Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 149

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 145

←

Archive 147

Archive 148

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

→

Archive 155

I am having some trouble verifying that TVAddict.com is reliable. Have anyone else had questions about this source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So, no one has a problem with this source, which appears to be almost entirely reader-sourced and riddled with rumor? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the content from the website that is to be used as a source?

What content will it be used to verify?

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue lists Dravidian languages, which as such have apparently never been discussed or acknowledged by mainstream Dravidologists or any linguist for that matter. Example: Allar language Allar language at Ethnologue Neither google books, scholar, JSTOR Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL find anything in this direction. Although Ethnologue is cited by reputed linguists, I don't understand, why no mainstream linguists ever talked about the "Allar language". One of the most reputed of the Dravidian scholars is Bhadriraju Krishnamurti. His book "The Dravidian languages" is considered a reference book of highest order, but he didn't even mention the "Allar language", while many dialects were discussed. So when there are absolutely no mainstream scholars, how reliable is Ethnologue on Dravidian languages? And don't think the "Allar language" was the only candidate, there are a lot of so called languages, which have only a presence in Ethnologue. I could provide a whole list if required, with questionable languages.-- Dravidian  Hero  22:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

M. Paul Lewis is the editor of the Ethnologue, 16th edition. His CV is at [1].

Bh. Krishnamurti wrote the article "Dravidian Languages" in Frawley (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Volume 1 (Oxford University Press, 2003). Following the article, there is a "Language List". The first language listed is "Allar: also called Chatans. 350 speakers in India. Kerala, Palghat district." --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The list was compiled By B. Grimes though, who obviously used Ethnologue. Krishnamurti had no hands in this.-- Dravidian  Hero  23:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And you know that how? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Grimes is credited at the end of all compiled language lists in that encyclopedia, not only Dravidian. It's available here: gbook. At page xiv they write they compiled them from Ethnologue.-- Dravidian  Hero  00:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily indicate that Krishnamurti hadn't seen the list. Anyway, given that Ethnologue suggests that Allar has only 350 speakers, it would hardly be surprising to find that it hadn't had much in the way of scholarly attention. Do you have any specific reason to think that it doesn't exist beyond the fact that you can't find other references to it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I would atleast expect it to be listed here: List of endangered languages in India -- Dravidian  Hero  01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You were not asking for references, but anyhow: http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/index.php -- Dravidian  Hero  01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Dravidianhero's bias against Ethnologue has nothing to do with linguistics, but is clearly based on his bias against the Summer Institute of Linguistics, a Christian NGO. Here are just a couple of Dravidianhero's links regarding Ethnologue and the people of SIL to illustrate his opinion: [2], [3], [4]. Ethnologue has been cited by, and used as a reliable linguistic reference, by: International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Oxford) (both first and second editions); Bernard Comrie, ed. The World's Major Languages (Oxford); Anatole Lyovin An Introduction to the Languages of the World (Oxford); Merritt Ruhlen A Guide to the World's Languages, Volume 1: Classification (Stanford); Albrecht Close Sprachen der Welt (K.G. Saur) (this source also specifically lists Allar, for example, pg. 112). And to put the stamp of "false" on Dravidianhero's claim that Ethnologue is the only source for these peripheral languages, there is V. Zvelebil "Language list for Dravidian," Archiv Orientalni 65:175-190 (this source specifically lists Allar, for example, pg. 177). Zvelebil doesn't even cite Ethnologue since he got his information elsewhere (he used other linguistic surveys of the Dravidian homelands). And Zvelebil was a well-known and well-respected scholar and specialist in the languages of India including the Dravidian languages. Dravidianhero has made the claim that no Dravidian scholar has ever mentioned Allar. This mention in Zvelebil's list also puts the stamp of "false" on that claim. All of Dravidianhero's "questionable languages" are in Zvelebil's list, and remember that Zvelebil was a well-respected Dravidian scholar. He was such a famous Dravidian scholar that he even has his own Wikipedia article ;) --Taivo (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. This is not a discussion about 'bias'. You have already been advised at WP:ANI not to personalise things. I suggest you take heed of that advice. As for citations for Allar, I see that Ethnologue cites 'Shashi and Shri 1994', though unfortunately without further details. [5] It is also worth noting the alternate names given: "Aalan, Alan, Alanmar, Alar, Allan, Chatans" - a search under the different names may also be worthwhile, though I'd like to see DravidianHero's comments on the Zvelebil source first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Here is Dravidianhero's fundamental problem: he doesn't use actual references, but only looks things up on Google or Google Books. The reference to Zvelebil (above) is very clear in Krishnamurti's discussion of Dravidian languages (pg 27) and had Dravidianhero actually been holding the book and reading it in toto, he would have found the reference himself. But he doesn't use actual books or sources, he does searches on Google for his "research". That's not acceptable Wikipedia practice, especially when he is being confronted by scholars who are holding the books in their hands and reading every page, not just the selection of pages on Google Books. --Taivo (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Bias" against this organization is actually relevant to Dravidianhero's attacks on Ethnologue and ISO 639-3. While I have not here imputed to him an overall anti-Christian bias (which was his complaint at ANI), he does have a clearly stated bias against that organization that is clearly in his comments. But even without the issue of bias, my references are clear that his assertions about Ethnologue and about the references to these languages by Dravidian scholars are false. --Taivo (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the Shashi and Shri 1994 reference from Ethnologue, although since I have not handled this volume, I cannot be certain. But from the Ethnologue bibliography, it is probably the same. --Taivo (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions like this are always amusing: "yeah it's RS except for the part I disagree with." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. --Taivo (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ethnologue bibliography link - I should have though to look for that. It seems to confirm that Ethnologue probably didn't invent the language out of thin air, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Krishnamurti: "A number of other Dravidian languages are listed in the Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1991) and most recently by Zvelebil in an article (1997). Most of the names represent dialects of the main languages listed above." That maybe explains, why Allar is not a recognized language.-- Dravidian  Hero  02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Krishnamurti called it a "dialect", but Zvelebil, an equally well-respected Dravidian linguist, called it a language. Therefore, as we have done in most of these "disputed" language articles, we cite both points of view and include links to the Ethnologue article, links to the ISO 639-3 code, and a reference to Krishnamurti (2003). That is Wikipedia's

neutrality at work. --Taivo (talk

) 02:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many other well-respected Dravidologists. You made a 1 vs. 300 to a 2 vs 300.

WP:UNDUE still applies. Isn't UNESCO some kind of worldwide consensus? Why not apply that here? -- Dravidian  Hero 

02:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Are

Lfdder (talk

) 02:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a moment Dravidianhero - are you now objecting to Ethnologue as a source not on the basis that Allar doesn't exist, but instead that it is a dialect rather than a language? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is precisely his objection, AndyTheGrump, which hinges on the definition of "language" and "dialect", which we have tried to convey to him at Talk:Dravidian languages is not a hard and fast distinction that linguists make. Linguists are quite comfortable with the ambiguity and fuzziness in the definitions of each and the boundaries between them. --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There is no "1 vs. 300" or "2 vs 300" at all. You cannot use a Google search or your own hyperbole to make a scholarly argument here. Your unreliable research methods are just making a fool of you. I have cited one of the foremost Dravidian scholars. That's not

WP:FRINGE. Indeed, if Krishnamurti thought that Zvelebil was a fringe or unreliable Dravidianist, he would not have cited 25 articles and books written by Zvelebil. Indeed, Krishnamurti only cites four scholars with as many or more publications than Zvelebil--Krishnamurti, Emeneau, Andronov, and Subrahmanyam. So even if the four others cited Allar (for example) as a dialect rather than a language (which they don't), that would still not be the exaggeration "300 to 1/2". --Taivo (talk

) 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please allow Dravidianhero to answer for himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Allar language" according to non-existing sources. That's my objection against Ethnologue. It could be a dialect,language,banana,monkey, if there is no acceptance in scholarship we can't call it spaceship.-- Dravidian  Hero  02:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't rely on non-existing sources. We rely on sources that exist. Sources that exist state that there is an Allar language. A source instead calls it a dialect - and the article should reflect that view too. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that Ethnologue isn't WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Zvelebil 1997 is "non-exist[ant]", Dravidianhero? LOL. Want a link to a .pdf? Archiv Orientalni. Browse down on the left to 1997, click on the arrow. Now click on the arrow next to Issue 2. Now click on page 177 and you will find a pdf of the page where Zvelebil lists Allar as a Dravidian language. The whole article is well-worth reading as well and you'll find most, if not all of Ethnologue's "extra" Dravidian languages listed there. Remember that Zvelebil is just as highly-respected a Dravidian linguist as Krishnamurti. --Taivo (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the great link Taivo, very much appreciated. :) and I can't say I'm surprised to see that even Zvelebil expressed his reservations regarding language vs. dialect. So it's 1 vs. all all over again. But atleast it got more interesting -- Dravidian  Hero  03:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't 1 versus anything until you provide the sources to back up your assertions. Either provide them, or accept that the article will reflect the sources we have. There is no other option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is another option. Leave both terms language and dialect out. That would be most neutral in the case of Allar. Disagreemant?-- Dravidian  Hero  03:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No. There is no reason whatsoever why the article can't reflect what the majority of sources we cite say. It will of course have to note the minority view. Anyone with the remotest familiarity with linguistics will be aware that the language/dialect boundary is ill-defined anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. --Jayron32 04:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ISO 639-3 lists Allar as a language and assigns it a language code, therefore the first choice is always to call these speech varieties "languages" unless there is positive evidence that they should be called something else. In the case of the two Paharias that Dravidianhero was using in his other

WP:OR on his part. We have two positive statements that Allar is a language (Zvelebil and Ethnologue) and no specific positive statements that it is a dialect. Wikipedia can't be based on speculation based on a lack of evidence. The Allar article should call it a language, but with the statement that its status as a language or dialect may be uncertain due to lack of study. --Taivo (talk

) 04:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, that seems reasonable enough - though I'd note that the supposed purpose of this discussion was solely to ascertain whether Ethnologue was RS regarding Allar. And since no evidence has been provided to the contrary, this seems clear. It is a well-respected source, based on scholarly research. Cite it for what it says. And if DravidianHero posts similar arguments concerning the results of Google searches, I suggest you politely post a link to WP:OR, and then ignore him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

10-4. --Taivo (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If DravidianHero can now cite these 300 sources - or even a few of them - we can of course look at them. Otherwise it seems to me that at this point the best course of action is for proper citations to Zvelebil and Krishnamurti (and Shashi and Shri if someone can track it down and confirm its validity) to be added to the

) 02:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Utter nonsense. There is no reason at all that Ethnologues coverage of Dravidian languages should be considered less authoritative than its coverage of other language families. It does have errors, but these can be corrected for by using other material as well, and they do not mean that it is generally unreliable. There is no other source of comparable scope. There is some serious forum shopping going on here as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dravidianhero grasping at straws till there were none left, a three-day saga. Will there be a sequel? —

) 11:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur. As a historian, such spurious arguments make me cringe. Agenda pushing? HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I had e-mailed the person listed on an organizations website as the research assistant if they could post a certian item in PDF online. She responded with a PDF via e-mail. Obviously they want this public but how can I make this a reliable source. Is asking that they post it on their website the only way? See

) 15:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the PDF a copy of an article that was published in a RS journal?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Burl Reid was born in Aus he just grow up in Tasmania. That information is incorrect in his article.

Tasmanian is a part of Australia. But you should take your concern to Talk:Burl Reid, it is not appropriate here unless you want to discuss a particular source. Zero^talk 03:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireCMD, a Superdownloads review has been argued to support notability. By its own description, Superdownloads "Operates in Brazil since 1998, as a large catalog of software with more than 30,000 available for download from games, demos, shareware and freeware." Is this a reliable source to establish notability? Msnicki (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Not in the slightest. Software catalogues can establish nothing beyond the fact that software exists. The website derives its income (possibly indirectly, via advertising) from hosting such material, and any reviews cannot therefore be seen as impartial. There is nothing to indicate that such 'reviews' have any credibility. Nor would there be any reason to see the review itself as evidence of notability, even if it were from a credible source - it merely describes the functionality of the software. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have started a Rfc on

19:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian American history

I am wondering whether the following source is a reliable source:

• Francis C. Assisi (2005). "Indian-American Scholar Susan Koshy Probes Interracial Sex". INDOlink. Archived from the original on 2009-01-30. Retrieved 2009-01-02.

INDOlink is the publisher and tt is presently being used to verify the following text in the

article:

1600s: The East India Company brought over Indian indentured servants to the British American colonies.

Additionally, is the source a reliable source:

• http://www.indiacurrents.com/articles/2007/05/16/indian-slaves-in-colonial-america Archived 2012-11-27 at the Wayback Machine

An editor at

) 17:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The second source looks pretty persuasive that someone at Jamestown named Menefie had an indentured servant described as "East Indian" in 1622 and 1624. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So Til Eulenspeigel's opinion India Currents is a reliable source overall, or just that article? What about INDOlink?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the websites overall, but from what those specific articles are saying, I assume good faith that they are not making facts up about 17th century sociological studies and are thus reliable for those claims. 17th century sociological studies aren't a field where anybody gets away with fabricating data for long because it is all in documentation. And it's not historically unfeasible that there would be a handful of indentured servants from India in Virginia at that time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I bring this up is per

WP:REDFLAG

. This is a very extrodinary claim, that South Asians were slaves in the Jamestown colony. Even if this is a reliable source, if there is this 17th century sociological studies, there should be other reliable sources that have information out there that says that there were South Asian slaves at the colony.

Also the article from India Current doesn't itself cite its sources for others to be able to see where they get their inforamtion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found one of the sources stated in the article from the National Park Service. This dates an East Indian being a slave in 1635. I will add this to appropriate articles.

If someone would like to close this and archive it, I would be appreciative.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Where and how is this being used? A single source that says that there was one East Indian 'headright' shouldn't be used to make a more general statement. (Also, a headright is not necessarily a slave.) --regentspark (comment) 16:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a legal distinction between "indentured servant" (which the few East Indians would have been) and a "slave". This was mainly a legal distinction since for practical purposes they were pretty much the same thing. A "headright" means whoever imported him was claiming extra provisions and arable land for having imported him. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

They are very different things. In many cases, indentured servants take up the position willingly. Not always, of course, but in most cases and one 'indentured servant' is definitely not enough to assume that there was even one East Indian slave in 17th century America. --regentspark (comment) 00:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am modifying

Asian American article once I am finished with the History sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 17:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've replaced "slave" with "indentured servant" in those two articles. That's what the source says. --regentspark (comment) 20:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:History of Asian Americans#East Indian Slave. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Our article on

by caste Hindus. For example,

Riots affected 1,200 villages in Marathwada, impacting on 25,000 Dalits and causing thousands of them to seek safety in jungles. This violence was organized by members of the Maratha community and took many forms, including killings, molestation and rape of Dalit women, burning of houses and huts, pillaging their colonies, forcing them out of villages, polluting drinking water wells, destruction of cattle and refusal to employ. This continued for 67 days and none of the civil rights body came to save Dalits. Schedule caste Gram Sevak was assaulted and attempt was made to burn him alive. In Yetala village when two Dalits contacted Police sub inspector were beaten up in Gram Panchayat Office.

is sourced to it. I am unable to ascertain who the members of this Samiti (loosely, "committee") were/are. The introduction to their report says:

The shocking experience of massacre, loot and rape of scheduled castes in Belchi, Agra, Pantnagar, Marathwada and Bajitpuir, among other places, has demanded the attention of all humanist, progressive and Leftist forces.

It was as an attempt to understand the role of the caste system vis-a-vis class struggle and class organisation that the Atyachar Virodhi Samiti was constituted.

The Samiti sought, among other things, to highlight the nature and extent of repression of scheduled castes in Marathwada in Maharashtraiand to draw lessons for future action which the scheduled caste masses, including poor peasants and agricultural labourers, may have to take when such attacks occur again.

With this objective in view, some representatives of the Samiti visited the riot-affected areas of Nanded, Parbhani and Aurangabad. What follows is a report of the visit.

