Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 87

Kilgour-Matas report, Yale PhD Thesis Source
Could you kindly comment on if a Yale University PhD Thesis would be a reliable source for the article Kilgour-Matas report? Some material sourced to it - "In April 2007, a Yale University student submitted a PhD thesis that evaluated the allegations and concluded that Falun Gong prisoners' organs were being harvested," to be specific - had been removed under the claim "PHD thesises are not reliable sources".. Could you guys kindly look into the issue and please share your views on if the source may be used? Thanks in advance. Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * is a docstoc.com.  shows a discussion thereon (the site you use is clearly not going to pass RS, I fear).  The existence of the thesis is thus RS, and statements made in it attributed to the thesis author as his opinions.  docstoc.com was not ruled to be "self-published" which would be the only real problem with a thesis.  Collect (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More generally, there are theses which are themselves cited in reliable sources; in those cases the theses may also be looked upon as being reliable. I'd have to read the report and see what sources are cited for the contention of organ harvesting; however, my personal opinion would be moot as a thesis generally speaking is not considered a reliable source, as already indicated. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PhD theses are reliable sources. However, I see nothing saying this is a PhD thesis.  Also, being a reliable source does not mean that the conclusions reached are notable, and therefore it may not be acceptable on that ground.  TFD (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's extremely unlikely to be a PhD thesis. Among other things, the Meta-comments call it a "Senior paper", and neither the length nor the depth match expectations for a PhD thesis, even at Yale (*duck*). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; this doesn't have the usual format of a doctoral dissertation or thesis making it essential that evidence be provided proving that claim. ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely too short to be a doctoral thesis. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Given it is a Yale PhD Thesis - is it acceptable? The conclusion of the economic analysis aligns with the finding of a report that won its authors Nobel Peace Prize nomination - and the thesis is cited by the same authors on their website. Please see: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/studies.htm. Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A doctoral dissertation would be a reliable source. But this isn't a doctoral dissertation so it doesn't matter. ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree that this is very unlikely to be a doctoral thesis. It's difficult to say what it is, but it may just be an extra-curricular essay produced for publication on the internet. I don't think it can be taken as a reliable source without knowing the purpose for which it was produced. --FormerIP (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Which comes first, WP:V or WP:OR?
What happens when something is easily verifiable by anyone but there is no reliable source for it? Is it OR? At Derren Brown was the following: Much of this was removed as OR, the final stumbling block being the "password". Before continuing, it is necessary to point out that this is not a password in the traditional sense. The page deliberately gives clues to the password, which can then be found by a Google search or by looking here at Category:Card tricks. Entering the password takes you to a page where you can buy products offered by the site owner, a magician. The reason the password is required is that these items are supposedly only available to magicians but the site owner is publicly known for his ability to manipulate people and the password seems more a marketing ploy - by "restricting" sale of the object, it makes it more desirable (Marketing 101). The password is accurate, and can easily be verified by entering the password into the website. It was added by an IP on January 3, and because I was able to verify it, I didn't remove it, I just copyedited the article to fix the citation. So, since this is verifiable, does it stay or get removed as OR? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "For this reason, it was available only to practitioners through a password-protected "magicians only" area of his website; as of the redesign of his website in mid-2009, the magician-exclusive area has been made harder to find, but is still accessible. The clue to the password, which is "tenkai", tells you that the word itself begins with T and is a type of palming trick."
 * You apply them in combination; along with other guidelines such as WP:IINFO and WP:NOTHOWTO and come up with the question: Is that really encyclopedic content that belongs int the article? Active Banana    (bananaphone  14:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but the question remains, does it constitute OR if it's easily verifiable? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more the other way around... it constitutes OR if it isn't verifiable (the ease of verifiability is a different issue). That said, it is possible to have OR that is based upon verifiable information... it is still OR if you are the first to analyze or interpret the information in a particular way, or the first to draw a particular conclusion from the verifiable information.  The idea is that Wikipedia should not be the first place to publish the analysis or conclusion.  In your case... while the pieces of the puzzle are all easily discoverable, it does not sound like anyone has published the solution before.  Therefore, it would be OR for us to do so. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I am saying the same thing in a different way but my understanding is that if something is not obvious at more or less "first sight" to a normal editor working on the article, then putting the conclusions together counts as "research". There will always be a grey area, but if there is a riddle/puzzle then pretty much by definition I think that to solve it requires non obvious thinking - or else it is a pretty bad riddle/puzzle. If the solution is deliberately as obvious as 2+2=4 for some reason then I guess we start getting close to the grey area? But that does not appear to be relevant to the case described above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar - I sort of understand what you're saying but... "it constitutes OR if it isn't verifiable" - well it is, I verified that the password was correct, which is why I didn't delete the addition. "Therefore, it would be OR for us to do so." - I agree, but if I can verify that a claim made by somebody else is true, is it really OR? If it is, that surely would make a lot of images OR. For example, File:ForsterNSWAus2.JPG claims to be an image of Forster, New South Wales. I can't verify that it is and I can't find a similar image published by a reliable source so isn't that image OR?
 * It is OR if it has not been published elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It can't be that cut and dried as that would make most images created by Wikipedians OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, Blueboar perhaps stated that too simply. Obviously not everything on Wikipedia is published elsewhere, but what is not should be just an obvious extension of what is, such as rewordings or summaries. But I think it can not be denied that leaves a big grey area. However, I am skeptical about this case being in the brighter side of that grey area as it is normally interpreted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Lancaster - How obvious does it have to be though? I follow the link to the source, put in the "password" and voila! it works. The claim in the article is confirmed. That seems pretty obvious.
 * I don't really have an issue with OR generally, as it's usually pretty obvious when something is OR. For example, "as of the redesign of his website in mid-2009, the magician-exclusive area has been made harder to find" is not supported by the citation and isn't verifiable but the password issue is different. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this may be the relevant policy content: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify" (emph added) Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, unless the password is published by a reliable source, doing the lookup of the palming trick that begins with a T is original research, and testing the password is an experiment, and thus also OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim that the password is "tenkai" isn't a primary source and testing the password is essentially what anyone does when they verify any source added to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What source asserts that that password is "tenkai"? The link provided does not. If that's your source, it's "A", and you're then looking at Google or WP to find palming techniques that begin with "t", then that's "B". And if you are next drawing the conclusion that the password is "tenkai", that's "C" and you've just violated WP:SYNTH. That you then test your conclusion at the web site is also OR, since you're performing an experiment to verify your research. What you need is a reliable source that says "the password to http://derrenbrown.co.uk/devilspicturebook2/store.php is "tenkai". --Nuujinn (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I explained in the first post of this discusssion, the claim was added by an IP on January 3, and because I was able to verify it, I didn't remove it, I just copyedited the article to fix the citation. I didn't do any research. I just checked to see whether the claim was correct by going to the source. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I would say the IP engaged in SYNTH, and you did an experiment to verify. I think it's still OR, and that what you need is a reliable source that says "the password to http://derrenbrown.co.uk/devilspicturebook2/store.php is "tenkai". --Nuujinn (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be taking a slightly different approach to others here. I think that the logic of saying a password is verifiable is not necessarily wrong in itself. I think if someone wrote "The Times on date z could be accessed using url etc" this would be ok I think. But I think that the concern here goes beyond that because what is being sourced is not just "one password which works on website x is y".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Internet Explorer Mobile
Can this comment from the IE for Windows Phone Team Weblog be used as a source in the Internet Explorer Mobile article? As per WP:NEWSBLOG posts left by readers may never be used as sources, but can this be used since it seems to be a comment made by the blogger?

Because it was removed as an unreliable source, it is now replaced by this article by wpcentral. wpcentral however uses this mobiletechworld article as a source, and mobiletechworld uses the first blog comment as its source, so after going through 2 other sites we end up with the same source so this isn't any more reliable. -- Chris Ssk talk 22:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Chris Ssk: Yes, you can cite it as a primary source. WP:RS only bars comments by readers, not the author of the blog.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags of the World
The Flags of the World website has plain straight up nonsense and totally false claims posted on it, in addition to numerous spelling errors and horrific grammar.

an example of plainly ridiculous claims, if not outright lies and outrageous grammar and spelling is found on the FTOW's page on the Xibei San Ma (China)

is not a reliable source since it is self published, and in addition to that, it is full of misinformation claiming that Ma Hongkui fled to turkey (in reality, he fled to taiwan, then the united states, he had zero connections with turkey). And ma bufang never proclaimed himself sultan. And the Qinghai was not ruled by Ma Bufang until 1937, the website says 1911, in addition, the grammer on the website is horrific, an example here- "together with his brother Ma Buqing, and has the power until 1950 when it fell to Saudi Arabia because of the communist advance." (would anyone mind explaining how the province "fell to Saudi Arabia", if the communists took over it?)

On the Ma Hongkui article, i have sources, books and news articles which explicitly say he fled to and lived in the united states, he did not set one foot in turkey. Go look at the references on the article. In fact, i'll post them right here, which say Ma Hung-kwei (old romanization for Ma Hongkui) fled to formosa, and then to San Francisco in the USA.

[http://rulers.org/indexm1.html In addition, his entries at the rulers. org website note that he moved to america, not turkey]

On the FTOW website, it claims Ma Hongbin was proclaimed sultan of ningxia in 1912. since reliable sources on the Ma Hongbin article note he was a suboordinate commader in his uncle Ma Fuxiang's army, how he got promoted to sultan? His entry at the rulers website indicate he was a military officer, never a "sultan", of a "sultanate", which never existed in real life. NO entries for "ma hongbin sultan" come up on google books if you just type in "ma hongbin", numerous sources will say he was a provincial governor and general, and say nothing about sultan

the entry contains numerous spelling errors, like Taso Tsung Tang, which should be Zuo Zongtang, "first months of 1878 chine completed the conquest", should be, "first months of 1878 china completed the conquest", "Tu Wen Hsiao", should be Du Wenxiu or Tu Wen Hsiu, according to proper chinse romanization

this whole sentence from the entry is just atrocious in spelling and grammar- "Yakub Beg was born in Kokand and was send to East Turkestan by Kokand Khan acompanying to burzurg Khan kodja in 1865 and with conquered the last Chinese positions"

Also this totally made up, non existent claim was posted on the FTOW entry- "The last sultanate that I know of is Kweichow - that seems that has a white flag. The sultanate also was born from a Muslim revolt directed by the sect of White Lotus."

I didn't know that the Buddhist White Lotus sect was really into directing muslim revolts, especially in alleged "sultanate" of Guizhou province (kweichow is another romanization of Guizhou), which never existed.Дунгане (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * the reason im bringing this up, is because a certain user thinks that Flags of the World Website is a reliable source, offering no evidence at all that it is reliable


 * You are complaining about a Wikipedia article about a volunteer-run Yahoo mailing list on flag information. Here on the WP:RSN noticeboard, we usually discuss questions of whether the source is reliable for a particular assertion made in another article. A search revealed numerous Wikipedia articles which link to just one of the list's mirror sites, http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/, including Australian Aboriginal Flag, Six Flags Over Texas, Flag of Baltimore, Maryland.
 * "Flags of the World" does not appear to be reliable for historical information on countries and their flags, because it is a volunteer-run mailing list which anyone can join without proving qualifications. It would therefore seem to fall under the following language in WP:RS: "
 * "For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated..."
 * Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As i said, a User:Kintetsubuffalo claimed Flags of the world was reliable at Talk:Flag of Tibet, to advance his position regarding the article Flag of Tibet, i request a third party user go to the Talk page and make it clear that it is totally unreliable.Дунгане (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in citation given
About this source - it includes it in a "Countries with which the PLO maintains diplomatic relations: ...Swaziland...Vanuautu..." and the next paragraph is "The following states, while they do not recognize the State of Palestine, allow the PLO to maintain a regional office: ..." While this arrangement may imply that the first list contains states that do recognize SoP - this is not written in the source (it writes about PLO diplomatic relations - and as we have multiple examples, including the this Australia source, this isn't the same as to recognize SoP). Also the list of states that 'PLO maintains diplomatic relations with' includes Austria and Vatican City - and we have sources showing that these don't recognize SoP (see here and here) - so we should not just assume that the first paragraph lists states that recognize SoP - this isn't written in the source itself and such assumption by us contradicts the Austria and Vatican City MFA pages.

I added 'not in citation given' tags, but Night w removed these with explanation "implication is obvious". We should not make "obvious assumptions" about what a source has not written, but maybe should have written - and use such interpretations to contradict information from official MFA pages of Austria and the Vatican City.

The source is useful to show PLO diplomatic relations (elsewhere in the article) - as is written in it, but I think that we should not use this list of PLO diplomatic relations for "XXX recognizes SoP", because this isn't written there. Alinor (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing required in lists linking to other articles
Related to discussion at Talk:Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems.

There is a group of 6 articles listing the different classes of rockets (according to the weight they can bring to orbit). Each rocket gets a line starting with a link to the article about it and the rest of the columns include different statistics about this rocket - such as weight uplift capability, number of successful launches, number of total launches (including failures), etc. - these stats are taken from the linked rocket article.

The problem is how such list/comparision articles should be sourced. So far, there are two opinions:
 * 1) User:N2e - each individual data piece should have a [1] note after it with the source reference. Data pieces that don't have such note after them are tagged with [citation needed] and after 6 weeks can be deleted - even when at the individual rocket article (linked in the begin of each line of the list) there is an external source for this data. He cites WP:V/WP:BURDEN (OK) and WP:CIRCULAR (this is irrelevant as nobody claims that the data is backed up by "another wikipedia article", but by "external sources at directly linked wikipedia article")
 * 2) User:Alinor (filing this question) - individual data pieces that are backed up by external sources at the directly linked individual rocket articles should not have [1] notes and all the sources from all rocket articles should not be copied over into the list/comparison article. Only data pieces that are not backed by external sources at the linked rocket article (if there are such data pieces) should be tagged with [citation needed] (and be deleted eventually).

At the discussion linked at the top you can see examples of N2e tagging with [citation needed] data piece sourced in the way described above and of N2e deleting such data piece. So far he doesn't dispute the sources in these examples as unreliable or anything like that - he just insists that somebody else should copy the sources to the list/comparision articles from the rocket articles after he has tagged/deleted the respective data pieces. Alinor (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should absolutely copy the citations over. You shouldn't expect readers to have to go looking for references. Each article should be able to stand on its own, with its own list of references.  Night w   11:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Night w, unlike the other debate that you and I still haven't finished - where you question the data itself and where there are other things you considered as controversial - this case is different. There are no controversies or anything - it's just that the sources are at the linked pages. Alinor (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Every claim that isn't considered common knowledge should be referenced to a reliable source wherever it appears. No matter how ordinary the claim, nor how lazy the editor who added the information is, there aren't any exemptions.  Night w   11:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there some established practice, recommendation, rule/policy or whatever over the issue of copying vs. not copying source over into summary lists? And if this noticeboard is not the right place to ask about this could someone point where should I ask? Alinor (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * yes there is somewhere. the reason is because of the nature of Wikipedia. Something that is as of today sourced on some other article page cannot be guaranteed to maintain that source on that article page as it is edited by freelance editors. Once it is removed from the other page for whatever reason, there is no way to know what other pages had been "using" that page for the reference. the fact and the verification belong on the same article page. Active Banana    (bananaphone  08:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CIRCULAR depending upon the wikipedia article to source the list article, WP:CHALLENGE challenged material "requires an inline citation" - not "requires a citation on some wikipedia page". and more specifically WP:Source list "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability" Active  Banana    (bananaphone  08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, WP:CIRCULAR is irrelevant in this case.
 * The problem with applying WP:CHALLENGE is that N2e, the user putting the 'citation needed' flags is challenging almost all data pieces in the summary lists - without checking if they are sourced at the linked articles. So, sooner or later he will delete all data pieces - and then the lists will become useless. This seems as a sneaky way of avoiding AfD nomination.
 * WP:Source list is OK, along with WP:BURDEN and WP:V and this relates to your main argument above - that even if the data piece is sourced at the linked article today it may become unsourced after subsequent changes to the linked article. I agree with all that, and won't raise the issue if N2e was checking whether this is the case (a data piece lost sourcing because of changes to the linked article) - but he doesn't and insist that others should do this after his tagging and that unless others do it he will delete the data pieces tagged. I have given him 2 examples of sourced data pieces (that got deleted/tagged) months ago, but he just ignored these. Alinor (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * YES circular applies. You are using content in another wikipeida article as the basis/souurce for content in the list article. NO, N2e nor any other editor does not have to go looking anywhere else for sources. If xe challenges the content in the list article, AN INLINE CITATION IN THE LIST ARTICLE is required. Active Banana    (bananaphone  09:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, WP:CIRCULAR doesn't apply - I don't propose to use the Wikipedia content as basis/source - I propose that we use the EXTERNAL SOURCES referenced at the linked articles as basis/source. IMHO it's not a good practice to copy all sources from all linked articles in the summary/list. If a data piece isn't sourced at the linked article - then it should be challenged, tagged and eventually deleted. But if a data piece is backed by EXTERNAL SOURCES at the linked article - then I don't see it as beneficial to just copy these sources in the summary/list - this will only make it cluttered.
 * The key here is that these articles are not regular "List of ..." articles - these are summary/comparison articles that present content that is mostly already present in the individual rocket articles - it's just that in these summary articles the stats of the different rockets are presented side-by-side, for comparison purposes. Alinor (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Each article should have its own references. If you already have references to cite, 6 weeks seems like more than enough time to copy and paste the cites from one article to the next. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are references to cite - I gave the examples on the talk pages. But for the moment I have no intention to clean up after N2e who tags everything (is there such thing like "deletionist"?) I really think that if he is interested in having the citations copied in the article (as "challenger" of the data pieces) then he should first check before tagging. And even if he missed something - it's he who must copy the source/correct his wrong tag/deletion - when somebody points it out. He just ignored the sources I shown him. Alinor (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V is quite clear that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged [must] be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation". That means in every single article. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alinor, N2e has been involved with improving referencing in Wikipedia since before you were even editing. It might interest you to know that many editors, myself included, learned proper citation style from him. Given your own appalling laziness when it comes to citing sources, perhaps you should refrain from attacking him, and ask him for a lesson instead.  Night w   05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking anyone and I don't think we should engage in measurements about who edits since how long, whether you like N2e or me more, etc. I agree with some of his edits, but disagree with his application of this particular process of tag-wait-delete in this particular set of articles (that mostly summarize data pieces from other linked articles). Regarding my "laziness" - most of the things (if not all) that N2e tags/deletes were not added by me, for what it counts. If you refer to whether I use the exact citation style when I add sources (we had such discussion before) - I don't see this relevant here at all.
 * I just ask here about whether there is some specific policy for such articles that summarize data pieces from another articles. If there isn't - fine - I will let N2e delete/tag whatever he likes, even if it's backed by external sources at the linked articles.
 * I asked him to first check before tagging/deleting - and if he wants to improve referencing - to copy the sources. He refused. He even ignores the examples I gave him. That doesn't seem to me like improving, but like harming - albeit 'technically' supported by the WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:BURDEN. Anyway, that's just IMHO. Alinor (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not his responsibility to "check first" or to "copy the sources". The burden is on the editor who adds the information. If the information isn't added with a source, it'll be tagged as such. If the original editor and/or another editor don't want to see the information deleted, then it's their responsibility to add a citation. Otherwise, the information is free to be deleted. This is WP:V, which requires that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation ", and which is "strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception".  Night w   10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems that there is no special policy for summarizing articles - can someone point me where should I make proposal for such change? Alinor (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WT:V would be the place to do this.  Night w   10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, here it is. Alinor (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One reason why every article (list, ...) needs it own sources and shouldn't rely on linked articles for the sources is that when you create e.g. a Wikibook, you can include the list without the linked articles, which would mean that in the wikibook, you would have no means of providing or checking the sources (or to put it otherwise, you would force a creator of a wikibook to include all the linked articles in hiw wikibook if he wanted to include the list, which is often not what we want). Fram (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, it was already explained that this is not a RS noticeboard issue, but policy-change/editing process issue, so let's close it here. I copy below my suggestion to N2e. Alinor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

