Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 96

Boxer Rebellion (2)
A piece by Leonhard, Robert R on the Boxer Rebellion has been inserted into the article as a citation. I asked what his credentials were and was told the following.

"LTC(R) Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D., is on the Principal Professional Staff of The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and a member of the Strategic Assessments Office of the National Security Analysis Department. He retired from a 24-year career in the Army after serving as an infantry officer and war planner and is a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. Dr. Leonhard is the author of The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle (1991), Fighting by Minutes: Time and the Art of War (1994), The Principles of War for the Information Age (1998), and The Evolution of Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism (2005), as well as numerous articles and essays on national security issues."

None of this seems relevant to China or History, let alone early 20th century Chinese history. I had not heard of the "Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory" until today.

Is this a reliable source for the Boxer Rebellion article? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While he may not be as reliable as a specific expert on Chinese history, is there reason to believe that he hasn't done proper research for his piece? He seems qualified enough in general as a writer. Silver  seren C 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How would one ever have reason to believe someone hasn't done proper research? And he hasn't written anything on China or shown he has published a work that shows good historiography. I don't see how that makes him "qualified enough", other than the fact he can write text. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not aiming to get the source removed from the article. I'm trying to get some clarification as to when a source is reliable and when not. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that, from his other works, he seems to be reliable as an expert on warfare and warfare tactics. And his piece on China is about the warfare of China and with the Boxer Rebellion. So, I would say he is reliable for sourcing about the warfare and tactics used in the Boxer Rebellion, but not for other stuff. Silver  seren C 22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dr. Leonhard was an American military officer and has a PHd, in addition to writing numerous books on the military. He specifically wrote about the International alliance participation in the Boxer Rebellion, since American military units were part of the Eight-Nation Alliance expeditional force under Edward Hobart Seymour. He is not writing about Chinese court politics, nor delving into Chinese traditions. His article "The China relief expedition- Joint Colaition Warfare in China Summer 1900", is about the international military alliance force which included american troops. He is a former military officer and worked in the National Security Analysis Department, so he is well qualified to write articles on military actions america took part with.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Under Admiral Seymour, Americans made up part of the Alliance force. I'd say that an American military officer is well qualified to write about military actions in which american troops took part in.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And only an educational instution in America can own a .edu site. Its impossible to fake.- "Starting on October 29, 2001, only post-secondary institutions and organizations that are accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a edu domain"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even going to bother to the OP's questioning of the existence of the Lab, since a simple google search confirmed it. Kind of a waste of time to respond to that, personally. Silver  seren C 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I didn't question its existence. I questioned its significance/importance. Not every institution has to be Oxford or Harvard, but then one would hope there's a minimum standard as well. Maybe it's prestigious in military technology or something like that, but I'm not sure how it extends to Chinese history in this period. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Johns Hopkins University is a prestigous and well known university in America, Ranking at #3 is Johns Hopkins University with 54,022 papers cited a total of 1,222,166 times.
 * As I already said, and obviously if you looked at the source yourself, Dr. Leonhard wrote the paper regarding "joint coalition warfare" during the boxer rebellion, in which his military took part in in 1900. He documents the invasion and military manouveres of the parties involved. It very well has something to dow with the Boxer Rebellion.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

== Requesting comments on reliability of sources for : Edits made and reverted discussed here ==

Hi, please let know of criteria of PVO after going through the discussion. Talk:Christianity_in_India#Vandalism_in_edits_.5B.7C_here.5D_by_Gaitherbill_and_user_SpacemanSpiff_.5B.7C_here.5D I would like to welcome decision after through discussion on the topic where everyone ignores sourced content as right wing POV. This behavior may be (may be not) similar to Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_1 or Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_1. The sources I mentioned are as follows:

1. http://apostlethomasindia.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/the_myth_of_saint_thomas_and_the_mylapor.pdf

2. http://voi.org/books/hhce/Ch21.htm

3. http://voi.org/books/ca/index.htm

4. http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics

5. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/

6. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/shantivanam/images-of-shantivanam/ - maintained by some Christians in India

7. http://www.upanishad.org/en/summary.htm - maintained by some Christians in India

8. http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html - maintained by some Christians in India

9. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/sangha/sangha_2009_spring.pdf -maintained by some Christians in India

10. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/Ch19.htm - maintained by some Christians in India

11. http://www.upanishad.org/en/chidananda.htm - maintained by some Christians in India

12. http://www.upanishad.org/vandana/vandana_mataji.htm - maintained by some Christians in India

13. http://www.upanishad.org/ishpriya/biography.htm - maintained by some Christians in India Thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 09:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the simple and clear instructions at the top of this page Fifelfoo (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I am searching for credibility though it is difficult to find something online perhaps because people consider it controversial more than going about checking correctness...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that I am not against Christianity or Saint Thomas or indeed what is done in his name, till St. Thomas is called martyr to look down upon Hindu cleric class, and worse perhaps and I think it is not proper to blame Hindu clerics for a few or for what has not been done at all, or it is incorrect to put cause of something else on St. Thomas and avoid consequences. This should not happen...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nice. You still need to supply full citations, the articles they're intended to be used on, and the statements that each source will support. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is what I mentioned:

"Some Hindus  have accused Christians of establishing "ashrams"  in different parts of India and doing many other things  in order to look like Hindu sannyasins and are interested in sharing - dialogue is the term they use - only as a means to conversions ."

some Hindus..two references 1. http://voi.org/books/ca/index.htm who has written the book with following allegations supported by facts; another reference http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics/ questioning tactics, when in deed the Bible literature is modified to include Hindu scriptures (not the Bible in English) as claimed by those who distribute it as the Bible as well.

"in establishing ashrams and adopting the appearance of sannyasi..." from here which I thought was as impartial as possible, the details are given to justify the claims in the link. Again "in sharing - dialogue is the term they use - only as a means to conversions?".. from http://voi.org/books/hhce/Ch19.htm. The sources have enough information to explain what is meant by these words.

The other links are online, as maintained by some Christians(not Hindus) in India, a few of the links with the name of Hindu literature like "Upanishad" which are indeed Hindu scriptures. .असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is not an accusation and should not be later misused to put consequence on others who are not involved with this at all. Primarily this does look like an open subversion of Hindu literature and lifestyle(and I am sure even this will be called into question). If you notice there is an AUM sign on cross in a picture and this is passed off as Christian tradition and lifestyle which it is not at all. I see no reason why this is to be done other than the allegation mentioned..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You still need to supply full citations this means: Author, date, title, location published, publisher, page range or portion of cited text.  What you have supplied so far are naked web links. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I will do that once I will get enough substantial information..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I just said, I would like to gather more information about this part. My intention to add truthful information(as I understand) as sourced content didn't turn up the way I had assumed. I would like to think over the entire exercise, and hope that the absence of truth(according to me) somehow ends..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary or Secondary?
In the TWA 800 article I sourced every statement of fact, but pretty much all to the same document, the NTSB accident report. That is a primary source, so that makes that article not so good(?) Unfortunately that very long and detailed document is probably never going to be summed up in some secondary form, although some specific parts of it were discussed in secondary science articles which I did try to incorporate into the article.

Now my problem is with the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. This 12-year investigation used both evidence taken in prior inquries as well evidence taken in the course of its own and came to conclusions. It's written much in our style, with ample footnotes and quotations at length from other sources. Is this strictly a primary source and I have an obligation to avoid quoting it directly if possible in discussing the events of Bloody Sunday (1972)? Without any secondary source that analyzes the report in detail what should I do as an editor as to incorporation the information inside? Thanks! LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't (obviously, it's big!) read the Bloody Sunday report in detail, but it seems to me there are going to be parts of it which are effectively secondary source, and parts of it which are primary source. Where it's clearly summing up other sources then it's clearly secondary, but for other information it's likely to be originating source material, ie primary. I find this is often the case for government documents, from court cases to inquiries. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters whether the report is primary or secondary. I would call it a highly reliable source, no matter how it is classified.
 * People keep acting as if we are not allowed to use primary sources. That is simply not correct.  Sure, there are limitations on how to use a primary source... and it is important to understand how to use a primary source appropriately (and even more important to understand how to avoid using one inappropriately)... but it sounds like you are well within those limitations, and using this source appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The TWA report is a secondary source for the TWA accident and only becomes a primary source in an article about the TWA report. The same applies to the Bloody Sunday report.  They may be our best sources for these incidents.  However in articles about the reports that may challenge their methodology and conclusions, we should use third party sources that evaluate them.  TFD (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, sometimes I feel I'm losing my mind here when the "best" source gets denigrated as "primary". Thanks for the sanity check guys! LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

journal of forensic nursing
Is this a reliable source? I have seen only 2 articles from this site and both are filled with misquotes and misrepresentation of information despite appearing to be referenced. I followed the references back until I found the original source and it didn't say what was actually quoted, in fact 1 person is referenced despite in fact being against the very position attributed to them and I can find no information about anyone citing articles from this publication. Daffydavid (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My preliminary thoughts are that it appears to be a peer-reviewed journal from an established publisher of scientific and medical journals, so would expect it to be reliable. I do note however that it publishes papers that discuss controversial topics such as shaken baby syndrome, so further views are needed.  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I have doubts about this Journal is actually related to shaken baby syndrome and an article that is being referenced on the Wikipepia article about SBS. The problem is not a misquote by the Wikipedia author but rather the quoted reference "Mraz" is a hatchet job at best. To illustrate -- Mraz states 903,000 children were victims of SBS. Unfortunately for her if you follow her references back until you find the original author you find out the number refers to the number of children abused, neglected and killed by ALL causes. There are more examples but this is why it seems it is not in fact peer reviewed. Even to the casual bystander 903,000 seems like an outrageous number of children to be killed and thus should have been caught as an error or misrepresentation.Daffydavid (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an official journal of the International Association of Forensic Nurses http://www.iafn.org/ The journal or so it says is seeking reviewers http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1556-3693 so clearly has some sort of peer review process. So it appears to be a reliable source, not agreeing with the content or the assumptions is not the same as being unreliable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This journal doesn't seem to have an impact factor listed anyplace, which isn't a good sign. Generally we look at whether a source is reliable for particular information. It certainly doesn't seem like it would be reliable as a source for deaths caused by shaken baby syndrome, given that the author has misrepresented a source. I would think that if there are exceptional claims such as this, they may need to be corroborated by another source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to this being a pay site I have been unable to review any other articles, but counter to what MilborneOne suggests I am not taking exception to to content or assumptions, but rather erroneous citations. Almost every reference to Miehl http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515880_2 made by Mraz http://www.slideshare.net/mmvera/the-physical-manifestations-of-shaken-baby-syndrome-journal-of-forensic-nursing has additional information or erroneous information. Sure errors occur, but to add info and then cite an author who didn't write this info is wrong. For the reviewers to not catch erroneous citations of an article available on their own site would seem to indicate that the review process is lacking. Does anyone have any advice on how to verify further if most sites are pay sites? Daffydavid (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that this particular article isn't a reliable source. I don't understand your question about pay sites. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My question about pay sites is that when I try to verify references I often encounter a site that will only let me view it if I pay. Is this good practice on Wikipedia? If it is good practice,is there a way to verify information without paying?Daffydavid (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:PAYWALL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the journal's favor is the fact that it is being published by Wiley-Blackwell one the most respected publisher of academic and scholarly works around. The journal is relatively new (2008) which explains the lack other papers using it as a reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to make that a basis for generalisation on source quality. Wiley-Blackwell will publish anything which meets their internal and market criteria.  These may be below the standards of WP:MEDRS.  Even OUP publishes books aimed at undergraduates (etc, etc).  However, there shouldn't be any bigotry against a journal just because it is new.  Fifelfoo (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a Forbes invited contributor a reliable source for whether the War on Terror may be over etc
Is http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/05/01/under-obama-no-more-osama-and-with-him-goes-the-war-on-terrorism/ by http://blogs.forbes.com/people/kenrapoza/ a reliable source for asking whether the War on Terror and Osama bin Laden articles can be improved on their talk pages? I wasn't even adding anything to the article and I got reverted. If that's not a reliable source, then what is? 173.8.151.126 (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the source is reliable or not, your soapboxing on the talk page was off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it was soapboxing. What is it biased towards? 173.8.151.126 (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was biased towards discussing subjects other than the article for which this was the talk page. Since you were not attempting to 'add anything to the article', your comments were off-topic. (For what it's worth, the question you asked is a valid one, but not there). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To the point, I think the contributor's view could be cited in appropriate articles, but whether the war on terror is or is nearly over is something which people are not going to agree upon and I would not expect to see a declaration of non-war from any official source.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail, Digital Spy, Daily Express, and reliability for Doctor Who
User 88.104.40.103 has raised questions at this AfD on whether certain references are reliable for referencing the article. I, personally, believe they are, since the references are from widely-read newspapers and an entertainment news website. In short, they are this from the Daily Mail, this from the Daily Express, and this from Digital Spy.

Do note that, for these newspapers, since they are based in the UK, the term tabloid means the style of the layout, page size, and how the pages are formated. It does not mean trashy papers that have sensationalist stories, as it means here in the US. See the lede of Tabloid for more info.

Anyways, reliable or not? Silver seren C 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While 'tabloid' doesn't necessarily mean 'trashy', the Daily Mail is one of the trashiest rags I've ever had the misfortune to share a country with. In the words of Hugh Laurie, "I'm a Daily Mail reader myself – well, I prefer it to a newspaper." That said, I guess we have to accept them as reliable sources for articles, since they go to great lengths to confirm what they print... ╟─TreasuryTag► UK EYES ONLY ─╢ 21:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could probably call quite a few of reliable US newspapers trashy too, but what stuff a newspaper covers doesn't make it unreliable and, especially when we're talking about TV show reviews, I don't think the info would be wrong. Silver  seren C 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wondering what the News of the World phone hacking affair has to do with the reliability of The Daily Mail or the others?  He  iro 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (Not quite sure either.) Silver  seren C 22:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if they're not sure whether a story they have is true, they're clearly prepared to break the law just to get first-hand verification. You've got to admire such a thorugh approach to journalism. They're absolutely reliable. ╟─TreasuryTag► senator ─╢ 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's News of the World, not any of the ones i'm proposing. And most major newspapers have scandals happen at one time or another. Someone always messes up somewhere and says or does something wrong and it explodes into a big fiasco. It's a lot like Wikipedia, really. But, anyways, what about the ones i'm proposing? Silver  seren C 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said, they're trashy and sleazy, but of the utmost reliability. ╟─TreasuryTag► You may go away now. ─╢ 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So to tar these sources as unreliable, you associate them with a competitors misdeeds? This makes them unreliable how? He  iro 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Try looking again at what I've written, this time with your reading glasses on, then have another stab at replying. ╟─TreasuryTag► most serene ─╢ 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I read it when you mentioned the nefarious dealings of another tabloid instead of the ones specifically in question. But you do seem to agree that the 3 sources in question are reliable for the purposes of the article in question. Am I correct in assuming this? I don't know with you half the time, way too many fine line word games and off topic innuendo.  He  iro 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, no innuendo. I have a huge respect for all trashy tabloid newspapers. They have a widespread cultural effect on society which can only be a good thing. And check this out: in the last decade, the Daily Mail has only paid out just over £300,000 in libel damages, and that coveered five separate cases. Not a bad average for reliability at all! ╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Think they'll be sued for libel in this case or is the article reliable? He  iro 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's relatively unlikely that a fictional alien will sue them for libel, particularly given that the aliens in question are forgotten the moment a human looks away from them. But of course, the questions, "Is that source reliable?" and, "Will that source be sued for libel?" are rather different. ╟─TreasuryTag► co-prince ─╢ 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the actual problem is regarding Dr. Who, just use intext attribution if your confidence in the daily mail on the subject is not that high.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if TreasuryTag is being ironic or not. But to return to the subject. For direct quoting of others and reporting of events I'd consider the DM fairly reliable. But if an article by them hasn't got an author given, I'd suspect it of having been lifted off the internet somewhere rather than actually a result of journalistic effort. (But perhaps my view of the British press is soured by being a Private Eye reader). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if TreasuryTag is being ironic or not. It's better that way... ╟─TreasuryTag► hemicycle ─╢ 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a "reliable source" under WP policies - recalling "reliable" != "infallible." Their libel record is pretty much similar to other British papers - they all have been sued. And DM has a better than average defence rate. As for "lifting stories", IIRC, the New York Times got caught doing that very thing. Collect (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Standard practice when writing about something from the Mail is to couch it in terms "Mail reported XXX said... is speculated... bla bla." Never use the Sun, etc., though, except e.g. where the Sun's commentary attracts its own outside (reliable) commentary.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a reasonably reliable tabloid newspaper. It's not at the level of a newspaper of record, but it's not complete rubbish. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Book by former Communist
Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Lia Looveer

Are these sources reliable:
 * War Criminals Welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945 (2001), by Mark Aarons, published by Black Inc.. Aarons is an Australian journalist, having worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.  His articles have appeared in The Australian and the Wall Street Journal.  From 1969 to 1978 he was a member of the Communist Party of Australia and his father was a leading Australian Communist.
 * Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth (2010), doctoral thesis of Lachlan Clohesy at Victoria University, Australia. The 356 page thesis cites Aarons' book eleven times in footnotes.

According to the administrator, Fred Bauder. use of these sources is in violation of Section 8 of DIGWUREN, "making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies". According to some editors, Aarons' book is unreliable because he was once a Communist and Clohesy's doctoral thesis is unreliable because he used Aarons' book as a source.

