Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 101

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'd like to get a ruling on a source in article

As a general rule, information available only in some minor source might be considered verifiable (=we're sure he said it), but not

WP:DUE (=we're not sure it's important enough to mention). Tiny minority views, such as information that can only be found in someone's blog or a minor source, are not usually important enough to mention in a Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 04:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: same editor as above.) Thanks for the clarification on that. Before I possibly overstep my bounds in referencing your position at the discussion page, are you taking any particular position on the aforementioned reference or speaking in very general terms? I read your statement to suggest that the reference in question (and the content to which it refers) could be seen as undue weighting (minority/fringe view) and not worth keeping in the article without more/stronger sourcing. 24.129.80.163 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

General rule only, as I have not bothered to look up either the newspaper or the individual in question. But if your description of the newspaper is at all accurate, then the general rule certainly appears to be applicable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. I wondered if I might impose upon you further. 2 editors of the page (myself included) agree with your application of the general rule, while at least one other feels that we cannot apply it until someone reviews the reference in question. Would you be willing/able to do that? The description of the newspaper that I provided to you was found as the second result from this google search. The reference in question is here and the individual who is quoted (and on whose website the reference is sourced) is

Rick_Ross_(consultant). I appreciate any time you might have for this. 24.129.80.52 (talk

) 00:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, to address the "Self Referenced" issue, here is the link to the archive of the David Templeton Losing My Religion article from the April 2-8, 1998 edition of the Sonoma County Independent from the website of the publisher Metro Publishing Inc: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/04.02.98/calvary-9813.html. Mojoworker (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is of my understanding that the subject of this interview admits having made explicit adult movies. Is this usable as a valid reference for that sensitive information? --damiens.rf 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The interview is likely legitimate and usable as

WP:RS since it comes from an official convention website. I'm not sure about using that brief statement as anything other than exactly what it is though. Since she doesn't go into depth on what she means by "explicit" it's not a given that it means anything beyond R-rated. I would just quote her verbatim, something like: "In 2003 Reed described her website as containing "nude photo galleries and explicit home movies." Siawase (talk

) 16:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ZHurlihee (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The first thing to think about is whether articles should have a criticism section. We are trying to avoid such sections and rewrite articles so that criticisms appear in various sections. Criticisms can sometimes be cited to the websites of organisations. It depends whether it is a notable criticism. For example, in an article about the UK Conservative Party, a criticism found on the website of the UK Labour Party would probably be notable. On the other hand the same criticism might be found in an independent source, e.g. in a book by a political scientist. An independent source would be better, if it exists. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The following online sources, primarily all-breed commercial sites, were plucked from dog breed GAs (not merely stubs or articles needing cleanup). I don't think any of them meet the requirements for

I'm not going to count up how many articles each of these sources appears in, but the search function can answer that if you'd like to know. As I mentioned above, each is cited in at least one GA, which is why I want to get further input.

• Animal Forum.com: "Arrow Web Design, Inc." Whois contact seems to have connection to horse community and others.
• BarkBytes: Online magazine, may vary with article?
• Canada's Guide to Dogs: Hosted some CKC breed standards that were linked to, has an active Canadian event directory, Canadian judge profiles. Started by two people with a "passion for dogs and background in web design".
• DogBiz: "Bestway Marketing & Information Systems"?
• Dog-Breed-Facts.com
• Dog Breed Info Center: This one is the quintessential dubious, ad-laden source that covers every possible designer and rare breed out there -- where do they get their content? I believe it accepts user-submitted info (Miyagawa may know more about this; I've let them know about this thread) and its About page contains nothing identifying the site's owners or contributors. Previously brought up on RSN.
• Dogs Monthly Magazine: Previously brought up on RSN. Doesn't seem to fit sourcing criteria.
• Dogstuff.info: ?
• DogUp!: Largely commercial in nature, no indication of reputability. Registrant apparently also owns DeeDee Boxers -- my connection was aborted because Avast detected a trojan, so be cautious.
• English Cocker Spaniel Secrets
• Pasoddy.com: Croatian and English versions. Can't find owner or author information.
• Pet Meds Online: "Created by pet lovers, for pet lovers"? Information I looked at was suspicious.
• PetPlace: Not on the same level as the others but would still like to verify. About page
• PetPlanet.co.uk: Is "part of M8 Group Ltd" ... "long been recognised as the market leader in our sector in the UK". Primarily an e-commerce site.
• PetWave: Has a review board made up of "veterinary specialists" -- is that enough?
• Sarah's Dogs: On the Bernese Mountain Dog page, there were several factual errors that stood out and some strange statements. Without going through their other pages in more detail, I would assume this isn't a problem unique to that one. Additionally, there is no information at all about the site's author, and the domain is owned by someone from Denmark with no apparent connection to the dog fancy.
• Scottish Terrier Dog World: I'm concerned they that list the Wikipedia page among commercial sites on the bottom, under the heading "Linked with". No owner or author information.
• TerrificPets.com
• The Breeds of Dogs

I'm very sorry if I went overboard -- I'll trust my gut re: unreliable sources in the future if "consensus" on this page agrees with it, but I wanted to be especially careful. Thanks a bundle and I apologize for the volume. Anna ^talk 23:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

1. Whether a source is reliable depends on exactly what you're trying to say in the article. "Garbage-site.com" is a perfectly reliable source for something like "There's a website with the name Garbage-site.com". Albert Einstein's most famous scientific paper is completely unreliable source for the name of the current UK Prime Minister. Without knowing how the sources are used, we can't really judge their suitability for supporting that material.
2. If you don't think that the material itself is wrong, then I probably wouldn't worry too much about whether the site is commercial, names its authors, sells stuff, has advertisements, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. First of all, though this may be a given, none of them are backing up information about themselves -- they're all referring to the breed in question (its appearance, temperament, history, other traits). Realistically I can't judge whether all of it is implausible or not; it would take quite a bit of time and I don't know heaps about each breed off the top of my head. It seems more efficient in the long run, in my view (take it for what it's worth!), to crack down on sources whose information is not necessarily correct and whose authors are big question marks. What credence do their works have if they don't cite sources or identify the author and his/her qualifications? Incidentally, the same applies to Wikipedia. :)

I was applying the criteria set out at

the self-published sources section of the verifiability policy's page, in case that was unclear. And like I said, some of the information these sources provide is suspect -- some is flat-out wrong -- and I'm concerned their inclusion may become more prevalent. To clarify, I don't think a site being commercial in nature is inherently bad, but of course there are complications that arise with it (trying to sell a certain method of training [well, the associated tools] and thus referring to a dog breed as "sensitive" or "dominant" when that may not apply, etc.). Anna ^talk

06:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have some concern about the sites being commercial. I have seen in similar articles that people do coatrack type expansions just to add spam links as references, ie:[1] If possible I would look at the history of the article and see how those references were added. I didn't double check the sources you listed, but spontaneously, the only one that sounds

WP:SPS caveats is the site that claims to have veterinary specialists reviewing articles. Mainly, for all those sources it sounds like higher quality sources could be found, and where possible I would replace them. Siawase (talk

) 14:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably guilty of using all of those sources over the past couple of years, as I have to say I'm a lot more aware of the RS requirements over the last year than I was towards the start (which is ironic as I've worked on less GA articles for the dog breeds in the last year than previously). Certainly the only one which seems to be an easy win is Dogs Monthly - it's a print magazine in the UK which is in most medium or larger newsagents and is one of the big three dog magazines over here. I'm a big fan of Sarah's dogs, but like you say, it needs to be checked and varified as some of it is factually incorrect. However in some cases for the rarer breeds, there isn't much information to back it up with. I've had several of those listed ruled out for not meeting GA requirements to the extent that when working on an article I don't even think of looking at them anymore. Miyagawa (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What bothers me about the sourcing issue is that it's hard to tell someone who isn't familiar with Wikipedia's policies "it was used in a certain GA/article to support that factoid, but can't be used to support this one". I wonder if this doesn't fit "if it's worth reporting, another source would have already" (and I'm still curious where they get their rare breed info if you know!) I wasn't targeting you specifically, but since you've written most of the dog breed GAs it may have come off that way -- apologies if you thought so. This was something I had been meaning to do for a while but things got hectic so it was put off.

