating the substance of this thread. Communicat (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Supposing we accept all that (I don't), how do you explain that you twice, in this thread, used Winer's words as though they were your own?
 * You mis-spelled Nick-D as Dick-D when you apparent feelings were ones of antipathy and you'd already been banned for personal attacks. I don't think you'll get any sympathy for your supposed accidental mis-spelling. --Habap (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This secondary source, (History of Relations between Countries with Different Social Systems by Yefim Chernyak), explores the sociological features and dominant ideologies of both sides of the cold war. It was written in the USSR during the cold war. As such, it would inevitably have been written, and published, in an atmosphere of academic fear and coercion. Is there really any question that such a text is not reliable?


 * Claims that we should assume the reliability of sociological and ideological texts published in the USSR during the cold war are very disturbing.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 03:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Claims that we should assume the reliability of sociological and ideological texts published anywhere during the cold war are very disturbing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would express this with the following maxim: Truth and thermonuclear weapons cannot co-exist.
 * The assumption that Soviet sources, particularly sources from 1987, are somehow less reliable than their contemporaries from the US is against the core Wikipedia policy of WP:neutral point-of-view. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The question of reliability was in regards to a statement by American Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew. If the statement by Grew were the only source of the quote, you'd have to consider the source. Bias exists on all sides, it's a matter of weighing it. Fortunately, further research has shown that Grew did make the statement. Historians do that kind of evaluation all the time and it's why it's best to have multiple sources from multiple POVs, rather than just one with a single POV. --Habap (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties may further note: As regards the remarks of one party above re copyright etc, I have the express permission of Stan Winer the author/copyright holder of the book Between the Lies (2004 edn), to use material from the book either with or without attribution. That written permission of the copyright holder is sufficient to protect me against any claims or copyright violation in the generally accepted meaning of the term. As a comparative newcomer, however, I was quite unaware that wikipedia had its own particular rules about such things. Communicat (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You took what Winer wrote and re-arranged the sentences to use them as though you had written them as comments on THIS talk page. At the very least, it's plagiarism. When you completed the Master's degree listed on your user page, could you have submitted any of this cut-and-paste of someone else's writing as your own work? Wikipedia doesn't have it's own particular rules about what constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism is submitting someone else's writing as though it is your own. --Habap (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * UM... the rules about plagiarism don't really apply to policy/guideline talk pages (or talk pages in general)... they apply to what goes into an actual article. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Chrome Releases blog
The Google Chrome Releases blog contains the official release notes for the Google Chrome browser. These release notes do not appear to be published by Google anywhere else except this blog. The release notes from January 2010 are used to verify the claim that Chrome passes the Acid3 test in the Google Chrome and Acid3 articles. Again (as with the Surfin' Safari blog), it looks like SunCreator asserts that this is a self-published source and therefore is unreliable. I say that it's the place where Google publishes its official release notes and is reliable. All the sources I find that state that Chrome passes Acid3 appear to copy information from these release notes. Is the Google Chrome Releases blog considered a self-published source or unreliable for some other reason? -- Schapel (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Google lists "Google Chrome Releases" as an official company blog here (7th down in the list) Barte (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of both. It's a self-published source that is only reliable for the claims of it's author.  IOW, you cannot cite it to say, "Chrome passes the Acid3 test.  You can, however, cite it to say, "Chrome passes the Acid3 test according to Google.  In general, you should avoid citing self-published sources.  In general, if the information should be included in an article, then other third-party sources will have published it. AQFK (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a bit of both. It's an official Google blog--listed as a press resource by the company. It would have been helpful in this context if Google had been clearer on the blog itself.  But the link from the Google Press Center is hard to argue with.Barte (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a self-published source which is only reliable for the opinions of its author. Take with that what you will.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In what way is it a self-published source? My understanding is that a self-published source involves an individual who serves as both publisher and author. If I write a book and publish it myself, my book is a self-published source. If an editor at Newsweek writes an article and Newsweek publishes the article, the author and publisher are different entities, so the article is not a self-published source. -- Schapel (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's walk through this. On Google's Press Center page, Google--the company--offers a Google Blog Directory. The introduction to said directory says:
 * "Whether it's a product or feature launch or a cool new initiative, chances are that you'll read about most news from Google on one of our blogs. We started blogging in May of 2004 and now have a network of company blogs that cover topics as diverse as our renewable energy policies, product updates, developer challenges and code snippets, and information for advertisers and partners." (Italics mine).

Seventh on the list in the Google Blog Directory is the blog in qustion. Now, you can maintain if you like that this is still a self-published blog. But please explain what this self-published blog is doing in the Google Blog Directory, which lists a network of company blogs. Barte (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that self-published applies to organizations as well as individuals. Even if it doesn't, it should still have in-text attribution because it's not independent of the subject.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So an article by a NewsWeek employee published in the printed magazine NewsWeek is an article self-published by NewsWeek? -- Schapel (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the distinction is whether the decision to publish belongs to the author or the publisher. In the case of Newsweek, the reporter must submit his article to an editor who reviews the article and require (or ask for) changes or can decline to publish it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. So whether a particular blog post is a self-published source may depend on whether the author was able to publish it without editorial oversight, or if the author had to get editorial review and approval before the post is published? In this case, we would need to determine if the release notes are reviewed and approved before being published. My experience as a software developer would lead me to believe that the release notes for Google Chrome would be checked and reviewed before being published, but how can we be sure? -- Schapel (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes a distinction between self-published sources and primary sources. The former are literally self-published by individuals--see wp:sps. The latter, primary sources, wp:primary, can be used on Wikipedia, but only with care--to make declarative statements, not analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source".  The community does  not seem to have ruled specifically on corporate blogs--the page that covered them reached no consensus.  But a corporate blog that logs progress on an open source project is hardly "self-published" in the sense that wp:sps defines it.  Read the paragraph for yourself.  Barte (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read these policies and guidelines and have come to the same conclusion. I was asked to discuss the matter here because others disagree and claim that these blogs are self-published and unreliable. I hope this clarifies the issue with F/OSS blogs. Thanks! -- Schapel (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Barte, for clarity are you suggesting this is not self-serving as Schapel has claimed? I can see the reasoning for it being considered WP:PRIMARY, and think it falls somewhere between Primary and SPS. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The question at the top was whether the source was SPS. When I look at wp:sps, I don't see how this blog qualifies. ("Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media...) The blog is not by a self-proclaimed "expert," but by Google, and its reputation is at stake. The blog's purpose is not primarily marketing, but to give status updates on an open source project.  So I think the blog is strictly a primary source and can be cited using WP:PRIMARY guidelines, including the simple, declarative claim that Chrome passed the Acid3 test. If that assertion were ever disputed by another notable source, we should then cover the controversy and cite both.Barte (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Many sources that are poor for most things can at least be considered as reliable or "expert" for information about themselves. Whether that is mentioned in the SPS sub-section or not I do not recall, but it is covered within policy in various places. What we would not use such a source for though would be anything self serving, or anything about living third parties.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Chrome passed the Acid3 test" seems to me a simple statement of fact.
 * "Chrome passed the Acid3 test, making Google a leader in Web standards compliance"--on the other hand, seems more like the kind of self-serving assertion we are concerned about. Just to be clear, I think the guidelines allow us to trust a primary source on the former, but not the latter. Barte (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The question at the top should be whether this(Google's blog for a Google Chrome product) is a reliable source or not. This is the reliable source noticeboard after all. I don't see a statement of "Chrome passed the Acid3 test" as anything but a promotional claim but whatever consensus is, is. Why isn't anyone else reporting the Google Chrome assertion, and thus giving a clear reliable source? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A few bloggers have picked it up. They haven't referenced the Google blog; rather they just run the test and run  screenshots showing that Chrome has passed. SunCreator: would you agree that the Google blog is at least reliable enough to cite it with an in-text, "according to" reference? Barte (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "according to" would be great. When things are in prose with a context it's easy to use like this. However the article use of this information is in a yes/no type check-box list where an explanation to the reader is not available. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The blogging reference doesn't contain the information it's just says it scores 100. A common mistake and a sadly re-occurring one with the articles contents. To pass Acid 3 test a browser has to both score 100 AND pass a performance test. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have thought the Web Standards Project would have been the obvious place for an official announcement. But the site hasn't posted (that I can see, at least) anything on Acid3 since 2008.  If a browser passes, who but the manufacturer is left to declare it? Barte (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The official Chrome 4.0 Release Notes from the Google Chrome Releases blog states Full ACID3 pass, not just that Chrome scores 100/100. Other sources have said the same thing, although their source seems to be these same release notes. I would think if Chrome in fact didn't pass, that would have been covered by someone. What else is there to say when the release notes say it, and it seems to be true? -- Schapel (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * One would expected the abundance of technical press appearing in Google News to have covered it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Covered it perhaps--but who would have announced the news in the first place? For example, Opera (I believe) is the poster child for Acid compliance.  But who first raised brought that to the attention of the world...WSP?  Or was it Opera, itself?   And if Opera did it via a press release or blog, would that have been a legit primary source?  I think it would have, even though both venues are inherently self-serving. Barte (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Indeed, FWIW, the Opera Wikipedia entry covering that browser's Acid3 results cites a TechBlog post which is a straight lift of Opera Software's marketing materials for the browser as a whole.  That's doesn't make it a good cite, of course, but I think the point is the same:  it's hard to imagine Opera Software, or Google, putting out false info on something so widely scrutinized.  My vote (in case this wasn't clear) is to treat the blog as a reliable primary source.Barte (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, as your previous link the techspot source does not say it passed the performance test, it only says it scored 100. It's of no use as a performance reference. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Who would have announced the news in the first place? Any of the technical press. The browser test http://acid3.acidtests.org/ is publically available to everyone. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

