Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117

If any guideline allows this it would be

WP:CALC. You would want to have consensus on the issue, agreement among involved editors. Binksternet (talk

) 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are allowed to do basic arithmetical calculations. What you can't do is derive new conclusions from those calculations or interpret them. What you are suggesting sounds like simple data manipulation, or putting it in a form that can be corroborated by the two sources. We do this sort of thing all the time on sports articles, such as this one; that article documents ranking points each player receives, but sometimes we can only source the round the player reached and how many points a player gets for reaching a certain round, without having a source that explicitly says how many points the player got. It's the same principle here, you can source the ratings for the show, you can source the viewing figures for the ratings, so it is just a simple logical step to state the vieiwng figures for a show. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You might also like to read Wikipedia:These are not original research#Simple_calculations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be absolutely sure that the numbers are counting the same thing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a user on my talk page attempting to place his own original research in articles like

• Publications from Divinity colleges (Oxford in this case) are "obviously biased."
• A source should be excluded because the author is "a Bible-believer" (despite William G. Dever saying "I am in fact not even a theist") and that (other, unused) sources by the author (but none cited in the article) were purportedly self-published, before going on to claim that there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Israel, like an Egyptian stele mentioning Israel that has been known about since 1896 or a Moabite stele making quite a few more references to Israel that has been known about since 1868.
• An author with a PhD in Biblical anthropology is not an appropriate source for an article on Ancient Israel.

Are these in any way valid criticisms of sources on the Philistines, ancient Israel and Judah, etc? Or are they

The sources in question are:

• Dever, William (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?. Eerdmans.
• Dever, William (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. Eerdmans.
• Dever, William (2005). Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Eerdmans.
• McNutt, Paula (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press.
• Any sources from "divinity colleges, particularly Oxford's.

Does using these sources count as promoting a religion?

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Short answer would seem, to me, to be "no". Now, in some rare cases, which I don't have any real reason to believe apply here, they might be, but I think the sources listed directly above, published by Eerdmans and Westminster John Knox, are from reputable enough publishers in their fields that they do not instantly disqualify as reliable sources. Having said that, if the books in question have not been subject to apparent independent academic review, or if the academic reviews and other comments (if any) about the works indicate that those particular works are advancing a particular religious opinion, that would be different. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case in question, our article on

Bart Ehrman

's ideas about the reliability of textual transmission, which are widely rejected), then perhaps his findings could be excluded; but I don't get that impression at all, and his inclusion in several reference/survey works would tend to reflect support of expert status.

It should also be kept in mind that this is a quite contentious field, with a great deal of disagreement about how the material ought to be used. Mere disagreement between experts is to be expected. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The individual who was calling Dever unreliable refused to cite anything but primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Once again I am here with a completely ridiculous question because the user on whom the

Is this page from the website of the "Pro Life Campaign," an anti-abortion organization, sufficient to source the claim that the polling organization Red C conducted a survey which found X, Y, and Z? No reliable sources cover this survey and Red C's website itself shows no trace of it, but the user in question, editing under his own username and under an IP, has repeatedly [12][13][14] added it even after being informed that neither newspaper-type RS nor the organization which supposedly conducted the poll have ever said that it happened, instead preferring to make personal attacks.

To me, it is obvious that if neither third-party reliable sources nor primary sources from Red C say that Red C conducted a survey, we cannot say that Red C conducted a survey. Liamfoley/86... apparently believes that RS requirements are waived if the poll results support his agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup. "Pro Life Campaign" aren't a reliable source for anything but their own opinions. If the poll took place, it should be independently verifiable. If it isn't, it can't be cited in our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well... Technically speaking, PLC itself is a third-party source, so you've got a third-party source saying that Red C conducted this survey (unless, e.g., you believe that PLC owns or controls Red C and therefore the two apparently separate entities are functionally one). But a claim backed only by one fairly minor source is probably not DUE, and I'd certainly want to see

WP:INTEXT attribution if it were included. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's true that PLC commissioned the poll, as they say they did, they would be a second party, I believe. Not a third, at any rate. But as I said it's not a question of due weight; we simply don't have evidence that this poll ever existed (also see discussion at

WP:V failure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 17:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if PLC commissioned the poll, then that counts as a type of control (for the one poll, at least) and so they're not a third-party source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Article: Far-left politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Source: Woshinsky, Oliver H. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Routledge, 2008.

The section "Socialism and communism" (pp. 144-149)[15] of the book is used as a source for the lead.

My concern with this source is that appears to be an introductory U.S. polisci textbook, and therefore is

TFD (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the Preface to the text itself (xiii) it is an introductory textbook aimed at undergraduate students, as its function is pedagogical (and geographically limited) rather than scholarly, it does not actually embody the scholarly debate or opinion. It is an inappropriate tertiary source to use for a definition in the social sciences—do not use. Seek higher quality tertiary sources such as scholarly encyclopaedia aimed at scholars, review articles on the topic, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I see nothing at all in any policy that says a textbook aimed at university students, rather than scholars, is unusable. In fact,

WP:RS

directly says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Even when the textbook is a tertiary source (and RS indicates that not all textbooks are), it says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries..." I'd say that providing a basic definition in the introduction would count as "giving overviews or summaries".

Consequently, I believe this source is useable for the stated purpose. It may not be the best possible source (and editors are free to find and prefer better sources), but it does actually meet the written guidelines on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia policy on tertiary sources to which TDF linked says that "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." It seem that this source is used exactly for that purpose. -- Vision Thing -- 09:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps outside of the social sciences and humanities. Within the social sciences and humanities textbooks are regularly regarded as substandard, and they do not generally represent the scholarly opinion. Their function is pedagogical, not the reporting of research. They regularly oversimplify and make geographically specific claims that are not substantiable through the world community. Textbooks, even at the undergraduate level, regularly replicate the socially dominant ideology. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a single introductory undergraduate textbook in the social sciences is in general not a reliable source. Introductory textbooks always inherently overgeneralize, are always a good number of years behind the state of opinion in the field, and are normally written to be as palatable as possible, which means they repeat what they think will be the preconceptions of their readers. Some may be; I'd accept the various editions of Samuelson's Economics for the consensus at the time of mainstream US economists, though of course not for a worldwide view of the subject. And so on for the recognized classics. I see no evidence that this particular book is of such authority. And in particular, I would be very reluctant to consider any general US college textbook on politics to have any authority whatsoever in differentiating far-left political movements. (This sort of thing is becoming an increasing problem with the Academic Program--students are simply entering things from their course textbooks, with at best minimal rewriting but almost always without any attempt to compare or another source or awareness of likely prejudices in textbooks.) DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DGG, did you look at the way the textbook is being used in the article? It's cited in the lead to support very broad statements. It's not trying to "differentiate far-left political movements" or anything even remotely complicated like that: it is used to support things like a claim that the far left opposes social hierarchy and supports equal distribution of wealth. I don't know much about this area, but I doubt that any source would disagree with these general statements. If your goal is to make very general statements, then a source that generalizes is probably your best choice.

Also, the English Wikipedia isn't supposed to represent solely the current scholarly opinion and leave out "the socially dominant ideology". We want all the significant views, and I can't imagine a view more significant than "the socially dominant ideology". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm working to improve the very limited sourcing on the

It is very well written and it does not make extraordinary claims without substance. I would accept as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, acceptable as RS. I assume that you will be using the source as a ref for added content about Leon Mandel. Since he is not living, and for the other reasons you mention, looks good to me. (If he were living, there could be a problem. WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

EMP (talk

) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet & EMP. Yes, I will be using this as a source for references to past editors along with the editorial style used by Autoweek. Appreciate the quick feedback! --DetroitSteele (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on... while MacQueen might qualify as an expert on automobiles, I don't think he qualifies as an expert on the editorial history and editorial styles of rival magazines. You would need to cite a literary critic for that. So, to give you a proper answer, we need to know exactly what information you wish to cite Jim MacQueen for, and which articles you want to say it in. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We do need to know exactly how the source is to be used in the article(s) to decide whether it falls under the SPS exception for experts. It is way too easy to fall prey to "expertise creep". But, I'd be inclined to think that MacQueen is qualified as an expert to write about the editorial style and history of magazines for which he actually worked - which would include AutoWeek.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the additional input. Yes, I would be using this source to add info regarding the editorial style of Autoweek, which MacQueen worked for. Based on that it looks like this may be permissible as a reliable source, but if there are any additional concerns I'm happy to discuss. Also, it is worth noting that I plan to submit any proposed changes to my sandbox for others to review and post, rather than posting myself. This is due to my conflict of interest as an employee of Autoweek, which I disclosed on

WP:COIN. --DetroitSteele (talk

) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A distributor for the imprint, Kevin Shepherd, the son of Thomas, denies being the publisher. [21] Shepherd states that he, Thomas and Castro all lived in the same house together in Forres, where the publisher's PO Box is located.[22] Castro says in his Wikipedia profile that his background is in publishing.[23] The only logical conclusion is that one of these three, probably Castro, is the actual publisher, and that this is a SPS. Now, Castro's book does appear to have been cited in a handful of journals per Google Scholar[24] and Thomas' book once [25] I see no indication that either Castro or Thomas have been published by any reputable, independent publishers, though I have not made any exhaustive search. The use to which these sources are being used does not seem to be confined to statements by the authors about themselves.

I know nothing whatsoever about the subject matter or the authors. This is just one of those thing you stumbled across by virtue of participating at RSN, which leads to interesting diversions such as this. Thoughts on these books and this imprint as sources?

I agree that these are hallmarks of self-publication. To my mind, the publisher is questionable, and reliability hinges on citations. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the rigid application of the SPS policy in Wikipedia, ultimately it's up to the community to decide what it wants to do. I would just like to point out that Hypocrisy and Dissent was favourably reviewed here. Speaking of the Findhorn Foundation, Fladrif, did you notice that many of the books listed in that article are published by Findhorn Press, which is clearly associated with the Findhorn Foundation (the relevant section is perhaps incorrectly named "References", and presumably should be "Further reading"; there are, however, a couple of questionable sources in the "Footnotes" section). Also, if we're having a general clear-out of questionable sources, there is also the question of books published by organisations that are (or were) clearly connected both to the authors and to the subjects of the books. Shouldn't you be listing those as well? Fifelfoo recently declared that such sources were not reliable, indeed less reliable than non-devotee self-published sources. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I did notice them, but my impression from the publisher's website is that Findhorn Press originally operated as a vanity press for the Foundation's founders, but now publishes other stuff. As I said, I know nothing about the subject matter, so I may well be wrong about that. If you think that the books published by Findhorn Press are not reliable sources, start a thread on them. I suspect that many of the sources in these, and a lot of other NRMish articles may be highly problematic where the publisher is an arm of the movement, but RSN would need to look at them individually and exactly how they are being used in an article.

Fladrif (talk

) 18:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As both the author and publisher of Hypocrisy and Dissent I am obliged to agree with Simon Kidd’s comment: “it’s up to the community what it wants to do.” As far as I’m aware, the book is the only annotated, critical work on the Findhorn Foundation and provides a necessary alternative to partisan publications about that community. Even the Journal of Contemporary Religion, in an unsympathetic review of the book, conceded: “The current consensus within the [Findhorn] community appears to be that Castro’s book is important and that there are lessons to be learned.” To my mind that justified the publication and the reason why I wrote it. The book is based on newspaper reports, letters, conversations and actual recorded events that arose within the Findhorn Community during the period of 1991–1995. Apart from a reference in my personal profile, I have not mentioned the book elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Stephen Castro (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Although your SPS monograph can't be used a a source, particularly if in involves living third persons (see

Fladrif (talk

) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A predominance of sources about NDAA 2012 focus on the issue of indefinite detainment. Other aspects, including those which account for the majority of the text of the bill itself, and the funding it provides are only briefly mentioned. Is this Congressional Research Service report considered a secondary, reliable, and/or independent source for summarizing the rest of the bill? Link to report Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I consider CRS to have the an excellent reputation for objective analysis in anything related to public policy, and I would consider it a reliable secondary/tertiary source of the highest quality. Anyone challenging their accuracy would need to have exceptional evidence indeed, based on adverse criticism from multiple equally reliable sources--of which there are not many. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input DGG. The report is almost 50 pages long. Would you advise that selecting which parts of the report are noteworthy requires confirmation from other secondary sources, or can editors just use their discretion to pick out parts of the report that are relevant to the article? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would assume the entirety of any of their reports is a RS for anything they cover. We're using it as a source for an article on a topic, not writing an article about the report as such, so I see no reason to decide on what are the most imprortant parts of the report. The only precaution is , that since the CRS pretty much as we do is expectedto at least mention all significant opinion, that we not cherry-pick quotations. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think DGG is spot on here. It's worth noting that CRS would be a very similar source to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in that they operate independently from Congress on a nonpartisan basis. When it comes to an article about a piece of legislation, tracing the history of its provisions, etc., there is no one with better resources or credibility than CRS. Quirin42 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I’ve been referred to the Reliable sources noticeboard by Tom Reedy pursuant to a source objection I raised on the Shakespeare Authorship Question article, regarding a “study” by Dean Kieth Simonton that was published in, Emperical Studies of the Arts. My objection is twofold. First, Simonton’s “study” falls completely outside of his specialty and he has no academic standing in the subject matter of the “study”. Second, and more importantly, the “study” is nothing more than a summary of Simonton’s method and conclusions. The published “paper” contains no data or information. Moreover, Dr. Simonton advises that there is no supporting information. So, it may be that, on the surface, or technically speaking, Dr. Simonton and his paper meet the requirements for source citation, however, looking below the surface, the author’s authority in this case is highly questionable and the paper is utterly without substance. To appreciate the gross shortcomings of the paper one does, of course, need to read it and, technicalities of policy aside, one would hopefully consider whether a “study” that is nothing more than a summary of methods and highly questionable conclusions, with no supporting information, should be treated as worthy of citation.79.200.96.122 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the purpose of the irony quotes is. I haven't read the article in question, so I can't speak to the substantive objections. "Empirical Studies of the Arts" is the official, peer reviewed journal of the "International Association of Empirical Aestetics".[26][27] The Association is one of psychologists, and the journal focuses on interdisciplinary studies of aesthetics, with articles aimed at a general audience. Notwithstanding that it has been in publication nearly thirty years, it does not have an Impact Factor.[28] The Article in question has only been cited three times according to Google Scholar, once by the author himself, and once in a Wikipedia mirror.[29] I would take the lack of citation in other scholarly publications as an objective indication that this article and this journal does not qualify as a scholarly, reliable source for Shakespeare authorship questions, and should not be used as a source in the Wikipedia article.