TFD (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are links to a Google scholar search for Mark Aarons, which returns 220 hits and to a Google books search which returns 3,140 hits.  While the number of hits does not signify acceptance, readers may look at the cites to determine the degree of acceptance of Aarons' writing. TFD (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To address the question of Mark Aarons's work and related work as not reliable sources, the problem is not they are not scholarly, or accurate, but that there is an obvious conflict of interest. A book by a scion of a family prominent in the Australian Communist Party about emigre politics has such a strong appearance of bias due to conflict of interest that regardless of its intrinsic qualities it can not be accepted as a reliable source, especially not by emigres; which is why bringing it up as a source in the context of an Estonian freedom fighter is so explosive. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. It's not covered by WP:RS and actually violates both common sense and WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't omit reliably sourced facts because someone does not like them, or because someone doesn't like the source. What about sources by "scions of families prominent in capitalist societies"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the fact here according to you Stephan Schulz? Is the fact that Mark Aarons has labelled Lia Looveer with "nazi collaborator" tag; or is the fact Looveer was a nazi collaborator since Aarons had said so? If you could be more clear on the facts you're talking about only then it would be possible to say what exactly is nonsense here.--99.20.143.253 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument has been made that books by former Western intelligence agents regarding the Soviet Union suffer from conflict of interest; and I think there is something to that argument, as there would be to the argument that self-serving information from any source is suspect, an auto-biography being the most obvious example. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aarons' books may be unreliable (I don't know them), but argument as "the author is unreliable because he was once a communist" are usually nonsense and a classical "kill the messenger" pattern. An author's world view or ideology may or may not influence the reliability of his works, what matters for WP however is, if they are indeed accurate/reliable or not. I. e. our judgement is based on the quality & reputation of the author's work not his world view. So what is needed here are, some reviews of his books and an assessment of his work by (external) 3rd parties.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is the repeated use of the book by User:The Four Deuces and the associated doctoral dissertation to associate members of the ethnic peoples of the Soviet Union with the activities of Nazi collaborators; this is a violation of the arbitration decision, see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement which bans User:The Four Deuces indefinitely from editing material that relates to minority peoples of the Soviet Union. I think the book, and the derivative doctoral dissertation may have some value with respect to the subjects researched. This request is forum shopping with respect to the arbitration enforcement decision and, in fact, forms part of the basis for the decision made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Black Inc. is a commercial academic publisher catering to higher levels of the commercial trade market. Black Inc. and Black Inc. Agenda have published high quality reliable scholarly sources though, most notably Manne (ed.) Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History.  Aarons is a journalist, however, so this isn't a scholarly source.  Given that study of the Australian far right is a limited field (or perhaps this is ingenious, rather, given that the study of the Australian far right has focused on its parliamentary wings...) I can't think of a scholarly source regarding Australia's preference for harbouring former war criminals with right wing leanings.
 * Lachlan Clohesy (2010) Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth (doctoral thesis) Victoria University, Australia is a reliable source, and to my mind scholarly and a HQRS. Doctoral Theses in the Australian humanities are scholarly master works: they demonstrate full entry into the scholarly community.  As long as Clohesy's opinion of Aaron's historical judgements is that Aaron's was correct, this does provide (in my opinion) a hqrs and scholarly source.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea of labeling sources in the black-and-white fashion as "reliable" or "unreliable" is wrong. Are they reliable to justify what? Yes, they are reliable to source a personal opinion of a PhD student. No, they are not reliable to make "generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies". And they are not reliable to make any serious accusations about living persons on-wiki, at least until the materials were published in multiple secondary RS. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well reliability (and repudiability) is always context depended, i.e. it depends on what is supposed to be sourced and in which situation. And the requirements on the degree of reliability might change as well. In some cases a single formally "reliable" source might be good enough in other cases several sources not just being formally reliable but rather being prestigious academic peer reviewed publications might be required. That all depends on whether content is universally agreed upon, hotly contested or potentially libelous.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone could provide the statement the texts are intended to support it would help, "Foo Bar was a forest fighter and Australian authors and scholars claim he was a Nazi collaborator" is different to "Scholarly and journalistic sources claim that the Australian government preferentially admitted Nazi collaborators as refugees from the Baltic countries after WWII" is different to "People X were Nazi collaborators." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Way these sources are being used is "Scholarly and journalistic sources claim Foo was a Nazi collaborator; Scholarly and journalistic sources state Foo was a member of the same Ethnic Council as Bar; therefore Bar must have supported Foo and thus harbored Nazi sympathies". That's the problem here. --Martin (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I advise TFD to interpret the GScholar results more carefully: among those 220 hits are the article about the effect of leucine repeats in some protein on the onset and development of diabetes, about fluid dynamics, and many equally unrelated articles. Secondly, I have to concede that the list provided by TFD really contains several scholarly articles (e.g. Holocaust and Genocide Studies 17.3 (2003) 505-508, The Journal of American History, Vol. 89, No. 2, History and September 11: A Special Issue (Sep., 2002), pp. 703-705, etc) that cite Aarons' books. Therefore, there is no reason to declare that this source is unreliable. This does not automatically mean that it is mainstream, however, this question belongs to another noticeboard.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I consider both sources are reliable per our standards. But, what's more, calling a PhD thesis "derivative" of a book because the book appears in its reference list ("11 times" in 350+pages!) is completely uncalled for. Scientific works cite all kinds of sources, reliable or not, for various purposes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO, the gist of the matter is that Aaron who for many years was both a card-carrying member of the communist party and its activist, is evidently a political opponent of Looveer, who was a member of the Liberal Party of Australia. We should be very careful not to give too much weight on political outsider's opinions on the mainstream, which the Liberal Party undoubtedly is. The title of the book - War Criminals Welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945 - is also self-revealing as to the line of argument furthered by the author. Would anyone believe Australia was a safe haven for Nazis or that most of the Eastern European emigrés were closeted Nazis (the latter point being apparently advanced by some editors here)? I don't think so. We can use the book, but not for controversial statements. For that, the author would be just too partisan. Also, it seems Looveer is just mentioned passing by there, so I really doubt if this book has anything to offer for that matter. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Fifelfoo, the doctoral thesis would be a reliable source, and Aaron's book may be reliable for some things, but it not a good source. The political orientation of the author isn't really relevant. In regard to "Scholarly and journalistic sources claim Foo was a Nazi collaborator; Scholarly and journalistic sources state Foo was a member of the same Ethnic Council as Bar; therefore Bar must have supported Foo and thus harbored Nazi sympathies", that's classic SYNTH if the sources do not themselves make the connection. Since there are reliable academic sources that cite Aaron's book, we should rely on what those articles say. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the specific sources, but our policy about Ph.D. theses says they're normally considered reliable sources. How much weight, if any, to give to the thesis in this context, isn't something I've considered at all.  – <font face="Cambria"> OhioStandard  (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Miacek and his crime-fighting dog. Cannot agree. The reliable sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and political beliefs of their authors are completely irrelevant. In any event, you cannot draw such conclusions by yourself; you need reliable sources that say so. With regard to mainstream vs outsider's opinion, this question belongs to another noticeboard.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to our guidelines, "journals not included in a citation index ... should be used with caution", "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable", "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised". Well, a PhD thesis is a primary source which is simply not published in any journals and therefore not included in citation indexes. In addition, it is hardly peer reviewed. The people who usually read a PhD thesis are only a scientific adviser, a couple of reviewers found by the student, and (maybe) a few members of committee. Most important results from a PhD thesis must be already published in journals or other good RS (that's why one does not need PhD theses for sourcing). If they were not published in scientific journals, the thesis would be impossible to defend in any good academic institution, at least in natural sciences. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not so. Indeed, when I handed in my PhD, I still had to apply for permission to pre-publish some of the results in conference and journal articles. This has been changing for a while, but it's by no means universal that PhD results are published before the thesis. PhD theses from reputable universities are reviewed by the dissertation committee. This is not perfect, but it's about the same size as the typical pool of reviewers for a journal paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very surprised. Yes, it was the most important requirement in the USSR, at least if the thesis was to be defended in a good scientific institution, with exception of "top secret" theses. Yes, it is the key requirement in US university where I work right now. No one can defend scientific results that are not publishable in journals. If the original scientific results can not published in peer reviewed journals, such results are considered bullshit. The review in journals means something because reviewers are appointed by an independent 3rd party: an editor of the journal. No so during defending PhD theses. The outside reviewers (if any) are de facto selected by a scientific advisor of the student or/and by the student, and the members of dissertation committee usually do not have time to read the thesis, although they suppose to.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You made a jump there from published to publishable. Of course the key new results of a good PhD thesis should be publishable. But the expectation reflected 15 years ago was that the PhD thesis was the first publication of these results. Moreover, not everything in a thesis will be publishable - a significant part is the introduction and summary of existing work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An "expectation that the PhD thesis was the first publication of these results" 15 years ago... I have never heard about this. Of course that might be logical if a PhD work was considered something that tells only about student's qualifications, rather than on his ability to do independent research. But it was not really the case even in USSR 30 years ago... Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I forget to tell that members of dissertation committee are usually not experts on the subject of a PhD thesis. That is why they require main results of the dissertation to be reviewed by experts, which happens during publication in scientific journals.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whereas the members of dissertation committees as a rule do not work in exactly the same area, they are highly reputable scientists who are quite able to understand the essence of the thesis and to analyse it in a broader context. Approval of the thesis by them, as well as positive reviews on the thesis is an equivalent to successful passing of the peer-reviewing procedure, which it is more than sufficient to claim that PhD thesis has been vetted by scientific community. PhD theses are as reliable as the articles in peer-reviewed journals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, they understand what the thesis was about. But they can not judge if it was anything new in the field, and if the methodology was flawless. Or at least this is so in natural sciences. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See Identifying reliable sources: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community...."  TFD (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw it and therefore made link to precisely this text (see above). This is wrong guideline that needs to be changed for the reasons explained above. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your examples do not come from the publishing culture (Australia) nor the discipline (history) of the thesis discussed above. You might want to rethink applying science publishing metaphors to the humanities.  Fifelfoo (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nothing is wrong with these guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this needs to be debated at the policy talk page at some point. I am not telling that PhD theses can not at all be used. Indeed, I am not familiar with situation in Humanities in Australia. Perhaps one can defend a PhD thesis in Australia on results that were not published in normal scientific literature. I do not know.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The defence of a PhD thesis as such is not related to any prior publication, but many departments/universities simply expect or require their PhD candidates to publish parts of their dissertation. Such requirements can of course be seen as an additional quality insurance and provide an increased reliability. However there are also many departments/universities, which do not have such a requirement (even in the natural sciences). In such cases the lack of a journal publication does not necessarily mean, that the content of the PhD is "bullshit", it may just means that the topic/content may be of lesser interest to journals or that PhD candidate was simply not living the "publish or perish"-rationale to the lst bit (it happens).
 * I agree that such PhD thesis' probably should be considered less reliable than those partially published in peer reviwed journals, however imho they are still useful/acceptable as sources for largely uncontroversial content. For controversial or hotly contested content, the requirements for "reliable" sources may go up anyhow, possibly being restricted to peer reviewed top rated journals only. But we need to make a distinction between sourcing strongly contested or controversial content and (the bulk of) uncontroversial content. I think you still can argue that such PhDs are in average more reliable and better fact checked/researched than newspapers, general interest journals or self published sources by notable experts, which we consider "reliable" sources as well.
 * Also to my experience in the humanities it is also common that a thesis might not be published in parts in a peer reviewed journal, but rather as a whole as a book with some acadamic publisher.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just curious, which exactly departments/universities in the US do not require publications from people who receive PhD degrees in natural sciences? ( I would certainly prefer a self-published source by a notable expert, or a publication in newspaper by a reputable journalist, rather than a PhD thesis by a person no one knows about, especially if the author was unable to publish his results elsewhere for whatever reason ). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again unpublished in a peer reviewed journal does not equate unable to publish.
 * As far as a concrete example is concerned, I didn't have the US in mind in particular. However you can take a look at the following survey of PhD programs for mechanical engineering (mostly in the US): . From 64 surveyed PhD programs only 12 formally require a publication as part of the PhD.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I am not familiar with situation in Humanities in Australia. Perhaps one can defend a PhD thesis in Australia on results that were not published in normal scientific literature." You're obviously heavily unfamiliar with humanities publishing in general.  Humanities authors rarely if ever publish in the "scientific literature" because humanities is a domain separate from science.  Humanities has its own normal humanities literature.  Humanities has its own normal publishing culture.  These differ very very strongly from what you propose is normal in the sciences. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How come? I have seen a lot of publications on History subjects in ISI citation index database, just like articles on natural sciences subjects. This is "scientific literature", is not it? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think at this point we need to distinguish between various forms of "sciences". There is science as in natural sciences, science as in engineering or technical science, science as in medical science as in as in social, political economic sciences,..., or science as in any academic scholarly (university) work. All of them have somewhat different methodologies and publishing cultures. In addition you have differences between different national cultures and differences between various universities within a nation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Humanities methodologies and publishing expectations vary considerably from scientific ones. There is no concept of regression or statistical proof (the key differentiation between humanities and social sciences).  The core methodologies in the humanities are interpretive and discursive, and the primary object of analysis is "texts" in the sense of semantically encoded data.  A journal article in the humanities is expected to be 5,000 to 12,000 words in most places representing about a year of full-time research exertion.  These are produced overwhelmingly by single individual research teams.  Meta-analysis and "proof" reviews occur as long ranging debates.  The period of "currency" of research in the humanities is between 60 and 150 years.  The standard form of publication in the humanities is the sole authored monograph or chapter in edited collection.  While ISI and other indexing services dedicated to the sciences may index humanities journals, this does not mean that "significance" is visible through citation counts or h-indicies.  Impact factors in the humanities are measured in a similar manner to normal proof in the humanities: through discursive analysis of texts.  The concept of a "controversy" matters more in the humanities than in the sciences, with debates occurring on a particular topic when a major work of new interpretation appears (ie: the Goldhagen debates, the Windshuttle debates).  Additionally, humanities go through 40 year cycles of new research methods causing deep ranging field reassessment, for example "post-modernism" or "the linguistic turn" over the last 40 years, prior to that structuralism, prior New Criticism, etc.  Or British Literary history => history from below => social history => cultural history.  In addition, the concept of a "significant research finding" varies considerably.  Most if not all PhD theses are expected to produce a significant finding, a finding which stands alone.  PhD theses are regularly if not exclusively assessed by external markers who are field specialists; who have on-point methodological speciality.  Humanities differ from sciences in: the object of inquiry, the basic method of research, the manner of reporting findings, what findings are considered significant, and the method of meta-analysis to confirm which findings are of universal importance.  One aspect of the humanities research culture is that PhD theses are considered masterworks, and are assessed as the first research output.  In the past most humanities PhDs resulted in a sole authored monograph which was the hardly emended thesis.  Since 1980, due to publishing constraints, this has changed such that theses are generally not published in toto in the humanities as monographs.  In addition, some humanities theses have always been considered as incompatible with the monograph format as they engage in work considered only of interest to other scholars, rather than a mass audience.  These works have never been converted into monographs at any proportion (think of a historiography thesis which does not produce a "scandalous" finding).  Some areas, like Germany, mandate a "publication" to allow for thesis availablity: thus VdM publishers.  However, in the United States, UK and Australiasia open access digital repositories are the norm to make theses available. This mirrors the traditional role of the University Archive in holding theses. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your points are taken, except that many areas of humanities, like sociology, psychology and even linguistics are using statistical analysis of data. Of course some of that was debated before. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Sociology is normally considered a "social science" as is psychology, though some times psychologic is considered a "science" at the "softer" end of the scale.  Linguistics is normally considered a humanity, but as you note, is highly reliant on formal or statistical proofs (as, for that matter, is analytical philosophy).  Maths is occasionally considered a humanity, and is definitely reliant on formal and statistical proofs.  While Humanities blend into social sciences (much history makes qualitative, if not statistical, assessments; much sociology is discursive) there is still a strong attractor concept of the humanities as a discursively proven field whose object of study is texts.  Thanks again!  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta Progressive News info on 9/11 government conspiracy theories
Is this site reliable for adding the information it contains to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? It looks kinda like a blog, but I wanted to be sure. Nightscream (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. No indication of who writes it, what their sources are, or what editorial oversight there is. Only a reliable source for its own opinions, which show little evidence of notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Andy - doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

inform-fiction.org
Is www.inform-fiction.org a reliable source for the contents of Z-machine? It seems to be a personal website with contributed content. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything that establishes WP:NOTABILITY. There's not a single third-party source. I agree that an article shouldn't be based solely on this website. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cambio
In recent edits an IP editor added an entry and supported it with the following reference. Is cambio.com a reliable source? IMHO, it appears to fall under WP:SPS, however I am seeking additional opinions prior to dismissing it as such.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a contest described on the site as follows: "Cambio and AT&T present On the Spot, the largest global online and interactive talent search to form the next Supergroup." Given the backers, it is probably notable and I suppose it would be reliable for assertions that particular people participated, advanced to the next level, etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Taíno people existance in modern day.
1.   The full citation of the source in question: [5] Documenting the Myth of the Taino Extinction, by Lynne Guitar. Archive copy at the Wayback Machine.

2.   A link to the source in question. For example [www.webpage.com] http://replay.web.archive.org/20030204061221/http://www.kacike.org/Editors.html

3.   The article in which it is being used. Taíno people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno_people

4.   The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. "It is argued that there was substantial mestizaje (racial and cultural mixing) as well as several Indian pueblos that survived into the 19th century in Cuba. The Spaniards who first arrived in the Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola in 1492, and later in Puerto Rico, did not bring women. They took Taíno women for their wives, which resulted in mestizo children.[5]"

5.   Links to relevant talk page discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erichb1 Clearly this is a self serving article that is referenced in support of the above statement. It is not peer reviewed, nor is there any supporting documentation to prove the statement. There is a clear conflict of interest here as the website has been set up exclusively to promote the idea that Taíno people still exist today so as to try and establish some basis for taking back land in these areas. If you look at the wayback link showing the editorial board, you will see that Lynne Guitar is the editor: http://replay.web.archive.org/20030204061221/http://www.kacike.org/Editors.html

As a result this reference should hardly be allowed to be used for something as fundamental as establishing whether or not the Taíno people exist in modern day culture. As a result I don't feel that this reference should be allowed to be used to support this contention. I feel that if you examine WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES, this reference falls under the "Self-published and questionable sources" area. As a result is violates nearly every point that should be considered to determine when Self-published and questionable sources can be used.

We need unbiased, peer reviewed references in this article if it is ever going to get the respect it deserves. I was advised to seek out the advice from this area, so I am doing so.