a-ha recordsales
I have recently come into a dissagreement with a different editor regarding a-ha's recordsales. I understand that youtube videos are in general not considered a reliable source due to the possibility of editing etc. However the video in question is an official recordlabel promo video released in conjunction with a-ha's latest album release back in 2009 and is genuine. The video was given an official release and used on TV campaigns acrosss Europe and in various languages. I understand that information that recordlabels release might be considered unormally favourable to the artists that they promote ( as with all artists ), but still are other media outlets and various certifications more reliable ? As I understand sales are only certified if the artist / label asks for it and are not nesseserely uppdated. Furthermore recordsales are in general difficult to handle as there can be various ways of counting recordsales from country to country and period of sales / certification. a-ha is a Norwegian band and sources are not nesseserely as readily available as for artists from English speaking countries. They have especially large fanbases in Europe, Asia and South America. Because of all these issues, I feel that this offical video should be regarded as a reliable source as anything else. Video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4WOhWdXp8s&feature=related

The video can be traced back to Universal Germany's official youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/user/pop24#p/u/77/Wcd5ZkQS3dY Both English and German versions are here. Your feedback is welcome Mortyman (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the video should be treated any differently to a statement on the record company's website. It is perfectly okay to cite from YouTube if no copyrighted content is linked to and there is no serious reason to question the authenticity of the content. However, I'm not sure that the record company can be considered an RS in respect of claims relating to artists on its roster. This source: says 36 million. Is that a figure you would be happy to go with? --FormerIP (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, most YouTube videos are someone's copyright, the question is whether the video was uploaded with the copyright owner's permission. Home movies, cell phone videos, and commercial works are all protected by copyright, at least in most countries where YouTube has servers - anything that is "created" is protected (which includes almost everything). I think you mean as long as the linked content does not infringe upon copyright without the owner's permission.
 * The person who uploaded the video (chrisf300uk) looks like a fan, not someone officially linked to the studio. The video in question looks like a commercial work so it appears as though the video is infringing on the copyright of whoever produced it. This is a complex legal question we can't answer, but the copyright status is questionable. Whether the copyright owner has filed, or ever will file a complaint is irrelevant. A cursory glance suggests this is not a legitimate outlet for that video, so I'd say don't use that as a source unless you can find something that demonstrates it was uploaded with the owner's permission.
 * If you can find a copy of the video that was officially uploaded by the studio or band, then I think it would be okay. I checked their website and couldn't find it, but maybe it's somewhere else. When it's obtained from a random person like this, there's no way to guarantee a fact-checking process which is the essence of a reliable source. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanx for your replies. As mentioned above:


 * The video can be traced back to Universal Germany's official youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/user/pop24#p/u/77/Wcd5ZkQS3dY
 * Both English and German versions are here.


 * So the video on this site is upploaded by the label. The 36 million figure is albums only. It is not total sales including singles, EP's etc Mortyman (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I must disagree there, I think Universal Germany's official website is www.universal-music.de and there's no mention of either the YouTube channel in question or the pop24 website. I'm not fluent in German so maybe someone else would have more luck finding it. The pop24 site appears to be a German-language e-zine for pop music fans, but I don't think they originally produced the video in question. They may have uploaded it without permission or produced it themselves from unlicensed video clips, but studios generally don't enforce copyright when it comes to trailers (and thus are unlikely to fact-check one produced by a third party). Their website does link to Universal Music, but that doesn't mean there is official affiliation. If there is evidence that they are affiliated (other than a claim they make on their YouTube channel which we can't confirm), it needs to be presented to demonstrate reliability. Otherwise, cite a version of the video in question that was uploaded with the copyright owner's permission so that we have some guarantee of an editorial process.
 * There's nothing wrong with using a video from YouTube as such, but it must be subject to the same reliability constraints as any other source. In short, there is no guarantee of fact-checking for verification when it comes to this source. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like there is no reason to suppose that the trailer is not legally hosted (even if it wasn't, we could still use it as a source provided there is no reason to doubt its basic authenticity and we were able to give citation details without linking to it). The only issue, AFAICT, is whether record company promo puff is a suitable RS for sales data, which I don't think it is because of the possibility that it may be self-serving (see WP:BLPSPS). That's probably an issue that has been discussed previously, if anyone cares to do the research. --FormerIP (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to suppose that it is, or is not, legally hosted. The user Mortyman appears mistaken in thinking that it was the official YouTube channel for Universal Music Germany - an understandable mistake since pop24 labeled their channel "Der Pop-Channel von Universal Music". "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I've made a good-faith effort to research this and find a credible link between the two but could not. The channel in question is for a pop music e-zine as I said above, and without significant coverage or an open editorial process (I found evidence of neither). If he'd like to find an alternative source for this video, that would be a separate discussion.
 * Any video uploaded to YouTube can be altered, even if the original came from a viable source. The spirit of the rule is that Wikipedia needs some sort of reasonable guarantee that any fact stated in the source has been checked. A company's claim regarding its own record sales could be usable in a crunch, but undesirable as a primary source; it would serve until such time as a reliable secondary source is found. Specifics about the claim being self-serving and other concerns about the appropriateness of the source need to happen on that article's talk page.
 * (Also, I don't think WP:BLP applies to the article A-ha because groups are not generally included. If the information is potentially harmful to a member of the group, some caution would be warranted. I'm just assuming this is for the A-ha article but the user didn't say.) 96.228.129.69 (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the video is hosted on the official channel of the record label (it clearly isn't) is not really relevant. A pop music ezine is capable of being a reliable source, including its video content. I think you're misunderstanding regarding about "Legal persons and groups", 96.228.129.69 - this is not a reference to pop groups and they will be covered by BLP provided the members are still living. The only issue here is whether the material may be "self-serving" or not, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While an e-zine could be a reliable source, it needs to show an open editorial process like any other source. Generally tabloids (print or online) are not considered reliable - while they are in fact publications, that doesn't make them reliable until they establish a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Same thing applies to a pop music mag like pop24. Let's assume pop24 produced the video - have they received significant coverage to demonstrate them as a reputable source? If so, then it could be considered, but that has not yet been demonstrated adequately. If pop24 did not produce the video, then it absolutely should not be considered as reliable source until a legitimate official outlet for the video can be located.
 * Without seeing anything further, the call on this video needs to be no. If the editor that added the source can provide more info along the lines I've explained, then maybe it could be used.
 * (From BLP regarding groups: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis". That's a discussion for BLPN, not here.) 96.228.129.69 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally went over a-ha's available certified sales (which can be found at a-ha's discussion page here) just to see if their certified sales are anywhere close to 70 million, and based on my research the 70 million which appears in the footage uploaded to You Tube is outright inflated. The certified sales from the larger, medium and some smaller markets should cover 70% of the actual sales and a-ha's certified sales which comes up to some 12 million suggest that their actual sales could not even reach the 50 million mark, let alone 70 million. I don't think the video could and should be viewed as reliable as anyone could record anything from TV and then add sales figures to it and then upload the altered version to You Tube.--Harout72 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The current source on the article from The Norway Post is more reliable and credible than a video trailer. Also there is evidence, like the certifications posted on the talk page by Harout, and other sources such as this Daily Mail article, to say they have sold even less than the 51m records quoted on The Norway Post article. Mattg82 (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