From here: N2e, if you really want to improve the summarizing articles - would you agree to employ slightly different process: instead of "tag-wait-delete" use "tag-wait-check-delete"? (and if the "check" step reveals that the information is backed by external sources at the wikilinked article - then "copy" or "don't delete/continue wait")? Alinor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

N2e, When I showed you the places where the claim is sourced you've just ignored these. That's part of the problem here. The other part is that it's pretty easy and straightforward to click on the wikilink and check for sources there. Even if current policy doesn't require that editors do this. Alinor (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who weighed in on the policy question asked by Alinor on 4 Jan 2011. I did not know this conversation was going on for over a week, and when I did, I found it adequately addressed by editors uninvolved in the controversy of the particular instance.  Since I am an "involved party", I felt it best to not weigh in personally after that time.
 * I will note however, since Alinor has continued to importune me to answer questions about my editing priorities and use of my time as a Wikipedia volunteer editor, I have attempted to write a final response to Alinor on this controversy of the past four months. That essay is here, should anyone be interested in reading it.
 * Kind regards, N2e (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Haaretz and Dershowitz
An editor is repeatedy removing two sentences from the Civilian casualty ratio article, with a claim of "unreleiable sources". One of these sentences is presented in the article as fact: "In 2007, Israel achieved a ratio of 1:30, or one civilian casualty for every thirty combatant casualties" - and sourced to an article by a well known military journalist, Amos Harel, writing in a mainstream newspaper (Haaretz). The other is an an opinion, attributed to its author - 'According to Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, "No army No army in history has ever had a better ratio of combatants to civilians killed in a comparable setting"'. Opinions on the reliability of these sources for those statements are requested. Two for the show (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done, you took it in! The reason for the RS objections, voiced by more than just me (here's the relevant talk page), is that Dershowitz is not an international monitoring agency, nor a reliable source for statistics, nor an academic specializing in international conflicts, is writing an op-ed, and is actually contradicting the Israeli Supreme Court which holds that people subject to targeted killingsare not combatants. Sources must be considered RS depending on the circumstances; this isn't in his area of expertise. This is just straight up wrong information. That brewcrewer keeps pushing to include information that he's even admitted is wrong is pretty hard to believe. If the argument is now that the source is reliable for Dershowitz's opinion than you can look at the undue weight arguments in the talk page. Simply put, why does the incorrect statement of a man with no expertise in the target area belong in the lead? It doesn't even meet lead policy, brewcrewer's just copy and pasted the same thing into the body.
 * As to Haaretz, please find where Amos Harel talks about a 30:1 combatant ratio. You can't. He doesn't. He talks about the terrorists to civilian ratios. That's not the same as a combatant to civilian casualty ratio; combatant has a very precise meaning in the laws of war and, as pointed out above, these are definitely not combatants and it's OR to construe them thus. Sol (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any statistics would have to come from investigators who actually went into Gaza, or secondary sources quoting such investigators. It's unlikely that Dershowitz has either done one, or is doing the other. There is also the small matter of whether policemen are militants or whether they're part of the civilian infrastructure - I think the international consensus is settled in that regard. Templar98 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC) struck comment by banned editor.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 03:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Haaretz article does refer to the combatants as terrorists, but not exclusively. That is the Israeli view of the combatants, and not appropriate for NPOV. The word was juxtaposed to discriminate "civilians" and "innocent bystanders" from combatants. He also uses the word "gunman" as "In all the attacks of recent weeks, only gunmen were hurt, as confirmed by Palestinians. The rate of civilians hurt in these attacks in 2007 was 2-3 percent." Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely. It doesn't call them combatants and they are not, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, combatants. Sol (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is not about what the Israeli Supreme Court calls anyone. It is about the civilian-to-casualty ratio which is based on an international understanding of who is a civilian and who is not.  It is likely that Harel did not specifically call them "combatants" so as not to confuse them with the protected class (privileged combatants).  According to definition, these combatants  would likely fall under the category of unprivileged combatant.  Simply because Harel did not specifically use the word "combatant,"  did not mean he was intending to imply that these "gunmen" or "terrorists" were therefore civilians.  Civilians who directly engage in hostilities ("gunmen")are understood to be combatants, if "unlawful" ones. Any honest reading of the article should make his meaning clear.  Opportunidaddy (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This debate is about a sentence of two in the lead of an article. Leads are by their nature a brief summary of an article. To be a reliable source someone has to be reliable, if a person is publishing biased opinions that are inaccurate, or use weasel words without citing their sources, and we republish them without pointing that out the article is breaching NPOV. There may be a place in the article for this short paragraph, (particularly if there is a retort) but not in the lead. -- PBS (talk)
 * Dershowitz is a reliable source and cites sources in his academic work. He has made factual errors in his lifetime, but there is no academic that has not. He has been highly criticized, but also highly praised. D acknowledges his bias, but bias does not make a person's facts wrong.  I don't know anything about the Harel fellow though. Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dershowitz is a criminal law specialist who has taken on a role as an aggressive advocate for Israel. He is a reliable source only for his own opinion, and not for the truth of statements like the one cited. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz is also a supporter of torture, a supporter of mass-demolitions (pogroms by all the usual definitions) and seeks to blame all the Palestinians for one of their leaders fleeing to Berlin in the war. There are numerous specific allegations that he's falsified quotes, here's another one of many. Templar98 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz has a record of poor scholarship in his works on Israel. There are many more reliable Israel/Palestine scholars that can be used. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jrtayloriv. What's your basis for saying that?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps his use of turnspeak. un☯mi 23:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. A now debunked claim by his enemy of minor plagiarism does not detract from his long list of books on the subject published by academic publishers. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 16:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing debunked about it - first ghit for "turnspeak" is at History News Network "On a note both humorous and pathetic, Peters, in From Time Immemorial and claiming to be inspired by George Orwell, coins the term "turnspeak" to signal the inversion of reality (pp. 173, 402). Dershowitz, apparently confounded by his massive borrowings from Peters, credits the term "turnspeak" to Orwell, accusing critics of Israel of "deliberately using George Orwell's `turnspeak'" (p. 57) and "Orwellian turnspeak" (p. 153). Is this scandalous scholarship, or is it plagiarism, or is it both?" Templar98 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must admit I am not too familiar with how his writings in those matters have been received, I note though that google brought me http://opiniojuris.org/2009/01/03/dershowitz-on-israel-and-proportionality/ where an actual expert on international law refers to Dershowitz's arguments as strawmen and ends with "I would simply add that talking about the facts without understanding the law is equally problematic, as Dershowitz’s editorial demonstrates." Clearly the man is not infallible, and he is likely out of his depth unless referring to US criminal law. u<b style="color:#780">n</b><b style="color:#680">☯</b><b style="color:#580">m</b><b style="color:#480">i</b></i> 19:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One academic bashing another academic. Big deal. Would the other academic be considered a poor scholar if Dershowitz said as much about him?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Unomi. Dershowitz and the Anti-Defamation League would deserve exactly the same consideration on issues pertaining to Israel--reliable for their own opinions, not as sources of objective fact.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I may agree with that, but unfortunately editors seem intent on removing any mention of Dershowitz from the subject despite the fact that Dershowitz's article is directly on point regarding the article's subject matter. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean Dershowitz's op-ed. On a subject, international and domestic Israeli law, that he has no expertise in. For the purpose of including what you've called facts, not opinions, which are demonstrably wrong. Heller is an actual international law scholar (and OJ is worth reading), Dershowitz is not. Dershowitz has even declared himself the enemy of international law and voiced his intention to delegitimize it. Why would you want to include this? Sol (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @ BrewCrew - being misled on the question of Dershowitz's plagiarism is no crime - but it's difficult to understand your defending him after you've been shown the evidence. The discredited Peters invented the word "turnspeak" and ascribed it to George Orwell and the book "1984" - much later Dershowitz does the same thing on the same topic. Templar98 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is what matters as far as the wiki-RS policy: A) Source is wiki-reliable and the content was published on a wiki-reliable publisher. That both could have an error here and there in their vast body of work, most reliable sources have such errors as well and this does not negate their status as notable wiki-reliable sources. B) Source's pro-Israeli perspectives have no influence on the fact that he is considered a wiki-reliable source and his information was published by Haaretz, a wiki-reliable publisher. The information is not an opinion of who is right/wrong in the Arab-Israeli conflict but rather a statement of fact. Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The question still to be resolved is whether this academic is writing in his area of expertise. I would say, on this occasion, not. Ha'aretz is highly reliable for news, and the op-eds it carries are often notable commentary. They are always still commentary. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is not so much about reliability (Dershowitz's publisher has almost certainly captured Dershowitz's opinions accurately), but instead about quality and bias. Since the article in question is a rather contentious subject, I think the threshold for sources is a bit higher than average.  Dershowitz is a very intelligent author, with wide-ranging opinions, but any information he has on war casualties is third-hand, at best.  Readers deserve better.  Also,  Dershowitz has taken on the mantle of a polemicist or advocate, and (if his material were included in the article) that bias would need to be mentioned.  For that reason, Dershowitz should only be utilized if better sources are not available.  In this particular instance, it appears that there are better sources, so Dershowitz should be omitted or - at most - mentioned in a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

MTV3 Katsomo (video bank)
Can MTV3 Katsomo's (which is a video bank) video be used as source in Wikipedia? Also, is the source not acceptable if some of the Wikipedia users can't view it? Here is link to the video, which we are having conversation about in Bart Simpson's discussion room. --Pek (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism, publisher reliability
Are these two publishers reliable for content on Libertarianism? I'm concerned that neither has apparent editorial control indicate they're not reliable for transmission of texts intact, invariant, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Is LewRockwell.com ( About page) reliable for the accurate transmission (archival collation) of Walter Block's political writings as an archive?
 * 2) Is Liberalia ( www.liberalia.com ), which appears to claim to be a libertarian interational ( [http://www.liberalia.com/celebrating.htm example page, no pages found from head with content), a reliable source to publish the following political essay:
 * 1) Is Liberalia ( www.liberalia.com ), which appears to claim to be a libertarian interational ( [http://www.liberalia.com/celebrating.htm example page, no pages found from head with content), a reliable source to publish the following political essay:


 * I don't see why we would need to use either of these sites when there are so many published scholarly works on the subject. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: has the Block book, and the Rockwell site appears to faithfully copy it, but the other cite is less problematic. Liberalia.com appears to be a formal organization, and, to the extent that publication of opinions is notable, the opinions expressed there are certainly usable. Note also that http://www.libertarian.nl/wp/2001/01/revisiting-anarchism-and-government/ contains the same material, and is certainly a valid Netherlandish source. There is, by the way, no reason to restrict "reliable" to "scholarly" in any WP policy. Collect (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I think that given the number of high-quality, scholarly sources that are available from across the political spectrum, I think we can do better than either of these sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, and I would say that lewrockwell.com is not what we'd consider a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this book by an IT specialist a reliable source for a history article?
The edit in question is. The editor has justified it at Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. The author is has written several books on Columbus but is not a professional historian but an IT analyst. There may be a COI here also of some sort as the editor keeps pushing Rosa's work. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dougweller just because a person works at some job does not mean they are not qualified or degreed in other fields. Rosa has been invited to talk at places many other historians of Columbus never went. He was invited professor Jesús Varela, Director del Centro de Estudios de Iberoamérica - University of Valladolid http://colombo-o-novo.blogspot.com/2010/10/esposa-de-colon-comendadora-de-santiago.html and invited by Professor Consuelo Varela at Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos CSIC, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Ciencia e Investigación, Spanish National Research Council, Science Scientific in Seville.  http://colombo-o-novo.blogspot.com/2009/10/lancamento-do-colombo-portugues-em.html Both of these are leading professors in the history of Columbus and neither has come out against Rosa's research but in fact appear to support it. In the 5 years his books have been out, I am not aware of one historian that has refuted it. Plus the guy is fluent in four or five different languages which is not indicative of your typical IT tech.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk)