Fladrif (talk

) 20:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if

Fladrif is familiar with the article, since OP didn't provide a link. The diction of his commentary causes to me suspect that he might have had some other topic in mind than the Shakespeare authorship question when he initially posted, so I am providing it. Tom Reedy (talk

) 00:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Shakespeare authorship question article at Wikipedia. The article by Simonton at "Empirical Studies of the Arts" being discussed as a source is paywalled, so I haven't read it. I suppose I was ambiguous in my post above as to what "article" I hadn't read.

Fladrif (talk

) 01:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you admittedly cannot speak to the substantive objections of the complainant, I will respond to your points.

I have no idea what an "Impact Factor" is, nor have I been apprised that having one is necessary in order for a source to be considered reliable as per Wikipedia policy, but I did note on the page you linked to a disclaimer stating that "the information is old or wrong now. Specially, impact factor is changing every year. Even it was correct when updated, it may have been changed now. So please go to Thomson Reuters to confirm latest value about Journal impact factor."

It does not surprise me that a Google Scholar search fails to turn up any citations for the article; the topic is a fringe theory of very little interest to academics who publish in peer-reviewed journals, and to expect a study specializing in an esoteric corner of a fringe topic to have entered mainstream academic discourse is unrealistic. But a search using the terms "Shakespeare" and "Simonton" tells a much different story about the reputation of the author (and yes, I'm aware he often cites himself; the nature of his work is cumulative, after all).

According to

WP:SCHOLARSHIP

the article meets Wikipedia standards for reliable sourcing, to wit:

1. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."
2. "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." (Empirical Studies of the Arts is abstracted and indexed in eight different indexes.
3. In addition, even though the study upholds the
   attributed to the author by name in the text
   .
4. Finally, this article more than clears the hurdle for reliable sources for an article about a fringe theory.

I also must confess that I am puzzled as to the complainant's statement, "the 'study' is nothing more than a summary of Simonton’s method and conclusions." What exactly does one expect from a report of a study besides the context, methodology, and conclusions? A blow-by-blow, keystroke-by-keystroke narrative? I ask that he or she please clarify the objection. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's indexed on PsycINFO, which pretty much on its own means it's a reliable source. That doesn't necessarily mean we can do anything we like with it, but it can't be batted aside as unreliable. --FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A journal may be reliable source in general, without any article in it necessarily also being reliable; but for a generally reliable journal, impugning any particular article in it can be done only on evidence that other equally RSs have questioned the work, which does not seem to be the case here. And in this particular instance, Simenton clearly is a general acknowledged expert on the question of authorship and creativity; he has published on the subject elsewhere also, in Computers and the Humanities for example, the leading journal in its field, in Psychological Review, a leading APA journal, and isn essentially every journal in the area. His general work on creativity uses Shakespeare as an example, & he absolutely qualifies as an expert. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems good reason to accept this article as worth citing, and no good reason to reject it. Andrew Dalby 17:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in and my signature didn't get posted (comment at the top). To “clarify” my objection, I must first quote from the “study” (please note that the quotation marks are not meant to indicate “irony”, but simply to be clear about the subject):

“In this study the two authorship positions are evaluated by examining the correlation between the thematic content of the plays and the political context in which the plays would be written according to rival sets of dates.”

Here we are talking about the intent to establish a meaningful (to use Simonton’s word, “empirical”) correlation between the thematic content of the plays and historical events/context and thereby to confirm chronology of authorship dates. Simonton includes a slight “time lag” to account for the time between conception and performance of a given play and he concludes that the existing conventional dates assigned to the plays are more or less confirmed.

Now, I think that someone with a truly comprehensive knowledge Elizabethan-Jacobean history, European history of that time period, and Shakespeare’s plays, would approach this undertaking with considerable caution and skepticism. There is no reason to suppose that Simonton has comprehensive knowledge or expertise in any of these subjects, and while I have great respect for Simonton his field of expertise, it appears to me that he approached this literary-historical problem with remarkable and unwarranted confidence. But, to appreciate the difficulty of making sense of such an undertaking it is necessary to consider how he identified or divided up the ‘thematic content’ that was to be correlated with the historical context. Simonton:

“In the case of the thematic measures, five factors emerged. These may be interpreted as follows (loadings in parentheses): a) War and Conflict—“The factors responsible for civil strife” (.97), “The definition of treason or sedition: the revolutionist as a treasonable conspirator” (.97), and “Civil war and war between states or international war” (.73); b) Political Leadership—“The virtues which constitute the good or successful ruler; the vices associated with the possession of power” (.83), “The myth of the royal personage: the attributes of royalty and the burdens of monarchy” (.81), “The exploitation of absolute power for personal aggrandizement: the strategies of princes and tyrants” (.66), and “The courage required of citizens and statesmen: the political recognition of courage” (.60); c) Competition and Conquest—“Competition in commerce and the rivalry of factions in politics” (.99) and “Conquest, empire, political expansion and ends of war” (.99); d) Political Intrigue—“Chance in the persons holding power: deposition, assassination, usurpation” (.88) and “The character of the tyrannical man: the friends of the tyrant” (.77); and e) [Uninterpreted]—“Revolution and counter-revolution: civil strife distinguished from war between states” (.88) and “The courage required of citizens and statesmen: the political recognition of courage” (.62). When the same data consolidation strategy was applied to the political context measures, four factors emerged, which may be interpreted as follows: a) External Threat—number of nations at war (.82), battles (.76), civil disturbances (.72), attacked (.70), and state of war (.69); b) Diplomatic Strength— territorial gains (.84) and treaties (.70); c) Internal Threat—executions (.80) and conspiracies (.80); and d) Military Strength—attacker (.77) and allies gained (.74).”

Whether these categories of thematic content are right or wrong, or simply represent Simonton’s opinions, is impossible to tell. Simonton provides no substantive (certainly no detailed) justification for his selections and his assigned weights. The categorization and weighting may be argued endlessly and are, therefore, of very questionable value, especially if one is pursuing empirical results. If there is science in the methodology of selection it is not documented. If we agree, nevertheless, to accept Simonton’s thematic categorization and weighting, the fatal problem with the “study” is that Simonton provides none of the historical-contextual data/information that was presumably correlated to the thematic data. Had he provided that information, that, obviously, would open the door to infinite debate about whether the right historical events and contexts were used and properly weighted. So, to characterize the matter in simple mathematical terms, Simonton devised and equation based on two unquantifiable factors and arrived at a finite sum of the two.

There are many additional problems with Simonton’s study. For example, he uses the Valenza/Elliott chronology for Oxford. There is no consensus among Oxfordians in support of that or any Oxfordian chronology. Simonton makes no allowance for the problems of revision. Plays that were not published or performed prior to the FF are apparently correlated based on conventional dating. But I will not take up time here on the many other points that are objectionable about the “study”.

Above DGG says, “His general work on creativity uses Shakespeare as an example, & he absolutely qualifies as an expert.” This may be narrowly true in the context of Wikipedia policy. That it is true in practical terms, on this subject matter, is highly questionable. Simonton has no background in history or literature. His few writings on Shakespeare demonstrate a superficial knowledge of these subjects, and his “study” in this case falls completely outside of his specialty. However, to put the matter into perspective one ought to consider this: if Simonton’s “study” had contradicted the standard chronology and validated an Oxfordian chronology, would the controlling editors allow the citation? I suspect, in that case, the citation would be summarily rejected. Ssteinburg (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not, and cannot, discuss what may or may be wrong with Simonton's study. That is not how Wikipedia works. We go by what reliable secondary sources say on the subject. If Simonton is publishing in a journal with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and other scholars in the field cite him as an expert, then we must presume that he is an expert, and cite his work accordingly. We must give due weight to whether his position is assessed by other experts as mainstream or controversial. We do not purport to assess the validity of his work ourselves. We are not the experts here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Ssteinburg (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

However, aside from Sstienburg's specific methodological critiques, his points that Simonton is here publishing outside of his field of expertise, in a relatively obscure journal, are still valid for consideration here on Wikipedia. Homunq (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And they have had consideration, as you see. Andrew Dalby 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm trying to understand this speedy delete decision and would like to know your thoughts on the references. It's a 3 paragraph article with 4 references, the Forex News blog articles are not linked but they are found here - 2 3. I'm discussing it with the admin here, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just nominate it for deletion and be done with it? It's a slam-dunk. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm trying to understand this speedy delete decision, as that's what I would have requested. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are supposed to be as absolutely obvious as possible. If there's any hint of a question in anyone's mind, then it's far better to use

WP:AFD. That's why the various deletion-related policies require all speedy deletions to be declined unless they are "the most obvious cases". The fact that someone disagrees enough to decline it is proof that this particular page isn't one of "the most obvious cases". WhatamIdoing (talk

) 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Daytona2 - thanks for the lack of courtesy in not bothering to notify me of this post. Perhaps next time you'd like to consider how rude it is not mention additional threads? As WhatamIdoing points out, and indeed I have pointed out, it was not an obvious speedy - and furthermore it was FOUR YEARS AGO. The fact the article was not deleted in the intervening time implies my decline was right. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll alss notice, by the way, that WhatamIdoing uses almost the exact same terminology above as I did four years ago. Pedro :  Chat  20:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I was forwarded to here. The source of which I doubt the reliability is the website AgoraVox.it. According to the wiki-article about

In particular, it concerns this article: http://www.agoravox.it/Guerra-a-Gaza-La-rete-estremista.html . An article written bij "di Lameduck", which is - as can be fairly assumed - an alias. It is used in Jewish Defense League as the source to back up the claim that: "Members of the JDL have put graffiti on the walls of Palestinian houses with the words "Gas the Arabs" and "Arabs to the gas chambers"."

LevelBasis (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

as i am french i do know better agoravox than en.wp guidelines (just passing by) but it's some kind of Prison Planet. on fr.wp i would discard agoravox as a RS no matter what the subject is (even more if its about israel related stuff if you see my point) - MIRROR (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

These two guys have been writing profusely about Falkland Islands' history, and expressing their views about the sovereignty issue and related conflicts, which is a British and (IMHO) anti-Argentinian POV. This includes the often cited paper Getting It Right, a reply to an official Argentine seminar.

I tried to get information about Pascoe & Pepper but I got lost in Google. I appreciate any help or thought. Thanks. --Langus (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide links to the articles in which they are cited. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I didn't expressed myself correctly: I mean that it's usually cited here in Wikipedia, when discussing article content. --Langus (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Content policies and guidelines don't apply to talkpage discussions the way they do to mainspace articles. AFAIK, you can cite anything during a discussion, but that doesn't mean the other editors have to accept your view or your supporting material. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I'm researching them: to know if I should accept the material or not.

I can find them as reference in the following articles:

• Luis Vernet
• Falkland Islands
• Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands

They're cited there as contributors of David Tatham's Dictionary of Falklands Biography, which has already been at RSN.

In fact, I'm just finding this in that old thread: "The claim is made above that Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are acknowledged experts in the field. Pascoe appears to be a language teacher and Pepper is a geologist". Also: "Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon)". --Langus (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok here's where that came from: List of contributors.

It says:

Graham PASCOE

MA (Oxon), Ger & Fr; English teacher; Dip TEFL(Wales); Dip Ling (Lond); Dr Phil (Munich).

Peter PEPPER

A (Hons) Keele; geologist; former Co-Editor of the Falkland Islands Newsletter.

--Langus (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Pepper and Dr Graham Pascoe are reliable, they are well know academics who have done a considerable amount of historical research in the area of the Falkland Islands. Its an area where few UK researchers work, so the number of UK sources is relatively scarce. This is not a concern over the reliability of these sources, rather its another attempt by Langus to force his desired content into articles by having the sources discredited. If you refer to

WCM, I promised myself I wouldn't fall again into your spiral of personal attacks, so my response to them is this wikiquette request.

