Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 150

• [3] Also this is CFACT, a non-partisan think tank, taking a climate-skeptical position. CFACT as been cited as reliable by such other sources we recognize as reliable, such as The Arizona Republic and a columnist for The Boston Globe.

ALl three of these sources take a climate-skeptical view, which might be why I've run into such resistance on the article Talk page. I only intend to use the Delingpole blog from The Daily Telegraph the CFACT website, and the Larry Bell op-ed column in Forbes, and only to establish that "Mr. FOIA" sent a final message in March, along with a password to an online cache containing what were purported to be more CRU e-mails. Maybe a few other details. But I do not plan to use these as sources for the authors' opinions about the content of those emails. Thoughts and comments, please. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For the existence of a third release, I have no problem with citing Delingpole. CFACT is not reliable for the time of day. As to the motivations of the hacker, I don't believe any sources are sufficient since they are relying on the assertions of an anonymous individual who may or may not be the original data thief. Anyone can claim anything in an email or online (see e.g. the Essjay controversy), and until the True Identity of the hacker is known, I'm hesitant to present anything, particularly in anonymous emails quoted by people with an axe to grind. What facts were you planning on sourcing to those sources? Sailsbystars (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can say that someone claiming to have been involved in the original data theft has sent an email to some people, which included a bitcoin address for people to send donations to. I get several e-mails a month asking me to send money to various people, but I don't expect Wikipedia to cover them. --Nigelj (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that Delingpole (who I'd agree looks the best source) writes that he is getting this "via Bishop Hill" [4] - a blog. He writes (somewhat ambiguously) that the e-mail "Rings true to me". I can't see that we can use Delingpole for anything more than an attributed statement that an e-mail claiming to be from a 'Mr FOIA' exists, and that this e-mail claims that more stolen CRU e-mails have been made available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. I have absolutely no intention of presenting any of these authors' opinions, including those of "Mr. FOIA," regarding what these emails reveal (i.e. detailed content). I plan to use them solely to report the fact that someone purporting to be the original hacker has posted a link and a password, which were used by the authors, and provided access to over 200,000 emails, which were purported to be obtained from the CRU. I may include Delingpole's and Bell's opinions that the emails are authentic. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not by any means an active participant in this debate, nor have I been closely following the article, but I'm inclined to ask—is RS/N perhaps being asked to answer the wrong question here? That is, whether or not the sources in question are 'reliable' enough to assert or confirm that a self-identified hacker has released a(nother) batch of emails strikes me as missing the point. In the absence of meaningful, mainstream coverage by non-blogosphere, non-partisan sources, we ought to ask if this is a noteworthy enough happening to warrant coverage in an encyclopedia article? Or is the blogging tail wagging Wikipedia's dog? If there is no indication that the emails contain anything interesting or damning, what do we gain from giving this hacker (or the partisans who want to puff him up) extra attention and advertising? Wikipedia isn't a clipping service. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's what we gain. We gain by telling the whole story. The whole story is that a third release of emails occurred in March 2013, and was not reported beyond some blogs and the climate-skeptical science guy at Forbes magazine. It's part of the story, if only a small part, and it's reported in at least one reliable source. But notability isn't really what RSN decides. RSN decides the reliability of sources, period. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your last two sentences are precisely my point—reliability of the sources doesn't seem to be the most important issue regarding whether or not to include a relatively minor piece of information, so it's not entirely clear to me why you brought this to RSN in the first place.

As editors, we are compelled to make regular, frequent decisions about which parts of a topic are worth including in an encyclopedia article. The hacker has as much as said that he hadn't been able to find anything interesting in this batch of emails, and apparently no one else has found anything in the three months since, so why even mention them? There doesn't seem to have been any appreciable effect on the email controversy or the CRU.

I get the impression that there is a certain amount of gamesmanship at work here, where a positive finding of reliability will be used to attempt to circumvent any discussion of notability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No. That was never going to happen. However, when three reliable sources report an event, is it notable enough to include one sentence about the mere occurrence of the event at the end of a Wikipedia article? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. A source can be entirely reliable for something, but that isn't in itself grounds for inclusion. Unless and until the e-mails are shown to (a) exist, and (b) actually contain anything significant, there seems little reason to discuss them at all. There may well be an element of

WP:CRYSTALBALL creeping in here. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 14:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

James Delingpole is not a reliable source for facts, as pointed out by both the Met Office and the Australian Press council. His blog is at best an opinion piece, with a track record of passing on misinformation from other blogs.[5] If this story had any significance to the topic, it would have been covered by reliable sources, but the coverage seems to have occured in contrarian blogs and then has fizzled out. . dave souza, talk 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, in general op eds are only reliable to verify the opinion of the writer, even when the writer is an academic in the field which they are writing in. If a reliable source publishes an op ed, it it still the opinion of the writer. If a reliable source reports about the opinion, or includes the person's statement in a regular article, then it can be verified by a reliable source. NEWSBLOGS can vary from columns of writers opinion, to regular columnists reporting news. I will
  attributed to the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk
  ) 20:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case, Delingpole's blog is an opinion piece which simply replicates information that the blogger Andrew Montford (alias Bishop Hill) claims to have received, and Delingpole as a self-proclaimed non-expert thinks it "Rings true to me". He also thinks, wrongly as it turns out, that "No doubt we'll hear much more in the coming weeks." From the paucity of sources, we evidently haven't. The source is reliable as a source of Delingpole's ill-informed views, but better evidence is needed that his opinion has such significance to the topic that it should be given any weight at all. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dave: Regarding the response of the Met Office and the Australian Press Council, if an according-to-policy reliable source making a few fact errors and choosing a POV makes it unreliable, then The Guardian and The New York Times are unreliable. The event has significance to the topic because three reliable sources have reported that it occurred. And that's really all I planned to say in the article until better sourcing surfaces. How do you feel about Larry Bell's op-ed in Forbes?

@RCLC: Yes, I had always intended to attribute all these statements to their sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You started out the thread with asking:"...are they reliable enough for statements of fact?" then you go on with "...and only to establish that "Mr. FOIA" sent a final message in March, along with a password to an online cache containing what were purported to be more CRU e-mails. Maybe a few other details. But I do not plan to use these as sources for the authors' opinions about the content of those emails." and further, " I may include Delingpole's and Bell's opinions that the emails are authentic."
So what is is what you want to source to those sources? (Reliable) facts or opinion or both? I'm a bit confused here since your intention on how to use those citations (opinions) keep changing. How about making a clear statement on what you would like to use them for as a source and thus it can decided if they're reliable for what you're actually intent to propose at the

talk

) 02:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was clear. I have no intention to use these sources beyond establishing that "Mr. FOIA" sent a final message in March, along with a password to an online cache containing what were purported to be more CRU e-mails. Maybe a few other details. I do not plan to use these as sources for the authors' opinions about the content of those emails. However I may want to include, specifically attributing to them, Delingpole's and Bell's opinions that the emails are authentic. I had always intended to attribute all these statements to their sources. I haven't really searched that hard for other sources, but really, is it that difficult to express an opinion about the reliability of these sources with regard to all these options? Everyone else in the conversation seems to be keeping up just fine. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

One other thing, gentlemen. RSN is for the purpose of discussing the reliability of sources, not the notability of their content. I suggest that you take your cues from ArbCom members. They set an example for us on a regular basis. They do participate in the editing of articles and other mundane tasks, but they're very careful when working in those roles to avoid discussing other matters on article Talk pages, for example. I can post a link to an example or two. Notability is a separate matter and we are going to have that conversation on the article Talk page after we're done here. Let's get done here and, if you would like to contribute to that conversation, please join me at the article Talk page after we're done here. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that neither Delingpole nor Bell have seen the e-mails, they cannot be reliable sources for their authenticity. They could be cited for an attribute statement that they believe them to be authentic, but as has been pointed out above, there seems to be little reason to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like some guidance to help understand when, if ever, material from WikiLeaks can be used. I just saw a discussion that stated that it could not be used in BLP on the grounds that it amounted to being original research. That surprised me, as just reporting what's in the documents does not to me seem to be research. But if that's so, would the ban also apply beyond BLP?--Perplexed566 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a

primary source. Itsmejudith (talk

) 16:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Some clarification... First, as our WP:No original research policy says: primary sources MAY be used... however, they need to be used with great caution, to avoid using them to support OR. It isn't really appropriate to call a source OR... WP:OR refers to how Wikipedians use a source in a specific article, not to the contents of the source. So, a primary source might be used appropriately (in a way that does not constitute OR) in one article, and yet used inappropriately (in a way that does constitute OR) in another article.

Second... WikiLeaks isn't really a source... it functions more as a publisher of sources, one that specializes in publishing primary sources. As a publisher of primary sources it has a poor reputation and should be avoided. However, if you can find the same documents elsewhere (somewhere more trusted) they might be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me you're asking about the leaks themselves, whether and in what way these are reliable sources. As a publisher/editor, WikiLeaks certainly does not confer reliability because they have no established review process, so unless the works are published elsewhere, reliability can only come from the traits of the authors, any other editors, and the reviews of the works. For example, the first work I see listed on the WikiLeaks site is Report on the IT security incident of 2012, which is authored by Robert Malmgren, Andreas Jonsson and Tobias Norrbom, and edited by Anders Sandell. The question will then be whether these people are reliable sources for the statements being included in an article. Well, answering that question is about employing the usual, standard methods of judgement.

I think the more interesting question is how do you know with what sources you're actually dealing; or, a related question, what are reliable distributors of sources and what are not. This seems to be a discussion that rarely ever occurs on the discussion pages here, though, and I certainly don't see any mention of it in policy or guidelines. I think people may be afraid of laying out guidelines for reliability of distributors of sources, because any such guideline would almost certainly end up excluding things like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (the distributor in this case being whichever random person on the internet sends you a pdf), which a lot of people find very useful. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Also note that very often you can find a secondary source that describes what's important in the material in question and use that and then link to the actual memo or whatever. If there's something really important that needs mentioning sometimes you also can use the document as a primary source - but this is where your interpreting what's important and making a whole summary or paragraph based on that instead of the secondary source can run into WP:OR.