Can we accept as being reliable given the publisher is Economics and Political Weekly? Or do we need to be concerned regarding their apparent anonymity and apparently preconceived desire to respond to a "call to action" (... all humanist, progressive and Leftist forces, etc.) No-one is arguing about this - the query is for my own peace of mind. I am trying to fettle the article but there is not much point in checking statements against sources if the sources is not acceptable in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I found this book citing the Samiti. Seems to be a reliable source.-- Dravidian  Hero  00:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried about this source for historical fact. The events described are so dramatic and shocking, that we would expect them to have been written up elsewhere. Do we have any corroboration? Note that it forms part of the history of a university. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The generalities are confirmed by other sources but the specific details seem not to be. As an overview of what research happened around that time, see this at JSTOR. It mentions the above source. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw an article on this stating that The Cleveland Show has been canceled.[6]. However, I don't see that news anywhere else on any repeatable sites like Deadline, Zap2it, and Entertainment Weekly. Is TVOvermind.com a reliable source? Macbookpro1990 (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fox is scheduled to hold its upfront presentation on Monday, May 13, at which there should be an announcement about the series. We can wait until a more official announcement comes down since that is less than 1 day away. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I could use an outside opinion on the FetLife page, if anyone's got a few minutes. A number of references have been added recently, but also over the article's history, that I don't believe consitute reliable sources. I'm not up to speed on where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable sources, though. There are only 16 sources in the current article, so I don't think it would take long for someone knowledgeable to review. I'm a little out of practice on WP practices, so if this is something that should just be templated, please let me know. Thanks! – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be best of you posted the links that are concerning you, but just by taking a quick look I would say you are right, several sources are problematic: Footnote 3 for instance no longer has a live source (the webpage it links to is dead) and was an SPS to begin with. Check out

WP:SPS

The source for footnote 6 is a blog, which makes it an unreliable source as it is again an sps. If you have other concerns post them and I'll try and help.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Luke! Part of my difficulty arises from determining what's a blog and what's not. Some of the "blogs" these days operate more or less like reputable media organizations, where others are really just a spiffed up version of Joe Blow's opinion. Gizmodo (6) was indeed one of the ones I was wondering about. In addition, I'm also wondering about: Salon (5), Jezebel (7), Gawker (13), and Sex and the 405 (15). I'm not sure what to make of the nginx ref (16), since it's a rather non-standard source, but I think both that and the other one you mentioned (3) would fall under

ABOUTSELF, at least assuming I can find a replacement for it, or a wayback link or what have you. – RobinHood70 ^talk

05:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm totally shocked that any editor of Wikipedia would consider

Salon to be "a blog." I mean, really, read Salon's own Wikipedia article. --Meitar (talk

) 06:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's simply not something I'm familiar with. I never said it was a blog nor anything else, just that I didn't know whether or not it was considered a reliable source. Numerous publications have Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean they're reliable sources for Wikipedia citations. To quote the article, and the magazine's former editor-in-chief, "Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that." That right there makes me believe that it's appropriate to ask if it's generally considered a reliable source. – RobinHood70 ^talk 06:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the ways to try and figure this out is to look at the "about" page on the publication's website. Salon's "about" page here[7]and here[8] appears to have a full editorial board which indicates fact checking. On the other hand, blogs generally are an SPS with no editorial oversight to insure accuracy and thus are not considered reliable.

Gawker has an editorial board[9] too, but its news are summaries of reports from other publications, in which case if used one would have to also mention the original publication; an alternative option would be to use the original news source. Jezebel is doing the exact same thing as Gawker, it publishes news summaries, and has a board, but its Forums and opinion pieces are just that:

WP:SPS. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk

) 06:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke, that was very helpful. I'll go over the article later today and see what needs to be done. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(←) Okay, I've gone through the article. I'm still not sure about two of the refs:

1. The Jezebel ref looks like an opinion piece to me, but I still have a hard time with how to judge that with any certainty. It's probably not needed anyway, since it's got the Salon ref already, which looks to be professionally and neutrally written, at a glance.
2. The Sex and the 405 ref looks okay to me, but since it's the only ref supporting the info it's attached to, I'd like a second set of eyes on it. From what you said above, it looks like it has some form of editorial control, though perhaps minimal, and the article itself doesn't appear to be just an opinion piece. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Sex and the 405 is probably an acceptable ref in this case. They do have editorial oversight and the article does provide information beyond editorial opinions. It looks like a mix between an editorial article and a news article, and if you were to quote an opinion from it, you'd probably want to state that this was the author's opinion, but there hopefully was sufficient fact checking to make the article reliable from a news perspective as well.

I am on the fence on Jezebel also, I agree with you it is mainly an editorial. However it is being used to corroborate the statement that many Fetlife users object to one of the site's policies, and I think it does provide evidence on that, so for that limited purpose I would let it remain as a source.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. I'll let the references both stand, then. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20070818192957/http://www.charlest.whipple.net/miyazaki.html

Content in two sections that referenced this site (regarding Tsutomu's early life and alleged mental health issues) was removed with the edit summaries "Removed info from unreliable source; will store this info on talk page until a reliable source can be found." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=prev&oldid=548010837) and "Moving unreliably sourced info to talk page until a reliable source can be found" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=next&oldid=548010837).

Some of the content was later restored with the edit summary "reverting vandalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsutomu_Miyazaki&diff=next&oldid=549410999.

I'm thinking that Charles T. Whipple's self-published site isn't a reliable source for this. Not sure what the guy's credentials are. From Googling him it seems like he mostly writes fiction.--

) 13:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi folks,

I have a general question about assessing reliability when using open access journals and repositories. These journals vary in reputation and level of peer review. What are the best practices for determining reliability with them? Thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is probably no one simple method which applies to all cases. There are different types of evidence which can help build up a picture. One common way is to look for published evidence of what kind of reputation that the publication and/or its authors and editors have amoungst relevant experts and people whose opinions are likely to be reliable themselves. In other words, for every field, reliable sources tend to form a network of points which at least passingly refer to each other. It can also be a good idea to look at what information is available about the fact checking of the publication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. The problem here is with OA journals published by small companies starting a large number of journals, only a few of which are remotely likely to become notable. Some of them have extremely low standards, thus leading to some doubt about whether their peer review is adequate to be a RS. I think we have to go title by title, and article by article. The assumption is that a journal article published by a notable mainstream scientist is a RS. Published by an unknown, then we need to rely on the quality of the peer review. There is no journal in the world of such high quality that tit has not published work that has been subsequently retracted, and many famous scientists have published some of their work in very insignificant journals, or in a few cases even pnly in non-peer-reviewed repositories such as arXiv. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As Andrew and DGG suggest, there's no real magic formula. For medical information, the guidance in

WP:MEDRS certainly still applies. (Things like MEDLINE indexing are a positive but not infallible sign, for instance; review articles by recognized authors are generally a better bet than primary studies.) Be reluctant to cite brand-new studies from brand-new authors in brand-new journals; use tools like Web of Science to look at how often – or even whether – a particular study has been cited by independent authors in other journals. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 02:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

First, look at the author's section of the website. It should explain the level of peer review or other screening. Then look at some of the articles to see if the writers are academics in their field and there is extensive foot-noting. The website should also explain if it is owned by a university or academic publishing company or a thinktank. You can then check if the publisher has an article in Wikipedia or has been discussed at RSN. I find that generally disputes do not arise because of the reliability of sources, but the weight to be given to opinions expressed in them. TFD (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(cross posted from the

):

The creator of the

) 15:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Opinion pieces in

Sanctions against Iran

Please see an ongoing rfc

) 03:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oran Arslan

This [12] Archived 2019-02-06 at the

) 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the page for Oran Arslan [14]. I don't see any publications in international peer-reviewed journals. She also appears to contribute to this

) 06:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Her name is Dr. Nebahat Oral Arslan and she is reliable and not biased at all, Turkish speakers can control the page and see it very clearly. Athenean is just trying to discredit the author without evidence, because she wrote "tyranical" about the massacres, but what he does not realize is that the Arslan source is entirely based upon an Inter-Allied Commission report of 1921, and the report of the war journalist Arnold J. Toynbee, which are online [16]. More importantly KILLING innocent people and destroying whole villages IS TYRANNICAL! So what are you trying to say Athenean? Are you saying those massacres were just?

The problem is that there were massacres committed by the Greek army against local Turks in 1921, Athenean together with Alexikoua, are two POV Greek Wikipedia users who are trying to cover up the crimes by making false accusations. They falsely accuse the authors and sources (even tough I provided full English translation) [17],

they distort and cherry pick sources (I have explained this in the talkpage: Alexikoua lowers the number of casualties to 35, which is based on an inquiry out of 177 people in a camp in Istanbul. I have explained this 4 times to him, but still he persists on distorting the facts by saying that this is the total number of casualties, which the source doesn't say at all [18] : It is the result of an inquiry out of 177 people. Furthermore we have sources in one individual massacre of a village already exceeds the number 35. But still Alexikoua is persisting on abusing the source and falsely claims that Toynbee puts the total number of casualties on 35 (see [19] ).

Now Athenean is attacking the Turkish author and source just because he doesn't like what is written in it (see [20]

While at the same time he eagerly adds information about Greeks being massacred by Turks from an online pdf-document (see [21]^{[permanent dead link]} which has no footnotes unlike the Turkish source, and which looks much less professional than the Turkish source (see [22] Archived 2019-02-06 at the Wayback Machine The Turkish document is actually a published study journal from the Ankara University ("TAED Cilt 10, Sayı 22 (2003): TÜRKİYAT ARAŞTIRMALARI ENSTİTÜSÜ DERGİSİ").

Why is Athenean not so skeptical about the French pdf-document? Because he likes the content? (Turks killing Greeks)

Since from the beginning Alexikoua has used all means to disrupt the page (the page has a very long history, can't put all the diffs)

They are doing source abuse, they are clearly pursuing a non neutral agenda to cover up/minimize crimes by the Greek army (and also to blame the Circassians). The source of Arslan states that M. Gehri stated that there were in total 6,000-6,500 people killed, there are other sources who mention that 6,000 people disappeared, still it is clear from all sources that hundreds of people were massacred and dozens of villages burned. Why else would the Inter-Allied Commission conclude that : "A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops."

So I ask the admins to please stop these POV users to non neutrally edit the page, they do not say the truth, they are distorting the facts, falsely accusing people, thanks in advance.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Is The Wrap (thewrap.com) considered a reliable source? It looks like just another entertainment blog to me. The reason I am asking is because of a recent addition to The Wild Bunch article, referring to the possibility of a remake. The new information is sourced to an article in The Latino Review, which does not look reliable, but their source is the original article in The Wrap. So, if The Wrap is considered reliable, I will simply use that as the source. But, The Wrap looks questionable to me. Anyone have an opinion? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, TheOldJacobite. The Wrap is a well-respected professional, journalistic website, and an industry trade publication often cited by the consumer press. There's a backgrounder here. It's always good to ask, of course, and I doubly applaud you for wanting to go to the original source to cite something — too often I find editors citing sources down the line re-reporting the original newsgathering sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad I asked 'cause I'd never heard of it, to the best of my recollection. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was that it's a glorified Hollywood gossip blog, but here's what IGN.com has to say about the matter: "The Wrap is a very reliable source for news of this sort..." [23] So, I'd say that it's good for minor entertainment news, but I'm less enthusiastic than Tenebrae, when it comes to bigger claims. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(A) Reviews at Outpost Gallifrey, a former Dr Who fan site. Outpost Gallifrey was wound up some years ago. A large number of articles use Template:OG review that links to the Wayback Machine archive of the site, e.g. [24] and [25].

(B) The Dr Who Guide, a Dr Who fan site. A large number of articles use Template:Doctor Who RG, e.g. [26] and [27].

(C) The Dr Who Ratings Guide, a Dr Who fan site. A large number of articles use Template:DWRG, e.g. [28].

These templates are generally used in External Links sections rather than to support specific points in articles. I've suggested the first two templates be deleted -- see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_15 -- on the grounds that their inclusion in External Links sections seems (to me) to always be against policy. That's a slightly different question to whether they are reliable sources (see discussion at the TfD), but someone there suggested this should be discussed here. I would be interested in RS/N's views. Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Outpost Galifrey, was reliable for it's own opinion whether that opinion was a relevant reflection of general fan opinion or not is arguable, but in my mind OG was. I have no strong opinion on the other two as replacements of that reflection. As time passes opinion will change and it's probably worth keeping a link that shows what fan opinion at that time was as opposed to critical opinion at the time. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The template is specifically for reviews hosted at OG: as such, I feel they don't reflect OG's opinion, they are just a collation of things fans sent in (as far as I can make out). It states at [29] that, "Outpost Gallifrey has an OPEN REVIEW POLICY! Unsolicited subscriptions are welcome; email us your review via the email gateway [...] You must use your full, real name (we won't publish pseudonymous reviews), and please make sure your review is at least three paragraphs. We will accept reviews on everything related to Doctor Who... books, videos, fanzines, DVDs, audios, merchandise." So it doesn't appear there was much editorial control/input on these.

I very much feel that such fan sites are valuable and informative, and OG was a great site. It's useful having links to reviews like this. However, I cannot see how it can be justified under Wikipedia policies on reliable sources or external links. It's material that is more suited to a Dr Who-specific wiki. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the site [censuriana.de censuriana.de] acceptable to use in the case of this album which was banned in Germany? This is the specific page, referred to by the article. Thanks. --

03:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Steep, which is published by the University of California Press and written by Lawrence Rosenthal, head of the Center for Comparative Studies of Right-Wing Institutions at Berkeley, and Christine Trost, the program director,[30], has a section about Robertson and the teaparty.org on pp. 73-75.[31]

Robertson is decribed in numerous sources and received outsized media attention during the incipient stages of the TPm. Even so, a number of editors have been arguing for the exclusion of Robertson from any mention in the article. This academic source would seem to establish notability, along with other sources. SilkTork suggested filing here in relation to this question--broadly construed--regarding another source (MJ opinion article) that would appear to be of lesser stature. Please refer to the related discussion Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Dale_Robertson_and_teaparty.org--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones

Gosh it would be nice if you noted the 'actual discussion points rather than giving a somewhat mislearing version thereof. No one at all has questioned "Steep" as meeting RS. The part you elide is the use of an opinion from Mother Jones, properly cited as an opinion, which called Robertson "bogus" etc. If we have Robertson in the article, it is clear that the MJ opinion is notable, reliably sourced, and proper. And that is the actual focus of the "reliable source" issue on that page. Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Mother_Jones_Magazine_as_a_reliable_source is the salient discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion as I read it involved Mother Jones opinion of this individual not a discussion of Steep. Perhaps the section could be renamed appropriately.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then correct me if I'm wrong, but your description seems to impute that your intent on having the MJ opinion piece recognized as RS was so that you could make recourse to its statement that Robertson is "bogus" in order to disqualify everything that any other reliable source has to say about him, thereby denigrating or outright dismissing other even more reliable sources than opinion pieces in marginal new media.

Furthermore, I do not approve of the subsection you've created, as it distracts from what this thread is aimed at resolving.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Collect. The attempt by Ubikwit to steer the discussion toward reliability of the book by Rosenthal & Trost is just a teensy bit disingenuous. The two debates here, which make up the overall debate that Ubikwit has become exercised about, are (A) an opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones about Robertson, and (B) whether Robertson is notable enough to be discussed in a top-level article about the Tea Party movement. Most believe Robertson belongs in a spin-off article we are preparing, which will probably be called "Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party," but the debate about (B) doesn't even have any business being discussed here at RSN because it's a content dispute. Also, there is absolutely no issue regarding the reliability of the book by Rosenthal & Trost. The real question here is about Mencimer's op-ed column, and its use in the spin-off article. I would suggest that if it's clearly attributed to Mencimer and labeled as an op-ed column, it can be used. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And you are attempting to deflect the discussion in another, that being bigotry.

Robertson is not, in fact, notable only for his bigoted signs, but as the publication that is the subject of this thread documents, his was the founder of a Tea Party organization with a significant following, and was frequently sought out by the news media before his fall from grace.

You claim that there is no question about the reliability of the book Steep, but you would exclude the material included therein about Robertson while including the material from the MJ piece???