Back to the point, if Lawrence Freedman has endorsed their work, that surely is a good sign. But is that enough to become a reliable source? You also sustained that Dictionary of Falklands Biography is a superb source, but the consensus at this board resulted to be not so confident on this.

You can see I'm not the only one with these doubts, as it was mentioned in that old thread too. --Langus (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A cursory glance at your contribution history shows that what I said is true. You've raised frivolous threads at ANI twice now, dragged me to WQA twice now. Tatham is a good source, the disruptive banned editor

WP:IDONTLIKE. Wee Curry Monster talk

00:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tatham is a good source for certain uses, or at least that was the last consensus at

WP:RSN. Anyone can see that, except you, I wonder why. User:Alex79818

had nothing to do with that outcome BTW, and I didn't even drop a line there.

Congratulations, you've ruined my evil plans and saved the world. Now I invite you to continue lying about me at the wikiquette request. --Langus (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I really want to know If

Artistdirect has come up in several threads earlier, with no real consensus. Checking Google News, I see no indication that Artistdirect is ever cited by any legitimate news organization as a source. It is not itself a news organization. There is no indication that that there are any journalistic editorial review and control. It basically creates content to deliver teens and 20's eyeballs to advertisers. I would not regard it as a reliable source.

Fladrif (talk

) 02:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently removed some text from the article

Yes. See

WP:BLP, and both apply. Tom Reedy (talk

) 20:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! I must reverse myself.

WP:SPS clearly states "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Some other source has to be found to balance the article. That blog points to a lot of potential sources. Tom Reedy (talk

) 20:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that the fact that UCL hosts the blog post elevates it above a self-published source, as there is some independent oversight. I'm also aware that those blog pages went through some legal wrangling in which they were taken down and then reinstated after legal advice. In terms of balance, what do you mean, criticism of Lewith or criticism of the alternative medicine he researches/advocates? I intend at some point to replace the description of his research, which as it currently stands is more of a

WP:SOAPBOX for his research than anything else, with a briefer general description of his research and perhaps a list of selected articles. Randomnonsense (talk

) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I should have provided a link about the legal dispute; a joint statement by UCL and Colquhoun is available here. The material on Colquhoun's blog underwent review by both UCL and legal counsel, and was approved by both. I don't think it can be considered a self published source under

WP:SPS. Randomnonsense (talk

) 18:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor on the Old Testament article appears to be inserting information into referenced sources. The editor feels justified because he has information that is not included in those references. Could someone please explain why the additional material should be added as new sentences and with the appropriate references? Please see Talk:Old Testament#Hashem sfarim's additions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no problem whatsoever with the proposed addition "oneness and supremacy", and it appears to be an accurate summary of the source. Yes the word "supremacy" doesn't appear on the page. But, neither does the word "oneness". The source, Barton at p9 addresses both concepts, just not using those precise terms. As for the other dispute about whether translators did, or were believed to is the appropriate language, the other editor acknowledges that the proposed change is not supported by the source text. I would suggest that the solution to satisfy both of you is to instead use "Wurthwein states that..."

Fladrif (talk

) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

moved to BLPN

Hmm... I wonder if this could go to

WP:BLPN. --George Ho (talk

) 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that. -- Vision Thing -- 09:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Affiliation has nothing to do with whether a source is primary. See

WP:USEPRIMARY. Primary is not a fancy way of spelling unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the question. The template "primary" actually says "primary or affiliated", and anyway what I'm saying is that I think the tag was misapplied. A peer-reviewed article is neither primary nor unreliable-on-the-basis-of-affiliation. Homunq (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am Elizabeth Falkner the San Francisco chef and pastry chef and someone has edited my DOB an location. I was born in San Francisco in 1966 and not in Boston in 1975! Thanks, Elizabeth

I guess this should have gone on the Elizabeth Falkner talk page. I will copy it there. I don't know that we have a reliable source to cite; however, the date currently in the article is impossible (unless she got a master's at the age of 14) so I will boldly change it. Andrew Dalby 22:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

About book:

• Iran and the challenge of diversity: Islamic fundamentalism, Aryanist racism, and democratic struggles, Author Alireza Asgharzadeh, Publisher Palgrave Macmillan, 2007,
  ISBN 9781403980809
  , Length 249 pages, P 18.

Clearly Reliable: Academic publisher, specifically regarding ethnicity in the area, and cited favourably (Gilles Riaux (2011) Ethnicite et nationalisme en Iran Paris: Karthala) by another expert publishing in precisely the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable on this topic - when there is a wide array of expert sources, including renowned linguists, available. Asgharzadeh's area of study is Africa, not Iran. He does political activism vis-a-vis Iran, but that doesn't make him a specialist. In addition, the "44-million" number he's advocating, is contradicted by EVERY academic and official source. We're talking about dozens of academic sources that put the number between 20 to 35 million, which means this is clearly

• You're going to need to provide appropriate evidence to support this claim; particularly given PalgraveMacmillan is the publisher. Your argument, at the moment, lacks any form of substantiation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about reliable sources. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the quality and sufficiency of the reliable sources used (or not used) in this article. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If an awarding body, in this case the

I think probably not since it seems like they link to the IMDB because they haven't recorded the info themselves, rather than because they're in a position to vouch for its veracity. In the case of WGA they actually supply the content to the IMDB, so it is technically authored by them even though it is published by IMDB. If they are in the process of setting up their own archive it might be best to wait. Betty Logan (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Was thinking as much but I figured it was worth looking into. GRAPPLE X 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I wish to use this site to source this [32] CN tag which just popped up on my watchlist. The site is run by this fellow Sami Moubayed and he is an historian, would this pass the SPS test? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind, found another source. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the process of working on the article for

Of course an article published in San Francisco Bay Guardian, no matter how small the coverage is, can be used as a reliable source. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And I do not believe I have so should like some opinions. I added this to the article

I know that Veena Das argues that the widespread use of rape during the partition riots was both a political strategy and tied to a set of generally misogynic social structures. I am unsure if her argument also adresses the Bangladeshi case, but it seems logical that it would.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google books won't allow the full page to be previewed, and the context is far from clear - the excerpt that Google books will show me doesn't even make clear whether this is a complete sentence. In any case, Gerlach seems to be a somewhat controversial figure, and it might seem that his views are being given undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be reliable. I'm worried about close paraphrase though. If you're closely paraphrasing, you should probably be quoting the opinion directly. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There are apparently some worries that he is misrepreseting the source as if it were blaming the Pakistani entirely for the violence. I can't determine whether that is correct or not. The page needs some extra eyes I think.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It might help if Darkness Shines were to provide the context: perhaps he could quote a paragraph or two of the adjacent text so we can see this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Andy here, at least paragraph either side would be relevant. Of course, looking at the introduction and conclusion to the section, if these incidents are topically discussed, would also be relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It starts off like this

Without much doubt there was much sexual violence by Pakistani troops in 1971. It can be attributed to ideas about changing the genetic make-up of east Bengal or forcing out Hindus, but mostly to lust, colonial racism against Bengali's in general, the desire to humiliate Bengali men and women and sadism. Military involvement reveals some degree of organization but not much of a clear purpose. Mass rape in Bangladesh in 1971 were not based simply on state policy or intent, but were the product of an extremely violent society, including a much longer history of open violence against women in east Bengal with undercurrents from two cultures of contempt and depreciation of women (East & West Pakistan)

It seems obvious to me that the mass raoe being discussed here are those carried out by the Pakistani army. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Company that the article was mostly sourced to Soompi, which appears to be an English language site covering K-pop. It is unclear to me, however, whether it is a news site (semi-pro or otherwise) or simply a collection of amateur blogs/fora. This article seems to indicate that it once was the latter and is now the former, so I'm not convinced a priori that the reasons given in the six year old deletion discussion apply anymore. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Posts from Soompi's own editors on their main site may or may not be reliable sources (I am not sure, I'm just some idiot with an IP address not a Wikipolicy expert), but posts in their forums certainly are not, and those are all the citations in the Soul Company article. Soul Company is notable for other reasons though. I'll leave a more detailed comment on that AFD. 61.18.170.202 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the Center for Immigration Studies considered a reliable source for content in the Illegal_immigration article such that their claims and research can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, or are they an advocacy group whose opinions need to specifically attributed to them within the article. see [36] and Talk:Illegal_immigration#CIS_does_not_seem_unreliable_per_se -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The source does have an editorial board [[37]], which plays in favor of accuracy, but much of its content appears to be in the form of opinion pieces. If used I would treat its content as a statement of opinion, not as fact. Follow the guidelines in

WP:RSOPINION.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk

) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Very clearly a lobby organization whose statements should be attributed, preferably with a mention of their platform - i.e. "anti-immigratin think-tank" or some such.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some of their content for which that would seem appropriate, but other content which is either uncontroversial or well-supported, or both. This content:

The United States is one of only two high average income countries (the other country is Canada which offers it in limited circumstances) that still gives birthright citizenship for children born where both parents are illegal immigrants, tourists, visitors or other types of temporary residents (diplomats excepted).

is uncontroversial and is supported by an apparently well-researched backgrounder which include over eighty references. If we took a conclusion from that paper, I agree it should be attributed, but it seems unreasonable to say "CIS says <trivial fact>".

Another reference was to an opinion piece at that site and I removed the reference and tagged the content as needing a reference. The content, before TRPD, began "Opponents of illegal immigration often cite a lack of enforcement or the inadequate enforcement..." and that seems like a sufficiently neutral presentation of opinion.

Another uncontroversial fact is:

Many illegal immigrants are migrants who originally arrive in a country lawfully but overstay their authorized residence (overstaying a visa).[42][43] For example, most of the estimated 200,000 illegal immigrants in Canada (perhaps as high as 500,000) are refugee claimants whose refugee applications were rejected but who have not yet been expelled from the country.[44]

42 is a quote from the some Homeland Security official at the CIS site. 43 is a news-like article at workpermit.com. and the final cite refers to a Toronto Globe and Mail article. That content is not improved by slapping "CIS says ..." at the beginning to the paragragh, as was done today.

It doesn't seem reasonable to add attributions when the CIS site is used to support uncontroversial facts - only when it expresses opinion, or conclusions. I happened across the site when I saw an odd edit summary - I have no interest or prior vested effort in the article. TRPD is correct that there is a lot of poor quality sources, he is just taking an approach which seems to place attacking that one source above maintaining the quality of the article. I have been working through the entire article cleaning up the references on both sides of the issue and I plan to continue that followed by more rigorous checking of the sources and removal of unsupported content. I hope you'll agree that each of these cites need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Thanks,

talk

) 05:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Material from advocacy organisations should always be used with care and should be clearly attributed (as maunus says above, they should really be described as well as named).

Even apparently uncontroversial material should not normally be taken from advocacy websites. Find a neutral source for the same information. Because there is always a chance it is not uncontroversial after all, and because it is bad for the credibility of the article if it looks like it is sourcing too much of its information from sources that have an agenda. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think any reasonable editor can make decisions about what is or is not controversial and if he makes a mistake, there will be many other editors more than willing to point that out. :) I'm concerned, though, with the effect on NPOV of simply disregarding research by an organization which self-identifies as "an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization". [38] Why is this organization subject to a blanket assumption of misleading the reader rather than making a case-by-case decison about whether the content in the article is well supported by the specific source at their website? How are we to identify all of the sites which are subject to this blanket dismissal? Make no mistake, I don't want to include all of these references - I have already removed one during my first pass checking the references on the page - but I am concerned with the impact on NPOV of an arbitrary blanket dismissal.

talk

) 22:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hamoodur Rahman Commission is being used as a source in this article. It was suggested for use on the article talk page[39] were I remarked it was not really a reliable source. The report is an inquiry into the actions of the Pakistani army during the 1971 war. It is a primary source I believe but not only that the author of the report only interviewed western Pakistani politicians and officers, I do not see how this report can make statements of fact on actions carried out by rebel forces when the author did not actually speak to anyone in the east. Can this source be used for statements of fact? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like inappropriate use of a primary source in a historical topic. Seek historians, gender studies academics, political and military scientists who have used the report or covered the topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you of the opinion it ought to be removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Some sources have been objected on at FAC of Pakistan article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. I'll like RSN input on which of those sources are really unreliable. These were the comments of a reviewer:

1. http://www.gendercide.org
2. Tourist guidebooks shouldn't be used as general references
3. Globalsecurity.org isn't a reliable source (it republishes stuff hoovered up from all over the place, and is full of errors)
4. About.com isn't a reliable source

Please comment on the sources. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding another to consider. September88 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

1. As for the gendercide source it is a very reliable source run by the renowned genocide scholar Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) who has written the leading academic textbook on genocide studies and lectured at Yale University.
2. No opinion.
3. True. Global Security isn't always reliable.
4. True. About.com isn't always reliable either.