More info on types of sources here. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie

🗽 18:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a developing momentum around the idea that WikiLeaked documents are not a priori RS. And that therefore they could only be used to support information from a secondary source that describes the significance of the documents/statements. Perplexed566 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's actually a bit more complex than that... but in very simplistic terms, yes. Blueboar (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, is Ancestry.com an acceptable source for a deceased person, bearing in mind

Largely, no. The amateur-provided data can't be used directly as cites in articles per

WP:SELFPUBLISH. Ancestry.com does make lots of public records available, but a lot of that public record data isn't necessarily very accurate, especially from the early 20th century. It also contains a lot of outright lies about things like professions - on immigration forms, immigrants would put down good-sounding high-skill jobs or whatever they thought might not get them turned away, even though they did not have those skills. There was also a lot of fudging of names and addresses. Such sources also could not be used to establish notability. Zad68

15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding - not to discourage the use of ancestry.com as a resource entirely, however. You can use ancestry.com to find leads to acceptable sources. For example, an ancestry.com record might lead you to a newspaper article, which could be used. Zad68 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability is established; literally all we are looking for is a RS for date of death. GiantSnowman 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

More information about the actual ancestry.com record would have to be provided, and what data source that record is using for the date. Zad68 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that ancestry.com is not really a source of information, it's just an aggregator of information. All the ancestry data it carries comes from somewhere else, and a lot of it comes from stuff individual amateur family genealogists type in about their own families from verbal family histories ("Hey Mom, when was Great Aunt Tillie born? 1904? OK I'll type that in."). If that's the kind of source the editor is talking about, then it really can't be used. Some of the data it carries does come from legit

WP:RSs - "Look I found a newspaper article that says Uncle Bob died in 1953, I'll type that in and make a note about the newspaper article." If that original source of info is available, that can be used. Zad68

15:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, I will let Wilbur56 (talk · contribs) know. GiantSnowman 15:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is not rs. However, if one cannot find a reliable source for a death, even an obituary, then you need to question their notability. TFD (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD, that is very much nonsense. Plenty of very notable people are missing birth/death dates. For example, we do not know when Audrey Tautou was born - if you believe she is non-notable then I suggest you take her to AFD, where you will be rightly laughed away. GiantSnowman 08:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD said "date of death", which is missing for Ms Tautou for a good reason. TFD is right that we may question notability. We can question lots of things here without prejudging them. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Date of death is, as far as we should be concerned, of the same importance as date of birth. Either way, we do not know when Amelia Earhart died, is she not notable? GiantSnowman 15:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's take care that we're not talking past each other. Of course Amelia Earhart and Audrey Tautou are notable and deserving of Wikipedia articles, and they both have an uncertain or unknown birth or death date. However, those are both certainly exceptions; most notable people of the last 200 years have well-documented milestone dates such as those. I think that all that TFD is saying is that if the date isn't easily found in secondary sources, it's reason to ask the question about notability, although the answer might certainly be, "Yes, definitely notable" as in the cases GS found. Zad68 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is not reliable because the information is uploaded by users. Regarding the sidebar about notability, the lack of a reliably sourced death date does not reduce an already-established notability. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, really good point, the particular footballer

WP:NFOOTY #2. I don't think anybody is trying to take that particular article to AFD. Zad68

18:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'd disagree that the problem with Ancestry is altogether related to it being user contributed. Some of it is for sure, but I am guessing that this question actually relates to the birth, marriages and deaths information which isn't user generated but is part of the masses of archival public records stored and indexed there. The problem with this part of Ancestry is that it is a primary source that can only be used with great care. Some of the problems with this kinds of primary sources are described above; in this case the real problem is that we cannot be sure from a death record whether we have the right Harry Noon. That's why a newspaper obit, or in football magazine or team's website are what we need. Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Any birth, death, or immigration form is a RS by default and it does NOT matter if there is a likelihood that someone might "lie" on one of those forms. It is a government form and a reliable document. If there is a death certificate on Ancestry.com then it is ok to source the death certificate. Same with an immigration form that said xx came to the US as a carpenter. We don't care about "truthiness", we care about the source.Camelbinky (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a complete misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing. Birth certificates and the like aren't recognised as WP:RS because they are primary sources, and it needs research to determine that they are in fact referring to the correct individual. We do not engage in original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Andy, what Camelbinky is stating seems to run contrary to

WP:BLPPRIMARY. Zad68

01:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we are discussing a deceased person here. But yes, for living persons,

WP:BLPPRIMARY applies, and such documents shouldn't be used at all: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". AndyTheGrump (talk

) 01:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite continued trying by certain groups using PRIMARY sources is NOT against Wikipedia policy, and should in fact always be used when showing a secondary source to be unreliable concerning a certain fact. Such as a date of death. If a primary source, the death certificate, says one thing the onus is on the secondary source to PROVE WHY that primary source is incorrect. Otherwise the primary source must be used to show that the secondary source is inaccurate and unreliable. "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." straight from

WP:RS. So please everyone shut up with the crap about primary sources being automatically not allowed in WP, sick of hearing that old hat, and it's never been true. Camelbinky (talk

) 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Just wrong... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So... the actual guideline for which this is the noticeboard regarding questions about that very guideline is WRONG? Please back up your OPINION with actual policy or guideline. I did and therefore- I'm right and your wrong. You wanna argue some more with nothing to back it up but your bullshit? Go right ahead.Camelbinky (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The guideline is right - it is your misrepresentation of it that is wrong. "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material." You are advocating interpreting primary sources to 'prove' secondary sources wrong. That is contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about interpreting in anything I wrote? If a death certificate says my grandfather died in 19xx and a book written by someone says 19xy then the death certificate trumps the secondary source. Where is the interpretation?Camelbinky (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing whatever in policy that states that a primary source 'trumps' a secondary source. Please stop spreading misinformation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A primary source that proves that a secondary source is inaccurate and therefore not a reliable source in that particular case does in that case trump the secondary source. It doesn't have to be codified in policy, policies are not law, policies reflect prior consensuses and our "current" way of doing things, as accurately as something written can reflect "current" when it is being written after the fact, or in Wikipedia's case they are not always updated to reflect that. Our way of doing things through consensus trumps written policy regardless of whether our way of doing things is written down yet or not. Regardless, I'd like to point out YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION everytime you stated above that primary sources are not allowed. PRIMARY SOURCES ARE ALLOWED. That is all that needs to be said. You said they were not allowed. I showed you were wrong. You were wrong. Can I say it again? You were wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So there is no policy whatsoever behind your baseless assertions. Just what I thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You said primary sources are never allowed. You are wrong. You had baseless assertions and I showed through policies that you were wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff for where I am supposed to have stated that "primary sources are never allowed"? I have cite WP:BLPPRIMARY, which refers to specific circumstances where the use of some primary material is forbidden, but have otherwise made no such general statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not providing you with a diff when it is in this very thread and you, I assume, are not so lazy and/or illiterate that you can not read the thread over again, but hey, you say I can be wrong so I might be wrong about that assumption. Anyways- You did NOT cite BLPPRIMARY, do you always change "facts" in the middle of the same thread? You made the comment (Exact quote)"Birth certificates and the like aren't recognised as WP:RS because they are primary sources, and it needs research to determine that they are in fact referring to the correct individual. We do not engage in original research." You did not mention anything about BLP. The next person to comment mentioned BLPPRIMARY, and you correctly mentioned in response that BLPPRIMARY applies only to LIVING people and we were talking about a dead person. You said the reason primary sources are not allowed is that they are not allowed. Do not try backpedaling. You were wrong. Or you misspoke. Either way you, as a respected wikipedian (I include myself in those that respect your opinions) your statements influence people. I'm sick of seeing in arguments people automatically saying primary sources are not RS in the RS/N and they have to be told by many people over and over during a thread that that is not true. Your statements at face value do mean something and carry a lot of weight around here. Newbies and your admirers will believe blanket statements without knowing the caveats that you already know in your head (such as the unfortunate editor who made the comment above implying BLPPRIMARY applied in this case, the case about a dead person... I'm glad you corrected him/her. Too many editors around Wikipedia think BLP guidelines apply to ALL people, living, dead, or fictional.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelbinky (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 June 2013‎

Right - now that we've established that your claim that I stated that "primary sources are never allowed" is an outright lie, I'm done here. I suggest that you stop making a fool of yourself, and instead read up on Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Camelbinky's claims above are wrong, and anyone reading the RSN archives should not be misled into thinking that there might be some truth in what was said. It's not worth continuing that side debate unless it is refocused on a precise example (such as the case reported), but the claim "If a primary source, the death certificate, says one thing the onus is on the secondary source to PROVE WHY that primary source is incorrect" is just wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Something someone was once nice enough to tell me was helpful

Perhaps just to give all these angry people something else to focus on, here is something I posted a long time ago re Ancestry, public records, and so on. Someone once complimented me on it, so maybe it's worth something. EEng (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It is helpful...and in that vein, here is the original post in this thread:

"Hi, is Ancestry.com an acceptable source for a deceased person, bearing in mind WP:BLPPRIMARY? Article is Harry Noon‎, I have an IP who says he is the subject's son-in-law wanting to use it to verify date of death."

Ancestry.Com has been discussed on this Noticeboard at least 58 times before. In general the consensus seems to be that it is a user-submitted source and its information should be handled with care and on a case-by-case basis. As to the date of Harry Noon's death, in my opinion an article about this man's life & death or an obituary (perhaps printed in a newspaper or magazine) or the event being reported on in a news-organization's website or an article about him from an official sports-organization's website, would all probably be better sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Shearonink (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I knew this (Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites) had to exist somewhere on wiki, and someone just mentioned it in a thread below. Should this website be added to that page since it has been discussed here at RSN so many times? A quick pointer to this would be handy. Heiro

Makes sense. Just posted a proposed "Ancestry.Com" section for 'External links/Perennial websites' here. Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Per. the discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#Ancestry.Com?, have posted new Ancestry.Com section at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Shearonink (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Is A Columbine Site reliable for information in the Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold article regarding their biographies and the events of the Columbine Massacre? An editor on that article's talk page stated, "I'm skeptical about the journal entries from a questionable source and copied across a handful of blogs. Is there any evidence these are the real entries instead of fictional writings?". I don't know if it's reliable or not, so I tried addressing this by replacing some of the citations of that source with better ones, or removing them altogether instances where they were not needed. But not all of them.