Am I missing something in that logic?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, you're missing something: the main question is whether Robertson is notable enough to go into the main article, or whether he should only be discussed in the spin-off article. It seems that consensus at the Talk page favors the idea of limiting the Robertson discussion to the spin-off article. Anyway, it's a garden variety content dispute, not really a question of source reliability, right? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies on talk pages as well, so you might want to rethink your "bigoted" statement above.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Make a two-step process into a one-step process

In consideration of the fact that the status of Steep (2012) as a "reliable" source has been declared to be uncontested, rather than filing a new thread on the reliability of the MJ article, maybe I can ask the following question in this forum.

In light of the material in Steep on Robertson, is the characterization in the title of the above mentioned MJ opinion piece (January 2010) Wash Post Quotes Bogus Tea Party Leader of Robertson as "Bogus" grounds for excluding the material in Steep on Robertson from the article. A quote from the MJ article states

If the paper had bothered to assign someone to cover the burgeoning Tea Party movement, its editors would have known that Robertson doesn't actually represent anyone, except maybe himself.

The section in Steep starts with the following passage.

The 1776 Tea Party, also known as TeaParty.org, is the national faction most directly connected to the anti-immigrant movement(my emphasis). Its corporate headquarters are in Woodland, Texas, north of the Houston area, where a Texas certificate of formation of nonprofit corporation was filed in February 2009. Its staff positions are situated in California. With 12,458 online members as of June 1, 2011...

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Question Reading your bit from Steep, I now wonder about the accuracy of this. A quick search shows that the California office is just a FEDEX pmb location, and what does "online members" even mean? Unique visitors? Email list? Current donors? Made up number? I don't know, perhaps you have and could share additional info or refs? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I graduated from the flagship University of the UC system located in the city in which the some of the UC Press offices are located and often walked past the building, here is a link addresses [32].

Online members refers to the fact that TeaParty.org was a website based national organization, as far as I can gather from the information available. Note that the organization was based in Texas but run by staff located in California, probably where the IT infrastructure was located.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously books written by experts in their field and published by universities are reliable sources. This work came up because its description of teaparty.org appears to differ from that in a Mother Jones editorial published several years earlier. TFD (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS is very clear, and the articles in MJ are RS for matters of opinion per that policy, and where opinions are cited as opinions - especially about current political events, the suggestion that we must use "experts" and ignore other sources is tendentious. While experts are great for scientific and medical material, they are not actually better than opinions of journalists who specialise on political issues for matters of current political issues. Collect (talk

) 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinions are opinions and facts are facts.

Though you avoid directly addressing the content of Steep, I find the argument that the MJ opinion carries more relevance or weight than the facts (and/or opinions) in the academic source to be somewhat tendentious.

You also appear intent on denigrating academics with respect to news media reporters when it is a fact that media outlets dependent on advertising sales often attempt to appeal to emotion more than reason in order to sell their publications.

If there is no context regrading Robertson, what is the basis for stating an opinion? Or is the position that because one opinion piece characterizes him as dubious he should not be mentioned at all? I'm not sure what the telos of your reasoning is.--Ubikwit 連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Try this: "Steep" was never objected to on RS grounds at all -- and its use as the basis for a discussion here was contrary to logic - this noticeboard is not for material which has not been questioned. MJ is not known for appealing to "Advertising sales" so that "issue" is a non-starter. As for "denigrating academics" that is an absurd charge, and one which belies the reasoning for your posts here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Ubi For the record, I was talking about the so-called office of the Tea party organization quoted in your comments. It took but a moment to discover that the "California staff offices" that was mentioned in the Steep quote of this supposed TP organization was a fedex private mailbox. I was not talking about the University. I was pretty clear, I thought. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. I'm not sure about the TeaParty.org Texas offices, but I would imagine that a PO box is not sufficient to register a non-profit. I recall that Robertson lost his house, so it may be the case that his house had been the original "corporate offices".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the following information will be useful:

• "State Department Watch Limited" at a P.O. Box in California = The Minuteman Project = "The Tea Party" Govt database
• State Dept. Watch in California gives $51,000 to "1776 Tea Party", Robertson's actual TP group in Texas, in 2010 -- also gives money to Minuteman Project FactCheck.org-1
• IRS Tax Forms for "State Department Watch" for 2010 (see pg 13 for money to 1776 Tea Party) Tax Form archive
• Washington Times says Robertson is "a founder" of the early TP movement, and still active in January 2010 WashTimes
• FactCheck.org says Robertson is indeed a TPer ... but he has pissed off a lot of folks FactCheck.org-2

Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, the fact that teaparty.org has a box office at the Mail Center in

) 16:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Can a fansite ever be considered as a reliable source? - ToonZone

I am re-posting this question (that I had originally asked a week ago), since it was archived without receiving any replies, aside from one by an editor who had already discussed the matter with me. We need the opinions of other editors, so please weigh in!

As I was working on the article Ed, Edd n Eddy, I noticed that it was using toonzone.net as a reference. I know that this website has received some opposition on this board before and initially, I was quite skeptical of it myself. Having discussed the matter with an editor who supports the website though, I've been unable to come to much of a conclusion on it either way. It appears to be a fansite of sorts, which is why I am hesitant about using it, but if any fansite could ever be considered as a reliable source, it would probably be this one.

Now, I'm not sure that any of the writers have credentials apart from their work on the website, but they do seem to comprise a "staff" of sorts. While it doesn't seem that this is a full time job for any of them (this page [34] classifies them as "volunteers"), they do have specific titles and duties. This page [35] mentions news editors, reporters, moderators, graphic designers, administrators, and webmasters. Also, as opposed to just reporting rumors or information that they get from other publications, this page [36] (unfortunately, the original page from ToonZone seems to have gone dead, but there is no reason to doubt that it was transcribed correctly) indicates that the website actually engages in its own investigative journalism. The main reason why I think that ToonZone might possibly constitute a reliable source is because of the incredible reputation that it has managed to acquire. This link [37] includes praise from two-dozen professionals in the field of animation and quite a few professional publications have even used the website as a source. Here are the links.

• Time [38]
• The Atlantic [39]
• The A.V. Club [40]
• Gawker [41]
• Crunchyroll [42]
• Space.com [43]
• Anime News Network [44] [45]
• Bleacher Report [46]
• MovieWeb [47]
• Moviefone [48]

Apparently the website has also been cited by

) 18:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well i am familiar with that site and i've always just viewed it as a forum/blog not a reliable source for anything. Just my two cents. I call the big one bitey (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this site? I'd like to get the input of a few more editors if possible. --Jpcase (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this source [49] reliable for stating that the film was, in fact, nominated for the awards the source says it was? Article in question is

) 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's just stealing content from the IMDb. [50] NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I considered that possibility, but I noted that IMDb states the film was nominated for an award from the

talk

) 01:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, but the fact that they've got an idiosyncratic sentence fragment ("For the fight between Milla Jovovich and aliens.") that Google says doesn't exist anywhere else reputable, leads me to believe that they're scraping content from the IMDb. The contact page is also full of broken English. That doesn't prove anything, of course, but it just makes the site seem even less reputable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I get a third opinion on this one? Thanks.

) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

[51] has removal of material with the explanation rv there is consensus for this on talk; please allow this paragraph to remain brief

The problem is that the material removed is reliably sourced, and noted in the body of the article -- that is there is a "church estimate" which has some more interesting weight than the unsourced or poorly sourced estimates give, and also noting that the only statistical measurement of church adherents has also been removed from the lead.

The source is PBS 2008 and is from a noted award-winning journalist specialising in religion for 8 years now on NPR and PBS: Judy Valente.

On the talk page, the primary arguments are that the church could not have given her such an estimate due to church rules about giving membership figures, that she is based in Chicago while the church is in Boston, that it should be disallowed as an honest mistake etc. See [52] etc. I asked that those who find the figure to be objected to as "false" should ask here, but the editors favouring removal of that figure from the lead did not do so.

Is there sufficient reason to believe the NPR report was, indeed, wrong? That it well ought to be disallowed as a reliable source for saying Judy Valente said the church had estimated its membership at 400,000? If so - on what actual basis should we state that it is not a "reliable source" for Wikipedia? Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that NPR misreported this, but there is also no reason to prefer it as a "better" number. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Collect didn't tell the editors on talk that he had posted here. In brief, this isn't really about sourcing. It's about how long the second paragraph of the lead ought to be, and there is consensus on talk for the current version. The material Collect is referring to is (so far as I know) still in the body of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Um -- I think you might well redact that snark. [53].

Leads are supposed to contain sufficient material for a person to know what the content of the article is -- the rationale from at least one editor was that the material is not correct, therefore should not be mentioned. The material had been mentioned theretofore, but now "briefness" is the reason to follow the removal - which I find untenable as it is an insignificant reduction inthe verbiage. An editor already removed the ARIS figures from the lead, and to simply say "estimates" are "from 100,000 to 400,000" without stating that the 400,000 is from the church misleads readers. And it is the misleading of readers of an article which is the worst violation here. If the figure is reliable, then it properly should be presented in the lead per

WP:LEAD. If it is a false figure, then we should remove pbs as a source across the board. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 20:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that

WP:IRS which says Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Wikiuser1239 (talk

) 05:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the Gatehouse-Gazettee as Wikipedia reliable source?

I created a stub of an article back in November 2012 called South Cerney Castle. Included among the sources was

• Davis, Philip (26 September 2012), South Cerney Castle, Gatehouse-Gazettee {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

I labelled that source with the the template {{

and so in my opinion a "better source" is requited in the long term (and hence the template).

Recently the template was removed for a second time by

As Nev1 and I disagree over whether the source Gatehouse-Gazettee meets the requirements as a Wikipedia reliable source, more editorial opinions will help form a consensus over the issue. As this source is used in dozens of article, (possible 100s), this can be seen as a test case and it is of some relevance to the longer term development of the project.

--PBS (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Davis has published papers on castle studies, with articles in the Castle Studies Group Journal. His work has also been cited by John Goodall in English Castles (2011), an author at the forefront of current castle studies. Davis is not infallible, but he can be considered a good source, therefore satisfying the stipulation that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". An open and shut case.

Nev1 (talk

) 11:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd support Philip Davis as an expert source on British castles. He's very well known in the academic community, speaking at major events and, as noted above, has been published in key journals. He's a national specialist on licenses to crenelate, alongside Charles Coulson. The Castle Studies Group, one of the foremost British groups for the study of castles, has publicized the Gatehouse website in its bulletins. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Although they were directed here, a new editor has made a lengthy argument regarding the reliability of a source on the article's talk page. Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#Removal_of_Yeakley_as_a_source.

Given the contentious nature of the subject, and the fact that the page is primarily edited by people vociferously supporting or opposing the subject, I am requesting outside experts opinions please weigh in. Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A request for comments is

) 20:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 20:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC))

Questions on sources for the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union.

I would like to start a discussion on adding more content and sources to the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union article. I have listed some of these new sources on the article talkpage.

I would like to start with this source

• [55] Archived 2013-05-21 at the Wayback Machine

I would like to include it on the end of the sentence in the article

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.

I would like to reword the article to instead say

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot. Time magazine reporter Richard N. Ostling puts the amount of executed clergy from the Soviet at an estimate of 50,000.

This leads me to my next question is the source right now in the article for the primary sentence also valid?

During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.

Is

There currently is an anonymous IP edit warring on the article attacking Yakovlev in some very ugly ways. It appears that the IP is not able to be banned and there may not be allot that can be done from what User talk:Rschen7754 has said here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacob_Peters. So is there a way that I could also get verification and Yakovlev as a source? Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think these are very good RS. However, your information about someone "attacking" something, SPI investigations and specific numbers with long explanations are not needed. You should only state who was the author of the publication, the publisher, date of publication, and any additional information about the source. Your goal here is to only ask 3rd opinion about sources, rather than to prove that you are right, but someone else is wrong.My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Books by insiders with no academic qualifications are usually not good sources. It is ironic that anyone would consider a book written by the Communist Party's head of the Department of Ideology and Propaganda to be reliable. TFD (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet Yale Published the book in question. Also I thought he had a degree from Columbia [57] as he is referred to as a Russian historian and also was the head of the government investigation into Soviet repression.[58] That would make his perspective at least an informed one. Or at least Darrell Hammer [59] says Yakovlev has a degree in history [60] as it appears that Yakovlev is used as a valid source by a few academic articles and books that can be found on google with a simple search. [61], [62], [63], here on page 70 it says he has a PHD from the academy of Social Sciences [64] LoveMonkey (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is historically significant because it was written by an insider. Scholars who cite this work will be able to weigh the claims made in the book based on their expertise and fact-checking. As clearly explained in the preface, it is a personal statement not an academic work. If you think that the author's credential make everything he writes reliable, then logically we should use his pro-Communist propaganda writing as reliable sources too. TFD (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Yakovlev was anti-communist at the end of his life, though. LoveMonkey 21:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a genuine doubt here. I came across a lot of websites which publishes news provided by reputed News agency. One such website is southmonitor.com. Since the News agency which provide the news is considered as a reliable source in wikipedia Can we use such websites as reference which gives credit to the News agency which provides the news. For example.

http://southmonitor.com/shots-fired-at-cannes-film-festival-actors-flee-for-cover/

In this news the website gives credit to Reuters as its the News agency which provides the news. So if we use this website as a reference can we mention the above mentioned news in a suitable article as follows.

1. Shots Fired at Cannes when a french tv channel was interviewing Oscar-winning Waltz and French actor Auteuil live. ^[1]

or

1. Shots Fired at Cannes when a french tv channel was interviewing Oscar-winning Waltz and French actor Auteuil live.^[2]

Since the above mentioned news is provided by a News agency the same news can be seen on almost all news portals with almost same wording.

Kindly guide me as it will be a great help. Benedictdilton (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The site calls itself a "news portal" which is not a "news agency" by a mile, and thus the actual sources should be cited, unless the only online source is this portal (which is unlikely). Collect (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a new tool,

) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic review and This War Is Ours

I have been trying to explain to an editor at This War Is Ours that the genre tags/genre cloud on the left side of AllMusic reviews are not reliable sources. I have asked him to look at the archives here. Editor doesn't seem to want to. Editor offered the album's entry at Amazon.com and http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/album-review-escape-the-fate-ungrateful/ as alternative sources. I explained that Amazon.com isn't a RS not is hellhoundmusic.com. Editor has been restoring the genres in the edit cloud because the reviewer at AllMusic isn't a RS and so the editor's prose cannot be anymore reliable than the tags. I cannot explain it any better so I'll let the esteemed editors here try to explain. There is a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page, or respond here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Realist2/Genre Warrior explains what I feel on this issue well. Excepting for very broad categorizations which are nearly universally agreeable to all (Rock Music, Classical Music, Jazz, etc.) most of the really fine gradations of music genres are pointlessly too specific, and often inaccurate as a result. --Jayron32

04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Any other comments on whether the source is reliable or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The two articles,

statement says,

This move stunned the christian community because according to its tradition, only a priest can become a Bishop, and Mr. Yohannan was a pastor.

The source cited is here: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/an-archbishop-s-spiritual-factory/323561/2

Regardless of the truth of the statement, I think that the source fails verification because

• It looks more like a blog post or an opinion piece
• Contains mostly sensationalist claims about K. P., with a bias against him
• Does not appear to have been subjected to a fact-checking process

As such, I’m questioning whether this can be used as a source of fact. Could somebody else look this over and help decide what to do with this? Thanks.

LivingIsSimple (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Express is a reputed newspaper in India. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That should probably read "reputable" rather than "reputed". I have no comment on the source since the site is not responding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Source: http://www.geohive.com/contact.aspx
• Articles: mainly here
• Content: population figures

On one hand, the site link says exactly what we don't want to hear.

