Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 140

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

Archive 135

←

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

→

Archive 145

I need someone who reads Portuguese to assess the reliability of a Portuguese language source. The query relates to notability claims made at our article on Areopagus Lodge (which is being discussed at AfD). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've asked editors of our Language Reference Desk to comment on this discussion.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The questions are the usual ones that come up in AFD discussions when non-English sources are used... does the source actually support what is said in the article? Are there nuances of language that we should be aware of? Is is reliable? Self-published? Can we find out anything about the author? etc. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's an internal source. The gentlemen that run the site represent themselves as Masons writing on behalf of promulgating Free Masonry. (Both messrs. Leite and Nascimento are referred to on various other websites as associated with masonry.) The author, Jeronimo Borges, who is not listed as a principle of the website, may be either a retired professor or a religious professional according to Linkedin (most likely the first, given Iberian naming conventions), but I am not going to sign up there to read the profiles.
• The source's claims are consistent with and support the other sources. I can't speak for the host's or author's standing within Free Masonry but the site is awfully detailed and far too oconsistent to be considered a hoax, and given the consistency with the apparently more independent other sources I see no reason to doubt what is said. It would be the same as a website run by people calling themselves Jesuits giving details on a local Jesuit institution recognized in other sources as such. On its own it wouldn't be enough to establish an article, but it seems a reasonable ancillary resource. (The two other sources are a book, and what appears to be a public radio station.) It's neither ifndependent nor peer-reviewed, but, given that, there's no reason to view it as suspect for what it is. If there's any real problem here it's going to be one of notability of the topic, rather than reliability or the sources. And since there's no reason to doubt the claim this is the first Masonic mission in Brazil I would be well-inclined to retain the article. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input... your replies are thoughtful and appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to unwatch here, so if anyone has questions they can go on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the website PopDirt.com reliable for biographical material on notables? I couldn't find an "About" page on the site, but it looks like someone's entertainment or gossip blog. This PopDirt piece was being used to support the following passage in the

article:

Prince Azim is known internationally, famous for throwing lavish parties. In the past, Azim has thrown parties with guest lists that have included Michael Jackson...

I also found other instances of that site being cited by Wikipedia, mostly in music-related articles. Here are six examples:

• Article: Heroes & Thieves
• Citation
• Passage: In December 2005, they completed half the album and experienced what Carlton described as a "whirlwind moment", during which they recorded five songs in two weeks. Carlton said on her website that Perry was "fantastic and genuine and really inspiring".

• Article: I Am Me
• Citation
• Passage: She also sang "Boyfriend" on the October 21 episode of The Tonight Show...

• Article: List of music videos set in London
• Citation
• Passage: Assertion that the video for "About You Now" was shot in London.

• Article: Exodus (Hikaru Utada album)
• Citation
• Passage: During an interview in the United States whilst promoting This Is the One in 2009, when asked about Exodus, Utada said that Exodus was "a very experimental album. I was like a mad scientist working away in an underground laboratory", going on to say "I had the time of my life but it was a very intense, introverted process".

• Article:
  Hook Me Up (song)
• Citation
• Passage: The duo promoted the track on Australian television, including Today...

• Article: Boyfriend (Ashlee Simpson song)
• Citation
• Passage: Simpson performed "Boyfriend" on Sessions@AOL on the Internet...

So is it reliable for this material? Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any indication this is more than an anonymous website - not a reliable source, certainly not for blp material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli is an Italian-American financier.

I would like to know if this Forbes article [2] could be considered a reliable source for information regarding both the net worth of Agostinelli and also the value of fund managed by the company he co-founded,

21:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not if supporting source data is entirely absent. A blog post is not the same thing as a magazine article. There is Forbes.com, which is a clearing house blog on which anyone can write or promote themselves, and then there is Forbes Magazine. The source you identify is the former; a blog posting without either an author or actual data.

See the Mitt Romney article for the standard of reliable sources on personal wealth. Both contain clear sourcing of related data - one a government personal finance document filing with very precise and detailed figures. The other, again, precise data derived from a specific government filing. There is no "about a billion" or any such ambiguity or guessing. The data is sourced, clear, irrefutable, and concrete. That is the threshold we must achieve in backing up financial assertions about personal wealth: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/08/13/romney_worth_between_190m_and_250m_campaign_says/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168972507188592.html

I think you have it wrong. Anyone can post a comment, certainly, but the the page itself is part of The World's Billionaires which is explicitly credited to "Forbes staff." But we have more that that vague by-line to rely on: They explain the methodology they use, at [3], a page with the by-line of one of the two individual people on the staff with overall responsibility for editing the list--and the right sidebar names his colleague. At the end of the page are the names of their reporters and data sources. It explains why the numbers are approximate--it also explains that they are primarily based on Forbes research, and lists the specific factors they include and the individuals they consult. It is very clear that the magazine puts its reputation behind the data, and so do the individual editors. For this particular topic, of individual and family financial status, I therefore consider Forbes data--regardless of the format in which it is published--to be reliable unless contradicted by another RS, in which case both have to be cited. There are more exact sources, but they too need to be interpreted. I note the articles you cite also give the data as "about", and there will factors Forbes takes into account that do not show on government forms. The WSJ article discusses some of them, and I think that article a very good explanation of why we do not trust primary sources in this area, but the secondary sources, where they are interpreted by reliable experts. I consider the senior editor at Forbes responsible for this list an expert, and I think the rest of the world does also, for this is the most widely used source, as used by other known reliable sources that have the ability to judge.

More generally, not everything that calls itself a blog is a blog in the sense that anyone can write the contents, just as not everything published as a wiki is open content. Most newspaper and magazine blogs from reliable magazines and newspapers are simply the format they present their editorial content, a popular format because it encourages reader comments. I consider them as reliable as anything else they publish, and that is in fact our general practice. It caused some confusion in earlier years, when newspapers were still adopting this format. Of course, for anything a newspaper or magazine publishes in any format, it can be hard to distinguish true reporting from personal opinion of the columnist, but this particular set of data is exceptionally clear to be reliable financial reporting, If you want, you can even cite it as "Kerry Dolan, the Forbes editor responsible for their list of ob billionaires, reports the figure as ..." to emphasise the fact that it is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology just cites that they rely on recommendations from journalists, meaning it's subject to being influenced by PR efforts. That appears to be the case here since a PR firm Bell Pottinger is known to be employed, and appears to have successfully created confusion between the subject's net worth and the value of the fund he manages. There is still no evidence to suggest that the more reliable hard data shouldn't override this, particularly since (a) it's a huge outlier, and (b) the raw data sources are taken from actual filings and the numbers and details themselves are visible to all.

Source: "A View of the External Affairs Power" by Sir Garfield Barwick[4]: There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion.

Article: Australian head of state dispute

Content:

Under the conventions of the Westminster system, the Governor-General's powers are almost always exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or other ministers of the Crown. The Governor-General may use the reserve powers of the Crown, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

Discussion: It is the contention of

) is given his express powers by the Constitution, which "leaves no room for any such notion (of reserve powers of the Crown)".

Several additional cites are provided, purporting to source the wording, but only one of these contains the phrase, and that is a low-level source aimed at schoolchildren, which sums up the entire subject of "Parliamentary Democracy" in a few paragraphs.

When pressed, Miesianical is unable to explain the direct contradiction of his opinion, nor provide any exact sources. The key point is that the reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General are directly assigned in the Constitution. They are not the reserve powers of the Queen. Defining them as "the reserve powers of the Crown" merely obfuscates the reality.--Pete (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring was not polite enough to alert me to his post above. He has misrepresented the situation. In fact, he contested the use of the two words "the Crown" in the phrase "the reserve powers of the Crown", deeming them to be inadmissable, as their use was "unsourced". Six sources using the prhase "reserve powers of the Crown" were then found; the location of the phrase within each either noted by page number in the footnote or easily disocverable by reading the linked article or web page. The sources meet

WP:RS

; they were each selected because they pertain directly to the governor-general of Australia.

The sentence

MIESIANIACAL

01:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The source provided above does not support the wording in the article. In fact it rules it out entirely. I'd like your comments on this discrepancy. Please. --Pete (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that there are dozens of high quality sources on this topic, I'd suggest that you consult them. Nick-D (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Although a government website I am curious if this is in fact RS for use in the Kashmir conflict article, currently it is used to support this text "Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population" I cannot see it as a RS for issues relating to the Kashmir problem at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that if it was an official website for the Pakistan Army, it could be cited for the opinion of the army - though not necessarily for the opinion of 'Pakistan' on the issue. Pakistan is at least formally a parliamentary democracy, and the army doesn't get to decide opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a need to use the Army's website as a source for this rather than the many high quality books, journal articles, etc, on the topic? The Army's website is not a good source for anything other than the Army. Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The British paper known as "The Independent" used to be considered one of the United Kingdoms most respected newspapers. But time and a buyout, as well as a change in both format, style and coverage seems to have moved the paper into the realm of "Tabloid Journalism". This is not an issue in regards to the papers format size, but its coverage of news and events.

In researching this out I found a number of indicators that would seem to show the paper as just such a publication, especially over the last few years. Criticism of the publication, its coverage and headlines, and a perception of a lack of fact checking could lead one to speculate....but is that accurate. Is "The Independednt" a tabloid journalism source?

This is in regards to the article

) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone could reasonably conclude that a newsgathering organization as large and as established as The Independent is not generally considered a

reliable source. "Tabloid journalism," in terms of content and not size/format, certainly fits something like the National Enquirer or Star, which are almost strictly celebrity/gossip. But The Independent covers national and international news, financial news, political news, etc. One might compare it to the American newspaper the New York Post, which is known, in part, for celebrity gossip with its famous "Page Six," but which covers national and international news, financial news, political news, etc., and could not be called an unreliable "tabloid." --Tenebrae (talk

) 05:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I concluded as much with what I consider to be reasonable consideration. You need not use such wording that would imply an insult to the one bringing this here. You don't seem so sure yourself by your post. Is it possible then, that there is some inbetween? — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 05:56, 4 January 2013 _{(Sorry for forgetting to sign that.)}

I am not always on top of things, but I am not aware of any guideline or policy that indicates "tabloid journalism" must be presumed to be non-reliable. The term may mean different things to different people. To my ear, "tabloid journalism" refers to a tendency to sensationalize the facts -- through content selection, headlines, photos, and writing style that emphasizes the news that is most likely to grab attention. It does not mean that the content is not factually accurate. Mainstream tabloid-format newspapers like the Independent and New York Post may sensationalize the facts but they are generally reliable, whereas fringe publications like the National Enquirer are not. --Orlady (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Per

WP:BLPSOURCES

Wikipedia's sourcing policy,

Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism

. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Just for clarification.--

talk

) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. We're on the same page there. I'm just saying that The Independent is not tabloid journalism. It's not News of the World or Star or The National Enquirer. It's a real newspaper. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what I am asking. Although they are all real newspapers in some form. Hate to bring this up, but the The National Enquirer has real news (even being the very first to write on certain issues). Just what is considered "Tabloid Journalism"? Sure, we may not consider some of the stuff news, but what concerns me about The Independent is whether or not the changes to the publication over the last decade or so has made it less "news worthy" in a traditional manner. I have seen an article where they refer to themselves as tabloid journalism in the same manner as other UK publications. The recent

talk

) 07:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm lost. What are the grounds for suggesting the Independent has become tabloid journalism? Or that it's not still one of the UK's most respected newspapers? Nothing in our article suggests that, nothing in my experience suggests that. I don't read it that often, but I do get it's mini-publication the 'I'.

talk

) 07:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well....forgive me for not using our article as a reliable source Doug. especially after recent events. Although there is some indications of such there. My point is, I don't know if there is enough for me to go by on my own. So...I bring it to the community and allow for the discussion to decide. This is much like the "Huffington Post" discussions. See the archives.--

talk

) 07:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, a problem here, perhaps just for me, is that I know the Independent is a proper newspaper, whereas the Daily Mail is not quite as much a proper newspaper. But how do I know this? Is it because the Mail was originally published in tabloid format, whereas the Independent was originally published in broadsheet format? Is it because Jimbo once questioned (perhaps rhetorically) whether we should use the Mail "for anything at all", never mind BLP information? Has this changed over time? If it does change, who tells us?

I think the comparison with the Daily Mail may bring out some nuances that a comparison with the National Enquirer (which I have never seen a paper copy of) may not. --

talk

) 07:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever works. As I am not in the UK and know little about the publication besides what I can glean from sources and what they claim about themselves, this may well be a useful direction to take.--

talk

) 07:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You quote from an opinion piece written by a tabloid journalist writing freelance for The Independent—Wynne-Jones, Ros (22 July 2011). "Red-top redemption: Why tabloid journalism matters". The Independent. London. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) When Wynne-Jones says "Can we really complain now that we are held in lower esteem even than MPs?" (my emphasis) he is likely using the pronoun to refer to himself and other similar journalists from The Daily Mirror. I do not read his piece as directly declaring The Independent as a tabloid newspaper. But does it matter if it is? There are other confirming sources such as her GRO reference via Ancestry.com which suggests 1981 is correct. In this particular case, if it was me, I would state her birth year as X sourced to x with a reference note giving her birth year as Y sourced to y etc. Otherwise other well-meaning editors will only change it again as they come across 1985 as her birth year in the tabloids --Senra (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Both your opinion of the suggestion of "we" and your compromise to the DOB. I know an editor had brought the Ancestry.com question here a short while ago but there was some who believed it did have some limited use.--

talk

) 11:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, care needs to be taken using any genealogy database as a source. I believe the key issue is knowing if we have the right name. In this case, I could find only one Paloma Faith Blomfield within Ancestry.co.uk (sorry, I incorrectly said Ancestry.com before) between 1976 and 1985 --Senra (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Independent seems to me a reliable source for someone's date of birth. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, The Independent would still be considered one of the UK's more serious-minded national papers, and although it does appear to have gone a little more populist since the Lebedev acquisition, I'd still consider it a RS for pretty much anything. Barnabypage (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; the Independent's reporting is more or less as reliable as that of the Times, Telegraph, or Guardian. (I'm not sure I'd want to rank them). However, do bear in mind that small details about people's personal lives (birthdates, names of children, etc) are one of the things that newspapers are peculiarly talented at getting wrong, so if you have other sources contesting it, I'd treat it as slightly less cast-iron than the fact of "published by reliable journalists" usually suggests. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion to help determine the source as generally reliable and not to be seen in the same light as News of the World or the Daily Mail or The National Enquirer. And thank you to Andrew Gray for the last post that helps a great deal on the specific dispute over the DOB.--

talk

) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a need to define tabloid newspapers?

This does bring up a larger overall point: Wikipedia doesn't really define what a "tabloid publication" or "tabloid journalism" are, as far as I can see. That leaves it open to subjectivity. And there's a tricky side issue: TMZ.com certainly seems to me to be a tabloid sitem yet (perhaps because its chief founder is an attorney) it's scrupulous in citing and even posting public documents and quoting name law-enforcement sources. And reputable mainstream publications cite information attributed to TMZ (as they do not, perhaps with one or two exceptions over several years, things like the National Enquirer). It might not be a bad thing for us close the issue on The Independent, which I think is

Talk:Biographies of living persons (since it's usually people and not, say, uranium or the Magna Carta that's the subject of tabloid journalism). --Tenebrae (talk

) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the reasoning for the board. There is no snowball by asking for clarification on a specific source. Either we think it is or we think it isn't a tabloid Journalism source. As I said I stopped to ask because I didn't know and began to doubt I was correct. The editor who added it made a small note about not knowing it had become such a source and they are in the UK I believe so that made me wonder. I think it is pretty clear that The Independent is to be treated in the same manner as the New York Post and consider it relaible for sourcing facts. But this is not the venue to discuss wording or changes to the BLP policy. That discussion, if needed would be best attempted at the village pump.--

talk

) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: because any source can be
  The Daily Mirror for the statement: The Daily Mirror says: "West Ham boss reveals he's keen to strengthen further ...". On the other hand, we might be more careful about selecting the same tabloid as a reliable source for the state of the US economy --Senra (talk
  ) 16:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• My opinion is that we should discourage the use of the term "tabloid" as a signifier of unreliable journalism. In the last decade, three major daily newspapers in the UK (The Times, The Independent, and The Guardian) all switched from broadsheet format to smaller formats. You can question their journalism, but I doubt that any problems with those papers' journalism were caused by their format change. Occasionally on this noticeboard, people have assumed that any paper published in a tabloid format is focused on gossip and sensationalism. Some are, but many are not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not, and never has been, about the size of the paper used. Wikipedia did not invent the term "Tabloid Journalism". I have noticed lately that the term

talk

) 05:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the term "tabloid journalism" (meaning sensationalist/unreliable journalism) long predates Wikipedia. But it does have the effect of stigmatizing some legitimate newspapers that are published in non-broadsheet formats, at least in some people's minds. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. My point is, the stigma is not something we as editors are resposible for. As I said there are other tems. This may well be something to suggest at the village pump. I can only show the other terms. I cannot force the community to accept them.--

talk

) 06:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the UK people sometimes now say "red-top tabloids", to distinguish the populist papers from the others. Even that doesn't work well now when content is accesed online. My ow feeling is that all the broadsheets are becoming more populist. Even BBC News is.. We just have to make sure we distinguish between the news, the celebrity news, the serious commentary and the wild opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid is like porn. You know it when you see it. And sometimes tabloids can be considered reliable. Context is key.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats the problem though....we don't always have access to really see them.--

talk

) 08:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The information is likely true, however, I have concerns regarding the reliability of a press release from a non-authoritative source:

1. Source: Blomgren, Nicole (September 20, 2012). "Half Marathons Reach a Milestone and Surpass the 2000 total mark in 2012". PR Hwy. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
2. Article: Half marathon and List of half marathon races
3. Content: "Most recently, 2012 research conducted by Nicole Blomgren, CEO of Fifty States Half Marathon Club and Halfmarathonsearch.com™, reported half marathons reaching a milestone, surpassing over 2000 half marathons in the United States in August 2012, recording a total of 2005 half marathons in the U.S. alone, with California leading the way in totals surpassing 250 half marathons in 2012."