At present, however, five different pages on that site are still being used to support a number of passages in the article, which are a bit difficult to find replacements for:

• Two pages from that site, this one and this one, are being used to support this passage in the article.

• This page is being used to support this passage in the article.

• This page (currently dead, but I'm trying to find the updated location) is currently being used to support this passage in the article.

• This page is currently being used to support this passage in the article.

Is it reliable? Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would call it boarderline... Surely there are better (ie more reliable) sources you can use. Have you looked for old fashioned dead tree paper sources? Nothing says a source has to be on-line, after all. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's at about the level of reliability of a blog. The sentences they support don't seem particularly interesting/important/relevant anyway. I say cut them all.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I know there are books on the topic, but my WP workload is already high, and I've been trying to dial it down a bit. Besides, while finding books and periodical articles on the general topic is probably easy enough, I don't know how to narrow the focus to the specific information in the passages in question. How would I do that anyway? Nightscream (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This website appears to be in the spam filter. Are we to assume that eHow can never be used as a citation for an article then or is this a mistake? Thanks. Naapple (Talk) 20:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Since it's user submitted content, it's reliability likely falls somewhere between a blog and a forum. I can't imagine ever wanting/needing it as a source but I'd be curious to hear any suggestions. Is there something in particular you're looking to source to eHow.com? We might be able to suggest alternatives.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I figured eHow was weak at best, but didn't think it was outright banned. Another editor was looking at the red text in

Kübler-Ross_model in the notes (citations) section. This was attempted to be fixed by adding http:// to fix the address, but then this triggered the spam filter. It's perhaps better explained in the talk section of that page. Thanks for looking, Naapple (Talk

) 03:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

eHow isn't user submitted, if I recall correctly.

Demand Media, which is basically people who don't really know anything being paid tiny amounts of money to write complete shite. Demand Media, and thus eHow, is basically a "content farm" according to Wired. —Tom Morris (talk

) 18:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion happening here regarding material allegedly from a little known publication known as Zoom magazine. An editor is repetitively adding a quotation from this publication and offering only "Zoom, 1979" as the citation. He admittedly does not know what issue, if any, the material originates from. He has been confronted by multiple editors on the basis that this material is not properly sourced but he is obstinately refusing to acknowledge that Wikipedia:Verifiability is not being met. ChakaKong^talk 16:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The above is partisan and misleading description of the discussion, in which the inclusion of the cited material is supported by two editors, and opposed by no greater number. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The citation isn't exactly complete, but from a look at the rather heated talk page discussion, this isn't really the issue. The debate seems to be whether a citation for an article that nobody has actually got access to is valid. I'd suggest that the solution might be to try to access it, rather than arguing further. Assuming this is the 'fine art and photography' Zoom magazine [6], it is quite possible that an art college library or similar will have back copies. I'd try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request - maybe someone will be able to locate the disputed material if it exists, or alternately determine that it isn't from a 1979 Zoom edition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How do we go about accessing content when we don't even know what issue to look for? I feel that is the issue. ChakaKong^talk 17:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't look, you won't find it. Anyway, a little Googling found this: [7]. Not RS in itself, as it only shows the cover, but it lists 'All about Hipgnosis' as content, and the disputed material concerns Hipgnosis. We at least know the edition (6) now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the

burden of evidence is on the editor adding this quotation, not on anyone else. He has been given more than ample opportunity to properly source the content and he has made zero effort. Perhaps more info is available on Google.... has User:Pigsonthewing made that effort? No he hasn't. We have every right to revert material that is poorly sourced, yet this user repetitively re-adds it. ChakaKong^talk

18:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you now suggesting that despite confirming that an 1979 edition of Zoom magazine has an article on Hipgnosis, we should presume that the material cited has been invented, without even checking it? That is ridiculous. As I have already said, the proper procedure is to try to access the source - and it doesn't really matter who does it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that ChakaKong has removed the citation from the article, then that seems to be a "yes". Perhaps the real reason for his unacceptable behaviour can be discerned for his earlier, unfounded, comments that it is a "rather superfluous interview and his rhetorical question "is it really most beneficial to the article to dedicate more space to the album art than to the music?" and further unfunded assertion; "This particular album cover isn't particularly notable"; and his edit summaries "quite a bit of that isn't really relevant" and "we don't need this much focus on the cover art"; not to mention his apparent concern that the art-photopgraphy magazine is "ostensibly full of half-naked women" and the vast difference between his attitude to citations in this case and the rest of the article, as I noted below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

[ec] Your claim that I made "zero effort" is a bare faced lie, perhaps excused in part by the fact that you don't sit at my side while I'm on my computer, but not by the fact that I have already discussed searching online for details on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, that's very useful. Perhaps ChakaKong will now accept my invitation to provide sources for the vast majority of the claims in the article, which are uncited? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I address the issue of accessibility of the source later in the debate. The original adder of the content under question (

WP:BURDEN: the onus is on him — as the editor who adds or restores material — if he wishes to keep this contested material (or BrunoMacDonald, who seems less intent). The burden is not on other editors to do the dirty work to obtain a precise and direct citation. Finding the source would likely take an unreasonable amount of effort, which is at the center of this issue. It's unfair and unjust to make other editors riffle through an unknown number of magazines for material for material that may or may not even exist in those magazines. As for Pigsonthewing's contention that the material is "supported by" two editors (himself and BrunoMacDonald), that is questionable wording. Only BrunoMacDonald claims to have seen the source and he even writes, "I highly doubt that Pigsonthewing would be able to source the original even if he had the time and inclination to do so". Going to the library to find the source that even the original editor suggests may be impossible to find sounds like a wild-goose chase to me. Jason Quinn (talk

) 18:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read this thread? I've already determined that Zoom magazine edition 6 (1979) has an article on Hipgnosis. Nobody needs to "riffle through an unknown number of magazines" for anything. We know exactly what we need - all we need to do is use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange to check it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN does not require editors to prove the physical existence of articles in magazines. If you want to go online and get your bank card out you can buy a copy [8]. In this case I have to agree that Jason and ChakaKong are simply demanding a kind of access to sources that is not always practically possible. Magazines like Zoom dating back to the 70s are not normally held in local libraries or academic libraries. The amount of effort that would be required to obtain a copy to satisfy the demands of editors who choose to doubt its existence, despite clear evidence and assurances, is way way beyond reasonable expectations. Surely you should be asking yourself whether the information is useful or not. It is clearly sourced. There is clearly an article in a real magazine called Zoom. If you REALLY REALLY need to see it, get your plastic out. Legitimate concerns were initially raised, but this seems now to be becoming arms-tight-folded intransigence. Paul B (talk

) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow These comments are not pursuant to the actual disagreement. The point of contention was not accessibility but the vagueness of the source. Now that the source has been reasonably found and can be referenced more precisely, things are totally different. This was not the state of affairs just 10 minutes ago. Your comments on accessibility are not inconsistent with our objections. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You have not bothered to read what I said. I said that legitimate concerns were initially raised but that they had turned into intransigence (and my message was written before yours above it appeared, but posted slightly after because of an edit-conflict). You and your associate appear to have made no effort yourself to locate the article, but just made insistant demands of other editors. I don't know if you are aware of this, but citing to cuttings used to be very common in academic literature, because certain archives would hold collections of cuttings the sources of which were often equally poorly recorded. In the era before Google, you had little choice by to stick with the information you could get. In this instance enough information was provided to find the journal. A hostile atmosphere was created rather than a helpful one, in which the good faith of the original editor was reperatedly questioned. I'm not saying that Andy's characteristic style of debate helped! Paul B (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. And your statement "You ands your associate appear to have made no effort yourself to locate the article" is outright false. Given that both ChakaKong and I wrote about the difficulties we had searching for it, suggesting we didn't search is calling us liars. I suggest you actually read the original discussion more carefully. On top of that, again the burden of providing an accurate citation is not on other editors but the editor wishing to add the material. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem I meant, the immediate outrage-shock-horror-pistols-at-dawn "You calling me a liar???" like a scene from Taxi Driver. Yes, I read the discussion. Do I want to do it "More carefully"? No. I recall vague statement about there being many magazines on google. OK, so I guess you aren't as good at using Google as Andy (that's the Grump, not the Mabbett). Paul B (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe Google's search index has been updated and the page found above wasn't even indexed when we searched? That's another possibility, is it not? It's great that AndyGrump found the reference for whatever reason. Regardless why we failed to find the reference at the time, saying we appear not to have searched when we both wrote that we had is wrong. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh right, Google has radically improved over the last couple of weeks? Really, this kind of response is not helpful. The central point is that the text was cited, and as Andy/Pigs says, most of the article is not at all. A simple read of it should dispel any suspicion that it is likely to be a hoax. It's pretty standard interview-stuff typical of design journals. It's relevent to the article. A helpful edit was made providing something of interest that would otherwise be very difficult to access precisely because it is not on google books. That's exactly what we should be doing here - building content. The addition was then subjected to huge demands not made of any other part of the article. Oddly, that's exactly because most of it is unsourced, so one can't object its source. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that Google indexed the article recently - instead it comes down to applying the esoteric craft of Google-Foo. The trick is to use the least common search words that are relevant. I searched for 'Hipgnosis' and 'Zoom'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing No. I hadn't because of edit conflicts. I started my comment before the others had been written. And if you had waited a moment longer you would have saw this instead: "@AndyTheGrump Thank you for finding a more specific source up above. I think that satisfies the citation dispute itself to my satisfaction." @Pigsonthewing The content dispute is over but I can say this: I have been shocked at your behavior. As I already stated to you, it's been reprehensible for a number of reasons. Because I feel no editor should been given the run-around you've given us and it's not the kind of behavior that should be tolerated, I intend to open another RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct regarding this entire debate. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are answering in your opening sentence. Rather than inappropriately and hypocritically lecturing me, perhaps you could speak to ChakaKong, who (despite cautioning against an edit war) has recently reverted two of my edits, thereby removing the details of the citation which he demanded from the article. Your

WP:STICK behaviour is what is shocking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

18:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What has come to a natural end (at least for me) is the dispute over the citation itself, not your behavior. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an appropriate place to dispute behaviour. If you want to do so, do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The dispute over content is not over; because - as I note in the comment to which Jason replies - ChakaKong, has recently reverted two of my edits, thereby removing the details of the citation. Since they've been acting as a tag-team, perhaps Jason could speak to ChakaKong about that; and about the continued lack of citations in the rest of the article; an issue which both have so far ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have written to him that I am satisfied with the content of the dispute. There's now plenty of information to reasonably track down the original source. Whether ChakaKong agrees or not is up to him. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I don't have much choice but to be satisfied with the results, do I? The beadledom has issued its verdict. ChakaKong^talk 21:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump: thank you for locating the disputed source

Paul B: thank you for your support

Pigsonthewing: thank you for your robust defence

Jason: thank you for your attempts to reach a fair resolution

Chaka: I appreciate that in the first instance you were simply applying your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules on citation. I bear no hard feelings and hope that feeling is mutual

Let's all move on and enjoy the sunshine!

best wishes Bruno MacDonald BrunoMacDonald (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being nicer than the rest of us put together. Paul B (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. On the

Here is the official Bob's Burgers Twitter and here is the site in question.

