Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 120

Wrong Sri Lanka News | Ministry of Defence and Urban Development Archived 2009-12-11 at the Wayback Machine that is Defence.lk website is a government website and is a reliable site and http://sinhalaya.com is anti terrorist site.රණකාමි333 (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But, almost by definition, sources of this type are going to have an inherent bias. It might be OK to report that this accusation against Channel 4 has been made by the government of Sri Lanka — but even then, it probably doesn't belong in the lead section (where the comment currently sits), and I'm uncomfortable about having this sort of accusation made anywhere in the article without any response or opposing view. I would also prefer to see the inclusion of at least one reliable source outside Sri Lanka discussing this claim before including it. — Richwales 07:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See item below, which is the same question. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if these guys can be considered reliable. For example, a contributor is citing what looks to me like unsupported gossip about new characters coming to the series, Young Justice. Looking at their 'About' page doesn't fill me with confidence as to any real substantive editorial oversight or separation of fact from fan gossip. Any suggestions as to how I can address this? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reasonably good looking site, and I didn't see anything that looked terribly outrageous, however, I would say, it's not RS for this. The article at least has an attributed editor, but I don't see any strong credentials for anyone on the staff. Having said that, it looks like the article is written on the basis of the new Mattel packaging for the action figures (that's what the picture is of), so there must be other sources out there that could address that too I would think. Since you do have an actual picture included in the article, I think you may be safe if you wanted to include something like "According to LeagueofComicgeeks.com, the new packaging seems to indicate that... blah blah blah", but really, that's all speculation anyway, so it's probably better to wait for a press release or airing of the show. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Unfortunately, the source was being used to verify the introduction of two other characters to the animated series. However, the lack of strong credentials reinforces what I had thought. Thanks. Anyone else want to weigh in? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Despayre, not a

WP:RS coverage of it. The article will still be there if and when the event actually happens, the content can be added at that time when a legitimate WP:RS reports it, there is no need to rush to have Wikipedia "break" this news. An encyclopedia is usually the last to report, not the first. Zad68 (talk

) 19:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you both more. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've been in discussion with Kashif Siddiqi for a long time now regarding his article, he's been e-mailing me news stories & websites etc. to expand his article. He's sent me an e-mail containing a letter from the Pakistan Football Federation confirming his number of international caps, looks legit to me, on headed paper, how can I source it on the article? GiantSnowman 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

get in touch with the Pakistan Football Federation, asking if they have a record of this letter, and confirming its contents, then cite them as the source for whatever claims are in the letter. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Although superficially attractive, the use of such primary sources is problematic, since a reader of the article will have to take it on trust that the editors have the expertise to verify the source and interpret it. The better solution would be for Siddiqi to ask the Pakistan Football Federation to include a statement about his career stats on their website, or to find a reference in a newspaper or yearbook.Martinlc (talk)

If it's cited, it could be independently verified by any reader, trust not required, no? (although I agree a link on a website makes it more commonly accessible, but that's not a source requirement) -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to your private correspondence, nor do I trust you to convey your private correspondence accurately, intact, and in a proper context to a repository. I would suggest that you doubt my capacity as well. When we are editors of the encyclopaedia, we are not archivists, historians of sport, or records officers. Citing this kind of primary source is unacceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get into matters of mutual trust, but Fifelfoo's conclusion is correct. An email is not a published source. If the information is notable it will appear in a reliably published source. Once it has, we can use it and cite the source. Until then, not. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor wanted to know how the contents of the letter could be used as a source, the email isn't a source, but the contents, if accurate certainly could be used, in at least the 2 ways stated above. Also, in reference to Fifelfoo, from our policy page, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries", which means even if it's very difficult to source the original document, that is not grounds to keep it out of WP (I'm talking about the letter itself, not the email, no one is saying the email is usable). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Private correspondence isn't a reliable source, no matter how legitimate it looks.

_complex

17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. There is no way to use a private letter.

talk

) 18:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure sourced exist out there confirming the contents, but none in English, and I don't speak Urdu. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll e-mail back asking him to get the PFF to put a scan on their website. Thanks, GiantSnowman 21:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well that's actually less of a problem!

_complex

21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked an Urdu-speaking editor I know of to help locate sources. GiantSnowman 14:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So just to clarify the original question, am I right in understanding that personal letters may be reliable depending on the context, but that unpublished personal letters are a categorical exception because they are collectively too fraught with potential for POV introduction? In other words, the usability analysis of unpublished letters dies before we get to the question of reliability because A)It is difficult to verify and B)There is too much potential for misuse. Is that about right? -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, depending upon what you mean by published. If they are published or reported upon in a reliable source, fine. On a website, generally no, although I imagine there may be exceptions.

talk

) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK and the reason a non-RS's presentation of a private letter (including a photograph of the original letter in question) is considered unusable is because there is no proof that the non-RS has the expertise to authenticate the document. So User:GiantSnowman couldn't just create a website to host a scan of the letter he received because the authentication would be left to the Original Research interpretation of the editor/reader, right? -Thibbs (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pandolin is a website I came across a few times while searching for film-related stuff. I would like to know whether this can be considered a reliable source; the website seems to be well-organised but gives a very bloggy feel. Very specifically, I was interested in this, this and this. They are all interviews of people related to films. Are interviews usable as reliable source despite the source website? I mean, they are interviews. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is a bit on the bloggy side, but it isn't a typical fan site. The people listed as being in charge are professional film industry folks. I'd say that it could be cited for things that are not too controversial, if the article editors agree. Zero^talk 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so I guess we could use it for the interview bits. Well thanks so much for the clarification; I'll inform the other editors too. :D ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have recently been going through WikiProject Video Games' list of sources to determine reliability in cases where multiple prior discussions of the source have already taken place. So I've dug through the talk archives there and here, and I've come up with a number of summaries for these prior discussions. Based on these prior discussions I have attempted to determine what the current consensus is regarding the reliability of the source.

This is not always a simple task and I have requested input from WP:VG members to A)Verify that I have properly summarized the prior discussions, and B)Weigh in on whether the source is reliable or not. I have received a tepid response (2 or 3 editors reviewed a good number of my summaries and weighed in, and perhaps 4 or 5 others commented on at least 1 summary) and consequently there are still 4 more source summaries that need comment at east to verify that I've properly analyzed prior discussions. I would be very grateful if someone(s) here could take a look at these sources. I'll provide links to the 4 summaries below:

• TechCrunch
• Mania (previously AnimeOnDVD.com)
• ZTGameDomain
• PC World

Please comment on whether I've properly summarized the prior emergent consensus and if you feel up to it please comment on the reliability of the source. You may also check out the other sources listed in the grand list if you're in the mood. While some summaries have collected comments from up to 4 editors, the bulk of them only have a single 3rd party comment so more (contemporary 2012-era) eyes would be helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty tall request I think. My first thoughts, previous consensus (consensii?) are never going to override a current consensus, and in that category, I would think there is a lot of volatility in terms of sources being reliable. If you're looking for an over-arching "yes this source is always reliable" answer, you probably aren't going to get one of those here, RS-ness relies on the specifics of what is being asked, no source is *always* reliable. You might be better off asking the more specific question "Is 'Source A' a Reliable Source for this specific statement, 'statement B.'?", having said that, there are, of course, some sources that are *never* reliable, but at first glance I don't believe any of the ones you've listed above fall into that category. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... Are you suggesting that the whole concept of the List at WP:VG's Reliable Source guidelines is outmoded/ill-conceived? Or just that RS/N is usually incapable of making general RS determinations? If the guidelines are inappropriate then I suppose they would have to be taken down or heavily modified. If this is just one of the limits of RS/N's ability, though, then that's a different matter. -Thibbs (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the first question, not necessarily, there may be some justification for keeping a collection of sources that are *usually* RS. At the very least, when looking for affirmations, it would be a place to start. I would say that you may want to be careful that you don't end up with "I reverted him because his source was not on the approved list" type of problems though. The second question is easier. Yes. I think, as an aid, there's nothing wrong with a list like that, as long as it doesn't gain any characteristics of percieved "authority" for what is or is not OK. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, well thanks anyway. Hopefully this note will catch the eye of a passing member of WP:VG and his conscience will be pricked so that he'll respond. -Thibbs (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The list is a great idea, but it shouldn't be taken as Gospel. Not all sources are 100% reliable. Occassionally, they make mistakes. Editors should exercise good judgement on a case by case basis. If I may ask, are you disagreeing with what the list says in regards to the four items above? Off the top of my head, PC World is clearly a

reliable source. I believe that TechCrunch is also reliable. I am unfamiliar with the other two sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 21:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think the list works very well for what it is - the representation of a current general consensus regarding reliability. Although these general guidelines don't cover every possibility, I think they are intended to be used as a rough yardstick when the sources are brought up in relation to content disputes and as evidence of notability in AfDs. There is always an argument to be made that a source may not be used in a specific case of course, and consensus can surely change, but I think that the point of the WP:VG/S guideline is to serve more as an established starting point instead of as a final word.