On the other hand, its figures may be better than the ones it's replacing, particularly at List of cities in China by population (talk discussion where Wikimedes makes a pretty good point about that)

So, I don't know. This IP has put in a lot of, what may turn out to be, great work. I don't want to lose him. But, that website comment: "This site is my hobby" compels me to post here. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to precise things about the world cities population by built-up areas, a huge project I worked on for years and where I compiled fiable sources on thousands of charts for each Local Government Area composing any built-up area in the world. This work greatly inspired by research organization (e-Geopolis, http://e-geopolis.eu/spip.php?rubrique42&lang=en), french statistical bureau (INSEE), as well as statistical offices In Great Britain or India. All these datas for each census are compile by "unofficial" sites like citypopulation.de or geohive.com using cesnus results as soon as they area available (I checked them when the statistical office datas are available in english and not chinese, indian or russian for instance that I can't read). That's the reason why I use them as sources.

The definition of built-up areas encompasses areas covered by continuous building less than 200 m away (excluding rivers, motorways or Airport area) as its listed here (http://www.citypopulation.de/France.html, communes in major agglomerations, figures issued from INSEE french statistical bureau). Each country has it's own administrative areas divided sometimes in Local Government Areas for cities (ex : Paris as a municipality / commune and divided in 20 arrondissements), -

China distinguish : Administrative area (very large in China with thousands of km²), urban population in these administrative areas (citypopulation.de or geohive.com) which more or less is a subadministrative definition for cities. Sometimes it matches with built-up areas which can be observed via satellite view in google maps or google earth available also in citypopulation.de for each country. Sometimes, they are underadjusted when you've got conurbations as it is in Guangzhou-Shenzhen built-up area or also Shanghai-Suzhou etc as it's explained in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_by_population), sometimes theurban area which correspond to the urban districts of each city is overadjusted compared to the built-up area (sometimes also in India).

The work I've been doing for years is trying to compare built-up areas adjusted to statisticals available on Local Governement Areas (the french INSEE or e-Geopolis definition) which is possible in China with datas issued by geohive.com or for many countries on citypopulation.de. Then all these LGAs are systematically checked with latest googlemaps aerial views to see the reality of agglomeration whatever the administrative areas are. Then, the built-up areas figures by cities are issued of this precise observation. This matches with the e-geopolis agglomeration definition as described here (http://e-geopolis.eu/spip.php?rubrique42&lang=en). So, this personal work of adjusting datas to aerial observation doesn't exist for all countries and cities, and of course can be sourced efficiently.

Moreover, statistical does exist for comparing agglomerations and one of the best is citypopulation (http://www.citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html) even though the methodology is unclear, it takes into account generally agglomerations and not administrative areas. Nevertheless, it proves unefficient for most of chinese built-up areas (using urban areas) and most of conurbations (several LGAs built-up for a unique built-up area) as cited previously. Anyway, this work for China has never been done previuously and proved necessary according to urban growth.

So I'd really like this huge and exclusive amount of work be available for all wikiusers and to be able to create a new page List of cities by built-up areas allowing discussion and being updated by users with the same methodology. In the end, I hope you'll be convinced by these few words and let me help the community updating the figures (ie in China where the wikipedia articles cities still doesn't put the 2010 census results!!!). Thank you in advance.

Franck MICHEL

Just to let you know again, I fixed the links at the top. They used to look like this. The link was to Project China in err. I changed it to the proper List of cities in China. Sorry about that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• My initial take is that the website does not qualify as a reliable source. It's essentially a personal website, and personal websites are not considered reliable for the kind of facts and figures we are talking about. While the author makes impressive claims about his rigorous methodology, we are essentially in a position of having to "take his word for it"... there's no external fact checking (peer/editorial review, etc) that would allow us to call it reliable. No other sources cite the webpage to give it credibility or reputation. On the other hand, we do have the "expert exemption"... does the author qualify? Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We have someone wanting to use an article from OilPrice.com to support claims at Energy Catalyzer. My sense is that it does not have the editorial control or reputation to allow defense of it as a reliable source, but other opinions are requested. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's me. There are at least 30 articles in wiki with REFS to OilPrice.com. google search site:en.wikipedia.org "oilprice.com"(and remove talk pages). They have covered both hot and cold fusion in articles by a number of different authors.

http://oilprice.com/about-us "OilPrice.com is the fastest growing energy news site online. Our analysis focuses on Oil and Gas, Alternative Energy and Geopolitics. We have 3 in house writers and publish research from over 150 contributors. OilPrice works with over 250 syndication partners who re-publish our analysis. Some of our partners are: Zerohedge, Business Insider, Forbes, 24/7 Wall St, Arab News, The Street, Rigzone, Mining.com, Mineweb, Minyanville, Stockhouse + many others... Alanf777 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure they are well qualified to write advertising copy about themselves. How does that make them WP:RS for articles on nuclear physics/cold fusion/whatever Rossi is calling it now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They don't have a wiki article .. but if they DID I'd point you to

WP:ELOFFICIAL, which specifically allows a link to their own statements. And note that they follow alternative energy. Alanf777 (talk

) 03:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. WP:ELOFFICIAL has nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether a source is reliable for something. And as for 'alternative energy', it has yet to be shown that Rossi's device produces any energy at all. If you want the E-Cat article to report on what is claimed to be a scientific paper, find a recognised scientific journal that reports on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For context, the original discussion is at Talk:Energy Catalyzer#Heads-up : 3rd party report preprint -- pending a RS. The inventors of a purported cold fusion device – the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) – posted a report on ArXiv.org announcing a successful trial of their invention. This is one of many such self-published reports of success issued in various venues over the last few years. There have been a number of claims of working prototype devices, business ventures, and commercially viable products, none of which have ever seemed to hold water over the long term.

The question at hand is whether this post at OilPrice.com constitutes sufficiently

WP:FRINGE

report or claim. My own position is that adding it to the article would (further) inappropriately bias our coverage in favor of poorly-supported claims; a long-standing problem with the article is that it is used as a thinly-veiled blog for the inventor's announcements. Alanf777 has demonstrated that OilPrice.com certainly wants to give the impression that it is a reliable, important source, but I'm not seeing independent confirmation of that point. (The fact that there are a few other Wikipedia articles citing OilPrice pages is neither here nor there; it's entirely possible that those citations wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, or perhaps some of the site's contributors or content sources are better than others.)

The web site claims three in-house writers, which doesn't exactly amount to a large staff. Pieces by Charles Kennedy, the author of the OilPrice post in question, look like they are doing well if they get as many as a thousand page views, and are lucky to clear two thousand. In other words, the effective 'circulation' of his journalistic output is worse than that of many small-town newspapers. Kennedy's OilPrice contributions as an in-house writer appear to be limited to banging out an eight- or ten-sentence post once a day, without doing anything more involved than reading a press release or company website. No matter that OilPrice invokes the names of Forbes; the plain fact is that this author isn't an important or widely-read commentator by any measure.

Also worrying regarding the reliability of this source is that it appears to be much more a blog post than any sort of well-researched news article. As I note on the Energy Catalyzer talk page, Kennedy makes serious errors regarding the scientific content of the report, and the extensive grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors suggest a very limited editorial review. This is a nine-sentence piece that doesn't get into any critical commentary (or really any commentary at all), simply repeating the claims made in the ArXiv report. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you noticed that Copy Editors are extinct in the news business? It's now each man for himself, maybe with a half-asserted review by a colleague -- if you're lucky. Alanf777 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The original question is now somewhat moot, as we have a REF from Forbes, by a reporter who was previously good reliable enough to be quoted in the lead. Alanf777 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the web page TV by the numbers Archived 2013-05-19 at the

• 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since those prior discussions,
  Tribune Company, the publisher of the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and other major newspapers. So there's a major media company standing behind the site now. Regardless of whether it was considered a RS in the past, it should now be recognized as a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That's good to know but do we have a source for that info? thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

An IP wants to use Weekly World News and this as a cite for aliens building ancient Chinese pyramids, see Talk:Chinese pyramids#Denying ancient stories related with these Chinese Pyramids . And I'm almost sure they are not trolling, but actually believe this nonsense. Anyone else want to weigh in? Heiro 21:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC).

Why is that nonsense? or is every Weekly World News suppose to be nonsense information? what about the acknowledgement of CCN world news is that also nonsense? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/20/china.aliens/ - (User:92.236.36.173 (talk) 10:20 PM 20 may 2013

Given the amount of fictional and satirical information Weekly World News publishes, it is not a reliable source in this context. On the other hand, using CNN as a reliable source for the allegation is acceptable.

Location (talk

) 21:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Which in other words gives me the right to edit Alien data in the

Chinese pyramid Wikipeddi doesn't it? you just admitted yourself CNN as a reliable source that means that is okay I can edit Alien data on Chinese pyramids.(User:92.236.36.173 (talk

) 10:41 PM 20 may 2013

Not necessarily. Whether you can insert that into the article depends on context, which may include

Location (talk

) 21:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Why do you even have to ask? Mangoe (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't for me. I wanted them(the IP editor) to know it wasn't just me, I wanted other editors to chime in and let them know that their sources were inadequate. Providing links to relevant policies didn't seem to be cutting it. Heiro 14:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please join us on the discussion about the sources used in

) 10:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The United States Census records

Many users use the U.S. Census as the basis for the early life of an individual and even look upon it as a undoubtable source for a birthyear debate. However, there have been some mistakes (both explainable and unexplainable) to which must direct your attention;

• Don Wilson has been credited in 1930 u.S. census as living in California, Donald H. Wilson, aged 30 with his wife Lucy J. Wilson. Originally from Lincoln, Nebraska with his mother being born in Illinois. So far so good? not quite? he was born on September 1, 1900, therefore how could he have been 30 in April, 1930 (the date in which the census officially concluded). Insignificant example? Moving on...
• Janet Waldo, whose birthdate has been declared February 4, 1924, has been listed in 1920 census (January, 1920), as being 8 month old, the 1930 census (April, 1930) as being 10 years old, and in the 1940 (April, 1940) as being 16 years old. All this with her sister Elisabeth Waldo being born in 1919.
• Lauren Bacall, is the most staggering example. According to census records, the actress who has been present at multiple ceremonies and interviews since 2005, has died in 2005.

Therefore pose the question. Are these United States records considered truly a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 May 2013

See

WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". We shouldn't be using the U.S. Census as a source for birth dates at all, at least for living persons. See also note 3 on Wikipedia:No original research, which expressly identifies censuses as primary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 00:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that until quite recently, people were frequently regarded as one year older at the start of each calendar year. Census records are most reliable for "place of residence" and not for "precise date of birth". Collect (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, per

WP:BLPPRIVACY we have to give serious consideration to not giving exact dates of birth at all for living persons unless they have "been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". AndyTheGrump (talk

) 01:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with census records is that it requires a level of interpretation (read

WP:OR) which we really can't rely on. It is not impossible or even uncommon for two people with the same or similar names to have been born in or lived in the same basic geographic area at the same time and been about the same age. For example, I graduated high school with two guys who had the exact same first and last name (no idea on the middle name). Census records will have established that they lived in the same small town at the same time, but using those records to distinguish between the two is easy to screw up for Wikipedia editors. Now, if a secondary source has vetted census records, and established the birth date or birth place or any other information, we can generally trust reliable secondary sources, because reliability means that we know those sources do their homework and generally check their information. However, we don't take information from primary sources which require us to analyze ourselves, because it is too easy to get wrong. --Jayron32

03:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Intelius considered a secondary source? Radiohist (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In what sense could they be considered a publisher? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Lauren Bacall example was probably caused by incorrect categorisation of newspaper articles as obituaries (or maybe obituaries mistakenly published or added to databases), or from documents contributed by members of the site, not from census records which haven't been published for such recent dates. Peter James (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We should not use census records as they are not reliable sources for individual records, since they are based on statements by a household member and are primary. There is also the possibility of confusing individuals with the same name. Secondary sources of course may use them, but the authors are expected to have made judgment on each record used. TFD (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Finally to close this discussion with final question. in the case of Lee grant census records have been made available that confrim her year of birth, yet she has shown to not be comfortable with it being posted on the internet. As evidenced by her interview at the Archive for American Television. Have removed her birthdate from her page, but it was put back on with the excuse that she is vane and there is no real reason to take off her BY. However if the person herself doesn't want her birth year posted on the internet, shouldn't we respect her privacy?Radiohist (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My question is is this website a RS:

• http://www.lylefrancispadilla.com/

An

, even if 100% accurate and the creator well meaning. Due to the multiple usages of the website I cannot give a single article or a single piece of text, as most of the time the editor only added an external link to the appropriate section.

All this being said, I believe that the editor was entirely

) 05:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Then it should be OK, per

WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Links to be considered ... 4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." --GRuban (talk

) 16:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the second opinion! I will alert MILHIST.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! User:Csurla used this source: http://www.lesnouvellesderoumanie.eu/ but I hink it is unreliable Folbal1 (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem with this source? Pls explain it, because the "I think" it is not enough. - Csurla (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is just an obscure site, it looks like a self-published source for me Folbal1 (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not self-published, a serious magazine. What is it being used for? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In Ștefan Kovács article. - Csurla (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't controversial is it? Everyone can try to Google for further sources and for more details about these notable footballers. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why needed for further sources? - Csurla (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The main question is a reliable source? Folbal opinion for SPS is failed, therefore we can use in the article. Are you agree? - Csurla (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may be used in the article... but that does not mean it must be used in the article. If there is a better source (ie a source that is considered even more reliable), use that instead. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Are these better sources?

• Ştii cine a fost Ştefan Covaci? Intră aici! (in Romanian)
• Un fotbalist bănăţean participant la trei “mondiale” (in Romanian)

Please confirm it. Thanks! - Csurla (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think all three sources (the French and the two Romanian) are basically reliable. The French one sets out its stand on this page: it is a serious magazine of Romanian news in French and has been running for ten years. The article you link to in sporttim.ro (the third of these sources) looks like good solid biography, though it is acknowledged as largely quoted from an earlier article in a different magazine. I'd say it's most helpful for our readers to cite the French source, because more people can read French; some readers would also find the sporttim.ro citation helpful. Andrew Dalby 09:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Live chat and an editor who reviewed the article for creation (prior to the latest draft), had some yes/no response discrepancy on a source for citation.

First, the HackMatack homepage. It's a literary arts award for kids books in Canada. http://www.hackmatack.ca/ They list a two person bio in PDF form (an award nominee). The bio info (books published, awards, education, birthplace) does not indicate it's a publisher bio. Doesn't indicate it's an interview. Not a primary source from the authors listed. Between Live Chat and the reviewer, one said perfectly fine and the other said, not sure. http://www.hackmatack.ca/pdfs/2006English/RickJacobsonAndLauraFernandez.pdf

with an example of a fact cited being 16 published books. Thoughts?

892c (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a weak source, as I doubt the minor award has a skilled staff of fact checkers that will ferret out every discrepancy between the details given them by the subject and the truth, but it's non-controversial information, so should suffice. However, I would actually go with the more recent author bio, even though it is primary, simply because it looks like he's written 3 more books since the award page.[68] Again, not controversial information. --GRuban (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Can Sanskrit documents from online sources be cited in references on articles on Buddhism or Hinduism.I am really hamstrung by not including them,as the translations into english are themselves copyrighted,or in some cases,translation do not exist at all. The sources I am referring to are:

• Library(Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts)
• Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Cannon Project
• Sanskrit Documents

And many articles,like this one,,suffer from lack of proper citations.So,if the original text could be included to clarify this...?

I would like an opinion on this issue.Guru-45 18:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that these would be religious texts. If so they are primary sources requiring interpretation. If they are being used for quotation then I personally would prefer that the translation be copied from a citable, academically acceptable text. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The only problem is,that without such sources,people tend to put such irrelevant spiel(check out the article on Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad and the edit history of Hari-namamrta-vyakarana).They just write like sentimental fanatics.And without that original source (for the Hari-Namamrta-Vyakarana article),it would not have been possible to show the contents of that book...all the print editions of the book I know of are fully in Sanskrit as well,and the biggest problem is the dearth of academic research on these topics.The basic problem is that "secondary" and "tertiary" sources,in most cases,are simply not there.Guru-45 19:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As Mangoe notes, primary sources must be used with care, and the reliability of sanskritdocuments.org is in doubt since there's no clear indication of who runs it. But it is perfectly acceptable (though not preferred) to cite documents in a foreign language, and translations are generally not considered original research. So Sanskrit documents on government and university web sites are reliable sources for what those documents say. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't seem possible to confirm the reliability of sanskritdocuments.org, though it is potentially a useful site.