Thanks! -

) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

halfmarathonclub.com looks like an

WP:SPS. Anybody can create a web site, that doesn't make it reliable. A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I don't see and could not find any evidence to say that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Armenianism

- do sources have to say an action was anti-Armenian?

See this edit [5] - the sources do not say it was the vandalism of the Armenian Christian Cemetery (and a Greek Orthodox Monastery was anti-Armenian, and indeed the editor actually wrote " According to media reports it seemed to be more of an anti-Christian act as the vandals also targeted the Greek orthodox monastery. They spray-painted phrases such as "Death to Christianity", "Jesus, son of a whore", "Happy Hanukkah"."

) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't need to literally state that vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery is an anti-Armenian act, because as I understand it is too obvious. It's intent may have been anti-Christian, but again, intent does not matter. --

22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The source explicitly calls the attack "anti-Christian". Unless I missed it, I don't see anything in the source that says that it was an anti-Armenian attack. The source is reliable, but not in the manner that it's being used. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery isn't an anti-Armenian act? --

^talk

22:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What you just did is sort of what you are doing with the source, Yerevanci. This is a common mistake many editors make. We call it synthesis or analysis. See Wikipedia:No original research:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

--

talk

) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A vandalizm of an object belonging to a certain group is an act of discrimination against that group. What part of this is original research? --

^talk

23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are making an assumption there that vandalism is always an act of discrimination, and that is certainly not true. It may have been in this instance, but you simply cannot make that judgement yourself, that is what we need the sources for. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply absurd. It's almost impossible to find sources that literally state that anti-Armenian acts are such. For instance, a sentence in the same article (" In a telephone interview on May 24, 1995, broadcaster with Radio Free Europe, Estonia service in Prague, stated that in February and March 1995, there have been several bomb attacks on Armenian-owned kiosks in the capital city Tallinn. The editor added that the identity of the perpetrator(s) of these acts remains unknown.[83]") and this has been in the article for years and nobody had a problem with it and there's no word in the source that describes it as "anti-Armenian". I'm not saying it was clearly an anti-Armenian act, but the Armenian cemetery was its target and it needs to be mentioned in the article. --

^talk

23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is something that many editors have a hard time dealing with. You have to write in a disinterested manner. We all have our own biases and point of view, but we simply cannot write the article using the narrative voice of the encycolpedia to present, as fact, what are questionable claims gleaned, assumed or taken for granted, from the sources. We can't "Read between the lines". Having something in an article for years does not guarantee it is not innacurate. Making such claims without full reference support is not within the policy, guidelines or spirit of Wikipedia. Take a minute, look through other sources and see if there is not a better way to phrase this that is directly supported by the source.--

talk

) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't word it the way it should've been done, but let's agree that event has a place in the article.

@Yerevanci: There is nothing in that source that says anything about this being related to anti-Armenianism. Three different sites were vandalized, only one of which happened to be Armenian. If this was related to anti-Armenianism, why were 2 non-Armenian sites vandalized? Your conclusion that this relates to anti-Armenianism is not in the source. This is pure

WP:OR on your part. (And if I had to judge based on this source, I would say your conclusion is, in fact, wrong.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how ignorant you sound? Have you ever heard of the Holocaust? Did you know that millions of Poles, Gays, Gypsies and Invalids were also part of it? Just because the Armenian cemetery wasn't the only target doesn't make it less of an anti-Armenian act. --

^talk

01:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And thus, if one of the victims of the Aurora theater or Sandy Hook murders were Armenian. those would also be anti-Armenian acts. All murders of Jewish people are inherently acts of anti-Semitism. And the killing of Marvin Gaye was an act of racism, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite an appropriate comparison, because you can't tell if a child is of certain ethnicity (at least in most cases) and Sandy Hook was clearly not an ethnic crime. But you can tell when a cemetery is Armenian. You can tell by the letters on tombstones (Armenian has a unique alphabet that can't be confused) or by the cross styles. And at last, didn't you know that Armenians are one of the largest Christian groups in Jerusalem and

^talk

02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be

civil. Several editors have explained to you why you are wrong. I suggest you take a break and come back later with a fresh mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 01:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if offended. Didn't mean anything personal, but your last statement wasn't exactly reasonable. And yeah majority isn't always right.--

^talk

02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Without looking into the detail, might there be a case for saying that its so obvious that sources don't see the need to mention it (and if they don't see the need, then why should we)? Formerip (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OIC, I didn't take into account the WP article title. Maybe my comment is not so helpful. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

playing devil's advocate -- vandalism conceivably could be the work of destructive children who have no idea about the ethnicities involved, no? If hate language is spray-painted on something, that's a different story of course, but... if we're talking about anti-armenian acts would it be possible in this context to simply say that the cemetery was vandalized without speculating on the motives of the vandals? Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the above. Unless the source (

not its reader) links the attacks to anti-Armenian motivations, it would not be appropriate to suddenly make such motivations appear. That is especially true where two other targets with no apparent connection to anti-Armenianism were vandalized, and this is likely why the source concludes that the motivations were anti-Christian, not anti-Armenian. Regardless of why they do, though, we can't just synthesize such a connection. The source has to say it. So short answer to your above: Yes, it must explicitly say that, and it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to directly contradict what it actually does explicitly say, that the motives were anti-Christian ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So you think the vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery doesn't have place in the article. --

^talk

02:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is best asked at

talk

) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy. It's either me who's not getting it or the users above that fail to understand. Anyways, I don't wanna continue wasting my time for nothing.--

^talk

02:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You can put it in as far as I am concerned, though other people editing the page appear to disagree. But what you have posted here is not enough for you to say that it was necessarily discrimination. Maybe it was just random ugliness. Find a reliable source that says it is and then you have a different question and maybe a different answer, depending on the source.99.11.227.190 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Source [6]
• Article
  War on Women
• Content

• Author of source [7]

This has been discussed on the Talk page of this article. The issue is with source 1, which needs verification from this noticeboard that it is a reliable source. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The first source could be used as a RS for the views of Rose, but it's entirely

WP:UNDUE in the article in question. In general, mentioning unsupported allegations like this in articles is not very helpful. The second source is also an opinion column, and does not support the assertion that it was a "botched abortion". a13ean (talk

) 22:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree the word "botched" might be a tad aggressive, however I think the point of the reference was only to cooroborate the death.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Having a War on Women article at all is undue weight, and most people disagree that there is such a ridiculous thing. This edit would show the true war on women, and the fact that Planned Parenthood lied about the safety of abortion is supported by audio tape from actual calls to Planned Parenthood and an article from a reliable author, so it is not an “unsupported allegation.” What is an “unsupported allegation”, is the “War on Women”. It is helpful to the article because out of an incredibly bias article on Wikipedia, it would be one true fact to add some truth to the article, and it certainly relates to the topic of the War on Women, which is waged by Planned Parenthood. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of things, from molecules to musicians to mathematical proofs and even memes. Because the phrase "War on Women" has taken on a life of its own (like others including "War on Christmas" for example) we have a page for it here. Even though the title itself might seem to be pushing a POV, it's still our job to write as neutral an article as possible about it. How is it commonly used? Much in the way it's being described in the article. There are clearly arguments that could be made for the inclusion of something along the lines of the above, but your reasoning here is not among them. a13ean (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My edit is completely truthful and neutral, and is supported by sources. Your job on this noticeboard is to verify the reliability of the source, not argue about what should be included in the article. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That is just

wikilawyering. Once a question is asked people can give any opinions they want regarding any policy on the site or otherwise. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you can ignore it. (Personal attack removed) DreamGuy (talk

) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems reliable enough to me for her views, but for gender based abortions see here Pretty sure sources are there for the rest also. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And he won the NPOV Barnstar of Merit. Sounds like the conclusion of RSN is that it's a reliable source. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The opinion was expressed that she is a reliable source for her own views, which is not the same as saying that she is reliable in general. Nor does that necessarily mean her views are ones that belong in an article, which is more a question of

WP:RS. DreamGuy (talk

) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

steve earle songs in films

Betrayed is a movie with debra winger released in 1988. The song devils right hand is in opening credits.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Continental Kennel Club Currently being used in numerous articles a general source or to establish a type of dog as a 'purebred breed': American Mastiff, Sussex Spaniel, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog.

In 2000, the breed was recognized by the Continental Kennel Club as purebred. - American Mastiff

Although not recognised by any major kennel clubs, the Russian Spaniel is recognised by the Continental Kennel Club [...] - Russian Spaniel

There is an article here that explains some of their practices and why I have an issue with them as a reliable source (I found it as a citation in the

17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find many indepth articles about the Continental Kennel Club. The link you point to is a very off-hand mention, and it's not clear the source is reliable. Here are some other short, unfavorable, mentions: Kentucky Post article,North Jersey editorial. On the other hand, here are some slightly longer mentions that treat it as the younger cousin of the American Kennel Club, and almost as reliable: Catoosa County News; Wilson County News; Ironton Tribune. Unless we find some sources that are better yet, I'd say that as long as we attribute the opinion to the Continental Kennel Club, possibly saying that the American Kennel Club disagrees (with references for both), including the opinion might be worthwhile. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

" should not be a wiki source. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

as with all sources, it depends. but the long running paper newspaper version has a publicly listed editorial board [8] of people who have outside bona fides as writers/editors [9] . It would need to be shown why any particular story would not be considered "reliably sourced" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As a whole, I would not rely on the The Vienna Review, given that it is an OSI-related publication and may well have an agenda in interpreting the news. But the only item used from it seems like the description of a simple event. Did they invent that story? I doubt it, but if not why are there no other sources? I think it is a 60% likelihood that it is RS for this event, but I would not endorse the Vienna Review for general news commentary now that I know what it is. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Two books repeatedly cited in the article

with the imprint "Queenship Publishing". Google Books gives Miravalle as publisher for each of the two books :

• for the first: "Editor Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D. ... Publisher Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2008";
• for the second: "Author Mark I. Miravalle; Publisher Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2006".

Is the indication of the publisher given by Google Books false? I think clarity is needed on whether the two books are or are not self-published sources. If they should be judged to be self-published (which is perhaps unlikely), then the further question would arise about whether they are nonetheless reliable sources to cite on Roman Catholic Mariology. I would appreciate a ruling, positive or negative, on the matter. Esoglou (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me address the publisher of the first book, the second one follows the same pattern. As I said on talk, there is no question that the publisher is Queenship publishing and not Mark Miravelle. Esoglou stated there, that the Google summary says the publisher is Miravelle. That is an auto-extracted Google summary that often fails. That is probably because the book has multiple authors, and the Google programmer who wrote the extractor had a bad day when he coded that part so the program confuseds the items. Google summaries are quite fallible. There are solid reasons that Miravalle is not the publisher, but the editor:

• The physical book says that the publisher is Queenship Publishing and Miravalle is the "editor'". That is not even being disputed. So there is agreement that the physical book says the publisher is Queenship, and not Miravalle. Period. Only a Google book summary may be suggesting Miravalle as the publisher. The physical book says Queenship, with Miravalle as the editor. That is not even being disputed.

• The book's ISBN is
  ISBN 978-1-57918-355-4 which belong to Queenship publishing, given that it includes the publisher identifier 57918. I have explained on talk that per the page ISBN
  each ISBN code identifies the actual publisher. There is no dispute there either!

• The publisher code 57918 belongs to Queenship publishing, e.g. here or here, here with different authors. The code 57918 is the code for Queenship publishing, for sure, for sure.

So, Queenship is the publisher, for sure, for sure. Now, is Queenship a self-publisher like iUniverse? Not at all. They are a Catholic publisher, and not a self-publisher. There is zero indication that they are a self-publisher. And that is not even being disputed. The only issue here is a Google summary, which should obviously not take precedence over what the physical book states, and its ISBN indicates.

Now, onto the reliability of the book from the use of the material therein as a source for Catholic teachings. The chapters of the book are usually by "professors of theology":

• Fr. Luigi Gambero, Professor of Patristics at the Marianum Pontifical institute, one of the main and most respected centers in Rome for the study of Catholic Mariology.

• Fr. Manfred Hauke, professor of dogmatic theology in Switzerland

• Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, professor of theology at the Imacculatum Franciscan seminary in Italy, and former editor of
  Miles Immaculatae

• Msgr. Arthur Calkins, member of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

• Msgr. Charles Manga, member of the
  Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life

• Mark Miravalle is a professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.

None of these facts are even being disputed. These are respected Catholic theologians. Moreover, within the article, these authors are identified as the authors of the specific chapters that are referenced there. So it is clear which professor said what. Next question:

• Does the book reflect Catholic perspectives, or is it likely to have errors? Answer: The book bears the imprimatur of Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, and the nihil obstat from Fr. Peter M. Fehlner (professor of theology), effectively reducing any chances that it includes significant errors in the presentation of Catholic teachings. The presence of the imprimatur and the nihil obstat means that from a Catholic perspective it is "reliable". Lutherans may not agree with Cardinal Burke's or Fr. Fehlner's views, but the book is being used in an article on "Roman Catholic Mariology" and is totally WP:RS in that sense. The imprimatur and the nihil obstat were designed as designators for that purpose.

I see this as a really straightforward issue. The book is not published by Miravalle, but he is the editor, as the physical book states, and the chapters are written by a group of respected theology professors. This is clearly a non-self-published WP:RS book for use in an article on Catholic items. History2007 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope this lengthy intervention by History2007 will not be a cause of delay. I came here in the hope of finding support either for the already known view of History2007 that the books are not self-published, a view that he explicitly bases on the fact that the imprint of the two books is that of Queenship Publishing, or for the Google Books view that the books are published by the editor/author, a view possibly based on the fact that the copyright notice (to which the Library of Congress number is appended) reserves the copyright to Mark Miravilla. I don't know which view to choose, and I'll be happy with a decision in favour of either. Esoglou (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the "Google books view" of the books does not say that the books are self-published - it is the "automated summary extraction" that sometimes lists Miravalle as the publisher, going directly against what the "Google books view" itself shows as the publisher and what the ISBN indicates. Google summaries are far from infallible, as I have said. The way it works is this: they have a program that looks at book information and extracts a summary. In this case, because there are multiple authors, it just mixed up two fields and sometimes lists the editor as the publisher. Trust me, that is how these extraction programs work. This is a really, really simple issue. The physical book says it is published by Queenship Press. Period. The ISBN belongs to Queenship Press. Period. Look, you really can not judge a book by its cover, or what an auto-extract summary says. You need to look inside the book. And inside the book the publisher is clearly listed, as is the editor. This is very simple. History2007 (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I still await a declaration of support for either History2007's repeated view (based on the imprint in the physical book) or for Google Books' statement in "about this book" that Miravilla is the publisher of each of the two books (perhaps based on the copyright notice in the physical book, not on its cover). Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

History2007's explanation is convincing, but even if Miravalle were the publisher, chapters written by experts on Catholic theology are reliable for Catholic theology. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright page, as shown in Google Books, is quite clear that Queenship is the publisher.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with History2000's assessment. They've plainly misconstrued the copyright page. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The records in the library catalogues I can see show Queenship Pub Co. c2007 for Mariology and Queenship Pub. Co., c1993 for Introduction to Mary (though the second is for the audio CD version.) Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Judith, Sarek, Mangoe and Tom. That's just what I wanted. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the Electronic Intifada a releiable source for a claim that that a British charity,

) 22:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A Google search of "mossad" on the site electronicintifada.net suggests that's not a reliable source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would lean toward no. The article states "There are also serious questions over the CST’s links to the government of Israel and, allegedly, to its intelligence services." Further down it substantiates this allegation by citing Antony Lerman as the source of the claim that "CST volunteers had in the past received self-defense training from Mossad." I think that if you're going to make a conspiratorial claim about intelligence agency connections—be in the CIA or Mossad or whatever—you need better verification than that. Also, even if CST volunteers had received training from Mossad, it's not stated in what capacity. Maybe some CST volunteers happen to be Israeli, in which case they might have received such training as part of their compulsory military service. In that case, it would have nothing to do with CST. If an editor wants to include this claim, I suggest they should find it cited in a more reliable, independent source.TheBlueCanoe 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite clear-cut. It appears to not be NPOV per Israel opinion (maybe) but it seems for factual matters to have received awards. In fact, it has been used as a source by the New York Times on a regular basis (on the order of a hundred times). [10] is especially pertinent here. It broke the story of a group seeking to create a "cabal" on Wikipedia for pro-Israel editing. Attribute the claim accurately. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The "EI" topic seems to cycle through the RSN board regularly... Collect, the NYT item you linked to is not a news article. It's an opinion piece from May 2008. Also, the author of the opinion piecee, Beam, seems to keep the EI information at arm's length: He quotes EI and EI's founder without going so far as to actually use their information in a narrative way. Is there a better example? Zad68 13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh? It appeared to be a news article related directly to Wikipedia. But heck -- try [11], [12], [13], [14] (noting that thelede is not "opinion articles" and is RS for Wikipedia purposes); [15] (a clear usage of it as a source). And again - any use should be clearly attributed, but that is not the same as saying "not reliable at all" by a mile. Collect (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Lede" is a

WP:NEWSBLOG (the tag line is "Blogging the news with Robert Mackey"), and again, in all the cases you linked to, EI content is never used directly as a source. Rather, EI is quoted directly with clear attribution but the information is not used in a narrative way, just like I mentioned about Beam piece, so these examples still keep EI's content at arm's length.