Would there be consensus (Wikipedia-style) to go through and replace citations to unreliable websites (excluding Dogs Monthly Magazine and the vet-checked sites)? Does anyone dislike that idea? I don't think dog breed refs should be held to lower standards than those of other articles. Thanks again for the replies. :) Anna ^talk 21:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be done. I hadn't been on the English Cocker Spaniel article in a while and hadn't realized it was such a mess - yet it's almost exactly the same as when it passed GA. I'm sure my other 2009 GAs must be very similar and will need some work. There are reliable dog sources out there, and the dog breed articles need to be held to the same standard as other articles. Miyagawa (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this issue with no answers:

• This is a concern I've had as well. One of the problems with sourcing content on temperament and behaviour in dogs is that sometimes the best and most knowledgable people may be breeders and owners with a lot of experience who may also run commercial sites. Those sites by most WP standards may be unreliable. Vets may be good for medical conditions but not necessarily for behavior temperament depending on their experience with different breeds. The way I've dealt with this issue is to look at multiple sources for one piece of information and to use the very best one I can find. If I find a source with info that is contradicted in other sources or that I am suspicious of, I look for something else. I haven't looked at many articles though and nothing on larger less well known breeds.

• We aren't a dog breeders/owners manual so maybe less but very accurate information would be better than a lot of suspicious content.

• Dogs and dog breeding especially for newer and rarer breeds is not necessarily the subject of the RS we generally find for other kinds of articles. Are there scholarly sources for some of rare dog breed behaviour for example. Probably not.

• I think trying to improve articles with better sources would be great, but being open minded about what is actually available or not available on each breed. Definitely knowledge of dogs and breeds would be useful if not critical. (olive (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC))

  I don't disagree with your comments -- they're all valid -- so the following may be preaching to the choir. If the only sources available aren't reliable, does the breed actually merit its own article? Is it "notable"? I've always favored quality over quantity, like you say, and funnily enough have that on my userpage. (Incidentally, in my experiences with the dog world, experienced and knowledgeable breeders become involved with breed clubs or write about the breed in various reputable sources, sometimes their personal website. They don't contribute to dogbreedinfo.com -- or maybe they do and keep it under wraps!)

• I'm not referring to scholarly sources, if that was unclear -- there are plenty of reliable books and sites with reasonable editorial oversight. For example, the dog magazine Canis Major's authors and editors have years of real-world experience with dogs, breed clubs, and the dog fancy generally. I wouldn't hesitate to use it as a source. Another example: Sue Ann Bowling may not have a degree in zoology or genetics but her coat color genetics articles have been reprinted by breed clubs "worldwide". It's simply concerning when you can't find author information. Maybe the person is highly well-informed and has experience, but how can anyone be even somewhat assured of that? Anna ^talk 23:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess my thought is use the best sources you can find. If the best source has no author oversight, then you can either use that source, use the content without a source if the content is not contentious, and if you question the validity of the content and there are no reliable sources, delete it. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules for this kind of situation and what applies in one article may not apply in another. There's a point where it boils down to editor judgment. If you think you can improve an article, and you sound like you can, I'd just do it, GA or otherwise Nothing is ever forever on Wp.:o)(olive (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC))

Makes sense to me. I'll be going through and replacing (or, less ideally, axing) the unreliable sources (by WP's current standards) this week when I have the time -- of course, anyone is free to revert if they don't like what I'm doing, but I'm hoping this won't be controversial since the only goal is to improve sourcing quality. On a related note, I'm also considering starting an open list of free, online canine resources that do seem to fit the RS criteria. Hopefully, that would be helpful to all who work on these articles and happen to come across my userpage. Anna ^talk 14:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The list of known reliable, free, online canine resources would be so very useful! I also agree that it would be great if we could sift through the dog breed articles and replace as many "un-reliable" sources as possible. For medical conditions, this would be relativly easy. The toughest parts for reliable referencing in dog breed articles, in my opinion, are the temperament sections. Thankyou for bringing these referencing issues up Anna :). Keetanii (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, as an editor I do a lot of editing on various band or music artist articles, and I have a question. According to Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, which active bands and music artists fall under, reliable self-published sources are never to be used. However, I was wondering that when dealing with non-controversial, general band history and awards, if an exception for sites like

Can you give some examples of the kind of information you want to add? On the subject of awards, why is the only source a bands own site? would ot the awars not mention who the gave it too?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

With the award question, it's a specific incident where a music webzine (Metal Storm) holds an annual awards event. The album in question, The Habit of Fire was nominated for this award. I wasn't sure whether this award was even notable, but when the album underwent a failed GA review, mention the award was not noted as an issue. But because the webzine is self-published, I have so far reverted any mention of the award on the band article itself, because the band article is a BLP while the album article isn't.

With reference to the overall question, it would mostly be about whether sites like

Music Might

, or The Phantom Tollbooth which are notable and have an editorial staff, would be okay to use for details in a general band overview that is already referenced by sources that are not self-published, as long as such details were about the band as an entity and not the musicians in the band. Related to that would be using reliable self-published material, such as that by Matt Morrow, to discuss a band's music style, as that would not be making personal statements about the musicians in the band.

Does that clarify things, or do you need more info?--3family6 (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It would not matter if the webzine is self published, its wrting about itself (an award it had given) so it would be RS for what it has done.

Why do you want to use these site for aleady sourced information?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

An SPS is not RS for any material not just BLP (by the way BLP does apply to small entities such as bands), if that material is not about the writer of the SPS, unless the SPS is a notable expert in the field then (with proper in line accreditatio (Morrow ays teh band is...) then its OK. If however they are not an notable expert then it would not be OK to use an SPS as a source about an entity.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a side comment. I guess the first sentence of the above note from SlaterSteven is written in an accidentally over-absolute way, presumably just by typo, because it is in direct conflict with the next sentences. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think that answers my question. Basically, if the SPS is notable (which is the case for any SPS I'd be using for a BLP), than they are okay for a BLP as long as credited?--3family6 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would susgest that ou ask about each source in turn as you will need to demonstrate that they are notable experts in their field. For example who is Matt Morrow?Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Refactored my comment to make its meaning clearer.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. First,

HM Magazine: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Another writer is Johannes Jonsson, as not only has he written for HM Magazine ([8], [9]), his self-published website, Metal for Jesus! has received academic coverage: [10]

.

One source I am unsure of is [tollbooth.org The Phantom Tollbooth]. It's an online magazine with an editorial staff, and basically is the same as Jesus Freak Hideout or even HM Magazine's website, so there shouldn't be problems, I just thought I'd check.--3family6 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews are not articles, also many have no byline so no way of telling who they are by.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing reviews as articles, I know there is a difference but didn't bother typing it out above. I'm not sure what you mean about no byline, all of the above reviews and interviews have one.--3family6 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You second source does not have a byline, it says for more info see another article in another source. I did not see the others because (like the second source) his names was in brackets and had text after it. But I accept that he is attributed as the author.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I realized this morning that JFH, MusicMight, and Phantom Tollbooth should be fine as while the websites are self-published, what is being cited is the individual authors, whose work is being published by the website, so the sources would not be self-published. But where are we on Morrow and Jonsson?--3family6 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whilst its true that they are not self published it would also have to be shown that the articles cited are not the equivalent of a wiki style article (in other words they accept any old rubbish for their online publication). JFH does seem to have been found to be RS in the past, no reason to assume its not now. But you would (if we take the original discussion to heart) to make the case for what you want to include. As to Morrow and Jonsson I have said that we need to see evidence that their opinions are notable enough to circumvent BLP and SPS. This might not be the best venue for that question.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Which venue would be the best?--3family6 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the question, the SPS or BLP notice baords would be best for sepcific discsions abut those issues. Notability might best be discused there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.--3family6 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72Dino&oldid=438963358#Dumb_Question for a disagreement over one source -- the writer is not with a major paper, but just a specialty blog -- normally, not necessarily an expert if he were gonig to, say, interpret a law or something, but what's being cited is incidences on suicides or attempted suicides, and this writer's claiming to have received a letter from someone contemplating suicide --since I believe him to be true, this appears to meet 'reliable sources' criteria for Wikiepdia --please see the subsection titled 'Dumb Question' at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72Dino&oldid=438963358#Dumb_Question this saved 'screen diff.' -- 72Dino asked me to bring my disagreement here --and here I am.71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

According to our content policies, reliable sources normally have these qualities:

• The source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• The publication is done by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
• It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
• It is a third-party or
  WP:Independent source
  .
• It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as
  editorial oversight or peer review
  processes.