1861 Map
A couple of users are insisting on using this map from 1861 by a French cartographer in Albanians, despite the fact that it is both heavily outdated and erroneous. As the caption makes clear, in the early and mid-19th century, the entire coastal region from Montenegro down to the Ambracian Gulf was referred to as "Albania" at the time. However, the usage changed in the late 19th century, and later maps have corrected this. It is over 150 years old, do we really need it? The only reason I can think someone would insist on using the map in this article is for irredentist POV-pushing. Opinions? Athenean (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia presents historical facts as well as current things, so why would an out-dated map only be useful for POV pushing? If it is being used as an historical map in a correct way I would not think that is what most people think of as POV pushing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, look at where it is used: The Gallery section of Albanians .  Does that strike you as correct use?  Gallery sections, by their very succinct nature, make it impossible to discuss complex issues like these.  Moreover, that's not what gallery sections are for. As far as I can tell, the only place where this map is correctly used is in Demographic history of Macedonia, where all the complexities of such 19th century maps are discussed in a proper context. Athenean (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like in that gallery section it is being described correctly according to you? Anyway, this seems does not seem like a subject for this noticeboard, but more a question of due weighting?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I will move this to WP:CCN. Athenean (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source?
(Moved from Help desk)

Is this a reliable source for this article? I'm trying to improve the article's referencing, since it's currently a Good article candidate. Thanks, The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Gary B. Speck does not appear to be accountable to any editorial process. Unless it can be shown that he is, this is not a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In case it helps, Speck wrote Dust in the Wind: A Guide to American Ghost Towns (see here). The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the information on a website appears to be written by one of the most well-respected authors in his/her field, it is still self-published. There are cases where such materials can be acceptable when alternatives cannot be found, but it needs to show editorial process. In this case, he simply lists himself as author with his own e-mail address. Maybe there is an editorial board reviewing this website - could you research this? At the bottom it says "This was our GHOST TOWN OF THE MONTH for February 2000," so who is included in that pronoun "our"? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Our" probably refers to the website that it's on: http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gtusa/index.htm I couldn't find a website reviewing Speck's article. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 12:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If Speck were an established expert on ghost towns I'd say the site is something we could potentially use. However, the book you mention was published by "White's Electorics", which is an electronics company that makes metal detectors and also evidently happens to publish books, mostly on metal detecting. I don't think publishing with them really establishes Speck as an authority, unless others are citing the work... does he have any other publications?--Cúchullain t/ c 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Speck also wrote Ghost Towns: Yesterday and Today (link). The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 23:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still an unedited website. Who he is is not really that important, there's no fact-checking process for anything he writes on his website (that we know of). If he described an editorial process for his website then it would be different, but right now all reliability hinges on the author's own ability to write every fact accurately with no oversight. This is akin to assuming he is incapable of making an error which is too much to ask of any author. This is not just policy but the spirit of the rule as well; no editorial process generally means no reliability.96.228.129.69 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say, allow it. "Who" is the crux of the matter, if he's been published before on the subject, he's likely to meet the requirements of an expert under SPS.  He's the author of at least two books on the subject, that should do it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just writing the books isn't sufficient in and of itself; that first book listed here is essentially self-published as well, as it was put out not by a normal publisher, but by a company that makes metal detectors.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not self-published; it doesn't matter what the business model of the publisher is, as long as they're not controlled by the author. That's not uncommon in some niche/hobby topics.  Anyway, Worldcat says he wrote three books, there's that, there's one about the license plate collecting hobby that does appear to be self-published, and the other book about ghost towns is published by Westside Publishing out of Lincolnwood IL, and a little searching shows they publish a variety of different book series for a popular audience.  So, two of those books count as being published, and on the subject of ghost towns. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that it still fails per our guidelines, not that the author actually paid to self-publish the book. We do have to consider whether the publisher has an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the case of the one book, I don't see that it does; the publisher is a metal detector company. I don't know about the other book, but it seems to me that there are probably better sources out there than this website.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Worldcat shows that both of the "ghost cities" books are held by some public and university libraries, so there is some reputation for them as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion about SPS. It seems more and more often discussions lean in the direction of "well it's self-published and not a BLP, so it must be an OK source." Arguments, then, tend to follow about the personal qualifications of the author as the only issue for reliability. That is not what the policy means at all, and maybe that policy needs some revision due to the recurrent confusion on this issue...SPS should be avoid in general, but for a subject other than a living person, they are not immediately disqualified. If the work is written by (or claims to be written by) an established expert in the field, then it avoids the immediate disqualification of being irrelevant opinions - that is the rationale behind that line in the policy. It still must be held to the same question as any source used for encyclopedic purposes: Is there a reliable editorial process in place? If the answer is either "no" or uncertain, then it's not reliable, and the simple fact that it is SPS doesn't "trump" that fundamental issue.
 * For the case of this website (and so many others) we have no guarantee or even any indication that the information was checked by anyone other than the person who wrote it. It may be a very good website, the author may be extremely well-respected, there may be a half-dozen Pulitzers weighing down papers on his desk...but if no one else read the info before it was published, then it's not usable here. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't quite right. The matter really does hinge on the author's qualifications, not on whether someone else has happened to check over the web page. If it could be established that Speck was an established authority on ghost towns, we could potentially use web sites and other self-published material by him based on that. Such a source isn't immediately disqualified simply because we don't know if anyone read it beforehand, though that may be a factor in the decision of whether or not to use it. In this case, though, the bigger issue is whether the author is an authority on the topic. I don't think it's been established that he is, so I would recommend avoiding his website.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent). No, according to policy, self-published sources are allowed under certain circumstances. It doesn't matter that the information hasn't been reviewed by anybody else; that's what being self-published is. If it was reviewed by editors, then it would be a published secondary source. Policy has already been satisfied. It's up to a consensus of the editors working on the page to decide whether and how to use it as a source. Now, I don't see any reason why we should deprive ourself of this web page as a source, as long as the citation explains who wrote it, and a supplemental footnote explaining that this is the author of the two Ghost Cities books may be in order. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS requires, before a source like is used, that: (i) the author is an "established expert" on the topic of the article; (ii) the author's work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, third party publications. Taking at face value the author's bio at Amazon.com it looks to me like he satisfies both criteria. All that being said, I would prefer a better source, but this one does seem to satisfy WP:RS and WP:SPS. Fladrif (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