As a newbie to WP conflict, I did not know to come here earlier. It has been suggested Oct 2012 - Apr 2013 that the following sources are deliberately misread by me to push my agenda to include islanders, "civilized and savage" in the US for the 'United States' article, but I do not mean to distract or dissemble, I sincerely restate my understanding. Here it is: “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” [note] The United Nations monitors Guam, American Samoa and US Virgin Islands as non-self governing territories of former colonial peoples, 18 Dec 2012. Viewed June 3, 2013.

The challenge of my interpretation of sources begins with the Congressional statute defining the term “state” in the law to include DC, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico. I am said to misread the definition to include territories in the official US, but it really means to exclude them from the US? The unrelenting critique without exception ends with the quote from Bartholomew Sparrow, who says, "The US now includes" territories; but he really means the US excludes them, today?

Primary sources. By the Montvideo Convention, Articles 1 and 2, the US is a "sole person" in its federal republic as represented in Congress: 50 states, DC and 5 territories of citizens. There are three other "States in free association". By Congressional statute, "Aliens and nationality", “Definitions. 29. American Samoa (AS) is an "outlying possession". 36. State includes [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands (MP). [p.22-23]. This definition is reiterated throughout US Code.

Secondary USG. US Foreign Affairs Manual says the term ‘US’ geographically includes four territories (PR, GM, VI, MP), and 'outlying possession' (AS) [p.18,22]. Insular Affairs, Application of the US Constitution reports all with self-government. [p.8] “Native-born Americans” are citizens (PR, GM, MP, VI) or nationals and citizens (AS). Territory residents enjoy rights of citizenship, due process and equal protections. [p.33, 35] The Executive interprets 'US', to include five territories."Native-born American" include those born in five US territories. Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, [five] territories."

Scholarly sources. Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175] Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232).

This is a sampling, there are over 20 others. Any review or critique of these sources by WP criteria would be sincerely appreciated. I am repeatedly asked why I would bring up this subject at all. My sole purpose is to contribute knowledge to the article from reliable sources, as I believe the US to be competent to define its international geographic extent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the disagreement, please? The article in question is United States? That currently starts "The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly called the United States (US or U.S.) and America, is a federal republic[10][11] consisting of fifty states and a federal district. ... The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean." So there doesn't seem to be any disagreement with the sentence you put in quotation marks. Where is the disagreement? Is it the words "former colonial"? Where is the discussion, because I can't find it on the article talk page? --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources say, “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” , unless I've misread them. I would like to know if I have misread them. Please, let's just look a two sources.

• Do scholars say Puerto Rico is politically "incorporated". Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175]. It is said I have misread this passage, there are no counter-sources from scholars for the modern territories after 1985. (I do now understand territories are not states, not subject to Uniformity Clause as are states for revenue purposes of discriminatory tax regimes not allowed states, relative to judicial "unincorporated" territorial status -- but that is not relevant to political "incorporation" of citizens as territories into the US -- according to legal scholars Lawson and Sloane, who are usually professionally disagreed.)
• Do scholars say the territories are included in the US? Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). it is said I have misread this passage, but there no counter-sources from scholars for the modern territories after 1985 to assert US territories are not a part of the US in the same way DC is a part of the US.

Most recently relative to this worldview, administrator and confederate suggested USVI was not a part of the US, as Hong Kong SAR is a part of China. So unlike the 'China' infobox showing "drives on right [note] except Hong Kong and Macao, they objected to including a US territory of US citizens with territory Member of Congress in the "drives on" infobox element. Seqqis is trying to do what I have been unable to do, we shall see how long his post lasts. Nevertheless, from this Noticeboard, for yet another aspect of including islanders in the US, I want to know if I comprehend the meaning of the scholars I have read, as my understanding is again dismissed and denied in another instance over six months. You might understand if I wonder at some secret Wikipedia logic or knowledge I have not been made privy to. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course the territories are part of the United States. That's like the example "Paris is the capital of France" at the beginning of Wikipedia:No original research - "needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it". I find it hard to believe anyone anywhere is saying otherwise, and suspect there must be some misunderstanding. Can you please point to exactly where anyone is arguing this point? With a link to the exact discussion, or diff? --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement; I have been blocked for day for "edit warring" trying to implement the DR which thought the same thing. Mostly it's a tag team of three opposing, daily for six months, archive 42 to 50 (I like to think I got better as I went along.) Agreed editors Buzity (the lawyer?) dropped out, Gwhilhickers and another brought the DR to the page. For a recent sample, see Talk:United States/Archive 50#United States intro description. It is characteristic that I link sources to support the law of the land, assuming the USG is legitimate, --- opponents do not have sources, they can only say "all sources say" or "the international community" does not agree with US law, fabricate editor synthesis from tertiary digests, and answer in non-sequiturs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"Of course the territories are part of the United States. " Actually this is the core of the argument. Your statement is akin to saying "Of course the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom", which is simply untrue. Being a possession of a country does not mean in itself being a part of the country. There is no misunderstanding. --Golbez (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Further study shows how often information "everyone knows without looking it up" can be wrong. I apologize. It does look as if there are notable distinctions between being part of the US and being among the

Unincorporated territories of the United States, such as the residents of the latter not being able to vote for the president of the US. Since that's a rather important right of citizenship, I can't see that they fully enjoy it. I think I agree with Golbez and the others; I think you, VirginiaHistorian, are misreading the sources, or just reading more into them than they actually say. The Boston College Law Review article, for example, is specifically discussing the differences between Puerto Rico and the actual States; in its opinion those differences theoretically shouldn't exist, but in stating that it admits that they do exist in fact. The Federal Register (the link you have as "Foreign Affairs Manual") says "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means ..." but that implies that there might be more than one sense in which to use it, and I think our article covers politics as much as geography. All these are reliable sources, and important points, and our article could spend a bit more verbiage on the ways in in which the territories are part of the US and in which ways they aren't; if you wanted to try to write a few sentences on it I'd support their addition to somewhere in the article, but that doesn't mean the first sentence in the article lead should say the territories are just the same as states, since they aren't. --GRuban (talk

) 19:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't exactly want to reignite the fight here, but a clarification: Not being able to vote for president doesn't mean a territory isn't part of the country; the territories that preceded the states were considered part of the country but had no vote for president. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In this as in most things you will find Golbez infinitely more reasonable than others in opposition to islanders being admitted to WP.USA. There is no scholar to say, "Modern US territories are not a part of the US politically". The Foreign Affairs Manual does not, as others have speculated, --- the federal republic is treated as a "sole individual" in the eyes of International law according to the Montevideo Convention referenced -- not states (50), territories (5) and municipalities (DC). There are notable distinctions between states and not-states; DC and territories are not states but both are still a part of the federal republic by citizenship and territory Members of Congress. If DC is in the first sentence, the territories should be. Consider presidential vote, federal courts and House membership.

A constitutional amendment was passed for DC to vote three electoral votes, regardless of its population, whereas states have electoral votes apportioned by population. Territories have Article III constitutional federal courts as do states, they are superior to DC's Article I congressional courts. Both DC and territories have Members of Congress with privilege of floor debate, but not voting in House meeting as H. of R. -- just as all previous politically incorporated continental territories.

In what way can a territory be "unincorporated" since the Supreme Court invented the term without Congress? By judicial holding that a territory is not subject to the Uniformity Clause required of states, for the purposes of discriminatory tax regimes favoring substantially poorer territories over states. [see Legal scholar Krishanti Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review p.789-790.] The political branch Congress, determines citizenship, and that citizenship "incorporates" the territories politically. But territories (unlike their citizens protected by due process) are not equal to states in tax regimes, or proportionate presidential electors, or proportionate representation in the House. Sources report the 5 territories are included in the US, the political scientist as referenced can be safely assumed to be speaking of things political as well as geographic.

Generally, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. The link to wikipedia

The lead should report 50 states or 50 stats, DC and 5 territories within the federal republic. But regardless, I do like that suggestion to document the discrepancies between states versus the territories and DC. It could lead to a section of the statehood movements in DC and Puerto Rico, which are especially important in contemporary US. Puerto Rico territorial legislature has petitioned Congress for statehood for the first time -- it is larger than the smallest 20 states. The statehood movement in DC has resulted in all license plates reading, "No taxation without representation." -- meaning in the Senate, as DC has more population than Wyoming. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 09:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gruban restatement – second opinion?

GRuban was kind enough to repeat Golbez language, and Golbez was kind enough to correct him based on our agreed discussion since October 2012. I would like another opinion, even if the conclusion is the same as Golbez again, perhaps without wikipedia sourcing wikipedia.