What I'm finding interesting here is that in the very sources you're quoting in support of the ideas of how EI can be used, the NYT articles characterize EI in this way: In Beam's opinion piece, "a parallel-universe, pro-Palestinian news organization"; in the other pieces pieces, EI is described as "pro-Palestinian", "a pro-Palestinian Web site", and "a pro-Palestinian blog". The characterization of EI as a "pro-Palestinian blog" is especially interesting, as it's recent (August 2012) and from a regular NYT news article, and was the only piece provided that wasn't a news blog or opinion piece. The one mentioned as a "clear usage of it as a source" again keeps EI at arm's length--EI is only attributed and not used in a narrative way. I'm getting the impression that EI is an interesting but primary source for its own content, and could be used as such in our articles if it's used carefully alongside a secondary source (like a NYT article). Zad68

14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not reliable as a source for the charity has ties to the Mossad. Of course it is a reliable for The Pro-Palestinian site Electronic Intifida says the charity has ties to the Mossad. But absent a reliable secondary source it would be original research to say The Pro-Palestinian Electronic Intifida says everyone but you has ties to the Mossad, and sometimes they wonder about you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on what was just provided, I'd agree with this assessment. I'd think there would also need to be a secondary source citing this content from EI to establish its notability. Zad68 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This clearly

14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Daar, Judy; Dugan, Dan (1994). "Are Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf schools 'non-sectarian?'". Free Inquiry 14 (2): 44. [16]
2. Article: Waldorf education
3. Content: In 1994 an article appeared in
   talk
   ) 15:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For full context, it appears as though the entire article has been "reproduced by permission" here. I would consider Free Inquiry and the

Location (talk

) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon passed away recently, and his obituaries in the New York Times, LA Times and The Washington Post all state that he had one child out of wedlock as a matter of fact, stating respectively:

Rumors of sexual relations with disciples, which the church denied, dogged the young evangelist, and he fathered a child in 1954.

He had a son with her and another with Kim Myung-hee, who lived with Moon during the 1950s.

Meanwhile, his first marriage ended in divorce. A relationship with another woman resulted in a child but no wedding.

These three were used to source the rather bland statement "Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954" to help explain the total number of children in the infobox, but several users at the page have reverted this, claiming that these sources are "heavily biased" or "rumors". Outside input would be appreciated. a13ean (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you asking at RSN?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

An understandable question; were the subject still living I would have asked at BLP/N, and if people were primarily suggesting that this was POV or undue I would have taken it to NPOV/N. Surprisingly, it seems like people are contesting that this is unproven or rumors, so I brought it here. If you think there's a better place for this sort of thing in the future let me know; I don't have any particular attachment to RS/N, it just seemed like the best fit. a13ean (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of a New York Times obituary as a source

I wrote the following without having seen the above: There's a debate at

) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is the source (New York Times) who says it is a rumours. Read the citation above. And it is a Times hostile to the article subject (Sun Myung Moon) because of rivality with Washington Times (which he estabilished). It is about POV or NPOV, because position of the article subject (Moon) to this question should be part of the article. Otherwise is just a half-truth and therefore a POV. Question is, from where media get the information (most probably from tparents.org) and other sources with even less relevance. On the other hand it is exceptional information, so it is necessary to bring exceptional evidence, not just a sentence from the news, where is questionable, if this information was verified and where. Therefore it is not possible to present it as simple fact. If someone fathered a child, proove it or dont mention it at all. Honestly, looks like it is out of Reliable sources noticeboard scope and there is necessary to search consensus on the talk page.--

talk

) 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DeeMusil: "Actually, it is the source (New York Times) who says it is a rumours"—I beg to differ. Taking "Rumors of sexual relations with disciples, which the church denied, dogged the young evangelist, and he fathered a child in 1954" from the NYT source and de-constructing it we find two independent sentences joined by the grammatical conjunction and. The first concerns rumours, denied by the church and the second is a statement that "... he fathered a child in 1954" --Senra (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sentence presents it (or makes a "hint") as an conclusion of first sentence, which is a rumour. So please consider, from where they get the information then, when not a from rumours or source presented here as unreliable? Do they have a DNA test? Public statement of rev Moon? Or do they have something to prove it? No they don't have anything. NYT present this half-truth correctly as part of "rumours" in one sentence. Wikipedia should take media bias with special care and publish full story or nothing.--

talk

) 13:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I also read the NYTimes obit as supporting the article content that he fathered a child in 1954. If there were any question about how to parse that sentence, the fact that the same concept is echoed in two other obits from respected newspapers should resolve any lingering questions. Zad68 9:28 am, Today (UTC−5)

Sorry, but I think you're misreading this. It says he was dogged by rumors at the time, and that he fathered a child. I don't see a reason to excise the statement, and there's certainly a strong story out there that he was unfaithful to his first wife. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DeeMusil: I'm going to be bold here. I have explained why I do not think that "... he fathered a child in 1954" is a rumour. I accept that, because the two sentences are conjuncted, there might be an implication (and only an implication) that (as an example and badly paraphrasing the source) Sun Myung Moon's 1954 child was as a result of rumoured sexual relations with his disciples. This would clearly be

WP:RS for the quotation "... [Sun Myung Moon] fathered a child in 1954" or for the derived statement In 1954, Sun Myung Moon had a child out of wedlock. We take a reliable source and quote it or paraphrase it's content and if possible, back up contentious statements with further reliable sources. We do not ask how a reliable source got its information; nor do we require them to tell us whether they used DNA tests or public statements to confirm their own information --Senra (talk

) 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to remove this continue. It's hard not to believe that these are Moon supporters who don't like what the obituaries say. It's pretty obvious that the child he fathered in 1954 wasn't by the woman he married in 1960 who was 17 in 1960

talk

) 06:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that's not in question, as one of the obits (plus even the non-rs tparents.org) gives the woman's name. At any rate it's still being removed. a13ean (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the editor has been blocked for editwarring.

talk

) 11:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Studied little bit about En Wiki rules, information in media is clearly WP:EXCEPTIONAL and it is WP:REDFLAG as well, because Moon is founder of Washington Times, which, opposite to NY times, has conservative viewpoint. There is lon-term media war between WashTimes and NYTimes, WashPost and others, so REDFLAG is here because "apparent conflict of interest". Liberal media just echoing something sensational, telling just a half truth, as in past they did echo brainwashing (which was proven as fiction by APA) etc. If redflag is not showstopper here, what else?--

talk

) 10:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being overly cautious, I want to make sure that primary source publications by the Watch Tower Society will be ok to use in the article on

. Relevant examples of primary source references from the lead section are as follows:

3. "Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site: Our History and Organization: Membership". Office of Public Information of Jehovah's Witnesses. "While other religious groups count their membership by occasional or annual attendance, this figure reflects only those who are actively involved in the public Bible educational work [of Jehovah's Witnesses]."

4. "Guided by God's Spirit". Awake!: 32. June 2008. Retrieved 2012-06-16.

5. "Statistics at Jehovah's Witnesses official website, 2010".

I checked

) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are similar questions with all sorts of organisations, including political parties. First party sources may be the only available sources for membership figures but to ignore them entirely would mean no mention of membership figures in such articles - a nonsense. The source could be used, for example, to say that "XYZ claims a membership of 125,000" - that's proper and does not mean Wikipedia accepts or approves the figure - and clearly shows the source upfront. In my opinion, the same would apply equally if "a notable individual speaking on behalf of the group" was the source - why should a notable spokesperson be any more reliable on that issue than the organisation itself? Emeraude (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As a rule, churches which do take censuses of their membership (

ECUSA is an example) are the most reliable sources for membership numbers. If that's how the JWs count (and it sounds as though this is the case) then their number should be preferred; it should be prominently displayed in the text as an official count. A primary source for membership numbers is doing your own count; the real question is whether the COI is telling or not, but in this case it sounds, absent complaints of inaccuracy, that they are being hard-nosed about affiliation and are producing a decent number. I should point out (not having looked at its usage in the article) that membership numbers produced this way are not directly comparable with numbers obtained by polling and surveys, so contrasting one with the other is generally a bad idea. Mangoe (talk

) 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This was very helpful. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

When reading the back cover of the book, I found the author claims the 1979 Iranian Revolution was an act of the British Intelligence Service. When reading the author's article on Wikipedia, Robert Dreyfuss, I found out this book was comissioned by Lyndon LaRouche who is well-known for his conspiracy theory related views about the British Intelligence (among other things of course). I also found illuminati related website praise his book here. The question then is, how much I can rely on this book for Ruhollah Khomeini's article. Thanks.--99.119.198.175 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably not at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes good books are praised by unsavory people, so that's not important by itself. However, if this book was really commissioned by Lyndon LaRouche, it should not be used at all. Zero^talk 09:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I refer to the above.

An editor, User: Sopher99 has (again) deleted without discussion edits on the grounds that "the sources are not reliable for this page, No source is banned of course, but their [sic] is no fact checking in the sources that back the statements".

In essence, the Editor is operating a ban on these sources for this page.

This is the Edit in question (showing the deleted sources): [21]

The sources that Sopher99 has deleted were:

• articles by Russia Today
• an article by The Guardian (UK)
• an article by the Stop War Coalition

I think the edit I made (and which was reverted by Sopher99) was based on reasonable sources and gave balance to this section of the article. The sources were, in my view, good and used in an appropriate manner. I would like to get the views of others. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the edits of others. Second of all there is an ongoing discussion on the article's talkpage. The sources you put did not even support the statements you edited in, Russia Today is not reliable for the article, and Stop War Coalition is a fringe site. Sopher99 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99, a discussion took place on this page previously. The outcome was that Russia Today was not a banned source generally or on the page in question. You have totally disregarded this and deleted the edits referring to the sources which you called "not reliable for this page". This is therefore the appropriate forum to raise this issue again. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again. I know They are not banned. No sources are banned. We know that. The Russia today articles you put have no fact checking, and when they do they are just quotations from the Russian foreign minister Larov. Furthermore Russia Today takes a stance on the conflict. So we generally don't use it when editing the article about the conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sopher, you need to explain why the sources are not reliable for the specific content, not dismiss them in general terms such as "they have no fact checking". "No source is banned on any paticular article, of course, but we must never use this source on this article" is transparently contradictory. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

To ban implies consequences for evading the ban. It also implies no-one has the ability to add it. There is a different between something being banned, and something not being used due to its consistent questionable content. Sopher99 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No there isn't. If you don't have a specific objection to the content, then it can stay. Formerip (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I have specific objection to the content. Primarily the realiability of the article and whether the source is being used is even backing the statement. Sopher99 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll re-add the Russia Today content, but it has to be modified to actually fit what it is saying, given if what it is saying has due weight and editorial accuracy. Sopher99 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a discussion that belongs on the article talk page, not here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I conceded to re-add the RT source anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I was wondering if www.Sportsnet.ca is a reliable source in general?

• My next question is do articles such as this and this count as reliable sources for establishing general notability for the fighters it features prominently?
  talk
  ) 06:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Source: Moynihan, Michael C. (December 12, 2012). "Newtown Conspiracy Theories: Obama, Iran, and Other Culprits". http://www.thedailybeast.com. The Daily Beast. Retrieved January 9, 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)
• Article:
  James H. Fetzer
• Content: The specific wording in the article has yet to be determined, however, an editor would like to use Moynihan's commentary to note Fetzer's views regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and that he has contributed to Press TV. Excerpted from the article, Moynihan states:

Beneath this patina of respectability—and none of those mentioned above should be mistaken for respectable political commentators—we find banner headlines like this on Press TV’s website: “[Israeli] death squads slaughtered American children at Sandy Hook.” According to James H. Fetzer, an emeritus professor at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, “This is what Israel always does, they go after the children.” Fetzer, who still maintains a faculty page at the University of Minnesota’s website, sputters that “The Sandy Hook massacre appears to have been a psy op intended to strike fear in the hearts of Americans by the sheer brutality of the massacre, where the killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel.”

This one appears to be OK to me, however, I thought I'd run it through the RSN for a second opinion. Thanks!

Location (talk

) 06:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and that the source may very well be misrepresenting Fetzer's Press TV article. However, I Googled and found Fetzer's article. Holy shit. Yes, this is a reliable source.

As a side note, a great example to show to people who believe that just because someone has "Professor" before their name, what they are saying necessarily has credibility. Formerip (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I've added two sentences into the article based on this source, however, someone may want to check my work due to potential BLP concerns.

Location (talk

) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, may someone let us know if visfot.com this is the neutral and reliable source to support the claim Owaisi made several inflammatory, disparaging, derogatory and threatening comments against - - - - India - - - (the sentence in the first paragraph of the section., Is it looks not more than a forum.

The discussion is on here regarding the claim. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a reliable source, but we would need speakers of the language (Hindi?) to confirm that. This is a BLP of a politician. Appropriate sources are of the status of CNN, The Hindu, which I see are both already cited. It does not help readers to use wording like "made several inflammatory...". Quote the politician's speech and then readers can see for themselves how they would characterise it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"inflammatory, disparaging, derogatory and threatening" is how multiple mainstream news sources including The Times of India, The Hindu, Navbharat Times and Times Now, described the speech, and not just Visfot.com. Anyway, as you have advised, I am fine with removing the description of the speech and leaving just the quotes - let the readers decide if they are inflammatory or disparaging. Gmcssb (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The question was regarding a particular sentence, but the editor who put the question has removed not just that sentence, but many more quotes from the speech sourced from Visfot.com. It may be noted that Visfot.com has notable Hindi journalists and Indian politicians among its authors (See here) and its founder-editor, Sanjay Tiwari, has been featured in secondary sources like here. Visfot.com was the first to break news about several scandals in India recently - it is a notable source, even though it is sensational. I have uncommented the quotes from the speech, and until there is a consensus that Visfot.com "is not a reliable source for quotes from the speech", let's keep them in the article otherwise we would be censoring controversial statements. Gmcssb (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In the article SHSH blob, I tagged THIS source as unreliable after evaluating the contributing author's credential at the time of his writing. In my opinion, this source does not have a stellar reputation for fact checking by an editorial board and I felt that its fair to consider the information provided about each author into consideration. HERE, the credential of author is "Sayam Aggarwal is a 18-year-old student living in India who has been an Apple fan for almost 5 years. He has worked with ModMyi, one of the leading iPhone communities, as an author for more than a year. He spends most of his free time on the Internet fetching the latest news regarding Apple and its entire product range.". In other words, He's a non established enthusiast writer.

From the same site, this source should be admissible as

based on the author credential: "John Brownlee is Cult of Mac's Deputy Editor. He has also written for Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, VentureBeat, and Gizmodo. He lives in Boston with his girlfriend and two parakeets.". He's an established journalist.