Some individual's blog about how to get out of debt fails four out of the five criteria. It's not that we think the author is telling a lie about the letter he received; it's that the blog posting isn't an authoritative source for the claim that there has been an "increase in suicides directly attributable to the stress related to distressed and defaulted student loans" (=text from the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thx 4 the reply here, W, but the claim about "increase in suicides directly attributable to the stress related to distressed and defaulted student loans" isn't something that ONE author by himself needs to prove -- so to put the full burden of proof fully & totally on one author (that you admit you do believe is telling the truth) is illogical. What I mean is this: Yes, it's possible for one author to prove this claim --like, an author of a scientific study --however, a whole lot of individual anecdotal evidence may also verify this claim here: "increase in suicides directly attributable to the stress related to distressed and defaulted student loans." -- Put another way, if you needed to borrow a thousand dollars, you might borrow from one REAL RICH friend --but to disqualify smaller loans (or gifts) from others *just because* they're small, would be foolish: You could easily borrow or receive as gifts *many* smaller amounts (instead of *one* large lump sum) --and thus, you admit that you believe this author. Here, let me quote you: "It's not that we think the author is telling a lie about the letter he received," which admits that his truthfulness is not being called into question --and THAT is what its all about: Don't make it more difficult than it is.

Looking at your standards, while I admit I don't know this author other than having seen his website, I will say this:

1 - his reputation is at least strong enough to verify he received a letter.

2 - "The publication is done by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s)." -- This is not necessarily an iron-clad rule, since many articles in, say, the NY Times would qualify --insofar as his blog is publishing, it qualifies --even if to a lower standard of quality than, say, the NY Times.

3 - The subject of the cited article is appropriate to the claims made in the Wikipedia article -same subject matter, just anecdotal, rather than "large group" study.

4 - It IS an independent 3rd party insofar as it's neither of the 1st 2 parties (the reader or Wikipedia)

5 - It seems like there is some professional review --even if it's only the guy's wife & pet cat --it's enough to satisfy his claims of receiving a letter --see, a lot of anecdotal evidence is just as useful as one "big" study --it all adds up: Truth is truth, no matter how you add it up.

For the reasons above, I respectfully dissent & support both this source AND ALL OTHERS which I've cited as valid. Do you dissent here?71.100.190.190 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the criteria.

1. His reputation is nothing to me. Since few people bother fabricating stories like that, I'm willing to believe that he's telling the truth, but I have no reason to believe it except my own belief that most people aren't liars.
2. The New York Times, like most newspapers, is published by a respectable outfit.
3. A blog about finances is not an appropriate source of information about the cause of suicides. (A blog about suicide in general might be.)
4. I agree that he would constitute an independent source for this claim. "The reader" and "Wikipedia", however, are not parties to the claim at all. You might benefit from reading
   WP:Third-party sources
   to figure out what that term means.
5. "The guy's wife & pet cat" do not constitute professional editorial oversight in any sense. The editor at your local newspaper, who has the right and duty to tell the reporter that his beloved story will never be printed, exercises professional editorial oversight.

More to the point, the plural of anecdote is not data, and

WP:SYNTH

directly prohibits you from adding up "a whole lot of individual anecdotal evidence" to verify a claim. Either the source makes the whole claim, and is reliable and appropriate for that whole claim, or it's not.

I'm not sure why you're bothering with this. Trying to drive readers to a favorite blog, maybe? There are already two sources named for this claim. We don't need WP:Citation overkill, especially with such weak sources as some guy's blog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence (posted on blogs and so) is not enough. How many different pieces of anecdotal evidence are you going to collect to support the claim that there is "increase in suicide..."? In doing so it would become original research

WP:ORIG

.

If there is truth to that claim, then sooner or later a researcher is going to publish a study that shows this increase in suicide, or at least some reputable newspaper will report on it in an article on that topic. Then you will have your reliable source , and then you can add it in the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I just want to state what the name of the source is that is under discussion here and the specific link to the source. The source under discussion is GetOutOfDebt.org and the specific page being cited is [11]. The claim it was being used to support was in the article College tuition in the United States, stating, "Besides economic effects of rapidly increasing debt burdens placed on students, social ramifications are felt. One of these is the increase in suicides directly attributable to the stress related to distressed and defaulted student loans." I agree with those editors who believe this source is not a reliable source for this particular claim, because the fact that one financial blog received one letter from someone who said he was considering suicide due to his student loans does not establish that there has been an increase in suicides attributable to student loan problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty bold claim made by this blog or website or whatever it is. It's also one that surely must have been discussed in much more reliable sources. If this were a small point of, say, local history, then we might discuss using it as it might be the only source available. But in this particular case there's no reason to waste any time debating the merits of a dubious website. Go find a study or a newspaper article to cite instead. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the student-generated data found at an open source notebook be used as a source of data in the infoboxes for our chemical articles? (example for benzoic acid used as a source for non-aqueous solubility at

I respect the good faith of those who collected these data, but my view is an emphatic no way that such data would admissable as a reliable source in the Chemistry portion of Wikipedia. What next? (Sarcastic example: Data from the notebooks of the fluoride Action Network on the in-efficacy of water fluoridation.) Often, even a primary journal citation is not good enough, we prefer secondary sources for certain data. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with ChemNerd & Smokefoot, and my concerns would be compounded if a student or students who helped generate the data are the ones who are citing their own work. In any event, Wikipedia's NPOV is best supported by reliable sources that are consistent with the criteria mentioned above. "Just say no" to student-generated data found at an open source notebook. --USEPA James (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears the information under under the section Town Hall At The Whitehouse in the article David Meerman Scott is sourced from unreliable sources, which, the editor User:Woz2 seems to disagree. See discussion here.

The video clip is indisputably the President of the United States answering questions at the town hall hosted by Twitter. I found a better posting of the clip. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/07/president-obama-twitter-town-hall-economy-jobs-deficit-and-space-exploration#vseek403 Click on the third link or seek to 6:44 Woz2 (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See also the discussion here Woz2 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The particular page in question has been http://reviews.aalbc.com/karrine_steffans_2007.htm, this was used as a source for birth date and may be used as a source for the author's personal background as detailed in her BLP Karrine Steffans and includes an original interview with the author. Are there any opinions that this is suitable as a source for a BLP as it has recently been removed on unclear grounds? Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Silas Bent (judge) is an article that I created a few days ago but have not got round to expanding. CaroleHenson has been digging around and over the last couple of days has been able to expand it significantly, which in normal circumstances is A Good Thing.

My concern is that heavy use is made of a book by Allen Bent, published 1900 - The Bent family in America: Being mainly a genealogy of the descendants of John Bent who settled in Sudbury, Mass., in 1638, with notes upon the family in England and elsewhere. GBooks link. I saw this book mentioned when I started out and discarded it because (a) more modern works insist that it has the wrong date of birth for Silas, and (b) at least one more modern work insisted that it was wrong to say that the guy's father had been involved in the Boston Tea Party, although someone in the family may have been. The latter argument against accuracy, made by Grinnell, was stated and cited in the article when I created it but has now been written out.

The book is written by a direct descendant of the family, appears (inevitably) to be based on his own knowledge and is from a publisher that I, for one, have not come across before. The counter-argument is that more modern writers apparently cite it and the reflect what it says. From what I have seen, those cites were mostly vague and sometimes existed to deny the accuracy of it, as noted above.

So, should it be treated as a reliable source, a self-published source, as near as dammit a primary source or what? I am aware that various viewpoints can be stated in an article and will resort to that if necessary. Views would be much appreciated.

I should add that CaroleHenson and myself get on ok. This is not some major drama between editors! - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont normally work on biographies but I did create one on an ancestor of my own and came across similar problems (

WP:RS a reliable source is reliable for what is non-controversially "true", it can be reliable for parts and not the whole; a source doesnt have to get EVERYTHING right in order to be reliable.Camelbinky (talk

) 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If a part of an older source is proven wrong by a modern source, then just replace that part, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the information in the older source is wrong. It's just likely that new information has come up in the meantime that proved otherwise for that specific part. Silverseren^C 21:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both. My recent area of activity has been mostly in the highly contentious realm of India-related articles and in those I have found that the optimum solution is often to present contrary (reliably sourced) views in the body of the text. In this instance, I am unsure whether it is necessary to discard one view for another, present both in the text or whether the best approach might be to footnote the older, potentially less accurate/COI view. This particular situation is not assisted by the fact that I cannot view the entire source on GBooks, but I suspect that I'll find it on archive.org or hathitrust tomorrow, given the year of publication. I am afraid that I am one of those people who likes to see context. Any comments on this or indeed on anything said previously would be welcome. I would stress that none of this is intended as a criticism of CaroleHenson, wo has done much good work. In fact, I am hoping to be able to add a note to the article talk page, pointing to this discussion in order to head off any such debate in the future. Strike while the iron is hot and my memory is still functioning etc. The Bent source has the potential to be used across a wide range of articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems there's already an opinion here.