-Erichb1
 * In trying to find Dr. Guitar's article, I noticed the link in our article to the Wayback Machine text is a 404, something which needs to be fixed for the reference to remain. The link you have given above does not go to the article, but to the editorial page of "Journal of Caribbean Amerindian History and Anthropology", which seems to have a respectable editorial board and describes itself as "An electronic peer reviewed journal published by the Caribbean Amerindian Centrelink." The fact that Dr. Lynne Guitar is herself an assistant editor of the journal does not call its reliability into question. I found a bio for Dr. Guitar here which says, "Dr. Lynne Guitar earned the Ph.D. at Vanderbilt University in December 1998. At the time of her award she was ABD at that institution and a Fulbright Fellow in the Dominican Republic, where she elected to reside permanently. Today she teaches history at El Colegio Americano de Santo Domingo and is co-administrator for Student and Researcher Services."
 * This is a "weight vs. admissibility" argument of the type that pops up here frequently. You are arguing that the source should not be used at all, when a better focus might be how much weight to give it and whether it needs to be attributed or can be relied on for an assertion in Wikipedia's voice. If you can bring other references showing it is a minority view, under WP:UNDUE it might be appropriate to revise the article so its in a format "according to Dr. Lynne Guitar...However, other historians believe..." Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

www.transformation.co.uk

 * Hi is this a wikipedia reliable source, it is currently the main support for a lot of content in the Stephanie Booth blp.- http://www.transformation.co.uk/en/transgender-resources/true-life-stories/127-the-story-of-stephanie-anne-lloyd?start=13 - Current project wide usage of the external is only on this one article - see here - This question is in response to a BLPN report here. Off2riorob (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head: I could see maybe using a personal website for basic facts about the subject herself, as long as there aren't any extraordinary claims. But it seems inappropriate that the article draws so heavily from this source. If there aren't third-party sources for a lot of this material, then it seems like it could be trimmed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a shopping site which describes itself as follows: "Established in 1984, Transformation supplies everything for transvestites & crossdressers including realistic false breasts and oestrogen (estrogen) female hormone products for men,transvestites and transexuals that want to grow their own breasts." It seems to contain some interviews or profiles of members of its target demographic, but with no indication that it has professional standards of editing, I would say not a reliable source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SPS for infor about its founder at best. Collect (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes I missed that she is the founder of the website that does mean that at best is is a WP:SPS about the subject. Thanks to all for the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Portuguese American Historical & Research Foundation, Inc.
Is this website a reliable source? It is connected to a non-profit organization. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the top of this page: reliable for what statements in which articles? (it is unlikely to be so—there is no editorial oversight). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me expand upon my question. One are the list of individuals in the linked page accurate, specifically the Military list. Two, can other information from this organization be considered accurate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Book review
This book review, available at a number of websites including Palestine Chronicle and Atlantic Free Press, was used in the article Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle. Editors have challenged the source as "unreliable". Is this an acceptable source for an attributed statement on the author's views of the quality of the book? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be OK. Minor review, don't over-emphasise, keep on including a variety of reviews from different sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on why you think it's OK? The publication "more often than not, had no specific address" and runs on a annual budget of $30,000 . It's also self admittedly highly partisan. The author of the review's credentials appear to be "Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles' work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications" . No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The publication is highly partisan, with a clear political agenda. I would be very leery of using something like this. Moreover, the reviewer seems to be non-notable, so more reason to look for higher quality sources. Rym torch (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fair assessment. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and the argument that a reviewer is non-notable is a red herring. Notability does not determine content of articles (see WP:NNC). Many sources are partisan, many more have a "clear political agenda" (even if that were true). That does not disqualify them from use as reliable sources. Sources are not required to be "neutral", articles are. Sources are not required to be "notable", articles are. These are irrelevant arguments as they do not address the requirements for reliability. Palestine Chronicle has an editorial board and fact checking. It is, according to WP:RS, a usable source. Inline attribution would be acceptable, but to argue for the removal of a source based on it being "partisan" or "non-notable" is an argument that is not in keeping with the actual guideline. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * what is the evidemce that it performs fact checking? Rym torch (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * in fact, if you check their "disclaimer" page, they explicitly DENY any fact checking: "The Palestine Chronicle makes no representation concerning and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy of any of the material herin". This is a junk source that should not be used. Rym torch (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Had not seen that. I suppose it would be out for factual material. But that was not why it was in, it is there for an attributed view from the author. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * so when you said it performs fact checking, what where you basing it on?Rym torch (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Using these criteria, Israel National News is a reliable source. Would you agree? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For an attributed opinion for the views of the settlers, sure. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points I think worth making. Firstly, the source is only being used for an opinion, not for facts. Secondly, while this clearly appears to be an advocacy site, Israeli advocacy sites like CAMERA, StandWithUs, NGOWatch and others are commonly used as sources on I-P pages. Is there some reason why these sources should be acceptable and a Palestinian-advocacy site should not? Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. Of course it's reliable for the opinion it presents, and even if one dislikes that opinion an unbiased reading of the review will convince all but the most extreme among us that it's well researched. How much weight to give to it is a different question altogether; one that belongs on the NPOV noticeboard rather than here. But I think it'd be a hard sell to propose that it's wrong to allow voices from the other side of a conflict to be heard about a book that so actively champions and advocates for the one side. – <font face="Cambria"> OhioStandard  (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per other statements above, this is no good for facts but for an attributed comment on a book, it's a question of weight rather than reliability. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The remaining question would be, given that the source is not reliable and the author not a recognized expert on the topic, why would one want to quote the opinion of Jim Miles in a Wikipedia article? But that would likely be more of a WP:UNDUE issue. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So it looks like several of you wouldn't accept as reliable any source that says it "does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through" the source or that says "we make no warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the Content and assume no liability or responsibility for any error or omission in the Content" or that it "expressly disclaims all warranties of fitness for a particular purpose, accuracy, completeness or non-infringement"?
 * Let me encourage you to consider who is making these direct disclaimers of factual accuracy before you answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously the disclaimers in the NYT, LAT and Sunday Times are for legal purposes - their purpose is to limit the rights of those who may want to sue the publishers. The disclaimers have nothing to do with whether those well regarded publications have an editorial board or do fact-checking. The same principle of course applies to the Palestine Chronicle - the fact that the Palestine Chronicle has a legal disclaimer page has nothing to do with whether it has an editorial board or does fact-checking. It is a classic red herring. KeptSouth (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

instructables.com
Someone has been repeatedly adding links to the site instructables.com (which has its own article here) to Faraday effect and other articles. The link-adding accounts are currently blocked and Faraday effect is temporarily semi-protected.

Instructables consists of purely user-generated/uploaded content. As such, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source for use as a reference, but I wanted to gauge the community's thoughts on its use as an external link.

My inclination is to remove such links due to the first two WP:EL criteria of links to be avoided, as well as WP:NOTHOWTO. Thoughts? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the first two items of WP:ELNO? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant.
 * I'm somewhat amused that the user who was blocked for spamming these links has posted an unblock request for the explicit purpose of continuing to add them. He clearly believes they are a valuable addition, although I and others who have reverted him do not. No doubt when the block expires, we'll see more. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This board is really more about reliable sources, but those links don't seem particularly encyclopedic. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse my lapse in thinking. Sorry, I meant to post this at WP:ELN, not WP:RSN. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

School publications
I know that published sources don't have to be easily verifiable, but what if they aren't verifiable at all? Say someone cites to a 30-year-old school newspaper or yearbook (in the editor's possession), but there's no way to obtain copies from the school. Is the source reliable? Is there some way to make the source verifiable, although I can't think of any way to do that without implicating copyright concerns. The edit in question is here. (I reverted the edit, but not just because of the source issue.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the School is a University, the University may have an obligation under records laws, and either have its own Archivist, or deposit its archives. Ephemeral and official publications are a "high priority" for organisational archives.  If the document was published, it may have been collected by the national, provincial or local copyright deposit library.  You may also try asking a local or academic library for an ILL / document supply request for the edition in question, or for assistance in locating where a physical or microfilm copy is held. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a high school.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A high school newspaper or yearbook wouldn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With the exception of signed articles which are attributed to a known person, material relating to anticipated graduating class (as such information is unlikely to be otherwise in any non-yearbook source other than self-published ones) etc.  Not generally usable for "facts" and nonusable for opinions.   Collect (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You might find Published helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Long War Journal
Could we have a take on The Long War Journal? It is used a reference in Death of Osama bin Laden, and I haven't encountered it before - not sure if it is ok as RS. Thanks Tvoz / talk 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a publication of a neocon think-tank, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Newt Gingrich and Steve Forbes are on the board. There has been a lot of discussion here about the relative reliability of different think-tanks, which range from very good on certain issues, to always unbelievable. I would say at best it should be quoted with attribution. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Attribute the statement. The political leanings of the editorial board should be a non-factor, as we should be striving to edit with a neutral POV; and whether the reference is a RS should be our primary concern. That being said we should avoid giving undue weight to any one POV, and competing POVs should be given due weight and balance in articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll take a look at how it was worded in the text and see about adding attribution. Tvoz / talk 09:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable article versus reliable publication
I'm here to ask for some help, please, in understanding and applying the guidelines in the context of Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). One of the sources offered in support of notability is a review of the product that appeared in Spectrum, a publication of the IEEE. We all seem to agree that this publication is generally of high quality and highly respected, so this is not in question.

But I'm troubled by the actual content of the article. I think it's advertising being passed off as a legitimate review. Characteristic of purely promotional writing, it fails to identify even a single shortcoming or any possible way in which the product might be improved or any purpose for which it wouldn't be absolutely fabulous. My concern grew when I downloaded the product and instantly confirmed that the review contains a testably false claim that the product is a complete C shell. (Yes, I understand it would be impermissible WP:OR to try to insert this into an article. But right now, I'm just interested in understanding the reliability of the sources.)

What I don't know is whether this is "fair" argument to make, both because (a) some may consider it WP:OR even if I only did it to verify a source and only discuss it in the AfD and (b) I don't know if we are allowed to consider article content in this way. I cannot find any clear direction in the guidelines. If a reliable publication publishes an article, is that article ipso facto a reliable independent source just so long as we can't prove a WP:PRIMARY connection? (Others seem to think so and maybe they're right.) Or is fair to say, wait a sec, if looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck, that actual content matters? I honestly don't know and would look forward to comments, please. Msnicki (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a consensus here that we look at the particulars rather than saying a specific publication or journal or newspaper can always be used as a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's (just) possible that Spectrum would count as "media of limited interest and circulation" in terms of WP:CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe there is a reason that wiki don't allow WP:OR because there could be misunderstanding or contract with each other if everybody start to write wiki article based on their own WP:OR. There are more experiences from WP:OR by different users as listed here. But none of them in the above link can be used in wiki. There is nowhere existing such a false claim that "the product is a complete C shell" and I have already explained at Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Chuser (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Chuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Secondary vs. Tertiary Sources
Hi,In section Allegations of Disagreement with Ali of article Fatimah I am running into two not-so-agreeing sources. One is Verena Klemm's Book Chapter titled: "Image Formation of an Islamic Legend: Fà†ima, the Daughter of the Prophet Mu˙ammad" published by Brill in this book. The other source is a tertiary one, i.e. Encyclopedia of Islam.

The Tertiary source emphacises that Ali was rude and harsh (Shiddah and Ghelaz) to his wife during their marriage life without showing support (primary or secondary source). The secondary source however, mentions one occasion in the history where the wife complains about her husband's rudeness (Shiddah) to his father, i.e. Muhammad. Due to which the husband promises not to do anythig that his wife dislikes. The author of the secondary source provides primary sources to this incident.

My question: Can I write just the secondary source and not the tertiary? Considering the following guideline of Wiki: ((Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources.))

Kazemita1 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify the problem, There are two sources. The first one is Encyclopedia of Islam which is one of most reliable sources on Islam related topics. The second one is another secondary academic book. Both sources are reliable but the Encycoedia is peer reviewed by a larger community of scholars.

Encyclopedia of Islam contains some information not shared in the second source (simply not shared but I do not see disagreement between two sources). User Kazemita1 urges me to delete the information from Encyclopedia of Islam) which are not shared. Is he right to delete the material from the tertiary source?--Behzad.Modares (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Our policy on tertiary sources such as encyclopedias says, "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others." There has been an understanding expressed on this noticeboard that encyclopedia articles signed by known academic experts have more credence than unsigned ones, because much of the time the latter are written by freelancers who don't necessarily know more about the topic than you or I do. I don't think there is any hard and fast rule here; I would typically seek a consensus on the article's Talk page regarding inclusion of the tertiary source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he's not right, there is no automatic preference of a secondary source over a tertiary. If both sources are higly reputable, the article should in doubt use both sources and report on there differing assessments.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the secondary source could support the same material and viewpoint as the tertiary source, I would say we should favor the secondary one (ie I think it is OK to replace an acceptable citation to a tertiary source with a better one to a secondary source, when both sources support the same information with similar viewpoints)... but Kmh is absolutely correct when it comes to different sources with different viewpoints or takes on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite, if we decide to favour any of them over simply listing both, the criteria should be reputation & quality rather than secondary versus tertiary. If the reputation and equality are equal as well then you might favour the secondary source. Though imho in most of these cases there's no real need to replace anything.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We actually do have a hierarchy, and prefer secondary sources over tertiary sources when both are reliable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what I've seen. The only heirarchy I've seen is preferring sources is in quality such as peer-reviewed articles/newpiece by a news organization known for strong editorial oversight vs. blog posts by expert. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, hence my posting above. The priority of many authors is (and imho should be) on quality/reliability/accuracy and the formal distinction between secondary and tertiary is a marginal issue they often pay little to no attention too. Note that distinguished special subject encylopedias and standardT/notable textbooks are used throughout WP and they are for the most part at least tertiary sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a related problem in the Weston Price biography. He died in 1948 so BLP doesn't apply but I want to include two quotes by him showing his views regarding focal infection to offset what is being put out by his supporters and detractors (who are using an older work). Both these sources are reliable: one is Journal American Medical Association and the other is published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers and IMHO clarify his position on focal infection not properly addressed in the third party material.  What do we do when primary sources appear to conflict with secondary sources that used older material?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Democracy Now
This morning, the lead on Democracy now was that the United States had "assassinated" Osama Bin Laden."The manhunt for Osama Bin Laden is over. Nearly 10 years after the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, U.S. forces are said to have assassinated the Saudi-born founder of Al Qaeda on Sunday inside Pakistan. President Obama addressed the news late on Sunday night.Headlines May 2, 2011 Democracy Now" This sort of flat statement when later in interviews it is obvious she has no such information is unacceptable. This is typical of the way Democracy Now will twist news to suit their political agenda. The situation is complicated by the fact that occasionally Democracy Now breaks important stories. My suggestion is generally treat Democracy Now as a biased source; that is. if it is used it should be balanced by a mainstream account. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * News aggregator. To the extent that they carry out investigative journalism they can be treated as a mainstream news source. Here they are obviously picking up a story from the wires, so we would obviously prefer either to go directly to AP or Reuters, or to use the BBC etc. Bias isn't really the issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, being on the square in Egypt was definitely good. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear case where the actual source should be used.  And yet another example where Wikipedia needs a substantial enforcement of NPOV. Collect (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain the problem to me? Is something wrong with the word "assassinate"? Hans Adler 18:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, if it does not happen to be the correct word to describe the action being talked about. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it not? Because the US government is using a different word and the American media are all following it? Let's look at our article assassination:
 * An assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." An additional definition is "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."'
 * Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives.
 * That article's section Asassination tells me that there is an internal political debate in the US about the legality or otherwise of "targeted killings". Well, Der Spiegel already has the first article quoting professor of international law de:Claus Kreß with statements that allow the conclusion that the killings (more people than just Bin Laden were killed) were in fact illegal as they did not happen in a war context. (So far only in German. ) Hans Adler 19:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fascinating as this debate would be, I have to decline to take part. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the "correct" word has to be that used by a reliable source.  Anything else would be original research or synthesis.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, from former West German Defence Minister, then Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt: "On the one hand it is unambiguously an infraction against effective international law. On the other hand, given the unrest in the Arabic world, the act can lead to effects that cannot be appreciated at the moment."
 * You are using circular logic. If all reliable sources that use a word that you would like to censor are automatically not reliable, then of course no reliable sources use the word. Hans Adler 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post titles:
 * PM [= Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu] congratulates Obama for bin Laden assassination.
 * He's got a political agenda; that's his job; Democracy Now poses as a news organization; it is their job too, as the voice of the radical left but not as a reliable news organization. Neither has accurate information regarding the actual circumstances of Osama bin Laden's death. Perhaps he was ordered to surrender and only shot when HE opened fire; perhaps not; we may never know. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source because it uses the wrong word? Hans Adler 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made no comment on the reliability of any source using this word. I have no desire to censor the word -- but I do want to see it verified by attribution to a reliable source.  Your comment on circular logic is thus incorrect.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was more adressed to editors in this thread in general, as I seem to see a distinct American, nationalist, bias. Hans Adler 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Haaretz titles:
 * Pakistan and U.S. coordinated bin Laden assassination, says envoy
 * Hans Adler 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I am sure that Jerusalem Post is a reliable source for the assertion "Binyamin Netanyahu described the killing of Bin Laden as an assassination". But unless Mr Netanyahu was privy to the circumstances of the killing, then it is at least questionable whether his opinion is a reliable source for the statement "Bin Laden was assassinated".  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One doesn't have to be privy to the precise circumstances of the killing to assess whether the US were in a state of war with, um, with whom anyway? And one doesn't have to be privy to the precise circumstances of the killing to see that this wasn't a proper execution of a verdict of any legitimate court, nor an act of immediate self-defence. Scholars of international law and other experts have everything they need to assess this case, and some have already come to the conclusion that it was an illegal act. (Personally I am not too unhappy about it, but that's a completely separate question.) Hans Adler 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it's reaching American news blogs such as that of MSNBC: "Was it right to kill bin Laden? Amid the celebrations over the death of al-Qaida's leader, Art Caplan weighs in on the ethics of assassination " (Of course that's just commentary so far.) Hans Adler 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) So reliable sources are reporting disputes over whether to use the word? Even more reason to avoid attempting to resolve the word usage issue here or indeed anywhere else on WP, and confine ourselves to assessing the reliability of sources (at this board) and going through the other normal editing procedures elsewhere.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "To the extent that they carry out investigative journalism they can be treated as a mainstream news source."
 * I wouldn't put it like that. They are all highly opinionated to an extreme.  If they pick something up off a wire service then we should find the wire service.
 * In this case, I'd say we need another source to use the word "assassinated" unless we directly quote Democracy Now! to let readers know that this was their own reaction to the story.
 * I do think their interviews are reliable insofar as they're accurately quoting notable people. I'm sure I've used them that way myself.  But I would never cite their positions as being facts.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That point isn't relevant to this discussion anyway. It was related to the initial post about DN in general. If they break a new story, based on their own investigations, they may be reliable. For this there are better sources. The news of the killing came not really from the wires but from the White House. Most of press reported it in exactly the same way. Haaretz and JP are newspapers of record, so their use of the "a" word is prima facie notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the official U.S. story:"Mr. Brennan said that the raid was intended to capture Bin Laden, though those who planned it assumed he would resist. “If we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that,” he said." User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out just above, this is the Reliable Sources noticeboard, not the Did-the-US-do-the-right-thing-killing-Bin-Laden noticeboard. Whether you, I, Hans or Mr Brennan think this was assassination, justifiable homicide or premeditated champerty is simply irrelevant.  What reliable sources independent of the subject say is the only thing that counts.
 * Now, what source did you want to discuss the reliability of? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion dances around the issue of the word "assassination". It's a perfectly neutral word with a precise definition, and therefore shouldn't be considered as loaded language, which appears to be the insinuation here simply because an allegedly biased source used it.

If Wikipedia always has to use the exact words that sources use, then we'd get dangerously close to copyright violations. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not have to use the exact words that sources use, unless we are quoting the sources. It is not original research to use words that summarize or provide a neutral overview of an event, as long as the words are used properly. That's what "compelling prose" is, people.

If a biased source happens to use the word, that fact alone doesn't mean the word is biased. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The ref in Haaretz cited a little above is certainly  usable. It  furthermore that news source does not represent anti-US bias. I suspect in the next few hours we'll get quite a number of additional mainstream sources using that word. In terms of implications, whether the word is pejorative depends on who is getting assassinated. Sources normally refer to " the assassination plot against Hitler" without implying the least disapproval.  DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "targeted assassinations" is part of the lingo of counter-terrorism. See for example human rights expert Michael Ignatieff's comment, ""To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."  TFD (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No doubt. Now, what source did you want to discuss the reliability of?  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Fred Bauder: Actually what's the issue here "Democracy Now" as a source or the usage of term "assassination" ? So there is neither a case against Democracy Now nor against the usage of the term "assassination". What you can do however, if you personally feel that  either (Democracy Now or the term "assassination") is controversial, is to insist on intext attribution, to include differing verifiable descriptions from other reliable sources or simply to come up with a replacement term that deems acceptable to the other involved editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously at least several "reliable", "reputable" or "mainstream" sources outside the US use the term assassinatiom and so do some notable (legal) experts. So you can hardly blame Democracy Now for putting a particular twist on it, it is fairly within in the range of global reporting even though it might be an outlier within the US media. Hence I see no real argument against Democracy Now.
 * Now as far as the term "assassination" is concerned. In doubt it doesn't really matter whether a WP editor thinks those "reliable", "reputable" or "mainstream" media use the term "assassination" correctly or not and whether they have enough information to determine if the usage of that term is appropriate, but we simply summarize/report what those media outlets write. Arguing about the true meaning and correct usage of the term assassination is more or less a "verifibality but truth"-scenario (see Verifiability). "Assassination" might not be true, but it is definitely verifiable and as long as neither WP editors nor an overwhelming majority of reputable/reliable sources can agree on the truth, verifiability is all we get.