• a) GRuban notes scholars show territories are not states, therefore they are not in the federal republic -- though Golbez believes inconsistently that DC is included, when it is not a state. DC has the same representation in Congress as territories.
• b) GRuban agrees the US legally defining the US by law geographically including five territories but he reasons with Golbez that, therefore, the law definitively excludes them politically – without reference to a reliable source -- though they are US citizens with territorial representation in Congress in the 220 year constitutional practice of US incorporated territories.
• c) Judicially “unincorporated” territories were invented to suspend the constitution without citizenship and to permit higher taxes 100 years ago, so GRuban and Golbez conclude Congress is incompetent to politically “incorporate” them as citizens now -- though now islanders are made citizens and the same Insular Cases are now used to permit lower taxes for the low-income territories.
• d). Gruban sees territorial citizens as second class because they do not vote for president as in states, but territories do not have state privileges until admission, that is a state-only privilege, always has been until the amendment for DC, but DC does not vote proportionately to its population as with states. Modern US territories since 1985 have greater territorial privileges than previously politically (Congressionally) incorporated territories on the continent.

Is there a second opinion other than Golbez, again? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 08:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Another editor and I are having a disagreement that I think could benefit from some help from this noticeboard. The issue centers on determining the official name of a TV-game-console combo set produced by the Sharp Corporation. The other editor has strenuously argued that the official name of the TV is "SF1" and his evidence for this consists of the box that the TV came shipped in, the TV set itself, and possibly promotional advertisements and fliers. He hasn't offered any links to the images he's referring to, but a Google image search gives you a rough idea. From images of the TV set itself (e.g. 1) as well as from a number of third-party RSes (considered RS by WP:VG/RS anyway) (e.g. 2, 3, 4)) I've drawn a different conclusion regarding the official name of the TV. I think it's called the "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1". The other editor acknowledges that my version does appear on the TV set and in the third party sources, but he has determined that the first half of the name "Super Famicom Naizou TV" is a descriptor term and not part of the official name of the TV. His evidence for this consists of the same TV box, same TV set, and the same promotional advertisements and fliers. I've been making the point that box art and promotional advertisements' use of a term is not the same thing as their making a claim regarding the "official" status of the term, but the other editor disagrees. He believes that the box art is the highest form of source for the official name and that the box makes the claim that other terms (e.g. those used by the third-party reliable sources) are incorrect. Who's right here?

In addition, could you please help us settle once and for all whether or not box art, TV sets, and promotional materials are considered

This issue has been going on for days and we're going through an RfC now

Thanks in advance for any help you can give us. -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

On question 2: Packaging and promotional material is (normally) self-published. This doesn't matter much to wikipedia, because we would use it, if at all, for reporting uncontroversial statements by the publisher of the material (the maker/marketer of the product). For that use, self-published material -- like a personal blog -- is OK.

On question 1: manufacturers aren't perfect: the designer of a box might not have had the same instructions as the compiler of a catalogue, or a name change might have been decided on half way through the marketing process. If the issue is really controversial and notable, we'd have to do as follows: prefer a secondary source -- e.g. a product review -- and if that doesn't help, report whatever names have the appearance of being chosen by the manufacturer. What's "official" may not be a question that has a single answer: in any case, what's "official" isn't our main concern.

That's just an opinion -- others might well disagree ... Andrew Dalby 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Shipping box art isn't making a claim about the name of a product. Since it is issued (published, in a sense) by the manufacturer, it carries a similar weight to leaflets or TV adverts, but is somewhat less verifiable, unless there are images of the boxes on the Web, which could be referred to. If a manufacturer uses two different names for a product, as with Coca Cola and Coke, that is its prerogative. Perhaps both names are "official". It is a mildly interesting fact which might be relevant to an article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shame that the thing's a bit obscure, then we'd have better scans, maybe even a manual. I'd like to own one of either if I could.

There's nothing particularly controversial about this situation: it's just another case of one source running a story on an old niche product and getting/creating an error, then a number of other sources following suit. Furthermore, there's only one such name to choose from for both products, and there's nothing particularly vague about what the name is supposed to be, from what I've seen of scans/images. Why accept an error over an easily verifiable and relatively non-vague official name?

I'm astonished that this entire discussion has happened. I'm also not sure why Thibbs continues to insist that the conflict is over either something I've never said or something I have long since given up on. Despatche (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, since posting this question Despatche and I have come to an agreement on a single expression as the most likely "official" name (if that even has any meaning in this context) for the TV. Although I really feel that we should be following

WP:UCN according to policy, I've agreed to compromise in favor of the "official" name considering that at last we've agreed on one. The only point of contention now is whether we should include the common name as used by the majority of RSes in the lede or not. Despatche's view is that the most prevalent RS-used term is an error as demonstrated by his interpretation of the box art, and that we should exclude the RS-used term from the article in order to correct the record which the RSes have all got wrong. I don't think we can rely on the box art in this way because the box art isn't making any claim about the officialness of the words on the box or about the non-official status of the term that is used by all of the RSes. Obviously we shouldn't claim that the term the RSes use is official either, but I do think it belongs in the article. -Thibbs (talk

) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not making the claim because it can't make the claim, and it doesn't have to; a product creator can name his product whatever he pleases, and generally we all must follow that when looking for an official name (which is important; it's part of the whole professionalism/fact checking aspect of a reliable source). It's official because it's there; the creator is outright saying that this is/these are the name/s you are supposed to use, and that any others are incorrect. Despatche (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the box can't make the claim that the RSes are wrong, and since no other RSes have been located that make the claim that "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" is either "ambiguous or inaccurate", I think we should include it in the lede. If we're going to deviate from following normal Wikipolicy for these article titles by ignoring WP:UCN, then at least we can mention "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" in the lede. I think that makes the most sense for the benefit of the readership. But let's discuss that further back at the RfC since all of our RS-related questions have been answered here. And by the way thanks for your help here, Andrew Dalby and Itsmejudith. -Thibbs (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. Because of general Wikipedia policies, which steer us toward a preference for reliable secondary sources, I would urge that "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" should at least be mentioned in the lede (adding that that it's ambiguous, or whatever, as necessary). Andrew Dalby 13:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No other reliable source should have to make such a claim, because it's not a claim at all. The only "claim" being made here is that fabricated titles such as "C1 NES TV"/"SF1 SNES TV" are somehow appropriate names for a product that already has a pretty great one/s, and this claim is being made by these sources. Surely, making up and attempting to press such a name would be considered an error, to the point that one could reasonably suggest that the sources in question are not doing basic fact-checking, and thus are not be as reliable as they seem?

Here's a real claim: I think "C1 NES TV" was derived from tossing the equally incorrect "ファミコンテレビC1" into a machine translator (which shouldn't even be necessary, being katakana) and having the thing rearrange this, "translate" that, and produce "C1 NES TV". At the very least, Google Translate currently does this, and Kotaku's article isn't too old (actually did Kotaku write this originally? oh dear). Despatche (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As part of its translation algorithm, Google Translate analyzes patterns in documents that have already been translated by human translators, so basically its translation to "C1 NES TV" is most likely due to the fact that this is the term used by the majority of sources it checks. That seems to agree with the fact that "C1 NES TV" is the only term used by our third-party RSes. Omitting this term from the article due to speculation that it is not "official" misses the point of WP:UCN entirely. Even if it isn't official, there's no denying that it's the common name used by the majority of English-language sources and that it should thus appear in the article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not missing the point of WP:UCN, I'm saying that UCN is hurting Wikipedia, and that it's no longer needed. We should prioritize official names over common ones because the latter are inaccurate, and redirects allow us to do this while steering just about any possible visitor in the right direction. Despatche (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well that's a refreshingly original way of approaching the problem, but if you have a problem with UCN the solution is to bring it up at

Village Pump, not to crusade through the articles applying your counter-consensus vision on the articles as it pleases you. And none of this has anything to do with reliable sources any more. This RSN thread shouldn't serve as an enclave of content-based discussions regarding the article's lede. It's clear from WP:VG/RS that the sources for "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" are indeed reliable and there are no countervailing third-party sources, so let's carry on with our discussion of this content issue solely at the RfC. -Thibbs (talk

) 11:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Good enough sources for non-controversial facts about resorts and hotels, so long as you avoid peacock terminology, and remember that these magazines are part of the tourism industry and only semi-independent of the resorts and tour operators. Absolutely no good at all for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And other than "history of the hotel" and major events that involved the hotel (though mostly those will be covered in regular media eg. the Independence Hotel in Cambodia, which figured in the course of the wars there). The observation about them being only semi-independent of their industry theoretically applies, however, to corporate mainstream media and their ties to corporate and government figures, and their reliance on advertising from same...re tourism, citations from hellobc.com which is the Tourism Ministry of the Government of British Columbia, are already in wide use, as are citations from its affiliated regional organizations. Certain sources such as the Tourism Authority of Thailand have templates re use of material from them re COPYVIO exemptions.Skookum1 (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a video recording of a speech that is of great public interest and is quoted in

WP:TRANSCRIPTION is not original research. It would be better to cite the video itself than to add errors to Wikipedia. - Cal Engime (talk

) 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cengime: You seemed to comment very narrowly on my request. Just so I understand correctly, bottom line, you think the quote and citations that appear here are more acceptable and in line with policy than here? regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The video satisfies both

WP:VERIFY, so I agree it is the best reference to use. WWGB (talk

) 00:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You're one of the protagonists whose actions/interpretations I was seeking advice on and I wasn't expecting your comment. Videos posted to file-sharing platforms can be doctored. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest using the Sun page hosting the video as an external link per

WP:Undue, as that would be Wikipedia editors giving the entire speech an importance not given by reliable sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

10:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a shortened transcript of the speech, but I am completely opposed to introducing errors of fact in what was said. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable sources have said or reported - we tend to frown upon going around secondary sources to create a Wikipedia version of a primary source. If there's some doubt about the facts reported by a source, then we use: "[XXX Source] reports that ....." - this is particularly important if there are different versions, in which case we report the different versions - though we pay less attention to reports from fringe sources. If there's a conflict between a blog and a reliable source, then we tend to report the reliable source, and unless the blog is very notable, the blog's report or viewpoint doesn't get mentioned. It's a difficult and contentious issue, and it has led a number of editors astray, but what Wikipedia does is summarise reliable sources, not "the truth". The reason being, is that whatever "the truth" is, it can only be verified by reliable sources. If the primary source is a video of a man saying 'a eye for a eye', and the reliable sources have transcribed that as 'an eye for an eye', then use "[XXX Source] reports the man said 'an eye for an eye'", and also have the video as an external link for readers to consult - or, as it's hosted by a reliable source, it can be used as a supporting cite along with the cite for the transcription. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to quotations, my rule of thumb is this: When in doubt, cite the original primary source (or as close to the original as you can get). If the choice is a potentially flawed transcript of what someone said, or a video/audio recording of the person actually saying it... the second is a better, more reliable source.
That said, Ohconfuscius makes a valid point about the potential for doctored videos/audio files. The reliability of the "publisher" is just as important as the reliability of the "author". In the case of on line video/audio files, the "publisher" is the person who uploaded the video/audio to the file-sharing web site. I will leave it to those who know the specific video in question to say whether the publisher is reliable in this specific case. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of