My interest here is in reviewing and updating the list with a goal of improving its usability. To this end I've sought to clarify the current RS prescriptions, condense the major redundancies, and expand the list's coverage if circumstance demands. My specific interest in the four sources listed above relate to the fact that they have been repeatedly discussed in relation to their reliability but no authoritative voice has yet stepped in to put consensus into words. The same is true for 24 of the other 25 sources I listed in talk (linked above). I am not particularly interested in whether any of these sources in particular are deemed reliable or non-reliable or something in between so long as some kind of consensus regarding their reliability is reached. So to answer your question, I disagree with what the list says about the four sources above inasmuch as it says nothing whatsoever about their reliability despite the fact that they have been repeatedly discussed. I think it's high time to reach a conclusion. -Thibbs (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and also let me say thanks to the two of you as you have expressed some kind of opinion on some of the sources in this thread. That is definitely helpful to me given the relative silence at WT:VG. -Thibbs (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned by some of the sources used in this article about a British private middle-school (Junior-high). Most of the references appear to be from local newspapers which seem to report on sporting fixtures, awards, scholarships and other routine school matters. This seems to reflect this newspaper's unusual editorial policy rather than any significant notability of the school, since just about every British private school engages in similar activities (e.g. sports, awards, scholarships etc). There's no actual news. Are these kinds of sources considered to be sufficiently reliable to establish notability of a school? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of this page Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Optimistic Fifelfoo! But I agree completely. Salimfadhely, this is not a board about notability of pages, if you have a specific statement you would like an opinion on, regarding a specific source (ie, article, not entire paper), please lay it on out, just like it says (you know, where Fifelfoo just sent ya!). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this webpage an rs for edits like this? (Update:) Oh wait, it says "Wordpress" at the bottom of the page. That makes it just a blog, right? Nightscream (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it's an anonymous blog, absolutely not in any way a WP:RS. I bet the content of the edit itself is correct but "yuppie punk" isn't a WP:RS to support it. Zad68 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The content of the edit includes the source. It's like demanding a separate reliable source for the fact that a published book has a certain chapter; the book is the source. --GRuban (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My original question was general and brief. If you need a specific statement in the Jefferson article this is one:

It is the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address these topics. Created in collaboration with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, it notes that evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children.[191]

This is the address/page of the source being used.

Since this source, the TJF, were involved in the evaluation of DNA and other evidence and was exposed by one of their own committee members for strong negative bias/opinion before the evaluation had even begun and for ignoring evidence that didn't support their 'conclusion' I believe it is inappropriate to use this as a source, for the Controversy only. I also believe there are RS policy issues involving expert authors and self published material involved here. Thanks for your patience. My apologies for my part in the lengthy discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to sell your position, we all got it, days ago. Does footnote 191 use TJF as a source, or is it directly from the Smithsonian exhibit? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Ref 191 is a TJF web page, as is ref 196. Yes, the statements mention the museum and the Smithsonian but it is the TJF page making the statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

From the Smithsonian Online Jefferson exhibit, here, "Elizabeth’s daughter Sally Hemings was likely the mother of four of his children", based on the Wikipedia policy,

WP:V, which states that "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable". I would say that yes, that is RS (sorry, I know that's not the answer you were looking for). That does not however stop you from adding to your article that "Such and Such notable Historian has claimed otherwise" or "However, the accuracy of the TJF in supplying this information has been called into question by highly reliable source B", assuming you have such sources. Also, you may want to join the conversation here, that is discussing that very aspect of WP policy. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

05:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanaks for your help Despayre. I sort of knew that challenging, in any capacity, a well known org like this was going to be an uphill effort. Yes, on one occasion I added a note to a source whose wording was an outright mistruth. If the unclear and deceptive language persists, I will add other notes for clarification, sourced. Again, thanks for your help and patience. Regards, Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I arrived at my conclusion by basing a lot of my opinion on the reputation of The Smithsonian, not only on my opinion of the TJF. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, are these sources reliable for sourcing the sentence "Theodor Herzl saw Zionism as a "colonial idea"?

• "Theodor Herzl: a biography" by Josef Fraenkel (Ararat Publishing Society Limited, 1946), page 126 link

• "The Case for Palestine" by John Quigley, page 7 link (click on "page 7" to read the full page)

• Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 36 link

• Palestine digest, Volume 8 link

• Here is another doc which is strictly speaking an opinion piece, however the author seems reliable in his own right.

Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see someone wants to get into this somewhere, hopefully where most relevant, which could be a few different articles. Scholar Google might have a couple relevant comments too. Don't forget the related ethnic cleansing issue; various secondary sources from Books.google.com have commented on Herzl writing in his diary in 1895 about ethnic cleansing of Arabs and need to "spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment...Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried away discreetly and circumspectly." CarolMooreDC 21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Herzl did describe Zionism as a "colonial idea", the following quote is well documented:

• The problem is that, while there are plenty of secondary sources that report that Herzl said this (for instance Fraenkel) and some sources that present the quote without much commentary (Quigley), there are also sources that question whether this quote accurately reflects Herzl's conception of Zionism. On Talk:Zionism, I've quoted extensively from "Theodore Herzl: A Reevaluation", by U. Toronto Professor and Herzl biographer Jacques Kornberg in The Journal of Modern History , Vol. 52, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 226-252. Kornberg's argument is that Herzl described Zionism in different and opposing ways to different people. To a colonialist audience in Britain he used colonialist language, but when writing in German he espoused a socialist vision. Kornberg's position is that Herzl's main goal was to build support for his movement before his death and that he borrowed whatever language was popular at the time to do this. When trying to tease out Herzl's actual beliefs, Kornberg finds some elements that seem colonialist (the idea of trying to uplift a backwards region), but some ideas that are opposed to colonialism (the rejection of colonialist policies vis a vis taking advantage of native labor). My argument is that since we have a reliable secondary source that challenges whether this quote actually represents Herzl's ideas, we shouldn't use the quote as evidence to add Herzl to a list of people who believe that Zionism is colonialism (this is how the editors propose to use the quote). I don't see any secondary sources that are challenging or discussing the objections that Kornberg raises - at most they are taking the quote at face value without commentary. GabrielF (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent example of why reliable secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. Zad68 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the article? If it's Palestinian views on the legitimacy of Israel, great. But otherwise there are so many more good-quality, academic, non-partisan sources, why use these? Zad68 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:GabrielF:So what's the problem. Different sources interpret the same quote differently. The quote and a short (not WP:Undue) review of dissenting views would be appropriate. Remember, Wikipedia:Not Censored, because some might take offense with what most would take as a clear interpretation of a statement.