 * This appears to be the wrong forum. The issue is the neutrality of the description rather that the reliablitiy of the source.  Reliability would be questioning whether or not Bin Laden had been killed.  Note too that DN is just using assassinated as a synonymn for deliberate killing.  Whether or not our use of that term is appropriate has nothing to do with the reliablity of the DN article.  TFD (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is over whether Democracy Now is a biased source should be used at all. Amy Goodman is an expert propagandist; no one needs to put words in her mouth. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the question was whether from the mere fact that Democracy Now used the term assassination it follows that they are a biased source (a question that is not entirely on-topic for this noticeboard, but also not entirely off-topic), then I think it's pretty clear by now that the answer is No. Hans Adler 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fred, why do you expect a definitive guideline on DN on the basis of one word, when that's not the usual practice of this board? We said at the beginning that DN is not an ideal source for this story. I'm sure that other cases will come up again and then we people will comment in context. Agree with Hans except that biased is hardly relevant. The Daily Telegraph is biased but still RS for many things. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Fred Bauder: There is nothing wrong with sources "being biased" or "having an opinion" or an "ideological or political leaning". Sources are not required to be neutral, but WP articles are, which is big difference! As far as sources are concerned "being biased" only matters if that leads to (heavily) inaccurate or misleading reporting/descriptions and then the issue is not the bias as such but that the source is unreliable due to being inaccurate/misleading/mistating facts. So far I haven't heard an single convincing reason, why Democracy Now cannot be used as a source. That you think Democracy Now is "biased" is certainly none (even if it were true). I'm not quite sure what kind propagandist Amy Goodman is supposed to be and for what and why exactly that would be an issue. As far as her accuracy is concerned I think in comparison to some other media like Fox, Wahington Times or the Weekly Standard being (formally) allowed for sourcing she and Democracy Now do fairly well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In order to use this example as a reason why DM is not reliable, rather than that it uses language which, like many reliable sources, may not meet WP requirements for neutrality, Fred Bauder would have to show that other media did not report that Bin Laden had been killed, and that DM routinely reports events that did not happen. Even then, we would need a reliable source that says they routinely publish false news.  TFD (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of neutrality; she had no source at all. Well, I guess neutrality is involved; what she made up was not neutral. So long as anyone thinks material from Democracy Now can be considered a reliable source for any purpose I'll keep looking for more examples. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again there is no requirement for sources being "neutral", but only for WP articles. If you have information that her news/information it is unreliable, it is high time to provide some evidence, otherwise this duscission can be considered closed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a requirement that a source be reliable, which Democracy Now fails, but so did the official White House spokesman., "Osama bin Laden was not carrying a weapon when he was killed by American troops in a fortified house in Pakistan, the White House said Tuesday, as it revised its initial account of the nighttime raid." Both are revealed as unreliable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And the job of both is to report faithfully whatever information they receive, which is likely what happened. If the initial information was flawed, then so is the reporting. This doesn't mean these sources made up information, it doesn't reflect on their reliability, it's more of a GIGO problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss DN in general, this is not the place. There's currently a discussion about Fox News on WP talk:IRS, and you could add the question of DN to that thread or open another one. But there is limited scope anywhere to argue about the reliability in principle of particular sources. The sourcing policy is laid down in WP:IRS and here we comment on cases in context. My first comment on DN was "news aggregator", and that is as much as can really be said. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the age of Mancala
I have had a Mancala edit reversed by an IP in Germany claiming that the sources I have used are controversial without starting a talk thread. I was trying to source the age of Mancala and the sources I find give the date as between 7000-5000 B.C.

The sources that I used were These are not the only academic sources making this claim and I in no way misrepresented the sources in the edit.
 * Neolithic Game Board from Ain Ghazal Jordon, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Gary O. Rollefson, 1992,
 * Game History, Content, Practice and Law, Sydney University Press, Brian Fitzgerald, Sal Humphreys, John Banks, Nicolas Suzor, 2007
 * Board games reconsidered: Mancala in the Balkans, Etnoantropološki problemi Vesna Bikic, Jasna Vukovic, 2010,

A source is given in the revert claiming to be the currently accepted view which would be cited as I don't believe that this source in any way contradicts the findings of the 3 publications I give above. It restates a source from 1979 to give the potential age of Mancala as 3000 years, since this source predates some key archaeological finds and is not a major work this clearly is superseded. It also doesn't make any definitive statements about the origins of Mancala.
 * Mancala in Roman Asia Minor, Board Game Studies, Ulrich Schadler, 1994,

The 2010 source even cites this paper before making the claim (paraphrase): "The age of Mancala is generally accepted as being from the Neolithic period"

The mechanics of the game and similarity to farming make this date highly probable, but as the claims of the age are related to researchers interpretation of archaeological finds, I thought I should get some more feedback before proceeding. Tetron76 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is another "weight" vs. "admissibility" controversy. On the theory that the old and new articles are all reliable sources with contradictory conclusions, the right approach would likely be to cite them all. Something like "The age of Mancala has been said to range from...." or the point counterpoint structure of: "According to some sources....However, others say...." Claiming a a reliable source is "superseded" is a tough row to hoe here, as it requires something of an act of synthesis on our part. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually a very limited or rather indirect version of synthesis might be possible here, though it is fine line to walk. Essentially it is up to WP authors to judge the degree of reliability of the individual source and to select the "best" ones and summarize them accordingly. Not any source that is formally reliable/reputable carries automatically the same degree of reliability/reputability as another and WP authors may sort out sources they consider as inferior/outdated/less accurate. This up to the discretion of the WP authors and usually unproblematic as long as it doesn't get abused to (intentionally) misrepresent content or unless it gets (reasonably) contested by other authors. In the latter case in doubt all sources need to be described and cited.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do any of the later sources explicitly address the 1979 interpretation and say why they think it's now wrong? bobrayner (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done some more follow-up. I have accessed the critical page of the 1979 article
 * African Mankala in Anthropological Perspective, Townshend
 * There is no new information presented on the date of the game, instead he attributes the date to a reference to (Murray 1952). I am fairly sure this must be " A history of board games other than chess", While I could not access this, other sources attribute Murray as supporting the game being around at the time of ancient Egypt (3000 BC). It is the date of these early artefacts that is being described as unproven and now soem sources state the age as at least as old as 1400 B.C.). This makes Townshends citation of "at most 3000" years old look like a mistake. I think he probably meant 3000 B.C.Tetron76 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Mancala seems relevant. Hans Adler 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The conversation is from 2004 and is using the above link as it is the only source that supports the date for Mancala as given in the wikipedia article.
 * There are several weaknesses of this articles position. The most critical is the statement about the 2 neolithic finds "are unlikely to be game boards". The author gives no evidence or reasoning to support this assertion, not even speculation as to what else they might be.Tetron76 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

electronic Singapore press sources
I would like to get a verdict on http://temasekreview.com, http://theonlinecitizen.com and http://veryfinecommentary.tk and http://campus-observer.org/ in so far as they comment on Singapore electoral and political issues that would otherwise not get covered in the state press in the Straits Times due to pro-government censorship. I view these as sources I can use to cite Opposition-leaning views, and all these sources have an editorial board, and they often have an alternative, dissentive take on people and events already mentioned in the state press, that already echo the majority opinion of online users, but with interpretations or facts that would otherwise be overlooked or censored in the state press.

Where they are used for example include Singapore general election, 2011, Nicole Seah and Tin Pei Ling. Thanks Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * These don't seem like the strongest sources -- a group blog (The Online Citizen) and student publications. (I'm unable to access the Temasek site just now.) The blog is questionable, and I think the use of student publications would need to be constrained. They seem largely opinion, and not much reportage. I would suggest limited use. TimidGuy (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mikedolbear.com
Is this a self-published source? Despite the name it's run by two people and has other contributors. An editor is interested in using this interview, either in Ivy Benson (who is deceased so not a BLP) or for a possible future article on the person being interviewed (which would be a BLP). January ( talk ) 18:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like it would be ok for basic information about the interviewee herself, if it can be reasonably be determined that the interview is authentic and if this person meets notability requirements. It may be less useful for the Ivy Benson article, for which it may be better to have information that's vetted by a published source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Adopting Haiti: Notability
This isn't so much a question about a specific question about a source so much as a general question. Would the editors here consider the sources listed at this page sufficient to show notability and have a full article for the student-film Adopting Haiti? BelloWello (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The first source listed helps to establish notability. I don't understand the CNN link. Was the documentary shown on CNN? TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Image of Wikipedia in series' opening
The show Weeds has every episode a different opening screen (or at least for the latter seasons), one of these happens to be a screenshot of the Wikipedia article Hearfourmewesique is insistent that this is thus a reliable source, and takes the text, which has never been properly sourced and even has the Citation needed tag in the image, as fact. Using the Cite episode-template to cite this, and naming WP:FILMPLOT (should probably be WP:TVPLOT in this case) as permission for this, which I believe only applies to plot information. The image is identical to (minus the article title) a previous revision of Wikipedia from about 2 months before the episode was broadcast on July 20, 2009. It's a screenshot of one of 9 versions between and. This is basically WP:CIRCULAR or otherwise just a dubious reference, based on the assumption the content of this image is an official statement. Or am I mistaken? More info/discussion at the series' talk page, which already got quite lengthy and already resulted in a 3 day ban for edit warring.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be personal interpretation to say that it's an official statement, really. It could just as easily be interpreted as an artistic statement about Wikipedia.  At best, though, even if it is an official statement, they are admitted that their source for their statement is Wikipedia, and we're not a reliable source by any means. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've commented there, I'll agree here. How can a screenshot of an outdated Wikipedia page be used as a reliable source? If that's the case, then we are saying the producers of the show are endorsing every single thing on that page. That seems to be a fairly large assumption. Dayewalker (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing the screen shot is reliable for is a very basic descriptive statement... saying that a version of the article was shown in the opening scene of an episode. Neither the screen shot, nor the fact that it appeared in the episode is in any way an endorsement of the information that was in the article at the time it was filmed. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that we, as Wikipedians, are allowed to deduct is that "the words appeared on a TV series, therefore serve as a direct source unless can be proven otherwise". Their source is their own editing team, choosing to put that particular text that pertains to their own creation, in their own creation. The source is not Wikipedia. It happens to be a Wikipedia page, but they put it there on their own – this is, therefore, their own statement. Unless, of course, someone can come up with a reasonable proof that the makers of the series were "too high to notice" (an actual quote of one of the opposing voices on the talk page, just to display the amount of adequacy here) or otherwise oppose to the statement, we cannot make these kind of almost libelous assumptions, especially when they go against common sense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No... we are not allowed to make any deductions. We can say "Episode X opened with a shot of what appears to be the Wikipedia article on the TV show Weeds"... that does not require deduction and is purely descriptive.  But that is as far as we can go. We can not draw any conclusions based on that shot. Doing so is OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can even say that. Neither Wikipedia's name nor its logo nor anything that can be iconified (officially or unofficially) with Wikipedia beyond the page's style appears on the page. As such it could be any wiki, including one designed specifically for the show. It might not even be a wiki at all; just a good job at photoshopping. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen an actual Wikipedia article that doesn't say "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" right under the title? Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is clearly the start of our article (as of April to June 2009) with a photoshopping job or equivalent to get rid the menus, change the title, and add the photo. The only question is whether it's noteworthy that they cited us in this way. Hans Adler 12:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Xeworlebi, can you help me out here with a simple summary (or a diff or three) that shows exactly which sentence this image is supposed to support? If it's something like "a modified screenshot from Wikipedia was shown in one episode", then it's probably okay.  If it's something like "the meaning of the title is...", then it's not.  (I just reverted that, BTW:  http://forums.jokersupdates.com/ubbthreads is not a reliable source for any purpose more significant than "somebody posted something on the Internet").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence is "The show's title, according to Kohan, refers "to a lot of things", including marijuana and widow's weeds; however, it mainly alludes to "hardy plants struggling to survive." ",, but if you take a look at the article history, 6 of the seven last edits by Hearfourmewesique were adding it some form or another, with the episode as source, the forum as source or both. The image used as the reference displays the following text: "The title is a play on words, referring to both the slang term for marijuana, and widow's weeds." The forum was another source Hearfourmewesique introduced to support this, which also met with opposition at the talk page, but Hearfourmewesique believes this to be a good source because "One has be a real nutcase to go through the trouble to fake an interview...".  X  eworlebi (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is still a project to build an encyclopedia. If you have described the situation correctly, the editor should be blocked indefinitely if he or she does not desist immediately, as this is clearly either a case of WP:POINT or of severe WP:COMPETENCE problems. The slogan that everybody can edit Wikipedia has some obvious small print that is too often ignored. Hans Adler 22:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming that it really was that bad... I just couldn't bring myself to believe it yesterday. I'm tending to agree with Hans.  I'm amazed that anyone would think that a screenshot from Wikipedia is a reliable source for the facts presented in the screenshot.  The second sentence of CIRCULAR addresses it directly:  "do not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia [you know, like a screenshot of an article] to support that same material in Wikipedia".
 * If this doesn't stop real soon now, we may need to get an admin to relieve the project of this timesink, so the rest of the folks at that page can actually do something useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I right in thinking that this TV programme is a work of fiction? Surely nothing presented in this show can be a reliable source for anything in the real world, as opposed to the fictional world it portrays!  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's circular here is the amazing lack of attention to the following detail: it's a screnshot from the series that talks about the series. It's not a screenshot of a Wikipedia page. It's the screenshot of the opening credits of an episode that happens to have been taken from a Wikipedia page. It's basically saying that the makers of the series don't know what they are or what their statement is, so their source for facts pertaining to themselves is Wikipedia. Is anyone else finding this logic outrageously fallacious??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are really trying hard to become one of the first editors explicitly blocked per WP:COMPETENCE, aren't you? Or is there any reason to believe that of all the possible reasons for putting a Wikipedia screenshot into such an episode the reason was that the creators of the series meant to endorse every single statement seen in the article, even including those that have "citation needed" behind them?
 * Sourcing is not some abstract game. It's about finding sources which make it likely that the claimed statements are correct. Sources that are clearly not endorsing a statement, e.g. because they are just citing it as this one does with the Wikipedia page, are useless for this purpose. Hans Adler 23:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A block for WP:IDHT or inability to WP:LETGO is far more likely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Hans here. It's merely a humorous shot in the title sequence, Hearfour, like other humorous shots the series has used. The Wikipedia text shown is not anywhere near a reliable source for the intentions of the show's creator. This interview, now cited, is an acceptable source, so the issue is moot anyway. -- JN 466  16:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Add mee to the "This is bloody sill"-camp. We can't use that text in the screenshot to reference itself. --Conti|✉ 16:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sign in a museum
The image is of a sign describing the remains of an ancient mosaic in an archeological site/museum in Aegina, Greece. (I took the photo.) The sign says: "Mosaic floor of a Jewish synagogue. The mosaic decorated the floor of the Jewish synagogue of Aegina. Discovered in 1829 to the East of the "secret harbour" in the midst of an important quarter of the ancient city, the building has been excavated only in parts because of its modern superstructures. During the investigations remains of an older predecessor have been identified (hatched walls). Through the entrance in the West and an antechamber people reached the main hall which measured 13.50 to 7.60 m. To the East - oriented towards the city of Jerusalem - a raised apsis was annexed in which the shrine for the Torah was stored. Between apsis and main hall stood the reading-desk (white recess in the eastern mosaic-frame). For the purpose of preservation the mosaic has been removed from its original context to the actual position. It displays the typical decoration-patterns of mosaic-floors of the 4th century AD consisting of artistic geometric designs in a rich scale of colours. At the west side near the entrance two donation inscriptions are visible. They refer to the erection of the synagogue using revenues of the community and donations of its members when Theodoros was head of the synagogue for four years. The completion of the synagogue and the bedding of the mosaic took place when his homonymous son held the same position. The Jewish community of Aegina has been established probably when Jews and other refugees resorted to the island in the course of the Barbarian invasions into Greece at the end of the second and during the third century AD. The abandonment of the synagogue is testified by several Christian graves in the foundation walls of the building (dotted rectangles). The mosaic has been created between 300 and 350 AD."

My question is, Can my image be considered an RS for editing the Aegina article to say, for example, that Jews are believed to have settled in Aegina late in the second century and in the third century when the Barbarians invaded Greece? Also, what format would the ref take in such a case?—Biosketch (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An interesting question. I'd think that the image cannot really be considered as a reliable source, given that we can't actually confirm where it was taken, and that it hasn't been photoshopped (not that I'm suggesting it has, needless to say). This raises the question as to whether the sign itself is a reliable source. It is verifiable in that presumably anyone else can check it if they visit the site, and unless there are good grounds to doubt the academic credentials of the museum, It would seem to qualify as a 'source'. I don't think it would qualified as 'peer reviewed' though, so I'd be wary of using it as a sole source for anything controversial. As for exactly how one would cite a sign in a museum, I've no idea.