 * Please supply a full citation, as indicated at the top of this page. Of particular interest for reliability is the name of the publisher.  Fifelfoo (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For the claim "A document at the Torre do Tombo archives lists Filipa Moniz as one of the twelve comendadoras and member of the steering committee of the Monastery of All Saints." I don't see why we can't use the primary source. Ie. the document itself. Taemyr (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The original research policy. Such judgements are not simple nor trivial, and wikipedia editors are not acting as historians when they are encyclopaedia editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It wouold not be OR if the sources actuly has him on that list in that role.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, it would. Archival material is not in any way reliable without the interpretation of historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary sources may be used, but with care. Nor is there an OR issue if a user is just repeatinf what the promary source says. It only becomes OR is only an issue of interpriation comes in to it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All historical material requires interpretation, archival material especially so. Organisations ritualistically and routinely lie to themselves about the most basic things, and, documents do not exist in isolated from the context of a wide range of other documents which need to be read simultaneously.  Users repeating primary material in historical articles is original research: users are not capable of the professional expertise required when they are acting as users; and, users who are capable of exercising such expertise can neither evidence their capacity to wikipedia as users nor ought they to do so.  Fifelfoo (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, interpretation is not about reporting what a text says it’s about what you think a text says. Thus just repeating it does not involve interpretation (thus dos not involve OR). If the text was saying that he was “therefore…” it does not it just repeats (without any extrapolation) what is contained. Thus I could say that “according to the big book of things what I did “Peranious went shopping in Tuesday” If on page 9999 it said “I went shopping on Tuesday”, I am merely repeating what the primary source said. If I said “Peranious went shopping regularly” or “Peranious went out and brought a big cake” that would be OR. That does not seem to be the case here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But how do we know whether the document at the Torre do Tombo archives is itself reliable? For that we need expert opinion in a secondary source. But back to the OP's question--has the book in question by the IT professional received critical review by professional historians or in reliable sources such as a major newspaper or magazine? Has the book been citied in works by other historians? Being fluent in multiple languages does not indicate expertise in this area, nor does not receiving attention from reliable sources. But if the book has been cited by scholars, I think we could accept it, but perhaps with qualifications. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not reliable source Conspiracy theory published outside the mainstream academic press by Esquilo Ediciones y Multimedia. TFD (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A source does not need to be published in an academic press to be reliable. And the author does not need to be a "professional historian" to be reliable.  There are many amateur and semi-professional historians who have written reliable history, and who published outside the mainstream academic presses.  The question is whether this particular author qualifies as reliable?  And more to the point, is he reliable for supporting the specific statement for which his book is cited.  The statement reads "A document at the Torre do Tombo archives lists Filipa Moniz as one of the twelve comendadoras and member of the steering committee of the Monastery of All Saints".  Given what other sources say about Filipa Moniz, this statement is not that controversial.  So the question becomes, do we think that this document exists, and do we trust this author to accurately describe it.  The first part of this question can be answered easily... access the Torre do Tombo archives and see if the document exists, and says what the author claims.  The second part is more problematic.  No source is ever 100% reliable or 100% unreliable.  Given the fringe nature of the author's take on Columbus, I agree that we should at least question his reliability ... but, he might be reliable for something as mundane as this.  It is really a judgment call.  Do we trust him to get this right.  Of course, all that being said, as long as we have gone through the effort of accessing the archives to verify that the document itself exists... the best source for the statement in question would be the primary document itself.  Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the fact is really mundane/uncontroversial, shouldn't there be multiple sources (potentially higher quality sources) that confirms the same point? Why do we have to dig the gutter for sources? Jim101 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Becasue the m ore mundane and uncontroversal the 'fact' the less lightly that any one has botherd wiiht it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really buy that argument because if a fact is really uncontroversial, some form of consensus must be demonstrated. Besides, sky is blue and one plus one equal to two. Even if a fact is so mundane and uncontroversial that no mainstream scholar even bother to dispute it, what does that tell me about the unknown guy with no credential that actually made a huge fuss out of it? WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE perhaps? Jim101 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Posibly (and most likly definatly) but that is a differnt argument.Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but WP:FRINGE and WP:RS does overlap at WP:REDFLAG. We could either a) prove that the claim itself is not uncontroversial by providing higher quality sources, or b) prove that the sources itself is of high quality. So far the discussion has rule out option b), but going with option a) pretty much made the source itself redundant. Is this source reliable for this fact? Maybe, but do we really need to waste time debating a source dug out of the gutter instead of providing a better source for the same claim? I don't think so. Jim101 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your rhetoric is rahter extream. To say this may not be a high quality source is a matter of opinion but seems reasoned. To say its been draged out of the gutter implies contempt for the source that seems unwarented. I see no reason given (other then he's not a historain, which is no reason) as to why this book is not RS. Other (and in many reepscts more concearning) accusations have been made (and I find the COI argument particulay persausive) that cold render this whole discusion mute. But this is about the source being RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not that "he is not a historian", it is the fact that he received almost no recognition for his historical work that really scares me. Passing an author with no reputations as RS is just as bad as citing Wikipedia's FA as RS, just on the ground that a lot of people reads them and they are factually correct on uncontroversial facts. Until the author's reputation is establish, his work is really no better than my edits in Wikipedia. Jim101 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any question that this is a less than perfect source. The question is whether the source is "good enough" or whether we should look for better sources to support the statement.  I would say yes to both parts of that question.  It is "good enough" but we should find better ones.
 * That said, I have to admit that the statement itself strikes me as a week attempt to bolster notability beyond the subject's connection to her famous husband (Christopher Columbus). I suspect that someone is worried about a notability challenge and finding that there are not many sources that discuss the subject in any depth. So they are reaching for any scrap of information they can find on the subject, and having to rely on less than perfect sources to support it. I have no opinion on whether the subject is actually notable on her own, but one thing is definitely clear... the article needs a lot of work, and much better sourcing in general. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've just make a quick pass through Google books and scholar, and through my local uni library, and it appears that the book has not been referenced in other works, nor has the author. There may be an inherent bias towards English works, although I have tried to mitigate that by added searches for Spanish and Portuguese sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can use other country-specific versions of Google - I haven't tried it for this specific issue but I've done it before with different results - unless that was due to the way they were presented. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like a catch 22. There are no other sources and the source utilized in seen as unreliable. However, it is a fact that in 500 years no one really bothered to investigate or write about the wife of Columbus until now. This vacuum created the biased acceptance that she was of no importance in her day. This bias of the "poor noble girl" and "so unimportant she could marry a peasant" is coloring the decision of all involved in this discussion. I had presented in the past a study by Prof. Joel Mata of Oporto as the first source of the document, but that was also not acceptable. [ A Comunidade Feminina da Ordem de Santiago: A comenda de Santos na Idade Média, Prof. Joel Silva Ferreira Mata, Universidad Lusíada, Oporto, 1992.] I then presented a source that shows an image of the document itself, and that is also unacceptable. It seems to me that if I a document exists in an archive and that it has been correctly transcribed, the document speaks for itself as presented in ROSA, Manuel da Silva; "Colón. La Historia Nunca Contada". Lisboa: Ésquilo Edições, 2009. 393p. il. photos, maps. ISBN 978-989-8092-66-3. Columbus's son wrote the his father's wife, Filipa Moniz was a comendadora of All-Saints, low-and-behold the document lists her in 1475 as a comendadora and part of the management of All-Saints and thus she required authorization from the King Himself to marry anyone. It is the implications of this document that prevents the editors of Wikipedia from accepting it. Once accepted the whole history of a "peasant Columbus" starts to unravel as does the notion so often touted that Fernando Columbus "was inventing that his father was nobleman".Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but please keep in mind that we're an encyclopedia, so our mission is to document what already exists in reliable sources, and we prefer secondary sources. I see another catch 22 of a sort--in your first post, you're suggesting that Rosa has the support of academicians, but if that were the case, and if the information was supported by historical documents, one might expect to see academic work based on Rosa's findings, or discussion of same (and the latter would be ideal for our purposes). Instead, when I look for information on Rosa's "Colón. La Historia Nunca Contada", I find a press release suggesting that the book is being pushed for a movie. Odd, if the work is truly historical in nature. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what press release you found, but in the things I have read there are well-known academics supporting the research. Note that the book is prefaced by Professor Serrão, a well known and trusted academic and top Portuguese historian. Former Dean of Lisbon University as well as other professors. I don't want to get into a debate into whether his work is being debated I only wish to adda a citation to a document. I don't see that this is such a complication. I have 2 sources, Prof. Joel Mata and Rosa. Even if we accept Rosa as not reliable, certainly Prof. Mata must be.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are not reliable for history. Documents never speak for themselves.  On the other hand, Mata, Joel Silva Ferreira. A comunidade feminina da Ordem de Santiago: a comenda de Santos na Idade Média. Porto, FLUP, (photocopied), 1991 (Master’s degree dissertation). may or may not be reliable, depending on FLUP's research component of the Masters in 1991, if it was externally assessed or not, and if the claim directly related to the assessable topic of the thesis.  The first two elements of reliability here: proportion of research component and external assessment of research are the cores.  I'm still waiting on a full citation of the initially challenged work to test its reliability.  Works by non-academically trained historians are acceptable and even high quality under a variety of circumstances, mainly to do with their publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that. This appears to be the work, fwiw. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Manuel da Silva Rosa, Colón: La Historia Nunca Contada. Badajoz, Spain: Esquilo - Ediciones y Multimedia, 2009.
 * Unreliable The publisher has no website: they let their domain name lapse. The Google Cache of the Colon page (cache of Colon) indicates this work is FRINGE, "Twenty years of research wipe out the version of the official history: Columbus was Genoese, and was serving a project Templar.. [Veinte años de investigación arrasan con la versión de la historiografía oficial: Colón no era genovés y estaba al servicio de un proyecto templario..]"  The publisher makes basic typographic errors (double full-stop).  I'm terribly sorry, but wikipedia does not deal in FRINGE theories from presses that normally deal in novellas of historical fiction and mystery conspiracies such as "Herodes, el Grande" or "Biblioteca de Alejandría - El Enígma Desvelado" as Esquilo - Ediciones y Multimedia did, before they forgot to reregister their website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rosa's two latest books, which I have read, are raising many doubts of what was accepted and is the cover of NEWSWEEK Poland. Is it really worth all this discussion to add a citation that is lacking? The fact is that Filipa Moniz was a noble in Portugal, everyone knew that, but  she was also aunt of two Counts and one Marquis. Her sister Violante Moniz living in Seville mentions her niece, the Portuguese Marquesa of Montemor, in her Last Will. The King of Portugal's Lord Chamberlain was their nephew since he was brother of the Marquesa. All of this means that Columbus by marriage in 1479 was uncle to the King of Portugal's Lord Chamberlain. Again all this is contrary to the wool-weaver birth so often touted. The Marquesa de Montemor's connection to Violante Moniz  is given by Consuelo Varela in Cartas de particulares a Colón y Relaciones coetáneas, Recopilación y edición de Juan Gil y Consuelo Varela Alianza Editorial, S. A., Madrid, 1984. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, we have what is virtually a single purpose account, pushing the fringe ideas of Rosa multiple times on talk pages (including this interest in Filipa Moniz, to the extent of indulging in sock puppetry during the first month of the account's creation. Sockpuppet investigations/Calgo/Archive. This may be a continuation of the account (see my comments on the talk page). but as the other account has not been used simultaneously I'm not concerned about sock puppetry. The user and the sock are indefinitely blocked on es.wiki. See also. On the other hand, um, anyway, we have an amateur historian who has gained publicity for his fringe ideas on the origin of Columbus but for whom there is no evidence that he is taken seriously for his general historical work. If there is anything important to say about Filipa Moniz we should be able to find it in academically respectable sources. I note that the Spanish article was created by an IP from Durham, North Carolina, which is where Rosa works. The Catalan article on the other hand might have some useful sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting, it might be worth an SPI if only to establish the context. But in regard to the primary question, I think unless some reliable source is found for the notion that Rosa's work is accepted by the academic community, it cannot be considered a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At a conference at the Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos (CSIC) de Sevilla,(School of Spanish-American Studies) Professor Antonio Vicente, who introduced the conference on Rosa's work said the credibility around the genealogy of Columbus's wife was the main point for his support of the book. Furthermore many other language wiki and even the page gives Rosa as a source on other issues. Does all of this boil down to Dougweller's view about IT workers? Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ha!). Not at all, I'm an IT worker, and Dougweller has had minimal participation in the discussion here. The fact that other wikis in other languages give Rosa as a source is not relevant here, as wikis (including WP) are not consider reliable sources. I note that in the reuters piece you cite, Vincente compares Rosa's work to a police thriller, and that Rosa's work which raises questions about Columbus's origins is leant credence by Rosa work on the "genealogy of the Navigator's wife." I think that source is sufficient to establish that Vicente believes that Rosa's work raises questions about Columbus's origin and that Rosa has done some work that suggests that Columbus and Moniz may have been a nobles, and might well be used in a section in the article on either for that fact. But I think to link that to the edit in question posted by Dougweller above for this discussion would cross into OR. This source is essentially passing mention of Rosa's work, and does not establish the Rosa's work is a reliable source for the assertion that "A document at the Torre do Tombo archives lists Filipa Moniz as one of the twelve comendadoras and member of the steering committee of the Monastery of All Saints". I also think that we have consensus here that the source in question is not a reliable source for the edit in question. My feeling is that the source in question could be used in a section devoted to the questions surrounding the origins of Columbus (and there's a brief treatment of that in the Columbus article that might be expanded somewhat) or in the article on Moniz, but not much else. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the SPS Ballot Access News authored, edited and published by a Specialist Richard Winger?

 * In Libertarianism
 * To support: "with over 225,000 registered voters in the 35 states that allow registration as a libertarian" regarding the Libertarian Party [USA]
 * To support: "with over 225,000 registered voters in the 35 states that allow registration as a libertarian" regarding the Libertarian Party [USA]

My question is: Is Richard Winger an acknowledge specialist allowing him to produce such SPS as reliable sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Transaction Publishers ever reliable?

 * Libertarianism
 * To support: Anarcho-capitalism (also known as "libertarian anarchy" ... "free market anarchism") is a libertarian... political philosophy.
 * To support: Anarcho-capitalism (also known as "libertarian anarchy" ... "free market anarchism") is a libertarian... political philosophy.

Transaction Publishers is widely known as a bad press, including during the year 2007. As such, should Transaction Publishers be used to support the content above. (It appears as though there are many reliable and high quality sources which support the above). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (1)Transaction Publishers is widely known as a bad press. You may be right, but would you please elaborate.
 * (2)It appears as though there are many reliable and high quality sources which support the above. So what is the issue with using them and what is the issue with citing verifiable information to an arguably inferior source if it might save some drama.
 * Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * They are a partisan U.S. conservative publishing house and should not be used. No evidence that they follow any fact-checking or peer review, and their books are all polemical.  I would definitely avoid.  Notice though that the article in the Transaction book is actually a reprint of a paper published by an academic journal (see p. xii).  In the case of a collection of essays, each one should be assessed separately.  Often collections will contain writings by individuals who are involved in the topic and are not specialists.  TFD (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Can Mises Daily; Progress Report reliably publish information

 * Foldvary, Fred E. (2002). "Editorial: Geoism and Libertarianism". The Progress Report (Benjamin Banneker Center for Economic Justice and Progress) (June). http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm.
 * In Libertarianism
 * To support, "Geolibertarianism is a political movement that strives to reconcile libertarianism and Georgism (or "geoism")."
 * To support, "Geolibertarianism is a political movement that strives to reconcile libertarianism and Georgism (or "geoism")."

The problem with the first source is that it is published by Mises Daily website. Mises Daily lacks an about page, and has no indication of editorial control. Could other editors please assist with the reliability of Mises Daily, given it has no indication of editorial control. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the second source is that it is published by The Progress Report, a daily aggregator that takes no responsibility for the opinion content it hosts; and has no indication of editorial control. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My initial thoughts:
 * Ludwig von Mises Institute is an advocacy organization. I would not consider them reliable for anything but their own opinions.  However, the article you cited cites Wikipedia.  We're supposed to avoid circular references per WP:CIRCULAR.  So I wouldn't use that source at all for this statement.
 * As for the second source, I don't see where it's a daily aggregator. According to our article on the author, Fred E. Foldvary, he is affiliated with that site, and has apparently has written dozens (hundreds?) of editorials for it. According to this bio, Foldvary has a degree in economics, taught at several universities and published several books so he may qualify as a published expert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Music notes
A previous discussion here resulted in the omission of URLs when citing sheet music. I would like to stop this, so please voice your opinion at this proposal. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

George Horton, The Blight of Asia
I have raised this issue not because I doubt the reliability of the source. I believe that this is a reliable, useful, primary source that is impossible to replace. However, other Wikipedia editors have deleted quotations from this book claiming that the author is racist and that it is not a suitable publication to quote from. Instead, they suggest secondary sources that quote Horton or have used Horton as a source. Some Wikipedia editors have placed strict sanctions on quoting from this publication (and I do not believe that those sanctions are justified). I would like to know if the Administrators on this notice board consider that it is reasonable to quote George Horton's "The Blight of Asia" on Wikipedia as a primary source (using the original book and or modern reprints).

1. The Blight of Asia - An Account of the Systematic Extermination of Christian Populations by Mohammedans and of the Culpability of Certain Great Powers; with the True Story of the Burning of Smyrna by George Horton, for Thirty Years Consul and Consul-General of the United States in the Near East, with a foreward by James W. Gerard, Former Ambassador to Germany. Pubished by Taderon Press by arrangement with Sterndale Classics in 2003. Printed in association with the Gomidas Institute (Princeton, NJ). ISBN 190365615X

[The following appears on the back of the title page: The Blight of Asia was originally printed by Bobbs-Merrill Company in 1926. It is produced here as an original reprint which includes the silent editing of spelling errors, and the addition of an index of proper nouns. Sterndale Classics is committed to republishing books with fidelity to original materials.]

2. Articles with quotes included: Great Fire of Smyrna and Chrysostomos of Smyrna (however all references to Horton have been deleted from the Chrysostomos of Smyrna article by other Wikipedia editors with the claim that the author is a racist and that his unique primary source cannot be used on Wikipedia.

3. Citations include (amongst others):

"'I could plainly see the Turks carrying the tins of petroleum into the houses, from which, in each instance, fire burst forth immediately afterward. There was not an Armenian in sight, the only persons visible being Turkish soldiers of the regular army in smart uniforms.' Chapter 17, p. 93."

"'The Turks drove straight onward to Smyrna, which they took (September 9, 1922) and then burned.' Chapter 14, p.73."

The following quote which is quite detailed is a milder version of what is currently being used in the article Chrysostomos of Smyrna:

"'The tales vary as to the manner of Chrysostom's death, but the evidence is conclusive that he met his end at the hands of the Ottoman populace. A Turkish officer and two soldiers went to the offices of the cathedral and took him to Nureddin Pasha, the Turkish commander-in-chief, who is said to have adopted the medieval plan of turning him over to the fanatical mob to work its will upon him. There is not sufficient proof of the veracity of this statement, but it is certain that he was killed by the mob. He was spat upon, his beard torn out by the roots, beaten, stabbed to death and then dragged about the streets.' Chapter 16, p. 86."