For what it's worth, I disagree with the characterization of the use of this particular source - and the extent to which there is information different than other sources. The one difference was noted in the "notes" section of the article regarding one date of birth (and it's not clear what is accurate, but I noted the difference). Not knowing about this thread, I addressed the other issue about "the father" on my talk page with a number of sources verifying the data. There was a train of thought for using the source including: consistent information with other sources (except one date of birth) and the book was often cited in other solid, often quoted books about the Bent family members of interest.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Are either of these two sources WP:RS for the claim that Peter Sprigg "has argued that gay marriage is not an issue of civil rights"?

1. ISBN 0890514976
   .
   • Ham and his
     quote-mining
     , so I would not think that he'd be a reliable source, even for a quote.
2. Stockland, Patricia (2007). Same-Sex Marriage. Abdo Publishing Company. p. 24.
   ISBN 159928863X
   .
   • A "Young Adult" book written by an author whose main qualification appears to be being a rightwing 'Culture Warrior'.

I'm not disputing that it is most-probably true that Sprigg holds this position -- but I was under the impression that my opinion that it is true is insufficient, that the information must have "already been published by a reliable source". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. Both books provide a quote from Sprigg, and three seconds of Googling got me primary sources which confirm that Sprigg said these things. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The original FRC piece no longer exists on their website, and none of the other online sources for it seem particularly reliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Google has the cached version. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is a Google cache a reliable source? Or more importantly is it one that's not going to whortly evaporate? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why it would be any less reliable than the page it's caching; sources don't have to be online, so if it evaporates, we're fine as long as we've properly cited the original document. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But they have to be published -- can a document that only ever had existence online, and whose only reliable online copies either no longer exists, or soon won't exist, be considered to be "published" in any meaningful way? This would appear to be a fundamental difference between online-only documents and online copies of deadtree-published documents. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Online-only sources can absolutely be highly reliable. I saw recently that a UK government department is no longer producing its research reports in paper format, while they are all available to download free. I don't know quite how it works, but I understand that there are always caches to find documents that may be taken offline. I really hope that editors will pay attention to giving full bibliographic details of online documents. For example, someday the UK government department may be reorganised, the website may be completely restructured. So long as there is a report title, authors, ISBN number etc., it should be quick work to track the document down. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This biography of Emme is nearly identical to the biography that was left on my talk page by someone who claims to be the subject of the article. So, can I use the PBS.org link as a source? I'm not feeling really good about it but figured I'd ask. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is reliable enough. I dont see any reason to doubt the reliability--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

PBS is fine; in this instance, whether or not the user claims to be the subject is irrelevant. (If they're causing problems at the article, that's an issue for COI noticeboard.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! Dismas|^(talk) 03:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

• Evers, Joris (October 19, 2005). "Kerio to scrap desktop firewall". CNET news. Retrieved 13 July 2011.

--Hm2k (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

CNET is definitely notable, and the writer is a staff writer, so that looks good. Does it have an editorial staff? If so, than it is fine.--3family6 (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to quibble with the above opinion, a source doesn't have to be notable to be reliable. But CNET is both, and this is a good source for IT news. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

...And, it does have an editorial staff: [12] Siawase (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To avoid starting edit war, I´ve added this sentence into article: At evening Press TV reported that rebel forces have finally managed to capture Brega. based on this [13] The Libyan revolutionary forces on Friday captured Brega, some 800 kilometers (500 miles) east of Tripoli, a Press TV correspondent reported. Yet it edit was reverted by several users based on claim that Press TV is not

CNN, BBC News, ABC news, etc all confirm, and even the rebels themselves, that the fight for Brega is still on and the town is not captured. They also confirmed that the initial attack from yesterday faltered. A rebel spokesman tonight confirmed that a small recon force of rebels managed to breach Brega from the north but pulled back quickly to prepare for a new offensive at dawn. The town has not been captured and Press TV is known to make unreliable statements in the past specificly on this conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there is currently a dispute regarding certain sources on the article Green Brigade. The article is about a football supporters group, who model themselves on European Ultras groups. There has been extensive discussion and disagreements between editors here. It goes on for quite some time so I will not pick out any responses or exact points.

The first source disputed is from the website ultratos with the exact source to the green brigade part of the website here to back up this statement in the article, this is mainly done through their large, colourful displays, often known as tifos

The other sources in question refer to youtube more specifically what has been described as the green brigades official youtube site here. To back up this in the article, Two other areas of the Green Brigade's support are their use of smoke bombs and flares[6] as well as corteos

There was also a dispute over the use of the emerald city supporters group website in this source to back up information about ultras groups.

Hopefully that’s some context to the sources and the dispute and would welcome replies. Thanks. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The YouTube issue is a tough one. If it can be proven that the YouTube channel is the official channel then it could be used as a primary source. However, the community has been very strict on verification that it truly is official (to the point that common sense is not the acceptable standard).

For the specific lines being sourced by YouTube, a couple lines are not overdoing use of a primary source. But, "The group try to model themselves on European ultras groups[4] this is mainly done through their large, colourful displays, often known as tifos.[5]" Reads a littl like original research. Has a secondary source discussed this? And "The Green Brigade are also known for using banners to display messages. Two other areas of the Green Brigade's support are their use of smoke bombs and flares[6]" has a couple concerns. Are they really known for it? The primary source does not and cannot verify such a self-serving line. I do think that the second part "Two other areas of the Green Brigade's support are their use of smoke bombs and flares[6]" is acceptable if the channel is deemed OK.

The main issue is not YouTube but that it might read like a fan-page/promotional-mirror-of-their-webpage. This is going to raise issues. Try finding the info in secondary RS just to prove that the info is worthy of inclusion and to get other editors to not be overly skeptical.

More of my thoughts on YouTube can be found at

WP:PRIMARY.Cptnono (talk

) 00:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Context is important, Anupam; I'll list the objections mentioned repeatedly on the talk page. 1) Biologos is a not a news outlet. 2) Biologos is a Christian advocacy group, according to their about page "BioLogos explores, promotes, and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith." 3) Ian Hutchinson is not a professional journalist or a professional in the field. His blog post is about religion, but he's a professor of engineering. 4) This is a primary source with no notability.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Christian organization claims that questioning the tenets of Christianity is equivalent to forcibly converting and murdering people = dog bites man. Since it wasn't picked up by a reliable source, and since Hutchinson has no expertise in the subject, there's no reason to include it. Note that Anupam's quotation of the news blog policy is faulty since this is not a news blog. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What if Facebook is somethings Offical website. Since Wiki say it can't be a source how can we make a reference or link the topic User:EastBelfastBoy

Chances are, anything notable enough to require an "official website" link is going to have more of a web presence than a Facebook page, to be fair. GRAPPLE X 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't blanket exclude Facebook as a source, but it may not be straight forward or easy to use it in an encyclopedic manner.

WP:WEIGHT. Siawase (talk

) 00:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is rarely if ever a reliable source. Each notional use of a Facebook page as a reference must be carefully considered regarding its verifiability, regarding who wrote it. Only an expert source should be considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been a number of users, primarily new editors and IPs adding reference that use http://www.nickandmore.com as a source. Nickandmore is hosted by toonzone.net which is of dubious reliability and the "about" page for nickandmore.com doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence.[14] Most of the references seem base on content posted to the nickandmore forums, with Travis Yanan (not his real name) appearing frequently, while some are third hand copies from tvbythenumbers. A couple of the sources used as refs are [15] and [16] but the editors adding the refs often malform them and they end up being unusable anyway. I was wondering wht the opinions of others are regarding this site. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that nickandmore.com fulfills the criteria for

WP:UNDUE. Siawase (talk

) 20:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that If the cited book is deemed to be a reliable source some might argue that Hale’s role as a drummer should be added to the article. Emhale (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Even without all the mistakes, it would be very questionable as a reliable source—not because of the lack of footnotes, but because the author is not a known authority as far as I can see. The book looks more like a casual entertainment book than a serious academic resource on rock history. With all of the obvious mistakes, the book clearly fails "fact-checking and accuracy". Another, more reliable source, would surely be needed to support those claims. First Light (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the references. They are not related to the article!--Aliwiki (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm having the same problem -- none of the sources seem to mention him (though I cannot be certain they don't do so with a variant spelling). Also christianislamicforum.wordpress.com does not seem to be a WP:RS.