 * Sadly, I think that the best solution might be to try to find another more conventional source that says the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Both the original sign and the photograph of it are acceptable. Use cite sign if the article uses the most common family of citation templates.
 * Per Images, we do not require editors to provide a published reliable source that they aren't lying about the contents of the images they upload. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Going to be annoying, and point out that the image itself is a violation of the signwriter's copyright and needs to be deleted; Greece has no freedom of panorama. – iridescent  20:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...deleted from commons but it could still be used here with a decent fair use rationale, no ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can cite your picture of the sign ... But there is nothing wrong with citing the sign itself. The sign is verifiable by anyone by simply going to the location and reading it. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't need to have a copy of the image for you to cite the sign; we only need a copy if you want to include the image directly in the article, as part of the article's contents. (In fact, we'd normally send copies of sources over to Wikisource.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. It's since come to my attention that others before me uploaded similar images to Commons – just no one edited the Aegina article. (See, for example, Romaniotes.) For now I'll go ahead and use the museum as a source for saying that archeological excavations of the island have indicated that Jews settled in Aegina in the second and third centuries having fled the Barbarian Invasions of the time in Greece. But since there's the possibility that the image itself is under copyright (though no one objected to my taking pictures, we did have to pay to enter the site/museum), I won't include the image itself in the article. And I'll endeavor to find another RS to corroborate the information.—Biosketch (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't actually need another reliable source. Sources do not have to be available online.  You can cite the sign directly.  The sign itself is sufficient.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's preferable if you can find something more accessible but I agree the sign does satisfy the requirements of a reliable source and if you haven't a particular author could e credited to the museum since they have approved it being in plain view. I think it also counts as a secondary source as giving commentary rather than a primary source but someone else might disagree on that. Dmcq (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean "something more accessible of equal quality, of course. A blog post might be free full text on the net, but it is certainly not a preferable source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone trained in Museum science I have point out that not all museums are created equal. Funding and resulting the quality of the staff are key factors in determining quality.  A nearly all volunteer museum (even if is funded by the government) is going to have problems an all professional museum will not.  Then you have private museums whose quality can be all over the map.  The sign itself is not reliable without knowing more about who put it there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is only one reliable source for the information (the sign) I would think the material should be attibuted to it. Ward20 (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy
On the West Ridge Academy page, an editor is removing the information "The Utah Boys Ranch was founded by Lowell L. Bennion and a group of his associates in 1964." That information was sourced to this newspaper article, which the editor claims is taken directly from Wikipedia. As you can see from the talk page, the editor shows that the sentence appeared previously on Wikipedia, and draws the conclusion that the article must have come from the WP page. More eyes and opinions would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add a few more relevant details to this request: the exact sentence "The Utah Boys Ranch was founded by Lowell L. Bennion and a group of his associates in 1964." was added to the original Wikipedia article in 2009. It appeared, verbatim, in a newspaper article written in 2010 (referenced above). It appears no other place prior to 2009, other than on a blog (where it seems the sentence originated). Every other primary source about Lowell Bennion, such as his biography and the other sources about his life, completely contradict the claim that he had anything to do with the Utah Boys Ranch / West Ridge Academy. See the talk page for more the sources. --EarlySquid (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the preponderance of sources contradict this exceptional claim in a newspaper, then I would think it would be better that this newspaper not be used as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like FyzixFighter has provided links to a handful of sources from the 1980s (=sources that cannot possibly be copied from Wikipedia) that support this. I therefore believe that the preponderance of sources do not contradict this claim, and that Bennion should be mentioned in the article as a founder or co-founder.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick search through Google books produced a pre-2009 work that supports the claim:


 * Bradford, Mary Lythgoe, (1995) Lowell L. Bennion: Teacher, Counselor, Humanitarian; Page 214-5
 * Since wikipedia launched in 2001 there is no way this information came from wikipedia--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Leroy Mendonca article incorrect
I don't know why you people insist Leroy was Filipino. We are his family and he is 100% Portuguese. Documents are published by people not by our family. Please correct your article it is incorrect. You can speak with my wife and get the truth. Please stop, it does no one any good printing false hoods. Let him rest, he has given enough.


 * Note to closer: Involved Leroy A. Mendonca discussion occurred at BLPN; ethnicity has been removed from article. 1999 DoD release may be source of all subsequent citations, and family should go through CMOHS.org/military assistance/news/representative venues to verify his ethnicity publicly. WP:RSs are mostly synchronous, but no way to verify without WP:OR; Wikipedia is the end of the stream for correction, not the top. Dru of Id (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Is CIA World Factbook a reliable source regarding ethnicity?
In a dispute regarding the citation of this source at White Latin American, the validity of this source has been contested by me. Disregarding the question as to whether the use to which the source is being used is legitimate, I'd therefore like some input on whether the CIA's ethnicity figures in general can be considered WP:RS.

As can be seen, the Factbook gives a listing on a per-country basis, with 'ethnic groups' in turn normally listed in decreasing percentages. The page gives no general indication of sourcing for the data, though a few have an indication that they are from a census, giving a date. For reasons why I consider the Factbook figures problematic, let us consider a few of the more obvious examples:


 * Albania gives two different figures for the 'Greek' population: "1% (official Albanian statistics) to 12% (from a Greek organization)".


 * Argentina gives a figure of "white (mostly Spanish and Italian) 97%", which all those involved in the long-running White Argentine/Argentines of European descent debate have acknowledged is implausible, and contradicted by other sources.


 * Neither Denmark, France, Madagascar, Malawi nor Maldives for example give percentages for the various groups named - there are other examples, but listing them all seems pointless.


 * Italy lists "Italian (includes small clusters of German-, French-, and Slovene-Italians in the north and Albanian-Italians and Greek-Italians in the south)". Are we to understand that there are no other ethnic minorities in Italy?


 * Portugal states "homogeneous Mediterranean stock; citizens of black African descent who immigrated to mainland during decolonization number less than 100,000; since 1990 East Europeans have entered Portugal".


 * ...Which contrasts nicely with Spain with a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types" - since when have 'types' been an ethnic group?


 * ...And then there is Switzerland, which the CIA suggests is "German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%" - one can only assume the CIA does not understand the difference between a linguistic category and an ethnic group.


 * The United States entry, which one might at least expect the CIA to get right, is clearly based on US Census Bureau data - but then has to admit that it omits data for 'Hispanics', "who may be of any race or ethnic group" - even the data provided for the US is incomplete.

One can only reasonably conclude from this that the data is derived from multiple sources, using differing criteria of 'ethnicity' and of differing utility. One could be charitable and describe this as a tertiary source - except that it rarely gives any indication of where the data is from. The better examples are clearly derived from relevant national census data, but such data is usually simple enough to track down and cite properly. The poorest examples, as I have indicated, seem to consist of confused 'linguistic' and 'racial/descent'(?) categories rather than anything related to ethnicity as such, or simply list groups with no percentages at all. On this basis, I'd argue that one can only rely on the CIA figures when they can be verified against properly-collated census data - which is another way of saying that the Factbook is no good as a citable reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The other problem with the data in the Factbook is that it gives no mention of sources. For some countries for which the factbook gives information about race the official censuses of the country does not include information about race. How does the factbook then get the information? In the case of Mexico the last census that took down data on race was made in 1921. This study of demography of ethnic categories discusses the reliability of the Factbook. It is quite clear that the factbooks data cannot be used as a reliable source without corroborating and correcting with other more reliable sources. If the source cannot be used by specialists without doing specific research, analysis and fact checking then it obviously cannot be used uncritically for wikipedia purposes either.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As a point of fact, Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to name their sources, so all of this about "it gives no mention of sources" is completely irrelevant.
 * IMO the CIA Factbook is clearly a reliable source for this information. They appear to update and correct things over time, and they have a process of editorial oversight.  That—and not the provision of a bibliography or an explanation of their census method—is the definition of a reliable source on Wikipedia.
 * It is also not the only reliable source, and if there is any disagreement, then editors should consider a range of reliable sources, and if necessary report that reliable sources directly disagree: e.g., that the country's official census says X, the CIA Factbook says Y, and the political opposition says Z.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No wikipedia does not require reliable sources to name their sources, but the question of whether a source is reliable or not hinges on whether they can be believed to purvey credible information, which again (as for all claims to scholarly credibility) hinges on the transparency of the factual bases for their statements. No source is apriori reliable just because it is governmental. The editorial oversight of the factbook does clearly not live up to the expectations of peereview, as it is clearly not experts who review the information of ethnicity as expert testimonies about the usefulness of the factbook makes clear.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have missed the point: Your personal belief that a source purveys (or doesn't) credible information is irrelevant.  We've got lots of folks who think that gold-plated reliable sources have nearly everything wrong. "I believe the information in the source is right" is not one of Wikipedia's standards for determining whether a source is reliable.  "Transparency" might be favored among academics, but it is not one of Wikipedia's standards for determining whether a source is reliable.  "Living up to the expectations of peer review" is also not one of Wikipedia's standards for determining whether a source is reliable.
 * Wikipedia requires some notion of editorial oversight (you can't just post whatever you like whenever you like it) and some notion of fact-checking (you don't routinely get everything wrong, and you might correct stuff if you get it really, really wrong). Wikipedia follows the journalism standard, not the academic standard.  Wikipedia accepts routine newspaper articles as reliable sources for the facts presented in them, despite newspapers being non-transparent and not even pretending to academic standards.  The CIA World Factbook is no worse—and probably no better—than citing a newspaper article on this point.  Both newspapers and the Factbook are reliable sources for this information.
 * NB that I'm not saying they are the "best possible" sources for this information. I only say that they meet the minimum standard for reliability, and therefore may be used.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point. I have presented a reliable source demonstrating that the factbook is not reliable for studies of ethnic groupings in most of the world.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So your position is that they are 'reliable' even after it is demonstrated that they aren't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is that any source can be WP:RELIABLE even if it is not dictionary-definition reliable or "reliable" according to the statndards of a particular profession or a particular academic discipline. This is my position largely because WP:RS isn't a redirect to dictionary.com:  if we were using plain English, we wouldn't have long policies and guidelines defining what wiki-reliability is and how wiki-reliability differs from, say, AndyTheGrump-reliability.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.": WP:RELIABLE. Do you not consider my comments, and those of Maunus, constitute "carefully weigh[ing] to judge" the reliability of the source in question? Can you show us how you arrived at your judgement? Or are you going to ignore this part of WP:RELIABLE and just repeat the mantra that a source is reliable because it is a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with WhatamIdoing. The CIA World Factbook is definitely a reliable source, and eligible for inclusion.  As discussed in various places though, doing good research and constructing neutral articles does not necessarily mean giving all sources equal weight.  For some facts there will definitely be better documented and more transparent sources than the Factbook.  If there are good reasons to believe that the Factbook is less than accurate (or outright wrong) for particular points than you should at least present the opposing view.  In some cases, one may even be right to omit the Factbook data if the majority of scholarship on an issue clearly disagrees.  Saying that the Factbook is a reliable source, in general, is not the same as suggesting we should parrot everything they say.  It is a starting point, and often a very useful one when few other sources exists, but if better sources exist then article writers should obviously take note of that and respond accordingly.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not asking whether the CIA Factbook is reliable in general. I am asking whether it can be considered WP:RS regarding ethnicity. This is entirely consistent with what Identifying reliable sources requires: that sources be "source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made" - they is no absolute yes/no answer regarding whether a source is always reliable. My point is that all indications seem to suggest that regarding ethnicity, the Factbook isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by my statement in the context of ethnicity. If you want to replace Factbook statements with something else, then there may be good cause for that in many cases, and such issues should be discussed.  (You don't seem to have made any general suggestions for alternative sources.)  If you want to introduce a general prohibition on Factbook-based ethnicity citation, then I don't see that you've made a sufficient case for that.  Ethnicity is a fuzzy concept (as I'm sure you know).  As a whole, Factbook seems to strive for accuracy (and hence reliability), though at times they are undoubtedly limited by the poor availability of data.  That's a reason to discuss the uncertainties, and the shifting and fuzzy definitions for various groups.  But unless you've got something better, I don't see it as a reason to exclude the Factbook in general.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps let me put it another way. It think Factbook aims for accuracy in their reporting of ethnicity, and probably does as well (or even better) than other traditionally reliable sources such as newspapers.  However, because ethnicity is hard to measure, and often measured in ways that are inconsistent for one study / census to the next, the accuracy of statements about ethnicity should be expected to come with large uncertainties, even from reliable sources.  Hence we should look for the best sources we can to try and reduce the uncertainty and put information on an equal standard for comparison.  (Though, we should do that always anyway.)  But if we can't find better information than I think we should still continue to use sources like the Factbook, but make a point of making people aware of the uncertainties and difficulties involved.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you base this opinion in the face of reliable sources saying that the factbook does not do a good job at this particular task? It doesn't impress you that scholars have written papers about the unreliability of the factbook for demographic breakdowns by ethnicity? Why does your opinion of the factbook override the published testimony of an expert?·Maunus· ƛ · 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read what I am saying. Use better sources, if you have them.  If you don't have them, I would still regard Factbook as better than nothing.  I'm sure many experts would tell you that newspapers are horribly prone to factual errors, but we still rely on them all the time.  A source can be "reliable" by Wikipedia standards without being particularly good.  This is why we should look for the best possible sources, but there are many forms of low-quality sources that are allowable in Wikipedia at least until something better is provided.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the "journalism standards versus academic standards" is based on policy. We often need to use non-academic sources but we recognise that there are problems with newspapers, not least the "recentism". The points made about errors in the Factbook are well worth considering. I don't think we can rule it out completely though, because sometimes it is the only source we have. For example, even those 100% politically opposed to it used it for estimates of ethnic groups in Vietnam during and immediately after the war. It is often out of date. Data from a national census website is definitely preferable. The immediate question seems to be about whether the category "white Latin American" makes any sense at all. The CIA use such a category but national censuses don't. It's a tricky one. A parallel is for data on France. In France it is widely seen as unethical to collect data on ethnic identity (not nationality), because "everyone with French nationality is French". Non-French social scientists have no such qualms and would like to see estimates for the different ethic groups, in order to compare the ethnic composition of France to other countries in Europe. What should we do, follow the French lead, or that of the Americans and other countries? It probably needs to be resolved case by case. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the CIA doesn't use the term "white Latin American". The Factbook gives widely-differing categorisations for ethnicity for each country in the area, sometimes with no separate 'white' category, and for Venezuela gives no percentage figures at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Itsme, the actual standard described in the policies and guidelines is a very typical journalistic standard: you need editorial oversight and a hope of fact-checking—the two basic standards at any journalistic endeavor.  Academic publications set the bar much higher:  there, you get editorial oversight, significant fact-checking, critical evaluation through peer review, a transparent list of sources you've drawn on, and compliance with discipline-specific rules.  (For example, we've had to go to some trouble to convince hard-science academics that they really are supposed to use and cite secondary sources on Wikipedia—even though doing so is actually prohibited in most hard-science academic publications.)  We've chosen the lower standard as the minimum for our sources.  This source meets our minimum standard.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To you(Andy) and Maunus it is not reliable but to the Encyclopedia it is or what next the New York Times is not a reliable source either because you possibly disagree and deem them not credible on a certain subject,we can't cherry pick. Andy and Maunus here are POV pushing editors trying to push there own view of race/ethnicity instead of letting reliable sources guide articles --Wikiscribe (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also don't like you very much.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your totally irrelevant personal attack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia exists for the general public. This public uses sources like the CIA World Factbook (and newspapers, as others have stated); so why shouldn't the Factbook be among the sources from which WP article content is drawn? Maunus and Andy want a far stricter, narrower set of sources to be used. They not only want them to be exclusively academic ones (as if these are necessarily perfect and bias-free), but often give the impression that they want to use only the work of those academics with whose POV they agree.
 * Maunus, regarding that study that questions the Factbook's reliability: Why should that study be used to determine the Factbook's reliability all of a sudden? Wouldn't that constitute giving the study undue weight? Yet the fact remains that that study notwithstanding, the Factbook has continued to be accepted as reliable by this community.
 * Answering Andy's points:
 * What would you prefer, Andy: that the CIA, despite knowing that sources vary over the percentage of Greek population in Albania, give you one sole figure and pretend that no variation exists? Maybe that would make you feel better, but the fact is that you'd be less informed, not more. Kudos to the CIA for being so open (wink).
 * Do you actually expect that a full list of all the minority groups present in Italy is feasible or even meaningful? Obviously the point is to include the largest minority groups, not all of them. I'd be completely schocked if a developed country like Italy didn't have some people from nearly a hundred countries or even more. It would be senseless to list them all in the Italy entry—and then there are the more that 200 other countries listed in the Factbook.
 * Regarding Switzerland, it so happens that "German", "French", "Italian", and "Romansch" are demonyms/ethnonyms as well names of languages (!). Not to mention that in Switzerland, as in many countries, ethnic identity is connected to language.
 * The fact is that "Mediterranean" and "Nordic" *are* terms used in ethnology.
 * There is nothing incomplete about the US entry. The info given is for what is officially termed "race". Since Hispanics and Latinos are not a race, but an ethnic category, there's no Hispanic/Latino entry; instead, Hispanics and Latinos are included in the percentages given for the races (most are included in "white 79.96%"). (For more about US race and ethnic classification, a good starting point is Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. (Full disclosure: it is an article which I've edited much, though not in recent months.)
 * Andy would want the CIA's info about ethnic groups to be limited to numbers. But is the fact that it isn't (for example, it mentions "types" in one instance), and the fact that numbers are given for some countries and not others a good enough reason for ignoring the numbers that are given, in such a widely used source?
 * All sources are supposed to be balanced, and that goes for anything taken from the Factbook. I propose that adding balance, not keeping the Factbook out, should be Andy's and Maunus' mantra. SamEV (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "that study notwithstanding, the Factbook has continued to be accepted as reliable by this community". Really? So the 'community' was aware of the study? And the 'community' cannot change its mind? Don't kid yourself that getting this accepted as 'reliable' (which seems unlikely, unless you define 'reliable' as 'not good, but marginally better than nothing') is going to justify the dubious WP:OR usage in the white Latin American article in any case. I only brought this here first to bring general attention to the questionable reliability of the source, and will deal with that issue later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The figures should be cited in the article as they appear in the Factbook. The Factbook lists them under "ethnic groups": is there a reason why they should not be cited as "ethnic group" figures, then? SamEV (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy and Maunus's points are serious. One other way of seeing it is as a tertiary source, a compilation of facts gathered from national censuses and other surveys. Can be used with caution where it is the only source. Does not have to be used in every case. Where it conflicts with other sources, give those too. Keep an eye out for where it is not up to date. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is rather difficult to assess whether figures are 'out of date' when there is no source stated for the data. I think a consensus is emerging that the Factbook cannot be considered a 'reliable source' regarding ethnicity, except in the loosest possible terms - that if no other source is available, the data is better than nothing, but it cannot be taken as authoritative where there is better information to be found elsewhere. I think one can conclude from this that the way Factbook data is being used to arrive at an estimate for a 'white Latin American' percentage figure is highly questionable, and that the source should not be used in this way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Use it. It's authoritative.  It's like saying don't use Gray's Anatomy as a source.  Yes it is a tertiary analysis of many sources.  If we want to do a section about academic debates over ethnicity, then we can go ahead and cite academic journals.  This debate sounds oddly familiar; often somebody doesn't like one label or another, or distrusts the U.S. to make the estimate.  The alleged "errors" are actually spot-on.  Argentina actually is mostly of Italian and Spanish ancestry.  Italy might have a few other peoples besides those listed, but are they numerous enough from a foreign-policy perspective?  And in the U.S. Census, "Hispanic" is considered a cultural/language identity, not a race, and we have Hispanic people of many different backgrounds.  By all means use the source, but feel free to compare/contrast with other sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Argentina is mostly of Italian and Spanish ancestry". No, or at least not except in as much as migrants from Italy and Spain have made the largest single contribution to the Argentine 'Gene pool'. As our Argentines of European descent article notes, there have been several studies of the genetic makeup of the Argentine population, all of which suggest that they have a significant contribution from Amerindian populations too. The 'European' proportion is the largest (excepting that for Mitochondrial DNA, which is transmitted solely on the maternal line), but most Argentines have at least some Amerindian ancestry.