The intended use of the quote is at the end of a footnote that already cites 12 contemporary sources. Given the length of the footnote, and the way it is used in the article (to support contemporary opinions on Zionism as it has actually been carried out), it makes very little sense to me to add a source that is 100 years old, addresses Zionism before it was much of a practical force in the world, and is disputed. GabrielF (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Zad68: I don't see only primary sources discussing this:

• "Theodor Herzl: a biography" by Josef Fraenkel (Ararat Publishing Society Limited, 1946), page 126 link. Can’t see much; is there any commentary on this quote?
• "The Case for Palestine" - clear secondary source published by Duke University Press, 2005
• Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 36 link, Palestine digest, Volume 8 link aren’t and Al Jazeera should not be dismissed as sources, even as Israeli/Jewish/Zionist sources should not be; both should be judged by the same editorial criteria. Journal of Palestine Studies more useable because presents more of a complete thought.
• Mark LeVine, professor of Middle Eastern history at UC Irvine, and distinguished visiting professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden, actually makes the clearest case for the complexity of the issue and the quote, even if he uses a slightly different quote to make the same point. CarolMooreDC 01:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content issues, the Journal of Palestine Studies is an academic journal published by University of California Press. It's a high quality source, something that should be used more often in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Herzl actually established a body called The Jewish Colonial Trust as part of his project. There are plenty of reliable sources for the existence, activities and history of this organisation. It is clear that he saw Zionism as a colonial idea. RolandR (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, Levine discusses some of Kornberg's points in his piece and concludes inter alia that "Herzl's main problem was with the atavistic and un-cosmopolitan nature of Boer nationalism. He had no problem, for example, with British arch-imperialist Cecil Rhodes, to whom he wrote admiringly and even asked to "put the stamp of authority on the Zionist plan" precisely as a "practical visionary" in all things "colonial"." and "It's not surprising then, as Kornberg points, that while Herzl might have found Boer nationalism distasteful, leaders of the emerging Zionist polity saw in the experience of a European settler movement carving out a society in a "hostile and threatening environment" a "model" for their own predicament." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The ut tick has been adding http://ThePoliticalGuide.com to the external links section of several members of the US House and Senate. It doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source, although from a cursory glance it doesn't seem to be pushing a particular POV. Thoughts? Arbor8 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The guideline you're looking for is

External links noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The diff I wanted to add
• The discussion in the talk page is here.

vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If that is the exact quote from a book that he wrote (and if the parts left out do not distort the meaning that remains), it is RS for the fact that he wrote that, yes. However, I don't see how that's part of the "politcal career" section, and any further analysis or conclusions about what his overall views and opinions were, would be OR, and not acceptable. Selfpub sources are acceptable when they meet

certain criteria, as this seems to. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it a RS source to add or not to use in Wikipedia ? My edits are being removed.It is a Sri Lankan government website.රණකාමි333 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Vandalism by JohnCD in Channel 4 News :Wrong It is from the Defense ministry website why cannot I use it.The title itself is LTTE's money talks again [21]%252525252525257E%252525252525257E%252525252525257E%252525252525257E]%25252525252E Why cannot I add the truth.රණකාමි333 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This user wants to add to the article

WP:REDFLAG so serious an accusation requires better sourcing than that. JohnCD (talk

) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Still not RS. Source does not support claim. Entire article (not surprisingly I suppose) reads like a promotional piece for the Sri Lankan government. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the point at issue here is that Channel 4 aired a controversial documentary about the Sri Lankan civil war, in which it is alleged that war crimes (including extrajudicial killings of civilians) were committed not only by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), but also by Sri Lankan government troops. There are numerous sources dealing with this (I won't list them here because anyone should be able to do a Google or Bing search, as I did just now, and find them), so there is definitely no valid reason to rely solely on sources that are clearly committed to the Sri Lankan government's position. Additionally, any description of this controversy would belong, not as part of the lead section, but in a later section of the

WP:NPOV, the discussion should fairly represent all major views substantiated by reliable sources, not simply present one view as "the truth". — Richwales

16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Sri Lankan government is a party in this dispute, and as such it cannot be used as a reliable source regarding the funding of Channel 4, but it can be used as a primary source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government on the dispute. And this clearly does not belong in the lead, but rather, as Richwales has said, in a separate section dealing with the documentary controversy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The only role the primary sources would have is then in a supporting role to the secondary sources (showing what the Sri Lankan government propaganda says etc).

talk

) 12:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you would have a hard time getting even that much use out of the article, since other than the title, all you've got in the article is that the government disagrees with the report from channel 4. Nowhere in the article does it talk about channel 4 recieving money from the LTTE. It quite simply does not support the statement "Sri Lankan defence ministry states that it is funded by money from the LTTE", which was the question here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This source is a frankly rather witless rant against Channel 4's documrntary which at not point makes any claim that Channel 4 is funded by the Tigers. Never. The only reference to money is in the headline - which might mean any number of things (that the Tigers can bribe witnesses to make false statements, or fund a lobbying campaign to get the attention of C4 etc etc). In fact that vacuousness of the "claim" in the headkline is of a piece with the general empty ranting about irrelevancies that constitutes the main article. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the defence.Lk reliable.I want to add Amnesty International gets funds [22] and about human right watch [23] and about David Milibnd [24]%2525257E%2525257E%2525257E%2525257E and also add some of them in sinhala wikipedia.රණකාමි333 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At the very most, I would say that Defence.lk may be a reliable source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government. In a dispute involving Sri Lanka, anything said in Defence.lk is clearly going to reflect one side of the dispute, and thus anything from this source must be used with caution (and probably not just by itself, but only in combination with other sources giving a well-rounded picture of a given situation). If you are asking whether Defence.lk is "reliable" in the sense that a statement from Defence.lk can be used all by itself as an authoritative statement of an objective fact, I would say no, it is not "reliable" in that limited meaning of the word. — Richwales 14:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As for whether Defence.lk is acceptable as a source to be used in the Sinhala Wikipedia, you would need to ask this question there. Different language editions of Wikipedia are editorially independent, and the standards in place for the English Wikipedia may not necessarily be the same as the standards currently accepted in the Sinhala project. — Richwales 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

රණකාමි333 has asked me to reply here to the question "Please let me know if it is okay to use Defense ministry website it or will you remove my edits." I think the answers above cover this well. I am not going to say "You must not use it" but your edits will be closely scrutinized and, on its own, it is unlikely to be acceptable as a source.

In addition to the points made above, I would point out that although Defence.lk is a Sri Lankan Defence Ministry site, the articles quoted from it are written in so violently polemical a tone that I seriously doubt whether what they say can be taken as the official view of the Sri Lankan Government. Take, for instance, their statement that David Miliband is an "Incompetent neo-imperial meddler" who "tried to destroy Sri Lanka". Defence.lk is not a good source for the statement "David Miliband tried to destroy Sri Lanka"; but I do not believe it is even a sufficient source for the statement "The Government of Sri Lanka says DM tried to destroy SL."

රණකාමි333, people who come here with a strong wish to push a particular point of view do not often go away happy. Please read

WP:EXCEPTIONAL. JohnCD (talk

) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks RS to me (although I'd rather have a specific statement to apply the source to). While Prasad's expertise might have been called into question, it appears that C.D. Sebastian has published over 80 papers/books all in the area of Indian religious history/philosophy/ethics, and teaches several courses as an Associate Professor of Philosophy at a university in India. The information comes from him, not from Prasad. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The context: To balance a primary information in Caste_system_in_Kerala#Untouchables : User:Sitush uses a quote of 19th century to infer the relative status of different castes in Kerala. I think, it's a primary information and also an unbalanced view. Hence introduced a new point as follows:

"The inference of relative social position specifically between Syrian Christians and Nairs from the above quote is ambiguous as many other historians mention that the Syrian Christians used to go for a ritual bath after physical contact with even Nairs.^[11][12][13]"

But, it was reverted by Sitush, reintroduced by me, and subsequently a discussion challenging the reliability of sources was started here: Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution. Many more sources (some listed below) were cited, but all of them are being challenged.Sitush argues that Saint Thomas Christians or Syrian Christians were outside the caste system, but hasn't provided any sources to support his view.