WP:PRIMARY - we use the secondary as we do not allow editors' interpretation of primary sources to over-ride reliable sources' interpretations. The best we can do within policy is say: "[XXX source] says ...", and - if possible and allowable - include a link to the primary source, either as a supporting cite, or as an external link. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment... a simple quotation does not involve interpretation, it simply reports what the source says as uninterpreted fact. This is why I feel that a quotation is one of the few situations where the original primary source is better (more reliable) than a secondary source. I completely agree that as soon as you get into interpretation or analysis you need a secondary source, per WP:PRIMARY. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your helpful comments, and also thanks to willingness to compromise, it looks like we may have a resolution to our situation. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [struck] famous last words. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is something that must be determined on a case by case basis. Transcripts may contain errors, but videos can be wrong too, frequently by omitting part of what was said. One version for example has the subject saying as-salamu alaykum at the end of the speech, while the other ends before that. Editors must compare the two and determine which they believe to be most accurate. I notice that the video is from The Sun, while the transcript is from The Telegraph. All things being equal, I would have greater confidence in The Telegraph. TFD (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

After what WWGB said ("I am not opposed to a shortened transcript of the speech, but I am completely opposed to introducing errors"), we can solve this very simply. We should quote parts of the speech that are both in reliable sources and are believed to be correct, and simply leave out the parts of the speech that are not.VR _talk 00:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. An article should never contain text (particularly a quote!) that we have some reason to believe is incorrect. In contested cases where a creationist might say there is reason to doubt what a scientist said, we fallback to sources reliable for the topic (scientific sources for science), but for a current news event an article should not attempt to judge which of various conflicting accounts is correct. In an alternative universe, it might be good if an editorial counsel would rule as to which transcript is best, but at Wikipedia we should simply omit stuf that can't be properly verified (and no source is 100% reliable in an unfolding news event—wait for the conclusions of the court case). Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as a speech is concerned,

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is going to require citing a transcript, this being a text encyclopedia. If there is general agreement that the blog transcript is the most accurate, then it should be cited and should be the source of text quotation. Having our users transcribe a speech is very problematic, especially if there is any controversy about what is said. We do not want our authority to be "this is what one random off-the-street editor thought was said." The transcript serves as a secondary source for the speech itself, but it's the primary source for our quotation of it, which is what we would want. Mangoe (talk

) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"General agreement" above would mean that external sources prefer that version, btw. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You should not report statements made by reliable sources that you know to be wrong. You know them to be wrong if you have played the video as hosted by another reliable source and there is no doubt what the person in the video said and it is different from the transcript published by a reliable source. This is nothing to do with interpretation. You are not interpreting if an incorrect transcript says "one horse" but you clearly hear the speaker in the video say "three dogs". If there is no reliable source publishing a correct transcript, refrain from quoting from an incorrect transcript. Instead put a link to the video so that readers can go there and play the video for themselves. You may still quote or paraphrase portions of transcripts published by reliable sources that are not blatantly, obviously wrong. Just ask yourself this: In the bygone era when "encyclopedia editor" was a profession and the people doing this job were getting paid, would an encyclopedia editor knowingly have published false information even if it came from a "reliable source"?89.204.135.241 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor wants the article on

On June 8, 2013 questioned regarding PRISM, highly placed NSA intelligence official , turned whistleblower William Binney confirmed and clarified U.S Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden 2011 allegation[40] by stating "the government is using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain any data in any third party, like any service provider… any third party… any commercial company – like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical companies – holding data about anyone, any U.S. citizen or anyone else. In other words, the government was using the antiquated, bogus legal argument that it was not acting color of law using governmental powers, and that it was private companies just doing their thing (which the government happened to order all of the private companies to collect and fork over)".[41]

The ZeroHedge.com contributor wrote in the post, "Last December, top NSA whistleblower William Binney – a 32-year NSA veteran with the title of senior technical director, who headed the agency’s global digital data gathering program (featured in a New York Times documentary, and the source for much of what we know about NSA spying) – said that the government is using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain: 'Any data in any third party, like any commercial data that’s held about U.S. citizens ....' I called Binney to find out what he meant." From there, the post describes the interview.

I am not familiar with ZeroHedge.com. Does ZeroHedge.com follow the kinds of editorial content practices that would distinguish a widely respected media outlet like, say, the Washington Post from a self-published blog or online discussion board? Is it a reliable source for the material the Wikipedia editor wants to include? Dezastru (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR, anyone who looks into it can find some court documents which confirm that they have serious conflicts of interest about many of the subjects they write about. Shii (tock)

Are sports governing bodies considered reliable sources in regard to the titles of articles on their players? Powers ^T 20:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Which sports governing body, for which article? And why would you need a reliable source specifically for a title? As Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names makes clear, the choice of article title is often based on 'commonly used' names, rather than on any 'official' title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The place to look is Tennis TENNISNAMES Rfc, which was closed as an overwhelming "no". It was the proposal of a minority of tennis editors that ASCII websites owned by the WTF (world), WTA (women's) and ATP (men's) tennis associations were to be considered more reliable than the very small number of hardback tennis books such as Grasso's Dictionary of Tennis. Since the RfC the argument has been further punctured by the WTA website starting to use umlauts for example

WP:MOSBIO

added (but not Martina Müller herself, given the WTA website umlauts). As far as I know there are no footballer or ice-hockey player BLPs to which such leads have been added.

This relates to a longstanding ambiguity (with complicated edit history also) making the guideline

reliable sources away from WP:Reliable sources and "reliable for the statement being made", towards Wikipedia:Verifiability

which would mean ASCII sources reliable for game results are therefore also reliable for non-ASCII Spanish and German people's names spellings.

Correcting the pipelink would improve the guideline, and result in less problems like the tennis BLP leads above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple of months ago I posted a couple of message templates looking for an expert on "non-violence" to advise on two citations in an article on Pornography in the United States (the Anti-pornography movement section). I also started two discussion threads here and here.

Thinking about it since, the matter is probably more of a reliable sources issue concerning:

• (a) A (possibly out-of-print) book written by pressure group Feminists Against Censorship (FAC) and published by Lawrence & Wishart, who describe themselves as "independent and radical", in 1991. From the looks of their website I think it may be a quasi- vanity publishing type deal, in any case I think it is a large quote from a non-neutral source. Rodgerson, Gillian (1991). Pornography and feminism : the case against censorship. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
  ISBN 9780853157427
  .
• (b) and a short self-published opinion piece, which is little more than a blog on paper.

Content (refs 45 and 46)
Anti-pornography movement
(a) The so-called "Sex Wars" of the late 1970s[43] challenged the traditional understanding of the gender role. Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon became well-known often-cited anti-pornography authors. Many debates have attended their political intervention into the law by way of their advocacy of anti-pornography ordinances in several midwestern cities. Other notable American anti-pornography activists to belong to this camp are Robin Morgan and Susan Griffin. Ordinary libertarians, who separate sex and violence, take MacKinnon and Dworkin to task for their refusal to leave sexual expression alone.[44] This was done particularly by Gillian Rodgerson and Elizabeth Wilson in Pornography and Feminism: The Case Against Censorship: "Yet this theoretical cocktail of biologism and behaviorism is lethal. To see men as naturally programmed for violence is to endorse the most conservative views on human nature, and to see it as unchanging and unchangeable". Rodgerson and Wilson argue that pornography plays a relatively minor role in the wider regime of sexist practices pervading women's lives.[45]Pornography in the United States.

(b) Another matter, which frequently circulates in American anti-pornography movement is a close bond of pornography with rape. According to a 2006 paper, Porn Up, Rape Down, by Northwestern University Law Professor Anthony D’amato, "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85 per cent in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults".Recognizing that the Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence, D'amato concludes that "the reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence". D'amato suggests there are two predominant reasons why an increase in the availability of pornography has led to a reduction in rape. First, using pornographic material provides an easy avenue for the sexually desirous to "get it out of their system". Second, D'amato points to the so-called "Victorian effect". It dates back to the British Victorian era where people covered up their bodies with an immense amount of clothing, generating a greater mystery as to what they looked like naked. D'amato suggests that the free availability of pornography since the 1970s, and the recent bombardment of internet pornography, has de-mystified sex, thus satisfying the sexually curious.[46]

Both quotes make up the entirety of the Anti-pornography movement section of the article on Pornography in the United States. (Although to me it reads like a "Criticism of the anti-pornography movement".)

I would be grateful if other editors would take a look. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this particular book, but

Lawrence & Wishart historically has not been a vanity publisher, far from it. It has had strong links to left wing and communist movements. Their material would often be RS but would often be controversial and need to be balanced with other points of view. Andrew Dalby

09:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The quotations are certainly legitimate. The first is clearly stated to be the view of a "pro-sex" (or whatever they called themselves then) feminist criticising anti-porn arguments. Lawrence and Wishart certainly are not vanity publishers. The second is again clearly legitimate and clearly cited. The problem is not with the sources or the the way they are presented, it is the overall POV of that paragraph, which, as you rightly say, tells us next to noting about the anti-porn movement beyond criticism of it. This may be better addressed at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard than the reliable sources board. Paul B (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks.