It is legitimate to quote briefly from copyright works, including translations, if the translation is properly cited in a footnote. This counts as "fair use". Such a quote shouldn't be longer than, let's say, 100 words. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Publications of Note

Are the publications listed here are really credible and worthy to be mentioned here? Plus didn't GamePro, PSMagazine and XboxMagazine shut down already? I mean they are no longer publishing issues. Just like 1UP and GameSpy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Latik (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Latik (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2013 112.209.176.230 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This publisher which has been used extensively as a source appears to be a rip off merchant. This book Foucault's Analysis of Mental Illness: A Psycho-pathological Study published December 2007 is a direct copy & paste from Hizbul Mujahideen article which had the content written before 8 March 2007. How does one go about checking if any other of their published books are Wiki rip offs? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The book is actually Terrorism, National Security and Economic Development, Google books shows the wrong title.[69] The author is an expert in his field. It appears that the 2-page description of Hizbul Mujahideen (not the entire book) is taken from the Wikipedia article without credit. That in itself does not discredit the book or the publisher. TFD (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does discredit the book: the author was plagiarising by taking that material without acknowledgement. Since he did that, we are entitled to wonder how much other stuff he took from other sources without acknowledgement. Reviews/other reactions to the book and knowledge of his general expertise might, however, sway us in the author's favour.

It doesn't affect our view of the publisher, who, on this book, is merely acting as an agent for self-publishing (see reverse of title page, where the publisher disclaims all responsibility for the contents). On books containing such a disclaimer the publisher confers no reliability at all: everything depends on the scholarly status of the author. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

PS -- Looking again at that disclaimer, the special mention of plagiarism is curious. It looks as though the publisher was well aware of some problem. A publisher -- even a self-publisher -- can't be indifferent to copyright, and would have to refuse to publish a text that was known to infringe copyright in any serious way, because the publisher would be legally liable. But plagiarism -- e.g. of a public domain source -- e.g. Wikipedia -- is different: it's not per se illegal. So, I think, the publisher knew that some site such as Wikipedia was being plagiarised. Andrew Dalby 12:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The disclaimer is standard. Academic publishers do not endorse the views of all or even most people they publish. Incidentally Wikipedia articles are not subject to copyright protection. Even the New York Times has published plagiarized material. This is all anyway original research. Find a source that says the publisher is not reliable. TFD (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done that for this book: the disclaimer (second page) says it.

If the disclaimer is, as you say, "standard" to this publisher, then you've answered your own demand: this publisher (a) acts as an agent for self-publishing and/or (b) reprints PD material. See also the list of other publications at the end of the same Google Books selection. We can't regard its publications as per se reliable: all depends on the reliability of each author.

I'm just trying to answer Darkness Shines's question as well as I can. Others, by all means, have a look at this and see if your conclusion is the same. Andrew Dalby 08:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before,

) 09:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for checking that. I notice at your first link (

mirrors and forks) the handy advice "Do not presume that any book from this publishing house is a reliable source". Andrew Dalby

12:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is .net christian advocacy website a reliable source for ethnicity statistics?

1) "Joshua Project is a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the fewest followers of Christ." [70]

2) Arabs in Turkey

3) Alternate population number (1,600,000) in the infobox in the article. The source is this: [71] Cavann (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, there is nothing to establish this site's credibility. The parent organisation owns a university, but it is unaccredited. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Cavann (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In this section of the article on solfeggio frequencies, the claim that Lennon used this mystical tuning to record "Imagine" is was backed up by citing 528records.com. Diff The site seems sketchy, using language which I consider to be hand-waving, such as "We think either he, or his musical director, figured it all out eventually..."

Your input will be appreciated. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This may now be a low priority, since the list item in question has been removed. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Source: http://www.jfk-online.com, specifically http://www.jfk-online.com/dbarcback.html and http://www.jfk-online.com/jpsasfrd.html which appear to be links to newsgroup postings.

Article:

.

Content: The two links are used to cite over half of the material in

) 20:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Code of Canon Law as reliable source for Catholic canon law

On the grounds that the Code of Canon Law is a primary source, an editor has objected to citing it for information on Catholic canon law. See here and here. Surely, when merely stating the law, without making the statement part of a synthesis of any kind, the actual text of the law is the most reliable source to cite. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Original research plan and simple is the problem, not necessarily reliability. Esoglou is know for claiming that primary source are always OK then ripping out any secondary sources thus turning articles into original research. Everyone here are not legal experts much less cannon law experts. Spshu (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would second that. I find reliable sources which are clear as to the conclusion of the disputed point. We are not canon lawyers and should not be drawing conclusions from it. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For more on how to appropriately use primary sources, see

WP:PSTS. You can cite the code of Cannon Law for a blunt descriptive statement as to the contents of the code (essentially a quote), but as soon as you start to analyze or interpret what the law means, or apply it to a given situation you need a secondary source. Blueboar (talk

) 16:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar. What Spshu and Mangoe have written here actually supports what Blueboar said: we are not canon lawyers and should simply quote the law as stated in the Code, without adding original-research interpretations of our own. Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Laws often mean something different from what an ordinary person would think from reading them, and therefore secondary sources are needed to interpret them. Simply quoting a law without a secondary source can be misleading. For example, the Statute of Frauds says that specialty contracts not made under seal are unenforceable, yet equity allows people to sue anyway, taxation means to assess costs, pretend means to make a claim, etc. TFD (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity about the statement in modern (post-1983) English (without using terms like "taxation" and "pretend" in what has become an archaic sense) in Code of Canon Law, canon 452 §2, "The president of the Conference or, when he is lawfully impeded, the vice-president, presides not only over the general meetings of the Conference but also over the permanent committee", which was cited in support of the statement in the article: "Some of the leadership functions once exercised by primates, specifically presiding at meetings of the bishops of a nation or region, are now exercised by the president of the conference of bishops: 'The president of the Conference or, when he is lawfully impeded, the vice-president, presides not only over the general meetings of the Conference but also over the permanent committee.'" This is what an editor objected to on the grounds that the Code is a primary source. Esoglou (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The source to be discussed: Rossi Manipulates Academics to Create Illusion of Independent Test, Steven B. Krivit, via New Energy Times. The article: Energy Catalyzer, section "Test" about the test results, posted to Arxiv: 1305.3913. The arxiv paper itself not-reliable (self-published, not reviewed), but it was mentioned by several reliable sources, eg Forbes or Popular Science, and created some additional public interest.

Krivit outlined some weak points of the paper in the source, so I tried to add this text to the article diff:

According to New Energy Times, authors of paper did all measurements at Rossi’s facilities and under his constraints. There was no any calorimetry done, heat power was extrapolated from temperature measurements. New Energy Times concludes that this was not an independent test, but manipulation from Rossi to create appearance of such test.

Why I think that S B Krivit is Relaible? Because NBC says: [72] "Steven Krivit, a journalist who covers cold fusion claims and editor-in-chief of the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia (Wiley, 2011)". IRWolfie recommends me to go here to discuss reliability of Krivit: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer - "Test" section `14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: IRWolfie- says at talk page about Krivit and his site: Newenergytimes is a random SPS by a non-scientist known for cold fusion advocacy. `a5b (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Krivit looks like a reliable source to me. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are discussing him, you should really notify him: user talk:StevenBKrivit. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to see if this article is indexed in academic databases:

• "The Past as the Future? Nostalgia and Retrogaming in Digital Culture."

Is this considered a reliable source considering who published it? I want to be super sure

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Try search on scholar.google.com like this. Looks like a crappy source, if you ask me.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 01:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The journal Fibreculture says it is peer reviewed. I'm trying to see who has indexed this journal. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fibreculture is a valid, peer-reviewed journal. The link above provided by User:WhisperToMe gives editorial information that includes a board, and its members hold university affliations.Crtew (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Is GCatholic.org a reliable source for information on Catholic ecclesiastics who hold the title of primate? Or should it be classified as more or less a blog run by Gabriel Chow of Toronto? See the inconclusive discussion here. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly far better sources for this kind of information than a personal blog. Use them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

On a factual matter, is the Weekly Standard reliable? Neosiber (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Need more information... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This change. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=next&oldid=556654504 It was a change by an anon. I don't consider the Weekly Standard reliable, but I thought I should see what the board thought. Neosiber (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable in context. It's another example of conservatives saying waivers were funnelled to unions, and it's not synthesis because the MSNBC report connects this to the cancellation of the program. - Cal Engime (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No it is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it is used inappropriately. Here is a link to the May 16, 2011, Standard blog used. The information used is actually taken from a direct quote from a Republican Policy Committee report, which is the actual source. It is used to support the text, "After this and other reports of preferential grants to labor unions." The rest of the sentence is "the Obama Administration announced it would be canceling the waiver program in September, 2011." That is a clear case of

synthesis. Notice that the program was cancelled after the Standard published the excerpt from the report. TFD (talk

) 01:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Global times as in

Kennedy tragedies

Recently I was just curious about an issue in the Chinese article of Kennedy tragedies. The Global Times Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine Source(Chinese) claims three versions of Kennedy curse which is like what I described in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_May_21#The folk explanations of the cause of Kennedy tragedies?. One of the versions seemed to copy the report of Weekly World News. As I have asked in the Reference desk, most replies says that claim of this source is not sensible at all, and not even worth noting. So does not it really worth any mentioning, or is it like "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.", that wikipedian's ideas and a lack of further evidence does not undermine the reliability of this Global times source?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what is your question, so I'll break it down one by one:

1) Assuming you were asking if

support multiple high quality sources

. Try to find a better source to support the curse claim.

2) Assuming you were asking that if the view that Kennedy's misfortune is caused by a literal curse deserves some mentioning, the related wiki policy should be

WP:FRINGE

. In general, the WP:NPOV policy states: a) If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. b) If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. c) If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

I hope this address your question(s). Jim101 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not even to mention it as an example of media influence? And is the judgement whether a viewpoint is significant minority biased to different language? e.g. What is considered not significant enough in English world may not be considered so by Chinese world?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition, how do we judge if a source is a "notable/expert publications for the above subject matters". Every news website can focus on hundreds of events every year, does this mean that all news site are not reliable (at least for any exceptional claims)? How should we decide whether a claim is exceptional?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether you are asking whether this material is reliable as far as this English-language Wikipedia is concerned, or for a Chinese-language one? If it is the latter, they may well have their own policies and guidelines regarding sourcing, and we can't answer your question here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want to know about the reliability issue, because I think the way of how to judge the reliability of a source is alike for all language wikipedia.

Back again as an example of experts, how can we expect a columnist to be an expert about the Kennedy tragedies?[73]--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is intended to provide help with issues concerning the reliability of sources cited on the English-language Wikipedia - it is not a forum for general discussions on abstract questions regarding reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just make the question clear again. Sorry for not have stated it earlier. Is the Global times source a reliable source? Why? Does it worth any mentioning? Why? In regard to your concern on reliability of sources cited on the English-language Wikipedia, I would say I would like to know if it is reliable so it should be cited or not.

As I was still confused about the idea in the first reply. how is "notable/expert publications" determined? Is that columnist article which is currently cited in the article expert?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Global Times isn't currently cited as a source in the English-language Wikipedia article on the

WIkipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Out policies regarding sourcing are explained in detail there, and there is no reason to repeat them all here. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 02:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just curious about if there is a good reason. If I see such sources and claims(as I did in Chinese WP), should I just say "it is not a reliable source" and remove it?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In second thought, perhaps it is not so difficult to argue.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This request is about the following article and whether the cited source for it can be a reliable source: For a Free Press CounterCurrents is a WP:SPS, but it has published legitimate articles from other RSs. Here's a good example from a past and archived discussion at this WP:RS noticeboard.[74] So the point is that the article appearing in CounterCurrents republished an article that appears in The Meantime published July 20, 2005. Is the Meantime a RS?

Further evidence: The Mean Time was a registered publication in India (The Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India). This we know from public records:

• Title: MEAN TIME
• Registration number: 69702
• Title code: KARENG01713
• Owner: M/S.ALTERNATIVE MEDI
• Address: A PVT.LTD.,3/6 II FLOOR, B.S.A ROAD,MASJID STREET,BANGALORE
• Pub_city: KERALA
• District: BANGALORE
• VRF Dates: 8/3/1995
• State: KAR
• Language: English
• Periodicity: OP
• Publisher: P.C. HAMZAH

Furthermore, this notice of publication appeared in print: "New magazine launched" The Tribune (India), Tuesday, February 2, 1999. (Instructions: Scroll or simply do a "find" in browser for Hamzah. And another bio at a political party also says Hamzah published Meantime.Crtew (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If a given article has appeared in both self-published and non-self-published publications, then it is not considered self-published for Wikipedia's purposes. (Consider: The New York Times runs an article, and someone copies it onto his blog. It would be silly to say that the article is self-published.)

But whether it's reliable depends on what you're trying to say with it. It might be a reliable source for statements about a reporter in India. It would not be a reliable source for statements about Einstein's theory of relativity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The article for

) 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the source is reliable—and this is a bit of a

WP:SKYISBLUE thing, since anyone can confirm through tiffany.com and Google Street View that the store is quite plainly there—but I would prefer one that says the store was actually opened (not just planned), and in November. - Cal Engime (talk

) 18:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually press releases are not reliable sources and Jimmy Wales himself has written about this issue. However, journalists use press releases and incorporate them into their copy, and so if you search for the facts you need in newspapers/news media that use the press release, then you're spot on and nobody can challenge your source(s). If the person didn't remove your citation, you could put a citation needed template after the reference and the fact (since it's not a BLP and until you complete your search). But since the fact is contentious (at least to the person who removed it), then you're on shaky ground and the source shouldn't be used. However, the best place for you to search is through the trade press. Tiffany, I assume, is in the retail industry and jewels. Crtew (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason offered by the editor in question as to why he removed the statement that Tiffany announced it was opening a store in Red Bank, New Jersey was not that it was contentious, it was the claim that the press release is by definition not a reliable source. The question of whether or not the source is reliable is what I'm trying to determine both for the purposes of understanding the situation here and in other similar situations. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See NOTE #8 in

WP:SPS about press releases. Crtew (talk

) 22:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note #8 doesn't say anything about press releases beyond the fact that they are self-published, which I don't believe has been in dispute here. For SPS's purposes, a business is considered an "expert source" on its own actions, just like a person is always considered an "expert source" on the person's own actions. You may cite a store's press release about basic, non-controversial facts about the store, e.g., its location, just like you may cite a person's blog for basic, non-controversial facts about the person, e.g., the person's hometown. The press release is a reliable source for this statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it better to have a source that all Wikipedians will acknowledge is reliable rather than one that has no "independent reviewers" and a conflict of interest? The source below satisfies those standards. Crtew (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing policies do not require editors to use the best possible sources at all times. You are only required to use a source that (at least) meets the rock-bottom minimum. You may use a better source, but you are not required to. This source is useable for the statement being made. It is reliable, and RSN concerns itself with whether a source is reliable, not whether a source is the best possible source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's surely not worth the spat they're having over this very PR issue at WP:ANI right now. In that case, I would wear a belt and a pair of suspenders! Crtew (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no spat from this perspective as Nightscream has already acknowledged that the source was always reliable as used in the article. The consensus is clear here that the press release is reliable and verifiable as a source so there is no further confusion regarding its use as a source in the Red Bank article or in using similar sources in the future in case anyone were to make a claim that a press release was not a reliable source. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Further search tip: Tiffany made the announcement that it had opened the store in Red Bank in its Q4 report for 2007 released in March 2008.Crtew (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The source you're looking for is: title=Tiffany remains 'cautious' on U.S. market |publisher=NationalJeweler.com |date=March 24, 2008 |accessdate=2013-05-27 |url=http://www.nationaljeweler.com/nj/high-volume-retailers/a/~14589-Tiffany-remains-cautious-on-U.S.