JCAla (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not "always reliable"? Btw, please let uninvolved RSN members give an analysis on this. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not involved when it comes to the three latter sources, I don't even know for which part they are being used as a citation. It is not upon you to decide who provides an opinion here. Thanks. JCAla (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get so defensive. I aimed to get fresh eyes and RSN regulars take a look. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

1. No: a non-scholarly tertiary; not a "high quality reliable source" in terms of FAC. Pushes a unique scholarly analysis which has not found widespread support in its community of scholars. Is scholars specifically avoiding the scholarly publication mode. Does not contain scholarly apparatus (appendixes, footnotes, bibliographies) allowing other scholars to trace its research—ie this is not a scholarly mode of publication. It certainly isn't a "high quality reliable source" within the meanings of FAC. Use their scholarly publications instead. Probably shouldn't be used at all, but would require you to follow the instructions at the top of the page for each source and use.
2. No: non-scholarly tertiaries; not a "high quality reliable source" in terms of FAC. Probably shouldn't be used at all, but would require you to follow the instructions at the top of the page for each source.
3. No: non-scholarly tertiary; not a "high quality reliable source" in terms of FAC. Probably shouldn't be used at all, but would require you to follow the instructions at the top of the page for each source.
4. No: non-scholarly tertiary; not a "high quality reliable source" in terms of FAC. Probably shouldn't be used at all, but would require you to follow the instructions at the top of the page for each source. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Do reliable sources that verify the same content exist? If not, remove both the content and the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk

Was thinking of that. I'll take a look. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can the government's reports, drafts and articles on official sites be rejected as reliable sources saying its propaganda statement and drafts? September88 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends entirely on what source and use you're talking about. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is generally considered to be much more reliable than the policy pronouncements of parliamentarians in green paper form. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok i know there has been many discussion in the past about toonzone. www.toonzone.net

Currently a lot of articles use toonzone for sources

What i would like to estbalish is a consesus on toonzone as a source how ever i do not want to establish is toonzone a reliable source as it would fail under reliable sources criteria, but at the same time reliable source criteria also states no on source is 100% reliable so what i am suggesting is we break toonzone down into multi parts and determine each part whether it is reliable or not or whether they need to be condition on certain parts of the site being used as source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also liek to say i really hope as many editors as possible discuss it, and when a conesus is reached that we then mark that area aas resolved with the result of th conesus and a general opinion on how or hwo the soruce can be used--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ok so here goes

Forums

Ok this is a bit of a no brainer but still a i like to have it so can be search and verified in the future by other editors. My personal view is the forums can never be seen as a reliable as a source on the article, maybe can be used in a article talk page if maybe the forum has pointed to a something that can be discussed and then another source found to use in a article..--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

News

Ok i have seen much debate on this one before, i believe that the news section can be used as as source but scrutiny over what news sources are used.

if the news story provide a link to the original news story then this can be deemed reliable but might be best using the original.

If the news story is something written by one of there admins who say have been to local event and writing on that event this could be deemed reliable.

If however the news story gives a link to where the news story came from and the source for there story is from a source deemed to be unreliable then the it can not be used as a source.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Schedules

Ok i think these can be used as source for titles, airdates where available and production code information as the site gets there listings direct from the broadcast so input the information as the broadcaster give it to them. Obviously we would have to hope the broadcaster would have the correct information but sometimes they get it wrong so if any article has information sourced from here but the information can be proved wrong by another source then articles are amended with a cite to the new source to show why the amended would be different to this source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Blog

This appears to be similar to the news site so i say the same criteria as i said for the new site would need to be applied here--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Toonzone wikis

I believe these should be consider unreliable as any register user of the site can edit it so it be like here--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

CD!

This links to a new site called cartoonsdammit.com and am not really able to determine it reliability so i would say just now unreliable until it can be determine--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comics

This appears to be the same as news and blog it is admin edited so can be deemed relible--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hosted sites

These appear to be able to be edited by register users so as such i say there unreliable as as source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

As i say i am trying to determine the reliability of the site in separate parts rather than in a whole as the site is massive and different section it unfair to say just cause one bit is unreliable the whole site is, reliable sources does state no source is 100% reliable and a whole site doesn't have to be reliable for it to be used as a source it is the part of the site you are using as a source that has to be determine if it is reliable, by having this discussion on separate parts of the site and determining a reliability for each we can then know if article will need sources removed or can be left or used in more articles, if we cant get a consensus on this i am affaird it will come back again and again and will always be arguments by editors as whether the source can be used, so it be nice to get a consensus on each section and then editors can refer to this discussion as to a whether it is seen reliblke--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

'Reliability' isn't an inherent property of a particular source; we can't and won't make blanket declarations that a given source is 'reliable' or 'unreliable', as that is a question that depends so heavily on context. In each case, we need to ask how a source is being used in a given article; it's not possible for us to say that Source X is reliable and therefore every statement from Source X can be used in any article. For example, you mention a website forum—generally we hold that forum posts aren't useful for Wikipedia articles, except when they are used to demonstrate that the forum poster has said a particular thing, or holds some opinion. (In other words, they're treated like a

self-published source

.)

Your best bet is to follow the suggestions at the top of this page, and present specific instances where this website is being used as a source and where disputes about it have arisen. A few such discussions (heck, maybe just one such discussion) should give you a very good idea of how the website will be treated in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a fair point :) as i say it general is contested by plenty of editor, but general previous discussion have certain around since one part of the site is unrelible the rest is an as such other editors remove or dispute content hence my idea of breaking it down to the spefic part of the site. yes i agree there is expection to the rule of forum, but as i say i am trying to get a general conesus of the site for each part of it so in teh future people can come back and see this is what the general consesus at the time was but s is known conesus can change as could the use of the source, i mam perosnal using it on quite a few animation episod elists but one editor of one them has refuct my use of toonzone cause they said previous discussion deemed the enw unreliable but as i point out above not all the news is unrelaible but i have seen dispute plenty of times on artivcle i jsut watch or look at and dnt edit hence th reason for this more broad discussion as previosu maybe only have 3 or 4 editors i am wanting broader rangers of eidtors opinions some part sof the site i dnt use myself but i am trying to get conesus on whether it deemed realible or not hope that explains--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I use the following reference to make this statement on the criticism section of the article Australian Christian Lobby? I understand it is hearsay, but it was a thorough investigation and if I word it in this neutral manner will it be ok?

• REFERENCE: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/05/the-acl-why-do-they-exist-why-do-we-listen-and-why-should-we-care/
• STATEMENT: "According to
  talk
  ) 00:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is an edited piece of journalism. You should attribute it to "Mark Serrels," the journalist responsible though, and the way you're using quotation marks it appears you're quoting the bishop, not Serrels. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi all, I'm doing a DYK review and I'm hung up over a reference to a press release published at germanwatch.org (Full reference: Einweihung "Dr.Werner-Schuster-Haus" Ehrung für einen herausragenden Entwicklungspolitiker, press release dated 9 May 2003 at germanwatch.org, accessed 24 February 2012 (in German)).

The press release is used to source an opinion and quote. My question is, should we consider this a reliable source, and is the hosted release possibly a copyvio? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just had a quick look but it seems to be Germanwatch's own press release so in a sense a primary source which can be used in some cases? Note that their Bonn office, the source of the release, is called Dr.Werner-Schuster-Haus. The naming of that office is what the release is about I think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough, in that case I'll drop a note at the nomination page. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(Question originally asked at

Alexandra Robbins published Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities in 2004. In one of the sections of that book, she includes almost a random lists of secrets, private knocks, methods of sisters verifying each other's membership (signs and countersigns) and what the letters stand for. While there are a significant number of footnotes in the book, there aren't on these claims of secrets. Now for at least one of the sororities in there, the book is used as a reference on Wikipedia to include the secret on the Wikipedia page for that Sorority. Firstly, what are the options for removing the book as a Wikipedia appropriate reference? (given that these pieces of information are not footnoted)

Secondly, lets say that part one is not immediately possible but (hypothetically) that the book had included my co-ed service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega and said that our letters stood for Angry Pink Ocelots. My fraternity wants it removed from the page, but does not want to make the ritual public, is it appropriate to arrange to send a copy of our ritual to either a specific individual at Wikimedia Foundation or anOversighter who could do something (not quite sure what).Naraht (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Footnotes aren't required. Robbins seems to be writing for young adults, and Hyperion is similarly a popular, not academic, press, so this isn't the highest reliability source, but neither does this seem to be the sort of information that would require one. It seems to be sufficient.

2) If your fraternity specifically contradicts something the book says publically and

verifiably (say on your official web site, if you have one), we will either go with what you wrote, citing the fraternity's statement, or (if it's a notable controversy in itself, or we still have reason to believe Robbins) write both claims. If you merely contradict something privately, that's much harder. If it's a minor issue, then we can make an editorial judgment to remove the statement - we don't have to write everything our sources do, we get to pick and choose. If it's a major issue, though, enough that leaving it out makes a noticeable gap, then contradicting it privately isn't going to be enough, a verifiable public contradiction that we can cite in the article will be needed. (Think of Obama's birth, for example.) What makes something major or minor enough is debatable, of course, so specifics matter. --GRuban (talk

) 21:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the protocol for using an article from a paid-access site such as Highbeam.com. I'm assuming that free alternatives should always be used if available, but if they are not , is there any guidance on when, whether, or how to link to paid access versions? For example, in some cases an article might be available through an Economist subscription, or through HighBeam.com. Which should be linked to, or both? The one where it was actually accessed during research, or the one that is cheaper to access? Also, any further guidance about using paid research databases would be appreciated. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sites that require payment for access are fine, if other wise reliable. It is no different in principle than citing a paper newspaper, which also must be paid for or viewed in a library. I'm not familiar with Highbeam.com, so can't comment if that is a reliable site or not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no objection to citing a paysite. If the alternative free site is reliable it would help Wikipedia readers to link to it also. Andrew Dalby 02:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If a publication is multiply indexed and served, I would suggest citing the publication's primary current point of service. For example, Labour History used to be served by the History Cooperative, but is currently served (primarily) out of JSTOR. Thus if providing a link to LH I'd suggest linking through JSTOR. Prior to Issue 101's release, I would have suggested linking LH via History Cooperative. This is much like suggesting that if Beano's newspaper stand is the place where Times normally sells itself, suggesting going to Beano's to purchase an issue. Obviously this isn't ideal, but Wikipedia's mission is to provide a free encyclopaedia, not to liberate intellectual property. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam isn't actually a source, it is a research tool that will point you to articles in other publications. The actual source is the article and the publication, and that it what should be cited. A Highbeam search query result is no more a reliable source than a Google search query result as a source. A convenience link to the article at Highbeam is OK to use, if the article is not otherwise available online, but one caution: I recall that if you're linking to a Highbeam result that you've accessed from your account, there is some indentifying information in the URL that you might not want posted at Wikipedia.

Fladrif (talk

) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A few blog posts written by John Hawks, Greg Laden, and PZ Myers, hosted in ScienceBlogs, are being cited. A personal website written by Jim Moore is also mentioned as being recommended in those blogs. These sources are under much dispute in the editing of the article.

Blogs: Although ScienceBlogs has a good reputation, and the 3 bloggers are respected experts on human evolution or evolutionary biology, I think blogging is essentially self-publishing -- posts are not reviewed by the site owners nor other scientists. ScienceBlogs has no control on what he write in his own blog, no matter it's scientific stuff or just "yawn, bored today."

I am aware that a SPS can be considered reliable if the author has previously published on the topic in RS, and AFAIK, the 3 scientists haven't published anything related to the subject, or produced arguments supporting or disputing it.

In such context, John Hawks's blog has been cited disproportionally (presumably because of his fame in the internet).

Website: Jim Moore's website is notable in the debate of the subject, but the personal website is SPS and the author is an amateur, citing the source will be OR even under due weight. (Note that this website has been cited extensively before, now the citing tags were removed, leaving a lot of OR stuff in the article)

In summary, I believe the blogs and websites mentioned are non-RS and thus should not be cited, regardless of the good/bad contents inside. There are many good RS available, and we should use them instead. I and some other editors have removed those citations, but then reverted by others and they suggested to have a consensus first. I guess a consensus is hard to get there because of the antagonistic atmosphere. Chakazul (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That they are respected experts on human evolution shows that they are perfectly reliable for opinions on human evolution which the fringe theory/pseudoscience AAH is involved with. Taking the opinion of experts is perfectly acceptable, and that they are hosted on ScienceBlogs (which is invite only) shows that their opinions hold due weight on the fringe topic. If Jim Moore is notable on the debate then it's perfectly acceptable that his opinions hold due weight. Same reasoning again for

talk

) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My main point is that they're all non-RS. Verifiability and reliability of sources is one of the first priorities in WP. We cannot cite unreliable sources because we find the text reasonable, or just because the subject is a fringe theory. By doing so, we are even lowering the quality and credibility of the criticisms. Citing RS (e.g. Langdon 1997 paper in this case) is much preferable.

If John Hawks etc. have published the opinions in scientific journals, that will be perfectly acceptable, though.