 * That is genetics of course, and the debate is (or should be) about ethnicity, which is a social construct, and only has a loose correlation with genetics, or with actual descent. This then raises the question, what do the Argentines themselves consider their ethnicity/'race'/whatever to be? Fortunately, we have access to a survey which answers this (though in Spanish, and reporting the survey as a secondary source - possibly this gives it more credibility though) I refer to Étnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación by Simon Schwartzman (a notable Brazilian social scientist). In this, he cites an ECosociAL, 2007 survey which gives the percentage IDENTIFICACIÓN ÉTNICA for seven Latin American countries. For Argentina the figures are as follows: Blanco 63, Negro 1, Indígena 1, Mezcla de blanco con negro 8, Mezcla de blanco con indígena 9, Mezcla de negro con indígena 0, Mezcla de todo 16, No sabe, no contesta 3. Clearly, the Blanco figure of 63% is incompatible with Factbook data, which describes the Argentine population as"white (mostly Spanish and Italian) 97%, mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups 3%". Both genetic data, and surveys of perceived ethnicity, conclusively demonstrate that the Factbook is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Itsmejudith: "Where it conflicts with other sources, give those too." ". Squidfryerchef: "By all means use the source, but feel free to compare/contrast with other sources.''"
 * Exactly.
 * BTW, the preponderance of sources place the Argentine white percentage at 85 or higher.
 * Andy, you've found the Schwartzman source. That's the point: use it to balance the Factbook. Your problem is solved. Quit expending so much energy trying to have the Factbook banished. Quit being so intolerant of information that is contrary to that which you prefer. SamEV (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd remind you that it was your insistence that it was legitimate to use the CIA Factbook figures to arrive at an overall 'white Latin American' percentage figure that led to me raising this issue here in the first place. I considered this WP:OR, and said so. If you are now proposing that we should somehow combine the CIA figures with that from other sources to arrive at this percentage, we are going even further into WP:OR territory, and I cannot believe for one minute that this would be acceptable. The whole exercise is pointless anyway, as perceptions of 'whiteness' vary markedly across Latin America, as I'm sure you are aware, and any 'percentage' would be practically meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is my insistence that we can add up the figures to arrive at a regional figure.
 * Of course I'm not proposing that the CIA figures be combined with any other. I'm saying that both should be mentioned, separately, for balance.
 * Let it be 'meaningless'. Just make sure to cite a reliable source that explains why it's meaningless, so it's not just coming from you. SamEV (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, since you are supporting the inclusion of your figure, it is for you to provide a reliable source that suggests it will have any meaning. You are proposing to add up data from sometimes-unknown primary sources, using widely-differing ethic terminology, and lacking any usable data at all from several countries, to arrive at a 'percentage' for the 'white Latin American' population, in a context where there is no consistancy whatsoever in regard to how the term 'white' is used. This isn't just WP:OR it is unscientific, bogus, and based on an entirely false concept - that 'white Latin Americans' consist of something other than an 'ethnic category' created by outsiders. Nonsense like this should have no place in Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the source is to be considered a Tertiary sources, and is a reliable source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what you are basing your 'HO' on? This is neither a vote nor a !vote, and a little more elaboration might help... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, regarding meaningfulness: this is an encyclopedia, so providing information, providing facts (you know, numbers and such) from reliable sources is part of what we're supposed to do. Merely adding up the numbers (same source, same type of data, same region) is trivial. SamEV (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You think so? Then I suggest you give us a complete breakdown of how you arrive at the figure, and then we can have an RfC on whether it is WP:OR, or an acceptable use of the source. It still hasn't been demonstrated that there is anything like a consensus that the Factbook ethnicity data is WP:RS though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really simple, Andy: If Latin America consists of countries B and C, then the total white population of Latin American consists of the white populations of B and C.
 * "It still hasn't been demonstrated that there is anything like a consensus that the Factbook ethnicity data is WP:RS though."
 * I'm convinced your denialism has no end. I refer you to every comment that's been made in this thread by anyone not named "Maunus" or "AndyTheGrump".
 * I'm sorry, Andy, but your objections and your obstinacy are becoming embarrassing. SamEV (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you going to show us the figures, or not? You certainly cannot include them without indicating how you arrived at them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Andy, I'm not sure that you're understanding the consensus here: Everyone is telling you that this source may be used.  Nobody has said that it must be used.  Using this source is permitted, but it is not required.  If you have a better source for the same type of information, then you should normally use the better source.  (Equally, if you find a worse source for the same type of information, then you should normally replace the worse source with this one.)
 * What you may not do is reject this source entirely or demand the removal of information supported by it. It may not be the best possible source, but it meets the minimum standard for reliable sources.  We do not want the best to become the enemy of the good; perfectionism is not helpful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearfield Publishing Company, Baltimore
I have two questions:

(1) Is Clearfield Publishing Company, Baltimore, a publisher of reliable sources that meet BLP standards? The website claims: "Our genealogy books are authoritative and timeless, found in every library in the country with a genealogy and family history collection, and are widely respected by amateur and professional genealogy researchers alike." It's true that a lot of American libraries have some of their books, but I couldn't verify the part about reputation among "amateur and professional genealogy researchers".

(2) Are publications by this specialty publisher sufficient to establish notability/noteworthiness? The website says: "In addition, we publish hundreds of volumes of genealogy source records, most of which go all the way back to the colonial period of American history. These books save researchers the trouble of traveling to faraway repositories in search of materials on specialized topics such as immigration and royal and noble ancestry, while also supplying information on the more conventional records of birth, marriage, and death, will and probate records, land records, and census records." Their first example is "New England Marriages Prior to 1700", which sounds like a collection of primary source material to me.

The context of my question is Line of succession to the British throne. It appears that a book published by this normally US-centric publisher focused on personal genealogy research and primary sources is currently the main excuse for having a list of more than 2,500 living people in Wikipedia. Hans Adler 08:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the publisher is credible and their books typically reliable sources for such information, and, no, I don't think that it would be possible to delete that list even if the particular source had never existed, so whether it is "sufficient to establish notability" is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The point about notability/noteworthiness is not the existence of the list but its incredible length. Encyclopedias are supposed to summarise. They don't usually copy and update an entire book full of information that is not to be found elsewhere in that form. And this seems to be primarily a publisher of primary information. I am sure an article listing all documented marriages in New England before 1700 would have no chance to survive an AfD. What's different about an article listing all people who are in line for the British throne, including those who are normally never mentioned -- a book by this publisher being the only exception?
 * As to reliability, the publisher's home page does not look professional at all, and they seem to be primarily in the business of providing all kinds of information and services to Americans who want to find their ancestors. That's why I asked. Hans Adler 11:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not the sole source for the page, indeed it seems to have been used to back-fill some references. The rules of succession are quite clear, and the line of succession is also limited (to certain descendants of Sophia Electress of Hanover, IIRC), otherwise the page would have been cut short long ago I would say, leading, as it has, to certain technical problems. The line of succession is certainly notable, the only question is whether the last 2000 places (say) are significant.  I would be inclined to say yes, simply because an exhaustive listing is easier than deciding on a cut-off point. Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Hans, it doesn't matter if this publisher produces primary sources. The line of succession would be notable from other sources, even if this publisher had never existed.  This publication is not what makes the line of succession a notable subject.  We're using this book to fill in details about an already-and-separately-proven-to-be-notable subject, not to prove the subject's notability.  That is a perfectly legitimate and appropriate use of a primary source on Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

sports- reference track -field international
Gezim Dimnaku (born 14 february 1972) in Shkodra Albania, was a albanian athlete  who competed in triple jump and long jump ,was a universal  athlete :nine time Albanian champion1989-1998 ,bronze medalle junior track and field Europe champions clubs (Athene) Greece 1992, bronze medalle Europe champions clubs (Istambul)1995, three  time west Germany  champion 2001-2002-2003, (15,70cm)  third  place meeting germany (vesel) 16.06 cm. hi retired in the winter 2007.
 * Thanks for this information. Wikipedia relies on published sources for information. If you'd like to create a Wikipedia article on this person, you'll need to cite published sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal is usually bogus
Anything that's only from NewsCorp affiliates is best just discarded. For example:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/elusive-warbird-f-22-raptor-makes-its-australian-debut/story-e6frg95x-1226003947149 The decision, which capped F-22 production at 187 aircraft, has been called into question by the public emergence of China's J-20 and a co-operative program between Russia and China to build a similar aircraft.

Of course there is no joint Russian Chinese fifth generation fighter program (if you discount the mostly Russian tech used in the J-20, starting with the engines) and the first and best clue that the article is bogus is given with the big warning label on top that says "With The Wall Street Journal", which is a sure mark of garbage. Hcobb (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That being said, it's very unlikely we will ban or restrict NewsCorp papers. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Especially the Wall Street Journal (which despite Hcobb's assertions, actually has a very high reputation for fact checking and accuracy). Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then explain why they continue to lend their authority to this article many months after it was put out. Hcobb (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Where would you look for an update? TEDickey (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How about the same webpage? Hcobb (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Errata are usually published in followup issues. I haven't seen any media which edits back-issues of articles in the manner which you're suggesting.  They're not Wikipedia. TEDickey (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (that distinction is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source - because its content can change unpredictably, and the same statements cannot be found reliably for verification. TEDickey (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hcobb, your opinion seems to be a minority one in light of the fact that the Wall Street Journal has the largest circulation of any paper in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation). Wikiant (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your metric is of dubious value, given this newspaper has the largest circulation of any in the UK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What has all this got to do with the Wall Street Journal? That piece was written by a staff reporter of the Australian. It says Business with the Wall Street Journal, not by . Dmcq (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In a word, nothing. Rich Farmbrough, 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC).

It's really trivial to post vast lists of WSJ errors:

See Zahra Bahrami
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117773666680878.html Bahrami had no known history of drug use or criminality of any kind.
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704662604576256952204415130.html UBS's Cost to Settle Lehman Case: $10.75 Billion
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506132565489538.html In addition, this listing erred by identifying Mr. Young as a former heroin user; the Journal has no reporting to support that Mr. Young used the drug.

So there is no need to use a NewsCorp link ever. If they are a sole source then that is because they are wrong. If they are referencing somebody else then they usually misquote. Just say no. Hcobb (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You suffer from observation bias. Give me counts of (a) all the errors the WSJ has published, and (b) all the non-errors it has published, then tell me what is the ratio of (a) to (b). WSJ publishes tens of thousands of statements in a single issue. If they printed ten errors every day, their accuracy rate would still above 99.9%. Wikiant (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree; on the whole, they're very reliable. In addition, the question seems similar to one I asked a few days ago, asking if, having established a publication as reliable, that meant the articles it carried automatically became reliable.  The answer I got was that the consensus was to consider all the particulars.  I think that makes sense, that there's some common sense and a judgment call involved, that we should consider the merits and do it case-by-case.  In the case of WSJ, I'd accept them as 100% reliable in reporting GM's profits or the possible cost of Sony's identity theft scandal, for example.  But based on their editorial position, I'd accept them as reliable but less so reporting an appeals court ruling on the healthcare mandate.  I'd consider them even less reliable explaining the difference between the Republican and Democratic plans for the Medicare.  But that's just me, or at least, how I might be expected to behave if the WSJ was offered as a source.  Hope that helps.  Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would say the WSJ would probably explain the difference in the two plans very accurately and reliably. What I would not use them for is a statement of fact as to which plan was best (they would be fine for a statement as to the WSJ's opinion as to which plan was best). Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your distinction and I agree, it's a good one. But (just my opinion) I find that while their editorial bias rarely slips into their reporting of political issues like healthcare in the form of misstatement, it does appear in the form of selection, i.e., which facts to report.  Case-by-case, I would need to see the article and how it's being used to give you an opinion of whether I thought it was reliable.  But I must also come back to Wikiant's point:  On the whole, the WSJ is very reliable.  Msnicki (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To say that any information from a certain source is not correct, due to disagreement of the sources alleged political leaning, smacks of violating WP:NPOV. The WSJ and the news from FoxNews, not the editorials of either, meet all the criteria set forth for what makes a reliable source. This entry on this noticeboard is appalling! --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want others to agree that a source is unreliable, I doubt it would ever be sufficient simply to argue that that's just your personal opinion and that's all there is to it. I think you'd need to give actual reasons.  For example, if think editorial bias has crept in as a selection bias in the reporting, you might point to actual evidence, e.g., that many other reliable publications did report the missing facts and argue that the omissions are significant.  But again, on the whole, I consider the WSJ very reliable, in the top tier of all periodicals.  Does that help?  Msnicki (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, if you'd like to see an example of what to me looks like a selection error in a WSJ article, even if not necessarily an example of actual bias, consider their Jan 31, 2011 coverage of the arrest of Raymond Davis in Pakistan. The US claim that Davis is diplomat is repeated several times.  What's not reported is the Pakistani claim, extensively reported in Pakistan the previous day, that Davis had not entered the country as a diplomat but on a business visa.  The WSJ is very, very good, but even they make mistakes.  They're human like we are.  Msnicki (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or it may have been poor journalism under the guise of patriotism, accepting the US claim without question.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's my point, that they're reporting on a dispute between the US and Pakistan but incredibly, it appears it didn't occur to them to ask the Pakistanis for their side of the story. They selected the facts by selecting who they interviewed.  Without trying to pick this apart too far, my point is that even very, very reliable news organizations can make mistakes that result in unreliable articles.  We're all human.  Msnicki (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspaper biases are fairly well known, though. You aren't going to go to the Washington Post for a balanced view of Richard Nixon.  You have to allow for that sort of thing or you'll never write anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the money papers because their biases are so straightforward. They're not very interested in your opinions or converting you to their view of the world, they're interested in reporting things accurately so people with money can make informed decisions what to do with it. Dmcq (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Benedict XVI blessing statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje per YouTube video
In article Our Lady of Medjugorje, and elsewhere(?), it is claimed that Pope Benedict XVI publicly blessed a statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje. The source for the claim is a YouTube video made by people (Movimento Gospa) who believe the apparitions are real. See footnote 11 and click on YouTube to see the video. Does the video meet our reliability standards?  Kenatipo   speak! 17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We usually don't consider YouTube reliable (we have no way to know if the footage shown has been manipulated in some way) - the exception to this is when the video is hosted on a dedicated media sub-channel (such as the BBC's youtube channel). I am sure that the pope did in fact bless the statue... but we need a reliable source to say so.  So... we should find another source for the statement.  (I would be willing to bet that the Vatican issued an itinerary for the Pope's activities that day... perhaps in the Observatore Romano?)
 * That said, I have to ask why we mention the blessing in the first place? The statement is part of a section about the Church's "official position" on the apparitions... and in this context, there is an implied connection between the Pope's blessing and the Church's position.  Is there a source that connects the blessing to any sort of "official position"?  if not this may be Original Research.  Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've looked into this a bit, and I agree that YouTube is typically not an appropriate source because the footage can be manipulated. And in fact, I agree with Kenatipo's concerns on the talkpage of the article that this particular video may have been manipulated, with the framing of the photos in the video altered to exclude the other statue seen in  the video footage following the stills shots.  It's actually worth looking at to see.
 * Note that Pope Benedict is a living person and per BLP we need to use the highest quality sources; a youtube video, especially one's whose accuracy is questioned, is not one. There is an article in the Croatian Times that mentions the blessing, but it is review of a book written by believers in the visions and appears to me to simply be quoting them. In fact a poster in the comments section also questions the accuracy of the statement about the statue blessing. In my view neither source is reliable for a claim that a living person (and by extension the Catholic Church) has to some extent have accepted the apparitions, which they clearly have not, to date. I will be removing the content per BLP, RS, and OR. --Slp1 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Croatian Times was, unfortunately, quoting our article with the word "publicly" removed. (Things done in St Peter's Square by the pope tend to be public).  I read the Holy Father's remarks at the audience that day and there is no mention of Medjugorje or the Queen of Peace.  His address was about Pope St Gregory the Great (part 2).  VISnews also did not report anything about Benedict blessing statues before or after the audience that day.  I haven't researched Osservatore Romano yet.  I agree that the sentence in our article should be removed as a violation of RS and therefore, also BLP.    Kenatipo    speak! 16:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think it is correct that the Croatian Times copied Wikipedia, since the newspaper article was published before the information was added to WP. Nevertheless I am not convinced that the Croatian Times has enough of a reputation for independent fact-checking to be the sole source for this information. --Slp1 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The offending sentence was added to our article by an IP on 28 August 2009, removed, and re-added on 4 October 2009. The Croatian Times article is dated 9 January 2011.  (Oh, and thanks for beating up that big bully for me!)    Kenatipo    speak! 06:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Geographic.org
We have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles solely based on geographic.org, an ad-filled database of geographic names, supposedly coming from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. While this is a government institution, the database in itself is highly unreliable (for at least the US, Belgium and Aghanistan, I haven't checked their entries for every country). I have listed some examples at Articles for deletion/Dara-I-Pech.