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I'm finding very little, and most of it inaccessible. A guy did exist of that name and era -- but the details aren't clear as yet.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And he's ignored my post about not using blogs and my more recent post asking him to come here, and added a new blog as a source.

talk

) 16:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Digging deeper and looking at [{Corduene]] as well (where he was king), there's also some Kurdish nationalism going on here.

talk

) 18:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the Mirs news agency a rs? I don't know enough about the region or language to determine if it is or not. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is "Misr news agency". Misr is Arabic for Egypt. Otherwise I cannot find anything about them. TFD (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Opps yes, I've corrected it - nope I can't find anything either. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am looking at [19] --Greenmaven (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to establish a news agency as reliable. One step is to see if others include news items from the agency. Here are a few of such links to Misr News Agency:

• The American University of Cairo cites Misr June 4 http://www.aucegypt.edu/news/aucinthenews/Pages/ZewailInauguralLecture.aspx
• KAS Egypt in the Media cites Misr News Agency: http://www.kas.de/aegypten/en/pages/5603/

These are the only two I have found, so far. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We need an experienced Wikipedia editor who understands Egypt and Arabic. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For at least the second time today I have come across blatantly incorrect climate information in city articles cited to

Do you know what TWC uses as a source for its data? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

According to an FAQ (question 27) they use NOAA's 30 year, 1971-2000 averages and records, which explains why their averages match NOAA's (30 year averages from 1971-2000 are used by NOAA) but their records are incorrect (NOAA uses records for the climate station's entire period of record, rather than the 1971-2000 data only). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. What I would do is contact TWC and ask them about it, since if they acknowledge a mistake and change the FAQ, the conflict is resolved and WP will fix itself over time. But I think NOAA is clearly a reliable source, and if TWC says they are using NOAA data, good faith changes in the data and the reference would be fine, so long as they are not challenged. And if they are, discussion on the talk page would be appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing about 300 links citing http://www.mediaspy.org/ and http://www.mediaspy.org/report/ as sources. I'm not persuaded this site meets

I have serious doubts about the reliability of this source [20]. It is being used to push a typical nationalist/protochronist POV [21], namely that the

I'm guessing that this was written a while ago, under Enver Hoxha's rule, and only recently translated. If you click on the author's name in Google Books, you find one publication as far back as 1966. It reads to me like someone trying to do proper scholarship but having to comply with the party line, a line that is about as useful to us today as Lysenkoism. The publishing house may be the main Albanian history publisher. It has two recent books with sensible titles listed by the Council of Europe, as part of a listing of partner publishers. References to Illyrians aren't usable, as this kind of scholarship is now superseded. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea. Typical Hoxha-era

talk

) 07:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Hold on you guys. There are other parameters for judging the reliability of an author.

• The author Andromaqi Gjergji has studied for history, has a PhD degree and is an academic. Her work consist on Albanian ethnology and costumes. Some of her books here.
• She has 693 hits on google books
• She has 75 hits on google scholar

Opinions by other scholars on the author include:

• The well-known Albanian ethnologist, Andromaqi Gjergji link
• Andromaqi Gjergji, a well-known and well-respected ethnologist link
• Andromaqi Gjergji, an authority on Albanian dress link
• The leading expert on costume of her country link

That fulfills

It seems that this is another weird remnant of old stalinist Albania. Apart from the major pov issues the users eager to add this book can't even give the precise quotes to verify the specific claims. Instead of giving at least the appropriate snippets the explanation they give is really poor and aggresive, proving that they can't find the specific parts anywhere[[24]].Alexikoua (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there any arguments here? Saying that she is some kind of communist professor(she wasn't even a member of the party) isn't an argument at all. Aigest brought some arguments related to what wikipedia defines as reliable. Among others her papers were published by the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1983. If we go by Alexikoua's opinion VAM was collaborating with unreliable Hoxhists.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Aigest's arguments are besides the point, and I don't expect anyone to respond to them. The point is clear: Hoxha-era sources should not be used for references to the Illyrians. First, because "Illyrian continuity" was the party line and no author would dare cross that, second because that was 30 years ago and we have much better scholarship. Read Itsmejudith's comment once again, particularly the last line. What's the point of going to WP:RSN if you guys aren't going to accept the result anyway?

talk

) 19:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are Aigest's arguments besides the point? Judith didn't really bring anything forward that proves that she's unreliable. Why are her colleagues considering her an expert and why at the same time she was a Hoxhist she was getting in published by the Victoria and Albert Museum? I don't mind restarting the discussion until someone replies with arguments.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the publication in question dates 2004. I don't understand at all Albanian, but using google translator, it seems like Andromaki Gjergji received a prize in her city of birth in 2010 (link)? That would make her alive in 2004, at the year of publication. Why is her work during communist Albania being discussed if the publication dates 2004, a year when she was alive and taking full responsibility of her work? If that is the case, accepting her as a source shouldn't be that hard, since she seems to be a leading authority in her field. And one cannot blame all the scholars of Eastern Europe for having studied, worked, and produced scientific results during the communist era, at least I don't think this is anywhere in wikipedia's policies.Divide et Impera (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The 2004 publication is an English translation of the Albanian-language original from 1988 Veshjet shqiptare në shekuj: origjina Tipologjia zhvillimi , during the years of the communist regime in Albania. This regime impelled scholars to prove "Illyrian continuity" and no scholars would cross it [25]. I thus remain skeptical of communist era sources that claim this or that is of Illyrian provenance.

talk

) 22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the source comes from 2004, when Gjergji could express herself freely, and was free of political burdens, so you may not brand the source as a "communist era" one: the translation in English couldn't have been made without her consent. What you are blaming her about is to have been a scholar even earlier than 1989. This is not a valid argument.

Wikipedia policies are that all the scholars' views be presented, so if there are scholars that would disagree with her, their views should be presented as well. A confrontation of the views usually produces the best results in terms of article quality.Divide et Impera (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The original scholarship for the book was conducted in 1970s and 1980s, during the Hoxha era. As such, it heavily dated and obsolete. The 2004 publication is just a translation, there is no new scholarship. We have better sources on the Illyrians now, many sources. If there is merit to the claim being made about the

talk

) 22:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know when the original scholarship was conducted, and why do you think that the author did not revise the 2004 version? She keeps, afterall, the copyrights, and she qualifies as RS, because she is an expert in the field. And how do you decide that Gjergji is still "affected" by Lysenkoism, 15 years after the fall of communism, when she, herself was never a member of the party, even when Albania was a dictatorship? Besides, it seems like the fustanella is a national costume of the Albanians, don't you think that silencing the major Albanian ethnographist would be equivalent with breaching the NPOV pillar of wikipedia?Divide et Impera (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)This debate is not about personal conviction but on RS parameters. Since you are bringing the case of Illyrians here, John Wilkes The Illyrians The Peoples of Europe Author John Wilkes Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Wiley-Blackwell, 1995

I don't get why we're getting so hung up on the fact that Gjergji worked during Hoxha's time. Most of the Lysenkoism that Judith talked about would be applied to Party history. I'm sure it would have been easier to say that the Albanians could be of other origin than Illyrian than to say that

Mit'hat Frashëri was actually a patriot who served his country well. (As a matter of fact, Albanian scholars worked with Romanians scholars on the possible Dacian-Albanian connection.) The fact that they adopted Illyrian origins is hardly a communist manifestation, but a reflection of the dominant view of the time: modern Albanians are descended from the Illyrians. There are still scholars today who accept this as a viable theory ([26]).--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk

) 14:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that generally speaking Wikipedians should not be the ones deciding that someone is a bad source because of the country they lived in or the regime they live under. The aim of the people discussing this source should be to prove or disprove that this author is cited and taken seriously by experts in the field, because they are our reference point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So what do you think about Gjergji's reliability?--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about this. But I see that one correspondent here has taken the time to show that she is cited here and there, and that is promising.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If Gjergji's scholarship has found acceptance, it should not be too hard to find other reliable references corrobating his views, should it? If this is not the case, he should be dropped as dubious. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything said above corroborates my initial impression: an important scholar but working under the restrictions of state-nationalist ideology. Being willing to investigate possible Romanian-Albanian links is obviously clearly in line with the official Albanian line of the time. This author may well be reliable for details about Albanian folk culture, but the insistence on Illyrian origins of cultural forms is speculative ethnic boosterism out of sync with the best recent work and should be ignored. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that in this debate actually none except me is providing reference for backing his claims on this specific author. Itsmejudith insists that the author can not be used on Illyrian related articles, but keeps ignoring the fact that leading experts on Illyrians have used the work of this author in their books:

1. The Illyrians The Peoples of Europe Author John Wilkes Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Wiley-Blackwell, 1995 ISBN 0631198075, 9780631198079 p-228-229) Wilkes speaks about Illyrian dresses and the reference is note 12 where we can see that the references he uses for that topic are "Note 12. Stipcevic 1977a, 86-90, Cresmonik 1963, 1964(native dress on Roman relief sculpture in Bosnia-Hervegovina), Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 19.22, 9 (dalmatic), Terzan 1984b (dress and society), Gjergji 1971 (Albanian continuity of Illyrian dress), Jubani 1970."
2. The Illyrians: history and culture History and Culture Series Author Aleksandar Stipčević Editor Aleksandar Stipčević Edition illustrated Publisher Noyes Press, 1977 ISBN 0815550529, 9780815550525 here points exactly "Note 43. On the subject of the remains of this costume in the folk-costumes of present-day Albania, see Gjergji, "Element vestimentaires communs des tribus illyriennes et leur continuation dans nos costumes populaire," Illyriens, pp. 152-153." The same author Stipcevic in his book on Illyrians claims that "Ethnologists too, studying the very rich material, have found in it a series of elements which have descended directly from prehistoric Illyrian heritage. Particularly numerous are traces of Illyrian costume in present day-day Albanian national costume(102)" while the reference 102 used says "note 102 Franz Nopsca had also observed that in the national Albanian costume there exist some ancient features dating from prehistoric times. See his work "Prinosi starijoj povijesti eleverne Albanija GZ m 22(1910) 347.54. More recently some Albanian ethnologists have dealt with this problem, cf . A. Gjergji, "Elements communs dans l'habillements des tribus illyriennes et leur continuation dans nos costumes populaires," Illyriens, pp. 151-71; ..." link

I want to point out that both Wilkes and Stipcevic are considered leading experts on Illyrians and they are used constantly on Illyrians article in wikipedia and everything related to that topic in wiki.

User:Itsmejudith claims that A. Gjergji is "an important scholar but working under the restrictions of state-nationalist ideology..... This author may well be reliable for details about Albanian folk culture, but the insistence on Illyrian origins of cultural forms is speculative ethnic boosterism out of sync with the best recent work.." but nothing in scholar work support Judith claim on this specific author. Let's see

1. None of the experts on Illyrians above (Wilkes and Stipcevic) is an Albanian and I don't see how their work could be described as "speculative ethnic boosterism". They have not worked under "the restrictions of state-nationalist ideology" however they use Gjergji work and even support her claims(see above links).
2. We have a direct description on A. Gjergji claims and values in recent publications, which contradict totally what user:Itsmejudith claims. Actually when published scholars speak on A.Gjergji work, they claim that "..This in turn enables her to demonstrate which regions of Albania were deeply influenced by neighbouring cultures and which revealed distinctly separate Albanian cultural characteristics "not found elsewhere". She concludes that, far from developing in isolation, there are indications in these specific areas of prehistoric Albano-Illyrian cultural origins. The strength of Gjergjis's case lies in its multidisciplinary approach, which overrides any nationalistic assumptions. Every piece of the ethnic puzzle is carefully put in place to create a whole picture... " The study of dress history Studies in design and material culture Studies in Design Author Lou Taylor Edition illustrated Publisher Manchester University Press, 2002 ISBN 0719040655, 9780719040658 p.53
3. The same claims on the link of dresses "fustanella-Albanians-Illyrians" have been done independently of A.Gjergji work, by other authors as of 2009 "...fustanella, was common dress form men in the thirteenth century when it was worn by Dalmatians, one of the Illyrian progenitors of the Albanians. The historical and etymological roots of the fustanella, however, date back to the days of Rome, when the Albanian or Illyrian kilt became the original pattern for Roman military dress..." The fabric of cultures: fashion, identity, and globalization Author Eugenia Paulicelli Editors Eugenia Paulicelli, Hazel Clark Edition illustrated Publisher Taylor & Francis, 2009 ISBN 0415775426, 9780415775427 p. 148 "

To user:Itsmejudith and others, I have some simple questions that need to be asked and commented

1. Are John Wilkes and Aleksandar Stipcevic leading experts on Illyrians?
2. Do they rely on A.Gjergji work in regard to Illyrian clothings?
3. Is Gjergji work described from recent published scholars as "multidisciplinary approach, which overrides any nationalistic assumptions."?
4. Do recent and independent works still claim the link fustanella-Illyrans-Albanians, just as A.Gjergji does?
5. In relation with these facts above what do you think now of A.Gjergji work?Aigest (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, maybe you are not explaining all your evidence above, so maybe I am under-estimating your argument, but you seem to be literally saying that because this source could be ethnic boosterism, it should be treated as if it definitely is. But do you have any source which calls it this or is this just your own suspicion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither Wilkes nor Stipcevic nor anyone else for that matter gives any credence to Gjergji's specific claim about the Illyrian origin of the Fustanella, and it's not hard to see why. She bases her entire claim on two statuettes from the 1st millennium BC, one from Ljubljana and one from Maribor. Aside from the fact that both these places are a thousand kilometers from southern Albania, where the fustanella likely originated, aside from the fact that there is a gap of two millennia (the fustanella dates to the late middle ages, c. 14 century), we know now neither Ljubljana nor Maribor were even Illyrian territory. Ljubljana was part of the territory of the

talk

) 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(ignore trolling and attack based on ethnic affinity) Apparently you have not read A.Gjergji Athenean and I think that you either are misinformed or you are misrepresenting the facts.

1. Maribor was an Illyrian territory before being invaded by Celts here The figurine came from Illyrians sites and has been dated as of Vth century and before the Celtic invasion. For those who are interested further here you can see a picture of figurina found at Maribor (just scroll down because it is down in the page)
2. The same can be said for
   Messapii
   usually linked with Illyrians.
3. In her book also Gjergji speak of archaeological findings which represent man wearing "fustanella" in Smokthine, (Vlore, South Albania) dated 3-4 century AD and Durrës, (Central Albania), dated 4th century AD.
4. Summarizing on the origin of fustanella, the author claim that "zoma" of the Greeks and "cinctus" of the Romans differ from "fustanella" in the cutting and the form, the most ancient findings on "fustanella" come from Illyrian sites, they are linked in in the cutting and the form with medieval fustanella, medieval fustanella was documented in use among Albanians, thus the origin(cutting, form, earliest documentation) and continuation (cutting, form, earliest documentation). Aigest (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Who are the real owners of the fustanella?? Zeriyt.com? Seriously now? How exactly does this attest to Gjergji's reliability as a source? How exactly do these ancient statuettes found in Slovenia prove the "Illyrian" origin of a medieval southern Albanian garment (oh I forgot, there is another statuette)? Is Gjergji an archeologist? An Illyrologist? On the other hand, I do encourage everyone here to check out this website, if only so they can familiarize themselves with the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. Incidentally, User:Kushtrim123, the one who started all this has been blocked as a sock of User:I Pakapshem, a well-known nationalist troll that ascribed to the mentality of the piece in zeriyt.com.

talk

) 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Athenean, I think that you are trying to mislead the contributors here. I was telling the others that they could see a picture of the now "famous" Maribor figurina in a website, not that the website should have been used a source, those are your words not mine. Yours is a false claim and I may say an intellectual dishonesty. Responding to your further questions, I may say that she is specialized in dresses and uses archaeologists and Illyrogists data, just like archaeologists and Illyrogists (Stipcevic, Wilkes) use her data in their books. It is not so complicated, if you try to understand that this is the mechanism among academics. I see that you are not bringing any source for backing your claims and you are avoiding my questions on this specific author. From your attitude I can assume that you have no source backing your claims and you are just "assuming" things, while in the other hand we have scholars that declare the opposite. How could you explain this discrepancy between your personal claims here and published literature of several scholars? Aigest (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know you aren't trying to use zeriyt.com as a source. It would be funny if you tried. But why frequent such sites? Those images are available elsewhere. If the idea is the hope that out readers read through that 19th century racialist drivel on the way to the image, I can assure it is self-defeating. As for avoidance, you are the one who is avoiding (perhaps because you are unable to find sources?) the question that not a single source takes Gjergji's claim of an Illyrian origin for the Fustanella seriously. Your saturation bombing with useless sources, together with the inability to properly indent your comments, has succeeded in making this thread illegible and impossible to follow. If you must know, that is the reason I didn't notify you when I initiated this RSN, because I knew this is what would eventually happen. So long now.

talk

) 18:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You accused me of using a website as a source for Gjergji's reliability(that was just one of google images search result showing Maribor figurine), while that was not true since I've brought there instead other authors above with related links speaking of Gjergji's work and whose you keep avoiding. Summarizing it means false accusations and lack of references for your claims. Knowing your attitude here in wiki for quite some time, I am not surprised by that. Aigest (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