World Air Forces directory 2010
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/14/350794/tough-choices-world-air-forces-directory-2010.html Download your free copy of the World Air Forces directory, including global fleet analysis by Flightglobal Insight

RS? Enough of an RS to go marching through the articles and "correcting" numbers of aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would say so. It's published by Reed, a highly respectable business/technical publisher, and bears the imprimatur of Flight International, which is surely a reliable source if ever there was one. See http://www.flightglobal.com/staticpages/aboutus.html - Flightglobal.com is the website of Flight International, Airline Business, ACAS, Air Transport Intelligence (ATI), The Flight Collection and much more. Barnabypage (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a RS and checks out with other RS. An IP account (which I suspect was linked to the company) spammed its contents into Wikipedia's articles on air forces a few months ago, and the information was actually very useful. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, it meets the requirements for a WP:RS, particularly in this topical area. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jona Lendering
There is a minor edit war at Cyrus Cylinder, part of which concerns whether this source  can be used. I can find various mentions in other scholarly works of Lenderinq,

eg and. I think Lendering can be used for this but I'd like other comments. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up this issue, DougWeller, it was the right thing to do:

For the record and for the benefit of other editors. Here is one excerpt from the talk page on Cyrus Cylinder:
 * DougWeller, there is no 'edit war' occurring and the Lendering issue is being dealt with appropriately.
 * Regarding the issue of 'edit war'...as the record on my talk page indicates:


 * You've hit WP:3RR. Maybe you should self-revert that edit and take your concerns to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ''"I count 3 reversions of various text in the last 24 hours. No violation yet, just don't do it again and I do suggest you self-revert on your Lendering complaint - discuss, don't just revert. I've raised it at WP:RSN. What do you mean how do you send messages to people? I'm going out now walking the dogs so won't be able to answer quickly. You aren't in any trouble right now. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)"
 * "I only count 2 in the last 24 hours, FWIW. Swarm X 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)"''

As well as the record on your talk page:

''::Please see my response to comment on 3RR on talk page. I don't see a violation and I've requested Swarm for assistance: User_talk:Swarm GoetheFromm (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you had violated it, I said you'd reached it. I'd also appreciate it if when you quote me on other talk pages you'd inform me that you've quoted me. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)''


 * So, this issue is not becoming an edit war, as you claim it to be.

Next,
 * With regards to 'Lendering' as a source, I refer you to: Reliable_sources. The Lendering source is a self-published online source. The source itself contains very little in-text citations (especially in relation to the reason why it is being cited) and seems to be more of a reflection of the author's opinions.


 * Doug, as your extensive edit and talk page history indicates User_talk:Dougweller Special:Contributions/Dougweller, you've been involved in this issue before, so I'd like to extend a friendly reminder that you, yourself, might be complicit in promoting an 'edit war.'


 * You've certainly taken the right step, however, to refer to RSN.


 * Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GoetheFromm (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The site says that almost all articles are by Lendering, so I guess this is indeed self published. According to our policy pages, the question therefore turns to whether he is a published recognized expert in this field. He certainly does appear to be a published "expert", in Dutch, but with serious publishers. On the about page it says that "Livius is a website on ancient history written and maintained since 1996 by the Dutch historian Jona Lendering. [...] He is the author of several books, all in Dutch; some other bits and pieces can be found here. For the Livius website, which was awarded the "Oikos publieksprijs" by the Dutch classicists in 2010, he collaborates closely with Bill Thayer of LacusCurtius." The prize seems quite real, confirmed on multiple Dutch language sources, but I don't see his articles and books being widely at first sight (but I note Doug's link above). I think it is also worth remarking that the format is not a normal blog, but clearly more carefully constructed. I'd say it is usable at least for non-contentious things. For example if there are highly controversial "WP:REDFLAG" things being cited, I guess some more debate might be expected. Is there anything "redflag"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that he should be used judiciously, but I'd probably say that about a lot of reliable sources. GeotheFromm, the minor edit warring I was referring to is taking place, you can see it in the article's history - Lendering, which paragraph should come before another one, etc. That often happens, and a discussion about that is not really appropriate here and perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it, but I wasn't thinking of your 3RR at the time, which is a separate issue and doesn't belong here. I've replied to that on the article talk page where you brought it from your talk page - but it really should stay on your talk page. Oops, I did forget to sign. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DougWeller, I'm assuming that this is you directly, above. You forgot to sign...GoetheFromm (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an article on Wikipedia about this author at Jona Lendering. Judging from the discussion page Talk:Jona Lendering, there seems to be a campaign against him by some Iranians who object to his historical research. Some Googling reveals that there is even a petition against him by Iranians (can't link to it, search for "lendering petition") and an article by an Iranian publication complaining about his work on the history of Cyrus the Great (relating to the Cyrus Cylinder). However, the Wikipedia page that GoetheFromm refers us to says specifically "Self-published material may 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 see that GoetheFromm has been advocating at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence to label the US Declaration of Independence as a "propaganda text" on the basis that the Cyrus Cylinder is called a propaganda text by, among others, the British Museum. I think this is more about politics than sourcing problems. -- Prioryman (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, I'm not sure why bringing my proposal for a new section on Declaration of Independence has to with Lendering as a source. You argument seems disjointed to me.  But if it helps you, it is no secret that I will be suggesting a "propaganda section" for every article related to proclamations and documents related to human rights and allow the discussions to develop a general consensus for an eventual to add the section or not.  I think that the discussion is very useful and addresses many points at one time (you will see that the Declaration page is addressing the propoganda question since it was brought up).
 * Also, Prioryman, the question presented by DougWeller on this noticeboard is whether Lendering's online source is credible. Are you trying to disprove Lendering's credibility by stating that there are those (via petition, a publication, on wikipedia, etc) )who object to the credibility of the works that otherwise make him unuseful? I highly doubt it.  So, please provide your rationale for bringing it up.
 * And exactly, let's keep politics out of it and focus on the question at hand: reliability of Lendering as source. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dougweller has provided clear evidence that Lendering is a notable and cited historian. The Wikipedia policy page that you yourself referred us to says that self-published works by experts in the relevant field can be used. There is no dispute, as far as I'm aware, over the accuracy of the information for which Lendering is cited (i.e. the fact that people have circulated a falsified translation of the Cyrus Cylinder), so it is not contentious. It is highly relevant that there appears to be an online hate campaign by Iranian nationalists against Lendering; his article's discussion page shows that he is being targeted here on Wikipedia. Frankly, it is hard to see the objections to using Lendering as a source as being anything other than politically motivated. As for your campaign over the US DoI, there's absolutely no connection whatsoever between the DoI and the Cyrus Cylinder (which wasn't even discovered until 100 years after the DoI was written). Prioryman (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lendering is certainly a respected scholar, but his website is self-published and offers very few references (as he himself admits, though I don't understand the reason he gives). On a controversial issue, as this surely is, we would do better not to treat him as a reliable source unless he gives adequate citations to justify his view. In this case he doesn't give adequate citations. I wrote this much before reading Prioryman's comment above: I would just add that to say the translation is "falsified" is bound to be contentious if some are still relying on that translation, which seems to be the case. And rew D alby  12:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your last sentence. There is a false/fake translation out there, eg if you search this book for cylinder, you will find it translated "down on or insult them as long as 1 am alive. From now on, till Ahuramazda grants me the kingdom favor, I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I never resolve on war to reign." This substitution of Ahuramazda for Marduk is simply wrong. Lendering is pointing this out. I'm not clear what is controversial about this. I don't think you will find any scholars suggesting that it says Ahuramazda. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it's wrong, and I'm sorry if my comment wasn't clear. You make my point better than I did. We aren't here to talk about what's right and wrong. That author (like some other recent authors) relies on the fake translation; simply for that reason, to say that's it's fake is contentious. Because it's contentious, we need documented, reliable references about the issue. A web page that isn't documented is not our ideal reference. And rew D alby  21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like point out that Lendering, as per his wikipedia page, holds a masters, which doesn't necessarily make him an less reliable, but does help. After all, masters level work certainly isn't as rigorous as a doctrate.
 * But anyway, I think the contention for using Lendering as a source doesn't lie in the issue of the existence of a fake translation (I'm sure that there a many fake translation about many ancient artifacts), but rather his unsupported assertions that the fake translation is related to Pahlavi, propaganda. That entire section is speculative, contentious, and unsupported.  GoetheFromm (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lendering qualifies as an expert source. This website can be used in the narrow manner laid out in WP:SPS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Times and IBTimes RS?
In Unite Against Fascism the Times and IBTimes have been offered for the label of "left wing" for the organization. TimesOnline 10 Aug 2009 "Left-wing groups including Unite Against Fascism " and IBTimes 19 Nov 2010 "the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter)". were offered for the claim. Are they RS for such a claim? Collect (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times and IBTimes are certainly reliable sources. The sources are news stories, not editorials. The description as "left wing" is made in passing and cannot be characterized as any kind of reasoned in-depth analysis. But, when are convenient labels ever supported by reasoned in-depth analysis? All that being said, I don't see any problem with the sources being used in the manner thay are being used in the article.216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are certainly RS for this. They views on the political leanings of protest groups and parties are considerd RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In which case, might a disinterested admin examine the edit war going on to remove the RS sourced claim? I think one editor has broached reasonable revert levels by a goodly bit. Collect (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No challenge to The Times being a reliable source (and that has only been presented today for the first time by the way). The IBT has been challenged in this respect on the talk page.  The issue is one of WP:WEIGHT and the refusal of Collect and others to engage in discussion.   In particular its difficult for one casual reference in a news story to overcome the support for UAF by the leader of the leading RIGHT WING party in the UK.  There has been a long term edit war to label UAF as left wing.  Recently this has been a concerted effort by a small group of editors, end result was a massive edit war a few pages ago and a general refusal to allow the stable version to stand while a consensus was reached.  There have been a few other examples of AGF failure.   It certainly needs some new eyes to take a look at it. -- Snowded  TALK  16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Times is certainly reliable enough. That said, these kinds of labels are generally a bad idea, especially if there are contradicting views on this. Are there reliable sources that state UAF is not "left-wing"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that terms such as left-wing and right-wing need to be used with care. Usually, we go with self-identification, except in cases where academic analysts are pretty much speaking with one voice (which does usually mean they're more extreme). In this case, I think "left-wing" clearly does not deserve to be there. On their website, they identify as anti-fascist only, not left-wing. The website contains a list of signatories to their founding statement, including some Conservatives, such as Teddy Taylor (rather right wing) and Peter Bottomley, at least one Ulster Unionist in Martin Smyth (really not left-wing at all), and many centrists Labour MPs. It's true that the SWP has someone on their national committee, but they turn up to anything involving the organisation of students and not too much attention should be paid to it. I think the label should absolutely be removed as undue. It's against standard practice to include it like this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The process is to use RS on the basis of "verifiability not truth." In the case of John Birch Society, the JBS denies that it is "radical right-wing" (a bit further off the chart than "left wing" is), but the "radical" term is found in the WP article. I would be happy if there were a policy that no articles whould place anyone or any group on any "political spectrum" but we have to deal with what the current policies and guidelines are.  If we allow such, then RS is all that is required ("left wing" is not an accusation of terrorism or anything remotely like that). Collect (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The enemay of my enemy is my friend. There are many instances (such as the animal rights movemnt) where persons at opposite ends of the political spectrum come out of the wood work to suport a group or cause that expuses something tehy agree with. That does not alter the basci politics or attitude of the group reciving support. Its also not true to say this label appears in one source. I agree that what is needed is perhaps some kind o=f guidlines as to how to label such groups rathyer then the rather add hok system we have now. What we have is a situatioin wehre group A can be called FAr naughty becasue (even though they deny it) 20 RS say they are where as Group B cannot be calle wicked wing becasue (even though they have not denied it) only 3 RS call them it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorting some guidelines would make sense. However we so far have one independent view (VsevolodKrolikov) given that all others are active on this issue or more generally on the various political and pressure group pages.  I suggest those players hang back and see if we can get some more perspectives.