Any comments from anyone on the Porn Up, Rape Down paper? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a difficult one to assess. Certainly D'Amato has published widely on law, mainly on the concept of natural law. The only other paper he seems to have published on a directly related topic is in the William & Mary Law Review [9] [10]. So, it's a marginal case, but is not obviously unreliable, per SPS exceptions. I'd say it's acceptable to use if there are not better sources. Again, it's really a question of weight: whether D'Amato's opinions (which are clearly related to his general "libertarian" ideology) represent a widespread view among scholars who have studied the topic. If they do, then those scholars would be better sources. If they do not, it should only be mentioned if the mainstream view is given due weight. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to invite broader discussion on whether it's appropriate to use primary sources from the company to report on revenue[11] and employee counts[12] for the infobox (see discussion here). A longtime contributor to the article feels he does not trust the sources, since the organization is private and there is no third-party to validate the accuracy of their numbers. I felt it was common (even preferred) for us to use up-to-date primary sources for infobox data. There appears to be enough different opinions on the Talk page to warrant opening it up for further discussion. I won't raise a fuss either way - just figured I would advertise for a few more opinions so we could move on to other more important issues with the article's general quality and poor use of sources. CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I found the figures below at http://www.zoominfo.com/c/Publishers-Clearing-House/69583362.

 $50 mil. - $100 mil.in Revenue      250 - 500 Employees

While not saying this is an authoritative source, the large discrepancy in revenue ($50 - $100 million versus the proposed $500 million), and broad range in number of employees would indicate that additional sources/verification should be obtained. Bilbobag (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Source: Rahni, Davood N. (2005). "Persian Parade Iranian Flag: A National Historical Perspective".
  ISSN 1094-494X. Archived
  from the original on 11 January 2005. citing Ghavami, Zia (2005) "تاریخچه پرچم ایران" ("History of Iranian Flag") Persian Heritage (magazine), January 2005.
• Wikipedia article: Ghaznavids
• Supporting in infobox: File:Old Ghaznavid Flag.svg Flag Flag of Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznavi.
• DIFF
• Text from cited article: Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznavi, the founder of the first Persian dynasty after the Arab invasion who reinstated the use of symbolic expressions on the Iranian Flag. This solid rectangular black Flag had in its center inscribed a golden moon.

I don't see any reason that the source would not be reliable, even with the insinuation that the content of the review is irrevocably tainted by the political slant of it's host organization. Reviews from newspapers are probably better sources, but even then we don't emphasize the political leanings of left-wing / liberal / pro-socialist

WP:FRINGE (the organization is so far out of the mainstream that it's views on this subject are not worth including), among other potential policy concerns. But from the standpoint of the reliability of the source the material is not about itself, is not aggrandizing and would meet all other concerns of such sources. Alansohn (talk

) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The picture of Dr. Kalam and Sathya Sai Baba together is real: it is a well-known undisputed fact that Dr. Kalam has visited Sathya Sai Baba's ashram.

I am not sure whether I am allowed to post here. Because my topic ban on this subject was lifted by the arbcom on probation. Andries (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think above website is reliable but similar text exist in other reputed media. this source say Kalam was 'fan' of Sai Baba. And after reading this and this I believe it.

talk

) 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Neo, Kalam writes that he "admires" Sai, I would suggest that we could write that Kalam was an "admirer" of Sai, it seems that the admiration was for his developmental programmes and not for spiritual reasons, and that should be made clear. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We could use some neutral editors at

• The first source is to a dead tree book: Jasper Ridely, The Freemasons: A History of the World's Most Powerful Secret Society, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 2011, page 268 (this has been tagged with {{quote needed}} even though it is easy to find it on Google Snippet view) - do we really need to give a quote?
• The second is also a dead tree book: John Hamill and R.A. Gilbert, Freemasonry: A Celebration of the Craft, Page 226. Paul & Company, 1992,
  ISBN 0-9516355-2-2
  ... (this has also tagged with {{quote needed}}) - Again, do we really need to give a quote? I have not found a snippet.
• The third is a Masonic website: Freemasonry in Turkey – Address given to Palestine Lodge 189 by Kaya Pasakay, Former Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Turkey which is being challenged as an unreliable self-published source. However, my contention is that you have to look beyond the website... the author, Kaya Pasaka, is considered an expert on the history of Turkish Freemasonry... and his address was originally published in Freemasonry Today - the Official journal of the United Grand Lodge of England. (it is reprinted on lodge's website by permission of both the author and the Journal.) I don't see how this could be considered an unreliable source, but I would like an assessment.

For complete discussion see

If you can access the source from snippet view, why don't you just quote what you see there? The reason there is a {{

the real source is a self-published wordpress-style website. And in any case, the purported source is hardly an authority on either Ataturk or masonic lodges in Turkey. By the way, the title is misleading: only one source is questioned, I told you already that I accept Ridley and as a valid source, and the other book simply needs a quote. Claiming otherwise misleads other users.--eh bien mon prince (talk

) 19:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Ridley book is likely to be reliable (it was first published in the UK by Constable in 1999 -- in the US I don't know). If there is doubt about what it really tells us (although when we are being really nice to one another we assume good faith) anyone who can see a snippet view -- I can't -- might as well quote the relevant text on the talk page to reassure the doubters. If that clears up the doubt, there is then no need to quote verbatim in the article itself.

Having got that far, why quote any more sources? One's enough, isn't it? Three won't make the statement truer than one. If there's a reliable source that says he wasn't a Freemason, that would be a different thing. Andrew Dalby 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I accept the reliability of Ridley's book, but the original claim goes beyond his being a freemason. It says: "Macedonia Risorta Lodge No. 80 (some claim Lodge Veritas), Thessaloniki". Is this verified by Ridley too? If not, what is, exactly?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridley simply says that he was a Freemason. And since you accept that, the issue becomes which lodge he was initiated in... Different sources say he was initiated in different lodges (some say Macedonia Risorta Lodge, some say Lodge Veritas... and I just checked The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry - which splits the difference, calling it "Macedonia Risorta e Veritas Lodge.") This is why we need multiple sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Since free masonry in particular regarding alleged or real membership of famous person is a popular fringe subject it seems justified to expect reputable sources being beyond any doubt. In that context I can understand that these sources are challenged including Jasper Ridley, since at first glance non of them seem to amount to the status of a reliable scholarly source. Though Ridley has a number of written books on historical subject, he is not a history scholar and his publisher doesn't seem to be a reputable academic publisher either. It seems to be a similar situation for the 2nd book and the website is primary source that hardly appropriate here.

An acceptable source here would be a scholarly biography of Atatürk or some reputable scholarly work on freemasonry. Moreover there should be plenty of reputable scholarly sources on Atatürk, if none of them mentions him as freemason, the claims of three given sources would appear to rather dubious fringe having no place WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I do know what you mean by being wary of Fringe... but... Ridley, isn't Fringe... S. Brent Morris isn't fringe (he was the first American to be elected to run Quatuor Coronati... the Masonic equivalent of an academic journal) ... John Hamill isn't Fringe (he is the Librarian of the United Grand Lodge of England and one of Freemasonry's most respected researchers)... Kaya Pasaka isn't fringe, he is a former Grand Master of Turkey. You won't find university academics who cover this stuff, but these are all the Masonic equivalent of high end academics. They publish peer reviewed papers in Masonic journals, publish books on Freemasonry. When it comes to Masonic topics, they are some of the best there are. Blueboar (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not say te claim is fringe per se, but rather if it is not contained in scholarly academic research on Ataturk (there is plenty), then it might be fringe. Also using freemasons as source on freemasonry doesn't strike as the best approach either. The best source is surely external academic research. I don't really follow your claim why there would be no university academic research on freemasonry or Ataturk that can and should be quoted here. If there was really none (despite Ataturk's historical importance) that contains this info, then that would seem to me a clear red flag regarding the reliability of all those other allegedly reliable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I share Kmhkmh's concern. If only books by freemasons about freemasons can be found as references for this "fact", something is amiss. Part of the problem is that the issue is very sensitive in Turkey; you can see a mention of that in

crypto-Jew and "reliable sources" attesting to that can be found as well. Somewhere there must be an independent scholarly evaluation of the evidence. Zero^talk

02:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ridley's source is Hamill and Gilbert. Zero^talk 02:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is what Ataturk's main biographers have to say on the matter:

Lord Kinross and Andrew Mango all say that many leading officers from the Committee of Union and Progress were Freemasons, but make no claims about Ataturk himself. Hanioğlu also wrote "Notes on the Young Turks and the Freemasons", but I didn't read that yet, so I don't know if it even mentions Ataturk at all. Lord Kinross adds that the CUP had initiation rituals similar to those used by masonic lodges link. Mango writes in the notes to his biography that Ataturk's waiter claimed that he had told at a party in Izmir that he was initiated in a lodge in Beyoglu link. The same waiter seems to have attributed him claims about his Jewish origins link. None of them makes any mention of 'Macedonia Risorta' or 'Veritas' or anything like that. So again, at very least, this should not be presented as a fact, and all those junk sources mentioning these two lodges by name (which none of his biographers does) should be removed.--eh bien mon prince (talk

) 06:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly my concern, that we state something as presumably factual for which no "really" reliable and reputable source exist. Without being an expert on Ataturk or Freemasons (hence the use of the conditional in my lines above) I did a search on Google Books and JSTOR and couldn't find anything, one might classify as a reputable/scholarly source explicitly stating Kemal Atatürk to be a freemason. All I got was general statements about the freemasonry being around in Turkey and that some young turks were freemasons. The best I got were non scholarly "maybe reliable" books and all those freemason on freemasonry sources. The article on de.wp contains the same information citing 2 encyclopedias on freemasonry, however they don't appear to be scholarly work or having a reputable publisher either. Now for less complicated and less controversial subject than freemasonry and famous people being (secretly) freemasons, one might accept a variety of non scholarly sources as sufficient, but for this subject imho - no way. With the currently given sources the only thing WP could safely state as a fact is, that various freemasons claim Atatürk to have been a freemason, but nothing more than that. But even regarding such a safe line, there's still a question of fringe and whether such a line would be appropriate information/content in an article on Atatürk.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the inclusion criteria for the list: "figures with no verified lodge affiliation are claimed as Masons if reliable sources give anecdotal evidence suggesting they were familiar with the "secret" signs and passes...". No such anecdotal evidences have been provided, much less from reliable sources. Hence, it should be removed outright, until such evidences can be found.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the first part of the sentence again ... "Figures with no verified lodge affiliation" are accepted if there is anecdotal evidence... But in this case we don't need to rely on anecdotal evidence because we have verified affiliation. OK... the sources conflict as to the name of the lodge, but his membership in the fraternity is verified, and that is enough to include him on the list.