The question is whether I am correct to believe that given the number of obvious errors, we shouldn't consider geographic.org as a reliable source. Fram (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To add another example: Khvoshi. I can't find a single reliable source for this location which isn't based on the same database. I can find sources for Khoshi, also known as Khushi, which seems to be an administrative center of Khoshi District, and which is located in Bala Deh. I presume Khvoshi is an error, and this is supposed to be Khoshi/Khushi. 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more directed question&mdash;with a more actionable answer&mdash;would be, "is geographic.org sufficiently reliable to be the sole source for the existence and location of populated places?" If I'm not mistaken, the issue arises with respect to stub articles about populated places, where no other references are cited at all (not merely no other place data is cited, but no other reference is cited even with respect to the existence or type of the place).
 * It would be helpful for editors wishing to formulate opinions to have a brief summary of evidence for the ways in which the source suspect, or reasons to believe the source is reliable. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Allright. The reason I think the source is suspect is because, when checking some entries, I couldn't verify them. This could be explained away for e.g. Afghanistan with a lack of online sources, and transcription problems. However, when I did the same for the US, I noted that it clearly contains glaring errors, like the populated place "A Sherton", which is an error for Asherton, Texas. Or Mayes Addition Colonia, a populated place in Rancho Alegre, Texas next to Hawks Addition Colonia. These may be historical place names, but they can't be very old, considering that we have Airport Addition Colonia as well, and many other similar neames. The sad thing is that the only "Additional Colonia" I cound find reliable sources for, was Sparks Additional Colonia, which is not included in geographic.org. Fram (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a quick interjection. Based on the edit summaries here, terms are being confused... "primary" does not = "unreliable".  Some primary sources can be extremely reliable, and some secondary sources can be completely unreliable.  Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No one discussed this distinction, as far as I am aware, and I don't think it is relevant here. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fram states: the database in itself is highly unreliable yet other than antedotal onesy-twosy examples, there is no criteria or statistical evidence that supports that. Geographic.org claims 8 million + geographic names.  What % of those must be in error for it to be highly unreliable?  And indeed, what % of the total data is in error?  And how are those errors being validated, against what other Reliable source.  I can say for sure that GNIS and UKGeonames contain some % of errors.   Whether or not we should be sourcing articles from Geographic.org is a good question, but lets establish some realistic and verifiable criteria for highly unreliable before we jump too far. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * there are, even in very well mapped countries, many geographic names which may or may not represent a distinct place, as compared to an isolated house (frequent on UK Ordnance Survey Maps) or an indistinct district, as I've encountered many times in the US. There are additionally many example all over the world of settlements, some of even with populations of hundreds of thousands, which have exactly the same name, and are located in different provinces or districts, or US states. As an additional difficulty, there are many instances where the same name is used for a settlement, and also the district containing it--New York and New Jersey have particularly confusing systems, so I assume that parts of the world I know less well, such as   Afghanistan and Nepal, may be similarly  complex. The solution is to give what information there is, and attribute it to what sources there are. No source is completely reliable for all purposes. Typographical and transcription errors occur in all. A reasonable degree of accuracy is all that can be expected in the world. The principle at Wikipedia is that our multiple contributors will fill in the gaps and resolved the difficulties. If we wait until they are resolved, we will have very little content in most subjects.   I would not necessarily reject in most subjects a source with even 10% errors, if it was the best available. In my own subject, the very best sources have between 1 and 5% errors. The ones that are compilations from many sources (such as WorldCat) have relatively  higher rates of inconsistency, but they also have multiple components to cross-check.      DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I don't think anyone here has made arguments on either side that touch on primary/secondary/tertiary issues.
 * Mike Cline / Fram, I agree with Mike that there is no evidence that the database is "highly unreliable"&mdash;rather, there are some entries that have been shown to be highly suspect.
 * DGG, what threshold of error is acceptable for topics where it is possible that no other sources will exist to verify the information? Is this the same threshold as for topics that are likely to be easy to find multiple sources on? Does it matter that here, it is is quite difficult to attribute lack of other sources to (variously) incorrect versus obscure information? <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While "highly unreliable" may be too strong, the percentage of problems I have found by spotchecking is too high to be acceptable to me. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question: if I would use geographic.org to create articles on all populated places in the US listed in that database that don't yet have an article, would you consider that acceptable? If not, why not? Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fram, absolutely acceptable (although doing so would be pointy if the sole purpose was to expose errors in the source). Given the existence of multiple reliable sources related to geographic names, geo-locations, elevations, et. al., any error that geographic.org data might contain would be easily rectified by data from another source.  Especially considering the online mapping we have today, geo-locations are extraordinarily easy to validate.  Geographic.org may not be a perfect (error-free) source for geographic data, but neither is GNIS or PCGN (UK).  That said, a great many NY Times articles contain factual and other errors when viewed in the light of history and new evidence, but does that make it an unreliable source?  No. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The comparison with the NYT is not instructive. NYT is a publication with robust, if imperfect, editorial oversight. geographic.org cannot be said to be subject to editorial oversight at all, so (now I will raise the issue touched on by Blueboar) it's not clear that it even falls within the bounds of a secondary source. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  22:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A small random sample
I just did a random sample of various places in different countries where I've spent some time (sorry if that looks like OR; but personal experience is an extra datapoint to add to what atlases say &c). So, I would not trust it as a source of geographic information any more than I would trust, say, fallingrain. bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Mkuze: First search result on Geographic.org places it over 1000km away (and in a different country) from the correct location which is attested by multiple atlases &c. Careful reading through search results with the help of a different - reliable - source will get the "real" mkuze but with a variant spelling and a mere 100km from the correct location.
 * 2) Woluwe-Saint-Lambert: This is a district of Brussels. You'd expect a national intelligence agency to have a rudimentary understanding of the city where NATO is based. Geographic.org gives a coordinate in a different district of Brussels.
 * 3) Lytham St Annes: Geographic doesn't know it exists, although it does have reasonable coordinates for "Lytham" and "Saint Annes".
 * 4) Coeur d'Alene: Geographic seems to get this one right.
 * 5) Kornelimünster: Geographic is almost right on this one (compared to Google Maps) - the coordinates are for a field a mile from the town centre. Presumably this is a rounding artefact; if Geographic don't actually have data accurate to a millionth of a degree, the extra digits they present are somewhat misleading.
 * 6) Lacanau: Same as Kornelimünster.
 * 7) Bobo-Dioulasso: Same as Kornelimünster.
 * 8) Dakhla: Same as Kornelimünster (it's a coastal town; Geographic gives coordinates for a location which Google Maps reckons is 10km offshore, and I'm inclined to trust Google Maps in this case)
 * 9) Sabratah: Looks reasonably accurate.
 * Incidentally, I've seen a lot of quirks in transcriptions of placenames from non-English languages &c, as well as the fact that Geographic seems to have a lot of entries for things which aren't actually settlements, per se. Therefore, if Geographic alone says that a settlement exists, I simply wouldn't trust it as a sole source- because there is a significant probability that it's not actually a settlement, or that the name on Geographic is just a variant of some other name which is better evidenced elsewhere (and may already have a wikipedia article &c). Based on my first example, if you took Geograph seriously as a source you could create twenty new articles for places that look a bit like "Mkuze", "Mkhuzi", "Mkuzi-Suid" (a random bit of uninhabited land an hour's drive to the south), &c plus the mysterious "Mkuze Estate" which is - in reality - a random point within a differently-named nature reserve... bobrayner (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fallingrain mirrored the GNS/GNIS. The rounding "artifacts" are obvious if you simply convert back to deg. min. sec (most that I looked at some years back were accurate but not precise - this  is a fairly old database). In terms of using the DB as a source for co-ordinates, it is citable, and in some cases it seems to be the best we have. In terms of using it as the sole source for a stub article, this has been looked at many times, and generally the response has been "well you could, but unless the stub was wanted anyway, it might not be a great idea." Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC).

Poll
Should articles be created using only geosource.org geographic.org without additional editorial input including searches for other sources?
 * No, for reasons articulated above. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  22:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No (assuming you mean geographic.org - or are they related?). This is because we don't have sufficient confidence that any given entry in the database is accurate and unique; too much potential to create duplicate articles for spelling variants, or for other secondary landmarks near the "real" landmark, &c (and an entry in this database is not a very good assurance of notability). bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it can obviously be used as a starting point for a personal list of potentially missing articles, but needs checking with other, more reliable sources before an article is created. Fram (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As another, blatant example of an earlier run of geographic.org articles: Bona see Buna. This article is comparable to the venerable Dord... Fram (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's really quite impressive. We can't rely on such sources for new articles; this is a project to build an encyclopædia, not a race to create as many placeholders as possible, expecting somebody else to come along later and remove all the mistakes. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, per Verifiability, WP:NOT ala WP:IINFO, and Notability There appears to be too many problems for any article to based on this one source and the source seems to used to do an end run around Notability.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * not a vote, a discussion, but no source not reliable for claims and unable to establish notabilityFifelfoo_m (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographic.org
Everyone is invited to participate in Articles for deletion/Geographic.org, a discussion about over 2,500 articles. Due to the unusual character and the potential impact of the discussion, I believe that more participation than usual would be beneficial to get a true sense of the community's opinion on this. Fram (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

referral service website used as a source for information about West Ridge Academy
On this page West Ridge Academy a self-published website/blog is being used as a reference (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ridge_Academy#cite_note-strugglingteens5382-2). I feel like this reference falls into the "self-published" sources category, and should, per Wikipedia policy, only be used to describe itself. I think that the POV of the website is more than obvious, and does not at all contribute to the article positively. Additionally, there is nothing stated in the West Ridge Academy article that needs to be referenced by this single source, and for which a better, primary source is not already available. Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. --EarlySquid (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the source that EarlySquid is questioning is StrugglingTeens.com. Strugglingteens.com belongs to a company called Woodbury Reports. They say they have been online since 1995; the current domain name was registered in 2001. It's a complex website, including promotion for the business and advertising for other entities. The content that is most often cited on Wikipedia is mostly found in archives of a company newsletter (at http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives/index.html -- the archive spans the period 1998-2011) that includes articles about various special schools and therapeutic programs for teenagers. Since the website names its owners, who are a business with a reputation to uphold, and most articles name their authors, I see the website -- especially the newsletter -- as having the kind of "meaningful editorial oversight" mentioned on WP:V. When I searched yesterday, I found that strugglingteens.com is currently cited as a source in 35 articles on Wikipedia. In West Ridge Academy it is cited as a third-party source of some pretty basic descriptive information about the school (the newsletter had a "visit report" on the school, which is the specific item cited). In general, it is cited in Wikipedia articles as a third-party source of information about various programs, as well as a republisher of press releases about these programs. I consider it a pretty reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Orlady... I think that it is a reliable source. Whether it is the best source for the information is another issue entirely.  We encourage editors to improve articles, and finding better, even more reliable, sources is one way to do so. So my advice: leave the current source as "good enough for now", but also look to see if you can find a better source for the information... if you find one, replace the current source with the better one where appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is not RS and if RS is not available then we should question if the information is even worthwhile. I would lean towards common sense saying video shows something so we should try to find RS but a quick Google News Archive search came up with nothing, and someone else already expressed concerns about possible manipulation. It all leads back to WP:VERIFY not being met for the line. Plugging WP:VIDEOLINK Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

irc-junkie.org
Four books on computing and the Internet use http://irc-junkie.org, an IRC-related blog, by either paraphrasing, citing, listing in a web-bibliography, or explicitly recommending it to readers. In my opinion, per WP:N, this seems to convey notability, and a liberal reading of WP:RS suggests that such use establishes or improves the reliability of a source.

Per discussion of reliable sources at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I've boldly created WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources listing the sources mentioned, as a rationale for treating http://irc-junkie.org as a reliable source.

Is there any policy or guideline against inheritance of reliability? --Lexein (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Can irc-junkie.org now be considered reliable per above? --Lexein (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * irc-junkie.org has an editorial policy, and an editor. However, its chief author is also its editor.  You would need to clearly establish the expert status of Christian "phrozen77" Lederer of 92237 Sulzbach-Rosenberg.  You ought to note that the publication's title is IRC-Junkie.org: your daily dose of IRC related news and that its place of publication is Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany.  For example, to cite the current top item: phrozen77 (pseud.) [Christian Lederer] (20101117) "A Day on QuakeNet" IRC-Junkie.org: your daily dose of IRC related news (Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany), unpaginated.  Is phrozen77 an expert?  Shelly and others (2007) says no, "You can learn more about IRC clients, networks, and channels at sites such as IRC-Junkie.org" is not an expert recommendation.  Neither are the other three sources.  Scholars regularly cite non-expert material as evidence, scholars have the inherent capacity to transform through analysis unreliable sources into elements of their own reliable texts.  You need to find instances of citation which consider IRC-Junkie.org to be equivalent to scholarly or expert works—mere citation as factual evidence is insufficient. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the analysis. I see the point about full author name, and full publication name. I agree that Lederer doesn't seem to be cited as an expert by name. I would suggest, however, that the statement in the Shelly et. al. textbook actually is a straight-ahead recommendation of the site, neither weak nor strong, implying that expertise will be found at irc-junkies.org, and it is listed first. Kshetri selected the "Help! I'm being DoS'ed" (from archive) irc-junkies.org article to quote and paraphrase, out of all the available (legion) sources on Denial of Service attacks; to me, this also seems to acknowledge a level of expertise at the site, rather than non-expertise. Given the rationale and our discussion here, would you go so far as to delete content in a list which cites irc-junkies.org and a primary source? --Lexein (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the textbook (Shelly et. al.) aimed at post-graduate coursework or research students or post Masters certified (or equivalent) professionals? Seek this in the introduction, preface, and bibliographic page.  This does matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a college textbook searchable under the publisher's ||9781418859909&Ntk=all||P_Isbn13&Ns=P_CopyRight_Year|1&N=+16 Higher Education catalog - there's even a "College Bookstore Wholesale Price = $68.25" listed. It has supplementals for instructors. So it's definitely not targeted for mass-market. Seems to fall under WP:SOURCES. What guideline were you alluding to? --Lexein (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't currently recall. In previous debates on RS/N textbooks aimed at a post-graduate audience have found appreciation as scholarly sources—they are aimed at professional in practice and trainee scholars.  This also follows Australia's HERDC collection advice on what constitutes a scholarly book as opposed to a non-scholarly book (undergraduate and schools textbooks are excluded).  Being cited in an undergraduate textbook as a worthy resource isn't an indication of expert status to my mind; it is not being cited as a scholar in the literature of scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least Dr. Kshetri's collection of essays was scholarly, quoting irc-junkie.org. I'm not convinced the website is unreliable, and feel that it's reliable enough for very careful use in a limited way. Note that its use is limited: it's only needed for one claim, in one list/table; we don't need it for any of the other IRC clients in the Comparison.  I appreciate your input, and will certainly apply it to marginal sources in future.  --Lexein (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, this source doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. However, I believe this source is reliable due to expertise.  The rules are standing in the way of the encyclopaedic project, and therefore, following Ignore All Rules I support this source being used very carefully as a reliable source for limited claims about irc.  Where available, other sources should be used.  Hopefully, eventually, irc-junkie.org will be cited in other scholarly works, further clarifying the expert element. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, well that's alright then. I feel the same way. Haven't used WP:IAR yet, but maybe this is the time. --Lexein (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Snooker sites - WWW Snooker / snooker.org and Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive
Steve Davis and a good number of other snooker articles use WWW Snooker / snooker.org and Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive. They are both self-published, but appear to be respected - WWW Snooker lists a number of awards, including a recommendation from the BBC (though I have been unable to verify this), and Chris Turner writes for Yahoo. Do they pass WP:SELFPUBLISH so they can be accepted as reliable sources. This is a particularly important question for the Steve Davis article as it depends largely on these two sources and is currently under GA review. <font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork  *Tea time 12:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is pretty clear on this: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." These are clearly self-published websites. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Thanks for that. <font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork  *Tea time 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FilmThreat.com
Reviews and commentary about films at Film Threat have been frequently cited in deletion discussions as reliable sources for articles about those films, with the result that some films relying on them as a reliable source have been deleted while others have been retained. (For examples, see the current discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Con_Games_(movie), which gives links to other discussions.) Though, according to the Wikipedia article Film Threat, Film Threat has developed from a fanzine, to a commercial paper publication, in its current reincarnation it is a website. They have announced that they are going to resume commercial (paper) publication in late 2011. With film reviews the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" element of a reliable source may to some extent replaced by a consideration of the reputation and national recognition of the reviewer, see the film notability guideline, but even then the guideline says, "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: 1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." (Emphasis added.) There has been, as far as I can find, no past substantial discussion about the reliability of Film Threat and it would be beneficial for future discussions if the community could decide whether the Film Threat website is or is not a reliable source for retention of a film. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The reliability of a source depends on context, and each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. When the topic is a film article, we look to those sources that deal specifically with or about film topics, look to see how they are themselves considered within their field by their peers, and consider if they have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.  For information about films, we look to Film Threat for their established expertise in that field.  We do not look to them for expertise on the Natonal Football League or election campaigns in Singapore, as the reliability of a source depends on context, and contextually speaking, FILM is their field of expertise. They have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the respected reputation within their area of expertise to be themselves repeated quoted by and referred to by other sources within and outside that field.
 * So, and while apreciating that User:TransporterMan has brought the question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for input from other editors, Film Threat has indeed been long-accepted as reliable enough in context to teir area of expertise. Here are diffs that support the wide consensus that Film Threat is generally reliable source for film articles... some of them as early as 2004:                         and there are many, many more.  Even in discussions of film articles that were subsequently deleted for one reason or another, Film Threat has been repeatedly acknowledged by editors as a suitable RS source for films. Not for sports.. not for politics... not for cooking... but definitely for film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional input would be welcomed on this. Schmidt's comments are not, per se, a response from the noticeboard because he was involved in the discussion in which the issue arose. I do not mean to imply that his voice shouldn't be heard or taken into consideration, but only that I would hope to get broader community input on this question than just from those who have already been involved in the debate. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the closing sysop, SilkTork in this AFD discussion, which spawned this inquiry, has expressly taken the position that Film Threat is a reliable source. That, of course, does not necessarily settle the matter, but should be taken into account. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources in an article count as third-party sources?
In the article Olympic class starship, which is currently at AfD (see Articles for deletion/Olympic class starship) there are sources. I am unsure if these sources count as third-party sources per WP:THIRDPARTY. They are not published by the subject, since the subject is a fictional starship class and cannot publish anything. I am also unsure if they count as promotional or not. Since the sources were written by production staff of the TV show, I think it can be assumed there is an interest in promoting the show. On the other hand, these books are not kind of a sales catalogue for products. I would appreciate any help on this. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any source produced by the production company or broadcaster would be considered a primary source. A secondary source would be a source unconnected (i.e. third party) to the production of the show. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful not to conflate different issues here. The distinction between Primary/Secondary is not the same as the distinction between Connected/Independent, and neither of these is the same as the distinction between wp:reliable/wp:unreliable.  I think something like The Star Trek encyclopedia: a reference guide to the future is very reliable... and it is clearly a Secondary source, not a primary one.  However, if it is true that the authors of these sources were all involved in the production of the show in some way, then there is a case to be made that they are not independent.  Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting you, but I'm not understanding your rationale either. If the Star Trek producers produce a book detailing their fictional universe how is that not a primary source?  Isn't it just an extension of the original primary source i.e. the show? I think this distinction is important because I don't think the issue is the reliability of the sources, it's whether the sources are in a position to establish the notability of the subject, which of course can't be done via primary sources, it has to be done via secondary sources. Betty Logan (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary/Secondary is more than just "who wrote the book" (although that is part of the consideration). We also have to use some common sense and look at the circumstances behind the writing and whether other sources were used in the writing. We also have to remember that Primary/Secondary isn't always a clear cut issue.  Let's take the example of a war correspondent writing for a newspaper.  He is posted with an Army unit, and witnesses an attack.  His report contains his own own observations, but it also contains accounts of the attack that he obtained by interviewing soldiers (things he did not personally witness).  Is his report a primary or a secondary source?  It is actually a mixture of both.
 * The same is true for something like The Star Trek encyclopedia. Michael Okuda (the author) did indeed work on the show.  He was a scenic artist and "technical" adviser (advising script writers on how the fictional technology of the Star Trek universe supposedly worked), so his recollections of some aspects of Star Trek are indeed primary... but, in writing his encyclopedia he went beyond just his own personal recollections, looking at scripts, production notes and other primary material written by other people.  For that information the book is secondary.
 * As for notability... mere inclusion of something in a secondary source is not enough to establish notability. Notability can only be established through somewhat extensive discussion.  I don't think Okuda's book devotes enough time and space to discussing each individual "class" to justify having a stand-alone article on each one.  I think the topic of "starship classes" is justified (and this is why I suggest a merger... one article, which would probably include a chart, to discuss all the different "classes" as a broad concept.) Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm following you, thanks for taking the time to explain the distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem... Source typing isn't always easy and our policies and guidelines tend to be written with clear cut cases in mind (I guess they have to be to illustrate the point). A few of us are currently trying to write an essay to explain the gray areas... to give a fuller explanation of the distinctions between primary and secondary sources; where it is appropriate to use each, and where it is not appropriate to use each; and how they impact (and are impacted by) our various policies and guidelines. We are just starting, so don't expect anything "soon".
 * By the way... in the interest of complete honesty, we often get into debates over whether works are primary or secondary. I have given you my inexpert opinion, not a definitive ruling.  Others may come along and tell you I am completely wrong.  Don't listen to them :>)  Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Betty Logan, you can safely assume that Blueboar is correct on this point, unless he's disagreeing with me. ;-)
 * You might like to read WP:Party and person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Toshio Yamaguchi, it's possible that you would also find WP:INDY helpful. However, the correct place to settle this question is at the AFD, not here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