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of reliability per se, but whether undue weight is being given to the label. I agree with VsevolodKrolikov's analysis. Two, very brief, throwaway mentions in the media (including from one at rather weak source on the reliability scale (IBT)) are not sufficient to label an organization in this fashion,  most especially in the Lead, particularly when its founding membership clearly belies it.  In contrast, the label of the John Birch Society as right-wing has been made by many more, much higher quality sources, including academic ones. --Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources, my support of which has led to a threat of ANI, are these RS for the claim? [] [] [] [] We also have this sources which can be read as saying that the UAF are left wing (it does not attempt to differentiate between them ans the other left wing demonstrators [] Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven is one of a couple of POV warriors on this page. It needs other eyes to (hopefully) avoid the need to go to ANI. His links in the message above include the Daily Star, which for those of you from outside the UK is a notorious soft-porn newspaper with little reputation for factual reporting, and a webpage from pakistan.tv carrying BNP supporting material. (And one of the other links actually makes clear that the group is not simply left-wing, actually against his case. But he doesn't seem to care). On the page itself he's also citing the opinion column of a light-entertainment compere in a local paper (I'm not kidding). RS (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian) describing the UAF as mainstream or cross-party has also been provided by other editors, but is being ignored by those determined to include their favoured text. They appear to have no guiding principle behind their edits save a content outcome, making discussion futile.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the sources presented by Slatersteven, I would say this is a reliable source, but the characterization is made in passing, so I would suggest it would be of little weight. Use of this to support the claim would be, IMO, OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the sources that is used to refute the claim [] actualy uses the phrase 'left wing criminals'.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a reported quote from the leader of the far right BNP Slater, its not a statement by the Telegraph. -- Snowded  TALK  14:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Wow!! are you actually suggesting we pay any attention to want Nick Griffin thinks about UAF? I'm speechless. VsevolodKrolikov's analysis is looking more and more on the money. --Slp1 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its in the same line as the comment you say opposes the idea that the UAF are not left wing" (which is also a quote from Mr griffin), So if its RS for the line "notes that "mainstream politicians" support the UAF" its must be RS for them being left wing. There has been an accusation made (more then once) that those of us who want to include the liine 'left wing' have been cherry picking souces. Well what is this? You cannot use a source when it supports your view and then refuse to allow it when it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Nick Griffin's attributed opinions are in a completely different league from the reportage of a newspaper with editorial oversight. It's so obvious I can't believe I even have to say it. --Slp1 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It in the saem sentance as the claims that it has mainstream support, both statemnts are attributed to Mr griffin. How can nthe telegraph be used as RS for a stament when its repeating Mr Griffin and then the same sentance cannot be used as RS for something else?Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(reinserting material accidentally deleted by user answering another topic)
 * It is a reliable source for what Griffin said, but not for the rightness or wrongness of Griffin's opinions. -- Snowded TALK 15:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, nice try, Slater. Nick Griffin's opinions start with the quotation marks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. Not the greatest source for the fact that mainstream politicians support the UAF, and if it was the only source making the point (or even used in the article) it would be problematic.  But it isn't, of course.The BBC is cited in the article for this, and thus this is line of argument is a something of a red herring.  --Slp1 (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was reponding to the statemnt that sources have been presented on the talk page that the UAF is not leftist. But it does not mdeny the group is itself left wing, just that it enjoys support from a wide spectrum (in much the saem way that the anti-globalisation movment contains many disperate and some times (in other areas) hostile groups). The case being made is that no source denies that the UAF are actualy left wing (its just as OR to say that becasue they enjoy wide support as the Express arctiel thyat says that left wing groups), nor have they temsleves denied it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Pakistan.tv is not a reliable source, as there is no sign of any kind of editorially oversight. Websites ending with .tv sound official, are mostly just self-published websites.  The Daily Star is a tabloid with a very poor reputation for accuracy, and the Daily Mail is not much better.  The Sunday Business Post is a reliable source and the best of the bunch, but it does not support the notion that the UAF is a left wing organization;  it states that the UAF is "a loose collection of left-wing and anti-racism organisations in Britain" (emphasis added).--Slp1 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To Nuujinn: the problem with the Daily Mail on this topic is firstly that it's an anti-immigrant newspaper with a history of skewing or on occasion simply inventing stories about immigrants, and secondly, as a paper it's fair to say that it pretty much despises the chairman of UAF, Ken Livingstone. It's a very popular paper, so perhaps its opinion is noteworthy, but not as a source representing considered opinion, which is how they want it to be used. As for Slater's comments here, he's just illustrating the problem with his editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is obviously not a RS issue at all. It's pretty obvious (i) that there are RS that call the organization "left wing"; (ii) the organization doesn't view itself as left wing; (iii) even reliable sources can have biases, which is irrelevant, and (iv) there are edit warring editors who either like or dislike the labels in this instance or on principle generally. The text was pretty balanced when I looked at it back when this first came up at RSN a few days ago, other than I'd think it sufficient to mention the "left wing" label once. I'm not going back again to see what's happened in the meantime. Not gonna pick up this tarbaby. This is not a RSN issue; take this dispute elsewhere. Fladrif (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree that RSN editors don't have something to contribute, since various sources have been claimed as reliable when they are not, such as pakistan.tv and Nick Griffin's opinion. On the other hand, I think all agree that this is mainly a question of Undue weight, and that discussion should be held elsewhere. --Slp1 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be about undue weight, but the undue weight argument has been met with trash sources to add ballast.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is primarily a question of weight. Many of the sources presented are clearly not reliable, but do keep in mind It is to be expected that some reliable sources have a bias, see for example the numerous discussions of Fox News. Most of the discussion above does not belong here, really. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of the "left-wing" epithet in an article in The Times is still unresolved. In my view The Times is clearly RS. Whatever bias it has is normal in UK broadsheet papers and must be disregarded. The problem with this particular article is that it only uses "left-wing" as a brief throwaway. Shorthand, even, for those opposed to fascist groups and therefore "left-wing" in comparison with fascism. The senior Conservative Party politicians in membership of UAF are undoubtedly to the left of BNP and EDL. I wouldn't support the addition of "left-wing" to the lede on the basis of this source. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The presentation here of the dispute about the Times being questioned as RS is a clean misrepresentation. As you rightly note, it's an issue of proper weight to this single comment. In actual fact, this all appears to be a retaliatory dispute because of the labelling of the EDL elswhere on wikipedia, as discussions show.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? Show me any edit I have made conscerning the EDL in any venue whatsoever - then iterate that I am "retaliating" about something! Nor do I give a whit about what the EDL is labelled as long as it is supported directly by reliable sources and attributed properly to them.   Now can we stop the side circus? Collect (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice you put up spirited arguments in the article about Arthur Kemp, who is a leader of the British National Party, against the inclusion of information sourced to the Southern Poverty Law Centre (not RS), court records (primary source) and his book about the supremacy of the white race and a revisionist view of the holocaust.(synthesis). You even edited the article to make it appear this description was an opinion, after it was sourced to The Guardian.  TFD (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, I was referring to the discussion in general where the labelling of the EDL as right-wing appears to have incited a few editors. Of course there are other far right groups which editors are feeling sorry for. You in particular have compared this situation to the phenomenally well-sourced description of the John Birch Society as radical right. As TFD notes above, you're not applying the same standards of editing across the encyclopedia, but picking and choosing positions to suit a pretty consistent POV. You've got editing the wrong way round.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Curiously, I am using exactly the same position everywhere on WP. And it is TFD who wobbles.   I would oppose calling any group "radical" or "extreme" in the lede absent an overwhelming consensus of sources for the precise adjective.  Absent any such agreement among sources, the adjective is not needed.  Here there is no such dispute among sources, and no use of the adjectives "rextrem" or "radical" etc.   My "POV" is in exact agreement with WP policies and guidelines here.   I would also suggest that my edits on totally apolitical articles is consistent with this, as well as my edits on such "rightwingers" as Alex Sink, David Copperfield and Huey Long.  Did you know that iterating false claims is not a great idea? Collect (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my point. You have not provided evidence of overwhelming consensus on this point (I've asked you on the NPOV noticeboard three times for the "dozen" sources you claim to have), yet you continue to revert the material back in. It is "disputed" because there are RS that contradict the description. They don't say "a bunch of editors are wrong on wikipedia", they describe UAF as cross-party and non-partisan. You raised the issue here, you've had your answer, and it seems you don't like it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: A number of editors have pointed out that this is not an RS issue. Should we maybe take further comments to the NPOV discussion (which has been moved here, for reasons I can't quite work out: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard)? --FormerIP (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, FormerIP, that those wishing to continue with the insertion of this material are dancing between claiming they have lots of sources (which are not actually RS) and pretending that it's really about editors challenging the RS status of the Times, which, as you point out, it isn't. That is, although several outside editors have stated this is an issue of weight, there is a refusal by Collect and others to address this point. It's a behavioural problem.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And lots that are (three at least, and thats being generous to the other side).Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can a map be a primary source?
This is a follow on to a request made at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, which didn't really get any usable response. There are 2 questions I'd like answered, the first a generic question and the second a specific one.
 * 1) Can a diagram/map be primary source? or does a source require words? and
 * 2) In the case of this edit, is that a piece of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR on my part?