Is Cult of Mac a respectable source? If so, does this community find my interpretation of source reliability based on author's credential reasonable? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For more context, here's the talk page discussion: Talk:SHSH blob#Recently tagged and removed sources - my comment there is "It's only supporting technical details that can be confirmed in other sources. It's not the best reliable source, but I believe it's fine for supporting those claims." Here are the recent relevant diffs: [22] and [23]. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is

Russia Today

banned as a reference source on Wikipedia? I note from the archive RT has been discussed a few times. Is there a clear rule? I have a clear perspective: that no media source is infallible; RT follows a distinctive, Western-ctitical perspective and is trusted by millions of people (whether it should be or not, after all, should people trust any media source?). Every media outlet has its political perspective, whether controlled by a Government or a Corporation.

I've encountered an editor who claims

Talk: Syrian Civil War

page. By excluding Russia Today (which has journalists in Syria and whose correspondent was the most recent English speaking correspondent to interview the Syrian President), I think a serious distortion emerges. Obviously RT pursues a much more "Assad-tolerant" line than just about all major Western media outlets. As far as I am concerned, that's all the more reason it should not be excluded (as otherwise, how do we present balanced and rounded articles.)

Personally, I think it's a nonsense that I should have to raise this but Censorship and Discrimination and Politics predominate so often here on Wiki. If I get into an edit war, I'll be banned and the other editor will doubtless get away with his behaviour. I expect he will any way and raising this is futile but I'll give it a go. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to answer questions like this without the full context. RT is often a reliable source, but may not be on some occasions or may be appropriate only with attribution. What wording in the article is in dispute? Formerip (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, this is a question of principle, not a particular article. Is RT banned in principle? The editor concerned is not having any regard to the article - simply the source. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't banned in principle. Formerip (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He is arguing for its use in the Syrian civil war page, which we agreed to not use it there. Russia Today has commonly referred to one side as "terrorists", and the site itself is state-controlled to reflect Russia view on the Syrian conflict, which tends to be partisan and in favor of the Syrian government. The Site is not known for fact checking, so much so that three reliable sources at one point took time to condemn Russia day, directly or indirectly, which very rarely happens in common newsmedia.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/25/wikileaks-julian-assange-russian-tv

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-today-tomorrow--the-world-2083869.html

Basically Russia today's lack of fact checking, ubiquitous use of weasel words, and slander of one particular side renders russia today ineliggible for use as a source on the Syrian civil war page. Sopher99 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, my personal assessment of Russia Today is that they are very interested in discrediting the United States and will highlight derogatory stories about it, but any time I have checked their facts so far they have been accurate. If they say there was a vote, there was a vote. If they say there was an earthquake there was an earthquake. On the other hand there is definitely a slant.They are not to be trusted when it comes to portraying motivation. They are affiliated with the Putin government, I have read. I have a vague memory that Russia supports Assad but have not read anything RT has written about Syria. I would expect it to reflect Putin's foreign policy whatever it might be. I have not actually researched their editorial policies but given the slick production values I suspect that there is in fact editorial review. Whether this means that facts are checked is unclear to me. The objectively verifiable ones tend to be accurate is all I can say. In a nutshell, I'd consider them a weak source, possibly usuable about events in a remote location not covered by other media, but if so only with great caution. Al-Jazeera is much much better and should be used instread if available. If RT calls the Free Syrian Army terrorists, it's also a strong indication that they lack objectivity in this area at least. That's my take, anyway Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

BBC and CNN really are slanted towards the Anglo-American viewpoint and freely smear Assad while only on occassion mentioning the evil and terroristic acts done by some the militants, many of the religious and/or ethnic terrorists or poor youth from the country out to join a gang and loot. While RT is not as good at hiding its propaganda agenda as BBC and CNN in particular, I would not totally rule it out, depending on the story; nor would I entirely rule in anything printed by BBC and CNN. CarolMooreDC 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Can RT be "banned" on principle from a particular article

From the discussion above, I think it is established that there is no rule banning Russia Today on principle as a source on Wikipedia. Like any other source, an RT article must be assessed on its merits etc.

My next question is whether editors can ban RT as a source in respect of a particular article?

If RT is not a banned source generally, why should it be generally banned from any particular article? Each particular Russia Today article (or CNN article for that matter) needs to be assessed on its own merits is my view.

Is there any rule around this. The context here (as per the above, is that an editor,

. I think this is an abuse.

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not about banning or prohibiting, its about simply not using a source deemed unreliable for an area of context while we have plenty of other reliable sources that cover the information of the article at hand (BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, CNN, Telegraph, Guardian, ect) Sopher99 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like the same thing in different words, Sopher. It's not appropriate to ban a particular source that is generally considered RS from use in a particular article.

For material that is uncontentious, RT can be used in the same way as any major news outlet, and it would be disruptive to replace cites in such cases with sources friendlier to an Anglo-Saxon POV.

Material that is contentious should be discussed on the talkpage and, if agreement can't be reached, brought to a venue such as this one (case by case). "It's RT so it can't be trusted" will never be a valid argument on its own although, since RT clearly does sometimes slant its coverage, it may be part of a valid argument with fuller reasoning. Formerip (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxon POV". If you think this is about race or nationality you are clearly mistaken. What is an Anglo-Saxon POV? Biscuits and crumpets? Furthermore I can assure oyu the Syrian civil war is extremely contentious. Each article Russia Today creates, particularly on Syria, has a lack of fact checking and accuracy, and instead has a heavily anti-FSA/Opposition slant. For this reason it shouldn't be used. An Unreliable source is an Unreliable source, not reliable on Tuesdays and questionable on Wednesdays. Sopher99 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to think that, but it's not WP practice. Per RS: "Proper sourcing always depends on context". So, a source can quite easily be reliable one day for one citation and unreliable the next day for another. Formerip (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To expand just a little on this, because I have still not looked at the page and would prefer not to get sucked into it, if RT says there was a massacre at thus and such a village, for instance, my own inclination would be to see if anyone else has covered this. If, for example, the Guardian, Al-Jazeera and Andy Carvin all say there are unconfirmed reports of such a massacre, and RT claims to have had someone on the ground there, it might be ok to quote them for the details, with caution. They do seem to have an agenda in Syria and I am not certain whether it would extend to manufacturing news stories. If they say that the States is trying to overthrow Assad I would give this zero credence even though I would otherwise be inclined to believe such a thing if I saw it from a more credible source. Note, I consider Julian Assange a somewhat more credible source. He has his own agenda, of course, but it's a different agenda and doesn't really focus on Syria. Andy Carvin is extremely credible if you aren't following him, but he falls into a strange category for wikipedia purposes. The person who said that CNN has an agenda is also correct but their bias tends to be more subtle and to show more in what they leave out than in what they say.

To comment on your links above, a) I don't consider it a sign of whackiness to have given Assage a show. If anything he lends them credibility since he has been right about so much. b) ya, the Bilderberg thing is pretty silly. RT is not reliable on their own to prove that a conspiracy exists :) c) yes they do provide a venue for other voices, and that's a good thing. I wish they curated those voices better though. And yeah, you can't believe anything that say about events in Russia. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RT is a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarian government It can't be used as

07:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No source can be "banned" in principle from an article. It would be helpful if someone would come back with a particular instance of where in the article they would like to use RT. RT is in principle reliable for news. Where it conflicts with other agencies then both sides should be given. Remember WP:RECENT and don't try to cover all the twists and turns of the conflict. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby and Hi Itsmejudith - This is a question of principle. Can RT as a source be banned in principle from an article or not. It's a Yes or No type topic. It seems it cannot but Editor Sopher99 purported to do so. You don't need to consider any particular RT article to answer this question. I would like this question decided on. Then, when I or others try to include material on the

Syrian Civil War article was wrong. Then after settling the question of the principle, we can look at any particular RT articles that arise. Frenchmalawi (talk

) 12:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You have already had answers on this. Please do not pursue it further. Our NPOV policy is being seriously impeded by people who wish to claim that a source is used or "banned" on Wikipedia. "My fan website has made it, it is used as a source on WP." "My railways book is the best, it is frequently used in WP." "My college is more prestigious than yours, my professor's books are cited all the time in WP." "This magazine is extremist, it has been banned by WP". Ad nauseam. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - "You have already had answers on this". I want the position to be crystal clear. I take it you are saying RT cannot be banned in principle as a source on Wikipedia. It's important to get this clear...There's been lots of wordy posts here. Please confirm. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No source can be "banned in principle" from Wikipedia. The consensus of contributors to an article can conclude that any source - RT, CNN, whatever - is not appropriate, but consensus can change. Moreover, there is never a crystal clear final authoritative answer to any question on Wikipedia, nor anyone who can give one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A few points:

• There is no such thing as a source that is always
  WP:RS
  's section titled "Context Matters".
• News media outlets are generally speaking assumed to be reliable. Russia Today appears to have an editorial oversight and is staffed by professional journalists. (I am making these 2 assumptions - if I am wrong, please let me know.)
• There is nothing wrong with a source having a bias. All sources have some bias. In the US, the Washington Post is considered to have a left-leaning bias and the Washington Times is considered to have a right-leaning bias. That doesn't make them unreliable. See
  WP:V#Neutrality
  .
• But ultimately, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does Russia Today have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I did a little research myself and found some troubling reports:

• According to the Columbia Journalism Review:

“

It featured fringe-dwelling “experts,” like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States...Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate news gathering.

”

• According to the Independent:

“

The 11 September attacks in New York were an inside job; the South Korean warship torpedoed in March was not sunk by North Korea, but probably by Japan or the US; and the world is run by the secretive Bilderberg Group, who pursue a "New World Order". Not the lonely ravings of a conspiracy-minded blogger, but all opinions aired recently on a satellite channel beamed into millions of American homes.

”

• According to the Economist:

“

Some of the channel's recent offerings suggest a penchant for wild conspiracy theories which may have the opposite effect. Take this segment which gives a platform to a conspiracy theorist seized of the idea that the Bilderberg group is behind the European Union.

”

• Thus, it seems to me that this source has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. No source is banned from Wikipedia (well, aside from spam sites), but I would approach this source with extreme caution. I would tend to think that this source falls under
  WP:RS#Questionable_sources
  .

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with AQFK here... RT does seem to have a poor reputation, and should be considered questionable, except for explicitly attributed statements as to RT's viewpoint. The question we then face whether RT's viewpoint is worth noting in a specific article. This is, in many ways, more of a

WP:DUE WEIGHT

issue than a WP:RS issue. Certainly in an article about RT, it would be appropriate to mention RT's viewpoint on various issues, and cite it as a primary source for that viewpoint. However, it is much less appropriate to mention its viewpoint in other articles.

I am concerned that the underlying issue here is that the article (articles?) in question does not present "the Russian viewpoint"... however, if that is the case, then the solution is to find other (unquestionably reliable) sources that we can cite in support that viewpoint. To rely on just RT would be like relying on the National Enquirer for "the American viewpoint". Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The site is not even respected as a reliable source by reporters without borders. http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=530&id=619775 Sopher99 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Kommersant mentioned reporters without borders in 2005 before RT even started broadcasting. Got anything more recent from them?

The RT_(TV_network)#Reception section fully covers commentary on programming, bias, guests and news coverage. There are lots of accusations under bias but only a few actual incidents under news coverage.

RT has courted controversy (see newest article on this factoid Russia Today chases ratings with controversy, GlobalPost.) It has had guests with some wacky theories in the past, which the above 2010 era quotes reflect. In the last couple years it has settled down and had a lot more credible guests from think tanks, former govt officials and representatives, etc. As GlobalPost wrote: "It was the kind of reporting that’s become a hallmark of the channel, enabling what was once derided as a state propaganda outlet aimed at improving Russia’s reputation to cultivate the image of an emerging English-language source for alternative views."

Conspiracy wise, mental experiment: if Russia had the US fully surrounded with military bases wouldn’t you hear a lot of paranoid from our media too; look at the media driven paranoia about terrorists who live 8000 miles away - or have to be lured and cajoled into talking about terrorism enough to be prosecuted at home.

As several sources note in the RT_(TV_network)#Reception section, RT has lots of detractors from Western media that resents it not pushing a standard pro-Western line. As Glenn Greenwald writes, the real cause of American media hostility toward RT is that “the reporting it does reflects poorly on the U.S. Government, the ultimate sin in the eyes of our ‘adversarial’ press corps." Stephen F. Cohen stated in 2012 in the New Republic that despite the pro-Kremlin slant, “any intelligent viewer can sort this out. I doubt that many idiots find their way to RT.” The same goes for any intelligent editor of wikipedia! CarolMooreDC 21:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Simple "idiots" are really not the biggest concern here. A more appropriate term would be "

Alex Jones—oh, but we already get a good dose of the latter from RT

.

You claim that it's "settled down", but even 6 months ago, we find Mitt Romney attended Bilderberg 2012? filed under "USA News". ~~

talk

) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is, if Romney got all that publicity for "47%", why didn't national media even mention in passing that a UK Guardian contributor alleged Romney attended a meeting of a secretive business group (as Wikipedia calls it) the

Bilderberg Group?? In any case, all the major outlets spin SOME conspiracy theory, it's just that this one isn't the preferred one of those media groups and the special interests that support them. It's all bias and politics, so let's assume Wikipedians are smart enough to know the difference and take it on a case by case basis? CarolMooreDC

15:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Russia Today is known to always toe the line of the Russian Government, and therefore should be used with caution, especially for anything remotely controversial. This is not the case for CNN or BBC (even though the latter is State owned). That does not mean they are always reliable, but they are still in a different league. I am Russian, so I know the difference. - BorisG (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• To give a short answer as requested, RT is not banned in principle. It should be used with a fair amount of caution and in general Al Jazeera, BBC or CNN will be more accurate. It definitely is advocacy journalism and its accuracy on specific issues is open to question. If no equivalent coverage can be found the facts that make up the story should be checked. Elinruby (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

conscience-sociale.blogspot.com and conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr appear to be blogs with pages of graphs and data from other (mainly reliable) sources and self-published synthesis by the author (Bruno Paul, who does not appear to be an economic expert). I propose replacing these links with links to the reliable sources themselves, where they are used as a source for primary data, and removing instances where they are is used as a secondary source (synthesis) or as a source for editorial synthesis, due the

according to Wikipedic standards.

• http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.com
• http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr
• Links used as sources of primary data where we could replace the links with the specific sources compiled on the blog page, except where synthesis might be implied by such compilations:
  • http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.com/p/dashboard-of-us-economy.html used here
  • http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr/p/the-us-debt-dashboard-key-indicators-of.html used here and here
  • http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr/p/the-japan-debt-dashboard.html used here
• Links used as sources for synthesis which should be removed along with the supported statements:
  • http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-replace-world-trade-reference.html used here, here, here, and here.
  • http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.com/2012/02/us-public-debt-to-gdp-ratio-is-115.html used here

These sites clearly are the product of a great deal of very useful work and are excellent places to find good economic sources but, in my opinion, they do not themselves meet the reliability standards of this project. Jojalozzo 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

) 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"I propose replacing these links with links to the reliable sources themselves, where they are used as a source for primary data, and removing instances where they are is used as a secondary source (synthesis) or as a source for editorial synthesis." That's the right thing to do. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this site being specifically discussed in the archives. A debate at Talk:Paul Watson brought up the issue of the reliability of tumblr.com as a source, so I decided to create a discussion here.

Tumblr.com is a site designed for anyone to share content from any device. As such, 100% of the content would be user-generated (and if not, the content would be copyright violations). I can't see how the Wikipedia community would consider tumblr.com a reliable source, except maybe as a

.

In any case, I am disturbed at the number of links to tumblr.com, more than 5,700: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.tumblr.com

What do others think? Should tumblr.com be added to XLinkBot to discourage future additions? ~

) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Tumblr pages are just like Twitter posts, they are perfectly reliable as primary sources if they are from the subject themselves or from someone of recognized authority on the subject. Looking at the usage of tumblr on Wikipedia through the link you gave, I see that there is a large usage of official tumblr pages as ELs, which seems appropriate, and then there are usage of tumblr references from the subject themselves, which is the same as any other official statement by the subject. I don't see any reliability issues here so long as the tumblr is from an official subject or a recognized authority. Silverseren^C 09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

See

WP:SOCIALMEDIA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 11:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

El Atlas:De Le Monde Diplomatique

I'm not familiar with this source or its reliability [25] specifically the article I'm linking to and the author as a RS for content on the BLP,

) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Le Monde Diplomatique is a serious mainstream news magazine, should be reliable for biographies. Itsmejudith (talk

) 15:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

John Mueller on Vojislav Šešelj

, and in a footnote, wrote:

• ISSN 0162-2889. Retrieved 2012-12-20. 20. One of the most fanatical of Serb nationalists, the political scientist Šešelj, who spent a year teaching at the University of Michigan in his younger years, later seems to have become mentally unbalanced as the result of the torture and beatings he endured while in prison in Yugoslavia for counterrevolutionary activities. One academic colleague described him as "disturbed, totally lost, and out of his mind." See UN Experts, Final Report, par. 107, 108; see also Judah, The Serbs, p. 187 {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help
  )

This footnote was used partially to reference the factoid that Šešelj had taught at "University of Michigan". At Talk:Vojislav Šešelj#teaching in Michigan, I explored the issue and found that the description may well be inaccurate. While exploring that, I found the rest of the footnote and cited it for its actual meaning - to say what Mueller actually wrote about Šešelj.