• Harold Coward - Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters[26]
• Benedict Vadakkekara - Origin of Christianity in India: A Historiographical Critique[27]
• Duncan B. Forrester -Collected Writings on Christianity, India, and the Social Order

So I decided to seek help from this forum. Your guidance in this matter would be highly helpful for further improvement to the articles related to Caste System and Saint Thomas Christians --AshLey ^Msg 08:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

AshLey is misrepresenting the sourcing issues, and is also being challenged by someone else for similar problematic edits on Caste system in India. What I said was this. This is not the best forum for resolving a content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, If you don't have any concern regarding the reliability of information from these sources, I'm quite free to use them for citation and we don't have any issues in this regard. Here, we are discussing the reliability issue only; your concerns on typography, misprint etc of the sources also could be discussed here. Issues related to the content of wiki-article are separate; if needed, we could discuss in related forum.AshLey ^Msg 12:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No., you are fudging the issue. This matter should never have been brought to this board in the first place because it is irrelevant to this board. Now, please, take it somewhere useful. I have explained what the problem is, and it is nothing to do with Sebastian's authority (which I explicitly stated was not at issue). - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

An important part of a dispute [28] at Programme for International Student Assessment is regarding this source: [29] (Mel Riddile, "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid", December 15, 2010, NASSP blogs). Is it a reliable source? User:CartoonDiablo argues that it is and wants to include some of the claims such as a comparison between share of US students in schools getting reduced or free school lunch and share of populations in different nations under poverty lines. See the section here, currently including the blog post material: [30]. It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price lunch and different national poverty lines. (There is also a strange link [31] to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR.) I argue that the Mel Riddile material is not a reliable source. It is a blogpost at nasspblogs. It is not written by a scholar. Some of the arguments in the blog post are reliable since they cite this source: [32] which in turn seems to be citing this source: [33] (Page 15). However, these sources do not make a strange comparison between between getting reduced or free school lunch and national poverty lines. No sources are given for the statistics. Poverty lines can be defined in many different ways and are often not compatible with one another since different nations use different criteria. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The top of the page is waaay up there now, so you may have missed the suggested format here:

Before posting a question regarding the reliability of a source, please keep in mind that reliability is often dependent upon context (that is, on exactly how you are using the source). You will get a faster and more useful response if you include:

1. A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
2. A link to the source in question. For example [http://www.webpage.com]
3. The article in which it is being used. For example [[article name]]
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

#4 is the key there. It isn't very important to say who the other editors involved are, I'm sure it can be figured out from the talk page. While some explanation of the situation may be specifically required, if all your reasoning is already on the talk page, there's not a lot of reason to re-post it here, at least, imo. Anyone else, feel free to disagree. Largely the issue for me here is scale, I can't give you a yes/no for multiple assumptions at once, pick one? It's only an observation of mine, but the shorter and simpler your question is, the more replies you get here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Updated my post. To clarify, see the section here [34]. It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price school lunch and different national poverty lines. There is also a strange link [35] to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and which does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well totally off-topic, but first of all, regarding the "NASSP" cell in your table, using bare URLs as citations is definitely frowned upon by the MOS (see

WP:BURL and {{cite web

}}), it should be inside a <ref> tag too, and it should be outside the table, but I digress...

Reading the nasspblogs article, it seems good, and the author seems to know what he's talking about, but go to http://nasspblogs.org and you instantly see the problem. This site is not RS. Why has someone not found the direct statements of Tirozzi and used those? They may be exactly as reported by nasspblogs, but that does not make nasspblog RS. nasspblogs and a few other sites seem to have found quotes from Tirozzi's statements, so we should be able to find them too. I took 5 minutes, this seems to be what you were all looking for, although I didn't see Mexico mentioned, or a couple of others. The actual report is somewhere at oecd.org, it looks like a little more digging is required. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, having "NASSP" indicated as the source is false, it's NASSPblogs. NASSP.org does seem like it would be generally RS, so that gives a false impression at best. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And just to really muddy the waters here, I'll throw this out for other editors. I do not have a problem with Dr. Riddile, or Mr. Tirozzi, only with NASSPblogs.org. I think there must be better places to find this source. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tirozzi's arguments are here: [36]. While he does not it say it outright he seems in turn to be quoting this source: [37] (Page 15). However, neither of these sources make a comparison between poverty rates and getting a free lunch at school. This is the main claim by Riddile which I object to. It is a very dubious comparison since national poverty rates vary from country to country since poverty is defined differently in different countries. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean page 23, 15 is "intentionally left blank". Tirozzi's arguments don't include Mexico (for example), I think I referenced that page in my previous comments, it doesn't give you a source for all of that chart. If you do a search in the document you linked, you'll find on page 30 that it does actually talk about lunches and grades. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Page 15 (as numbered at the bottom of the page) which has as section called "School Socioeconomic Contexts". Probably page 30 by your count. Yes, it talks about lunch and grades. Which Tirozzi also does. But there is no comparison between getting a free lunch and different national poverty rates of the kind Riddile makes in his blogpost. This is a very strange comparison. Getting a free lunch is not comparable to the many different definitions of official poverty which vary by nation. For example, in some countries everyone gets a free lunch in school. This does not mean everyone is poor. Tirozzi makes no such strange comparison. Riddile does in a blogpost which is not a reliable source. I agree that Tirozzi arguments are fine. Riddile's further arguments are not.Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this specific article:

David Strovny. "Bathroom Sex Positions".

can be considered a reliable source for sexual health-related topics and for the claim "There are six special sex positions possible for having sex in a bathroom" in the Bathroom sex article. Previous discussions about askmen.com at RS/N ([38][39][40]) have found it to be passable for pop culture topics. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Askmen is owned by

WP:RS. Askmen is at par with Playboy, GQ, Maxim etc. and specializes in men's fashion, lifestyle, dating coaching, relationship and popular sex guide. So it is fine for information on sex positions. It is used for information on sex position, not on sexual health. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk

11:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would consider articles such as bathroom sex to be closer to pop culture than sexual health; this isn't a medial or psychological article so much as a look at a phenomenon. Askmen is as reliable in this context as sources such as Cosmopolitan, which is also used with the same weight. GRAPPLE X 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is occurring here:

• Date of birth, birth name, and birth place

We don't have it, but would an official copy of her birth certificate from the state of California be admissible as a primary RS, or is it only allowable if it's been cited in a secondary RS? I don't remember the details about such rulings here and would like the latest interpretation.

I've been doing my best to keep out sources which we don't consider RS, but have been getting lots of flack and personal attacks from 64.223.235.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Contrary to their charges, I have never deleted a source because of the date, only because the source itself isn't considered reliable here. We currently have three different ages supported by RS.

It would be nice to get some fresh eyes on this situation. --

Given that you have a quote from her saying "“I don’t like revealing how old I am", and that you have the public record of her birth (when/if you get it), and that there are no records apparently of a Jessica Howard being born in California between 1976 and 1982 when I look that up on the site linked from the talk page, I would say that a bith certificate from the state of California would be admissible as proof that the state at least says that's when she was born, and that's RS. Which could end up with something like "While there are various dates given for her birth, ranging from X to Y, the State of California says she was born on Z.^{(birth cert cite here)}". -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with using birth cirtificates. See

WP:BLPPRIMARY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

While it says to avoid use of public documents, I don't read that to mean that a document who's sole function is to provide date of birth information shouldn't be used for that. I read that more to mean things like court documents (mentioned) or drivers licences. However, there was also this section further down, which I didn't read before:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

And that would seem to say pretty clearly that we shouldn't use it, so I guess this is a slight alteration of my opinion, (but I'm not admitting my first one was wrong ). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the year of birth could be used from the birth certificate, a primary source, since it is a matter of fact that requires no interpretation. The month and day should not be essential to the article, especially when they do not seem to be generally known and previously published in reliable sources. The month and day is an issue of respecting privacy and not exactly a reliable source issue, since it is not a bigger leap to take month and day from the birth certificate than to take the year. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are wrong. Read what was quoted immediately above your statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the name Jim Hawkins ring a bell? If Chastain does not want her birthdate in Wikipedia, going to primary sources is most definitely not the answer. Leave it out unless and until it is published in reliable secondary sources, and in that case only use the year. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The name Jim Hawkins did not ring a bell with me since I wasn't involved in that situation, so I looked it up and here is a diff that can be studied:

• Jim Hawkins' talk page (one version)

I don't think we have an exact parallel situation here:

• For some odd and seemingly irrational reasons Hawkins was extremely sensitive about several types of publicly available information appearing here, and he even seemed to come unglued about it. A sysop even mentioned to him that his behavior and objections were triggering the Streisand effect.

• By contrast, Jessica hasn't objected to Wikipedia, or anywhere else that I know of, about the publication of her date of birth, only that she doesn't think that actresses "should be asked about their age", that they "should be allowed a degree of mystique when it comes to their ages", and she doesn't "like revealing" her own age. She hasn't forbidden anyone else from doing so that I know of. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that "Chastain does not want her birthdate in Wikipedia", but we can show a bit of sensitivity by limiting anything here to only her birth year.

What's really ironic about this is the Streisand effect. Her secrecy only creates more interest in the matter. She would be wise to just settle the matter before more digging ends up uncovering some kind of skeleton in her closet (everyone has things they'd rather not see published here, no matter how trivial they might be).