The background here is that there is a very common construct used in climate articles and sections right across the pedia, where the local climate is put in the context of a region or area. It provides location-based contextual information and is an extremely useful construct for imparting information to readers. Some examples:
 * Geography of Cambodia - Cambodia's climate, like that of the rest of Southeast Asia is dominated by monsoons, ...
 * Mequon, Wisconsin - The climate of Mequon is much like that of other midwestern cities in the United States....
 * Kottayam district - Kottayam has a tropical climate like that of the rest of Kerala, ..
 * Middleton, Greater Manchester - Middleton experiences a temperate maritime climate, like much of the British Isles, ...

Rarely are these similes referenced in any way. So when I added something similar to the Belgium article's climate section, I wasn't expecting to be reverted. However I was, and a short edit war ensued, which ended up with being blocked. The context remains in Geography of Belgium, but with the dispute unresolved.

Can anyone offer any opinions and/or suggestions around the 2 questions above? I guess the first might be better phrased as
 * 1) Under what circumstances can a diagram be used as a primary source?

Cheers Fmph (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if a map is necessarily a primary or secondary source (I think they can be either) but I think the key thing is whether it has some sort of fact checking. Concerning synthesis/OR I think the key thing is whether the facts being put together are fairly obvious. Considering both these points, I'd think your edits are OK at first sight as long as your source maps are reputable. I am not sure what the argument against is?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew. TBH, neither am I. I felt the edits were totally uncontentious and found myself in the middle of an edit war and quite vitriolic talkpage argument. The maps are extremely reliable. They are a 2010 (I think, from memory - could be 2009) update on the climate classification 'bible'. Hey ho! Fmph (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a look at the talk pages, it does not seem the source was being questioned but instead your own working definition of northwest europe? That doesn't mean I disagree with you, but not sure this is a question for this board?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I agree. I'm more interested in the answer to the generic question of a map being a primary source. After that it's really a matter for discussion and negotiation wrt what the best form of words are. I still believe that the phrase "..., like most of northwest Europe, ..." adequately describes the area in question. But I'm open to suggestions on alternatives. Fmph (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat confused by this; the content being added essentially breaks down as "the climate in region X is Y", it is not "country Z is in region X" (for which a map is a correct primary source). So a map is not necessarily the source you need; the source needed is one that shows either the climate of region X is Y or that the climate of country Z matches that of region X. --Errant $(chat!)$ 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether a map is a primary source is not a matter of it being a type of diagram rather than all text, it is a matter of who drew it and how. If it was drawn by someone who was not directly involved by any event depicted by the map (if there is such an event) and it is based on maps drawn by others, it is a secondary source. If it was drawn to depict an event by a person or organization directly involved in the event, or if it was drawn by making direct observations on the ground, it is a primary source.


 * The way the question is phrased makes me wonder if Fmph understands our Verifiability policy. Why wouldn't one be able to use maps (whether primary or secondary) freely, as long as one does not draw one's own conclusions that are not evident from looking at the map? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely accurate. A primary source is really dependant on how you use it. If you have a reliably published news editorial using that to say "the writer said XYZ" is using it as a primary source. If a map is drawn based on other maps it can still be a primary source, especially if it is interpretive (i.e. it includes shading showing rainfall data) and you relate that interpretation. --Errant $(chat!)$ 14:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources are not subject to any of Wikipedia's policies. Unlike Wikipedia editors, they are allowed to interpret and draw conclusions from their source documents. In Errant's example, a map that includes shading showing rainfall data would be secondary if the rainfall data was previously published, or primary if the rainfall data had been collected by the authors. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it can be used as a primary source. For example, if you are using it to source that "X country had the highest rainfall" (for example), which would be 100% fine I think, but primary sourced to a map graphing the primary data. Primary/secondary is almost entirely decided by how you use a source, nothing else (this is not really even WP's definition, just how it is :)). --Errant $(chat!)$ 15:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with ErrantX's concept of primary and secondary sources. Sure, the same publication (say, the New York Times) could have primary and secondary components (news articles vs. ads) and thus could be used as either a primary or secondary source, the nature of a particular passage wouldn't normally depend on how it was used (although you could always come up with a pathological case). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this? A map as a primary source might be for example the Ordnance Survey which publishes large files full of raw data that is considered authoritative. I think an example of a map as a secondary source might be a fancy coloured map put together using various different data sets from other sources, then mapped out graphically for comparison. Does this sound about right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It kinda depends on your definitions really on whether in plotting data on the map they are making interpretive commentary on that data (i.e. the highest rainfall is in country X). But, yeh, it could be used as a primary source. This is something of a weird conversation TBH because this is a key and simple distinction - how a source is used defines whether that use is as a primary or secondary source. It's very hard to dispute that as it is the accepted approach used in academia --Errant $(chat!)$ 16:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Andrew and I'd suggest that is exactly what Peel and Finlayson have done in their research. They have analysed weather observations to produce climate classifications. The final output of the research is a map. And this map does not contain regional labels. So if we are to use the map as a source - and I think it's a primary source, but others might justifiably say it is secondary - we need to interpret the diagrammatic output into words. Hence, the green part of Europe from the map, is IMHO "... most of northwest Europe ...". Fmph (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I disupute ErrantX's claim that "because this is a key and simple distinction - how a source is used defines whether that use is as a primary or secondary source. It's very hard to dispute that as it is the accepted approach used in academia" and request that he/she prove it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC) None of the examples shown above (Cambodia's climate, like that " etc.) is cited to ANY sourcing, primary or otherwise, and thus if challenged would need to be removed until some type of reliable sourcing is found to verify the claim. Active  Banana    (bananaphone  14:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I follow the relevance of this point. Are you saying that the articles need more footnotes etc? If so then it sounds like Fmph could do that and so no deletion need be done? But is this relevant to the question here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Most reference-free statements are challenged by adding a fact tag. In each of those cases, wee that done, I could add a similar reference to the map. But would that be sufficient? Would the map be a reliable source? Fmph (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course; the question being asked makes the mistake of asserting that a map is a reasonable source for that sentence about climate. Which it is not. Maps can be used as primary or secondary sources depending on the context, but in this case it would not be a sufficient source for that sentence. --Errant $(chat!)$ 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Errant, just to make sure we avoid confusion, you are now talking about the sourcing for the definition of northwestern Europe, right? On this I think I agree. That map contained no such definition as far as I could see. I think this whole discussion is a little confusing because the example being given obviously is not an example of the principle Fmph wanted to discuss. If we wanted to discuss cases where a map might not be a good source it would help to have a real example. Indeed there have been many discussed hear over time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Errant, can you clarify that statement for me please? Why in this case is that map NOT a sufficient source? Are you saying that because the definition of NWEUR is hazy? or because the words NW Europe are not on the map? I'm not quite with you. Fmph (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, given the following sentence; Cambodia's climate, like that of the rest of Southeast Asia is dominated by monsoons. As I make it out the original question is "could a map be used to cite that Cambodia is in Southeast Asia and would it be a primary source" - to which the answer is yes, yes and its use is fine. But the issue with that sentence is not the location of Cambodia, which is simply obvious information and does not need to be cited, but that Cambodia's climate is the same as the entire region. That is the information requiring citation. Now, the Belgian link seems to have a source which might cite that information (I have only read the abstract, which is unclear) in which case that is fine. But the other examples are uncited. EDIT: of course, a reliable map showing common climate across the region, with the region labelled (or the region being an accepted and undisputed definition) that would work as a source, it occurs to me now that this is perhaps the question being posed - to which my comment would be, lets see an example! :) --Errant $(chat!)$ 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, ok. Apologies for not investigating this close enough, the OP should have linked to File:Koppen classification worldmap CfbCfc.png which was the source being used. I would say that it is, sadly, not a reliable source due to where it is hosted :) And also I would have concerns over the broad area of the map lacking detail. A clearer map hosted somewhere reliable would seem fine to me though. --Errant $(chat!)$ 16:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say it is not a reliable source due to where it is hosted, I presume you refer to the copy on Wikipedia? The original is available here together with all the research data. Check the supplement link. And there are more in depth maps of each of the continents, actually embedded in the PDF of the paper. It's not clear that permission has been given to extract each of those individual maps for use on WP, although the main map is released. Fmph (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A much higher res world map is here Fmph (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, it appears to me that the map is being used as a primary source, and the claim being made is interpretive. You should find a source that explicitly makes this statement, rather than interpreting it from a specific climate map. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I summarise the responses and perhaps wrap up where we are agreed and highlight the areas where we are not:
 * 1) Can a diagram/map be primary reliable source? - yes, a diagram can be a reliable source. Depending on the context and source material it can be either a primary or a secondary source 
 * 2) or does a source require words? - not necessarily, but it helps!
 * 3) In the case of this edit, is that a piece of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR on my part? - We are not agreed on this.
 * 4) Under what circumstances can a diagram be used as a primary source? - I think we are mostly agreed that this particular map IS a primary source.