Please make caution when you characterize the AAH as pseudoscience -- some RS say it is and some (more) RS say it isn't. At least we can't find it inside the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Chakazul (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wherever I've seen this topic on the Internet the arguments have been full of sound and fury, hopefully signifying more than nothing. I try to stay out of it because I'm not as tenacious as some and am not that devoted to arguing it. However, I will say that Hawks, Myers, Laden and Moore should be included and removing them would unbalance the article.

talk

) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Merely saying that "they're all non-RS" is not the whole story. If Hawks (very hypothetically) wrote on a blog "aquatic apes were green" then that would not be a reliable source from which to add a fact to the article that aquatic apes were green. But it may well be a reliable primary source to establish the fact that Hawks made that statement. And that is how the blogs are being used in the article - as primary sources to establish that Hawks and other scientists said a particular thing. Whether the fact that Hawks made the statement is relevant enough for the article is a different question, but in the particular case of how those statements are used in the AAH article I think they are being used appropriately. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found from only one location, then that information is—by definition——

This is wholly untrue for

WP:FRINGE issues, when RS do not discuss the endless details of fringe claims. Advocates will attempt to get these details included, and exclusde mainstream replies on blogs etc. The points is that these replies would never be published in scientific journals, as they would not fill valuable space with detailed refutations of fringe material. Paul B (talk

) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Andrew here... the AAH does not sink to the level of being "Fringe". While it may be rejected by academia, it is well known - and accepted as a legitimate possibility - by a wide swath the general public (The general public, in its ignorance, often accepts ideas that have been rejected by academia.)

"Speculative" is a better term. And the key to reporting on speculation is to phrase the article in a way that makes it clear to our readers that we are talking about speculation.

As to the blogs and personal websites that are cited... They are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinions of their authors. The question is whether mentioning these opinions in our article gives them Undue Weight. I will leave that determination up to others, as I don't know the topic well enough. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually just a tweak to what you say: I would not be surprised if someone did a serious survey and found a lot of sympathy amongst academics for this idea, or at least its better argued and less extreme variants. The bigger point is that academics would consider it speculative, and not the sort of thing they would want to take a strong public position about, nor something that it would be easy to publish a strong article about. I think there have been academic publications giving various levels of credence to the theory? Also, I understand that the theory has helped remind everyone that old ideas about the origins of bipedalism all have similar speculation in them, and that in effect we are waiting for the theory that will convince everyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst researching an unconnected issue, I noticed that Wikipedia has a page about ex-Bolton millionaire businesswoman Hilary Devey. The page claims Ms Devey was born in 1957. The conflict being that I went to primary school, and was even in the same class as Hilary. Yet I was born in 1944. How curious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudger812 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 March 2012

Her BBC bio (self-written) gives the birth as March 1957. No woman would ever lie about her age. Collect (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh of course not. What was I thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudger812 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 March 2012

WP:BLPSPS guidance is that this is acceptable as a source. Cusop Dingle (talk

) 18:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am currently working on

Just one more point if I may. I've gone through the Lion King's article and its talk page but found no mention of this rather important point not even in the Controversy Section (unless I've accidently missed it). It was probably an unintentional oversight. I will be raising the issue in the article's talk page.

Thanks again for your time.

Best Regards

Tamsier (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, but the author draws no causal connection between either the original source or the picture book developed from it, and Disney's movie. Indeed, the course of story development would seem to argue against it. We would need some more substantial evidence to be able to say that Disney drew on the Sundiata story; one academic stating it without proof is not enough to make a notable connection. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mangoe for your feedback. And thanks for taking the time to go through that article.

Best Regards

Tamsier (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have addition input on the above page regarding which sources are acceptable for inclusion. Thanks!

Tweets by notable individuals, if it is highly relevant and important, can be used as a self-published source with proper attribution. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Suppose that a tweet from a user A says B. Unless and until there is good reason to suppose that we know who A is, we don't use it at all (there is zero encyclopaedic value in the statement "Someone in the world once said B"). If there is good reason to suppose that A is indeed A, then it can be used to support the assertion "A said B" (or possibly, "In 2012, A said B") but only if it carries due weight. If in addition A is a known expert on the subject whose comments are usually taken as authoritative by other people, then we can use it to support the assertion "B" (again, with due attention to neutrality on the subject of B). Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say Twitter shouldn't be entertained at all unless it is a confirmed account. Betty Logan (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, confirmation is essential. But tweets fall under

WP:SELFPUB. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk

12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that any twitter page is considered a reliable source. The issue on

Talk:House (season 8)#Twitter as a source is whether the particular user @retlefnegniL, who claims to be House writer Kath Lingenfelter, is a reliable source. In addition, 24.136.38.176

repeatedly removed information only for a specific episode, when @retlefnegniL is referenced in several other places on the page. Editors have provided the following reasons as to why they restored, or don't themselves remove, information referencing @retlefnegniL:

-The account is generally accepted since it has a good record of being accurate.

-The account interacts with verified accounts of House writers/actors/producers.

-An interview states that the person is "Active on Twitter, she is known to be accessible to her fans" The only user on twitter that matches that criteria is the account in question.

DarkProdigy (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

that seems shakey at best. if the specific twitter account were directly linked or acknowledged in "official sources", that might be one thing. but this seems to be built on assumption after assumption. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shakey" is an understatement. A webpage that "interacts" with another webpage that "interacts" with an official Twitter page is about as weak an excuse for determining the reliability of a source as I have ever seen on Wikipedia. For goodness sakes, tabloids sometimes refer to or "interact" with legitimate sources; will we start accepting everything reported in a tabloid as reliable? 24.163.38.176 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

All it takes is an independent reliable source that says that this account belongs to this named person. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally accept the account 100%, but I realize that it probably isn't fully reliable for Wikipedia standards (unless the above comment is acted upon...). I accept it because I've seen over time that the information is correct, but that's not hard evidence that it's always correct. However, to answer the original question, if the account is verified and doesn't violate

WP:SELFPUB, then there shouldn't be a problem with using it as a source. Kevinbrogers (talk

) 18:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevinbrogers, you again missed the "original question". The original question, here and on the House page, is whether an unverified Twitter page is a reliable source. You finally made some attempt at answering that question. I hope you will accept your own comment that an unofficial Twitter page isn't always correct and not restore again a citation to an unofficial Twitter page if it is removed. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to take an ugly tone. I and many others don't tend to take such rude comments very seriously. Anyway, further discussion isn't worth my time, and the removal of a couple writers isn't going to be the end of the world. We can just add them back once the episode airs. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not an "ugly tone"; it's just summarizing my repeated requests for a reasonable answer that you failed to provide until opinions contrary to yours started appearing here; you even responded "I explained everything you asked quite well" and left it at that. If you consider further discussion as "not worth your time", that's your choice. I personally consider this a very important discussion. Just be careful to respect others' opinions here and elsewhere if an unreliable source is removed from an article. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And there you go deleting only those 2 specific links again. It's like you ignore everything anyone says for the sake of arguing. Removed all references and info, with the exception of a couple pieces of info which I found other references for, for @retlefnegniL, as well as two other twitter users I couldn't find evidence supporting the legitimacy of. DarkProdigy (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand you. You fight tooth and nail to keep the unverified Twitter sources in the article. Then when I finally get enough support to remove the two I had tried repeatedly to remove, you criticize me for not removing ALL of them. "For the sake of arguing" applies to your behavior quite well; you criticize me for removing them, and then you criticize me for not removing them. Let's call this what it is: you didn't like it that the consensus of opinions went against you here, so you're looking for anything to criticize against the person who pointed out your absurd logic to the rest of the Wikipedia community. I have no problem with your recent removal of the other unverified Twitter sources, but I had no obligation to do that, so please stop jumping down my throat for not doing what you criticized me for doing. 174.99.123.164 (talk)(same editor as 24.163.38.176} 18:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd hardly describe my actions as 'fighting tooth and nail'. The validity of certain references were questioned, and I provided what evidence I could find to support them. When the consensus indicated the available evidence wasn't good enough, I removed the references. It's inconsistent to delete a couple references to a source for unverifiability and leave all the others references to the same source. While removing those, I noticed similarly cited info, googled them for verifiability, then, failing to find evidence that meets the consensus, removed those as well. While you certainly have no obligations to Wikipedia, I simply find it odd that you would put so much effort into getting those 2 specific references removed, yet seem to not care at all about the other references to the same source. DarkProdigy (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now you're trying to backtrack to cover up your uncivil comments. If you had simply found it "odd" I would have ignored your comment, but you didn't stop at that. You took a pejorative tone, first commenting in an edit summary that you had to "clean up after" me, and then accusing me (with no basis in reality) of "ignoring everything anyone says for the sake of arguing", and you did it because I pointed out the weakness of your argument and found substantial support for that here. You decided to personalize the issue rather than focus on the real issues here. Next time you're in a discussion and things don't go your way, let me suggest that you review

WP:CIVIL, count to 100, and think before you hand out the criticisms. 174.99.123.164 (talk

) 02:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to join me in agreeing to disagree, and leaving it at that. DarkProdigy (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree to disagree about the reliability of unverified Twitter pages. That's all a part of being a decent editor on Wikipedia. That does not mitigate your uncalled for accusatory tone above. Such an uncivil tone is not a part of being a decent Wikipedia editor. 174.99.123.164 (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your bashing of DarkProdigy is erroneous. The disagreement has reached a conclusion and, I have to agree with DarkProdigy 100%. If you're going to remove some Twitter sources, you need to remove all Twitter sources that aren't verifiable and aren't the source of a quote. Because he declares that some should be reliable, then says my previous statement, is not "switching" sides of an argument and not fighting "tooth and nail." Reviewing the conversation, I would say that during your repeated bashing of the other user you've forgotten two out of the three main points of the

Civility

Article:

Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users.

Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.

In doing the latter you have also forgotten the

Dispute Resolution Article. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk

) 13:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Am i allowed to cite the book "Life of Mahomet", by William Muir, he is an academic figure from Cambridge University. However he is a Christian and has been accused of not being a reliable source by some users who accuse of having an anti-Islamic slant.

I have quoted him in the

The Muslim Scholar Saifur Rahman al Mubarakpuri suggest that the reason for the attack was that the Banu Mulawwih were being provocative (without further details),[4] whereas the Non Muslim historian Sir William Muir claims the reason for the attack is unknown.[3]

I have also found that the primary sources (Ibn Sa'd volume 2 p 156) support Muirs view in this occasion, as it does not mention what Mubarakpuri claims. Should Muir's opinion be removed or is it allowed?

Help preventing edit war: 1 user added a "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" tag on that page 8 months ago. And i removed it saying "removed tag which has been there for ages and not discussed", but he then added it back again and said "not resolved and it was discussed", then was reverted by another user telling him to "fix it". I fear this user is trying to draw me into a edit war, as last time i was banned indefinitely for participating in an edit war with him, he was also banned (for 24 hours). Now I am on a 1RR policy. This particular user has taken no steps to resolve the dispute in my opinion, 8 months ago someone volunteered to solve the dispute but wanted to here al-Andalusi's (disputing user) view first.( see here) but he has not taken any steps to get involved.

Please advise --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Responses

First, don't get drawn into an edit war. You've had your revert. It's just a tag on an article, not a dispute about content at the moment. The next step is discussion. Invite that user here.

After looking at the William Muir article, it seems even today his work on the life of Muhammad is considered authoritative albeit biased — but I daresay the same could be said of Muslim historians. Having a bias doesn't automatically invalidate his historical claims, it just means one must be careful about presenting his claims as fact, particularly if there are no corroborating sources. It is perfectly valid to reference him, because he is a notable historian.

In the passage you quoted above, one historian says one thing, another says another thing. The problem the other editor might have with this is the appearance of giving both sources equal weight, if one actually has greater credibility than the other. ~

I think Muir is fine, but there is particularly one editor who will not let you reference Muir unless you were writing an article about worst historians of all time. He tried to get me banned (lol) because I thought Muir bio got vandalized. I would stay away from any references more liberal than bin Laden for now. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess in Wikipedia there are lies, and then there are talk page posts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And then there is Muir's bio which takes the best of both. Meishern (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how can anybody seriously consider a 150 year out-of-date book as a

In fairness, Semmelweiss did a mean "yo mamma" routine. Other than that, completely agree. The source should be treated as

WP:UNDUE to use it in the same way that you might use a more recently published book. --FormerIP (talk

) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we really deem a book from the present any more reliable than a book 150 years older on anything from the past? Age has nothing to do with reliability of information - unless referring to something of our past, their future, or something uncovered only due to technological or understanding's advancement in that area. Because the steam engine was considered high-tech in that period does not say that the people of that time were dumbasses and knew nothing about Muhammad. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can. Scientific progress is not limited to the hard sciences alone. 150 years ago, there were no reasonable research libraries, especially not on topics peripheral to the dominant culture. Very few collections of primary sources were available, and many primary sources were either undiscovered, unappreciated, or unknown. Sources in general were spread around the world, not accessible at your fingertip via the internet. To get a source, you typically would need to go to the location of the source and extract what you thought important in it by hand. There were no photocopiers and textmarkers. If you missed something the first time, going back was impossibly time-consuming and expensive. Very few Western scholars spoke Arabic or worked in the area, so there was little chance for scholarly discourse. Muir would work on an understanding of the Old Testament that predated the

synoptic problem concerning the New Testament. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 07:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephan Shulz is correct; this work is simply too old to be considered a reliable source on this subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that no Muslims ("Arabic speakers" lol - slight correction) lived in Sweden and people never passed information on to others? - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the book in question is too old to be considered a reliable source on this subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The question was directed towards Stephan, specifically, his statement just preceding yours. His statement, in my eyes, is invalid, and insufficient if he wants to say that a publishing from an earlier time period is less factually supported than one of today. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your Sweden reference - maybe you are confused by "area"? I'm talking about "area of research" as in "field of study", not "area of Europe". Today we are publishing the National Enquirer, so we are quite good at publishing crap. But on average, a scholarly source from today will be vastly superior to a source of similar scope from 1860, because, in your words, our "understanding" has "advanced" significantly in the intervening 150 years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

When, then, do you suppose this area of research had opened up?