So...if we can ascertain her birth year, that should be good enough. --

talk

) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So far we have three different ages given in published, secondary, RS (even more when one figures +/- one year, depending on the exact month). Since we have no certainty, we're just listing what RS say. It would be nice if she settled the matter in an interview. Then we could drop the sources that have gotten it wrong. --

talk

) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved situation: Is Time Magazine a RS? Is IMDB a RS?

We need active participation from experienced editors, and preferably an admin ready to do some blocking. The personal attacks (including outright lies) from SPA

A quick search of the archives for this page will show you that IMDB has often been found not to be RS. On the other hand, TIME has almost always been considered to be RS (actually, I don't know of an instance that it wasn't), but without a specific source reference, I can't give you a specific yes/no answer either, but it's very likely that TIME is RS to start with (imo). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. The IP fails to realize that when we say "RS", we're using the word "reliable" in a slightly different sense than the general meaning. The IP refuses to even study the policy. If a source is verifiable and consistently there, and there is some form of fact checking, we usually consider it "reliable" (stable), even if it occasionally makes mistakes. In this case a source which mentions Chastain's age is from a short blurb about her written by

Time Magazine

, published April 18, 2012. It is the fact that his comments are published by Time Magazine that make them eligible for use in the article, not whether he's right or not. We just quote him, and the IP wildly objects, because the IP went to high school with her and knows her real age.

I have repeatedly made it clear that I have no particular preference regarding her age, and I have supported the inclusion of any and all RS that mention her age (until we have definitive certainty for it). The IP refuses to believe me and keeps attacking me and lying by insisting that I have deleted all sources that don't back up an age of 30 years old. Well, that's patently false. The IP also claims I have edited the article for months, but I made my first of few edits on April 10. The IP is the only one contesting any of my comments, but claims that others have done so. Not true. Only one new editor with two edits (one on the talk page) has shared the IPs POV, and I strongly suspect it's a registered sock of the same IP. The same lack of logic, lack of reading comprehension, and same language. An SPI would block based on

WP:DUCK

alone...;-)

I'd appreciate some participation from others. I'm tired of the uncivil behavior and personal attacks. --

talk

) 06:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The TIME article you cite says she's 30, but that means that her birthday could fall on either of two years (1981 or '82 depending on when her actual birthday is). The fact that the other editor went to school with her is completely irrelevant, and is definitely not RS. If his behavior is disruptive, the place to report it is

WP:ANI. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

06:41, April 26, 2012‎ (UTC)

Time is of course a highly reliable source, but this matter is evidently extremely contentious and we don't know what source Time relied on.

My view, which I will add to the talk page if it would help, is that the infobox should not mention her age at all (and it didn't when I last looked). If (as I understand) we have fairly reliable sources for two conflicting years of birth our text can say, plainly, that her year of birth has been differently reported as X and X, with a footnote for each.

I agree with others, this would all change if she stated the date clearly herself, but that's her choice. We should respect it, and stick to reporting reliable sources. We must not do original research, and anyway we cannot cite the birth record because we cannot prove that it applies to this person. Andrew Dalby 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In general terms (without given context) Time Magazine is considered a reliable source (on the level of "serious" newspaper publication). The IMDB however is generally not a reliable source and as such in particular its biographical information cannot be used as a source. However it might be used to "source" largely undisputed/unproblematic content (cast of characters, movie quotes, statistical infos on the films etc.). --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. I knew all this already and I agree. This is what I've been telling the IP, but I only get abuse in return and an insistance that I am wrong for not allowing the use of IMDB. They also insist that Time Magazine should not be used because the IP thinks that

talk

) 14:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here familiar with whosampled.com? I had never heard of it 'til yesterday, when it was used as a source in the

You're right, it is a user-generated site with a team of anonymous moderators (example) who's expertise are unknown. It is analogous to Wikipedia and is not RS. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my gut instinct. Interesting site, but not reliable. ---

TheFortyFive

15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

thedeadrockstarsclub.com

Does anyone have any opinions about whether or not [41] is a reliable source? Angryapathy (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an unnotable fansite. It doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for

reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a website that I have watched and used regularly for years now. I have found it to be accurate, and it often contains more correct information than is provided by some newspapers and other such media. Despite it's rather quirky styling, do not be fooled - it is professional in its approach and, in my long experience, it is reliable. Perhaps some editors would carry to check the information therein for its accuracy. It obviously is not going to out trump The New York Times for example, but it does cover music on a worldwide scale, is not opinionated, sticks to basic factual information, and often contains musicians that are not covered by major news sources. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be true, but it doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for what is considered

Ignore all rules: If a rule gets in the way of making the encyclopedia better, it should be ignored. I'm sorry that I can't give a most satisfactory answer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Appears non-notable and non-reliable. Reliability is not decided by degree of accuracy, but by authoritativeness and degree of professional involvement and review. This site is basically a personal blog.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree not RS, as per Maunus·snunɐw. No oversight policy, no credentials. I won't even take marks off for style (hideous though it may be), the degree of accuracy is irrelevant (as far as WP is concerned). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

All female pornstars like other women, and men, and will probably have sex with you, at least according to porn sites

In reviewing our overblown coverage of pornstars, I have noticed that the vast majority of female stars that I have reviewed all appear to comment about how attracted to women they are, at least when they are talking to their industry trade rags. I am concerned that including this kind of "in universe," information as reliably sourced encyclopedic fact is problematic. Two examples to which I refer: [42] and [43]. I contend that information about pornstars that is sourcable only to trade rags and is of questionable provenance (such as "being in an open marriage," or "enjoying swinging," or "identifying as a bisexual, but preferring men," or "loving bsdm," is of questionably veracity, and such sources are not reliable for biographical information that is likley overblown, created out of thin air, or exagerated. Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you ask the wrestling editors how they deal with kayfabe. Industry rags are likely to be highly reliable for porn kayfabe, but unreliable for actor's personal lives. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, other than if this section title is true, I just want to say "Yay!" -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it terribly difficult to believe that a pornstar from San Francisco is bisexual and into BSDM. That being said, usually statements that a person makes in an interview are considered sufficient for their sexual identity, but interviews with a porno mag might be an exception--since that's part of the performance of being a porn star. In any case, "loving bsdm" might be a trivial detail best left out of the article anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The End of Faith

A discussion at Talk:Pogrom#Paragraphs_removed has paused on the question of whether this book is a RS with respect to this paragraph about massacres committed by Muslims:

[In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them.] These and other indignities have been regularly punctuated by organized massacres and pogroms: in Morocco (1728, 1790, 1875, 1884, 1980, 1903, 1912, 1848, 1952, and 1953), in Algeria (1805 and 1934), in Tunisia (1864, 1869, 1932, and 1967), in Persia (1839, 1867, and 1910), in Iraq (1828, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1946, 1948, 1967, and 1969), in Libya (1785, 1860, 1897, 1945, 1948, and 1967), in Egypt (1882, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1938-39, 1945, 1948, 1956, and 1967), in Palestine (1929 and 1936), in Syria (1840, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1967), in Yemen (1947), etc.

Here are some snippets from the wiki article

Sam Harris (author)

:

• While Harris is "extremely critical of all religious faiths," he asserts that the doctrines of Islam are uniquely dangerous to civilization,^[14] stating that unlike Jainism, Islam "is not even remotely a religion of peace."^[15]
• Suggesting that the
  72 virgins), Harris believes Islam is a religion of violence and political subjugation. He asserts that the liberal argument of stating that the phenomenon of religious extremism is a consequence of fundamentalism in and of itself is false, and that many other religions such as Jainism have not experienced the same trends Islam and Christianity have. Harris considers jihad, which he calls "metaphysics of martyrdom
  ", as taking the "sting out of death" and a source of peril.

Here are some snippets from our own wiki article on the book.

• In a review for
  Thomas W. Flynn
  alleged that Harris had allowed his argument to become clouded by his personal politics and by his use of spiritual language.
• Another review by David Boulton for New Humanist, also stopped short of a ringing endorsement, describing the book as containing "startling oversimplifications, exaggerations and elisions."^[16]
• Writing for The Independent, Johann Hari was largely encouraging but also expressed considerable reservations about Harris's political leanings, and revealed how he "began to choke" while reading the final chapter on spirituality.
• Catherine Keller
  asks, "[c]ould there be a more dangerous proposition than that?" and argues that the "anti-tolerance" it represents would "dismantle" the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.
• Critical reviews from Muslims include Sam Harris and the End of Faith: A Muslim's Critical Response by Bill Whitehouse.