Is that a fair summary of where we are? Fmph (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Probe Magazine
Probe Magazine is used as a source for a few articles (mostly American politics). I am not familiar with this magazine, would it qualify as a reliable source? P. S. Burton (talk)  18:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also found this, is it the same mag? P. S. Burton  (talk)  18:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PROBE News Magazine is a weekly, formerly fortnightly, English-language news magazine published in print in Bangladesh, concentrating on Bangladesh national and regional news. It appears to be a genuine newsmagazine with an editorial board and professional jounalists that has been in business for many years. A Google search doesn't turn up a lot of hits for it in the news, book or scholar archives, but it does appear to have been cited as a source in at least a few books and even scholarly articles. I would think that it is a RS, but I am curious as to why one would use it as a source on US politics. A quick glance at the table of contents for the current issue online would lead me to believe that US politics is not something it concentrates on, but that does not mean that it is not a RS if it does publish an article on the subject.
 * On the other hand Probe Magazine, a former publication of the "Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination" is something completely different. It is published by a self-described "activist group". There is no indication that it has any editorial oversight. The group and the magazine is devoted to conspiracy and fringe theories about the Kennedy assassination and other matters. It most definitely would contain lots of articles on US politics, but if that is the Probe Magazine being used as sources in Wikipedia articles on US politics, that would be a big problem. It is definitely not a RS for such purposes. Fladrif (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's used in articles on American politics, I suspect it's the latter. P.S. Burton, which articles did you mean? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert F. Kennedy and Bob Woodward for example. Fortunately it seems to have been removed from all articles now. P. S. Burton  (talk)  09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

www.al-islam.org
This website is an openly Shi'a-centric website devoted to a narrow interpretation of Islamic history that supports a clearly Shia narrative especially regarding the Caliphate and associated historical figures and battles. It is used extensively to support contested minority Shi'a viewpoints that are presented as facts, contrary to NPOV policy. It can be found as in-line citations for contentious material in such articles as Ali, the Battle of Karbala, Husayn Ibn Ali, Yazid I, Muawiya I and others. Such contested material using this admittedly biased (and minority opinion) website must clearly state that it is a Shi'a viewpoint, and not uncontested fact. As an example, see this extract from the Battle of Karbala:

"At the death of Ali ibn Abu Talib, his elder son Hasan ibn Ali succeeded him but soon signed a treaty with Muawiya to avoid further bloodshed . Muawiya remained the ruler of Syria. Prior to his death, Muawiya was actively plotting a major deviation from Islamic norms."

This kind of material, and its citation by al-islam.org, is slanted in justification of one side of the battle against the other. That there was a "plot" for a "major deviation" and that the losing side signed a treaty only to "avoid further bloodshed". These should be presented as "according to Shi'a sources" etc. Also please see the current discussion thread in Talk:Battle of Karbala.--AladdinSE (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding the phrase "According to Shia Sources" is not an issue nevertheless AladdinSE just has problem with the source as its a Shia one. - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What evidence is there that this site has a reputation for accuracy, or is notable enough to have the opinions of its writers taken into consideration? (i.e. what makes it a good "shia source"?)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov - Al-Islam.org is run by Ahlul Bayt Digital Library Project (Ahlul Bayt DILP) one reputed Shia source and as I said earlier its not forcing its views on all. Its only confined to Shia sources, so no one says everyone to agree with. But as far as Shia faith is concerned the site is good source. Al-Islam.org. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm forced to agree with User:AladdinSE.  www.al-islam.org cannot be accepted as a reliable source for being used in Wikipedia articles. We must acknowledge that there is a very big religious issue between Shia (10-20% minority) and Sunni (80-90% majority) groups, it is unlike any other sects among other religions. I.e. the Shias in general call the Sunnis kafirs (infidels), and the Sunnis usually call the Shias kafirs, etc. This is well known and if you want quick evidence there are many online forums and chat sites where you often read this on daily bases. Let's not allow these type of people to use Wikipedia by expressing their natural hate toward one another through the use of these websites. Therefore, we should not allow any source that is openly a Sunni or a Shia-centric who are only there to promote their own sect by all means nessary. By the way, there are so many major academic sources (such as Britannica and others) easily available for references so why not cite those instead? Let's not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia used for official educational purposes and its content must be well balanced.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with whether it's a reliable source though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These don't look too good though from About Al-Islam.org
 * "operates through the collaborative effort of volunteers based in many countries around the world."
 * "we in no way can guarantee the absolute authenticity of all of the data and should not be held responsible for any errors herein"
 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, this could be a problem. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for highlighting the two statements. I do agree now with you. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO, al-islam.org can be relied upon as it contains reliable articles such as, , , , , , , , , etc which are work of reputed Shi'a, Sunni & Western scholars. May be we should be cautious while referring to it as this website is an online library and all content at this website may not be NPOV or academic (as in the case of physical libraries) but that does not discredits importance of the website as source. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 19:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether a source has a point of view, is biased, slanted, etc. -- is a question that is pretty much completely irrelevant when judging whether its use in a particular citation fits the WP:Identifying reliable sources guideline. The writing of Wikipedia articles is guided by our WP:NPOV, which despite its rather confusing name, does not mean from a point of view that is neutral. It means we include all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks to me to be a reputable site and, in principle, a reliable source for much of its content. Sean: I can understand why you have highlighted those quotes from the about page, but similar statements would be true of Project Gutenberg, for example, which would seem to me to be a good parallel, and we certainly would consider that a reliable source. Whether any given text from the site is biased or significant is another matter, but that's not for here. There also seem to be certain parts of the site such as "An Islamic Encyclopedia" (currently seems inaccessible anyhow) which are probably not reliable, though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's similiar to the Jewish Virtual Library in the sense that although the JVL isn't an RS like the BBC etc it contains many documents that do qualify as RS. In the JVL's case it's usually possible to cite the orginal document sources rather than cite JVL. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If we consider sites such as al-islam.org as RS then we may add many other sites such as WordPress and so on to the RS list, which only further destroys Wikipedia's reputation as an unreliable place for info. In order to strengthen Wiki's reputation we have to get rid of such sites being used as references and only cite academic sources, especially when dealing with Islam and different sects. That way we don't get to see too many POV-pushers and edit-wars--AllahLovesYou (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would we be adding WordPress? Don't be silly. A new rule saying that articles to do with Islam can only be sourced to academic publishers would be an interesting one, but it is not currently the rule and so, however good it is as an idea, it is not a good reason for excluding this source in particular. This site should not be used to present POV as if it were fact, though, which does appear to be an issue. --FormerIP (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree with FormerIP and others who are of opinion to cite from this site, I shall be re adding the materials which were deleted referenced from this site.- Humaliwalay (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)