4. See talk at bottom of the following talk page: [].

Also, George Horton is discussed multiple times on this talk page: [] Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The book appears to be a personal account, and has been criticized for it's POV. It's clearly a primary source, and as such, to be avoided. Why do you feel it is "impossible to replace as a source"? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * George Horton, as the US Consul General of the United States in the Near East, was in a privileged position:


 * he was there;
 * he was a witness of events leading up to the Great Fire of Smyrna;
 * he was not Greek, Armenian or Turkish;
 * he was a highly educated individual;
 * he had excellent connections to many notable individuals throughout Smyrna (as such is an excellent linkman to record what had happened);
 * his openness and honesty is sincere;
 * he was so affected by what he had witnessed himself and what he had learned from other witnesses that he was compelled to write this book;
 * there is no source that has more detailed first-hand-accounts or is more connected to what happened in Smyrna;
 * there is no source concerning these events that is quoted more. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a question. If this was not a primary source. Is it reasonable for any Wikipedia Editor to claim that George Horton was a racist and therefore cannot be quoted? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, the first part does not really answer my question, which is, why is it impossible to replace as a source. Are there no 2ndry source from academic journal or books by professional historians that treat the subject? In regard to the second question, if it were not a primary source, it might still not pass muster, as he's not a professional historian, and, given the option, we generally prefer to use articles and books written by historians for articles on historical events--they have training in shifting through primary sources, and their works are vetted by peers. As far as I know, Horton has no training as a historian, and his work did receive such evaluation. I cannot say whether or not Horton was a racist, but it does seem that he had an axe to grind, which does not add to his reliability as a source. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are secondary sources but one has to use several just to get a partial picture of what Horton wrote in his book. For example, he had a complete record of all ships radio messages to the consulate and you don't get a feeling for the atmosphere or the context of the events in secondary sources. The secondary sources are detached. But I guess that is one of the reasons why secondary sources are preferred. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Also, use of multiple 2ndary sources is preferred, as it helps reduce the chance that we will inadvertently introduce POV. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ok. Thanks for all your help. I understand why primary sources written by non-professional-historians should be avoided. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome, best of luck! --Nuujinn (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobase Publishing
Does anyone know about the general quality of works published by Infobase Publishing? When we have plenty of books from publishers like Greenwood, Routledge, and university presses, should we be using Infobase as well, or is it generally of lower quality? To me it appears that they mostly specialize in junk reference books like the World Almanac, "mass market" encyclopedias, and the "Facts on File" series. What are your opinions? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That would depend largely on what you are trying to source. I will note that it's a tertiary source, and in general, such are used only for broad overviews of a topic, and it does not appear to be of high quality.  --Nuujinn (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * According to their website, "Infobase Publishing is one of America's leading providers of supplemental educational materials to the school and library markets." I would avoid.  High school text books are tertiary sources and probably not reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Infobase: no, aimed at schools; comprising Facts on File (aimed at schools); Chelsea House (aimed at schools); Ferguson Publishing (aimed at schools); World Almanac (aimed at schools); Chelsea Clubhouse (aimed at schools). Bloom's Literary Criticism is a more interesting imprint, use with extreme caution as Infobase is willing to publish any of Bloom's works.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Are these standard scholarly reference works?

 * "Tony Meakin, A Basic Church Dictionary. Canterbury Press 2001 ISBN 1-85311-420-0, p. 18)" (an Anglican church dictionary of liturgical terms published by the Anglican Church, with a distribution of just over 10,000 copies)
 * "Peter C. Bower, 'The Companion to the Book of Common Worship''. Geneva Press 2003 ISBN 0-664-50232-6, p. 163)" (an Anglican Church companion to the Anglican Book of Common Worship, published by the Anglican Church)
 * "Steven J. Schloeder, Architecture in Communion. Ignatius Press 1998 ISBN 0-89870-631-9. p. 113)" (a Catholic work published by a liturgical press, discussing the Catholic liturgical implications of church architecture)

I ask because I can't find any evidence that they meet the criteria for a scholarly acceptance of a source ("The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes"), nor do any of them appear to be standard scholarly reference sources (none of them published by an academic press, none of them self-identify as a standard scholarly reference work).--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't seem like very high quality sources, but it would be better if you could share with us which articles are using these as sources, and which statements they are backing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They are being included in the Immersion baptism article under the title "Scholarly reference sources", in order to try and dispute the statement "Standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as modes of baptism", which is followed by six citations of actual standard Bible dictionaries.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: What would be a more authoritative source for the subject? Who would be more expert?  The works in question do seem to appear on a Google Scholar search even if they don't return that many hits. Lambanog (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be more authoritative sources for the commentary of scholarly reference sources on baptism, would be actual scholarly reference sources on baptism. The works cited here are perfectly authoritative sources for the subject of Anglican liturgy (though they would be primary sources). However, they are not being used as sources for Anglican liturgy. They are being represented as "standard scholarly reference sources" on the subject of baptism. There is no debate about their inclusion in the article (they are all already included in the article, in a different section), what is disputed is whether or not they are "standard scholarly reference sources" on the subject of baptism and can be included in the section reserved for "Scholarly reference sources" on the subject of baptism. They are actually all commentaries on the Anglican liturgical POV of baptism.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They are being used as sources for the statement, "Others use it (the term "immersion baptism") to refer to a mode of baptism through partial immersion of a person who stands or kneels in water, while the baptizer pours water on his or her upper body, a mode of baptism that these writers distinguish from affusion baptism" (lead of the article), and again for the same purpose in the body of the article. Esoglou (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, where "others" means "other scholarly reference sources"; they are being represented as scholarly reference sources without any evidence being advanced that they are scholarly reference sources. Despite me challenging this several times, no one has provided any evidence that they are scholarly reference sources. All three of them are commentaries on the Anglican liturgical POV of baptism.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't a section heading 'Scholarly reference sources' pretty much original research? I don't think it's an appropriate section for this article. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't original research. How would it be original research? Wiki policy tells us how to differentiate accepted academic material; "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes".--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * this section is usually called "References". Anything that doesn't meet the "scholarly" requirement can just be thrown out on sight. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. They are already included elsewhere in the article. There is no need for them to be in a section entitled "scholarly reference sources".--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The same question about why we need to specifically decide which sources are scholarly at all was also my first thought reading this question. (I don't agree that this means WP only ever should use scholarly sources, but I guess that is not necessarily what dab intends. We can use no scholarly sources in many contexts of course.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason why we need to specify which sources are scholarly, apart from guidance such as "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes", is that readers need to know when they are reading WP:POV sources, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE sources. There is no dispute that non-scholarly sources can be used. These sources are already used in the article. I repeat, these sources are already used in the article. The issue is that one editor wants to quote them twice in the article, once in a section entitled "Scholarly reference sources".--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is an unusual approach and I am not sure it is going to add anything? But just following the apparent logic, I guess that if you are trying to designate some sources as being of a more scholarly quality than others, then the implication is that those designations should also need to be sourced or shown to be verifiable. But because you probably won't be able to find any standardized way to make this distinction in secondary sources, I fear this is just "asking for trouble" because it will be hard not to give the impression that this non-standardized way of favoring some sources over others might be used in order to push a POV. (I have not looked at the actual case. I am talking in principle, based on problems that "tend to happen".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of WP:WEIGHT. There is nothing unusual or non-standard about this, and it is not a matter of favouring some sources over others. The other sources are already used in the article. Wiki policy informs us that not all sources are of equal value, that some sources are scholarly and some are not that "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes". If it is unusual to treat sources as having different value to an article, then I'd like to see the evidence. Or are you saying that all sources are of equal weight and we can't differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a fine line you are crossing perhaps. WP policy tells us as editors to look out for the quality of sources when editing, yes, but it does not tell us to publish our opinions about this in WP itself and make the article say which sources are better or worse. Policy actually suggests that to pass OPEN judgement on a source we should find another source to do so. You could say that our selection of sources as editors shows what we think and is itself original research "between the lines" (and on the talk page) but this is not an accepted sign of "Wikipedia OR" except in extreme cases. The community has come to see this "fine line" as important partly because not to do so would make our way of working difficult, because it would cause interminable arguments. Once people start making their own judgments of sources something which others must "obey" as an explicit rule rather than just work around and compromise with, this gets in the way of consensus editing. I recently engaged in a very long discussion on Philosophy which tried to come to agreement about what kinds of sourcing would be required for naming the most important philosophers of the 20th century. The discussion never actually came to any conclusion. Another way of discussing this theme is that WP accepts that all editors have a POV about stuff we want to add, and encourages us to add sourced POV rather than subtract the work of other people with another POV, which is what happens normally when one editor starts trying to dictate rules too strictly about sources which are reliable but should not be used. Hope some of this makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok that's all very cool and stuff but it doesn't address what I wrote. 1. No dictation of sources is being made here. No one is suggesting that source X can be used but source Y cannot be used. No one was trying to say which sources could or could not be used. 2. No removal of sources was made. I will repeat again, the other sources are already used in the article. The issue is whether they should be used twice in the article, one of those times under the heading "Scholarly reference sources". 3. What I get most from what you wrote is that WP:RS and WP:VERIFY are rather flexible suggestions but not guidelines or rules (because that would be Wikilawyering), which are impractical in reality because actually putting them into practice constitutes WP:OR (which is apparently less flexible). So that much is clear.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Short version: I still don't get why there needs to be a special separate scholarly reference sections to begin with, and having one might add little but create distractions. If I read dab's comments below and your replies it sounds like there is lots more going on and I really wonder if this is a proper case for RSN.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I did some cleanup edits to the article. I don't know why people spend time with lengthy discussions when there is such obvious need for basic cleanup. Once the most obvious stuff is out of the way, it may make sense to revive the discussion on details, but glaring structural deficits like the ones in this case should just be fixed before any discussion on "reliable sources" can begin.

Seriously, I don't understand the mindset of the editors who tag a dozen footnotes to the statement that "Modern, professional lexicography defines βαπτίζω as dip, plunge or immerse,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]" Wth? This is supposed to be an article about "immersion baptism", not the Wiktionary entry on βαπτίζω. Not to mention a lengthy discussion of "Meaning of the English word immersion": guys? This is silly. I am not sure why you need external input from a noticeboard to point this out. Articles that get stuck at such a level simply need input from experienced editors that cut away the cruft.

Then separate scholarly discussion no how baptism was likely practiced in antiquity from disputes about how baptism should be performed today. These are two entirely different questions, and it is the job of our editors to prevent pov-pushers from unduly conflating them.

As far as I can see, it is assumed that John the Baptist actually immersed his customers, but that the early apostles baptized either by immersion or affusion as was convenient. If I am mistaken, just replace this by the actual scholarly consensus. The endless bickering about methods in baptism as they have taken place since the Reformation should be treated as a separate topic. --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cleanup was impossible because it was being prevented by Esoglou, an editor who is on record as consistently demonstrating ownership behaviour. Every single simple factual statement was being disputed by him. He was even challenging the definition of the English word "immersion", which is why the word had to be defined. Of course it's silly! I don't need a third party to tell me that, but I wasn't the one who raised the issue; Esoglou insisted on evidence from dictionary definitions demonstrating how the English word "immersion" is typically used, even though several editors said it wasn't necessary. Do you know why I had to add those footnotes? Because the definition of the word in question was being challenged repeatedly by Esoglou, and when I sought the advice of a Wiki Administrator he advised that I should add as many footnotes as possible to every single statement I wanted to make, or it would be susceptible to deletion. This was not a matter of input being required from an experienced editor to "cut away the cruft", the simple fact is that other people were prevented from making edits such as yours due to Esoglou's repeated reverts and edit warring. He is less likely to challenge your edits, not because you are an experienced editor but because you are an admin. The scholarly discussion about how baptism was likely practiced in antiquity is already separated from disputes about how baptism should be performed today.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I need help.
This source is being used in special education. "Students with special needs are segregated in separate classes exclusively for students with special needs for the rest of the school day." I would like another editor to take a look at the source because I have this textbook and it does not mention that at all. It doesn't mention that these students are segregated as this textbook talk about how special education is done in the United States. I mean, they were segregated in special education classes before mainstreaming started. I like the information changed to say that mainstreaming is not about segregating students with special needs. Or have it entirely removed since that information is about the United States. How can I get this source removed since the source does not support that information? Zxavion Pilkington (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the source does not support the statement, start off by removing the citation and replacing it with a or  tag.  Leave the statement, for now (it can be changed later).  Then open a discussion about the issue on the article talk page... explain why you removed the citation, and present your suggestions for replacement language.   Work with others to find sources that discuss special ed and the issue of segregation vs mainstreaming, and compose language that reflects what those sources say.  Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source does not support the statement, I was asking on this board if someone also agrees with me then I can remove the citation and replace it with that: or  tag.  I thought we needed consensus before making changes to the article.  But I see now that we need to be bold first.  I'm going to do that now.  Thanks for your suggestion. Zxavion Pilkington (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: User blocked as a sockpuppet. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

John Little as reliable source for Bruce Lee
We are currently discussing the usability of John Little's book as a reliable source for claims to Bruce Lee's physical feats. Could someone please instruct us as to the proper steps we should take? Padillah (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a look, does not look reliable to me. The claims made are extraordinary, and I think we'd require more than one source for this kind of information. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Books-A-Million history sourcing
I have concerns about the extent to which the following source can be used reliably for material on the history of a given company: An editor wants to use it at Books-A-Million and there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Books-A-Million. There is a relevant backstory here as well. When the editor first added the "historical" material they simply copy/pasted it from Answers.com. I reverted and pointed out that this amounted to plagiarism, and that I wasn't sure of the reliability of Answers.com. In response the editor rephrased the same text and added it back, but this time sourced it to the afore mentioned book. This is where I became concerned with the reliability of the book itself. The same text, about the history of Books-A-Million can be found on several different websites -, , , ,. I'm not exactly sure what this means. My initial guess was that the original source of the information was a Books-A-Million press release and that this is why the same text is reproduced all over the internet. I have just now discovered that one of the websites listed above, actually cites the International Directory of Company Histories in the copyright. Note that in some other reproductions of the text the book is listed as "further reading", among other books. What do people make of this? I admit that I'm very unsure about this myself, but would like some more expert input on the matter before a non-plagiarized summary of the information is added back into the entry. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would add that 3 of the 5 sites listed above (here, here, and here) reference the international directory. Answers.com does as well.  In fact, this site seems to present itself as a direct excerpt from the book.  The reason it appears over and over is that, as is typical on the internet, there are few reliable sources for such information as company history that are not simply PR fluffery, so all these places that try to offer such information found it from the same source, being famous and popular for its reliability.  This is the same way that I posted it originally, no plagiarism intended the way I understand it, though I now understand that the way Wikipedia would define it it goes against their policy.Eikou (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See this recent and detailed, but somewhat inconclusive (due to the opponent of the book giving up), discussion here of the reliability of this work. I would add to that discussion the fact that the publisher's website about this series of books says:"Company entries are compiled from publicly accessible sources as well as from materials supplied by the companies themselves... (Source; emphasis added.)"It would seem to me, therefore, that the book can be no more reliable than self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and fails even that test due to the addition of other "publicly accessible sources" which create "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Even if the book can be seen to be marginally reliable, it should not, per WP:ABOUTSELF be used unless "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, this leaves me very confused. You're saying we cannot use publicly accessible sources.  You're also saying that the company's report of its own history is out.  If you can't use either of these, what are you to use?  If we research, we'll only find what's publicly accessible.  The only way to go beyond that is to do unique individual research, which would involve interviewing the people who know at the company.  I'm not sure how to escape this Catch22 to find a source that would be considered valid.  Barnes and Noble's page (which is the model I used when I set out to write a Books-A-Million article) uses the company history as published on their own site, and that makes great sense to me.  Who should know the history better?  I feel that the source I offered is more reliable than an official company bio, but I'm still trying to learn and adapt to how we do things here.  Maybe it's a bad argument, and the real issue is that the B&N page needs trimming down, not that the BAM page needs building up.  Advice? Eikou (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I would say the concern is that all of the sources mentioned ultimately go back to a press release by Books a Million. You can use a press release for information that is not controversial, things like the company's address or staff, but if it's challenged, a better source would need to be found. Better to go find better sources if you can, I would suggest combing through Google Books and the News Archive, but you'll want to sift sources carefully. A good tell is how positive the prose is--does it say things like "one of the premier publishers"? Excessive praise often indicates a tainted source. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a directory or a indiscriminate collection of whatever information anyone cares to add, it's an encyclopedia. Some things — both potential subjects for articles and potential content for articles — simply cannot be in Wikipedia even though they are unquestionably significant or important because no reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia, exist to support their inclusion. As the verifiability policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. ... What counts as a reliable source? ... Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (That's just an extract, please see the entire policy for more detail.) When a publication is just a uncritical compilation of publicly available information, there's no "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," for that publication. Just a quick response to another couple of things you said: First, about interviewing people to write an article, that would be prohibited as original research. Second, you may (or may not) be right that the problem is that the B&N page needs trimming rather than the BAM page expansion; there's tons of stuff here that shouldn't be here which no one has noticed/bothered fixing and comparing articles here is fraught with peril, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'd like to say a bit more to you, but this has already gone on too long for this forum, so I'll say the rest on your user talk page. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hezbollah and the March 8 alliance
In the Hezbollah article, I changed the lead to say that "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 Alliance", which another editor reverted to "Hezbollah... is part of the March 8 Alliance". I opened a talk page discussion on the issue, citing sources from CNN, the Xinhua News Agency , the People's Daily , and the Iranian Press TV that describe the alliance as the "Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance". I intentionally provided a diverse range of sources to avoid claims of Western bias, and plenty of sources use this language. The other editor replied that "the sources are wrong because FPM's Aoun is March 8's parliamentary leader... the sources are more than likely based on Hezbollah being read as the most 'powerful' party based on the Beirut-wide reaction couple years back." Now, that reads like a bunch of WP:OR to me, so I thought I would bring the issue here.