Views gratefully received.

talk

) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile. That quote is very specific, and really only provides 2 things: 1) a list of dates and locations of Muslim violence, 2) the characterization of those events as "organized massacres and pogroms." What exactly is looking to be supported with that quote from The End of Faith? Is it item 1), the catalog of Muslim violence that you question? If so, then are you suggesting that Sam Harris has lied, invented events that did not occur, and that the book was not fact-checked, and nobody has called this book into question on that? W. W. Norton, the publisher of the book, is top-tier and publishes a lot of college textbooks, and I would not expect that from them. The widespread notoriety of the book would certainly have attracted critics to look into questionable claims. My initial thought would be that this book is indeed a WP:RS for that catalog of Muslim violence. Is it item 2), whether it is acceptable to use this book as source for the common popular use of the word "pogrom"? I'd think it meets that as a WP:RS there too. Zad68 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so. The book itself was both a best-seller and winner of the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction. While it (like most books) has received criticism, the issue here is not regarding the author's overall thesis, but rather on the very narrow question of whether the source is reliable for describing the specific events listed as "pogroms". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How can being a best seller suggest reliability?

talk

) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is absolutely a superbly excellent reliable source (although a primary source) if an article makes an assertion that Hitler expressed a religious basis for his atrocities, and you support it with a cite from Mein Kampf like the quote "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." It always matters what assertion you are trying to support. Please answer the original question back to you: What assertion is trying to be supported here? Once we have BOTH the questioned assertion and the source used, only then can we make a determination. Zad68 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is a suitable source for the opinions of Hitler as you say. The End of Faith is a suitable source for the opinions of Sam Harris. Are the opinions of an anti-religious polemicist neuroscientist significant on the subject of Islamic history? probably not. Is a polemical publication by said neuroscientist suitable for the verification of facts in the wiki voice relating to Islamic history? Definitely not, in my opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's still a viable argument that the book could be a reliable source for the particular list of dates and locations for Muslim violence based on the fact that the book was released as non-fiction plus the strength and reputation of W. W. Norton for fact-checking. Wikipedia's basic policy for determining whether something can be considered a WP:RS is "Is the source open to review, does the source fact-check?" and W. W. Norton does fact-check. But before we even go down that road, the whole discussion of whether the Harris quote can be used as a reliable source to support something might be moot if the something isn't even dependent on this. So, back to the original question, what assertion is this Harris quote being used to support? Zad68 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zad, the assertion it is being used to support is the characterisation of all the historical events in the quote at the top of this discussion as "pogroms". If you read some of the better sources at

talk

) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your example of Mein Kampf, please review Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, the book looks like exactly the sort of unreliable polemic that the rules are supposed to exclude. The author is a neuroscientist with a very strong political stance against religion. Nothing wrong with that, but on what grounds is such a person citable for historical events? Zad68's argument doesn't hold water; there are libraries worth of books out there full of complete rubbish that nobody has bothered refuting. In the case of this list of alleged events, Harris says that he got it from books of Wistrich (who is biased but meets

WP:RS) and Dershowitz (who is an absolutely unreliable activist). Zero^talk

00:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article pogrom can be written quite easily since, as anyone may verify at google books, there is an extensive library of academic works by specialists on the phenomenon. Twice now, poor sources, firstly the Center for Policy Research, which is a far right political think tank, and now Sam Black's book have been used to to document data that are not present (so far) in academic works. As Zero states, Sam Black's book is non-specialist and does not distinguish between good or bad sources in its synthesis. The question is, why the push to use poor sources, when excellent sources abound? The answer probably is, because some editors like that data, and will bend the RS ropes to get it into articles. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So Nishidani, rather than discuss sources, you'd prefer to use the Reliable Source Noticeboard to speculate and make assumptions about editors' motivations? Please review

WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk)

10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A far better better page would be one that includes history books discussing individual pogroms rather than a list of years. This would seem a better bit of information to include in Harris' page, not as a raw dump of information in

_complex

14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Supporting references from actual historians would be much more credible.

talk

) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Wistrich has been suggested as a source, and apparently Harris uses him as one of his sources. Zero0000, what does Harris say? Jayjg ^(talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He just says he compiled the list of events from Wistrich "Oldest Prejudice" and Dershowitz "Case for Israel". No indication which event is from which source, or how the source described them. Zero^talk 12:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If Harris is relying on a source that we would not regard as reliable for the material (i.e Dershowitz) surely we must conclude that Harris is also not reliable for the material. Dlv999 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, this source could be regarded as reliable. Are there any "pogroms" the author lists that editors would question were really pogroms? --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be about as reliable as any mainstream source - that is, not by an academic publisher (and Norton's is a quasi-academic publisher, and highly respected, like Blackwell or John Wiley and Sons or Routledge), nor in a scholarly journal - is going to be. He has a well known anti-theistic and anti-religious bias, but he's not being used to support statements of fact on the nature of religion, which could only go so far as to say "Harris's opinion on X is..." (as much as any other religious author). He's being used to cite a list of facts, and that's the kind of stuff that is screened out by a reliable publishing process. He's generally well-regarded, even if he lost his debate with William Lane Craig, and theists (such as myself: I was a partisan of Hitchens, the only worthwhile one of the "Four Horsemen", who happened to be the one riding on a pale green horse; he had more philosophical sense as a journalist than supposed professional philosopher Dennett has as a professor) tend to loathe him. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph from Harris' book in which this is quoted is an attempt to prove that Muslims have not lived peacefully alongside other religions. I have added the immediately preceding sentence above "In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them" for context.

As to Dweller's question, yes there are many that I would question his definition for (if you look them up, most sources do not refer to them as pogroms, and whether they were "organized" is rarely established). The problem though is that the word "pogrom" can be used loosely or strictly, and different people understand it in different ways. That's what we're trying to work through at the RfC on

talk

) 07:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic

Is

talk

) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic has both staff and user reviews; only the former have had sufficient editorial oversight to be considered reliable. Avoid using user reviews as it's just user-generated content. GRAPPLE X 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your example is not RS for anything to do with the Sugababes. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed it from the article I was writing.

talk

) 03:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Establishing the authenticity of personal websites

Resolved

 – A link from his work site has been found

My interpretation of RS rules is that personal websites are permitted as reliable sources for claims by the person they supposedly belong to, but as with Twitter I understand that there must be some way of confirming their authenticity i.e. such as a confirmed Twitter account. Or maybe a reliable source that provides the address of the person's website. What is the judgment in regards to sites where they claim to belong to the person but there seems to be no concrete evidence that they belong to the person in question?

Specifically, http://wjsullivan.net claims to be the website of William John Sullivan but I can't find any concrete evidence in reliable source that this is actually true. In this case is it permissable to use it as source for biographical information about the subject, or does RS required that its authenticity be established independently? Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe a reliable source is required to verify who the web site belongs to. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou, that's what I thought but I needed to make sure. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can this be used? It has name, phone numbers, and addresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that the site is registered to a "John Sullivan", and he seems to live in the right area. It looks like it probably is his website, so is that sufficient or is it original research to link the WHOIS registration to the subject of the article? Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Checking whether a source is a reliable source is not counted as original research. The most we can do about them is check whether it is reasonable to say they are reliable. You seem to have done a reasonable check. someone might come up with a reason why it is not reasonable but I think the onus is now on whoever says that to provide evidence to back up what they say.

Dmcq (talk

) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. News and World Report as source for criticism

Oh boy, I just love asking dumb questions at RSN!

User:Kwamikagami argues that in our article on the Secular Islam Summit, we need to "find a RS that presents some factual criticism," because s/he believes that this article is insufficient to support the statement that the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized the summit for being organized and attended by non-Muslims/anti-Muslims. The article is from a reliable secondary source, it says that CAIR made these criticisms, and it also says that the conference was organized and attended by non-Muslims who made anti-Muslim comments such as equating radical Islam with regular Islam. This means that it goes over and above our normal requirements for criticism - we often don't even care if a secondary source can be found, let alone if the criticism is based in fact, but here we have both. I believe RSN will confirm that the removal of the article's criticism section on these grounds is spurious.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We do discourage "criticism" sections, but USN&WR is definitely a RS. --

talk

) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into an "article shape" discussion, this seems RS to me as well. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

USN&WR is absolutely a RS, and there is no need to expressly avoid all well-sourced critiques, as long as they are quoted directly, or framed in the voice of the author, not the 'pedia. See,

WP:RSUW for guidance. — GabeMc (talk

) 02:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could also take this to NPOVN or something, but in the interest of not spreading the dispute across every forum that exists: would you consider this to be an accurate representation of CAIR's criticism?