IMDB
I wrote a stub about a film writer (Ben Ripley) as an article proposal, and it was denied. One of the reasons given was that IMDB is not a reliable source. The link given was to the general reliable source page, which gives no reason why IMDB should or shouldn't be a reliable source. IMDB is a standard listing on Wiki film-related sites, so I was really surprised to see it called a not-reliable source. Can any-body help here?Kdammers (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDB lacks editorial oversight and control. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Reliable_source_examples and WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for directing me to that, but I am still unclear. The RS/IMBD says
 * Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. One exception being that certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits on IMDb, specifically those which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable."
 * Credits, including screenwriting credits, are not trivia (neither in concpet nor in listing). The second quoted sentence is unclear to me as to whether it is referring to all of IMDb generally or just to trivia on it.  "One exception" is unclear:  the only exception, or what?  And how can one tell if WGA has provided the info.  What is the information source for the statement that IMDb does not have adequate control? Kdammers (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * iMDB has user-generated content, not unlike a wiki. For this reason, it's not considered reliable. Yes, I think "one exception" means the only exception. WP:RS/IMDB says this: "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it's pretty clear that the community consensus is that IMDb is not reliable for anything other than WGA credits - so the burden of proof as regards reliability falls on those trying to establish its reliability. For what it's worth, though, I know from personal experience that Doctor Who episodes regularly feature hoax entries that get past the supposedly "expert editors". Here's an account of one of the earliest hoaxes, deliberately done by a blogger to show how easy it is to fool IMDb. Further references to IMDb's lack of reliability:      . I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reliable news source even sourcing a rumour from IMDb, much less any definitely factual information. Maccy69 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can tell if the WGA has supplied the writing credits on IMDb because it says (WGA) underneath the heading (example: ). Here is the IMDb description of the partnership. Anything else that would be included in an article here can't be sourced from IMDb (the only other partner providing information is the MPAA but ratings aren't included in Wikipedia film articles, as far as I can see). Maccy69 (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ben Ripley has WGA credits listed on IMDb for Source Code and Species III but not for the other two credits they have listed for him. Maccy69 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at your proposed article it really does need a lot of work. I advise you to look at existing articles and read the relevant help sections. It may be worth joining the film wikiproject and asking for help there. There seem to be plenty of non-IMDb sources out there (a quick Google turned up                 ). I think your best tactic would be to forget about IMDb as a source (you can still put it as an external link though) and concentrate on working out which of the many online sources meet WP:RS. Given how far your current article is off, I'd suggest putting a copy in your userspace and asking experienced editors to help you get it into shape before re-submitting. Maybe use the Article Wizard? Whatever you decide, you shouldn't be relying on IMDb. Maccy69 (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More specific projects to consult about this: WP:FILMBIO and WP:SCREENW. The screenwriters project lists this Featured Article as an example of what to aspire to: William Monahan (EDIT: actually that's been downgraded to a B-class article, Aaron Sorkin is a Featured Article and Melissa Rosenberg a Good Article). Remember that WP:BLP applies as well. I don't think there's anything more to be said here about the general reliability of IMDb (in general it's not reliable and the point isn't worth arguing) but those projects could help you find reliable sources for your article. Maccy69 (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for all this great info. Hope the original poster is appreciative. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The IMDB is standard external link for movie related articles (hence the template), but usually not a reliable source (for the resons already stated above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the "World's Oldest Britons" website a reliable source?
The opinions of experienced, disinterested editors who are WP:RS-savvy is needed here. Please help guide the World's Oldest People Wiki-project to a policy-based discussion. David in DC (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * detail on the talk page in short its not upto date re:Claude Choules IMHO caution should be execised in what information is used and how. Gnangarra 01:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the page in question, it's the sole source for biographical data about four living people. I've argued on the talk page that WP:BLP almost requires deleting these sole-source refs, and replacing them with citation needed templates. But I'm not feeling particularly WP:BOLD about this this morning. I would if it were sole-souced for derogatory info. Then BLP would require the course I suggest. Immediately. In the absence of derogatory information, I think the talk page discussion should continue. But we need more disinterested participation. This is an issue that will cause a lot of dissension among World's Oldest People WikiProject members if it's not backed by the strong, disinterested guidance the Longevity ArbCom decision directs project members to seek. David in DC (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, it turns out that 15 items are sourced to Oldestinbritain.webs.com (OIB, for ease of reference.) I've reviewed all references on the List of British supercentenarians that cite to OIB or to the web pages of the Gerontology Research Group. What I've found is curiouser and curiouser. David in DC (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC some people involved in GRG were also involved in WP. Again IIRC there was an Arbcom case and they were sanctioned.  IMHO GRG was a reasonably good source, and the main problem was perceived conflict of interest.  I would suggest that wherever possible news reports would make a better first line of referencing,  partly because they tend to include more information of interest to those not simply seeking a birth and/or death date, and partly because these are likely to be GRG/OBs sources for all but the very old.  Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Public Multimedia
Who is Public Multimedia and why would it be WP:RS? Seems to be highly dubious. There website is dead. IQinn (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC) T
 * Well the article tells you who they were/are. Having said that, I can't find anything to suggest notability, basically no mentions except on the The Long War Journal, which is an affiliated website. Who and how is someone trying to use them as a source? Or is someone wanting to use The Long War Journal? It seems to be considered a reliable source by other news media --Icerat (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The current discussion is here. Unfortunately, IQinn forgot to note in that discussion that he was asking for outside opinions on this board.  Me and at least one other editor who regularly edit that article feel that the Long War Journal is reliable, because it gives sources for its information, is used by other media as a source, and appears to be very knowledgeable in the subject area.  I welcome outside opinions. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Long War Journal appears to be staffed by experienced, recognized journalists, appears to have editorial oversight, and it and it's journalists are regularly cited by other mainstream media. It may have a particular POV but, alas, so does pretty much every other source. I made some comments on the Public Multimedia/Long War Journal talk page, you might want to do some work on that article. If there's sources talking about the journals "bias" then it might be possible to point that out there. --Icerat (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Icerat, "appears to have editorial oversight". How? This website has no editorial oversight.
 * just one example where it is used. All information in the article Public Multimedia are either self-published written by Bill Roggio himself or original research. How about the reliability of LWJ? In a nutshell Bill Roggio blogs about the "War on Terror" in a pro US way and because the US army liked his blogging they invited him and feed him with whatever information they want to be out and Bill Roggio blogs more pro US military articles. That was liked by the right wing neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies who start the website "The Long War Journal". The LWJ website is a product of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies there is no editorial oversight for this website and the website is not WP:RS. It is just a website nothing different from other websites of blogs. Nevertheless people use it as it would be the truth what Bill blogs on this website. I am very concerned about this. IQinn (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said on the article talk page. Bill Roggio is a established expert on war on terror who has been quoted by numerous WP:RS.  I have seen no criticism of his reporting in any RS.  generally his commentaries are very insightful and accurate.  that Iquinn  thinks these are biased is just his POV.  Iquinn you need to stop Forum shopping and start listening to what other experienced editors are saying.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Forum shopping? Ridiculous. It is not about bias it is about the reliability of the information and we can not guarantee the reliability of the information they publish on their website. While the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are newspapers with a strong editorial oversight and a long track record we can rely that the information the published is correct. What fhe LWJ or other websites or blogs write on their website or blogs might be correct but we can not guarantee that. That's why websites and blogs are not WP:RS and we do not use them. You will easily find reliable sources for the information if it would be notable and true. IQinn (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not argue amongst ourselves over the source here. The purpose of this forum is to seek outside opinions. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, here's a profile of Bill Roggio and The Long War Journal in the Columbia Journalism Review. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well seems to be a strong critic of him. Did you read the full version? IQinn (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an older (2007) interview in the Christian Science Monitor. IQinn, I'm providing these links for the regulars here at this board to peruse at their leisure.  Let them give their opinions.  We can argue about it amongst ourselves on the article talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2007 article in the Las Vegas Review Journal. That article states that The Long War Journal as of 2007, was getting about 10,000-20,000 readers a day. Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And, I found in Infotrac a 24 October 2008 United Press International wire story which uses Roggio as a source. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a CNN report from a couple of weeks ago using The Long War Journal as a source. Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another in The Times of India. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "US terrorism analyst Bill Roggio from the Long War Journal says..." from The Australian. Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What does the CSM article tell us? It tells us that he is a milblogger something we already know. A blogger and there is no objection to use what he publishes in secondary sources. To think anything he publishes on his website would be WP:RS is not given as there is no editorial oversight and a lot of is is simply commentary. There are many blogs that have more that 10.000 - 20.000 readers but that does not make these blogs WP:RS. And that parts of his work is used in WP:RS does not follow that everything he publishes on his website is reliable or the truth. Often what he writes is simply commentary like in some of your examples and it is not the truth and the information and commentary needs to be attributed to the source. As said no objection to use what has been re-published by WP:RS. That might be a good rule and it needs to be attributed to the source.
 * Well i started the discussion here and i will surely continue to take part in the discussion on this page here. Thank you for the suggestion. :) IQinn (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from IQuinn, I regularly hit this exact same issue myself (indeed am in a discussion on this board right now!). The thing is that reliable sources consider The Long War Journal a reliable source. The Journal also has multiple contributors, not just Roggio, and it appears to have editorial oversight. The lead story on the site at the moment is credited to Thomas Jocelyn, and a moments search find he is published by other media sources as well. Having said that, he, and Roggio often seem to be cited or published in opinion pieces rather than as reporting fact. Perhaps the middle ground here is to use TLWJ only as a source for opinions, rather than facts? Attribute statements to them and ensure there's an article written about the TLWJ that lays out their perspective and any criticism so that readers can make their own decisions about veracity. There seems to be enough sources (both pro and con) to do that. --Icerat (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation sounds intelligent and correct as well as the suggested solution (middle ground). To attribute their statements to them seems to be the solution. Let's see if the other party can agree to that. Best wishes. IQinn (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The question here is if LWJ meets the criteria for WP:RS or not. like Icerat says it does and seems to have editorial oversight.  I do not see why we should not treat LWJ exactly the same as any other WP:RS.  you cannot pick and choose only the RS that you like and that suit your POV and try to malign others.  that is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.  That exactly is what Iquinn is trying to do.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If a single source is being used for any information, I don't think it's a violation of NPOV to request attribution of that source in the text. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * no but trying to malign a RS and call it biased and say that we should not use it just because I don't like it is. That is what exactly Iquinn is doing.  I have no problems attributing Roggio's opinions to him like we would do with any commentator.  But I dont see why we cant use LWJ in the same fashion as any other RS like BBC.  I would like to use factual info about the drone strikes ( date, number of dead, location etc) without having to look and try to find another RS to corroborate.  that is an unnecessary waste of my time when I could be doing other useful things on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bill Roggio as factual as the BBC? There is no indication for that and there is nothing that proofs that he is as reliable as the BBC. No it is not a waste of time at all to reference important information as war reports to reliable sources. Not that is not a waste of time at all - that is exactly what we should do. As we can not risk to be wrong in case of such important information. IQinn (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes he is. he actually is an expert on terrorism  unlike BBC which is a general news provider with no exceptional expertise in matters relating to terrorism. multiple RS have quoted him as such ( check the talk page for refs I have provided).  both LWJ and BBC are of course WP:RS.  again the problem is you are too focused on WP:TRUTH. we report what is said in RS and not worry too much about (our) version of truth.  Like I have said especially in case of Drone strikes in the ungoverned Taliban infested FATA there is no way of knowing the 100% truth.  we have to go by what RS say and try not to cherry pick the RS that we like.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be better you would base your argumentation on policies not a "humorous essay". I heard your personal opinion about him but there is simply no proof that he is as reliable as the BBC and that he is an "expert". There is proof that he blogs a lot about the war on terror but that does not makes him an "expert" and does not ensure that everything he publishes on his website is correct. If the information would be notable or it would be true than we would find it in the BBC or the NYT's or in books. We do not need to rely on an "expert" of this sort. There is no proof that he is an reliable "expert". Does he has a degree in journalism? Has he been published in an academic environment, was there any peer-review of his work? How many books did he publish? IQinn (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yes he is an expert. look at the number of RS who quote them.  is wikipedia an encyclopedia??  how many copies were printed at the last printing ??  just because he does most publishing online does not mean he is any less valuable to us.  Has anybody ever criticized what he says ?? we can go on and on.  that we are interested in verifiability not TRUTH is a well established policy not a humorous essay.  I strongly suggest you read WP:V as it sounds like you are unaware of this core policy.  just reading first sentence will suffice.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well i read our policies many times and we have discussed this point already. Is that all you can come up with? Right "verifiability not TRUTH" but only in the case you attribute it to the source. (you may also have a look at Wikilawyering No.2 + 3) for this.
 * There is no proof that he is an reliable "expert". Does he has a degree in journalism? Has he been published in an academic environment, was there any peer-review of his work? How many books did he publish? What do the peers in this field write about his books? You are unable to answer these questions. Bottom line non of this seems to be true so he is simply not what we call an expert. IQinn (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The "expert" issue really only arises if you consider Roggio articles on TLWJ to be self-published. While he is the managing editor, I don't think it would be considered WP:SPS. So the publisher under consideration is TLWJ rather than Roggio per se and TLWJ fits as an RS. In terms of facts and figures types of data, how are other RS considering the data from TLWJ?--Icerat (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But in many of the used references Bill Roggio is the author and he is the publisher and the editor. So how can that be editorial oversight? IQinn (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * he is called an expert by many RS and LWJ is widely cited by our RS. and you are exactly right LWJ fits our criteria as an RS.  Iquinn is the only one arguing incessantly that it is not. West Point publications routinely cite LWJ/Roggio and consider what LWJ says reliable too.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * as do the Marines --Wikireader41 (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the US military feeds him with the information they want to have out and it is no surprise that the US military West Point promotes him as an expert for this information. NO you have to show us evidence that comes from an independent academic body or peer-reviewed papers or books to proof he would be what we call an expert. IQinn (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Independent of what??? why do you think Telegraph identified him as an expert.  are they promoting him too. look at the RS that cite him .  You seem to have problems with anybody who uses him and you are indulging in pure unadulterated OR when you say US army promotes him.  Let me just say one thing we are going to use TLWJ as a RS in the same fashion as any WP:RS any article we wish on WP as that is the firm consensus. and Icerat has very clearly said that up above.  It is clear to me you have serious POV issues and will never agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you have one newspaper article that calls him an expert but he has no journalist education he has not published anything in an academic environment there was no peer review nor did he published any books. No surely not enough to say he would be what we call an expert. I think you are paraphrasing what Icerat said. There is more to it and he has described a solution (middle ground). Why don't you agree to the solution to attribute the information to him? What is wrong with that? If he would be an expert than it would just add weight to it. Something to hide? Try to work towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IQinn is right, just because the media quoting someone as an expert or calling them an expert doesn't mean they are. They may just be very good at promoting themselves. Some other standard is necessary, which is why WP:SPS requires them to be "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So two new questions have arisen - (1) is an article published by the editor of a journal in that journal an SPS? and (2) has Roggio had his "work in the relevant field" published by other RS. Note that IMO his "opinion" being published is not the same thing. Hopefully another editor might weigh in on those questions but I think (1) is going to be a tough call, making (2) irrelevant. I suggest you try to come up with some consensus using attribution where stuff is clearly opinion. Do you have any hard examples under dispute? (btw - note that quite a few articles on TLWJ are classified as "blog", which adds another layer of doubt in) --Icerat (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * well the original question was whether TLWJ is a RS or not wasnt it ?? assuming for a moment that Roggio is not an expert as per the legal requirement on WP how does it change the fact that TLWJ can be used on WP in a similar fashion as any RS.  I have no problems attributing his opinion to Roggio if it is just that. that is standard policy on wp.   we would do the same for an opinion piece from New York Times and washington post.  for other info we should treat it no differently any other RS.  like you yourself said Icerat WP:SPS does not apply to TLWJ since it meets criteria for WP:RS and has oversight etc.  so simple info on drone strikes ( date, number killed location etc) should not require attribution whether we use TLWJ as source or BBC since both are RS.  In addition LWJ articles usually have hyperlinks to multiple RS embedded in them which makes them even more comprehensive and useful for readers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well still you have not proved that the LWJ is as reliable as the BBC. If Bill Roggio is the author of an article, he is the editor of the website content and he is the publisher and he is not a proven what we call expert and had no peer review. Where is the "editorial oversight" that ensures that all facts are true? Does he has the reputation of the BBC :) surely not. To claim this website has the same reliability for fact checking as the BBC is simply without proof and almost ridiculous. It may be but it may be not there is nothing that could guarantee that everything published on his website is RS as said a lot on the website is commentary and some are blog posts. There are mechanism like editorial oversight in the case of the BBC that ensures that facts in their news section are reliable. There is nothing similar for the LWJ and the LWJ does not have a reputation as the BBC. There seems to be nothing wrong in attributing the information to the source even it would be better to reference to the BBC and cross check with other secondary sources. Facts that only can be found in the LWJ and in no other source need to be attributed to that source as one single source is not enough to present something as the truth. Even if the BBC would publish something that could not be found in any other source than we would attribute this information to the BBC. Why shouldn't we do that with the LWJ? So as a compromise let's narrow the attribution to the LWJ to three cases so that we can make some progress and we might might find consensus.

Attribution to the LWJ is only necessary in the following three cases:

1) The information comes from the blog section of the LWJ.

2) The information is commentary by one of the authors of the LWJ.

3) In cases where the LWJ is the only source for information and the information can not be found or verified in any other reliable source whatsoever.

These are rules we usually apply to the BBC and all other sources so i hope you can agree that we also apply these minimum rules to the LWJ who surely does not has the same reputation for fact checking as the BBC or the NYT's. To play by these rules seems to be a reasonable request. Can you agree to these rules so we can find agreement and can continue to fix up the article? What do you think about it Icerat? IQinn (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * what you have come up with after hours of wasting every bodies time are standard operating guidelines on wp. exactly the same guidelines for attribution would apply to any RS including NYT or BBC.  please keep your opinions about TLWJ and OR to yourself. they are unsubstantiated in any of our RS.  I would be really leary of putting info in an article which I just found on BBC or NYT only without attributing just like TLWJ. so thanx.  I agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well your reply once again sounds very rude to me to a point where it almost becomes uncivil. Well it is a compromise and not a very good one in my opinion but it is obviously that you would not have agreed to anything less and Wikipedia is all about compromises. No what i said about TLWJ is verified in many sources and i am going to fix up the article about Bill Roggio and the LWJ according to what Icerat has suggested earlier so that it becomes clear to every of our readers who is Bill Roggio and who is behind the LWJ. Anyway that will take some time as i am busy at the moment so no objection if other people start working on these articles. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to the 3 rules as i think this will avoid further disputes in the article Drone attacks in Pakistan and i will stick to them and i hope everyone else too. @Icerat, thank you for your insides and help. IQinn (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)