Good luck, Crtew (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source for updating the article. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. If the source is found to be acceptable by those assembled here, then that's good enough for me. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

~644 pages use this unreliable source. Help purging its citation would greatly improve the encylopedia.Curb Chain (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Good morning,
I have a general question about sources in English versus sources in foreign language. There is a the moment a (civil) discussion about the name of a roman dish, Carciofi alla giudia. Another user supports the inclusion of an alternate spelling ('Carciofi alla giudea', with "e"), and brings as support several non-Italian sources. On all the major Italian culinary works the first spelling (giudia) is used, and in Rome the second spelling is unknown. My questions are:

• Should an English source be preferred to a local one in order to define the spelling of a word in another language?
• Should the English sources be preferred to the local ones in order to determine the common name of a foreign (and local) object, in a case like this?

In other words, should wikipedia act in this case as a world encyclopedia or an English encyclopedia? I would appreciate the indication of some guideline, if present. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The spelling in English could be different from the spelling in Italian. This could occur for a variety of reasons, such as the Italian spelling changing after the dish became known in the English-speaking countries. Another possibility is regional differences in the Italian spelling, and the dish becoming known in English-speaking countries through contact with one region, while Italian books being published in a different regional spelling.

In any case, in the absence of an explanation to the contrary, Wikipedia documents the English name of things. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to provide both? That would also satisfy readers' appetite for more info. :-) Crtew (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be an alternative name. Relevant guideline would be

MOS:LEADALT - include it in parentheses. That's the general Wiki philosophy, by the way - if there are two alternate views with reliable support, don't choose between them, give both. --GRuban (talk

) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an Italian dish so it has Italian name. This is in contrast to

lasagne

, which has a name that is naturalised in English. The article should be under the correct name, and you could add the alternate name as GRuban suggests. I would word it Carciofi alla giudia (also sometimes carciofi alla giudea). Or you could simply leave out the incorrect spelling, on the grounds that it is... incorrect. 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! We decided for the alternate name solution. Alex2006 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

diff Is the following reliable enough for the claim it's supporting? "1986–1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War". History Commons. Archived from the original on September 12, 2008. Retrieved May 10, 2013. :

"In the 1980s, the Afghan jihad had been financed by

United States of America

.^{ref: History commons}"

Feel free to weigh in. (Give me a {{

09:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking over this source (History Commons). Let's assume that somebody has objected to it (which is probably why you are here, I assume), and take it off the table right away. It contains many references within that article that could verify the fact. First and up top, you'll find Ahmed Rashid, who is a well-known and respected journalist and wrote Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (among others). So a person who faces objections to the History Commons source, which I do not evaluate here, would learn a lot and have a number of good sources to reference for the claim made. It would take some more work, but the cited source above is chockfull of good, reliable sources.Crtew (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• What Crtew says, but there are no shortage of sources for this, it is common knowledge that the west supplied arms and munitions to the Mujahadeen. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Seconded. See also Rambo III and The Living Daylights for examples of how positive the Mujahadeen were perceived (and portraid) in the West back then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Darkness Shines (I just want to note the moment for historical purposes)! ;-) Crtew (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

History Commons sounds like Wikipedia! About Us Just like we tell students: DO NOT use such a source for research! I find it reasonable for anyone to object to this source (even though I find the references used in the article you point to to be good ones, see above).Crtew (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What I asked was is this source alone sufficient?
Do we need more sources? Are there such sources? If yes, where (link)? Thanks for commenting, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This source is not sufficient at all per

) 11:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend almost any of our references for our article

Soviet war in Afghanistan; most of them are much better sources, and most of them mention US support for the mujahideen. --GRuban (talk

) 15:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussing Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source, new developments

the question of using Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source should be discussed again, mostly because of their euclid report 2011. at the time, it was accepted, but since then:

• the web site (official) of the permanent mission of comoros to the united nations says that "Verifile Accredibase is not a reliable source"
• the web site (official) of the permanent mission of central africa Archived 2013-07-07 at the Wayback Machine has a letter to UK saying page 2 that "Verifile Accredibase a private uk label is to be dismissed"
• the Verifile Accredibase contains at least one gross error: that their is no university in comoros (also on website of permanent mission to un)
• in the euclid talk page, it is almost sure that the Verifile Accredibase business owner Mr Ben Cohen tried to push his report from his ip address from Belford where Verifile Accredibase is...
• there is no panel of experts but just Mr Ben Cohen who is from Israel. euclid talk page satinmaster pointed out concern is islamophobia
• that report is also a broad attack against all intergovernmental universities like the UN University.
• what we do know for use that EUCLID is an intergovernmental organization (int domain and WIPO) and their treaty is on the United Nations.
• what we do know for sure is that Verifile Accredibase published a report written by the business owner after article in journal of OIC (Islamic)
• the now have the letter from the United Nations (December 2012) saying that they and UNESCO recognize Euclid as being accredited

so Verifile Accredibase does not meet reliable source wiki cretiria because:

• it is really online self-published source with fancy business name
• there are no references in report to support claims just opinions
• the context seems be law suit between euclid and verifile...

if you look at "Self-published and questionable sources" definition: Verifile Accredibase "rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" publishes "contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions" "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media...are largely not acceptable"

conclusion, WIKI here should discuss and agree not considering Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source because it is just one person (business man from Israel) with an personal agenda against these governments and even the United Natiosn... Muez1981 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting one of these two identical sections, hope that's all right. For some context, the time this was previously discussed was

Accredibase criticism. The EUCLID/Accredibase issue seems to be a big deal, enough for each of them to maintain their own page on the issue: Accredibase's; EUCLID's.--GRuban (talk

) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Now for analysis - it does look like Verifile Accredibase is an expert source on the topic of university accreditation. Here it is being cited as such by two major sources, the

New York Times [75], and the International Business Times [76], and two regional papers, in England Business Weekly [77] and in California The Bay Citizen [78]. It looks like the article section with the two agencies hurling mud at each other should stay. --GRuban (talk

) 14:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note the updates I just made to the page, as it seems the UN error Verifile Accredibase asserted had been made has been addressed.--Elvey (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I recently added a reception link to the Deep Purple album Now What?!, which was a professional album review from Music Enthusiast Magazine. One of the fellow contributors, a Walter Gorlitz, took down the link to the album review, later saying "http://musicenthusiastmag.com does not appear to be a site that supports professional reviewers. I could be wrong though and you could request a review of the site at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I reverted your recent additions based on that assumption".

So, I am appropriately providing a link to the online source for you to look at [79]. Similarly, the album review in question is located at this address: [80].— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyWorld1015 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look very good at first sight. There is no "Who We Are" or similar tab. I clicked on a number of reviews and they are all by a "William Clark". It looks like it could be his personal website. For rock reviews we are looking for mainstream magazines like Rolling Stone or more specialist magazines in particular genres, or even in newspapers like the New York Times. It is not compulsory that all reviewers be professional journalists, but normally they will be. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an editor adding reviews from musicenthusiastmag.com (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Way_Life_Goes_%28Tom_Keifer_album%29&diff=557339267&oldid=557095579 ). I have removed them since it's not a professional review site. I can't seem to find any information about the site. Is this a valid source for reviews? I suspect that the interviews might qualify as primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I obviously don't think it's at all reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

[81] in [[Thomas Blake Glover] relies on these two sources. Do they meet

?

In 1859, Glover crossed from

Nagasaki and worked initially for Jardine Matheson buying Japanese green tea. Two years later, he founded his own firm, Glover Trading Co. (Guraba-Shokai). His first major success was as a supplier of ships, guns and gunpowder, which he sold illegally to the rebellious Satsuma, Chōshū and Tosa

clans in Japan during the 1860s.

His business was based in Nagasaki, and it was here that he had his home constructed, the first Western-style building in Japan. His former residence in Nagasaki, now a museum, is laden with masonic symbols.[3]^[4] Although there are no official Masonic Lodge records or the like to prove that Glover was a Freemason, he is often associated with the secret society by both Japanese and foreign writers.

I suggest that the first paragraph is fully unsourced, that flickr is not a reliable source for statements of fact, and query whether the tourist website is sufficient for the remaining claims - noting that the last sentence is not remotely found in the tourist site. Last I checked, a claim requires a real source, which appears lacking. Disparate opinions are sought. Collect (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph is fully unsourced, and also contains a contentious biographical claim that Glover had illegal dealings with rebels. That really should not stay in the article unsourced.

For the second paragraph, it's unacceptable to use an editor's personal interpretations of a public-provided image. First, the flickr description of the image is of unknown quality. Second, the image itself would be a primary source, and any interpretation of it, such as the claim that the markings are on it are "masonic symbols", would be absolutely unacceptable

WP:RS. The second paragraph also ends with unsourced contentious claims that need to be sourced properly or removed. Zad68

17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Might someone be so kind as to check the "new sources" which appear to cover the really trivial bits, and still not to cover the problem bits? The editor has filed a formal complaint at AN/I that my edit was "wikihounding" :( and thus having a third party vet this would be appreciated. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the content and sourcing changes that appear in this diff, and they do seem to check out, kudos to Ubikwit for finding good sourcing (as far as I can tell). The sources provided appear to be high-quality and although I cannot see all the source text behind the Google Books snippets, just from the context the keywords appear in, I do not have reason to doubt that the sources seem to be represented appropriately by the article content.

Is there a specific bit of content that you're thinking does not check out? Zad68 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Check out the Glover Garden article as well where the same offending type of source remains in situ. I did find one poor use of a source in the Glover article -- I have an annoying habit of asking that sources support claims as written <g>. [82] shows my understanding of what the cite actually says (I went and looked at far more than a snippet, btw). I assume, perforce, that "smuggling" is "illegal" but that the added use of "illegal" is fully unneeded. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm 100% on board with the asking that sources support claims as written! I'm a particular pain in the behind about that when doing spot-checks of sources when I do GA reviews. In this case, I think we're all in agreement that the book is a good-quality source. Also I can see that, for example, the book does mention "gunpowder" on page 156 but I don't have access to that whole page, and the Satsuma are mentioned on the surrounding pages, so I could only get as far as my "doesn't look like it's a problem" response. As both you and Ubikwit have full access to good sources, it sounds like you're on the right path to improving the articles by using them accurately, and double-checking each other's work. Zad68 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Following is an exchange concerning the status of FisheriesWiki on Wikipedia:

---

Hi Epipelagic - regarding your message of 30.4 about my having entered enough links to the Fisheries Wiki and adding more might put me at risk of breaching the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on promotion and the like, I first want to apologise for the delay in responding. But on the issue of adding links to FisheriesWiki where the article in question is about a fish species or group, I have noticed that most (all?) such articles have links to FishBase, and I was simply following the logic of that by adding FisheriesWiki links. FisheriesWiki is a site that is basically the same as FishBase - a global information system with contributions from scientists and managed by a non-profit, which in the case of FishBase (or SeaLifeBase, its sister site) is organised around marine and freshwater aquatic *species* whilst in FisheriesWiki the data is organised around the *places* (fisheries) where those species are exploited/caught. These sites are in close collaboration as well. Every FishBase and SeaLifeBase species article has a link to FisheriesWiki (in the 'Human uses' section), which will take the user to a list of all profiles on FisheriesWiki that deal with that same species (e.g., for Gadus morhua there are currently 64 profiles). And for every FisheriesWiki profile, there is a link on the profile ID page to the FishBase article on that profile's matching species. In sum, then, I do understand Wikiepedia policies on promotion but do not see in this instance how I was in danger of violating those policies, and so would like to continue to add external links to FisheriesWiki to Wikipedia articles where this is relevant/appropriate - such as articles on other aquatic species where information on a site devoted to human uses of that species would add considerable value for users. Your thoughts? --Jackwhalen-sfp (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

FisheriesWiki is an open, contributor-based platform based on a model that has a lot in common with Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia does not have the sort of quality controls that, say, a peer reviewed scientific journal or a reputable newspaper has. Consequently Wikipedia editors are not permitted to cite Wikipedia itself as a

reliable source. For similar reasons, it seems to me that FisheriesWiki, however useful as a general resource on fisheries, cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. There are some important points of contrast between say FishBase and FisheriesWiki. FishBase is a massive, long established database with a reputation for reliability, controlled and monitored by high profile academic scientists such as Daniel Pauly

. It is not funded, as far as I am aware, by any groups which have interests other than scientific ones. FisheriesWiki is a recent start up, and not been round long enough to consolidate a reputation for reliability. It is the product, as they say on their web site, of "an alliance of buyers, suppliers, and producers". There is clearly scope for local commercial and political influences on content within the wiki. So for these, and other reasons, I do not see how it would be appropriate to use FisheriesWiki as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You say that FishBase articles link to corresponding FisheriesWiki articles, but they link also to corresponding Wikipedia articles. So that doesn't further the argument for FisheriesWiki being a reliable source. Wikipedia may not be a reliable source, but it can be an excellent starting point to get a (maybe) reliable overview of how the land lies together with a list of reliable sources which can then be followed up. Similarly, it seems to me that FisheriesWiki can be a useful starting point for investigating a fishery, and may be a good place for for a Wikipedia editor setting out to develop an article on a fishery. For that reason, I didn't revert your entries when you added the wiki a few times as an external link.

Anyway, that is just a personal initial impression and not a Wikipedia position. I have referred the matter for further comment to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Question Why not link directly to FishBase? If you already do, what additional does the fisheriesWiki reference serve? DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Most fish articles link to FishBase. But FisheriesWiki can have a lot of specific information about different local fisheries for a given species around the world that is not covered by FishBase. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Will have to oppose the addition of this link all over as per

WP:ELNO (user generated site). To quote = "FisheriesWiki relies on user contributions, reviews and ratings to improve the quality of the Program.". The link should be removed - will do so over the next if and after more comment are made.Moxy (talk

) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. After a brief discussion at

) suggested to re-route our discussion here. It does not reduce to the example below, but we can start with it. Thank you.

1. diff
2. Oelemari Airport

3. On 15 August 1960 a Northrop YC-125B Raider, registered PZ-TAD (Formerly N2570B, 48-632) stalled during landing at Oelemari and was reported written-off with no fatalities. The pilot was D.L. Walker. The airplane was leased by the Surinamese Government/SLM from Ambrose Aviation for equipment transport for landing-strip construction, under "Operation Grasshopper".

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we have an article on Joe Baugher, and that he might qualify as an expert in the field of military aviation. But that seems a bit of a stretch here, since I don't see where that page writes the information it is being cited for here. --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Continuing with Surinamese articles, here's another concern of mine, which I also raised at the article's talk page.

1. diff
2. Surinam Airways

Surinam Airways operated the following aircraft throughout its history:

• Beech G-18S
• Bell 47G Helicopter
• Boeing 707-320C
• Boeing 737-200
• Boeing 747-200B
• Boeing 747-300SCD
• Cessna UC-78C Bobcat
• Cessna 170B
• Cessna 206
• de Havilland Canada DHC6-100 Twin Otter
• de Havilland Canada DHC6-300 Twin Otter
• DHC-8-300
• Douglas C-47A
• Douglas C-47B
• Douglas DC-6A
• Douglas DC-6B
• Douglas DC-8 Series 50
• Douglas DC-8 Super 60 Series
• Douglas DC-9-50
• McDonnell Douglas MD-80
• Piper PA-18 Super Cub
• Piper PA-23-160 Apache E

There are now three references after the ″:″. My main concern is this one, which is of dubious origin. As I said, this has already been raised at the article's talk page, yet the editor that introduced this reference never responded to my comments.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I had updated The Daily Caller's wikipedia page, only to be told by a user named Neosiber that "Wikipedia had concluded The Daily Caller was an unreliable source" and that I was vandalizing the page. He cited these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145#The_Daily_Caller_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#The_Daily_Caller

I'm admittedly new here, but I see nowhere, including on the links he supplied, where "Wikipedia says so." Several commenters chimed in to disagree and asked him to provide a concrete declaration that The Daily Caller was an unreliable source. If anything I feel that he is vandalizing the talk page by using it to attack the outlet. Furthermore, even if The Daily Caller is an unreliable source, which I don't believe has been decided by Wikipedia, to say that I can't use the website to cite something on it's OWN Wikipedia page seems absurd. What is a better source for a Wikipedia entry than the actual subject of the Wikipedia entry? I'm not interested in getting into a back and forth with this guy, who has now resorted to patronizing me and sarcasm on the talk page, so I wanted to bring it here.