Recently, an anonymous POV pusher complained about this and wanted to censor it in the text. I've refrained from insisting on it until I found another source.

Most recently, the gist of that note was removed, and now we're back in the situation where we don't quote the actual main point of that footnote, while the part that's kept is otherwise dubious.

This sounds like cherry-picking a quote to me. Is Mueller's footnote in an article published in an apparently respectable journal - reliable enough to be used for what it's actually saying? If it isn't, how is it reliable enough to be used to support a tangential factoid that it likely got wrong? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Wahlberg, A (2007), "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of ‘dangerous practitioners’ in the United Kingdom", Social Science & Medicine 65 (11): 2307–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.024
2. Article: Homeopathy
3. Content (in article lede): "Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery."
   talk
   ) 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely RSN discussion layout! I love it when the source/article/content are listed so clearly. Regarding the source, it's carried on PUBMED and MEDLINE-indexed, the direct link to the article is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17719708 ... looking at it now. Zad68 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "1994 Guardian Good Health Guide Fall–Winter 5/1 Some physicians condemn it [sc. homeopathy] as quackery; others..embrace it as the road to wellness". "Quackery". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) --Senra (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My response:

I have several reservations about the proposed edit using the provided source.

The journal is Social Sciences and Medicine, and the author does not appear to be in medicine--Wahlberg is affiliated with the London School of Economics and Political Science and not a medical department. The abstract of the article appears only to label mid-19th century homeopathy "quackery," and this attribution is to someone else (Roy Porter). The journal article itself appears not to be a review article that might be in a position to make this kind of characterization, but rather an original research paper ("By examining the ways in which regulatory authorities in the UK have come to address what is invariably described as a 'growing interest in CAM', I will show how..."). This makes for rather weak sourcing for the content suggested, especially for an article lead.

This suggested edit appears to be an attempt to get homeopathy labelled as "quackery" in the lead. The lead should summarize the most important points of the body of the article. If homeopathy is broadly and definitively considered "quackery" by the medical community, there should be significant coverage of that in the article, and the article should be carrying several strong sources supporting that content. Isn't there a stronger source in the article you can source this to? It would not surprise me to find that the proposed content is supported by strong sources, but you need to find those strong sources, the one provided here doesn't seem to be it. Zad68 18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am a late-coming and fairly-disinterested participant in this debate (though I suppose technically I am involved), and am posting this query here to progress the deadlocked thread [26] on the Talk page. My personal suspicion too, is that the source is a bit weak. I have searched quite hard for a source to support the statement that the medical community thinks homeopathy is quackery but I can't find one (which rather upsets my rational-skeptical self). It seems to be that medics (unlike scientists and skeptics) are just a bit woolly about this kind of thing.

talk

) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha... My guess is that "quackery" is just rather too emotive a word for medicine folks to want to use in their publications. So the article should say what they do say. This nice, recent review article calls it "niche" and lacking in "scientific rigor." So that wording instead. Zad68 18:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

adding: I'm a little stunned to find that the review article I linked to isn't used in the article already. Zad68 18:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, any statement of the form "The X community thinks Y" will never be correct, even if a usually-reliable publication says it. Communities don't think, after all. The real question is whether it is really a mortal

wp:IAR in this case. Full disclosure - I've been a long time editor on that article. LeadSongDog come howl!

19:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Another problem is the confusion by some eds on what the medical community means. From discussion on the talk page and from what LSD says above, it appears that they actually mean the medical scientific research community - a significant difference. Though I agree that it is misleading and mistaken to assume from individuals saying homeopathy is quackery, that the community itself would use this term, or even anything similar. Are we done here and can remove the quackery sentence from the lead? Cjwilky (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Consensus on the talk page is (and has been repeatedly) that the quackery label is well sourced. That source isn't the only one we have. Editors should take a look at the relevant talk page discussion here. I appreciate Zad's input, truly, but one single editor at RSN, commenting on one single source, does not override consensus on the article talk page from dozens of editors regarding a multitude of sources. The discussion can continue, of course, but overriding consensus preemptively like this isn't helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

From the sourcing perspective it seems ok, but is a bit of cherry picking as you will find contradicting sources as well. There 2 principal issues here. The lesser one is that the term "quackery" might be too loaded and the more serious one (making all the difference) is the exact meaning of the "medical community". When the sources speaks of the "medical community", it actually means the conventional academic medicine ("Schulmedizin") community. Calling them the medical community as such may be iffy or a bit misleading as there is a large number of of physicians practicing alternative medicine (including homeopathy).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please present the contradictory sources so that we may examine them. Skinwalker (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh, your last point is true; "medical community" can be seen as including the alternative medicine community. I'm sure we could clarify this with an appropriately selected adjective. Do you have a suggestion? I've never been a fan of "mainstream", so perhaps there is another option. We could also substitute "medical" for "scientific".   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree; you see jess, I m not alone in this. --Motorola12 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@Motorola: when I said "one editor", I wasn't referring to you. I was saying Zad's opinion, as a third party, is immensely useful, but still does not override consensus on the talk page from a multitude of other editors. We should take his comments seriously, but we should not immediately go back to the article and start reverting against consensus, which is what happened.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The question about an appropriate encyclopedic style (no loaded terms in the lead) and contradicting sources, should be discussed on the articles discussion page (I posted there already). It is not really a question for this noticeboard, which primarily tries to assess whether a particular can be considered reliable/reputable. The core dispute in the problem above is not the reliability of a particular source, but whether the article's style and tone is appropriate and whether it is an appropriate summary of all aspects/sources and that beyond this noticeboard.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to make assertions without proof you're not going to get very far editing this article. Skinwalker (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What assertions without proof are you talking about exactly? But again I suggest to have that discussion where it belongs (on the discussion page of the article).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to include part of

and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world. My question is therefore wetter Jack Fischel an academic historian, a former professor emeritus of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania is reliable concerning his book "Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust"

1. Source.Jack Fischel

2. published by

3. The quote in concern Al-Husseini memoirs. where he states P:122:

"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours" [27]

This quote from this academic historian book is supported by numerous secondary sources

1.The Gramsci Factor: 59 Socialists in Congress By Chuck Morse [28]

2.#A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic JihadBy David Patterson

[29]

3.Wiesenthal Holocaust center[30]

4. A. Dershowitz; [31]

5. New York Jewish Times [32]

and numerous other articles. Despite this Jack Fischel book was described as unreliable: [33] [34] [35] and "as useless as tits on a bull on this issue" [36]

Due to

and Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world talk page. I would highly respect your opinion on this issue as this quote was removed as unreliable.--Tritomex (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fischel’s unreliability as a source on this has been extensively analysed and shown here and here.

The reasons are

• The
  Haj Amin al-Husseini
  article is or rather was very difficult to write because there was a huge amount of early post-war disinformation laid to his account which then fed into the mainstream. The specific scholarly literature on him since 1980 by specialist historians, comprehensive in its coverage, and often expressing distaste for the subject, has nonetheless dismantled much of this myth-making by unmasking its unreliability.
• Editors of his page over the years have therfore rewritten it by raising a high bar for the relevant RS. Nothing that is an identifiable POV meme failing verification in the best secondary sources passes muster. Fischel fails this test, the section where this quote occurs repeats obvious errors.
• Patterson alone measures up academically and in terms of publisher quality, but unfortunately in the section he writes of al-Husseini his sources are notoriously poor, and met a very critical reception. He wandered outside of his area of technical expertise, and failed to check the memes circulating in the second-rate sources, like Dalin, which he used.
• All attempts to verify Fischel’s report have so far failed (which does not exclude changes to the record in the future, if this stuff is eventually verified by scholarship from the primary source to which it is attributed).

• For these and many other reasons (Tritomex has difficulty understanding RS, and cannot see that authors he cites like Alan Dershowitz or Chuck Morse, for support in this edit proposal, either lack competence on the subject, are POV-driven brow-beaters, or are patently ridiculous, and fail all RS criteria), Fischel’s meme is excluded from the text. He has zero competence in the relevant archives, has no area or linguistic competence, and repeats material no authority on Husseini has deigned to touch. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable for this information. The background to the story is that in the wake of the
  tertiary source, not a scholarly book. It gives no source for this "quotation". The author does not have any presence in scholarly study of the subject. As well as that, this brief encyclopedia entry contains several clear-cut errors of fact: that Al-Husseini organized the "Nazi scouts" (he didn't), that the "Handselar" [sic
  ] committed atrocities against Jews (chronologically impossible), and that al-Husseini was charged at Nuremberg (he wasn't). The last one is especially remarkable since the facts about that are extremely well known and not disputed. Fischel also makes claims (eg. Husseini was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler) that are almost universally regarded as apochryphal.

As far as anyone has shown, none of the serious scholars who have written about al-Husseini at length mention this "quotation". There are very many of them, from all sides of the spectrum. What it comes down to is this: the only way to keep the relevant wikipedia articles from becoming worthless dumps of everyone's propaganda rubbish is to stick to the serious academic sources and ignore the rest. This is not a serious hurdle since there is a deep and rich academic literature to draw from.Zero^talk 00:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

All roads lead back to Sarah Hönig. Pattinson cites Dalin&Rothman, who cite Dershowitz, who cites Hönig. As far as anyone has demonstrated, there is no other original source. In addition, a far more qualified historian called this story "alleged and highly unlikely" and adds "there is an official German record of his meeting with Hitler that contains no such statement." (Tom Segev, NYT, Sep 28, 2008). As if any more evidence is needed, at least two authors extremely critical of al-Husseini (Elpeleg and Achcar) quote from the memoirs extensively and report that Husseini dissociated himself from the Final Solution (while "explaining" why the Nazis hated Jews). How is this compatible with a claim that al-Husseini wrote that he wanted to "eradicate every last Jew"? Of course it isn't compatible. Zero^talk 09:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Largely, but not entirely, agree with Zero0000:

• Fischel is not reliable for this information (tertiary source)
• Pattinson, Dershowitz etc. are not reliable for this information.
• However,
  WP:RS
  , and the fact that the author, Hönig, did not provide her source, does not disqualify it (since newspaper articles seldom provide references).
• One can argue that there are plenty of reliable scholarly sources for these historical topics, and thus we should exclude newspaper articles here and use scholarly sources only. This is fine as long as this is applied consistently, and not selectively. - BorisG (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the JP is not RS for this, Boris. Have you read the quality of her reportage? I assure you, I'd trust David Patterson, who has the Hillel Feinberg Chair in Holocaust studies at UTD or even Jack Fischel anyday on a lot of these issues, if I had to make a choice between them and Sarah Honig. The specific article where this putative excerpt is 'quoted' is so slipshod, it even confuses, hilariously, Erwin Rommel 's nickname (Desert Fox/Wüstenfuchs) with the Pommie Desert Rats who fought against him.

When she's not plundering the dictionary for synonyms for fiend, she gets everything wrong. None of the following is true.

• The mufti planned a triumphant return with the conquering Axis forces and the construction of a death camp outside Nablus to implement the final solution of the Jewish problem in this region.
• Despair after the Desert Rat's rout (ie.e. Rommel! the Desert Fox) was immense, but Husseini wouldn' t give up.
• Himmler took Husseini . . organized tours for him to Auschwitz,
• He recruited Bosnians and other Moslem volunteers, who were to cleanse newly-occupied areas of "hostile elements," concentrate Jews for transport, and operate the projected death machine in Palestine
• The SS interest in the mufti preceded the war. It financed his uprising here between 1936-39
• Thereafter the mufti became a frequent caller at Eichmann's office. The two got along famously. They shared the goal of exterminating all Middle Eastern Jews.
• Arafat and Faissal Husseini are both his blood kin.
• The spirit of the man from Klopstock Street still hovers over Gaza. That's why baby Shalhevet was murdered.

That's all crap, and the fact that it's the Jerusalem Post which carries this tripe in an op-ed doesn't alter the status of Honig's piece, as unreliable for anything on Husseini.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For students of rhetoric, 'The spirit of the man from Klopstock Street still hovers over Gaza,' is an allusion to Genesis 1:1: 'and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.' Husseini is the YHWH of Gaza and its accursed terrorist population. Blasphemous, really.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

On the grounds that one good speculation deserves another, I'm pretty sure that "the Jews are yours" is an allusion to the story of

Haman, which most of Hönig's readers would be familiar with. Zero^talk

00:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is a "reliable source" for news, but historical claims made in opinion pieces are obviously not included (unless the writer is an acknowledged expert on the history). Zero^talk 00:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a point I can agree with. Moreover, I guess those history books that cite such opinion pieces as sources cannot be taken seriously, even if they have scholarly appearence. My only concern is that we need to make sure this approach is applied consistently. - BorisG (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As we see from other sources this part of Al-Husseini and Hitler conversation exists before 2001, namely in the book printed in 1940s. [37] so this was hardly "invented by Honig in 2001" as you stated.[38] be .Handžar committed atrocites against Jews, source Valhalla's Warriors: A History of the Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front 1941-1945 By Terry Goldsworthy P.110' among others committing massacre of Tuzla Jews [39] Al-Futuwwa Nazi scouts were indeed under Al-Husseini control, Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism By David M. Rosen P:106 [40] and All-Husseini played crucial role in its establishment.Henry Laurens, La question de Palestine, Tome 2, Fayard, p.536. Considering Nishadani claims as he did not provided any links or sources for his claim it is impossible to answer them. So by all academic means this book is Reliable --Tritomex (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The claimed quotation does not appear in the 1947 booklet. Anyway, how can a 1947 source have something about memoirs written in the 1960–70s? You might be right about the Tuzia (not Tuzla) Jews but there was never any organization called "Nazi Scouts" (it was a working title changed before the organization was formed) and the source you gave does not indicate Amin al-Husseini's role in it. Do you know how large the Husseini family is? The source of this information (tracing the references back from the one you gave) is the book of Yehoshua Porath that I cited earlier (The Palestinian Arab National Movement, Vol 2, p76) which goes into great detail. Fischel gives a misleading summary, ergo he is not reliable. Zero^talk 00:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, did you notice your "New York Jewish Times" source cites it to Wikipedia? Zero^talk 08:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• 'Unreliable. Zero0000 and Nishidani argued why in details here above. I just add to what they state that if claims from this tertiary source is reliable, it will be easy to find better and less controversial sources that support them too and this will stop the controversy. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reliable beyond a doubt - the source is an academic, an historian who has taught and published extensively on the Holocaust, and the quote is from an academic reference book published by an academic publishing house - and we're questioning its suitability based on partisan, POV-pushing wikipedia's editors' analysis of the quality of his scholarship? I can't believe we're even having this discussion. All Rows4 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Puto2012: Nishadani, Zeero, you and myself are involved editors, with extensive debate on talk page, while Rows4 whose comments I fully support is uninvolved.. It is clear that the 1947 source do not refer to Al-Huseeini memoirs but to the actual Hitler-Al-Husseini dialogue, which is mentioned by Al-Husseini memoirs as well. The question is how Jack Fischel a history professor from Millersville University of Pennsylvania and Rowman & Littlefield could be unreliable per Wikipedia guiltiness?--Tritomex (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at All Rows4's contribs shows involvement in I-P articles with strong pov. So of course she/he is involved. Zero^talk 23:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The following article: D. Gareth Porter, The Myth of the Bloodbath: North Vietnam's Land Reform Reconsidered (Ithaca Cornell University IREA Project, 1972) (A shorter version of this paper was published in The Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. V, No. 2, September 1973, pp. 2-15.) deals with the land reform in North Vietnam. It has been cited by other authors, such as Edwin E. Moise. (Land Reform and Land Reform Errors in North Vietnam. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Spring, 1976), pp. 70-92; Moise generally supports Porter's conclusions, although he disagrees with some minor details), Jonathan London (Viet Nam and the making of market-Leninism. The Pacific Review, Vol. 22 No. 3 July 2009: 375–399), or James P. Harrison (The Endless War: Vietnam's Struggle for Independence. Columbia University Press, 1982

, 9780231069090). In connection to that, I would like to know if Porter a reliable source for the statement:

"This figure, which was called "standard estimate" in 1960s, [1] was demonstrated to be unfounded by Gareth Porter."^[2]"

Thank you in advance, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, as three years later he was claiming the Khmer Rouge only killed a few hundred, Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982 p138. His track record is obviously not the best. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I posted here following your request. You already expressed your opinion on the Vietnam War talk page. Please, let uninvolved users to voice their opinion. Meanwhile, let me remind you that we are discussing the sources, not the authors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of a source also depends on the author. Anyone who said the Khmer Rouge only killed a few hundred is obviously not a reliable source. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Porter's writings about Cambodia evaded attention of his peers. Nevertheless, they continue to cite him, and to support his conclusions about Vietnam land reform. In addition, your idea that reliability of a source also depends on the author contradicts to what our policy and guidelines say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I read many books about Pol Pot's Cambodia that mentioned Porter. Noam Chomsky wrote books about Pol Pot's Cambodia, I consider them both RS on Cambodia. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the page of the book that Darkness Shines criticizes, with what I think is an unfair distortion of Porter's ostensibly measured work. As a kind of review article that scrutinizes the methodologies for counting deaths, rather than uncritically accepting one of them, it is one of the most high quality sources that you could use. Also, Porter was not seriously criticized or discredited by his colleagues in that particular academic field, whose opinion matter much more for judging RS than Wikipedians' feelings on his political correctness.

talk

) 05:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You honestly think a person who said the KR only killed a few hundred is an RS for the body count of another communist country? And he has been criticized "Porter and Hildebrand accepted much to uncritically and naively Khmer Rouge statements and documents" Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982 p138. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable. He was proved wrong on Cambodia, but he was not the only one, and that was at a time when there was little or no information coming out about Cambodia. Here, he has a reasoned argument, which I don't think anyone has been able to refute. I would not consider Chomsky's writings on Cambodia RS for Cambodian history. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

But you should word it differently, because there is still disagreement. Something like "Gareth Porter in 1972 wrote that the estimate was based on a mistranslation of... " Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the conclusion that Porter demonstrated the standard estimate to be unfounded belongs to another author, so the correct wording should be:

"This figure, which was called "standard estimate" in 1960s, ^{[3] [4]}was demonstrated to be unfounded by Gareth Porter."^[5][4]"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Porter's reliance on North Vietnamese state propaganda is likely to have led him to errors, just like his reliance on Khmer Rouge state propaganda led him to errors. The man has no historical training or experience with Indochina, and could barely speak the language he was accusing others of mistranslating. The brutality of the Khmer Rouge was obvious to any honest observer. Porter wrote for a "bulletin" founded by graduate students with the goal of presenting a "radical critique" of U.S. foreign policy. Therefore, Stumink, Slatersteven, Darkness Shines, and myself are all against Siebert's proposed wording.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the amount of users voting for and against some source does not matter. Do you have any reason (besides your own conclusion that Porter relied on NV propaganda) to state that this particular book (published by Cornell) is not reliable?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't weigh in on the question of its reliability. I stated that "Stumink, Slatersteven, Darkness Shines, and myself are all against Siebert's proposed wording." Your revision states that Porter "disproved" all of those pesky refugees, defectors, foreign witnesses, and dissident publications--and everyone in Vietnam who continues to recount tales of the bloodbath to this very day. Porter is hardly the last word on the subject, or the most reliable of sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Ported is not the last word: he is being cited by others, who agree with his conclusions only partially. However, his conclusion that the 50,000 figure is unfounded seems to be supported by others. Note, my question on this noticeboard was not about Porter in general, but about his reliability for this particular statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS should apply to this article, and Porter's article does not meet it by the usual criteria, except for the fact that his point has been accepted by later academic writers. If Vietnamese government propaganda is to be distrusted, that does not mean that all pro-American sources are automatically correct. Both could be wrong. It would be really useful to know what recent Vietnamese historians are writing on the topic. I don't know if it is possible to do an online search of the journals. Would someone like to,post on WikiProject Vietnam for advice? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked through WP:HISTRS and I did not understand which criteria were not met. Could you please elaborate on that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether Porter was an academic historian when he wrote his article, or whether he was a journalist. Most of his career has been in journalism. We do not have a citation for his PhD, and do not know the date when he got it. The Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars was not a typical academic journal. I don't know about the Ithaca Cornell publication. That's all. I would not count Hoang Van Chi as an academic historian either. In fact few of the people who have written on this history really count as historians. Bernard Fall should be regarded as a reliable source. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lam Thanh Liem estimates up to 200000 dead from the land reform program in Vietnam. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW Moise upped his figure to 8000. Triumph Revisted: Historians Battle for the Vietnam War p97. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not discussing the actual estimate, we discuss the Porter's statement about fabrication of earlier data. That other authors disagree with Porter's estimate is obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A Radio Free Asia article by Phuong Anh, Nguyen Anh, and Viet Hung cites The History of the Vietnamese Economy, Vol. 2 (2005), edited by Dang Phong of the Institute of Economy, for a figure of 172,000 executions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. He writes, literally, that “Suddenly they implemented a land reform by sending groups of officials to the countryside, and giving them the freedom to classify and accuse people as landowners at will. An additional number of 172,000 people became victims”. However, I see no contradiction here with what Moise or London say: they both noted that many people were imprisoned, and thereby became victims of the land reform. However, they do separate executions from other type repressions, and it is not clear from the above quote if Hung is speaking about executions. In any event, instead of citing US sponsored radio you should present the original works the article is based upon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a quote from former communist official Nguyen Minh Can, not from the authors. The authors were clear and unambigious: "More than 172,000 people died during the North Vietnamese campaign after being classified as landowners and wealthy farmers, official records of the time show." (That is the first mention of the estimate). Your reply is nothing more than wishful thinking. Go back to arguing that RFA is American propaganda, instead of denying that it says what it so plainly says.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Died during the land reform" and "executed" are two different categories.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Radio Free Asia is most definitely not reliable for contentious areas of history. Please ask if you require comments on any of the other sources mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The book the radio station discuses is cited in Red Holocaust p110 and says 172000 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Rosefielde's book qualifies as a reliable source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is likely that it qualifies (although Rosefielde is not a specialist in Vietnam). However, I thought we already agreed on the article's talk page that we do not include the sources that just reproduce what others say. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We've been unable to agree on much of anything. Rosefielde's citation of two foreign-language sources (Lam Thanh Liem and Dang Phong), in addition to several English-language sources, helps get around the language barrier. Moreover, Rosefielde combines these sources with his own analysis of how the repression in Vietnam compares to other communist states and what motivated the various stages of repression (including what he describes as a significant escalation in state killing from 1975 until the death of

Le Duan in 1986). For these reasons, I think Rosefielde's work should be cited. If it were totally redundant and added nothing to the discussion, then I would agree with you that it should not be used.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk

) 23:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The book cited in the radio report being The History of the Vietnamese Economy? That would be reliable. Likely to have a pro-Vietnam government bias and needs to be balanced if it is contradicted by other sources. Rosefielde seems to be a specialist on Russia, and his book would be a good source on Russian history. Not really good on Vietnam. Are there not any other recent reliable histories? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Balazs Szalontai, Political and Economic Crisis in North Vietnam, 1955–56. Cold War History Vol. 5, No. 4, November 2005, pp. 395–426
2. Gavin W. Jones. Population Trends and Policies in Vietnam. Population and Development Review, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Dec., 1982), pp. 783-810
3. Porter, G. (1993) Vietnam: The Politics of Bureaucratic Socialism, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
4. Jonathan London. Viet Nam and the making of market-Leninism. The Pacific Review, Vol. 22 No. 3 July 2009: 375–399
5. Moise, E. E. (1983) Land Reform in China and North Vietnam: Consolidating the Revolution at the Village Level, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with all of those sources, but I imagine that Porter is just repeating his original thesis, and I know that some of those sources are simply citing a range of estimates. I would regard Moise's book as the best of these sources. Why don't we use his revised estimate of 8,000 executions and include it at the low end of the range, as suggested by Slatersteven?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That is nice: "I am not familiar, but I imagine." Are you seriously proposing to make a decision about the sources based on your imagination? In addition, how can you speak about any margins if you didn't read all sources?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, Siebert! I've not weighed in on any of the sources, or made any decisions. Personally, I have read more than enough Porter to last a lifetime, and thus have no intenton of reading The Politics of Bureaucratic Socialism (please forgive my blasphemy). All I suggested was that we use Moise's estimate for the low end of the range, a course of action that everyone from Stumink to Darkness Shines to Slatersteven seems ready to support. If you still insist on removing all of the bloodbath sources--

Dang Phong (2005), The History of the Vietnamese Economy; Steven Rosefielde (2009), Red Holocaust; Turner (1986), "Myths and Realities in the Vietnam Debate," World Affairs; Rummel, R.J (1994), Death by Government; and ect.--then your snarky reply makes sense, although you probably will not get your way. I continue to think that we should mention the range of estimates provided by different reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk

) 07:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

All 5 listed by Paul Siebert are reliable. Fall is reliable. Dang Phong is a very good source. Turner book should be included. Turner paper not significant. Rosefielde and Rummel should both be included although their books cover numerous countries rather than focusing just on VN. Summarise all of these objectively. Do not settle for one figure or another when historians have reached no such consensus. Just set out the different views. Don't get hung up on one aspect when there are other issues that the sources cover. Best of luck and thanks for your work on a contentious area. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and for your input. BTW, I deleted a citation to an article published by the RAND Corporation, because it was not of great importance and Siebert objected to it. In this case, the piece was given undue weight; but for future reference, is RAND ever a reliable source, or is it totally unacceptable?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

RAND publications can be reliable. It depends on many things, such as the purpose, whether the report is based on original research, the credentials of the author etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, two main objections against this particular RAND report were that (i) it was a report published by the organisation sponsored by the state that had been involved in the conflict with the state the report discusses, and (ii) that report meets just reviews seferal secondary sources, so it meets tertiary source criteria.

Regarding some reliable but old sources, I think that whereas they could be included, but only if we need to describe the development of our knowledge. Thus, Fall (which meet RS criteria, and which was included in the initial version of my text) represented an old standard estimate, so I think it would be more correct to say that, "whereas old estimate was 50,000, newer research demonstrated the actual figure was lower". In contrast, to say "estimates range from X (Fall) to Y (Szalontai)" would be as incorrect as to say that "estimates of the speed of light range from 220,000 km/s (Christiaan Huygens) to 299,792,458 (International System of Units)". The same can be said about Rummel.

Regarding Rosefilde, he is definitely a tertiary source for that estimates. In connection to that, if TheTimesAreAChanging believes he should be included, could they explain us, which sources Rosefielde's estimates are based on?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Briefly to your original question, Porter has been largely discredited along with what I'd call the "house of Chomsky." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Discredited by whom? Specify, please...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There seems to be a disagreement between some users at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga)#Possibly unreliable sources regarding the use of ComicBookBin, Active Anime, Teenreads and Read About Comics being questioned as reliable sources. Are all four of these sources considered reliable? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on this noticeboard where Active Anime was considered unreliable but Tean Reads was considered reliable (discussion). Later, there was another discussion here about Active Anime (discussion), where it was again considered unreliable (and I voiced an opinion elsewhere that it was even more unreliable than the discussion here made it out to be). There was also a discussion here where Comic Book Bin was considered reliable (discussion). There was also a discussion elsewhere where Read About Comics was considered reliable (discussion). So based on the past discussions, I would say Active Anime is unreliable while the other three are reliable (though I've only personally looked at Active Anime and for the other three, not many people participated in the discussions). Calathan (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering theyve been cited by other sources without question, makes it suggest they are reliable, and past discussions dont really help. For example Dark Horse cites their reviews on their Ghost in the Shell page. The discussion was rather short. Its difficult to judge the source simply for what it "looks" but not for what it is. I can see how difficult it is based solely on who are the staff, but it appears other sites accept them as a reliable source. The last review of the source wasnt really a true review.Lucia Black (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Being cited by other sources doesn't always make the original source reliable. Websites, and even books/newspapers sometimes, frequently reference

WP:VG/RS that they are unreliable, with their articles and sales figures being unusable on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me

14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Based on the past discussion here at RSN and this discussion, Active Anime is considered unreliable. However, ComicBookBin and Teenreads have an editorial staff, as indicated in these sources: [41], [42]. Read About Comics has a writer/producer, as indicated in this source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets not forget their able to get interviews, its hard to just ignore the site.Lucia Black (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that really a criteria for making a source reliable? That sounds more like it's grounded in it's popularity than their reliability... Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This self-proclaimed "one of the most trusted anime news sites in the world" and "one of best review sites on the Internet" (in reality a badly-designed and literally broken anime blog run on

) 06:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As of "for example Dark Horse": they will simply publish practically any (ANY) review they like. Including by

) 07:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

With its old page design and about page, AA did a much better job at appearing respectable, at least on first glance. My own investigation into how and how widely AA is

WP:A&M/RS). However much I'd like this source to be usable, in light of the available evidence, I don't think AA should be used for anything on Wikipedia. Goodraise

01:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

based on what reasoning? That them being used means they don't fit the criteria. Also note, that they have been able to conduct interviews to some very useful primary sources. to be labeled "should not be used for anything" seems unreasonable considering they provide some first-party info available only from them, and isn't all first=party source considered reliable.Lucia Black (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a convincing rationale for why AA should be considered reliable for anything but

WP:V's expectations, which depend on the claims sources are used to support. Goodraise

00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Can opinion polls be considered as Reliable Sources

I tried looking this in various discussions boards and not finding any answer I am posting my question here. I have some confusion after following

) 06:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your question is too general. Opinion polls can vary a great deal. Some will be reliable (and noteworthy - that's a second requirement that shouldn't be ignored) and others will not. There's nothing about polls per se that would make them fall under SELFPUBLISH. Nothing that appears in a newspaper will be caught by that guideline. Formerip (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ther is a fundemental difference between a newspaper publishing a poll based on phone-ins from its readers and from a newspaper publishing a poll that was conducted by a reputable organisation (such as Gallup). In the latter case, the questions asked and methodologies should be available to the reader and the editor invovled should understand the limitations of the poll concerned. In other words "Sometimes".Martinvl (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, maybe

instead. My concern is not about the accuracy of these polls but the very nature of these polls. please consider the following

1. The Wikipedia article about Opinion Polls has a compete section about the inaccuracies of these polls. It focuses on Nonresponse bias, Response bias, Wording of questions, Coverage bias etc. All of these have an impact on the accuracy of the poll no matter who conducts them, and I am not sure if it is possible for independent researchers, let alone Wikipedia editors to discount for these.
2. The very nature of demographic changes over time. For instance an opinion poll conducted in the afternoon in a shopping center would interview a very different sample from that conducted in the evening^[1]. This becomes an even bigger issue with political topics at the time of change and volatility^[2]. I am sure that there are statistical methods and research methodologies to check for these but do all opinion polls publish such data and again can a normal Wikipedia editor discount for these? I am yet to come across any opinion poll that honestly admits its sampling boudaries.
3. Opinion polls not only measure public opinion but also influence it^[3]. Is it possible that results of an opinion poll might influence future responders about the same topic? Is it possible to have completely neutral Opinion Polls?

The bottom line is, can opinion polls be considered to be reliable enough (

) 04:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually they would be primary sources. An article in a mainstream newspaper pointing out how a political party was faring in different opinion polls would probably be reliable for the article about that party. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Theouthousers.com

I haven't heard of this site before, but it appears to fail a number of the criteria (as far as I understand them) of reliability. The staff all appear to be internet handles, and there appears to be little or no administrative or editorial oversight. Hell, I think that I could be a member of the staff, If I were to but add a movie review, and I am certainly not citable enough for that sort of activity. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's not really a reliable source - it makes sense to wait for confirmation from more established sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Primicias 24 to dispute other sources

I have been involved in a discussion on the Derwick Associates page and a press release posted on Primicias 24 has been used to dispute the reports given by a few other sources. Some of my connections in Venezuela say that this is a government propaganda site, but they think every news site is a government propaganda site. All the advertising seems to be from the government and the content seems to be, at the very least, questionable in my opinion. Having said that, I'm still not sure. The other sources say that the sites have been abandoned and that they may not be in business while the press release and a government source suggest otherwise.