I used the wrong nation - he's Scottish. Regardless, your previous statement implies that no Muslims or others with a reasonable knowledge of Muhammad's life were in England at the time, referring to communication, and the field of study had not not yet been explored. While I agree that an understanding has been furthered in many fields of study, we have not uncovered much undocumented information concerning physical religious events, unless you'd like to talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are, in the current discussion, irrelevant. The synoptic problem and documentary hypothesis, are, through my eyes at least, more theoretical and mental than physical. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I bet there were fewer specialists on early Islamic history in Britain in Muir's time than there are in a single university department of the proper bent today. Also, Muir spend a significant part of his life not in England (nor Britain ;-), but in British India, and in particular in the Northwest, i.e. around today's Pakistan/Afghanistan border. But that is besides the point. Of course we have uncovered large amounts of historical documents over the last 150 years. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one example, the Nag Hammadi library is another important example, but there are many more smaller, less spectacular finds that in sum give us a much better and broader view of history. And, of course, "theoretical" results are just as important as real "physical" evidence. As an example, an understanding of the dialects of and changes in the Arabic language can allow us to date and place documents in a way Muir would be completely unable to do. A better understanding of the development and diversity of early Christianity may very well influence how we interpret Christian influences in early Islam. For a different example, consider mathematics. It never ever has had any "physical discoveries", and yet, would you attack a complex mathematical problem with only 1860s knowledge and expect the same results as you would get from a competent mathematician today? No Matlab or Mathematica, no LaTeX, no Bronstein, no pocket calculator, no axiomatic set theory (indeed, no set theory!), no formal symbolic logic, no undecidability results, no Principia Mathematica, ... Sure, everything is available through definitions and reasoning from first principles. But today, you have a much much much better foundation to work on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should a 150 year old source on anything be used for anything other than as a primary source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with you in the area of Mathematics, however I do not believe that Arabic was not fully developed at that time. Northwest British India would have been more than scarcely populated with Muslims who would have been likely to speak Arabic (and possibly learned the native language) and had some knowledge of Muhammad. While I agree that I am working on a set of assumptions, the probability that at least one Arabic translator and Arabic-speaking Muslim would be in the area that could have worked with Muir is high.

I simply cannot agree that those living in the 1860's were cavemen and cannot be trusted now unless fully-supported, area-changing, developed, physical evidence pertaining to the subject - not another, like Mathematics, a completely different subject - is presented; such a broad statement should not be used in an encyclopedia without. As FormerIP stated, serious consideration should be given before declaring a book reliable, or declaring it unreliable and unusable as anything but a primary source. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems to become fruitless. Most commentators agree that a 150 year old source is not useful as a reliable secondary source. I don't know why you keep mentioning Arabic - I can learn Arabic, and still know shit about the history of Islam. There are about 300 million English speakers in the US who know very little about the history of England (or the US, for that). History is a social science with a complex and evolving tool set, just like any other actively area of science. Among the tools that Muir did not have are large research libraries, fast communication, reliable dating, computerised bibliographies, edited and indexed collections of relevant documents, and so on. And he is missing out on the 1.5 million man-years of research put into relevant parts of history since his time (number pulled from an orifice, but probably within two orders of magnitude). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How so? The discussion is concerning the use of a source used in a Wikipedia page - and I believe that worth my time at least (and I'm working through the response corresponding and in the order of your last observations.) "Most commentators" think this - but why? Just because colleagues believe something does not mean it is correct and they have no elaborated reason, thus making it an opinion. If you have a source for this, I would like to see it. I mentioned Arabic in response to your statements: "As an example, an understanding of the dialects of and changes in the Arabic language," and "Very few Western scholars spoke Arabic," and, furthermore, the knowledge of Arabic may have been vital in consuming the (albeit few) facts in the Quran and possible other texts and the local teachings. Again, this is a probable assumption based off of Muir's knowledge of Muhammad in the first place. In the William Muir article, it states itself: "Muir's contemporary reviewers of Life uniformly praised him for his knowledge of Arabic." In the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica (available on public domain here) article on him, it also asserts the following: "Sir William Muir was a profound Arabic scholar, and made a careful study of the history of the time of Mahomet and the early caliphate." The 300 million English speakers in the United States who know "very little" about the United States is a true assumption, however, they are required, in secondary school, to take a United States History class, and it is another of their responsibilities to retain that knowledge, and they typically fail to do so. I do not, in spite of this, see many biographies written by these people about the history of the country. He did attend two universities and a college. These would have had some facts about the Muslim culture, including Muhammad. The availability of fast communication, computerized bibliographies, and indexed collections of documents are merely conveniences that we have today - Muir, as well as any historian, could have done without. The reliable dating would be a reinforcement to the previously (unsorted) documentation of his life as would likely have been taken simply because they regarded him as the founder of Islam and a prophet from God. The same reason applies to the "1.5 million man-years of research" that, we're assuming, actually added to the knowledge of Muir's time. This was the case for the Dead Sea Scrolls, due to, from looking at the Wiki page on them, most of them being copies of already existing Bible segments. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edit (actually currently in the article, but opposed by one editor) (now removed per [43] with the edit summary: (POV) by an editor who also removed a quote from Thomas Sowell with [44] this doesn't deserve its own section. okay? excising a section which had been fully discussed on the talk page  :

[45] "The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies." source: Social cognition: an integrated introduction by Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, Jun 15, 2006 364 pages

The book, as far as I can tell is widely used (559 articles citing it per Google Scholar) etc. It is described as:

This Second Edition of the critically acclaimed textbook Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction represents a much more integrated and pedagogically developed account of its predecessor. At its heart, the authors examine the different theoretical and methodological accomplishments of the field by focusing on the four major and influential perspectives which have currency in social psychology today - social cognition, social identity, social representations, and discursive psychology. A foundational chapter presenting an account of these perspectives is followed by topic-based chapters from the point of view of each perspective in turn, discussing commonalities and divergences across each of them. The result is a truly holistic approach that will stretch student's understanding of this exciting field and enrich their learning experience.

One editor however says: The mean of the terms "left" and "right" are mentioned briefly in a section about Bobert Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" personality which is part of a broader section on prejudice. You are finding sources as far removed from the subject matter as possible. Do any of your 559 cites actually use the source the way you do? I can only guess that you are looking for sources to support a viewpoint, rather than trying to idenfity what sources say and reflect them in the article. and The issue is whether it is relevant. My approach to an article about right-wing politics would be to use sources about right-wing politics, not sources about other subjects that make tangential references to right-wing politics. If a reasonable person wanted to understand right-wing politics, they would pick up a book on right-wing poltics, not books about social cognition, postmodernism, Israeli politics, or feminism. One concludes that one has a preconceived view of the subject and then mines for sources that appear to support it.

I suggest, however, that "Social Cognition" is a proper area (likely the best single area, in fact) for describing the problems of defining "right wing" in any absolute manner, and that refusal to allow a standard text is verging on tendentiousness. Is the source a reliable source for the claim to which it is attached? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You know my position on undergraduate textbooks' reliability in the social science. I'm not sure social psychology is the best domain of research to be looking at for this. But the claim is so basic as to be a truism in my opinion. Ideology is historicised and socially constructed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I was amazed that such a simple and fairly obvious statement required such pains to get into the article - and then after passing every possible bar, including some rather creative bars, to be told "IDONTLIKEIT" is precisely what it felt like. Collect (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is painful at times. Particularly in the terrain where most ideologically constructed knowledges agree on a point. Are you sure it is an undergraduate textbook and not a "scholarly introduction" aimed at practicioners and scholars? If it were the latter, I'd say it was good enough to demonstrate a truism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The work is big for sure - and I suspect it is reasonably considered a "standard reference in the field" not just a "textbook" as the one precis places it. It is widely cited per Google Scholar search (558 cites listed) which is not common for a "mere textbook" I would think. Collect (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A re-wording might help. I suspect one problem you have come up against here is that while the fact you have made is pretty straightforward, you are writing in a paragraph which some people would consider "turf" of a specific but different discipline than the one you are now citing. I would try breaking out this statement and making a less academic looking comment about how "Perceptions about the exact meaning of ... etc. On the whole I doubt that RSN can help this discussion. Have you tried writing drafts on the talk page, and getting discussion there? It can sometimes be amazing how quickly such things can be resolved once a good discussion starts. Maybe people are concerned about something else than what I am guessing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with Andrew Lancaster & Collect's analysis of its citation impact as an indication that rather than an undergraduate textbook it is a reference work for the field; and accept its reliability for what amounts to a political science truism (that an ideological position is spatially and temporarily contingent due to variance in human culture) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an ongoing dispute with an editor who insists still that W. F. Buckley was not on the "right" even though his column was titled On the Right <g>. I jumped through every possible hoop here - only to be told that "Social Cognition" is not "relevant" to a term clearly dealt with in the book. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Recently an

This isn't a reliable source issue and Wikipedia does not aim to showcase anybody ... but never mind all that! If you can see which name is to be preferred, you can boldly replace the whole text of the non-preferred page with a redirect to the preferred title. Say in the summary that you are "merging identical articles" or words to that effect. Add, from the deleted text, anything useful and encyclopedic that's missing in the other one. Andrew Dalby 19:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up Grette Law Firm I'm wondering if either of these two sites can be used to source the statement "Grette has received very good reviews in recent years in several ratings."

• http://www.legal500.com
• http://whichlawyer.practicallaw.com

__

I'd use

Martindale-Hubbell for US lawyer rating although it is heavily skewed by the old-boy rating system, but at least they try. My understanding is that practicallaw.com is not a reliable source for lawyer reviews. I don't know about legal500.com. --Bejnar (talk

) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Grette is a Norwegian law firm, so Martindale-Hubbell wouldn't be of much help. __

talk

) 09:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not regard practicallaw.com as a reliable source for law firm reviews.

Legal500 is rather like a Who's Who. The firms themselves submit profiles, and then Legal 500 does its own research based on those submissions. Because it does have an editorial staff that does independent research, I guess it is OK as a source.

But, a couple of notes of caution: since Legal 500 only covers large firms with national as opposed to local or regional practices, it is choosing from a relatively small pool of firms, and it may not be a big deal to be listed. If a firm is big and national in scope, it is likely to get listed in at least one practice area. As for Grette, I see that its entry at Legal 500 - Europe/Middle East/Africa [46] lists it as a third or fourth tier firm for most of the categories listed, second tier for tax, and first tier for IP. Not sure I'd crow about third and fourth tier listings, so to generalize that it has received "very good reviews" may be a bit of hyperbole.

Fladrif (talk

) 13:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm trimming the accolades further. __

talk

) 18:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment An article about a lawyer I started was deleted from Wikipedia not long ago. It seemed no one participating in the discussion was aware of the sources mentioned here. Just wondering if there is a page at Wikipeida that would be an appropriate place to store these references for other Wikipedians who are creating lawyer-related articles? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Can this be used as a reliable source in the article National Masturbation Day? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Any reply please? My confusion is due to the fact that I can't see an editorial board here, but on the other hand the site seems to be reputed one with advisory boards and awards in its cap. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The site seems to have two components: regular articles, where there seems to be a good amount of editorial control and fact checking [47], but also 'user generated content" which is not scrutinized in the same way. Therefore, decisions on reliability for this source would have to be made on a case by case basis. If the article in question is not simply a user generated post, but an article reviewed by the editorial board, chances are it is reliable--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for link. The article I want to include is written by Stacy Lloyd who is described as "HERWriter". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends. What is the exact statement in the article that the source will support? In general, it's fairly clear you know how to use sources, so I'd give you the benefit of the doubt if someone else challenged your usage. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Could a couple of you guys please give an opinion on Talk:International Journal of Transpersonal Studies? Per the WP:RSN archive link there, LuLu has been questioned. So comments on the journal will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Lulu.com clearly mentions in its website that they are self-publishing company, Lulu published books fall under

WP:SELFPUB. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk

15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

But the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies is published online. Lulu publishes on demand prints only. The publisher of the journal is not Lulu, but International Transpersonal Association. Now whether ITA is a reliable scholarly organization is a matter of debate. But the reliability of this journal has nothing to do with Lulu. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So is the journal reliable, given that it is not clear who the peers are? History2007 (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A list of the editors and the board is here. I've tried to check a couple, and to me the whole thing looks borderline fishy. Few of the people are particularly notable for academic achievement, and many of the core workers are associated only with close-to-fringe institution. It has a walled garden feel to me. I would at least be reluctant to use this as a source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In looking to continue to improve the article regarding CPT Jose Calugas, I found images taken by a retired United States Navy Chief Warrant Officer of exhibits at a museum in Iloilo City. They reportedly are of artifacts of CPT Calugas, mainly being two images of his uniform (1, 2), an image of a certificate, and an image of the subject meeting President Kennedy. Are these images useful as reliable sources, or would they be considered original research? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Per

Displays in reputable museums are reliable sources, though difficult for others to verify. The key questions here seem to be whether the museum's galleries have a reputation for historical accuracy and whether that photographer and website have a track record of posting images with accurate captions. Unless you're sure that the answer to both questions is 'yes', it's not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Museo Iloilo (the actual name of the Museum), is a public museum and subsidized by the Philippine Government. Yes it is reliable.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Would this source be considered notable? [48] I'm not familiar with Russian sites and while the site appears to be bigger than your standard and obvious Blogger account, I know that appearances can be misleading. Is anyone familiar with this site at all?