As an aside, I would note that the "footnote" on one of the noticeboard entries says that The Daily Caller has now been accused of paying sources to frame a senator, but that entry does not note that virtually no one believes those allegations, and writers from The Atlantic, Slate, Washington Post and Politico have said that publicly. I know that noticeboard is closed, but I wish there was a way to allow that to be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.205.84 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 May 2013 AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the notes at the top of this page. We need to know what exactly the Daily Caller is being cited for, and what text it is being used to support. And yes, we can very much decide that a source isn't reliable for something on a Wikipedia page about it. We don't hand over editorial control of pages to article subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The About page Archived 2013-01-14 at the Wayback Machine is quite substantial. I'd say it's at least on par with Huffington Post, though there may be reasons individual authors postings might not be allowed on some articles on a case by case basis. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. WP:RS doesn't work like that - we need to know what it is being cited for. How difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I was editing and got kicked out because other edits were taking place at the same time. The sentence was "Months after the initial report, police in the Dominican Republic announced that three women had acknowledged that they had been paid to lie about having sex with Menendez, and that the lawyer for the women had accused The Daily Caller of colluding with Univision, Telemundo and CNN to set up the senator, a charge which all outlets denied. And the articled cited was here: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/22/lawyer-behind-menendez-prostitution-allegations-recants-blames-news-organizations/

Also, it seems you are making decisions on a case-by-case basis, which is completely understandable, but which in no way supports the charge that "Wikipedia has decided" it's an unreliable source, per Neosiber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.205.84:15:33, 29 May 2013‎ (talk • contribs)

Unless I'm missing something, the source you cite doesn't actually state that "three women had acknowledged that they had been paid to lie" - it says that this was 'reported' to Figueroa. It seemingly doesn't state that "police in the Dominican Republic announced... that the lawyer for the women had accused The Daily Caller of colluding with Univision, Telemundo and CNN to set up the senator..." either. The passage seems to be conflating two different statements, neither of which seem to be entirely borne out by the source. Frankly though, this is all rather confusing. (and can you please sign your posts with four tildes thus: ~~~~) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the ip editor is misusing the external sources (WaPo, et al). These are all opinion pieces, basically. It doesn't fit with the sourcing policies of WP to use non-RS to counter other non-RS, so it doesn't matter whether other opinion writers think the DC did something or didn't. If that were acceptable, then it would also be acceptable for someone to put the fact that Secular Coalition for America's awarded Daily Caller the title of "Most Unethical News Publication". But it's not, so we don't. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 17:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Erik Wemple and David Weigel (the WaPo and Slate bloggers, respectively) are used in over 500 Wikipedia entries. Some of them aren't using them as a direct source, but the majority are. These include pages for Benghazi, Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Cycle (TV program), Gawker, Toure and Ari Shapiro (Wemple); and Republican Presidential Primaries 2012, Jennifer Rubin, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, James David Manning, Chris Coons and Ron Paul newsletters (Weigel). As all of these cite the blogs that Wemple and Weigel write, then I would assume they are treated as the same non-RS as the blog entries of theirs that I cited? 70.192.207.199 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You are really getting ahead of yourself. Slow down. There is absolutely no need to put your assertions back into the article before talking it out on the article talk page, where I have already engaged you. There is no justification for placing this material back into the article yet, and since I voluntarily adhere to 1RR rather than 3RR I will repeat that I would like you to self-revert your re-addition of that material until some consensus is reached. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: if the anon IP is claiming that this edit [83] is justified on the basis of discussions here, he/she is entirely misguided: the material added isn't the material we were supposed to be commenting on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a whiff of FORUMSHOP here too, as I suggested on the talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, I'm not claiming that, and in fact never responded to your post above, which I do agree with. Apologies for that. So is your position that The Daily Caller can only be used as a source on a case-by-case basis? I had started this post looking for resolution on the claim that "Wikipedia had decided" it was not a reliable source. UseTheCommandLine introduced the new topic of Wemple and Weigel. It is my position that the topic of whether they were reliable sources had already been "fought out," so to speak, on the article talk page, which was why I added that back in as a source. It was never meant to be part of this conversation here, which remains unresolved (to me) about whether TDC is a reliable source to use in entries. Thank you. 70.192.207.199 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Most sources are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with stronger sources required for stronger claims (see

WP:REDFLAG). We seem to be getting hung up on this point, but it should be common sense; we need a sense of how a source is being used to help determine whether it's appropriate. For instance, given the Daily Caller's role in the Menendez fiasco and its overall track record, I would hope that any responsible editor would avoid it as a source for contentious material about living people. However, it may be cited, cautiously, to illustrate its own viewpoints in articles where those viewpoints are particularly relevant. For those of us who got lost reading this thread, could someone re-state exactly what content the Daily Caller is being proposed to support? MastCell ^Talk

22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this requires either additional attention on the talk page in question, a DRN case, or attention by an administrator. I am unwilling to break my 1RR rule here, but have been unsuccessful in my attempts to get the ip editor(s) to talk out the underlying issue. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've talked it out with you every step of the way. The only thing I haven't done is follow your order to revert my edit, because I contend my edit is correct. Would love to have an admin weigh in. 70.192.197.60 (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

On the Daily Caller talk page, that is. I've talked it out with you all day there, not here, since your issue is one that doesn't belong in this section anyway. You aren't questioning TDC as a source, you are questioning three other sources. 70.192.197.60 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Break: recap of issues

• ip editor used Daily Caller as a primary source for the allegations against it (DC) in the Menendez case.

ip editor also made this edit -- the source article says nothing about "collusion"

• Neosiber cited previous RSN discussions about DC's reliability as a reason to exclude it. ip editor still has questions about this, apparently.
• discussion here and on talk page evolved...
• currently, this edit is at issue. ip editor appears to want to use opinion pieces and news blogs to suggest that the Daily Caller is not the party that manufactured the allegations against Menendez. ip editor's contention is that because these blogs or people are cited in other articles, they are RS. My contention (after having gotten involved via this noticeboard) is that ip editor should justify their inclusions individually on the talk page, and leave them out until then. ip refuses to self-revert to remove theis material, which leads to....
• ip editor insists that because they have modified this material, and Neosiber has not yet objected to, this means that, in ip's words, "consensus, thin as it is, seems to be on my side."

I hope that's clearer. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly true, but not exactly.:

• I did use a Daily Caller story as primary source for allegations against it. Also, one of the articles (I believe the WaPo article) does mention the other outlets.
• Neosiber cited previous RSN discussions about reliability, with the conclusion that "Wikipedia has decided." I don't see anywhere that it has been decided, which is why I raised the question today of whether that is the case. So far, all anyone has said is that it's case-by-case. That's fine - and answers my original question of whether or not the Daily Caller can be used as a source. I see that many issues on the noticeboards have "Resolved" above them, and this one does not. That was all I was trying to clarify.
• In the process of asking my question, I used an example, which as AndyTheGrump pointed out, really didn't support my sentence anyway, thereby making the question of whether or not it could be used in this case moot.
• Separately, in the discussions with Neosiber, I replaced the sourcing with 3 other articles, before I ever started the discussion here. I was really trying to clarify for further purposes. True that Neosiber said they were fine, though I don't contend he is the be-all, end-all, as my disagreement with him was what caused me to come to this board in the first place.
• UseTheCommand line introduced a whole new issue to this discussion, about the new sources. He did it here, before doing it on the talk page. I have engaged with him every step of the way, despite his protests that I have not. Somehow, I also got blamed for tying the discussion of the three separate articles to the Daily Caller article, when he did that himself.
• I understand his contentions. My contention is that it's just a back and forth between the two of us, and until someone else weighs in, at the moment there is no way to reach a consensus. Based on the consensus we already had on the talk page before he weighed in, I don't see a reason to undo my revert to the old edit from this morning.

The reason none of this is clear is because the conversation that this post started with has morphed into something else entirely. I have made every attempt to clearly and concisely explain myself. Also, UseTheCommand line is free to revert my change. That's his self-imposed rule, not WP's. Similarly, if anyone else had agreed with him thus far, he/she could have made the revert as well. I only said the thin consensus was on my side because it was fought out already. I'm more than open to anyone else chiming in and/or making that change. 70.192.197.60 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

based on your edit history (what I can piece together of it, anyway -- is there some reason why you can't register an account?), I have little faith that my reversion would mean that you will actually talk things out either here or on the talk page before re-introducing the material. I have no desire to get involved in an edit war, thus the 1RR, thus my politely asking you to self-revert. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And make no mistake, this is still about the reliability of sources and their misuse. you have simply pivoted from using a source (already of questionable reliability) to describe allegations against itself (no CoI there) to using

newsblogs to support a contention about the legal speculation about the outcome of an investigation when the facts are not known (and in fact there is an ongoing FBI probe about the matter.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk

] # _ 01:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying to talk things out all day, that's the main thing I don't understand here. But that, like the actual substance, seems to be something else we won't agree on. I don't understand your second point. What is Col? As for the facts not being known and an ongoing investigation, on that we can agree. Before I made my very first edit to the Menendez section, it read as an open and shut case and basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here obviously): TDC reported the allegations, Menendez denied them, the FBI found no proof, the women recanted and TDC was accused of paying to make the whole thing up, but they denied it. That is so far from the complete story, and even further from anything resembling neutrality. Issues which I did in fact take to the talk page in the Menendez section. So yes, I still contend that I was trying to make this more balanced. Never once (I don't believe) did I try to distort any of the sources. But just because it's a story that the WaPo won't tell in its entirety doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There are outlets on both sides of the political spectrum that exist to tell stories that mainstream media won't tell. I don't know what the real story is on Menendez, nor did I ever try to conclude anything in my edits about what the real story might be. But I know there is more than you're reading in WaPo and ABC News, and just because those details don't jive with their narrative doesn't mean they don't deserve to be told. FWIW, this is the Univision report citing the collusion, but the WaPo and others parsed words, either by choice or by lack of accurate translation, I have no way of knowing which, to not allude to the collusion. Obviously a Spanish language video is not a source, but he says that these four outlets contacted him about making a video with the women and offering money, but that only a reporter from TDC actually showed up. At a minimum, Daily Caller and Univision denied everything in the report. I'm not sure about CNN or Telemundo. Univision also noted in its report discrepancies in the lawyer's story. The Univision report was only reported on by the Daily Caller, and other sources that I'm sure you find not reliable, such as Talking Points Memo After reading some of the other stories, I actually will contend they don't use the word "collude." But what would you call it when four separate (and competing) news organizations allegedly contact the same man and encourage him to find women that they can tape falsely claiming to have been with the senator? Politico also reported on the discrepancies in the Washington Post article. 70.192.197.60 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I really can't believe this is here yet again. At worst, there really isn't a consensus for not using TDC as a source, based on previous discussions. At best, it's reliable but should be avoided in favor of more neutral media whenever possible, just like with any other blatantly partisan source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Other editors have now joined in, and that appears generally to be the consensus. I'm going to take the liberty of marking this as "resolved" and quote you in the summary, Thargor. That appears to be one of the procedural objections at issue here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 14:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Break 2: Specific questions re:sourcing

1. Is the Daily Caller RS for reporting allegations by others against itself? (my guess is no, see
   WP:ABOUTSELF
   )
2. Are any of the following sources:

• [84]
• [85]
• [86]

RS to support the following statement:

Several members of various media sources, including writers from The Washington Post, Slate and The Atlantic, publicly stated that they did not believe the allegations that The Daily Caller paid anyone to make false claims about the senator.

to my mind, this is related to RS, as well as

WP:NEWSBLOG -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk

] # _ 01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

the justification for use of these sources, 'because theyre used elsewhere on WP' also smacks of

] # _ 01:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

LaRouche movement and Prince Philip

Should a source from the LaRouche movement ("Who's who in Prince Philip's Allgemeine SS" (PDF). Executive Intelligence Review. 21 (43). 28 October 1994.) be used in

) 18:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Not only is that a horribly unreliable and fringe source but the whole issue is a direct attack on the subject. If that's all it's wanted for, here is the WWF page on him, can't ask for a better source than that.[87] --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The LaRouche movement shouldn't be considered as a reliable source for the number of days in a week. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the Executive Intelligence Review piece appears to be an unambiguous violation of

WP:BLP, and should be handled as such - that is, reverted without concern for the 3-revert rule. I will leave a note/warning on Egeymi (talk · contribs) asking him/her to desist and use appropriate sourcing. MastCell ^Talk

19:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I have learned that it is unreliable, I want to say I hope you will show the same sensitivity to the other bio articles where EIR was used as a source. Egeymi (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If anything anywhere is being cited to the LaRouche movement, it shouldn't be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is a

Location (talk

) 20:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A quick search finds larouchepub.com on 64 article pages [88] - time for a cleanout, I think. Possibly followed by blacklisting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic. Most of those seem to be articles about LaRouche and the movement, where they will be useful sources for statements about themselves. --GRuban (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few weren't - I've been through them and removed the dodgy-looking ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This website [89] appears to be the result of a collaborative effort between academics, one of which is Lane Earns [90] the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.

The following text appears at [91] Archived 2013-10-15 at the Wayback Machine of the website

The Nagasaki Masonic Lodge was inaugurated at No. 50 Oura on October 5, 1885. The

founding members were all British, but during the following years, men of various

nationalities and religions became members and participated in regular meetings and social events. The lodge moved to a new building at No. 47 Oura in June 1887. The Freemasons contributed to the Nagasaki community until disbanding in the early Showa Period due to a lack of members. Today, the graves of several former Freemasons can be found in Nagasaki's international cemeteries, and the stone gate of the former lodge is preserved in Glover Garden.

Here is a link to a photo of part of the gate[92].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can anybody help find reliable sources to help verify that Megan Fox had to apologize to Michael Bay to get the role of April O'Neil the upcoming Ninja Turtles reboot? I had added a source from Radar Online, but I have come to learn that Radar has a low reliability factor per Wiki standards. Or can the Radar Online source be used in this instant? Sarujo (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but .... is this really crucial information for the article that we simply can't live without? --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It would give more incite on how she got the role since she was fired from Dark of the Moon for comparing Michael Bay to Hitler. Which would lead one to believe that she would never be able to would on another project that he was apart of. Sarujo (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My reply is going to be off topic for this noticeboard, but ...

WP:FA#Media - does any one of them have a production section nearly that detailed? Your call, of course, and this isn't a RSN issue, but I think you're spending a lot of effort just to throw it away later. --GRuban (talk

) 03:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikionary a reliable source for Wikipedia?

For example, there is a template that includes a lot of terms that are from Wikionary and are not in Wikipedia, e.g. arrogance, swaggering, jerk, drama queen, self-absorbed. Is this kosker? (See template below). This template is included in many, many articles.

A related question is that many articles are included in the template that do not mention narcissism in the article itself. e.g. Walter Mitty, Nepotism, Valley girl, Diva, Mr. Toad, Tantrum, Empire-building, Metrosexual, Don Juanism etc. When I bring this up on talk pages, the editors says there are plenty of sources, even if they aren't in the article. He uses google search to prove it. e.g. for Walter Mitty, he says that this proves it: [93] and [94]
This is the justification for including Messiah complex in the narcissism template: [95]

Also, Jay Gatsby is called a narcissist based on [96] Farrajak (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There are much bigger problems with that template than just having links to wiktionary (which in my opinion is not a problem). The bigger problem that just about everything in the type category directs to a subsection of just one article. Ridiculous. Subsections of articles should not be on a template.Camelbinky (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS

specifically excludes Wikis as reliable sources. A link may be approriate - but is not usable as a source for a claim of any sort in an article otherwise (just as we bluelink to Wikipedia articles in some (too many) cases,

What about in a template? Do templates have to be reliably sourced? Is a link to wikionary ok for including a word in a template? Also, should articles be included in the template that make no mention of narcissism in the article? (Are templates considered part of the article, or external links?) Farrajak (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of these templates are for navigation, thus the name navigational templates, meaning to link between wikipedia articles, not pages in external websites, including sistersites such as wiktionary.Curb Chain (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thunderbird_%28mythology%29 noticeboard archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_148#Talk:Thunderbird_.28mythology.29

@

] She gives diligence thus as a secondary source, nearly archival work.