Here are the sources:

• Primera 24 (Original source in Spanish[44])(Google Translate[45])
• El Universal (A national newspaper and discussed before at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break)(Original source in Spanish[46])(Google translate[47])
• El Universal (Original source in Spanish[48])(Google Translate[49])
• Soberania (Original source in Spanish[50])(Google Translate[51])

Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Caramba, amigo, thanks for asking for my help! I am not sure what to say except that all the sources are from Spanish sites. I was wondering if we could find a source in English. Also, do they think WIKIPEDIA is a government propaganda site, or Derwikk and associates?

dito, dimelo en esta pagina

) 13:01, 3 January, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! My friends in Venezuela tell me that Primicias 24 is a government propaganda site. They also tell me that all the credible news agencies in Venezuela (the ones not run by the government) describe Derwick as a corrupt company that launders money for the government of Chavez. Personally, I'm inclined to believe the free press like El Universal, but that's why I'm bringing it up here! Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am posting a response from

User:Hahc21

, which was on the talk page:

"Okay. When talking about news from Venezuela, the most reliable sources are well-established newspaper and several websites. As far as I can see, El Universal is the one to trust and follow. It is a very well establshed newspaper (I buy it every week or so although it is daily) and it rarely publishes false information. Press releases are to be treated with extra care if they come from the Venezuelan government, which has been the subject of many controversies regarding the veracity of information published by them (take the current health of

Hugo Chavez as an example). My guess is to always try to find information from the most reliable sources, and those with no relationship with the government (if possible)." Justiciero1811 (talk

) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the late response for Justiciero1811, who pinged my talk. I've brought this back from archives to respond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues:

• Generally, the response quoted above from Hahc21 is correct. In Venezuela, if mainstream media criticizes
  Hugo Chavez
  or his adminstration, they can be shut down, so the mainstream media is by necessity very cautious in what they print. For balance of criticism, consulting sources outside of Venezuela is necessary.
• We don't need to even consider whether primicias24 is another government propaganda site; there is nothing anywhere on the site that speaks to reliability. It doesn't even meet the basics of
  WP:RS. The only About Us or Contact Us info on the page points to one person who is the editor of the website, Carlos Herrera.
  There is nothing to establish the basics like editorial oversight, staff, fact-checking, etcetera ... That the editorial stance of Herrera is apparent doesn't help.
• But, there are much bigger problems in this article, and those should be raised at the BLP noticeboard. Multiple individuals are implicated in corruption based on multiple non-reliable sources used in the article. There are likely
  WP:BLP
  vios.
  1. www.wikianticorrupcion.org
  2. soberania.org
  3. elvenezolanonews.com
  4. entornointeligente.com
  5. law.com

In summary, no primicias24.com does not appear to be a reliable source, should not be used to contradict mainstream sources like El Universal (Caracas), but there are much bigger problems in this article. I will crosspost to the BLP noticeboard-- I do not have the time nor the inclination to get involved in this article, and have only responded here because the original editor pinged my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

ToonZone

Much of the content, and much of the claim of notability, of "

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Boo Haw Haw" rests on the fact that there are several reviews of the episode on ToonZone. I closed the article's GA nomination based on the reliability of this source, but this has been disputed by the article's author. As far as I can see, ToonZone is a self-published website run and written by amateurs. It doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy, and I can't see any reason to trust the authors. We're not even sure who the majority of writers are, as they write under pseudonyms/monickers. While not just anyone can post a review, I'm not sure why the reviews of the "staff" should be considered reliable. A third opinion would be helpful. J Milburn (talk

) 20:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Search the archives. It has been brought up several times before.[52] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this looks like a good candidate to do a large scale clean up.[53] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The opinion of the editors who previously brought up ToonZone seems to be 50/50, so I think repeating the topic and finishing it once and for all would be the best choice. --Khanassassin ☪ 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

AQFN: Sorry, yes, I really should have checked the archives. Khanassassin: 50/50? Hardly. There seems to be a feeling that the news articles may be reliable, but that's certainly not a strong consensus. Certain posts may be reliable if they come from people who we might consider experts for whatever reason, but, for these reviews, I can certainly see no reason to assume that they are. There doesn't seem to be anything resembling editorial control; the mere fact that something has appeared on the website does not seem to make it reliable. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I just think ToonZone being cited as a source by

CHIP, The A.V. Club and more has to mean something. --Khanassassin ☪ 21:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)--Khanassassin ☪

21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Are they citing reviews by these authors, or are they citing news articles and forum posts which may have gotten some interesting information? Newspapers also cite ordinary members of the public who've offered information, people who've commented on their articles online and so forth. It is the job and prerogative of those kind of sources to take on information, sort the wheat from the chaff and report it. That's not our job, as a tertiary source. It's our job to report what the secondary sources which we know to be reliable say. If they say nothing, then we say nothing. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Khanassassin: Can you post links to the articles that cited this source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I previously raised the subject of toonzone.net in this discussion. The site identfies itself as "an animation news and information web site run by a group of devoted animation fans".[54] Despite a claim in the discussion that I started that "the main news part of the site is edited by experts in the animation field", the identity of these "experts" is not obvious and several news contributors that I checked on seem to be nothing more than hobbyists. Some of the information is gleaned from other fansites as indicated in the earlier discussion. While there is the odd piece of credible, verifiable content, content should really be sourced from somewhere else. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's basically a SPS which doesn't make it bad but if the whole of your article's notability is resting on that, you have a problem. I certainly don't see a problem with using reviews from TZ if the article is otherwise well-sourced from other more reliable sources, but for elements like news and the like, one should be careful and treat it as an SPS, ideally looking for confirmation elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviews from the website are used, yes - although I referenced the "storyboard artists" sentence in the "Production and release" section with one of the reviews (which notes which are the three storyboard artists). :) Note that professional reviewers are "devoted fans of animation" themselves to; why else would they pick writing reviews about them all the time for a job? :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So, this is how I understand your statement: Okay source, if used in small ammounts... ? --Khanassassin ☪ 16:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Websites using ToonZone for reference (requested by A Quest For Knowladge): Time, The Atlantic, The A.V. Club, Kotaku, Gawker, Crunchyroll, Space.com, Anime News Network (twice, actually), Bleacher Report, AMC, CHIP, MovieWeb, GitHub, Scoop, Moviefone. The first three magazines I listed, Tribune, Sun-Times, Star, are some pay-per-view stuff. Examiner.com is blacklisted for some reason. The Seattle Times, TechRepublic have links too, but their links to some fanish pages I think, the articles don't have much to do with animation. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It also might worth mentioning that professionals have also praised ToonZone. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Further links to come. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Source does not appear to be reliable and appears to be a

WP:SPS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-working URL as source in article about Delhi Rape Case 2012

1. Source First bad URL used: http://http://www.emirates247.com/news/delhi-gang-rape-accused-was-on-reality-tv-show-2013-01-12-1.489766 Second bad URL used: http://http://http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/india-rape-delhi-accused-juvenile-ramsin-idINDEE90B01S20130112

2. Article about recent Delhi Rape case (2012): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#cite_note-Reuters-43

3. Content: Bad sources are being used to support claim "a Juvenile whose name yet to be confirmed people dont even know his real name they used to call him Raju" under the section "Alleged Perpetrators"

There is no confusion about the name and his name has been mentioned by various credible media sources. I request that the older edit that named the accused using this reliable source (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/delhi-gangrape-fifth-man-md-afroz-nabbed-badaun-uttar-pradesh/1/238782.html) be reinstated.

The URLs aren't working because they have multiple hypertext transfer protocols. Try these:

• Reuters, Delhi rape accused lived on margins of India's boom
• Emirates 24/7, Delhi gang-rape victim's mother speaks

I don't see anything in either of those articles that discuss a "Raju," however. I suggest fixing the links, and removing the information that isn't supported by the sources. Good? TheBlueCanoe 03:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Help requested on List of people with bipolar disorder

Relevant diff explains it all. I am in a dispute with an IP editor at this article. I reverted him twice on "sources" which turned out to be college thesis papers which I contend do not meet the requirements of a

reliable scholarly publication acceptable as a source in this article. The problem is that the editor has also added a slew of other names cited to offline sources which are, of course, inaccessible to me for verification. I am demanding verification by the use of the {{verify source}} template, and I ask the help of others more experienced in these determinations to help me out here. Yes, I have opened a discussion on the talk page, which has so far attracted no discussion. Elizium23 (talk

) 14:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The main thing to bear in mind is that paper sources can be perfectly good and verifiable, but for books you need a page number. The Walter Benjamin source looks poor because it is to a collection of his works, unless the reference is to statements made by the scholarly editors of the collection. You are doing well. If the IP doesn't want to engage on the talk page, then basically ignore her/him. There comes a point beyond which such edits can be considered as routine vandalism. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh joy, another shitty violation of privacy dressed up as a Wikipedia article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, in defense of that, we have generally insisted on solid sourcing, and for modern times that generally involves celebrities who have self-identified in an interview, so I wouldn't say there is much privacy in that respect. Elizium23 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

PBWorks.com

An anonymous editor (using the IPs 146.115.183.148 and 146.115.181.168) has added critical analysis to two articles about short stories by J. D. Salinger, "De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period" and "The Laughing Man (short story)". However, all of this "analysis" is sourced to content on the PBWorks.com website, which says on its main page: "Online team collaboration to get work done. Capture knowledge, share files, and manage projects within a secure, reliable environment." This indicates that all of the content at http://beach42.pbworks.com/w/browse/#view=ViewAllObjects was user-generated, and thus not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I would like some other opinions on this, though. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That is nothing but free wiki hosting. I have a friend who created one. Treat with extreme caution. Elizium23 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That was my impression. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

how to handle challenge by the company owner regarding accuracy of sources on a company article

On SEOmoz article, there are several sources. Granted, some sources are outdated. Just a few days ago, the company's owner Rand Fishkin contends that the page contains "numerous egregious errors", asserts some media sources are "wrong" and provided his version of corrections. Some are unreferenced while some are self-referenced to SEOmoz's own page. When should we opt to use primary source (company's page) over secondary sources? I'm not sure if it would be right to take his words at face value and replace secondary sources he claims to be incorrect with SEOMoz links. Ideas? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we care about

verifiability, not truth. If media sources are wrong, tough. We can't just let the subject of an article rewrite it. DreamGuy (talk

) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly concur. ==Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If its something uncontroversial about a company, is it still more appropriate to use the figures from outdated media sources? He's raised 13 objections on Talk:SEOmoz. The other editor Jehochman is friendly basis with the owner outside of Wiki, so its still COI, I think Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoover's Company In-Depth Records

Source:

Hoover's Company In-Depth Records

Article:

Frank L. VanderSloot

Content:
First editor: "I added information on the sales modes that the company uses but Rhode Island Red reverted it. [Reversion diff here.] The contention is that Melaleuca does not sell its products through multilevel marketing, online shopping, and retail sales. I did not mention this before, but Melaleuca's sales operations are officially categorized under the following two NAICS codes (directly quoted):

"454111 - Electronic Shopping"
"454390 - Other Direct Selling Establishments"
"The first code should be included in the article unless there are reliable sources that state that the company does not offer its products for sale over the Internet or retail. Because the relevant Wikipedia article is entitled online shopping, I opted to use that name instead of "electronic shopping". There are multiple sources that refer to Melaleuca's online sales and retail. Andrew327 12:30 pm, 10 January 2013, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)"

Second editor: "I'm curious about the notion that Hoover's Company In-Depth Records constitutes something "official". I'm not (yet?) persuaded that we need to have our article reflect what that particular company says about Melaleuca. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 1:16 pm, 10 January 2013, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)"

If everybody agrees, the discussion could be centralized at

talk

) 23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoover's is generally considered a reliable source in its highly-litigious field. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Study materials put by a professor on university webspace.

http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm

We are having some disagreements on what constitutes a reliable source for the definition of our article. On one hand, this is not formally peer-reviewed, and it is self-published. On the other hand, it is written by an instructor of philosophy and is hosted on a university webspace, for reference by students and staff, where it seems unlikely it would remain for long if it was inaccurate. The statement as it will appear in the article Appeal to nature is "An appeal to nature is a type of argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is argued that a phenomenon is good because it is found in nature, or bad because it is not found in nature". FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You could try to locate a scholarly agreement by searching for text book quotes on Google books to see if there is a scholarly consensus Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Self published sources may be used if they stem from a reputable author. University websites often fall under that category. It also depends however on how disputed the content in question is. For a highly disputed or controversial content/area self published sources (even by reputable scholars/experts) might not be acceptable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems to me a reliable source for the statement. Beyond that, what Cantaloupe2 says above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept this source. The author of it is an instructor of philosophy, not a professor, and therefore not likely to meet our standard for notability, or be an authority in the field. But as a principle of academic freedom who can none the less post what he wants to on his university pages, and the university does not certify it, nor is it subject to pre-publication peer-review or any other form of editing. (to be sure, if he posts nonsense it will be held against him for promotion). This is uncited, and does otherwise not follow any particular scholarly practice. There is no was of knowing without further investigation whether the wording is erratic, unusual, or standard, or whether --to use his own words in the introductory page for the course --"some of the examples and exercises may, accidentally, have been taken from other, half-remembered logic book[s]" This source is used only for convenience because it is free are visible in google; these are desirable properties of a source, but not anywhere near as important as reliability. all standard textbooks in this and related subjects cover this, and they should be used. This sort of referencing perpetuates error. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some degree of general confusion about these web spaces. A posting there means nothing other than the person is employed there--it is not an official posting of the unviersity or anyone else, and is not at all the same thing as regular publication. What someone posts there is sometimes reprinted from elsewhere, and then it should be cited as the original source,seen on www wherever. Sometimes it's a person's own CV, which is reliable for the facts of their career, but not any associated statement of how important they thinks he is. And sometimes it's essentially their blog, and has to be judged as such. (Some posted cvs or pages that look like one are written by university PR people, not the faculty or under their direct supervision, and will therefore say not what the person says is the facts of his own career, but what the PR staff member wants people to know. A good diagnostic is if their prior degree are anywhere but the top, and it it has such wording as , Before coming to Georgia State, he was ... without giving dates for everything, or if the prior position are described as "he also taught at" rather than giving the exact position, or if the publications are merely described, not listed with exact formal references. Sometimes such pages link to a true CV, and that can be used. Otherwise it is unlikely to have bald mis-statements, but is likely to have omissions. I use them here for academic bios when there is nothing better, but I find the facts of the publication that show notability from elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the source can easily be replaced with a better one. The material cited ("An appeal to nature is...) seems pretty unremarkable. No doubt there are better and worse sources for the statement "George Washington was the first president," but the web page of a part-time history instructor at a non-notable community college would be good enough for me. If there's disagreement about what is an appeal to nature, and a better source says something else, use the better source. Maybe we need a name for the fallacy that sources are intrinsically either Reliable xor Non-Reliable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with others that this is easy to find better sources for. I just went looking on google books and I think it is pointless to paste results here, because it was simply too easy. Keep in mind that this is a term used in rhetoric, so you can try adding words like "rhetoric".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Independent sources

Is it ever insufficient to base an article on official profiles of the organization where they once worked?

I started the article

Sentinel class cutter

about seven years ago. I updated it, from time to time. The first three vessels were commissioned this year, another two have been launched, I've started articles on these vessels, as they have been launched. The names of the first fourteen vessels were announced about two years ago. They are all going to be named after individuals from the US Coast Guard, or its precursor services, who were known for their heroism. I started articles on those individuals as well.

Margaret Norvell, a 19th century lighthouse keeper, who used to row out in stormy seas to rescue stranded mariners, had already been written about, as an early example of a strong, independent, heroic woman.

William Flores already had articles written about him and how his heroism had gone unrecognized.

Other namesakes had profiles written about them in their local papers, as the vessel named after them were launched.

But when I wrote an article on

prod

}}, asserting:

1. the article did not comply with the advice of the
   WP:SOLDIER
   essay;
2. the three references I cites were all written by personnel at the USCG -- so they weren't "independent references".
   • Connie Braesch (2010-11-11). "Coast Guard Heroes: Richard Dixon". United States Coast Guard. Archived from the original on 2013-01-04. Richard Dixon, a Boatswain's Mate stationed at Tillamook Bay, was awarded two Coast Guard Medals for his heroic actions on July Fourth weekend, 1980.
   • Stephanie Young (2010-10-27). "Coast Guard Heroes". United States Coast Guard. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03. Retrieved 2012-04-20.
   • Rhonda Carpenter (2012-11-05). "Coast Guard Commissions Third Fast Response Cutter, William Flores". Defense Media Network. Archived from the original on 2013-01-04. The first six FRCs for District 7 will be homeported in Miami; the next six in Key West; and the remaining six in Puerto Rico.

I added this ref after the prod:

• Clive Lawford (2011). "US Coast Guard Medal Awards". Retrieved 2013-01-10. Petty Officer Dixon is cited for heroism on the afternoon of 3 July 1980 while serving as the coxswain of Coast Guard Motor Lifeboat (MLB) 44409.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

I spent some time this morning looking through the archives for the Reliable sources noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard. I don't see anything that would support challenging the USCG drafted references. My understanding of the requirement that references be independent would restrict us from relying on references written by Dixon, or his friends, relatives, subordinates and immediate superiors.