Are the sources above reliable enough to support the statement that "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 Alliance"? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We have to go with the sources. CNN and the like are reputable and know of which they write. The argument quoted above is plausible enough - but one could easily counter-argue that due to current and more recent events, it is Hezbollah that is in the drivers seat and leads. And that hence, CNN and the like are correct. But its not our place to second guess the reliable sources. They are quite reliable and do support the contention that, "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 Alliance" Note also that a recent article I came across seemed to put forward an argument regarding the recent events and the idea that Hezbollah should distance themselves from a leadership role for fear of "owning" the post-crisis period...this bit of political posturing could subconciously be at play here.99.141.243.84 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, here's the article I mentioned above:(1) It may be why the phrasing is under contention, although it only addresses current leadership dynamics and not the specific phrasing under dispute. No matter, that's why we go with reliable sources such as CNN who do address the subject directly...99.141.243.84 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no conflict between an alliance being led in effect, or being seen as led, by a certain faction, and led in parliament by an individual not in that faction. If both these things are verifiable why not just state them neutrally and let the sources do the talking?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that either. However, this is the article on Hezbollah, not the article on the March 8 Alliance itself, so I see no need to go into detail about the breakdown of said coalition. Especially given that we're talking about the first sentence of the lead of the article on Hezbollah. The other editor has now changed the first sentence of the lead on Hezbollah to read that "Hezbollah... is part of the March 8 Alliance with Christian allies in the Free Patriotic Movement and Marada Movement and Druze ally Lebanese Democratic Party, amogst others." This is far too much detail about the March 8 Alliance itself in the first sentence of the article on Hezbollah, especially given the sources that describe it succinctly as the leader of the coalition. (here is another source, the Lebanese Daily Star, published yesterday: “There is something serious going on but is still needs much mulling over,” said a senior source from the Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition, adding that a “window is definitely open.”) ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a question for people editing the article to try to come to a consensus on, and not an RS question as such?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * True, though in response to those of your comments which weren't exactly about the reliability of the sources I listed. Do you have any thoughts on the reliability of those sources? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 13:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC) (Hmm, I reread that an it sounds snarky, but I don't mean it that way. Just trying to explain why I got derailed, and seeing if there's some more input on the sources themselves. Cheers.)


 * Sorry, I should perhaps have mentioned that agree with previous posters. When it comes to news about politics, news organizations like these are about as good as it gets most of the time. There might be cases where a specialist remark requires a specialist source but I don't really see that here, and that was kind of my point. In other words, I don't really see that the different sources are even in conflict with each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahh, okay. I don't think the sources are in conflict with each other either; they're all sources I provided to justify my edit, so I was hoping they would agree and show enough reliability for the statement. Thanks for the feedback. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

TM research quality
Is {{Cite book|last=Goldberg|first=Philip|year=2010|title=American Veda—How Indian Spirituality Changed the West|page= P. 379, note 9|publisher=Crown Publishing/Random House|location= New York|isbn=978-0-385-52134-5|quote=“Most of the experts I spoke to said that the bulk of the TM studies in peer-reviewed journals—now numbering more than 600—rise to professional standards."

A reliable source for:

However, Philip Goldberg in his 2010 book, American Veda, in a detailed assessment of meditation research, notes that most of the experts he spoke to said that the bulk of the 600 TM studies "rise to professional standards."

And I guess more to the point is it notable? Peoples opinions? Being discussed here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An on topic monograph from Random House would be reliable. However, Goldberg is making a claim exceeding his capacity as an expert (he lack sociological training in qualitative research).  This makes the claim unreliable, as it exceeds his expertise: he is using a methodology he is untrained in, qualitative interviewing.  Additionally the article misrepresents the book, as it makes no qualifying statement that the TM studies were in peer reviewed journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Reliable" in the WP context refers to it being published by a WP:RS source, not whether editors "know" that it is correct or not. The claim as made and sourced is proper by WP policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is one of assessing Weight, not Reliability. Goldberg's book is reliable for a statement as to what is said in the book... however, mentioning his book is problematic.  We don't know who these "experts" that Mr. Goldberg claims he spoke to are, and whether anyone else considers them "experts".  More importantly, we have no way to assess what "most" means as we don't know how many "experts" he spoke to... he could have spoken to exactly three "experts", two of which said that the TM studies rise to professional standards, one of which said they do not... if so, then "most" is accurate, but misleading. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added context of the content and source under discussion which may help clarify.  The source was added within a section that is specifically citing content from popular media. The editor who added the Goldberg content noted after Doc James had removed the Goldberg edit, but not the other popular media content, that either remove all such content or leave all pop media sources in, as long as its reliably sourced. Most popular media even if reliable sources per Wikipedia are not appropriate sources to comment on or assess scientific research and or research quality. The issue here isn't WP:RS. Its weight and appropriateness of this kind of content. I've included the article section for ease.

{{quotation|Popular media and scholars have criticized the quality of the research, though some have identified selected studies that are high quality. 'According to The Jerusalem Post, The Canadian, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology'', some of the research has been "criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence", for "methodological flaws, vague definitions, and loose statistical controls", and for "failing to conduct double-blind experiments" and for "influencing test results with the prejudice of the tester". However, Philip Goldberg, in a detailed history of meditation research in his 2010 book, American Veda, notes that most of the experts he spoke to said that the bulk of the 600 TM studies "rise to professional standards." According to Newsweek, early research was "not of high caliber", failing to adequately address self-selection and the placebo effect, but later research has been "much more rigorous".' Research on Transcendental Meditation has been published by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association,  as well as other medical journals such as the American Journal of Hypertension,   the American Journal of Cardiology, and the International Journal of Psychophysiology''. Research reviews have identified some studies as being "well-designed," "rigorous," or "high quality." }}

Sources for the history of Christian thought about abortion
I'm sorry to have to embarrass you again, Haymaker, but you really leave me no choice when you insist upon the reliability of these random people.

Haymaker has re-added text (originally by Geremia) to Christianity and abortion, Religion and abortion, and Catholicism and abortion claiming that the Catholic Church has been consistent for two thousand years in its condemnation of abortion. This "fact" is sourced to Facts of Life, by Brian Clowes, PhD. Unfortunately for Haymaker and Geremia, Clowes's PhD is in civil engineering and systems science, not in religion, history, sociology, or philosophy; Facts of Life is published by Human Life International, not by a reputable scholarly publishing house; and Clowes himself appears never to have published anything on this subject in a peer-reviewed publication. (Google Scholar brings up one hit, on a related but not particularly similar subject, from a student-edited publication. Well done Mr. Clowes.)

Even more unfortunately for the aforementioned editors and for Mr. Clowes, Religion and abortion cites Kristin Luker's Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. The book is published by the University of California Press and was nominated for a Pulitzer prize, and Luker has earned a number of fellowships and is a member of several prestigious scholarly organizations. Her book is cited for the statement that "early Christians held different views about abortion" (Luker says, to condense a good amount of information into one quote, "Different sources of church teachings and laws simply did not agree on the penalties for abortion or on whether early abortion is wrong"). Geremia and Haymaker have seen fit to preface references to Luker's book with "Pro-choicers believe," as if it's a matter of political leanings rather than expertise.

Clowes doesn't appear to be notable, but I've erred on the side of keeping the citation by assuming that he speaks for HLI and changing the text to "Some pro-life supporters believe..." that the RCC has been consistent in condemning abortion. This was reverted by Haymaker.

So...on the one hand we have a decorated sociologist and law professor whose book was published by a scholarly press and nominated for a Pulitzer...and on the other hand we have a civil engineer whose book was published by Human Life International, who couldn't possibly have unscrupulous reasons to claim that the RCC has always believed abortion was murder.

I leave it to you.

-- Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Clowes is not reliable for religious history or the history of theology. His opinions are not notable in themselves. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeeks.com and Rust Belt
There is a dispute as to whether this wisegeeks.com article is reliable, because an IP editor claims it isn't so that the statement in this diff can be deleted. I've referenced this archived RSN discussion that, at least when I read it, seem to support wisegeeks.com as a tertiary source, which is what it is being used as in Rust Belt. Any help and guidance is appreciated. Wizard191 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the prior discussion comes to the proper conclusion about Wisegeeks.com, but I think that what Wisegeeks says about the term "Rust Belt" may be being taken for more than it should in this case. I'll make some comments at the Rust Belt talk page about that. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 16:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Al-Ittihad Journal of Islamic Studies
Can this essay, originally published in the Al-Ittihad Journal of Islamic studies be considered a reliable source? The essay does not have a bibliography, and strikes me as naive boosterism. Nor does the journal it was published in strike me as particularly scholarly. Athenean (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its kind of hard to make a judgment without knowing what assertion its being used to support in which article. Since the article cites frequently to Encyclopedia Brittanica, and is on a website that might qualify as "self published", it doesn't seem particularly strong, but it might be WP:RS for an assertion that certain opinions have been expressed etc. I probably wouldn't rely on it for any statement of fact. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is cited several times in Women's rights to "prove" that women had low status in pre- and non-Islamic societies, in contrast to Islamic societies. Classic boosterism. Athenean (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not a reliable source and should go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That article by Jamal Badawi is cited in a number of WP articles and whether that's appropriate should probably be reviewed. It's not an SPS though.  Al-Ittihad ISSN: 0579-2290 was, possibly still is, a publication of the Muslim Students' Association of the US and Canada. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a religious and not a scholarly source, being cited for historical and sociological assertions for which it is inappropriate. It relies on some other sources such as Brittanica we wouldn't cite directly and which are not therefore sanitized by our quoting Badawi as a secondary source. A Google Books search on "women in Islam" finds five or six scholarly books which would likely be much better sources, for example, Women and gender in Islam: historical roots of a modern debate By Leila Ahmed (New Haven: Yale University Press 1992) ISBN 0300049420 Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Quinnipiac Poll in the Tucson Shooting
Some editors are claiming that this poll from Quinnipiac is flawed. The actual reason is they don't like the results. Could we at least afirm that this poll is a reliable source (it been cited in other sources as well)? Arzel (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Quinnipiac is generally well-regarded; see e.g., . Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quinnipiac polls are generally reliable sources for public opinion. There may be some problems with the way this one was designed. Polling information is not WP:RS for any factual assertion, because the people polled are not experts on that issue. The fact that some hundreds of non-experts think "X" is true, is no more relevant than the fact that one non-expert thinks "X". In the end a poll is only ever relevant for the fact that some percentage of the people polled did or did not have opinion "Y", and I am having trouble seeing why this is relevant to most Wikipedia articles. In this case, and probably in most usages, the polls are being used as if they represented the opinion of an expert, here for the assertion that the shooting had nothing to do with the rhetoric. I would delete the whole polling section from this and most articles. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The poll is from an RS, but it is also WP:PRIMARY, so should used in the article with an eye on its prominence in secondary sources. Given the overall amount of coverage of the event, the fact that the poll has been covered by a single minor news website probably doesn't make for a strong case in favour of its inclusion. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Psycho-correction
This odd article (one of a group of articles created by the same editor) makes claims about "The only known scientifically validated and operationally tested " whatever, sourced in both cases to a company called Northam Psychotechnologies which I don't think is a reliable source for such claims. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks too much like promotional work. Does not seem to me to be an RS either, especially not for use in explaining positive things about the very company involved. Possibly the articles should be deleted?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a strange one. Article is about the "second core methodology" of a product and is completely unsourced. The technology is certainly not notable enough to have an article on each separate piece of its "methodology". A Google search on Northam Technologies, the distributor, found mainly press releases, and a passing mention in a Wired article about "weird Russian mind control" technology being commercialized in the US. the company does seem to have one army contract but I doubt any of the material is WP:NOTABLE enough to be here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the creating editor, newyork48, is a SPA, creating articles only about Northam technology and people. One of his other articles, Semyon Ioffe, was nominated for deletion January 20. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I started Articles for deletion/Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement today. I may do the same for Semantic Mediated Analysis of Responses and Teaching. But this article seems to have potential sources in that the word is actually used in reliable sources, unlike the phrases that are the subjects of the 'Semantic' articles which I think are promotional OR. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Do redlinked journals need sources in Lists of academic journals?
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals as to whether or not the names of redlinked journals need sources in Lists of academic journals? A redlinked journal is one in which no current Wikipedia article exists, and therefore the link to that (nonexistant) article is red. Please read and contribute if interested. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Undergraduate Student Essay.
This is a question regarding a reference currently expanded out to be an entire section, and found here: Robbing of honour. Thank you for your time. 19:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An undergraduate wrote this essay:(1), it appears in an undergraduate student run yearly "best of" circular described variously by the school, or itself as, "we have chosen twelve essays that best illustrate the academic talent and intellectual diversity of our fellow history students. I hope you enjoy reading their fascinating papers."...or, "While the decision of what gets published rests solely on students, they feel comfortable selecting pieces, notwithstanding their nascent academic backgrounds."(2)
 * It appears some variation on Pizza Night is their main raison d'être, the pamphlet secondary, "We hold fun events such as Wine and Cheeses, Trivia Nights, Movie Nights, and host guest lecturers. Also, we publish an annual Historical Discourse Journal"(3).
 * The paper at the center of this makes several important contentions found nowhere else in academia or literature, among them that Pepys was likely a trained anatomist, that apparently the soul does not migrate after death (standard western concept) but that there exists a certain fleshly embodiment of being after death, which leads to something, again unknown in academia or literature, that one can be at the center of a heretofore unknown ritual, "Robbing of Honour".
 * So the question, is it a Reliable Source?
 * It does not look like one, but you should please explain whether anyone is actually proposing to use it. Normally context is very important for questions on this noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's currently in use. It has been objected to from the moment it was entered - some months ago. A single editor has held it in. And from the start(1), his argument has been that we should read it and prove it wrong before removal.(2) ...72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if every word in it is true, it's still not a reliable source. If I write "milk comes from cows" I remain an unreliable source on the topic, no matter how undeniable my utterance may be. The essay is well footnoted. It's sources should be used. Paul B (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wrote that "milk come from cows" then you would be at best only partially correct, as milk is produced by most (female) mammals. But this discussion seems a little bizarre to me for this reason: suppose that Maeve Jones had registered a wikipedia account and written and cited that section on Robbing of honour herself, to the sources that she uses in her essay. Would anyone now be complaining? Does anyone have any evidence that her conclusions are not entirely reasonable, based on the sources she cites? Sure, it would be better if her sources were cited directly, but the best ought not to be the enemy of the good, and certainly not at the GA level. In other words this essay isn't just the opinion of a student, but one based on published and cited information. Would it be preferable if it was cited to the original sources? Of course it would. Would it be better if the material was removed because of this concern over its source? Almost certainly not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the same logic if she wrote the article on Wikipedia, then it would be ok for me to source her Wikipedia article in my Wikipedia article since it is based on sound sources, but that is forbidden because Wikipedia is not considered a "reliable source". Nothing to stop me using the information from the other article along with the sources, but I can't use the sourced information indirectly via a source not considered RS. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about an article, we're talking about one rather small section in an article, which tends to suggest that you haven't actually taken the trouble to look at what this discussion is about. Do you have any reason to doubt the reliability of what's being said in that section? Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claim that if she wrote the wikipedia article then you would be entitled to cite the wikipedia article in your own demonstrates either a serious flaw in your logical abilities or a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia guidelines, perhaps both. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The other responses in this discussion indicate otherwise. Betty Logan (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. What they do indicate though is a consensus that a student essay can't be considered to be a reliable source, an opinion that I share as it happens. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I am pleased you've accepted your stance above is incorrect then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, if Maeve Jones had a Wikipedia account and wrote her essay as an article (or section of an article), citing the same sources, I would argue that about half of it should be removed on the grounds that it constitutes Original Research (which, while highly encouraged in a student essay, is not allowed in a Wikipedia article). The simple fact is, no matter how good, an undergraduate essay is not considered a reliable source for use in Wikipedia. Heck, we even have some disagreement as to whether Doctoral dissertations should be considered reliable. In the IRS guideline we talk about the fact that the word "source" has multiple meanings... what is said, who says it, and where they say it. All three impact reliability. While the essay may well be reliable on the what... it fails on the who. Blueboar (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's your considered opinion after having read the sources she cites then fair enough. Have you read them? To be honest though I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, as I agree with you. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The source fails to meet the standards of scholarly publication in its field, chief of which is peer review (by scholars). As such, it is unreliable for its claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not have to use only peer reviewed sources, of course. I guess what you mean is that it would be normal to expect that type of source for this type of citation. I'm not sure that is necessarily true, but anyway I do agree that this source appears to have basically NO claim to independent fact checking, and so would fail for almost any purpose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is publishing in a field where expertise is required. This expertise is guaranteed by a professional community through peer review.  The field has expectations which impact on the reliability, ie, the reliability of "what" is said.  This is why scholarly publishing is required.  Publishing "outside of field expectations" is a key indicator of a) FRINGE research (where the author holds qualifications) or b) unqualified research.  In this case the students are not making the pretension of unqualified research, they've clearly indicated the status of their work.  In either case: an author is avoiding the system of professional review which is clearly established by a discipline to certify knowledge as meeting a standard of professional competence which guarantees that basic methods, methodologies and tools have been used in the production of that knowledge. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The source clearly fails WP:RS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is not usable for Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? No, an undergraduate essay selected for publication by other undergraduates is not a reliable source. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It obviously fails WP:RS and I'm unsure what the purpose of the above discussion was.Griswaldo (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jim, the horse is dead." --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The horse is anything but dead.(1) "I think just tweaking the references (ie: retaining Jones as the other sources are unavailable currently, but noting Jones cites these sources) would help allay a lot of the concerns." How we got from the discussion above to a supposition on the part of editors that one should simply note that Jone's 'cites other sources' is beyond me. A move is also afoot to simply delete Jone's (the undergraduate student who wrote the essay) and simply insert her sources in place without reading them - primarily this one discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered#.22Robbing_of_Honour_II.22_-_the_Kastenbaum_ref. (2)], in which the source itself precedes its comments with a clear stated aim to speculate. So no, the horse is not even close to dead yet.72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant what that editor thinks. There is a clear consensus here, and indeed I'm sure there is a clear convention when it comes to dealing with undergraduate papers -- they aren't reliable ever.  The horse is indeed dead.  When the entry is unprotected the source should be removed.  End of story as far as that is concerned.  Regarding the other point, no one should be adding sources to any entry unless they have personally verified them.  The idea that the student paper is a resource for other sources is correct, but that means finding those sources and consulting them before using them.Griswaldo (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that if the student paper is a good one, using it as a resource for references (which are then verified before they are used here) is a good idea, but it is plagiarism unless we acknowledge the student paper. So, if we end up using it in that way, and we don't refer to it on the page itself, the editor who is making use of the student's work in this way should acknowledge the fact on the talk page. And rew D alby  10:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good point. I suppose one could also make a note in the reference itself that the student's paper was where the source was found, so as to avoid loss of the information if the talk page is archived. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not plagiarism to use references found elsewhere. We do not, nor should we, seek to attribute or cite a source for a cite. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is plagiarism to make significant use of someone else's work without acknowledgement. The gathering of references is work (very useful work, too). You'll notice, in academic papers, that this kind of contribution is acknowledged in various ways --
 * If (as usually happens) references were found by way of various works that are cited anyway in the bibliography, the citation serves as acknowledgment; but
 * If a large number of references came from a single source, you'll probably see a note about it in the first paragraphs or in the first footnote, saying how useful that source was; and
 * Even a single reference may be followed by a footnote such as "I am grateful to X for bringing this source to my attention".
 * Academic papers are different from encyclopedia articles: they cite certain types of source that we don't. But that doesn't get us out of the plagiarism issue. In a Wikipedia article, if the source from which we draw a significant amount of information is one that we wouldn't cite in a footnote or in a "further reading" section, we should be open about it and acknowledge it in some other way -- e.g. on the talk page. And rew D alby  17:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a policy, guideline or any discussion that supports your contention that we are to now have a reference for references? 99.141.243.84 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that in good Wikipedia practice, practically always, we do cite our sources, either in a bibliography, or in a list of further reading, or among external links. We're unusually punctilious about it: "competing" encyclopedias don't do nearly so well. I see no problem there at all.
 * I'm talking about a rare case: a case in which we have a useful source from which we intend to draw some good information, but our guidelines strongly discourage us from citing the source on our page. And I think our guidelines are right: student papers shouldn't be cited in encyclopedia articles. Well, as I said, "it is plagiarism to make significant use of someone else's work without acknowledgement". But this issue needn't arise: we can solve it, without fuss, if the editor mentions on the talk page that this source was used.
 * Yes, there is a very close precedent. The same issue has been faced, and solved in a very similar way, when an article is translated from one Wikipedia to another. The source is acknowledged, not by way of bibliography or further reading (because Wikipedia is not a reliable source) but by way of a note indicating where the material originated. That's just the solution that I'm suggesting. And rew D alby  19:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "... but our guidelines strongly discourage us from citing the source on our page." huh? Our guidelines all but require us to cite our sources.  I can't think of a single guideline or policy that discourages (much less "strongly discourages" us) from doing so.  Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference works like encyclopedias do not contain the types of acknowledgements Andrew Dalby is referring to, at least not any I'm aware of. Let's not confuse Wikipedia for an academic paper or book.  That said the key issue here is whether or not the undergraduate source is making an original point not made by any of the sources she is citing.  If that is the case, it would indeed be plagiarism to make the same point, citing those sources, but not her.  If not, if we are simply using her as a stepping stone to other sources, then there is absolutely no reason to cite her (and that would be true even if we were writing an academic paper).  In reality scholars rarely make these types of acknowledgements, and often, if not usually, find the sources they use as they are reading other works that utilize the same sources.  The point of acknowledging where you found a source or group of sources is to acknowledge the original insight you may otherwise seem to be stealing if you didn't.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm making no judgement here on whether or not the text in the entry as it stands would need to be cited to the undergraduate or else be plagiarism. In my view two things are necessary - 1) We don't use the undergraduate paper because it is not reliable and 2) we don't plagiarize said paper if we end up using sources that the undergraduate paper is also using.  It does not matter where we found the sources originally as long as we're not stealing her ideas.  But in my mind proper heed to WP:NOR would keep us from plagiarizing, since we are not supposed to advance original ideas based on a synthesis of other works in our entries anyway.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly the consensus is that Jones should not be used and so I have removed (as I always said I would if a proper discussion was held) any citations to her work from the article, and re-written the section from what is, I hope, a less contentious source. I take issue with one point, however; the claim "The paper at the center of this makes several important contentions found nowhere else in academia or literature" is unprovable and therefore is a matter of opinion, not fact.  I hope more mature editors here understand the distinction. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jones contends that Samuel Pepys was likely a trained anatomist. And that contrary to all western philosophy from the Greeks onward that there existed something of a fleshly embodiment of being after death which led to her central thesis, "Robbing of honour" which is also, let us say, unique. You are correct in one aspect though, proving a negative is difficult - disproving it though should be cake. All it requires is a citable reference.99.144.243.116 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