The summit was criticized by the Council on American–Islamic Relations as hostile to Muslims. CAIR pointed out that the conference was organized and headlined by non-Muslims, and criticized remarks like those of Wafa Sultan, who claimed that there was no such thing as moderate Islam.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate some input. Otherwise I suspect this is going to ANI. Roscelese concluded from your lack of an answer above that "RSN has already unanimously rejected this argument on all points." The source in question, USNews, describes the speakers as ranging from 'angry ex-Muslims to devout reformers', which she wants to change to 'anti-Muslim activists', which is her own invention. CAIR calls them 'a bunch of atheists', which USNews calls 'mudslinging'. Roscelese insists that we include the mudslinging, since it's in a RS. (At first she refused even to present it as CAIR's opinion, insisting we present it as fact, since it's in a RS, though she has compromised on that.) In her last version, the criticism started in the introductory paragraph; the article was more about CAIR and their criticism of the summit than it was about the actual summit. This is also a bit of a BLP issue, since we list by name the people, some devout, that are being called atheists by CAIR. She also wants to include an inflammatory statement by one of the speakers which he did not even make at the summit, wording so that it looks like it was part of the summit, and wants to remove mention of a (cultural?) Muslim from the list of organizers, so that it looks like it was organized solely by non-Muslims. I don't understand the edits, and the repeated misrepresentation, unless it is to push her personal agenda. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, it's almost as though you objected to the presence of a criticism ghetto! Could it be that you just want to pretend no one objected to anything about this conference, rather than integrating the material into the article in the interest of avoiding a criticism section?

Kwamikagami is also (probably deliberately) misrepresenting the U.S. News source - which characterizes Sultan's remarks, not the comment about atheists, as mudslinging - but this behavior is unfortunately unsurprising after the edits s/he made to the article. It's far from the only thing about which s/he isn't telling the truth in this comment, but it is the one most directly related to the sources, so I'll leave it at that; maybe s/he will see fit to tell the truth later on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article one word at a time. It characterized both sides as mudslinging.

Roscelese has made a mess of the article. She's in an edit war to push a POV which her own source does not support. I've tagged the major points, but it now reads as a joke. I'm here because I don't want to multiply the discussion, but this is really a matter of NPOV and WEIGHT, not RS. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The USN&WR quote is balanced and neutral, can you provide a better example, or is this the worst? — GabeMc (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Guinness World Records

Hello, I was wondering if the regulars on this noticeboard could help me out. There is currently a talk page discussion on Creme Puff (cat) concerning the accuracy of the claims made in the article. The article's verifiability seems to be completely dependent on Guinness World Records publishing that this cat is the oldest ever recorded [44]. There is coverage of the cat in other sources, but those sources also depend on Guinness to back their claims. However, another user claims that the cat breed that the owner and others claim this particular cat to belong to did not exist in the purported year of birth.

So the question I pose is, are there/have there been reliability problems with Guinness World Records in general? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer your question specifically, but there have been hoaxes in the past, but that does not take away from Guiness as a reliable source. I personally have seen that they send employess out to verify claims for the record book, in one case, an employee spent hours counting heads in a video. I would say that Guinness is definitely RS for that assertion. The fact that they are occasionally wrong (hoaxes, or just error), does not make them a non-RS, as, when they find out about it, they will correct the error, as a reliable source should. Just like a newpaper publishing a correction notice. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

the statement is currently attributed to the Guinness book of world records, this seems fine. There appears to be no source stating it is a hoax.

talk

) 22:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - the GBWR may not be a perfect source, but until there is equally

_complex

23:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't mean to imply the cat thing was a hoax, just there have been hoaxes played on GBWR in the past, and even so, they are still a reliable source imo. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of the original question, but what the hey. IMO sources that are generally reliable are reliable for all information contained therein unless there is specific evidence to the contrary for the challenged fact. The reason I bring this up is because I see a lot of

_complex

00:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with you on this point too. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In the present context, it's probably OK to say "sources that are generally reliable are reliable for all information contained therein unless there is specific evidence to the contrary for the challenged fact" (as WLU says above). But I don't see this as a policy or rule. Yes, there are indeed sources that we generally trust, and whose fact-checking we respect, but it still all depends what they are saying and whether it is in their field of expertise. Andrew Dalby 08:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion hi-jack

I would say that GBWR are beyond doubt RS—they are extensively covered in other reliable soures and they have very strong fact-checking practises. I'm more inclined to believe a claim by them than say the general media. However, I ran into an issue with them regarding methodology in a particular case, where they published two distinct figures, one in their published book and one on their website! It involved the adjusted box-office gross for Gone with the Wind. The issue is a bit too complex to go into here, but I question their methodology in relation to one of their figures. I would appreciate it if someone could offer an opinion on it. The relevant sections are the last paragraph of List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation (along with the table directly below) and the discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Worldwide_highest-grossing_films_.28adjusted_for_inflation.29_Guinness_World_Records_2012_.28.D1.81.29. Betty Logan (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GBWR is most certainly a RS, but its best to attribute in-text when using it to justify inclusion of contentious material. Such as, "According to GBWR, John Doe is the greatest actor alive". — GabeMc (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources used at List of Vegans

There is a dispute over the validity of some of the sources used in the case of

vegan

. Please note that this does not effect his position on the list because I consider his official site to be legitimate for the claim, but an editor keeps adding further sources that I consider not reliable and I request an impartial opinion.

The edit in question: [45]

The sources:

• "In Conversation with Dr. Will Tuttle: Towards a World Peace Diet". Vegan India!. 2012-01-05. Archived from the original on 2012-04-25. Retrieved 2012-04-25.
  • A blog based on Blogspot; I do not regard this as reliable as per
    WP:BLOGS
    .
• Tuttle, Will (2011-04-02). "Spiritual People Moving Toward Veganism?". VegSource Interactive, Inc. Archived from the original on 2012-04-24. Retrieved 2012-04-25.
  • This is a privately run site run by a husband and wife according to http://www.vegsource.com/about-us.html. I believe it fails
    WP:SPS
    .
• Will Tuttle (Speaker) (2008). Will Tuttle: Eating for Spiritual Health & Social Harmony (MP4 OGG) (Video recording of live presentation). San Francisco, California, U.S.A. Event occurs at 29:16. Retrieved 2012-04-25.
  • Video footage uploaded to Archive. I believe it fails
    WP:NOYT
    which states video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight; it uis not possible to ascertain if the publisher i.e. the uploader is a reliable source.

The editor in question is using lots of these types of sources, so I would be grateful if we could draw a line under it one way or ther other. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Blogspot - Has an editorial policy page, lays out its goals, and provides a resource for corrections if needed. The article claims to be an interview with Dr Tuttle directly, I'm not sure where else you would get that interview from. It's not an exceptional claim, (and I don't see why it's even needed as a backup, that goes for all these sources), but I think this one could be borderline reliable is not RS. While it is definitely on blogspot, this isn't really a blog. I changed my mind when I realized I had no idea who the actual author was of the article. Personally, it's probably fine, by WP standards, I'm going with not RS.

vegsource seems to be down, and the archive wouldn't show either, no comment

Video Footage appears to have been uploaded by its creator, San Francisco Vegetarian Society (link to about page, they seem RS to me, and this video can be found linked to their site, link), and therefore would be RS (uploaded by anyone else and it would not be). But again, it's such a non-exceptional claim that as per