I know

the wikipedia is not a crystal ball

. I could have waited until the vessel was launched, and looked for a profile in Dixon's local paper. I admit I did not do so because, while reading the comments section of an article in the Miami Herald, the city where the first four vessels are homeported, proud readers recommended other readers check out the wikipedia's coverage of the vessels and their namesakes.

But there is nothing in the USCG references that would be considered controversial, or open to challenge. I see absolutely no reason to doubt that these individuals did exactly what the USCG references said they did.

So, when is it insufficient to base an article on official profiles from the organization where an individual once worked? Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say they would be reliable. It seems ridiculous that we wouldn't consider official statements of the US military to be reliable sources about specific members of the US military. If Dixon were in charge of issuing the statements, maybe we could consider them self-published, but not just because he was a member. --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said they weren't reliable Geo Swan. They are. I said not independent. This is the wrong forum. An article about a Coast Guard person that only contains references from the Coast Guard does not meet the independent requirement of GNG. Per

WP:GNG, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." Refs from a person's employer talking about their employment doesn't qualify for meeting GNG requirements, but does count as a reliable source for employment issues. If this is not the case, then I meet GNG because I've been mention multiple times in my employers on-online newsletter. Bgwhite (talk

) 17:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I find curious, to say the least, the notion that heroism accounts from the Coast Guard do not count as independent. At any rate applying the awards criteria to the Coast Guard is difficult, considering that (a) the CG Medal of Honor has never been awarded, and (b) the lifesaving medals do not fit into the hierarchy of awards in a normal way, since they can be awarded to anyone (e.g. Lenny Skutnik). Certainly the namesake of a vessel is notable enough to permit a redirect to a biographical section in the ship's article. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

@BGWhite. WP:GNG is about notability, not reliability. Concerning reliability, we often use organisations for information about themselves, as long as they have publications that seem properly made, and as long as it is not just self promotion. This does not mean this source should be used, but is just a comment about applicability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This does seem to be the wrong forum given that the concern over the sourcing is independence rather than reliability. As other have noted, Coast Guard sources alone aren't sufficient to establish notability here per

WP:BASIC. It would be best to look for other sources - if books aren't available I imagine that these people would have been covered in the media, so newspaper databases and the like would be a good starting point. If notability can't be independently established, the people can be described in the article on the ship named after them. Nick-D (talk

) 03:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

update

After I told the contributor who placed the {{

prod}} that I initiated this discussion, here, they initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question

. As per

WP:Forum shopping

, they should have been cautious about initiating a thread at a second forum, without informing participants at the first forum.

Today they placed another tag, on William Trump, who, like Dixon, was both recognized as a hero, and later had a cutter named after him. As with the earlier article the tagger has repeated the assertion that USCG references, aren't "independent", and can't be relied on.

At Talk:Richard Dixon (USCG) the tagger posed a rhetorical question, which I have chosen to take seriously. They said "So, only having references from a person't employer is now enough to meet GNG? Hey, that means I'm notable because I was written up multiple times in my companies on-line news letter."

In my reply I asserted that an organization's online publication

1. couldn't be behind a firewall -- we'd have to be able to read it;
2. would have to have meaningful editorial control, to make sure it had been fact-checked, and was responsibly written;
3. finally, updates on promotions and maternity/paternity leaves, would be insufficient, it would have to report something non-routine, like a daring life-saving event, or having a $50 million vessel named after the subject.

What I would like to see addressed here is the general principle of whether we can accept publications of organizations where an individual once worked, or whether they can never be considered reliable because they can never be considered "indpendent". Geo Swan (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher

On this BLP, some editors are insisting that "Nusbacher lived life as a male until a 2007 gender change." can be attributed to the one source it is reported. While we are here this is also being used to pin the persons possible former name rather than attribute it as a writing name they have published under:

 •

ISBN 1403939101

.

Two editors have made some observations which I will post for others to see here regarding concerns on this use:

• "The work itself - a tiny little section in Palgrave Dictionary that uses all online sources is weak. The authors are not experts on gender change or sex change and don't even appear to be biographers and used unkown, unlisted "online sources". No - it isn't sufficient. Its a tertiary source. Per
  WP:WPNOTRS
  : "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." This source is used multiple times and for information its authors have no business being cited as experts on with unkown manners of research."

• Rubinstein, Jolles & Rubinstein 2011, p. 727 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRubinsteinJollesRubinstein2011 (help) cites its sources, at the foot of the article. They are "JC", which denotes The Jewish Chronicle and "online sources". The datelines of the JC articles are given. Because the JC archives are on the WWW, it's simple to go and look them up.

  The article in The Sun says that "it is believed" that the relevant event occurred "in the past few weeks", and is datelined 2007-10-04. The only 2007 article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2007-10-18. That's available directly from the Chronicle here. It doesn't say anything about medical operations. The latest prior article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2006-11-10 and is available directly from the Chronicle here. There's a different name, but no mention of medical operations there, either. The Sun says that "it is believed" that there was an operation, which is careful wording, especially in light of the subject's statement that Sun journalists never interviewed anyone who was in a position to actually know.

  So where did Jolles and the Rubensteins get their information from? It wasn't "JC", given that we can see that the Chronicle didn't publish any such thing. So it must have been "online sources". This brings us back to the complaint from the subject on this very noticeboard in 2007, where NetNus writes that when entering xyr name into Google Web "the Wikipedia article comes up first, however, even before my official web page at work.". So what are these "online sources" that Jolles and the Rubensteins talk of? If they put Nusbacher's name into Google Web, those "online sources" would have been this Wikipedia article.

  So what we have here is exactly what the subject didn't want: A public discussion of a sex change operation that has been reliability-laundered by way of a dictionary of Anglo-Jewish biography that consulted Wikipedia and its masses of on-line mirrors, The Sun, and all of the web logs and discussion fora that repeated the same, for its facts in the first place; where the only source that has come anywhere near actually interviewing people and checking facts was only willing to go as far as saying in print that "it is believed" that this happened.

  The simple truth, people, is that the only people who know whether there has been an operation or not are quite determinedly not telling the world, on the fairly reasonable grounds that it's none of the world's business. There is nothing known, here.

My opinion is that we need to be using strong sourcing to make an exceptional claim, on a BLP, against the wishes of the subject. Could uninvolved editors experienced in high-quality sourcing please offer opinions? Insomesia (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors who have already commented on this source elsewhere

• Omit this source. Too likely it's pulling information from Wikipedia for its "online sources" and we need exceptional sourcing for either the claim of a gender change or reporting the possibility the other name is anything but a
  nom de plume. Insomesia (talk
  ) 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This argument is unfounded and self-serving speculation. There is NO evidence the source used Wikipedia, or even that it relied on online sources in preference to others. The authors are distinguished historians. The source meets every applicable standard of reliability. ► Belchfire-TALK 11:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making your opinion known. Let's see what some uninvolved editors have to state. Insomesia (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is
  WP:FORUMSHOPPING There are already discussions ongoing across multiple venues, including BLPN, AfD, and the Talk page. ► Belchfire-TALK
  11:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is solely about the reliability of the Palgrave source. If indeed it is dismissed as unreliable for Wikipedia's use it will likely impact the AfD and reporting on the gender and name issues. If other editors here, who are experienced in high-quality sources agree that it's suitable then those discussions are fine as is. Insomesia (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Belchfire is correct on both counts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether a RS source which makes a "contentious claim" by BLP standards, and whose listed sources do not make the claim, sufficient on its own to be the "strong sourcing" required by

WP:BLP

.

As thorough on-line searches, including the specialised searches available to some editors (Higbheam, Questia et al.), do not show any other "reliable source" (Wikipedia's usage) making the claim, is this one source, which appears to have gotten the information from "online sources" as its listed sources do not make the claim, now a "strong" source? I would note that Wikipedia notes that even the NYT has published "hoaxes" and the like, and that where information is doubted, that even a "newspaper of record" is not then a strong source for a contentious claim in a BLP. I made the edit, which I believe is warranted by sources, that the person changed her name in 2007, which I suggest is all that is actually borne out by sources. Collect (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The very reason that we use "reliable published sources" is because we default to their expertise in evaluating content and evidence rather than depending upon our evaluation and interpretation. Since we do not know what "online sources" the Palmgrave editors were viewing that may or may not be currently accessible to us now, to blanket default to assuming they were using faulty sources turns

WP:RS into a recipe for the deletion of all content in the encyclopedia because at some point at some time one of the "reliably published sources" has had to make a determination of the value and "truth" of content that a Wikipedia editor cannot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TRPOD is correct. If we try to impeach the Palgrave book source because we don't know what sources they evaluated then we are blowing up everything we have established at

William D. Rubinstein, Michael Jolles and Hilary L. Rubinstein. All three are Fellows (highly honored members) of the Royal Historical Society. Other contributor are listed in the Foreword on page vii: Dr. John Cooper, another Fellow of the RHS; Rabbi Jonathan A. Romain, a journalist; Edgar R. Samuel, an expert on the history of Jewish people in England; and finally the Jewish Historical Society of England. If these people cannot be relied upon to publish true facts then the whole of Wikipedia should be thrown out as unreliable. Binksternet (talk

) 17:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as wholly reliable. This is an execrable exercise in forum shopping. Worse, it is an attempted discrediting of a scholarly tertiary reference source, one of the most highly respected types of references used by Wikipedia. A recommend trouting the original poster. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep As TRPoD and Binksternet say, the source and its authors are well respected. We do not have a mandate to validate the sourcing behind the sources. Nor are we prohibited, but without a clear sign of malfeasance on the part of Palgrave the only thing that can be done here at RSN examine if the context is appropriate, which should be of course Palgrave is reliable for the claim being made. The issue of whether or not the claim being made is contentious and needs multiple sources is not one that should be dismissed, but it is not a discussion that belongs here. Let me be the third to advise Insomesia to be wary of
  WP:CANVAS is completely unacceptable.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer
    18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• see Talk:Lynette Nusbacher#Another source I've identified online research which does demonstrate that the two people are the same and which was available to the Palgrave researchers. Also, the short timeframe between the addition to our article (August 2010-November 2010) and the release of the book (March 2011 acto Amazon) indicates that it is next to impossible for them to have used us as a source. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is
    WP:Original research. Insomesia (talk
    ) 21:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is, but since I'm not using it to source the article, that's meet and right to do. Speculating that the Palgrave book used Wikipedia as a source is likewise research; indeed, anything we to to evaluate a source is research. Of course I do not know what research they did do; all I'm saying is that the reasoning used to support belief in their dependence on us is faulty. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as almost completely useless. Respected authors or not, this tertiary source is being propped up by editors in a manner that I feel is a BLP abuse of sources. This is clearly an attempt to state things the source itself can't even demontrate through their own references. The dates they give are all off. The work is specualtive but for some reason we want to use it in place of secondary sourcing to make a contentious claim the subject has requested we not state. If we think about it, there are many reasons why the subject might request this. I am very disapointed that editors wish to make speculative claims based soley on this. It rather disgusts me the way we are treating this figure, both in the article and on the talkpages based on this dictionary, that so far...not one single editor as actually demonstarted is accurate, or cited in other sources giving it any definition of quality. No, this is not a quality source. The authors are making claims beyond their understanding, scope and expertise.--
  talk
  ) 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

The book has very good credentials. All three authors are historians specialising in this precise field (with a caveat for William S. Rubinstein, who has spread himself into Shakespeare authorship, a bad long-term career move, but who am I to criticise him?) and they had the support of the Jewish Historical Society. You couldn't ask for better. Authors don't have to be academically trained biographers (there are few such) or sex change experts (if they were that, they wouldn't be historians).

But that's irrelevant. The question is about this specific article, and about private information. The subject has already, long ago, asked us to remove this information, which is irrelevant to notability. That was a perfectly reasonable request: the information is irrelevant to notability. You can be a military historian regardless of operations you've had or haven't had. End of question. Andrew Dalby 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what's irrelevant here is your comments about privacy. This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is limited in scope to discussions about - wait for it - the reliability of sources. Thanks for your endorsement of Palgrave, that's all we needed. ► Belchfire-TALK 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, given Belchfire's preference for rigorously correct use of noticeboards, if you'd like to comment on the privacy aspect perhaps you'd like to say something at this RfC on the issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Belchfire will tell me who "we" are. As for me, I'm just one editor, and I endorse nobody.

Speaking not as a Wikipedian but as a historian, if I found this kind of biographical information about one of my subjects in one "tertiary" source (this dictionary) and in one gossip source (I think someone above said it was in The Sun?) I would not yet use it. I would want more and better sources and if I didn't find any I would omit it.

Thanks for the invitation, Nomoskedasticity, but that's it from me :) Andrew Dalby 19:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I find this discussion confusing. Based on a quick scan of the article, this is not a public figure really, except possibly in a small way through the TV appearances, and, possibly, through being an influential gay figure associated with the British military. It seems to me that the over-riding issue should be that this person apparently would prefer to keep a discussion of his or her genitals out of wikipedia. So I am not sure why we are worrying about reliable sources. But ok. My thoughts, which I suspect are not helpful, are as follows. Is this an extraordinary claim? We refer to this person as "she". Ah, I see the issue, now that I read further. Her claim to notability is under her former name. I am inclined to say the article should be under the former name, then, and if what is left doesn't meet notability guidelines, the problem is solved, is it not? I still don't understand the objection Nusbacher has -- if she is out as transgendered, this is incidental information in my opinion. But to answer the actual question asked here: The source seems to meet reliability guidelines, but it seems uncomfortably slim as a basis for information the subject wants removed. If we really need the statement in there (I don't deal with BLP much) why not go find those Jewish Chronicle articles the dictionary is citing, and use those instead? Elinruby (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The gender change is only in the Palgrave source, not the Jewish Chronicle, the Palgrave source utilized unnamed online sources and based on the dates it's suspected her Wikipedia article at the time was one of them. No other reliable source cites a gender change or ties the names together except as another name she published under. She is not out as a transgendered person, except on Wikipedia. Insomesia (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"She is not out as a transgendered person, except on Wikipedia." - thats total malarky - she is on the 2011 and 2012 Pink list of LGBT people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That list says she is a hero to the LGBT community, it does not say why. Insomesia (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

that is the vague 2011 wording - the 2012 wording is however "you voted for the influential lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who, you feel, make Britain safer, fairer, better and more entertaining. " very clear that the individuals on the list are in fact LGBT themselves and not merely a "hero to the community without saying why". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 perhaps gives us a reason to weakly surmise she is LGBT but not which, or a combination of the L, G, B, and T she might be. In any case the article has been deleted so this thread can be archived. Insomesia (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So someone has looked up the Jewish Chronicle articles? If they don't mention this the evidence is even slimmer, isn't it? What's the objection to just having an article about the previously male public figure and deleting the article on the renamed person who does not want this discussed? The only reason I can think of to out someone who does not want to be outed is if it demonstrates hypocrisy, as in the BLP is of an anti-gay crusader. I don't understand why this is even an issue. Does one obscure history book plus one obscure children's book meet the standard for notability? Delete, I'm thinking...Now if the person wants the aerticle, but does not want this fact included, it gets tougher. How did she make that list of people who make life better for gays? Because (I am still mulling this) if you are an activist when it comes to your sexuality, perhaps area of your sexuality are relevant. But I think this person is either a private person, and we should move the work under the previous name to an article about the person with that name, or if a gay activist possibly wants to be a private person while making public statements, which might be an issue. Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It has to be said that the reason for not including an apparent change of gender to a marginally notable figure turn on a combination of the request by the person involved and the relevance to the rest of the biography (in my opinion, nil). The reliability of the source is a red herring. Rich Farmbrough, 13:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

I tend to agree. To answer the question as asked though -- it's very marginal and even if, on the face of it, the source may meet RS guidelines just barely, why are we so determined to include this point? I think BLP is the most relevant policy here. Elinruby (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There are few things to look at when dealing with a reliably published source like the Palgrave Dictionary. It meets a number of citeria. Since we can rule out issues so quickly we can just look at the piece of work itself and the context of how it is used.

• The peice of work itself when looked at does depend on its own research and stated references which have raised questions. It is not an overriding issue, but it is relevant.
• Its a Tertiary source, a compendium/dictionary and is used merely to illustrate an issue or point. The use of a naked tertiary source is not acceptable to make a claim of fact. It requires an additional, secondary source to be cite, but the BLP policy goes further.

In a Biography of Living Persons article it requires mulitple secondary sources. These are the policies and guidelines we have on this issue. It is as reliable as an such compendium that requires supplemental secondary sourcing with questionable use with one particular section.--

talk

) 05:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rich Farmbrough, who has put the point very clearly. Andrew Dalby 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)