I'm leaning towards not reliable, but I wanted to drop a note just in case.

The site name "KinoKritik" (film critic) certainly is a nice domain name, one valuable enough that you'd expect a more notable critic or organization to pick it up. That doesn't seem to be the case.

The question is, is the author of that particular article notable in any way (as in, having his reviews covered in multiple independent reliable sources)? The page you referenced doesn't even seem to mention who authored that review.

The site's "About" page says: Absolutely any reader can become a film critic and take part in the development of the site. That means the site consists of mostly, or totally, user-generated content. Therefore it doesn't qualify as a

talk

) 17:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the general feeling that I got off the site, that it wasn't considered a RS.

talk

) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Described as "pro-Israel" by bone fide RS [49], [50], it would seem to fail the third party requirement for Reliable Sources (

Barbara Matusow writing in the American Journalism review called the organisation a "pro-Israeli pressure group". She went on to say, "Frequently, these so-called media monitors, who say they are only interested in fairness and balance, will seize on a word or a phrase and leave out the context. Take the case of a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial that called both PLO leader Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "pigheaded and destructive." In a communiqué urging readers to complain to the Inquirer, HonestReporting.com omitted the reference to Arafat to make the editorial sound like a one-sided attack on Sharon." [51].

The source is currently being used on a number of highly contentious articles to justify statements of fact in the wikipedia voice without attribution. E.g Rachel Corrie(citation 1 and 45); Saeb Erekat, a living person; and even on its own page HonestReporting to justify unattributed factual statements in the Wiki voice about a journalist who had criticized the organisation. Dlv999 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

MoveOn.org, and the likes. It should not be used in BLPs. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk

17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the input, do you have an opinion on its wider use as an RS in non BLP articles? Dlv999 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See my post below. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 17:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It can be used a source for its opinions, properly attributed. The specif examples you called out are not problematic- the

It seems the site allows articles by anonymous individuals, which put the credibility of the site in grave concern. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not more so than newspapers that publish stories with a by-line the reads "by staff reporter" or similar. Which is to say, just about any newspaper.[52][53][54][55]Iric2012 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a valid comparison. "Staff" means employed by the newspaper: the article is thus the newspaper's responsibility and to be evaluated on that basis. Who takes responsibility for the articles on this blog (or group of blogs?), the expertise, the fact-checking, isn't clear (to me). Andrew Dalby 11:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I called it a blog because that's what it looks like to me. If it doesn't meet the definition, for "blog" read "site" in my sentence above.) Andrew Dalby 12:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Its apparently have editorial board so I think it meets

WP:RS.In anyway it should be used with attribution--Shrike (talk

) 15:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Mind Body Spirit magazine ranked Siegel #25 on their 2012 "List of the 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People".[56]

The source supports the Wikipedia article statement. The source is reliable to claim that Siegel ranks #25 on the Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012. That is what the editor posting the info would like to focus on. However, the problem is the opinion it implies - the list's ranking gives an opinion about the importance of Siegel. For that, you need to figure out whether the source is a questionable source (

wp:QS. Questionable sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties which seems to be the issue. As for questionable sources, questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Questionable sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Do you have an issue along any of these lines? The external link you provided reads: ""Watkins’ Mind Body Spirit magazine (previously Watkins Review) is a quarterly publication by Watkins Books, London’s oldest and largest independent esoteric bookshop, established in 1893." -- Uzma Gamal (talk

) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You have correctly summarized my concen: Use of this particular quotation gives a misleading impression of the importance of this figure. By the standards you have described I belive that MBS Magazine is indeed a questionable source. There is much to question on this single page! My previous attempt to remove this reference was reverted on the basis that the editor believed that MBS was a reliable source for what this particular esoteric movement believes. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Salim, you missed the point. You have suggested that it is a questionable source, apparently on the grounds that too few mainstream Christian officials are mentioned, but if you look at the words Uzma underlined, what you think is irrelevant.

To answer your question: yes, it's reliable for the statement given. No, being mentioned in such a magazine's list is not

WP:WHYN for why we require substantial coverage for notability.) Personally, I'd say that inclusion on a "top 100" list for a specialty magazine like this gets you, oh, two to five percent of the way to notability. But that's really a question for the AFD folks, not for RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

this newspaper uses the extremely derogatory and offending "qadiyani"-term about the ahmadiyya-community. hence, this newspaper is *not* a neutral source, and i doubt its reliability.-- altetendekrabbe  16:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can see that in our article Qadiani. So I can accept that the newspaper may not be a neutral source. However, the fact seems to have clearly occurred, as I can see in these articles from Ahmadiyya Times, The Indian Herald, The Muslim Times, and TwoCircles.net. At least some of these are Ahmadiyya sources. Unfortunately, they're not as established as Siasat, since they're apparently online only news sources. So the situation we have is that we have a fact, a fairly important fact, that clearly took place, but the most established source writing about it uses a term the Ahmadiyya consider derogatory. So out of the choices of not writing it at all, or using Siasat as our source, I think our best choice is to use Siasat as the source. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

not acceptable. a neutral source is better even when it's online only. suggest to use another or leave the issue until a better source is available.-- altetendekrabbe  18:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But the statements we would put in our article would be the same, whatever source we used as the reference. Our article text wouldn't be affected. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is yet another source, The Hindu. [65] It's even more respectable than Siasat. Unfortunately, it also uses the word "Qadiani". It looks more and more like we're going to have to use these sources, however insulting Ahmadiyya people find them, much as we still use old South African and American Southern sources that used derogatory terms for american blacks. Bias doesn't make a source unreliable. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Keeping aside my own observation about one or two messages posted posted here and also in another forum on the English Wikipedia, I fully endorse GRuban's observation on the article edit as stated above. But one thing - let us not use the word "Qadiani" for this community and merely state the rest as reported in the newspapers. Will that be okay? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

A major issue here is how these people (ahmedis) are illtreated. If you check the website of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board, you will find the name of Syed Shah Gulam Afzal Biyabani as its Chairperson. Check this person's Facebook posting (http://www.facebook.com/Gulamafzalbiabani) of Feb 19,2012:

In a major decision, the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board has unanimously resolved to remove four religious places belonging to Qadayani sect from its list.Making the announcement, Wakf Board chairman Syed Shah Ghulam Afzal Biyabani said that the four properties belonging to Ahmediyas sect were registered with the Wakf Board. Since Qadyanis (Ahmediyas) are not Muslims, the Wakf Board has decided to remove them from the list. The properties include Ahmedi Jubilee Hall at Afzalgunj, Anwar Manzil and Baitul Irshad at Barkatpura and Masjid Chinna Kunta in Mahabubnagar.The State Government has been asked to take control of religious properties belonging to Qadayanis under its direct management or hand them over to Endowments Department.Similarly, the Wakf Board has decided to take one mosque at Falaknuma Railway Station under its direct management. The mosque belonging to Sunni Muslims is presently under the control of Qadayanis.The Wakf Board chairman said that a comprehensive State-wide survey has been ordered to identify the properties belonging to Muslims which are presently under the control of Qadayanis.Rajya Sabha MP and Wakf Board member MA Khan said that the State Government would be pressurised to accept the Wakf Board resolution. Another member and IAS officer Omar Jaleel said that the Muslim community should maintain restrain over the issue as the Wakf Board.Former Wakf Board chairman Ilyas Seth said that all Qazis have been asked not to perform the Nikah of Qadyanis. He also demanded that the State Government provide adequate security to Wakf Board chairman who has been facing threats from the Qadayanis.The Wakf Board has also identified about 45 places of worship of Qadayanis in the State which are not registered with the board. They include Masjid Alhamd at Madannapet in the Old City.The Wakf Board's decision evoked celebrations by Sunni Muslims at several places across the city. Congress MLC and Jamiyatul Ulema-e-Hind State president Hafiz Peer Shabbir Ahmed, Shaik-ul-Islam Academy chairman Moulana Yehya Ansari Ashrafi, Anjuman-e-Qadaria president Syed Ifteqar Hussaini, Sunni United Federation of India convenor Hafiz Mohammad Muzaffar Hussain, Idara-e-Tehqiqaat Ilmiya director Syed Khaja Moizuddin Ashrafi and other religious leaders welcome the decision.

I don't advocate quoting this Facebook posting into the article but surely this is a major development and has to be included on Wikipedia. So I await a decision on which source to choose. Regards,Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

From the above discussion, I conclude that

Siasat is a reliable source for editing the article on the Ahmadiyya sect. Hindustanilanguage (talk

) 06:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshiva_World_News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_National_News

Are these two news sites considered reliable sources?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel National News is described by RS on its Wiki page as "regarded as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement" It is based in an Israeli West Bank Settlement. On topics relating to Israeli settlements and settlement activity it is clearly not third party(

WP:3PARTY

).

Yeshiva world news appears to be mainly a news aggregation site catering to the Jewish orthodox community. Perhaps it would be helpful if you indicated the context under consideration.

WP:RS states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Dlv999 (talk

) 12:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

YWN is not RS. Forget an editorial board, YWN does not even have any contact address. It does not mention the names of the writers in the articles. I don't see any difference between YWN and an anomynous blog. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, their street address is right here. Publishing a street address isn't on the list of what makes a source reliable. Even publishing the authors' names isn't necessary. For example, there are hundreds of government websites that do not name any authors, and almost no corporate websites name the individual writers. These can still be reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I didn't notice the street address. But a news website has different criteria for being regarded as reliable than an established corporation or government. If any fact-checking mechanism is not found, a news website cannot be reliable. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the rules are the same for all sources. In fact, merely deciding whether a given website is truly a "news" website or not is sometimes impossible. That's one reason why we don't have special rules for different websites.

"A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (NB that's "a reputation for", not "an easily found link to a page listing the names of people who supposedly do this") is one of the criteria that we consider. It is not strictly necessary for a source to meet this (or any other) criterion, because any given criterion might not be relevant (e.g., if the source is being used to support a claim that Example.com contained a particular bit of material on a given date). A good sign that a periodical will have such a reputation is the ability to find published corrections, like this.

Finally, being reliable isn't like being pregnant: it's not an all-or-nothing condition. YWN is perfectly reliable for certain purposes. One might not choose to use it in the same way that one would use a regional newspaper, but that doesn't mean that it is "not RS" under any circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

IsraelNationalNews is a partisan source, but reliable source. It has a professionally organized editorial board. In sensitive topics, it should be used with attribution due to its biased nature. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it could be used with attribution--Shrike (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

IsraelNationalNews is one of the most unreliable news sources in the Middle East. It exists for the purpose of promoting the politics of the Israeli settlers. That's why it was founded and that's why it exists today. Many times information taken from that source has proved to be wrong. These quotations are from five different serious academic studies (sources on request): "considered the mouthpiece of the Gush Emunim Movement--supports the concept of the Greater Land of Israel"; "identified with the religious right"; "a group of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories who were opposed to making peace with Palestinians in those territories launched an ideological competitor called Arutz Sheva" (note that INN is the internet arm of Arutz Sheva); "associated with the right wing of the religious Zionist movement"; "voicing the ideology and interests of the settlers in the occupied territories"; "the settlers' radio station"; "settlers' radio station". The evidence suggests that it can be used as a valid source of the settlers' opinion. Trusting it for general news is not an option. Putting this into perspective, there is no reason to believe INN is more reliable than, say, the official newspaper of the PLO. Nobody even tries to cite the latter; we should apply the same standard to the former. Zero^talk 04:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Its reliable it have editorial board though it present certain POV it should be used with attribution--Shrike (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeshiva World News is an outlet internal to a particular community of orthodox Jews and is concerned with that community. I think it can be trusted for uncontroversial news about that community (for example, if it tells us some famous rabbi died, we can cite it). I don't see any reason to treat it as reliable on wider issues. Zero^talk 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question (Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).

I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.

Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.

I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Are there any references that state reliability of sources Christian Today, The Milli Gazette to be considered as a reliable source.

My understanding is that these are not at all reliable. Per discussion

1. Christian Today - describes itself as "trans-denominational Christian newspaper"; part of christiantoday.com. More info [reference] - which states "Christian Today upholds the dictum found in Matthew 5:37, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No', 'No'". In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ." and so on.
2. The Milli Gazette - describes itself as "Indian Muslims' Leading English Newspaper"; more info [here]. On this link, it states that "We will, insha Allah, add more pages as we progress to a weekly, in due course of time, speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community which is a very important member of the world Muslim community" and so on.