The council itself is a long prophesied event, and carries significant anthropological and ethnographic significance. The

]

I suggest that this is valid secondary source of reasonable reliability and quality. Books published by respected publishing houses, material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas. passes

WP:FRINGE

that Hiero voiced his concern over. I suggest that the book because of its extensive reference in an important native american occurence and nine translations (the fourth of which is English) is thus well-received in the scholarly ethnographic/anthropological world. Furthermore, I can vouch for its integrity of information and usefulness. We must not censor and oppress these native traditions any more; as religious intolerance AND disrespect for the wisdom of elders or females has led nearly to the extinction of their whole way of life and culture. Schaefer, C, (2006) Grandmothers Council the World: wise women elders offer their vision for our planet. Trumpeter Books 978-1-59030-293-4

So, with this in good karma I do submit a new final version. Sincerely, User:EM_Che] EM Che (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For previous discussion, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148#Talk:Thunderbird (mythology). User wants to cite "gifted with the great power of sight and was able to transmit telepathically ancient wisdom and knowledge in prehistoric times" and "According to ancient legends, the world will know a time of balance, and amazing things will be able to happen when the Thunderbirds come home" in the article Thunderbird (mythology) with this collection of new age drivel. Several other editors have responded at the article talk, at their talk and at the IP talk from before they created an account. Could someone please put this definitively to rest. I'm in the process of quitting after 20 yrs as a pack a day smoker, and my patience with this person is wearing awfully damned thin today. Maybe someone else will have better luck with them than I have. They seem to be a true believer here to promote their "religious beliefs" and little to no interest expressed in anything else. Heiro 05:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Some responses other than my own that they have gotten to this same question:

1. at their original IP talk page
2. at the article talk page
3. at the original RSN thread

They have been pointed to

WP:COMPETENCE. Heiro

05:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious that this council cannot be considered a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated the council article for deletion based on its sourcing, and the lack of notability for the group. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. Heiro 01:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There are some contested content at

. Some editors insist that this contested content be allowed to remain without being verified by sources. Other editors would like the contested, non-sourced content to be removed.

I know nothing about this article, subject, or debate, but I feel that per

13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, you're in a fight with

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. What that means is that the rules are there to help build the encyclopedia, not the other way around; the encyclopedia isn't just a game we're playing to see what happens when we blindly follow the rules. If there is really contested content, then it should certainly be cited, but that doesn't mean you should go delete every innocuous sentence that doesn't have a citation, and say - I deleted it, therefore it's contested, therefore I was right in deleting it. This isn't a game of Nomic. What content do you really have a problem with? A real problem, not just "I want to delete it because I can"? That should certainly be cited. But your deletion comment - "Citations on every sentence, please" is ridiculous. And in that very deletion, you're taking out two of the references you're asking to have! What is that about? Blue, m'man, you're on the wrong side here. If you really contest some of the content, for a real reason, say which content, and why, and you'll get plenty of support here, and the specific content will be cited, or it will be deleted. But if you're just trying to beat someone over the head with the rules, then you picked the wrong person in Bishonen. --GRuban (talk

) 13:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That said, it wasn't that hard to add some more citations, which I did for you. It probably took less time than you spend arguing with Bish, and it certainly would have caused less sore feelings. Have you ever heard of the saying: "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"? --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi - could someone provide some guidance on what counts as a reliable source for UK science fiction releases, for instance those by Big Finish Productions?

Specifically, does this website - http://www.sci-fi-online.com/ - pass muster?

As examples, could this review - http://www.sci-fi-online.com/00_revs/r2012/audio/12-06-30_who-cc-ikiria.html be used as supporting evidence for that audio's Wiki page?

Or this feature article - http://www.sci-fi-online.com/Features/Doctor%20Who.htm - be referenced properly on appropriate Dr Who books pages)?

Any advice would be very welcome StuartDouglas (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we can call it reliable... at a minimum, since it has known authors and an editorial board (here) to fact check, it would be reliable for an attributed statement of opinion such as "According to sci-fi-online.com: blah blah blah about Dr. Who". Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of the web site FindAGrave has been discussed several times on this noticeboard in the past. The apparent consensus has been that it does not satisfy

) 06:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites lists Find-a-Grave as essentially never to be used as a reliable source for citation purposes. You should direct the editor in question there. The reason why Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites exists is because we don't need to have the same discussion every time a new user every time one doesn't know that some websites aren't reliable; there's very broad and very deep consensus that Find-a-Grave should not be used as a source, and we really don't need to have a vote every time it comes up. --Jayron32 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that page. Thanks for the link. If I make contact with the contributor, I'll pass it along. Rivertorch (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I cant understand how a partisan & biased non-neutral amateur organization run by a single person (Rami Abdulrahman) living in the UK is considered by some editors as a reliable source to the Syrian civil war, with the unique and weak argument that "Western media had used their claims to publish news", while real media with dozens of professional journalists (not activists, like in the SOHR case) like Russia Today or Press TV are considered unreliable, clearly only for ideological reasons. I think that mixing personal ideologies & feelings while dealing with sources do not favour Wikipedia credibility, but weaken it more than it is yet. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

He is one person in the UK, but he is connected to a whole network of activists in Syria. They are an opposition activist group. However, their credibility and reliability has been proven to be high. If you would read just a fraction of the news articles about SOHR itself you would see that the opposition itself hates SOHR. Why? Because they have bothered to document and report not just civilian fatalities in the conflict but also rebel fighters and even government soldiers killed. Plus they have also extensivaly researched and reported on not just government war crimes but rebel war crimes as well. Thus showing a high level of neutrality, which has earned them the anger of other opposition activist groups (who only count civilians and report on government war crimes exlusivaly) but it has also earned them a great deal of respect from international media for their non-biased position on all reporting. For more info on SOHR and how it works and how it is free from bias please read the following articles [99][100][101][102] Archived 2015-10-25 at the Wayback Machine. In any case, SOHR has been used constantly by virtually all editors of the Syrian civil war articles for the last two years and no complaints have been made about its credibility and reliability, unlike with other opposition sources. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The first source you posted (N.Y. Times) stated literally, quote: "Yet, despite its central role in the savage civil war, the grandly named Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is virtually A ONE-MAN BAND.". I've got no more to add to that clear and fair description. Talking about the so-called "opposition" "hating" the SOHR is naïve or directly false. If you can support that claim with reliable sources or facts, I could change my mind. And I think that everyone could understand that an organization that support one side on a civil war could not be neutral and reliable, its obvious. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

For some relevant context, see HCPUNXKID's aggressive edit-warring at

talk

) 00:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about SOHR credibility or about my personal behaviour? Trying to influence other users or administrators with that distractions show how low some users can get to achieve their goals...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Both are actually in question here. You have been assuming bad faith from other editors from the very start accusing them of lying, being naive, using low-handed methods, being hypocrits, etc. All in violation of Wikipedia's rule on civility and good faith. While none of them has not said one single bad word to you. Not to mention you have been edit warring. As for SOHR, their credibility is well established and accepted by the larger community of Wikipedia editors working on Syrian civil war articles. Except you. And per your edit history it can be seen you have not been that much involved in editing Syrian civil war-related articles, so you should maybe get to know the subject and the actors before getting involved. Between, any edits you could make in the future to better the articles would be appreciated. And for the sources you are requesting... You are reading just part of the info from sources I provided to you, but are disregarding the rest which you don't like. For instance, yes he is a one-man band...IN LONDON, the sources further state that he has a WHOLE NETWORK of 200+ activists in Syria itself with which he is in constant contact who are feeding him the information. 6 of them have actually been killed. As for the credibility part, I am just going to give you two quotes from the sources ...the world of nongovernmental organizations gives him mostly high marks. “Generally, the information on the killings of civilians is very good, definitely one of the best, including the details on the conditions in which people were supposedly killed,” said Neil Sammonds, a Mideast researcher for Amnesty International. Or this one Military analysts in Washington follow its body counts of Syrian and rebel soldiers to gauge the course of the war. Not to mention ALL reliable media in the world are using SOHR figures and writing articles about them. As for the part about them being hated by other opposition groups for reporting on government fatalities and rebel war crimes. The director of the opposition group Syrian Network for Human Rights, which counts only civilians and occasionally rebels, said that they consider reporting on the deaths of government soldiers (which SOHR is doing) to be "not in their interest". And there was a high-profile row between Rahman and Azawi at one point. Rahman has himself said that on occasion he has been accused of working for the Alawites. Enough said. EkoGraf (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Acting like that (trying to distract attention from the real issue with tricks) is what made me talk about lobbys, interest groups or what you wanna call it. "You protect me & my edits and I do the same with yours" Aint that happening now in WP?. Come on ,I have seen that type of behaviour since at least 2 years ago in WP, but I suppose that its not against WP rules... I could also point your very laaarge edit warring historial in several articles, mostly related to Libya and Syria, but Im not gonna do it (yet) for politeness. We are talking about the credibility of SOHR, not about me, so if you got any problem with me, you can take it to the administrators board, but not here. So, going again to the issue, I had to remember that

AGIT-PROP. Do I have to continue exposing the evident falseness of calling SOHR a reliable source?--HCPUNXKID (talk

) 17:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Most, if not all, reliable international media, non-governmental organisations and military analysts regard SOHR reliable and credible and because of it they use it as a source. Evidence of this has been provided but you have decided to ignore it. Any animosity and doubts you have against SOHR are your personal opinions, which you have a right to, but which don't count on Wikipedia. That's saying it plain and simple. And that is all I am going to say on this subject and nothing more. I am done. EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, Im done too, two cant discuss if one does not want to, and as exposed here, you clearly dont want to discuss or debate any issue or fact, but to repeat again & again the same sentences without proving them, while imposing your personal views. I now realize more clearly why so many articles about Syria or Libya (considering that articles about that 2 countries are usually edited by almost exactly the same users) are sooo POV and unbalanced, poor Wikipedia credibility...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I also voice support for the usage of SOHR in minor articles, having been in de-facto deemed by reliable sources from Reuters to NY times as a credible source of updates for the Syrian civil war. 69.127.167.5 (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is not a rs because it does not have - maybe cannot have - the fact-checking procedures of a conventional news organization. EkoGraf says media use SOHR as a source, yet has provided no evidence of how this is done. Do they report information from SOHR as factual, or do they write, "SOHR reports that...." Are SOHR stories picked up by AP and credited to AP? I think we should regard SOHR as a primary source, and use mainstream media as sources. If the NYT says that SOHR has claimed something then we may say they claimed it. TFD (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with using the language that you propose TFD. Such as saying SOHR claimed. I support that. There is no need for me to provide evidence, because you only need to look up any news report for any day on events in Syria and you will see they are writing "SOHR reports that..." or "...according to SOHR". And this is the same language that all the editors used when editing Syrian civil war-related articles. We don't present SOHR information as factual, because we can not know if it is true for sure. However, I do have a problem with totally excluding SOHR as a source or information provided by it, because SOHR has been used as one of the primary sources of information on events in Syria by the international media, for the reason because the information almost always came out to be accurate in the end. EkoGraf (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When the BBC uses figures from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights it often, but not always, refers to the organisation as "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based activist group that monitors the conflict" or equivalent (examples of this: [103], [104], [105]). The most recent New York Times stories which cite figures from the organisation call it "an anti-Assad group based in Britain with a network of contacts inside Syria" or similar ([106], [107]). It's notable that both the BBC and NY Times appear to always pecify where they get this data from, and typically note the leanings of the organisation when reporting it. I also note that in the BBC Story about the organisation provided by EkoGraf it notes that the media often use this source's figures, but that the single man who is the 'observatory' cautions against putting too much reliance on his figures ("Dr Azzawi makes a similar point, saying he is not a journalist and should not be doing their job for them." ... "In an interview with al-Jazeera, they tried to say that we are the heroes of the revolution. I said, 'No - our interest is to help you to get some kind of camera into the street, but then it's your responsibility to verify what we say."). As such, I'd suggest that this source of data be used with extreme caution as it isn't a reliable source in its own right. When figures sourced from it (via actual reliable sources) are used they should always be provided with the kind of provisos used by the BBC and New York Times. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Use the same wording as the BBC, New York times, Reuters or any other, as you put it, actual reliable sources. In fact, they use the wording like "SOHR reports that..." or "...according to SOHR". But we go further to indicate it is an opposition group by saying something like The opposition activist group SOHR reported that..., indicating to the reader of the article whos' side they are really on, so its up to the reader if he will trust it or not based on his own POV. That's actually the way editors have been writing for the past two years in the Syrian civil war-related articles. EkoGraf (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this source should ever be cited directly (eg, reference to their Facebook page or other web presence). I'd suggest only referencing it when a solidly reliable source has done so already (thereby providing some kind of evidence that this figure is considered feasible), and noting the leanings of the group as part of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My question is if we can consider google street view as a RS. I mean, if something is visible on a building through street view and we give precise indications to locate it, is it enough, or a written source is necessary? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Likely not a reliable source, or more likely that it is original research to make a claim based on what you see in street view. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, Street View images are not persistent. They will be refreshed eventually, and nobody outside Google will be able to recover the old versions. – Smyth\^talk 10:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A Google Street View image is a very poor quality source. A notice on a building could itself be a source - perhaps. We have discussed notices and labels in museums before and they can sometimes be reliable. Is this for anything contentious? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There was an addition to the notable persons section of

) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Turns out that paper in Cyrillic from Paris is in Ukrainian, not Russian, my friend can't help me with it.Skookum1 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. If they do not exist then we cannot include the information and it may be that despite his wealth he lacks notability. TFD (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you understand what I just said, about how the cites mentioned reproduce articles now banned from publication in Canada which do establish his notability?? I can think of twenty articles that have far less in the way of notability or genuinely relevant citations than what I'm reading up on about him, e.g. Michael Marissen, whose only real claim to fame, so to speak, is being the brother of Mark Marrisen, a Canadian Liberal Party backroom organizer. I'm not asking you to decide if he's notable or not, I'm asking about PRWeb/PRWireServices and whether or not PDFs on blog sites of reliable-source publications are allowed. You know, secondary reliable sources, ones that are reproduced elsewhere than is now allowed in Canada. You can't adjudge someone as being non-notable because the courts have ordered that information about him and his case is not notable. I'm only asking about the cites I've found, as to if they're usable, or if simply being on a blog site even though they're verifiable (by contacting the publishers of those papers, for example - the Link and the Mission City Record and Pari (the Ukrainian one) are all reliable sources. And as for notability, on the Abbotsford page he's way more notable than 90% of the people on there......Skookum1 (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

When the documents are available publicly, then make the article!Curb Chain (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

They are available publicly, which is what those links contain....reliable sources include newspaper citations of any kind, don't they? Including things that are not on-line, or as in these cases, photocopied reprints on PDF. Court documents are primary sources, and not usable, even if they were publicly available. If you mean "publicly in Canada", that's highly questionable, and bear in mind that Wikipedia's servers, like those of the Seattle Post-intelligencer (a once-prominent newspaper now only in blog format, admittedly), are not in Canada nor subject to the court ban. My question as to do with the admissibility of reproductions hosted only on blog or UGC sites, it's clear from me being able to link to them that they are public.Skookum1 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"photocopied reprints on PDF" hosted by blogs and the like are generally next to useless. Firstly, they may well be copyright violations, which would preclude us even linking them, and secondly because there is no way to determine their authenticity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the kind of blog: if its an official blog, its

reliable.Curb Chain (talk

) 01:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What if I can find - verify - via emails to the publishers of the Mission City Record, The Link and Pari (whatever that Ukrainian language article does say) that those are indeed reprints of non-digital-archive issues of their papers?Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ "Shots fired at Cannes film festival, actors flee for cover". Southmonitor.com.
2. ^ "Shots fired at Cannes film festival, actors flee for cover". Reuters.
3. ^ Glover House Oldest Freemason Gate in Japan at http://www.flickr.com Retrieved on 2011-11-18.
4. ^ Glover Garden at http://www.travel-around-japan.com Retrieved on 2011-11-18.