blog.zagat.com - again
Previous RSN discussion here.

Related spam discussion here.

I think it would be helpful to discuss how this blog should and should not be used as a source given the spamming. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just repeat my comments from earlier; Very obvious WP:REFSPAM. These links seem to serve no real purpose other than to self promote the site zagat.com. Additionaly; Buisness can self edit their online profiles
 * Update information & stats
 * Submit photos
 * Visit your restaurant's Reviews & Stats page
 * Click on the Update or Add To This Information
 * Fails the specific requirements of our Reliable Sources guidelines. Perhaps in the "rarest of circumstances" one of these links could be used as a source, but because any useful information is all self-edited, its highly doubtful.--Hu12 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Any info that can be submitted by others would be problematic.
 * In general, I think it is fine as a primary source that promotes Zagat's interests (eg ). The promotional nature of the blog makes it a rather sensationalist secondary source on restaurants and food-related topics. This makes it a source that needs to be used with care with WP:BLP-related information. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking a bit further, it's a useful source for recent information, but tends to WP:RECENTISM problems. Other than for information about Zagat itself, I'll be there will always be better references a month or so after any blog entry. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Determining mount location reliably
Hello, I hope my question is appropriate to this forum. It appears that sources disagree about location of mount Hermon summit. In following book: "The summit of mount Hermon is under Syrian control". However CIA high resolution map, technically puts the summit in Lebanon: ( point labelled 2814m, corresponding to the summit ), in UNIFIL zone. Reliable sources generally agree though that the mountain stretches both Syria and Lebanon. Its hard to see where the mountain starts and ends. So no one can say where the majority of the mountain slopes are just looking at these maps. So basically right now we have couple of possibilities to feel the Infobox mountain location map field:
 * Syria
 * Lebanon
 * Leave the location blank

Your thoughts are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Location: Lebanon/Syria borders"? I'd say this is an accurate enough way to put it, as regardless of where exactly the border is in relation to the summit,mount Hermon itself clearly extends into both countries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds right. Oops I meant map field in the Template:Infobox_mountain
 * ''The name of a location map as per Template:Location map (eg. Indonesia or Russia). The coordinate fields (e.g. lat_d and long_d) position a pushpin coordinate marker and label on the map automatically. Example see: Mount Everest.
 * So "Location: Lebanon/Syria borders" is not a valid input for this field. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems more of a problem with the template than with the mountain. With watersheds often determining national borders, it is inevitable that a lot of notable mountains are going to be cross-border. It might be worth looking to see whether this problem has occurred with the template before, and how it was dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a common misconception that the mountain is in Israel, it occupied the Template:Location map map field previously, but it appears it is totally not there per provided sources. So for now choices are (1), (2) and (3). Thank you for pointing to category, some notable mountains are going to be cross-border. Though naturally it is a minor issue of the article, since there is verbose description of location in words in body and there are also maps reflecting the geography. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it really is an issue with the template if Mount Everest is a valid example (it is cited as such, see quote above). Everest is on the border between China (Tibet) and Nepal. The text of the infobox can say it's in both countries; but to get a map into the infobox you have to choose one country or the other, and the floating caption (when a cursor is pointed at the map) says "Mount Everest is in Nepal", which is only 50% true. In the present case a "dirty" solution has now been found by creating a new map page "Template:Location map Hermon". And rew D alby  18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

plosbiology.org
I'm thinking of submitting Pseudobiceros bedfordi for DYK, but the source containing key info: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183 is sort of strange. Can someone please advise? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. My first reaction was that the article is a hoax or has been vandalized, given the extremely bizarre behavior described. A lot of the web sources for it circle back to Wikipedia. On the other hand, PLOS seems real and claims to be peer reviewed...except that they also charge almost $3000 for inclusion of an article, which seems suspect to me. I'm at a bit of a loss here, hope someone more familiar with the biology of flatworms and peer reviewed journals will comment. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am ignorant in this topic. The journal is indexed in Web of Science (+Scopus, etc), and thus seems acceptable (yes, charging 3,000 USD/article is crazy). The author is "a freelance science writer based in London" with very broad interests, i.e. he summarizes what he reads, but is hardly a specialist himself. I can't track any reference in that article to the specific information on Pseudobiceros bedfordi, and thus suspect it might be WP:OR. I can check individual refs of that article tomorrow, but not sure I have access to all of them. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The data in the http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183 article is pretty much corroborated by this reference, also used as a source for Pseudobiceros bedfordi. But, that piece is in turn sourced from Nature Magazine. Not sure if that's the same as Nature.com, the place where this "freelance science writer based in London" contributes. Is this all a bunch of baloney going round in a circle? Is Nature.com a good source? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the Nature article http://euplotes.biology.uiowa.edu/web/sexpapers/2004/week3/penisfencing.pdf

Nature has been published since 1869, is currently owned by the same group as Scientific American, and is peer-reviewed. http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html At this point I would say the information is genuine. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of good sources showing another member of the genus Pseudobiceros hancockanus (I'm not making that up):. Looks like they really do duke it out. The genus article Pseudobiceros and Penis fencing tell the tale. (How was this never a DYK before?? It's aces!) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since all members of the genus penis fence, can't the two PBS sources make the claims in the Pseudobiceros bedfordi article rock solid? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus here is that the article as it stands is reliably sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate it folks! The plosbiology source just struck me as so odd. I didn't know what to make of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source that is hard to find, mentioned in an unreliable source
I have a couple of reliable sources that indicate that the British edition of the pulp magazine Planet Stories was published by Pembertons, except that the first issue was published by Streamline Publications. However, there is a web page maintained by an fan of British pulp magazines that says this is incorrect; all twelve are from Pembertons. The website is not a reliable source, so ordinarily this would be a no-brainer. However, the fan says here that he has a copy in his possession and he thinks it must be a mistake, as the magazine clearly states that is from Pembertons.

I also have a source that says all twelve are from Pembertons, so I do have some reliable source basis for a conflict. In documenting that conflict in the sources, can I cite the issue of the magazine itself, bypassing a citation to the website? In doing so, it seems to me, I'd be relying on the same good faith that lets me assume that another editor's citation is accurate -- the citation gives a printed source that, though rare, certainly does permit a reader to verify the claim. Does that fact that I obtained this information from an unreliable source prevent me from citing it? It seems OK to me, but it's an odd situation so I thought I'd ask for additional opinions. Thanks for any comments. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You cannot "cite the issue of the magazine itself" if you have not seen that issue. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to put in an interlibrary loan request / wikipedia resource exchange request for the first printing of the first issue. You also need to ensure that it is the first printing and not a reprint. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Inter Press Service--Reliable Source?
This is in regards to this article, currently linked to in the article on Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. It was added yesterday (along with another link from the Jerusalem Post, unquestionably a reliable source), to create a new section in her article about her "notable campaign contributors", specifically one controversial donor who has donated a grand total of $4800 (two contributions in 2009, according to The Center for Responsive Politics). Without the IPS article, there is nothing to this story, and the accuracy of the IPS article seems to be in doubt ($4800 is not a particularly large sum, which is not the impression presented by the IPS article. Is the IPS a reliable source, particularly for a BLP? It appears to be a partisan news collective of some sort, but it's not clear whether its more like Associated Press (which is generally non-partisan and reliable) or Independent Media Center (which is extremely partisan and totally unreliable), two distinctly different flavors of media collectives. I am concerned about undue weight and coatrack concerns, since the only groups which seem to be discussing this are the IPS article, and J Street, which is a lobbying group. The JP article simply notes that J Street released a press release, not enough to hang an entire section of an article upon.  Horologium  (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can search the WP:RS archives for past discussion on IPS. The undue weight/coatrack issues aren't in-scope of this noticeboard. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked the archives, which is why I asked again. There was one substantive discussion, which was inconclusive.  I included the link and the article to provide context, since there was no definitive answer, and it may need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As for the undue/coatrack mention, it was to make clear that I intend to delete the entire section outright if the IPS reference is disallowed; that may affect the input other editors. I understand the scope of the various noticeboards, thank you. (For those who are unsure, the above editor is the one who added the disputed reference.)  Horologium  (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let's see what uninvolved editors have to say then. Deleting the section, however, is hardly an option since there are also two Jerusalem Post sources (one of which says the contributions are USD 20k), and the J Street release. IPS is described as a news organization by the BBC, CNN, La Repubblica and El Pais, to select a few RS on the topic of RS from a few Western countries (see especially the BBC link, where IPS is set alongside Reuters, Forbes.com and the Guardian). --Dailycare (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus here on a prior discussion seemed to be that IPS is a reliable source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#.28IPS.29_Inter_Press_Service_-_a_reliable_news_organization.3F For what its worth, I think the assertions in the article sourced to IPS and the Jerusalem Post are relevant, well sourced, and do not present a weight or coatrack problem. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Personal soapbox:) By the way, I find that the coatrack concept gets used, really loosely, and far too often on various noticeboards to attack quite small assertions (as a percentage of total article text) that the editor doesn't like. Firstly, WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. Second, by its own terms, it refers to an article whose ostensible purpose is completely overwhelmed by the nonpertinent material. "The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack—the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject." There is no way a sentence or two far down in the Ros-Lehtinen bio is a "coatrack" by this definition. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

mania.com a reliable third party source for reviews/commentary?
This site http://www.mania.com/ seems to be run by experts in the field of entertainment and be a professional site, but I wanted to make sure. Mathewignash (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Keith Miller (Australian cricketer) reason for being given nickname "Dusty"
So, what do you do if you know something written is patently wrong but you have no way of citing any sources because such source material simply does not exist? A case in point is the nickname of Keith Miller, "Dusty" allegedly because he liked to get into fights? This is entirely wrong, as the nickname of "Dusty" is given to anyone called Miller or Millar, it was a practice adopted by the Australian military from the British military and easily predates Keith Miller's service.

My sources you ask? How about my own 23 years service in the Australian military (Army and Navy)? Trying to produce source material for what is essentially a "folk practice" is about as easy to cite as trying to ascribe the writing of an old folk song to a particular individual.

The author of the Miller article cites himself, which is disingenuous to say the least. What is his service record?