I would like to know how these sources are considered reliable, if at all.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all sources can be used for something. So you should explain what these are being used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic under consideration is Ekal Vidyalaya, a charity considered the largest for country India. The above mentioned sources are neither connected to it even remotely, nor could be considered neutral outside own topic, just as Ekal Vidyalaya can not be considered reliable source for the above two. In fact the sources themselves say "In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ" or "speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community" which in other words points to rather limited context as explained therein.

Therefore, such sources could hardly be called as reliable in general, in particular for the topic Ekal Vidyalaya.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article; that said, it seems to me that some of that color is imparted by leaning over too far towards qualifying its statements, because I found this article in the Times of India in which the intent alleged in the CTI article is stated outright by those affiliated with EV. The CTI article would at least be an acceptable source for the existence of Christian objections. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that the topic is neither about Christian objections not about Hindu objections. It is neither about intent alleged in the CTI article outright by those affiliated with EV, nor it is about intent alleged against missionaries.

After the first statement viz. "There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article", there is hardly justification given for the sources under consideration at all. In fact this article apparently is more reliable, but it says nothing about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette. The query is about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette.

Per the first line, viz. "There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article", it can be taken that the sources Christian Today & The Milli Gazette can be considered unreliable for this topic. Please let me know if there is anything to add about the sources.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Both sources may be considered reliable for the information cited in the Ekal Vidyalaya article:

• The Christian Today article titled AICU president suspects Hindu charitable trust of forming anti–Christian schools for Indian tribals says that John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) expressed concern that the schools were spreading hatred towards members of the Christian minority.
• The Milli Gazette article titled Another Blow to VHP describes in some detail the (Indian) Union Human Resources Development Ministry's decision to stop grants to 'Ekal Vidyalayas' run by the FTS.

There is no reason to suppose that this information is inaccurate. These are both mainstream publications and may be assumed to have checked their facts, which are backed up by other sources. Is there any doubt about the facts cited? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am again sorry to say that this is not about 'facts' as cited by John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union, or 'facts' as concerted campaign against the Ekal Vidyalayas by a combination of media and academic networks, or doubts about these 'facts'. Any reliable sources can be used in the Criticism section, per norms; the section itself not limited to these 'facts' alone.

The concern here is about reliable sources. The query is about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette each of which say that "In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ" or "speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community". Being mainstream or not offers no concession to their own claimed POV which is expressed very clearly.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Humour you did not yet really explain what the sources are being used for. Please do not try to cut the discussion off too quickly. Maybe this already helps:

• WP policy does not forbid the use of "POV" or non-neutral sources, and indeed some people would say that such things do not exist. What matters is how they are used. For example a Christian might be a good source for what Christians think, but not a good source for what Hindus think.
• What might be another issue is whether the opinion of Christians is relevant or notable. See
  WP:NOTE
  . However, if you are editing something about a religious controversy I suppose it would be notable. Is the controversy something that was reported in the media?
• A simple solution to a surprising number of questions on this noticeboard is attribution of anything questionable and controversial. Instead of saying "Mr Smith hates dogs" we should often write "The New York Times has reported that Mr Smith hates dogs". This immediately gives readers a context so they can understand the potential weak point of the claim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• John Dayal is one of the more prominent spokespeople for Indian Christians. His views are relevant in the section on "Criticism" in the Ekal Vidyalaya article. Christian Today is the source for the statement that Dayal criticized the Ekal Vidyalayas. The article does not assert that the criticism was justified, just that Dayal expressed it. Dayal has often criticized the Ekal Vidalayas: A FORKED TONGUE AGAINST CHURCH on the website of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India Office For Education And Culture, Code Shreds India’s Secular Thread in Tehelka, Hindu Group Plans 100,000 ‘Anti-Christian’ Schools in Tribal India by 2012 in BosNewsLife and so on. These sources may be biased, and Dayal may be biased, but clearly Dayal has expressed criticism. The Christian Today example is as good as any to illustrate his views. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• The Milli Gazette article is used as a source for information about a government decision to stop funding the schools, and the reasons for the decision. It covers much the same ground as the short article Public funds for saffron agenda and the longer Centre stops grants to 'one-teacher schools', both in The Hindu, but the Milli Gazette article gives rather more detail. A short summary of the decision and reasons appears in the Indian affairs annual for 2006. Excerpts from the report are given in Training to Hate: The Ekal Vidyalaya Way. None of these sources are "unbiased" but there is no doubt that the information cited from the Milli Gazette article is accurate: the government did indeed cut off funding for the reasons given. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources here are used in criticism section of a charity organization Ekal Vidyalaya, & not about some Christian/Hindu civil/terrorist/right-wing/conversion organization etc.

Therefore the POV here is not about, as said earlier, 'facts'. The substance can easily be supported by sources that has no POV here, as the example from your side as a simple solution to it ie "The New York Times has reported that Mr Smith loves/hates dogs" and so on. None of this is forthcoming, even from other editors.

I disagree with Aymatth2's view that "The Christian Today example is as good as any to illustrate his views." which he stated immediately after "These sources may be biased, and Dayal may be biased". This itself means that neutral sources should be present, especially in criticism section. Also note, the discussion is not on whether Dayal may be biased if at all.

About "controversy", the POV or non-neutral source could be either Christian/Hindu POV sources, although from reliable sources any relevant matter could be included any way. As such, the controversy is not limited by this views alone, rather limited by available information from reliable sources.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Dayal's opinion notable? For example is it something that the media talks about? And secondly is Dayan considered a controversial person? Being controversial does not mean we should mention a person, but it guides us about how to refer to their opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• The article on John Dayal, which is frequently vandalized, shows he is a prominent and vocal representative of the Christian community. As stated in the Ekal Vidyalaya article, he is a past president of the All India Catholic Union and a member of the National Integration Council (NIC) of India. The NIC is chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and membership shows Dayal is recognized by the government as an opinion leader. Dayal is outspokenly hostile to "communalism" - attempts to promote the interests of specific Indian communities - which means he has plenty of critics. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If he is a notable and controversial figure then his opinions may well need to be mentioned in order to be

WP:NEUTRAL, but of course if he is controversial we should attribute his opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dayal's opinions are I think correctly attributed in the article, which reads:

  In 2005 John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) and a member of the National Integration Council expressed concern that the schools were spreading hatred towards members of the Christian minority, in order to "prevent conversions of tribals to Christianity by missionaries."

  Aymatth2 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a bias problem here in that the Times article shows that this is essentially and quite openly a project of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, one of the major Hindutva organizations. It is hardly surprising that Christian groups oppose this (since it is explicitly targeted agianst them), and there's no reason to doubt that Dayal is reported accurately; and as he can be taken as a spokesman, he ought to appear in the article as such. I have less familiarity with Islamic material and therefore have not dared to speak concerning The Milli Gazette. The contrary view, however, is presented in the mouth of François Gautier, and he is notorious and controversial as a defender of Hindutva, to the point where a novel attacking British correspondent Mark Tully was widely assumed to have been penned by him [66]. As it stands the article tends to play down the Hindutva aspect of the project, and to the degree it can't, tends to mark it as a sidelight instead of as a core aspect of the program. Mangoe (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not about POV of John Dayal, which could be included as said earlier. This is about the sources. This is not against views of John Dayal, against conversion, against Hindu/Christian terrorism, against Hindutva/Christianity, and so on. Please avoid this and avoid derailing the discussion.

This discussion is about Christian Today and The Milli Gazette sources. Please go through the above discussion. Is there a reason to avoid reliable sources to support the same substance in the article? The POV of these sources are mentioned very clearly.

Also let me know if Reliable Sources - Religeous Sources is applicable here, which states that "can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." It says nothing about unrelated topic.

About Mangoe, he is creating a lot of straw-men. François Gautier is called notorious, who was accused of 'attacking Mark Tully' where there is no proof and he denied so, etc. - seems the user lacks understanding that such mischief could not be used as an accusation against someone without any evidence or as a reliable source. This is not a place to attack François Gautier or John Dayal.

It is surprising how editors avoid simple questions about how to replace sources with more reliable sources for the same content, which can be seen as a simple solution.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What

It is, on the other hand, not surprising that some editors, when they don't get the answer they want at RSN, take the

Fladrif (talk

) 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the context of the sources' use in the article. There seems to be consensus here that CTI can be used as a reliable source for reporting Dayal's objection. I'm less assured of it as a source of reportage about the program itself. You raised this issue, however, in the midst of a struggle between you and other editors over the article's content and in particular the lede. Removing these two sources from the article would justify, at least temporarily, minimizing mention that Christians and Muslims oppose the program and in particular that it was funded by the government. In that light Gautier is important now as a seemingly neutral counterbalance, which he most assuredly is not. I don't think the sources are being questioned because the information they present is inaccurate; it seems to me that the attack on their credibility is intended to limit the presentation of the negative reaction to the program. The rest of us hold that they are reliable in reporting that reaction, so I don't think that part of the article can be removed on this basis. Mangoe (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarity. That funding stopped is mentioned by the other sources too ie [article from Hindu] etc. as also any other neutral article with the same content would do the same.

If you would give pointers to WP policies etc would be great.

Also I am taking it from here that even if sources are biased, if the information is accurate then the sources can be considered as reliable however biased the sources may be, per your statement "I don't think the sources are being questioned because the information they present is inaccurate; it seems to me that the attack on their credibility is intended to limit the presentation of the negative reaction to the program." Is my understanding correct here?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• User:thisthat2011 has a point that in recent versions of the article the content from The Milli Gazette added little to content from The Hindu. Somehow the discussion of the simplified alphabet that Milli mentions but the Hindu article skims over was accidentally dropped. I have restored it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Humour, the 3 key policies about what to include in WP are

Thanks for clarity. Appreciate it.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Random break

• See the recent changes to this article which again removed (or rather commented out) the content from The Milli Gazette. There seems to be a lot of hostility to including anything from this source. Is this the right place to resolve the issue or is there a more appropriate forum? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the argument being made is that this observation is not notable enough to be given this attention. If this organization is being accused of indoctrinating people to hate etc, then it should be reported, and that was the initial discussion here. But how important is it to have a paragraph about one example of such indoctrination? I am not saying there is anything wrong with the proposal myself, but if other editors of the article find this a case of going into too much detail then this is not really a sourcing question, but more a question of getting the right balance. Sometimes trying to come to a WP:consensus can be a bit painful. It means you should put your big efforts into the most important things, and not every particular point. So ask yourself whether this is something that would really ruin the article. If it is then you'll need to put together a clear argument about why and try to convince more people. But the present disagreement does not appear to be one for this noticeboard anymore?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This particular changes are not about reliability of source.

talk

) 16:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• O.k. The consensus here seems to be that Christian Today and Milli Gazette can be considered reliable for the content used by the article. I suppose that is really all this discussion is about. The question of how much detail the article should give on specific aspects can be discussed on the article talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not the consensus. The consensus is that reliability depends on what a thing is cited for. The same report may be reliable for one thing cited from it, and unreliable for the other one. As pointed out on Talk Page

It seems that the document mentioned as a source refers to [| this link] which in turn refers to [| this another link] as source. The last link is dead link and is unavailable. Therefore

WP:NOR

comes into question.

• It is fairly common for websites, PDF documents etc. to include dead links. Usually the content that was at the end of that link is still available in one of the internet archives. Containing a dead link does not make a source unreliable. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the sources are definitely biased here, which is pointed out earlier. Therefore

WP:NPOV.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011

16:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• The question of bias has been discussed at length above. Some would say that all sources are biased one way or another. What matters is whether the source may be considered accurate for the information used in the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would extremely reluctant to accept the publications of any particular religious movement for derogatory information about another very different religious movement. In such cases, it's almost like sourcing for BLP--the information must be supported by neutral sources. Even were it trying as hard a possible to avoid bias, a publication from a conservative Christian organisation with missionary affiliations, is not reliable with respect to a traditional Hindu religious group in such circumstances for anything other than a statement of its own opinion, and it must be so qualified in the article, and used only if necessary for balance. (I would assume this is true for the Moslem organisation also, at least with respect to India where the two religions are notoriously not on good terms generally.) Even when one organisation is quoting from a source, it may be doing so selectively; in particular, as with all publications, the headlines and other summaries cannot be trusted to be neutral to the same extent as the reporting. Frankly, I think it would be highly advisable to use other sources instead for controversial material, especially controversial negative material. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• The way the sources are used is correct, I think. The Christian source is used for a statement that a prominent Christian is hostile to the schools. The Muslim source is used for a simple statement of fact from a government report, very carefully worded. Both sources are named and their affiliation is given before the article says what they say. In this area there are no neutral sources. The Ekal Vidyalayas are part of the BJP-Congress struggle. BJP supporters passionately defend them and Congress strongly criticizes. The BJP gave funding and Congress withdrew it when they came into power. There is also a Hindu-Secular debate. Sources almost always take one side or another, are often sparing with the truth and sometimes make venomous attacks on their opponents. I think with this topic we just have to present what was said and by whom, mostly concentrating on what seem to be plausible facts but allowing some clearly identified opinions, and let readers decide for themselves. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what user DGG says, including

"Even when one organisation is quoting from a source, it may be doing so selectively; in particular, as with all publications, the headlines and other summaries cannot be trusted to be neutral to the same extent as the reporting."

This also in disagreement with views per user

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011

14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)