WP:BLUE I don't know why you'd need additional references at all. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I find it all a bit weird personally, he seems to be adding lots of redundant refs to many entries (like 4/5); since some of them are ok it's not even like their removal precipitates the name coming off the list. At first I thought it was someone connected to a particular site and was just trying to slip in some promotion, but it's much more widespread. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding the extra refs because of users like you who are so eager to delete content. These extra refs increase the chances of there being at least one valid ref in place for a long time to come, even if other users like you come along to delete them because they find them unsatisfactory or because both the original site and its archived counterpart are no longer accessible. The extra refs increase the chances of the name remaining on the list. --Andomedium (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I never "came along" and started deleting content. When I came along a couple of years ago both the vegan and vegetarian lists were completely unsourced, which violated Wikipedia policy regarding claims about living people. I spent a couple of months adddng hundreds of sources to the lists, and removed the entries I could not source so both lists were completely sourced. These lists are completely sourced now, and editors who come along can see that so there is no excuse for adding entries without sources. I have better things to do than chase down sources to cover someone else's lazy editing, so I remove them if the entry is unsourced or is not RS. Tagging entries for a citation doesn't work because no-one actually does come along and add a source, and if you ask someone to supply a source they point out there are other entries that are unsourced. While I appreciate anyone who comes along and adds sources, they are not much good if these sources are blogs, private sites, youtube videos etc, since if the list ever gets to FL standard they will have to come out anyway. Either help or don't, but it is not your place to criticise an editor for not doing enough to source the lists when they have done far more work and for more sourcing on the article than you have. These lists probably would have bene deleted by now if it were not for my efforts in sourcing these articles; you have source half a dozen entries, let's see how motivated you are after you have done several hundred. Betty Logan (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Betty, I respect what you're doing in trying to keep the list tidy and properly sourced. I think the problem lies in your reluctance, in some cases, to accept people's self-published websites. These should not be accepted to establish notability, but as everyone on that list is, in theory, notable enough for a Wikipedia article, notability is not the issue. Therefore,

WP:BLPSPS kick in, and these say that self-published sources are fine for claims like this (unless we have reason to question the source's authenticity). Indeed, the subject herself is (in most cases) the only person who knows whether she is a vegan, which is an inherent problem with a list like this, in that the subject's word is realistically the only criteria we have. That means we can never be sure of the list's accuracy -- someone could say she's a vegan on Monday, then by Tuesday be tucking into steak sandwiches and ice-cream. But that's not related to the sources being self-published. We'd have the same problem of checkability even if they announced it through the New York Times. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

18:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with sourcing through self-published sites, but if you can't establish authorship then it is not a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion on the talk page. There's no requirement for editors to contact every single website and somehow check that the owner is who she says she is. We don't use sites if we have reason to doubt the authenticity, but there does have to be a reason to question it. Without that, it's okay to use it under

WP:SELFPUB, which is policy, so long as the site owner is talking about herself and not a third party. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You say there is no requirement, but I don't see anyone supporting your position. If authorship of self-published sites do not have to be validated then put it in the guidelines, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You can read the policy for yourself at

WP:SELFPUB

. It is part of the Verifiability policy (policy, not a guideline):

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It says nothing about editors being required to authenticate each and every website, which would be close to impossible. It does say there should be "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," but note the word "reasonable." In the absence of a reason to believe the website is fake, we trust it, unless the issue is a contentious one per BLP, but someone publishing of herself that she is a vegan is not contentious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that Betty Logan has opened a second thread about sourcing at this page here below. I tried to join it to this thread, but he reverted, so I'm leaving this note instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think more is required. If she is a self-professed vegan notable enough for this discussion then surely there is an article or a book, that this could be sourced to versus a selfpup which may or may not have a connection to the subject. — GabeMc (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

I have a question about three websites being used to source "cultural references" in The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald article. There is currently a dispute about the content in that section, and these are the only three examples that have any source at all, but I doubt any of these pass muster.

First is metal-archives.com, which previous discussions here on RSN indicate is not a reliable source. In this case, it is only useful to source that the band Jag Panzer recorded a cover of this song. That proves nothing about its notability.

Next is www.paulgross.org/music.htm, the personal/career website of Canadian actor/musician Paul Gross. This is being used to source the claim that he intended to use the song on his show Due South, but ultimately decided to write a song of his own. The page does support that claim, but the claim and the source are trivial.

Last is http://wiki.ytmnd.com, which sources the claim that there is a fad on this website relating to the song. To this, I have to say, "So what?" Even if the source supports the claim, this is utterly irrelevant to the song, and is completely trivial, not to mention obscure.

I would like to hear what other editors think of this information and the sources used to support these claims. Thanks! ---

TheFortyFive

00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My opinion,

1. metal-archives - Not RS
2. Due South - Was a moderately successful show on American and Canadian National TV networks for several seasons, borderline notable, and RS for that claim I think
3. ytmnd.com - Not RS, not notable

-- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Siachen Casualty Figure

Resolved

I want to know about the following sources whether they are reliable for quoting the casualty figure in the article

Siachen Conflict

:

1. K.R. Gupta (2008). Global Warming (Encyclopaedia of Environment). Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. p. 109.
   ISBN 978-8126908813
   .
2. Aamir Ali (November 2002). "A Siachen Peace Park: The Solution to a Half-Century of International Conflict?". Mountain Research and Development. 22 (4). International Mountain Society: 316.
   doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0316:ASPPTS]2.0.CO;2
   .

There is also a related discussion on talk page of the article. On a side note majority of the troops died there because of extreme climatic conditions. --SMS ^Talk 13:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

First this is an important figure of casualty in a war theater which cannot be poorly sourced. This figure will be used in the Infobox of the article so we need to be careful about not using improper sources.

1. The book by K.R Gupta (cited above)[46] is titled A Textbook of Agricultural Extension Management By K.R. Gupta related to global warming/agriculture and is not reliable source for Battlefield casualty on Indo-Pak border.
2. paper by Aamir Ali pg 2 last para does not not state his source or clarify how he reached the magic number (or wild guess ? ) of 15,000 Casualty and there is still no official (or reliable or neutral) source supporting the unusually high figure of 15,000.

Besides they do not give any clue on how they reached the figure of 15000, Which makes them unfit for such an important figure in the Infobox of the Siachen conflict article more discussion is on Talk:Siachen conflict-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Title of Source 1 I would not have raised this point, had I not told the editor multiple times on the article talk. The title of first source given by DBigXray is a deliberate attempt to misinform the readers, so please do not regard any of the above comments (including mine) and do an independent analysis. Thanks. --SMS ^Talk 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• The title i gave is what your link above says, not any deliberate (or non deliberate) attempt by me, we can see who is misinforming.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• This book (Paul R. Dettman (2001). India Changes Course: Golden Jubilee to Millennium. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 109–.
  talk
  ) 15:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• yes this book by Dettman (which is a neutral author) tells us why source 1 and 2 are unsuitable for this particular situation-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these sources are RS, although it does not matter what the title of the book is, if it was sourced properly, it's not, that's the problem, not the name. Both sources have the exact same sentence in it, so, it seems safe to say that one lifted it from the other, or they both lifted it from somewhere else. Both articles have sources listed at the end, I would look through those and see if you can find the real source of those numbers (I didn't look, but if they have a source in common, that's where I'd start). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• thanks a lot Despayre for giving your valuable comments and rationale. we all agree to it, so I am marking this as resolved. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

1. ISBN 978-1243560216
   .
2. ^ http://www.defence.lk
3. ^ http://www.nation.lk/edition/latest-top-stories/item/3879-a-sri-lankan-response-to-channel-4-film-journalist.html
4. ^ http://sinhalaya.com/news/eng/2012/channel-4-the-lost-legitimacy-on-journalism-part-2/CHANNEL 4
5. ^ http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=lttes_money_talks_again_20120315_07
6. ^ Helen F. M. Leary, National Genealogical Society Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 3, September 2001, pp. 207, 214 - 218 Quote: Leary concluded that "the chain of evidence securely fastens Sally Hemings's children to their father, Thomas Jefferson."
7. ^ Jefferson's Blood, PBS Frontline, 2000, accessed 10 March 2012
8. ^ "Online Newshour: Thomas Jefferson". pbs.org. 1998-11-02. Retrieved 2006-08-04.
9. ISBN 9780813919195
   .
10. ^ Joshua D. Rothman, Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Interracial Relationships Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861, University of North Carolina Press, 2003, pp. 7-8
11. ISBN 8180695956, p.484[47]
12. ^ The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and foreign India, China and Australasia, Volume 13, the Bavarian State Library, p.237
13. ^ Journal of Kerala studies, Volume 2 - University of Kerala., 1975, p.25
14. ^ Cite error: The named reference ill was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
15. ^ Cite error: The named reference salon.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
16. ^ David Boulton, 2005. "Faith kills." New Humanist, volume 120 number 2.