Here are the facts. All Millers/Millars are called Dusty, all Clarks/Clarkes are called Nobby, all Lanes are called Shady. This practice predates Millers military service


 * Whilst I would agree that the nickname Dusty is a traditional one that's associated with the surname, Miller, the issue is that in WikifantasyLand one doesn't assess sources, one only slavishly reproduces whatever garbage might be in them...
 * The assertion has a citation, and you might choose to challenge the reliability of the source used but given the simplistic approach taken here I wouldn't consider you'd have much success. One thing you might wish to explore is actually looking in the book, the article about Miller refers to one page for the citation, the article on his military career refers to another page.  It may be worth validating that the reference is genuine.
 * In practice those traditional nicknames could be sourced in the general case, my first thought would be Jackspeak by Surg Adm Rick Jolly. the issue you'll have is attributing that specifically in this case.  On the other hand if you can find a source that applies to the individual then you can include that, and put some nuance around the disputed item, essentially identify competing sources.
 * fwiw I've never seen an instance of the type cited, Dusty is always Miller or Rhodes. Someone who is a bit punchy would get Flash.
 * ALR (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dusty" for people called Miller is general knowledge. The book cited is mistaken on this point - even the best sources may sometimes be mistaken. This point should simply be omitted. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Using a 1989 meta analysis to contradict a 2006 Cochrane review
Here is the 1989 review

Here is the block of text for context:

"A 2006 review by the Cochrane collabortion found that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders. The review found that, as of 2006, two randomized controlled trials had been done on this topic, one of which was on TM, and concluded that meditation is equivalent to relaxation therapy in reducing anxiety. According to research reviews, a 'thorough and well-designed' meta-analysis by Kenneth Eppley of Stanford University that looked at over 100 studies found that relaxation techniques reduce trait anxiety and that Transcendental Meditation had a larger effect size than other relaxation techniques (0.70 compared to 0.39). The meta-analysis calculated effect sizes 'by population, age, sex, experimental design, duration, hours of treatment, pretest anxiety, demand characteristics, experimenter attitude, type of publication, and attribution.'"


 * Was previously discussed at WP:RS here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments? I already attempted to remove it once in this edit was previously discussed here was re added here being discussed at AE here On further investigation not sure if further discussion is needed of the reliability of these sources or if things are clear enough for sanctions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * These seem to be two good sources that employ different methodologies and give different indications. There's nothing about either that would appear to make its use in the article questionable, and neither actually invalidates the other. The meta-analysis suggests that TM may be more effective than other relaxation techniques. The review shows that this has not been demonstrated in RCTs.


 * In terms of the above text, I do not think that the review finds "that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders", only that RCTs did not provide sufficient evidence - you can draw conclusions without RCTs, however. "According to research reviews, a 'thorough and well-designed' meta-analysis" should be replaced with "A meta-analysis" - I guess underlining the quality of design is probably a pockmark left by the dispute over this.


 * Also, just to keep in chronological order, the meta-analysis should be mentioned first.


 * Lastly, I don't think the dates of the two sources matters much, since the primary data relating to TM in both cases is the same age. --FormerIP (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The concern is per WP:MEDRS 1989 is a little old. The embellishment was added in this edit here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is a more recent replacement for the 1989 paper then OK WP:MEDRS would mean we should use that - however this does not seem to be an "actively researched area with many primary sources and several reviews". The 2006 paper isn't a replacement, because its scope is restricted. On the assumption that the 1989 paper is the most recent attempt to look across the field of research on this topic, it is appropriate to make use of it. --FormerIP (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, the 1989 paper was discussed here last year. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 71.   Will Beback    talk    05:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This field is actively studied, especially by those who practice TM. At least 341 peer-reviewed papers have been published, most since 1989, and hundreds more have been published in non-reviewed publications. A concern raised about the 1989 paper during last year's discussion is that the standards for conducting a meta-analysis have been set since that publication.   Will Beback    talk    05:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If, as I suspect, the Cochrane review takes into account the studies analyzed by Eppley and also newer studies done since then, the Cochrane should take precedence; 21 years in medical research is a lifetime, and a 1989 meta-analysis probably should be avoided. Yobol (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the issue is that nearly all (if not all) of the studies included in the 1989 meta analysis are neither controlled nor blinded and thus not suitable for determining if an intervention is effective. EBM was just starting when this paper was published. The Cochrane review does cover the same question and will looking at all the literature realizes the proceeding fact. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * However, the 2006 review only looks at two studies, one of which produced no usable numerical data. That's not a good basis for deciding we have a definitive answer provided and any other evidence should be ignored. The meta-analysis, true enough, is "not suitable for determining if an intervention is effective" - however, neither, by it's authors' admission, is the 2006 review.
 * I think the meta-analysis is suitable as an RS to state that a meta-analysis has suggested a larger effect size for MT compared to other relaxation therapies. Its comparative age would be an issue of there was a wealth of data for us to consider during the the intervening period, but it doesn't look like there is.
 * Will: I'm not sure where you get your figure of "at least 341" papers on the subject. The Cochrane review found 50. However many there are, though, we should only really be looking at secondary sources, of which we appear to have two. --FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The 341 figure includes papers on health effects of TM other than those which the Cochrane review studied.  Will Beback    talk    19:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thus we state "A 2006 review by the Cochrane collaboration found that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders." The independent scientific research says repeatedly that 1) the research is of such poor quality that the benefit or harm of TM cannot be determined. 2) The little evidence there is has found that there are no magical properties to TM. The TM literature on the other hand strongly disagrees saying there is magical properties. The mainstream research should be given greater prominence than the TM literature. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc James, I don't know why your spinning the issue of into talk of TM literature and magical properties. The meta-analysis was published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, for goodness sake. This isn't an issue about science v pseudoscience, it's just about accurately stating what is in the literature on the topic. It appears that that isn't much - essentially, there is some evidence pointing towards the particular efficacy of a particular relaxation technique, but a randomised trial failed to demonstrate this.
 * It doesn't seem sound to me to suppose that the results of a single trial involving a small number of people should be taken as grounds for excluding any contradictory suggestion from the article. --FormerIP (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If one is able to claim that a meta analysis of none controlled and none blinded studies is "thorough and well-designed" well there is really not much more to say... BTW here is an interesting article about the authors Another note is that this journal has been subsequently accused of publishing non peer reviewed pseudoscience per our own article Journal_of_Clinical_Psychology  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems adequately covered by WP:MEDRS and its recommendation to use up-to-date sourcing. We shouldn't be juxtaposing a 21-year-old paper as if it "rebuts" a current Cochrane review. The standards for what constitutes "thorough and well-designed" clinical research have evolved substantially since 1989. MastCell Talk 18:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that the relevant part of WP:MEDRS applies. It says: "These guidelines are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews". Although there seems to be conflicting information about how many primary sources there are on this topic, there seems only to be one review. --FormerIP (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's at least one other review:


 * It looked at hundreds of studies.   Will Beback    talk    19:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be a review on the same topic. Maybe it could be made relevant to the article, but the meta-analysis and review above address the comparative efficacy of trancendental meditation, which seems to be the specific question in issue here. The review you cite looks at meditation more generally.
 * That said, I think its conclusion brings out what I think is the key point: As a whole, firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. However, the results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field.
 * In other words, this area (even if this report is talking about a wider field) is not well-researched, but there are indications of clinical usefulness, as yet unproven. Why can't WP just give a description of the state of the research? --FormerIP (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, I think its conclusion brings out what I think is the key point: As a whole, firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. However, the results analyzed from methodologically stronger research include findings sufficiently favorable to emphasize the value of further research in this field.
 * In other words, this area (even if this report is talking about a wider field) is not well-researched, but there are indications of clinical usefulness, as yet unproven. Why can't WP just give a description of the state of the research? --FormerIP (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what Peter H Canter wrote about the 1989 meta-analysis in a 2003 editorial. The Cochrane review was done after he wrote that. He seems to regard the 1989 meta-analysis as a flawed review.  Will Beback   talk    19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Meditation includes techniques such as listening to the breath, repeating a mantra, or detaching from the thought process, to focus the attention and bring about a state of self awareness and inner calm. There are both cultic and non-cultic forms, the latter developed for clinical or research use. The relaxation and reduction of stress that are claimed to result from meditation may have prophylactic and therapeutic health benefits, and a plethora of research papers purport to show this. However, this research is fraught with methodological problems, which I outline here, along with a short summary of the best evidence for the therapeutic effects of meditation in clinical populations. There is no Cochrane review on meditation.
 * Transcendental meditation has been studied extensively, but most of the research continues to be carried out by researchers directly involved in the organisation offering transcendental meditation, who seem keen to demonstrate its unique value. A meta-analysis of trials of relaxation and meditation for trait anxiety included 70 trials of meditation and showed that the 35 trials of transcendental meditation were associated with significantly larger effect sizes than other techniques.7 However, it included uncontrolled trials, and its assertion that outcome was not sensitive to research design, type of control, or other confounders is not supported by any data. As it excluded studies of patients with psychiatric illnesses the relevance to clinical populations is unclear. An updated and independent meta-analysis of studies of meditation for anxiety is therefore much needed.
 * The therapeutic effects of meditation: The conditions treated are stress related, and the evidence is weak Peter H Canter BMJ VOLUME 326 17 MAY 2003 bmj.com pp 1049-1050


 * Okay, but why does that invalidate its status as an RS? And what would be wrong with including the finding of the meta-analysis alongside the criticism of it? --FormerIP (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let Doc James answer that, but I believe one of the issues with the 1989 meta-analysis is that it may have been presented in a way that made it appear to challenge or contradict the more rigorous Cochrane review.   Will Beback    talk    20:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * More than two decades is a really long time for medical or psychological research, and especially for a subfield that has such a poor reputation. (TM research, especially the older publications, has received far more accusations of deliberate bias and outright fraud than average.)
 * I'd be very cautious about using that elderly source at all, and if I did use it, I would probably frame it a historical statement, e.g., "While some studies conducted during the 1980s claimed a positive effect, more recent research says that effects are unproven". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with the above comments by WAID and Will. I am okay with presenting this historical paper as long as it is made more clear that new and better quality research does not agree with these findings.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with that, but this should not be done so as to ram home the idea that the earlier research is superceded. Fine to point out/suggest the superiority of RCT-based research, for example, but not to give the impression that the matter has been scientifically decided or that there is a complete absence of evidence in the other direction, because that would be a misrepresentation on the basis of the small amount of research that appears to have been done. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tatar cryptolect sourcing
Dear all! User:Untifler/Gäp is an article about cryptolect used among Tatar criminals untl 1920s. It is proved only by two sources (and one of them is on internet archive), and both of them are in Tatar language. No sources exist on this subject in English and even in Russian on the www. I want to ensure that after moving this article from own space to common space nobody will object the claimed facts due to language problems. What is the best way to prove this? Once this article was deleted, but not due to language problems - the language problems revealed during the discussion: Articles_for_deletion/Gäp. I tried to resolve them, but still don't know, were my attempts successful or not - the article was deleted due to attack-like comment, not sources language.

  --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ ( see also: ә? Ә!) 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is a misunderstanding. While some editors did think it could theoretically be some weird attack, the reason the article was deleted is that there are no reliable sources for the language, not even in Tatar. Blogs and similar random web pages do not count as reliable sources. See WP:RS.
 * This is an unfortunate situation. While the Tatar guests we recently had at my institution did not know about Gäp, I personally have no doubt that this is a valid topic for an encyclopedia, and it seems impossible that no newspaper article (in Russian or Tatar) has ever appeared about Gäp. Most likely it is even mentioned in some books.
 * But there was a valid and formally compelling outcome of the deletion discussion. Therefore the article cannot be recreated before someone has found a reliable, i.e. not self-published, source. (Preferably more than one, but one is probably enough if it is good.) I am sorry for the bad news. Hans Adler 20:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is rather unknown subject, when I've found this information it was rather surprising for me too. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ ( see also: ә? Ә!) 11:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GamesFirst!
Is gamesfirst.com considered a reliable source? A review from this site has been added to List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange to source the claim that the game Conker's Bad Fur Day is an example of the cultural influence of the film A Clockwork Orange. Are the reviews on the site written by notable experts on video games, or is the content user-generated? Is the site considered a notable and reliable source for news and information on video games? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether gamesfirst.com is regarded as RS, I'd say the reference in question "The original Conker was set to make a bit of gaming history by combining platforming stereotypes (fluffy small creature fighting against evil, like Sonic in some ways) with foul language, adult situations, and parodies of mature-rated films (like A Clockwork Orange)" is just too tangential. This is the only mention of the film in the game review, and it gives no indication of how the game parodies it. Note too that the review isn't even of the game in question, but a sequel. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actully, live and reloaded was a remake of the original not a sequel. So unless the relevant scene was cut it would be in that game too.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article on Conker's Bad Fur Day mentions A Clockwork Orange too, but unfortunately doesn't seem to give a reference either. It may well be true that it references the film, but it isn't sourced (and you can't cite another Wikipedia article, as I'm sure you are aware). This raises an interesting point. Can the game itself be cited? I'd think that in some cases you might be able to argue this, but it would actually be WP:OR to make the game/film connection if it wasn't made elsewhere, so basically, unless you can find a more direct RS, it looks as if List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange will have to do without the foul-mouthed squirrel. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, thanks for your response. The fact is, I have removed that example, and numerous unreliable references that were used to support it, multiple times.  One persistent editor keeps restoring it, each time offering a new reference, and this was just the most recent.  I posted here because I wanted to get some other editor's opinions before I removed this reference, too.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the problem lies with the article itself. A 'List of of cultural references...' can only really contain items which are very strongly sourced, whereas it is going to inevitably true that A Clockwork Orange influenced more things than these where such influences were noted by reliable sources. For example, looking at the article it mentions the band Tolchok as taking its name from the book/film, and it immediately struck me that the same is true for Heaven 17. I know that "the Heaven Seventeen" is referred to in the film, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find WP:RS for an assertion that the name came from the book/film. It is probably reasonable in an article to cite the name being used in the book/film, and cite the band name, and allow the reader to make the inference themselves that there is a link, but you can't do this in a list. I have to ask then why the article is in list format, when a more conventional style would allow better consideration of sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is a mess, to say the least. I recently removed every unreferenced example, which was a substantial percentage of the article.  It is only in the last 6 months or so that the article has been on my watchlist, and I have not taken any other steps toward its improvement.  I am of half a mind that it is a lost cause. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

St. Bernard redux
A couple of months ago, I had brought claims made on this article to this noticeboard; since I don't want to retype everything, see the link here for context. There is also a more general discussion currently going at the content noticeboard here. Since the last discussion here, the same SPA has reinserted the brainyhistory.com source (against the consensus here) and added another source,. This is superficially convincing; however, there are a couple of problems. First and foremost, the DogsMonthly magazine speaks of "Benedictine"; there is no "Benedictine Daily Double" mentioned anywhere, and, as I said both here and at the content noticeboard, a Swiss dog named "Benedictine Daily Double" on its face sounds patently ridiculous. Secondly, the mention of Benedictine is one sentence that is isolated from the main article, has no context at all, and no data or sources whatsoever to validate the claim. As I mentioned at the content noticeboard, the sentence looks suspiciously similar to the one in the Wikipedia article in October 2009, when the article in question was published; the statement in the Wikipedia article from that time (diff at the content noticeboard) is completely unsourced. I've removed this claim a couple of times now, but I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'd like some outside input. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blade of the NL.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

techcrunch.com
Techcrunch is a disputed source in Intelius. Techcrunch is used some 2,000 times as a source across Wikipedia. This has been brought up before, but only in passing other than here. The dispute is its use to verify: "Numerous customers have complained that after using Intelius services, their credit or debit cards are, without authorization, automatically charged each month for services they had not requested under various merchant names, linked to Adaptive Marketing, an affiliate company."
 * source:

Is it a reliable source for this information? --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unsure. Did you see this source here about Naveen Jain -- wondering if its reliable (the article quotes Arrington) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think the TechCrunch site is usable as a source since it is a blog, and has no oversight nor any accountability or reasonable assurance of accuracy and neutrality for its content. Under that consideration I would think that setting a precedent of Michael Arrington's opinion being a WP:RS seems dangerous. And as far as BI It is clearly a blog (citing a blog to boot) as well and as such is also not reliable. 173.160.205.2 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should focus so much on the word "blog" here as this Techcrunch blog is put together by a professional and authoritative news organization. That differs from a personal and self published type of blog like the one random Bob does. Dawnseeker2000  22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Republika.pl as a reliable source
A very recent DYK nom relies heavily on this free site as a source - 19 refs - François Rochebrune, January 15 DYK nom here. The site has no editorial oversight. I'm disputing the article's DKY-worthiness with another editor, who says 'It is not our custom (even if WP:V would suggest otherwise) to remove unreferenced content, and I think that given a choice between no refs and poor refs, poor refs are usually kept.'. I've also brought up the issue of republika.pl's problems WRT to hosting malware - this to me is another mark against it. Novickas (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously "Republika.pl" is not the source here - it's just a web host - so it's reliability is besides the point. It's like asking if the "internet" is a reliable source; it's a silly question. The actual source is a webpage of a sports club involved in "black powder marksmanship" competitions (basically folks who compete in target shooting etc. with antique weapons) which is named after a particular historical military unit and as such has information on the unit (Zouaves of Death) and the units' commander (Francois Rochebrune). Because it's a somewhat esoteric topic there are very few academic references available on line. However, none of the information in the article is controversial, disputed or questionable, and the parts of the source that can be cross checked with other, more academic sources, are confirmed.
 * Other than that, and yes I know we're supposed to discuss content not editors but this doesn't apply when a whole pattern of behavior is concerned, this just looks like another attempt by User:Novickas to unnecessarily grief User:Piotrus (as can be seen from the discussion at Piotrus' talk page, its history, and Novickas' comments elsewhere). What is the point of this request?  Volunteer Marek   23:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with VM. There is an obvious difference between webhost (republika) and various sites it hosts, which can range from pretty reliable (for example, it hosts a website of a regional museum) to quite unreliable. That's the nature of the Internet hosts, and I don't believe there is much connection between website's reliability and its choice of a hosting service. Further, per VM, I see no reason to suspect the mentioned website of being a hoax. A history article hosted on a regional sports association page is not the most perfect source we can imagine, but I believe that the website is reliable enough for stub-C class articles; as I said earlier I do think that for B+ class we would need to get more reliable sources (but this is not the problem here as nobody is suggesting this article is anything above start-class). Using 19th-century public domain texts from Google Print which I added as additional references I was able to verify and reference some key points, including all the elements mentioned in the DYK hooks (which to my knowledge satisfies DYK requirements). More reliable sources I was able to locate are not available online other than in tiny snippets (Polish-language books). Nothing in those snippets I was able to access contradicts the website. It is obviously desirable to improve the references, but for a start-class article as this one I believe they are satisfactory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Piotrus and I were both part of the EEML so our opinions are likely to be correlated (though not coordinated, dammit!) rather than independent. Just take the statements for what they say, their own merits and arguments, rather than for their number (the huge number of 2!).  Volunteer Marek   00:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

fashioncentral.pk
fashioncentral.pk is a disputed source in Veena Malik. It is being used to verify the following: "Veena Malik (born Zahida Malik) is a Pakistani Lollywood actress, model and comedienne. She has established herself as one of the leading women in the Pakistani television and film industry with her abilities to mimic others and improvise."
 * source:

"Veena was born in Rawalpindi, to Aslam Malik, a Pakistan Army soldier, and his wife, Zeenat Malik. The family settled in Rawalpindi after her birth. Her father often remained away from home, so she was brought up by her grandmother and mother until she was in her late teens when her grandmother died. Malik grew up expressing an interest in joining the Lollywood film industry and her grandmother decided to encourage her."
 * source:

Should we use fashioncentral.pk as a source for this information? (In general, editors are having a difficult time finding reliable sources for the article and could use help from someone familiar with the news media in India and Pakistan.) --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * my two bits. No. Reason 1: Fashion Central is a name unheard of in India. Reason 2: The veena malik page on the websites also provides some "Veena Malik" related gossips in the form of "related celeb gossips". Reason 3: As the website also provides e-commerce based services, it is highly disputable whether their financial interests are linked or not, hence the website may benefit by portraying a glorified, good and hard-working image of the subject.Boolyme (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OTHERS PLEASE TELL US YOUR OPINION.  Boolyme   Talk!! 20:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's a shopping site that happens to have some additional information. There is no reason to believe that any of that information is reliable, as the sites real purpose is sell fashion, not to report news.  So it's not that it shouldn't be a source for this article, but it should never be used as a source.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for article Deniss Cerkovskis
www.pentathlon.org www.pieccina.lv www.lov.lv

Please don't delete it!!! -- unsigned comment


 * Please use proper reference format and add them to the article as requested. If you need help with formating, please see WP:Referencing for beginners with citation templates.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonfiction works as primary sources
I have just been trying to save Freud and religion from deletion via AFD and an issue came up about a summary sourced to one of Freud's essays. Someone argued that any summary drawn directly from a nonfiction work is original research because the work is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Seriously, if I can use the novel itself to formulate my plot description of One Hundred Years of Solitude, why can't I quote Freud directly in summarizing Civilization and its Discontents, as long as the summary is clearly based on Freud's own words? The danger that a summary of a work may involve interpretation or synthesis 1. seems to me to arise with fiction also and 2. should except in obvious cases of distortion, go more to "weight" than "admissibility"--meaning that such material should be allowed to remain while a push is made to add sources. I think the overly narrow interpretation of WP:PRIMARY leads to a certain number of articles about nonfiction works which contain no summary of the basic ideas whatever,  but only reactions from reviewers. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me put it out there--I strongly believe that the summary, using the writer's own words, of an essay or short nonfiction work such as Civilization and its Discontents  is acceptable under WP:RS and  WP:OR and particularly under the following wording of WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." It makes no sense to treat an essay (which was published by a reputable house and itself actually edited or peer-reviewed) as if it were a diary or a trial transcript. The clear wording of an essay is, in fact,  a much better source for a summary of its content than a series of partial or polemical reviews in otherwise reliable publications. Anyone disagree? Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * May I assume that silence=consensus? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would raise this at WT:NOR... we have been discussing similar situations, and this is an excellent example of what we have been discussing. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally I tend to agree with you and BlueBoar. I've run into this problem in other contexts, such as my revamp of Heather Mac Donald. While I think we all agree that secondary sources are best, there are situations in which primary sources are helpful and even necessary. I found, in the Mac Donald article, that her statement of her own positions was helpful -- X describing her position -- and whenever possible supplemented by secondary sources -- R thinks X's position is such-and-such. I looked through biographies of political commentators and I would say half of the references in most of them were primary sources, and that they were helpful and stuck, since people realized they helped. But I think it's a judgment call. And Wikipedia has not formally embraced this view (although I think it tacitly accepts it.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've often noticed that too--for example, just a few minutes ago in The Paranoid Style in American Politics which summarizes the Hofstader essay by quoting it.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Are sources saying anti-property groups are "libertarian" required to state that some libertarian groups are anti-property?
The following claim is made in the intro of Libertarianism:

(I inserted the bracket comments with words which are implied from context at that article.)

Though the term was used in English decades ago to refer to people who hold that perspective, today they are referred to as "left-libertarians" or "libertarian socialists", as that perspective is fundamentally different from mainstream "libertarianism".

More to the point, I'm not aware of any anti-property-rights groups that are referred to as just plain unqualified/unhyphenated libertarian in reliable secondary modern English sources, and this claim simply does not sound right to me, so I started a discussion about it at Talk:Libertarianism and, when no sources were offered right away, I tagged the statement as dubious in the article, including specifying the reason: "reason=No source for groups opposed to property rights identified as unhyphenated libertarian". The tag insertion was reverted, (with comment: "removing POV pushing tag that flies in the face of every relevant community consensus on the matter"), re-inserted by a second person ("what do you mean consensus?"), then reverted again by the same person who did the first revert.

I admit my bias (I'm a libertarian) and realize I might be missing something. so I hereby request that neutral/objective folks experienced in sourcing issues look into this and help us determine if sources referring to anti-property-rights groups as being "libertarian" (as opposed to "left libertarian") are required to make a claim like this in an article about "libertarianism". Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't look like an RS question to me (i.e. what is the source you wish people to consider?).
 * My guess is that this is really an NPOV question that you happen to be on the wrong end of. The term "libertarian" isn't copyrighted and the article is rightly written so as to give coverage to various political viewpoints that are termed "libertarian" by reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Mainstream libertarian" where? The usage of the term by a section of the US political right wing seems to me (a Brit) to be anything but 'mainstream'. (Not that I'd claim to be 'objective' about this - but I don't think this is possible when a word has multiple conflicting meanings, and is used very differently in different contexts). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To the extent that the term can refer to anyone who objects to government making laws and regulations that impact one's private life, there are (small L) libertarians in both of the mainstream US political parties. These are distinct from the (Captital L) Libertarian Party... which is definitely on the fringe. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, you're talking about political fringe, and I agree with you about that. But I'm talking about language usage fringe.  In the mainstream there is usage of the term "libertarian" - that's what I'm talking about.  In that mainstream usage... what does it mean?  In particular, how often, if ever, is it used to refer to groups who are opposed to property rights, as is currently claimed in the intro to the article?  I don't think it is (and if it is, it is a fringe use as compared to mainstream use), but I might be wrong.  So, I'm asking for that claim to be sourced.  Please note it has no footnote or citation of any kind.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (I am an involved party) You may find you get more responses if you follow the rather explicit instructions at the top of this page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe this is the wrong forum, and sorry about that, but it seems odd to not be able to ask if a given statement requires sourcing in a forum where you can ask if a given statement is well supported by a given source. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If a claim is made in the intro, look in the article's body to see if the claim is repeated and sourced. If it isn't, remove the claim from the intro and paste it on the article talk page for discussion.  If no source can be found, then it doesn't get returned to the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BrainyHistory.com
Reliable or not? It does accept user submissions, but I can not find any information on who the editors are or their process for reviewing the information submitted. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is related to the thread above on the St. Bernard article. It doesn't seem to have much of a fact-checking process, the extent of it is "The website must actually contain the information you are claiming", which isn't much of a safeguard. To use a specific example, in the case of the St. Bernard article the claim almost certainly came from Wikipedia, since I can find no other reliable source making any such claim (see the thread above for specifics).  In general, it doesn't seem reliable because it doesn't 1. have much editorial oversight and 2. doesn't say where it gets its information from.  Just my view, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That did inspire my question... but my question was meant to be more general. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here is their process for submitting quotes; that's the best I could find. I'd imagine it's something similar to what they have for more general history; however, it's awfully easy to make something sound official and submit hoaxes, which that process wouldn't be able to prevent.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC) FYI, BrainyQuotes is the host; BrainyHistory is just a branch of it, but it's still the same site, just to eliminate any confusion.
 * At best, it's a poor tertiary source. Anything that can be found there should be verifiable in a more reliable secondary or even tertiary source instead.   Will Beback    talk    01:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Must the path to the primary source be clear?
Wondering if it is necessary that the primary/secondary/tertiary-ness of a source is clear to the reader of a WP article (either from the article text or the reference text or both). And if it is clear that a source is secondary, is it necessary that the primary source is identifiable? E.g. if a media organisation, considered to be usually reliable, makes a statement such as “The Moon, the second densest satellite, is ...”, it is not clear whether the news organisation has determined that the moon is the second densest satellite (i.e. we have a primary source) or whether it is reporting that someone else has determined this fact (i.e. we have a secondary source). If the statement is “The Moon, which science has determined is the second densest satellite, is ...”, it becomes clear that this is not a primary source, but the primary source has not been identified (other than in vague terms)—do we have here a source for the statement “The Moon is the second densest satellite”? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is necessary to indicate that in the article, the source will usually be cited and can be checked by the reader. Secondary and tertiary sources are generally preferred, and as long as they are in accordance with scientific mainstream, there's no need to know where exactly their information came from. That said, if what a news organisation says isn't echoed anywhere in the scientific literature (primary or secondary) and doesn't indicate where that information comes from, I'd hesitate to use it. After all, news organisations sometimes get things wrong and we should try to err on the side of caution. I cannot provide source for this particular statement or voice an opinion on its correctness I'm afraid, but you could try the article's talk page or at the talkpages of WikiProject Astronomy/WikiProject Moon. --Six words (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In fact, I'm not so concerned about this particular example per se as I was hoping to be able to generalise from it (apologies if I've asked this in the wrong place) but I think that what you're saying here is that the answer to the section title question is yes, being able to identify (by some means) the primary source is pretty much essential (which seems eminently sensible to me). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. After re-reading I realise that my first sentence could be misunderstood so I just want to add that it was about indicating to readers what kind of source was used (primary/secondary/tertiary) for a statement. --Six words (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It highly unlikely that the news report is a primary source for this information. That said, is important to understand the difference between an "acceptable" source, and a "better" source.  We aim for the latter.  For statements of scientific fact (such as the density of the Moon), a news report may well be considered  "acceptable" (ie reliable), but a scientific text would be "better" (ie more reliable) ... Remember that there is nothing wrong with replacing one source with a better source.  Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, if a secondary source is reliable, then one need not show which primary sources it uses for which claims. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Letters to newspapers?
If a relatively well-known person sends a letter to a newspaper which is subsequently published, is that a reliable source for what they say, or does it fail under SPS?

The source in question is this: http://www.northernlife.ca/news/letterstotheeditor/2010/09/Browning140910.aspx. It is being used to source the author's vegan claim on List of vegans in this edit:

My first impulse is that it is not RS because anyone can send a letter to a newspaper claiming to be someone else, and there is no way to be certain how stringent authorship verification is. However I would like to have this clarified since the guidelines don't explicitly cover published letters in newspapers. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is listed as "Guest Columnist" and not simply "letter to the editor". Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And like all columnists, it is considered an opinion piece, and should be treated as such... with attribution. Reliable for the statement "According to author X, Y is true" but not for an unattributed "Y is true". Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up guys — I guess the view here is that it is a reliable source for the claim provided it isn't presented as a fact. Since the list permits claims (by precedent in other entries) then I'll let it stand. There is probably a case for not admitting primary source claims but that's a whole other debate.  Thanks for your help. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a reliable source for the fact that the claim has been made... but not necessarily a reliable source for what the claim says. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspapers generally maintain a small amount of editorial control over what guest columnists say, but it's nowhere near that maintained for reporters/regular columnists. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oprah a reliable source for news/analysis on legal matters?
In the BLP Michael Welner, a SPA added the following last November:
 * In 2010, Dr. Welner’s comments on 20/20’s coverage of Aaron Vargas, a longtime victim of grooming and sexual exploitation who eventually killed his tormentor, were cited by the sentencing judge in the case of Daniel Kovarbasich in Elmira, Ohio. “A skillful groomer, a skillful abuser, gets into the child's DNA and becomes a part of the child, and the child can't cast him off regardless of the age,” referenced Judge James Burge and later, Oprah Winfrey of Dr. Welner’s earlier analysis on the impact of grooming.

Alternative language has been suggested by another SPA in connection with an ongoing rewrite of the entire article:


 * Dr. Welner has been featured in network news coverage of major legal cases for a number of years. He has been a frequent guest on Larry King Live, , , and his appearances have been cited in subsequent court opinion  , such as his explanation for how a long-victimized teenager would willingly continue to submit to sexual abuse into adulthood  .

In each case, the key reference for the statement is oprah.com. The article appears to be derived from, but not an exact transcript of, an October 18, 2010 broadcast of Oprah

Sourcing and verifiability of this has been extensively discussed on the talk page. My position is (i) that Oprah is an entertainment show, not a news show and thus not a reliable source for news or analysis of legal matters, and (ii) the claim that Oprah made fails verifiability.

On the second point, I have noted that what Welner said on 20/20 and what Oprah claims he said in the quote doesn't match, and the judge never refers to Dr. Welner, but to someone else, a Dr. Weiner:
 * (i) the video of the 20/20 broadcast which is claimed to be the source of the quote shows Welner saying: "You take someone who is vulnerable, and you get them formative, and you attach them all through their development, and you get in their DNA…and that’s how you have people, who even in adulthood, are doing things totally unacceptable to them. And yet at the same time, they’re powerless to break away from it."
 * (ii) the video of the sentencing ruling shows the judge referring to something he heard a Dr. Weiner, not a Dr. Welner, say in a documentary
 * (iii) the statement that the judge made is supposedly a quote of Welner, according to Oprah is: "A skillful groomer, a skillful abuser, gets into the child's DNA and becomes a part of the child, and the child can't cast him off regardless of the age."

The SPA's don't agree, and consider Oprah to be a reliable source for this material, notwithstanding that it is absolutely clear that the supposed quotes don't match up and the judge referred to a different person in his opinion. Nor do they consider it original research to stitch this all these primary sources together to come to their conclusions to the contrary. Thoughts? Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In general I wouldn't call Oprah a RS for anything, and for a BLP this is a total no-no. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Oprah is not RS for anything other than her own opinion, which is not notable or relevant to this article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, not RS for this kind of data. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oprah is not reliable source, generally. She is an entertainer rather than any kind of proper journalist. And certainly not for anything contentious in a BLP. Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As one of the editors of the page that this citation is referring to and the one who put this on the talk page originally, I would like to make a few notes. 1. the case that cited the news media commentary of Dr. Welner was Daniel Kovarbasich - a young boy who had been sexually molested for many years and eventually killed his molester. Just before this crime occurred, another case of a longtime sexually molested boy who killed his molester was breaking news, Aaron Vargas. Dr. Welner appeared on an hourlong 20/20 special about the Aaron Vargas case (the citation for the summary of his interview is above). At the sentencing hearing for Daniel Kovarbasich, the judge noted specifically that he was influenced by a documentary he had seen on people who are groomed for sexual molestation throughout their childhood. Yes, he did say Dr. Welner's name wrong, but I think common sense can take over here and if the video is actually watched, it is quite clear that his wording is directly taken from Dr. Welner's wording. 2. The comment that this is original research is a misuse of Wiki policy. The WP:NOR policy states that "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." - the reliable sources were provided: the original 20/20 interview, the video of the sentencing (more for educational purposes because trial documents cannot be cited on the page) and the supplementary interview with Daniel Kovarbasich following his sentencing in which Oprah quotes the judges mention of Dr. Welner's testimony. 3. if this noticeboard determines that The Oprah citation is not reliable, that is understandable, but as an active editor of the page, I felt it appropriate to relay more than just Fladrif (talk) opinion. Empirical9 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Objective discussion is a healthy exercise. Between the four who responded there seems to be a wealth of knowledge regarding RS and if you feel that articles written and featured on are not reliable, I am sure you have valid reason. Thanks all for your input.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)