They use Gjergji as sources and where are there any scholars that consider her fringe? Wikipedians can't judge scholars' reliability but their own colleagues. Their opinion is that she's an expert on that field and use her very frequently as a source for their studies. During your absence did you find any scholars that say that Gjergji is unrealible?--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC) 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A fringe claim is a fringe claim, we don't necessarily need sources to tell us that. Given the relative obscurity of the subject, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have bothered refuting it. Moreover, the burden of proof is on you to prove that her fustanella claim is taken seriously by experts. That's usually how it goes. Otherwise, anyone could enter whatever fringe claims they wanted, and the community would have to prove that they aren't. It doesn't work like that.

talk

) 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Athenean, this is Reliable Sources board not Fringe theories board. You should finish your discussion here first and then if you wish we can go to another board. I have claimed that this author fulfills WP:RS conditions as I have stated many times above:

ACADEMIC, PUBLISHED AND CITED:

• The author Andromaqi Gjergji has studied for history, has a PhD degree and is an academic. Her main work consist on ethnology and costumes and she has written on Albanian and Illyrian dresses also. Some of her books here.
• She has 693 hits on google books
• She has 75 hits on google scholar

OPINIONS OF OTHER SCHOLARS ON HER WORK:

• The well-known Albanian ethnologist, Andromaqi Gjergji link
• Andromaqi Gjergji, a well-known and well-respected ethnologist link
• Andromaqi Gjergji, an authority on Albanian dress link
• The leading expert on costume of her country link
• "..This in turn enables her to demonstrate which regions of Albania were deeply influenced by neighbouring cultures and which revealed distinctly separate Albanian cultural characteristics "not found elsewhere". She concludes that, far from developing in isolation, there are indications in these specific areas of prehistoric Albano-Illyrian cultural origins. The strength of Gjergjis's case lies in its multidisciplinary approach, which overrides any nationalistic assumptions. Every piece of the ethnic puzzle is carefully put in place to create a whole picture... " The study of dress history Studies in design and material culture Studies in Design Author Lou Taylor Edition illustrated Publisher Manchester University Press, 2002 ISBN 0719040655, 9780719040658 p.53

ON ILLYRIAN CLOTHINGS CASE:

• The Illyrians The Peoples of Europe Author John Wilkes Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Wiley-Blackwell, 1995 ISBN 0631198075, 9780631198079 p-228-229) Wilkes speaks about Illyrian dresses and the reference is note 12 where we can see that the references he uses for that topic are "Note 12. Stipcevic 1977a, 86-90, Cresmonik 1963, 1964(native dress on Roman relief sculpture in Bosnia-Hervegovina), Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 19.22, 9 (dalmatic), Terzan 1984b (dress and society), Gjergji 1971 (Albanian continuity of Illyrian dress), Jubani 1970."
• The Illyrians: history and culture History and Culture Series Author Aleksandar Stipčević Editor Aleksandar Stipčević Edition illustrated Publisher Noyes Press, 1977 ISBN 0815550529, 9780815550525 here points exactly "Note 43. On the subject of the remains of this costume in the folk-costumes of present-day Albania, see Gjergji, "Element vestimentaires communs des tribus illyriennes et leur continuation dans nos costumes populaire," Illyriens, pp. 152-153." The same author Stipcevic in his book on Illyrians claims that "Ethnologists too, studying the very rich material, have found in it a series of elements which have descended directly from prehistoric Illyrian heritage. Particularly numerous are traces of Illyrian costume in present day-day Albanian national costume(102)" while the reference 102 used says "note 102 Franz Nopsca had also observed that in the national Albanian costume there exist some ancient features dating from prehistoric times. See his work "Prinosi starijoj povijesti eleverne Albanija GZ m 22(1910) 347.54. More recently some Albanian ethnologists have dealt with this problem, cf . A. Gjergji, "Elements communs dans l'habillements des tribus illyriennes et leur continuation dans nos costumes populaires," Illyriens, pp. 151-71; ..." link
• The same claims on the link of dresses "fustanella-Albanians-Illyrians" have been done independently of A.Gjergji work, by other authors as of 2009 "...fustanella, was common dress form men in the thirteenth century when it was worn by Dalmatians, one of the Illyrian progenitors of the Albanians. The historical and etymological roots of the fustanella, however, date back to the days of Rome, when the Albanian or Illyrian kilt became the original pattern for Roman military dress..." The fabric of cultures: fashion, identity, and globalization Author Eugenia Paulicelli Editors Eugenia Paulicelli, Hazel Clark Edition illustrated Publisher Taylor & Francis, 2009 ISBN 0415775426, 9780415775427 p. 148 "

That fulfills more than enough

As a general rule Gjergji is reliable for Eastern European folk history. But in her works written under the Hoxha regime some statements may not be reliable. That is just one estimation. There may be some other views among regular commentators here. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If I am not wrong you are just assuming that she might not be reliable, but you have no source on that, is that right? In your personal opinion "working under communism=ethnic boosting=not reliable", but what about this scholar opinion "The strength of Gjergjis's case lies in its multidisciplinary approach, which overrides any nationalistic assumptions. Every piece of the ethnic puzzle is carefully put in place to create a whole picture... " The study of dress history Studies in design and material culture Studies in Design Author Lou Taylor Edition illustrated Publisher Manchester University Press, 2002

ISBN 0719040655, 9780719040658 p.53

So published sources from respectable scholars contradict totally your personal opinion on that issue. They describe her work as "overriding any nationalistic assumptions". It seems that according to scholars she can not be accused of ethnic boosting, on the contrary her work is seen as NPOV and her working method is appreciated. It looks that sources maintain that this specific author does not fit in your scheme argument. Do you have any comment on this?

P.S. I would like also you to comment on the facts that I have brought above (with links also) on her respectability, scholar comments on her and use of her work by various authors on clothings and on Illyrians. It had taken me quite a lot of time of finding and bringing them here. It would be nice to spent some words on them also. Aigest (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the above wall of text (which has been pasted here a second time) to suggest that Gjergji is any sort of authority on the Illyrians. Sure, she is a well-known Albanian folklorist but is not an archeologist, nor an Illyrologist or any such thing. As such, her claims regarding the Illyrians need to be treated with caution. This is quite common with sources. Just because a source us reliable for one area doesn't mean it's reliable in others. For example,

talk

) 16:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to mislead the contributors here. As I have explained above to you I may say that she is specialized in dresses and uses archaeologists and Illyrogists data, just like archaeologists and Illyrogists (Stipcevic, Wilkes) use her data in their books. It is not so complicated, if you try to understand that this is the mechanism among academics. Were Stipcevic and Wilkes (Illyrologist and archeologists) costumologist? No, that's why they use Gjergji work when they speak on Illyrian costumes. I don't know if Stipcevic and Wilkes could be called "Albanian folklore"?! You are also stating that these "Illyrian ancestor" is outdating, but this is another false claim because as of 2009 we have the same claims "...fustanella, was common dress form men in the thirteenth century when it was worn by Dalmatians, one of the Illyrian progenitors of the Albanians. The historical and etymological roots of the fustanella, however, date back to the days of Rome, when the Albanian or Illyrian kilt became the original pattern for Roman military dress..." The fabric of cultures: fashion, identity, and globalization Author Eugenia Paulicelli Editors Eugenia Paulicelli, Hazel Clark Edition illustrated Publisher Taylor & Francis, 2009 ISBN 0415775426, 9780415775427 p. 148

The difference between my claims and your claims Athenean, are published sources. I see that you are not bringing any source for backing your claims and you are avoiding my questions on this specific author. From your attitude I can assume that you have no source backing your claims and you are just "assuming" things, while in the other hand we have scholars that declare the opposite. Your "truth" vs published scholarship truth. How could you explain this discrepancy between your personal claims here and published literature of several scholars? Aigest (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Spare me the condescending, arrogant attitude ("It is not so complicated..."), it is getting tiresome by now, although it is nothing new. You are correct about one thing though, in that I do not have a single source that backs Gjergji's outlandish claim of an Illyrian origin to the Fustanella. Do Wilkes and Stipcevic endorse that claim? I think not. If you cannot see the weakness of Gjergji's case (a couple of statuettes from the first millennium BC for crying out loud), I really don't know what else to say to to you. Reliable authors do not make fringe claims. And enough with the Paulicelli source. Why do you keep pasting it over and over again? Unless of course, you don't mind if we include its claim that Albanians descend from "13th century Illyrian Dalmatians". Anyway, you are now repeating the same things over and over (mostly bragging about your sources), so I think I'm done here. You want to claim an Illyrian origin for the Fustanella? Then find real sources, not Hoxha-era ethnic boosterist sources that prattle on and on about "our Illyrian ancestors" and whose claim is not taken seriously by anyone.

talk

) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(ignoring personal attacks)So yourself admit that have no sources for your claim that this specific author is no RS, while there are plenty of them (published scholars) which claim the contrary, namely that this author is WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Good to know that. So it looks like this author is WP:RS (and also WP:NPOV) per wiki rules and this what this board is for.

P.S. As for Illyrian-fustanella thing, I see that you keep ignoring (or misusing) 2009 sources brought above. Your claim that 2009 source says that Albanians descend from "13th century Illyrian Dalmatians" shows the wrong way you deal with the sources. You didn't care to read all the paragraph the author was talking about, although I brought the link and that text was readable. Read that and you can see that the author claims that fustanella was an Illyrian garment, it was used by Roman legionaries and actually was introduced by Roman legions to Celts in Britain. The fact that it was used in 13th century in men in Dalmatia shows the remaining of that garment among ex-Illyrian populations (other slavs outside ex Illyria province do not use it). The author does not claim that "13th century Illyrian Dalmatians were progenitors of Albanins" because there were no Illyrian Dalmatians at that time, instead he was referring to Dalmatian as one of many Illyrian tribes, which contributed in the formation of Albanian people. For those interested in the context and whole page and author claim here the link which shows what I am talking about. Maybe you Athenean should read more on the topic, to not lie on the sources and maybe we can discuss different theories on that, but this kind of discussion does not belong here. Aigest (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gjergji is definitely not RS as far as the Illyrians are concerned, as several users have tried to explain to you but you are

talk

) 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Read above on your wrong interpretation on 2009 source (why i am not surprised?) and more important you should bring sources for your claim, which in this specific author, is contradicted by published scholar evidence. Summarizing, the author The author Andromaqi Gjergji has studied for history, has a PhD degree and is an academic, published 1, citated 2, used by Illyrian experts on the topic of Illyrian clothings (3, 4 estimated 5,6,7, 8 and her methodology is appraised as multidisciplinary and her results as NPOV 9. Well this is in accordance with wiki rules thus Gjergji is WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If you want to make "claims on fringe theories" go to another board, this is not the place for it. In that case on a courtesy advice: bring references for your claims. Aigest (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of comprehension of the English language on your part, or else brazen intellectual dishonesty (maybe both): "...in the thirteenth century when it was worn by the Dalmatians, one of the Illyrian progenitors of the Albanians". The source claims that the 13th century was "when" it was worn by the Dalmatians. Get it now? Seriously. I leave you to your own devices, but like I said, edit-warring had better not be among them.

talk

) 21:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As usual you didn't read all what the source say, but you wrongly interpreted a short sentence deforming its meaning. Fortunately the full text is available to others here the link which shows your wrong way of interpreting the sources. The source claims that "Dalmatians, were one of the Illyrian progenitors of the Albanians" that's why fustanella was still present among them in 13th century as an Illyrian heritage. That is clear when also when you see the author claiming that "the Albanian or Illyrian kilt became the original pattern for Roman military dress". I wonder if 13th century Dalmatians gave to the Romans the military dress. Just stop joking with the sources. Aigest (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with Aigest, please add his opinion in article --Vinie007 22:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Aigest is able to find multiple reliable sources which use Gjergji proves her reliability. The only arguments against this that I see are the impudent remarks made by Athenean questioning Aigest's English comprehension skills -- among other things -- without effectively citing evidence against it.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The hypothesis that the Illyrians are the ancestors of Albanians for certainty should be treated with heavy precautions, and of course works and authors that believe that this is a historical fact should be rejected. As mentioned by third-part editors Gjergji could be fine in general but in the specific topic (Illyrian origin) she isn't an expert.

@Aegist: please stop canvasssing and sending repeatedly msgs only to users that may support your view.Alexikoua (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(ignoring false accusations dealt here with them) Illyrian-Albanian continuity? Well there are a good number of scholars thinks so. The fact that you Alex think that their view should should be rejected apriori, shows a misunderstanding of how academic field functions.

@Alex and all others I would like to show me the sources that maintain that this particular author Andromaqi Gjergji is non reliable. There are several users who have asked this, but up to now none is presenting them just making personal assumptions. Right now we have scholars opinion vs personal opinion. Do you Alex agree with the facts presented in this sentence "The author Andromaqi Gjergji (female) has studied for history, has a PhD degree in ethnology and is an academic, published (her main topic being popular costumes, Albanian, Illyrian, Romanian)1, she is cited by others 2, used by Illyrian experts on the topic of Illyrian clothings 3, 4 estimated by other scholars 5,6,7, 8 and her methodology is appraised as multidisciplinary and her results as NPOV 9." Please focus on this author and the facts and references to her by scholars, not on making personal assumptions. Is there any author who reject her work as unreliable? To me it seems that on the contrary many scholars speak very well on her work and use her in their books, as proved by numerous citations and links. If many scholars (practically everyone citing her) finds her work reliable, and none speaks ill on her or refuses her work, that is an excellent example of an author fulfilling WP:RS (and even WP:NPOV) parameters, don't you think so? Aigest (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Can a http://Softonic.com software review be considered reliable for the purpose of establishing verifiability for inclusion of software in a list? The purpose is independent

(I am an involved user. The inclusion criteria for the list is at -least- mention of the client in one reliable third party source, and I am disputing this review fulfills the criteria. We need outside opinions) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Still seeking RSN assessment. --Lexein (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When there was a

Softonic.com reviews were accepted as a reliable sources. --Hm2k (talk

) 11:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for information at all, and specifically for BLPs? There is an unsourced list of alumni at Ethical Culture Fieldston School and I was going to have a go at it by removing anything I couldn't source and sourcing the rest. I clicked on Jill Abramson and found that in her entry the school information, along with some other tidbits, was sourced to this NNDB database. I had never heard of it before so I figured I'd check here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As a related followup, if anyone has any ideas of how best to reliably source these types of facts (where someone attended high school) please let me know. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NNDB has come up here several times before. I don't think we can sign it off as reliable for BLPs but some people are better disposed towards it than me. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, NNDB isn't remotely 'reliable', see [28]: "Our standard is correctness over verifiability (the reverse of Wikipedia)". The rest of that page basically amounts to a statement that what goes into articles isn't actually based on verifiable sources, but instead on the opinions of the editorial team - who seem to have an agenda regarding race/ethnicity issues in particular. I wouldn't use it as a source for the day of the week. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above. NNDB is run by the people behind

WP:RS

.

As for alternatives to find where people went to high school, longer, in-depth interviews and profiles in magazines or newspapers sometimes include that information. I'm not sure if there is previous consensus is regarding

WP:BLPPRIMARY and high schools. Siawase (talk

) 19:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This news wire service is listed on LexisNexis and carries useful material about celebrities. Are there any views as to whether this would be a source acceptable for use in a BLP? Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

American Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Lind, Michael. "The weird men behind George W. Bush's war". New Statesman, 2003 London.[29]
• Used to support the statement, "This conspiracy charge has been frequently repeated and even widened to assert a takeover of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration by former Trotskyists". (The source does not use the term "conspiracy" and states, "Most neoconservative defence intellectuals... are products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s.... They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution....")
• My view is that this comes under
  WP:RS#Statements of opinion
  : "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." I also do not understand why these "conspiracy claims" are even mentioned.

TFD (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a 'conspiracy charge' entirely a matter of opinion unless it is a part of a legal process? But yes, this is pure conspiracy theory, dressed up as... well, I don't know. Note however it is 'the usual suspects' behind it. Bollocks, and not even original bollocks at that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But why are we even mentioning it in the article? It is OR. TFD (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. Though it is hardly 'original', and doesn't seem to be the product of anything resembling 'research' either. Whataver it is, it doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is OR because a conclusion is made about the existence of a conspiracy theory by finding an example of one rather than a third party source commenting on them. The fact that one person wrote something years ago does not make their writing notable. I have changed the section back to an earlier version.[30] Any comments? TFD (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please Google "Social Democrats, USA" and note the number of conspiracy-theory websites that appear, both on the far left and the far right. TFD forgot to note that this charge is critiqued in the next sentence of the article.

He forgot also to mention that User:Carrite looked over my edits, and Carrite is the principal author of the WP articles on American Left history. He also forgot to note that I have rewritten the histories of the related articles on SPUSA, DSOC, SDUSA, and SPA, and nobody has yet reverted or complained about the rewriting.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I quote the paragraph, which provides context.

Social Democrats USA (SDUSA)