We have multiple sources written by highly reliable experts who verify his membership. The cited sources include some of the most respected Masonic historians and researchers in the entire world. They have access to the relevant records. This is not rumor or gossip... and we are not relying on some fringe anti-masonic website claiming membership to discredit the fraternity. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO verified affiliation whatsoever. More piling evidence against your claims: Marc D. Baer gives a history of the links between CUP and freemasonry, with explicit mentions to both Macedonia Risorta and Veritas, includes a list of prominent members. No mention is made of Ataturk among the members. Was it an incredible case of forgetfulness? Could be, let's try another source: Marta Petricioli (Professor of History of International Relations at the Faculty of Political Sciences), again a list of prominent members of late-Ottoman masonic lodges is given, again Ataturk doesn't appear in the list. I have evidence from his three main biographers Hanioğlu, Kinross and Mango. I have provided university-press sources. Can you provide us better sources than 'Freemasonry Today' or 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry'? Do you have any scholarly sources whatsoever to back your claims?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What I have given you are scholarly sources... its just that most Masonic scholarship takes place outside of academia. You have already said that you consider Jasper Ridley to be a reliable scholarly source... as for the others... S. Brent Morris (author of the Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry) is the editor of the Scottish Rite Journal, a fellow of Quatuor Coronati Lodge (both highly respected journals of Masonic history and research... the Masonic equivalent of academic peer reviewed journals)... John Hamill is the Librarian of the United Grand Lodge of England... he has published numerous books on Masonic history. You don't get more reliable than that when you are dealing with Masonic topics. Indeed, they are arguably the two most reliable and scholarly sources we cite on the entire list. Kaya Pasaka is not a published author... but he is a former Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Turkey, and thus in a position to have reviewed the relevant records and know what he is talking about. The fact that other historians omit mention of Ataturk's membership does not negate the fact that these Masonic historians do mention it. It is enough to include him on the list. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to know what a scholarly source is. Self-appointed authorities from a masonic lodge or another don't count. And no, there are several of them dealing with masonic history, I just provided you with two examples of that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

New development: you removed the lodge affiliation because "the experts don't agree". By the criterion that you can read about just above this post, that means that you *cannot* include Ataturk in the list, as "figures with no verified lodge affiliation are claimed as Masons if reliable sources give anecdotal evidence suggesting they were familiar with the "secret" signs and passes...", and no such anecdotal evidences have been provided.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop trying to Wikilawyer this to death... we have multiple reliable sources that say Ataturk was a Freemason (even if they disagree on which lodge he belonged to)... that should be enough to include him on the list. It is becoming increasingly clear that you are not going to accept any source, and have your own POV reasons for removing Ataturk from the list. Time to take your behavior to ANI. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Same to you, you are not willing to accept all the evidence I provided, and the opinion of uninvolved editors that you yourself requested. I'll be waiting for the ANI notification.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar, I don't find your argument convincing. So far I haven't seen any evidence that actual records of Ataturk's membership even exist, so why are you invoking them? None of the cited sources mention any documents as far as I can see. In fact, the disagreement over lodge is clear evidence that the claims are not based on documents. Do Hamill and Gilbert have expertise on Ottoman-era Salonica, or are they repeating a plausible story? (It's a serious question.) Ridley merely quoted them, so that doesn't add anything. The Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Turkey has an obvious conflict of interest and anyway clearly fails

WP:RS. Lots of academic historians studied Ataturk and freemasonry, even in the same article; where is their confirmation? Maybe the list of freemasons can have a "Possibly" section... Zero^talk

13:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not invoking the actual records... in fact, my doing so would constitute Original research. I am ivoking recognized experts in the field of Masonic History. That's what we do here on Wikipedia. ... we look to experts to do the original research (such as looking at relevant records) and we base what we write on those experts. And while these sources are not academic historians, they are experts on Masonic history. Hamill is one of the most respected (published) experts on Masonic history in the UK. Morris is arguably one of the top ten experts on Freemasonry in both the US and the UK (that's why he was asked to write the Idiot's book). Ridely is a solidly reliable historian. As for Pasaka, what makes you think a Grand Master has an automatic conflict of interest? I am detecting a double standard here... Imagine trying to reject the transcript of a speech made by the Pope from an article related to Catholicism, on the grounds that the Pope has a conflict of interest. Everyone would think that ridiculous... we would accept that the Pope is an authority on Catholicism and allow it. So how is this different? Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Pope is an authority on Catholicism only in the sense that his doctrinal pronouncements are authoritative. His views on history certainly are not. Nevertheless, I suspect any speech he makes will be vetted by Vatican historians, so he's unlikely to make howlers. But still, he's not an "authoritative" source on the history of Catholicism. I very much doubt there are a team of Masonic historians who vet comparable speeches by Freemasonic leaders, so the analogy is weak. People who are respected scholars make mistakes all the time, especially when they are writing generalist works that rely on secondary sources covering large sweeps of history and various different cultures. That's why generalist books are not good sources for disputed claims. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@blueboar: If you want the information in the article, then you need to provide a scholarly source confirming it rather than other people needing to disprove you. Scholarly here refers professional (university) a academic and a publication in a reputable academic journal or academic publisher (for a book). It does not mean freemason research on freemasonry or "internal" scholarship that has not been accepted by external scholarly sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this is too problematic to legitimate Ataturk's inclusion in such a list. The "pro" sources are fairly weak, and seem to be unclear about the details, which would unlikely if this were based on surviving records of lodges. It is also very strange that the scholarly material is silent. It's worth adding that the idea that Ataturk was a freemason seems to have been common in Islamist attacks on secularising movements in the Middle East. Ab al-Rahman al-Dawsari, attacking Nasser, says "this revolution is a continuation of the revolution of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk the Freemason: behind it lie America and Freemason circles" [18]. The Secularist=Freemason=Western-conspiracy link seems to have been widely circulated. Also, according to this book, Ataturk "banned and dissolved Masonic lodges", which were only re-founded after his death. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The book Universal Dimensions of Atatürk (2002) may not be "reliable" (it's published by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Turkey), but it does directly state the Ataturk was not a Freemason: "For Mustafa Kemal, who was not a Freemason, it was easy to say that there should be no link between Freemasonry and the Society" (p.17). Paul B (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Remzi Sanver said in an interview that there is not enough evidence to say that Ataturk was a mason. This is hardly definitive evidence, but proves the position of the grand master of the largest lodge in Turkey.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought (far above) that matters would be different if there were a reliable source saying that Atatürk wasn't a freemason. So if, as we now gather, scholarly biographies don't mention any such membership, and the sources just cited above say flatly that he wasn't, then sources such as Ridley are no longer good enough. Atatürk shouldn't be in the list. The claimed membership could be mentioned, with sources for and against, in his biography. Andrew Dalby 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile I came across 2 academic sources (one German: [19], one English: [20]) which seem to suggest that the origin of the freemason claim might due to conspiracy theory/propaganda pushed by the conservative muslim cleric Vehdati. And that masonry charges are proganda label in parts of the muslim world (roughly similar to "communist"/"unamerican" and "agent of capitalism" during the cold war). Another thing that is quite striking is that there seems to be large number of (rather unreliable) websites claiming to "prove" that Ataturk was a freemason, which also suggests it to be a popular topic/subject of conspiracy theories. Considering all the issues being compiled here so far, i believe even stronger than before, that a reputable scholarly is absolutely required for this claim and without it has no place in WP, in particular not as a factual statement.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What about this as a source: Harold Courtenay Armstrong (1939). Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal: an intimate study of a dictator. Methuen. p. 276. Retrieved 17 June 2013. – "Sarraut was an outstanding figure in the Orient Lodges of Freemasons. He had appealed to Mustafa Kemal as a brother-mason of the craft"? The author seems to be well published. Mojoworker (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still rather skeptical at first glance. Armstrong is "well published" as regular author but as far as I can see not as a scholar. Methuen Publishing doesn't seem to be reputable academic publisher in the fields of history/Politics/biography either. Also the book was first published in the 1930s and is hence somewhat dated and possibly outdated.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean by "regular author"? His body of work appears to be entirely non–fiction – mostly biographies & histories of Turkey, the Levant, and Arabia. And Methuen "published mostly non-fiction academic works in the early years". It is fairly old – Kemal died in 1938, and this book was initially published before then (and there are also more recent reprints). But I'm not sure why you think that means it's outdated. It seems a bit disingenuous for you to, on one hand claim that this work is outdated, while on the other hand suggest (as in your "English" ref above) that the "freemason" label is more recent revisionist propaganda. Perhaps it's enlightening to examine Ataturk's own view of this very book: "When Atatürk heard of the book by Harold Courtenay Armstrong called “Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal -- An Intimate Study of a Dictator,” he became curious and had it read at his dining table, not allowing any omissions. He even removed the ban on the book." Mojoworker (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Regular" author was not meant to distinguish between non-fiction and fiction. but between "regular" non-fiction and scholarly non-fiction. If you read the both source above more carefully, you would know that the Propaganda label "freemason" was not only used post humously against Ataturk but already early in career. Vehdati is figure of the 19th/early 20th century, who died way before Ataturk. Since the Freemason claim (independently of whether it was true or not) was used as propaganda label from early one, we need a rather good academic source that has verified the claim beyond reasonable doubt, rather than potentially just repeating popular misinformation/hearsay from that period.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the best I can find. Andrew Mango, Atatürk, John Murray 1999. On page 93: "Mustafa Kemal appears to have joined the masons,²⁹ probably at this stage [in Salonica], although, according to one account, the initiation ceremony took place in Istanbul.³⁰ It would have been a sensible move by an ambitious military conspirator." Reference 29 says: "According to the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, quoted in the New York Times, 29 March 1998, 5." However neither the archive on the NYT site nor a different NYT archive I have access to has such an article. There is an article about Ataturk on page 15, but it doesn't mention masons. Can anyone else find it? Maybe it was redacted (that is rare but can happen). Reference 30 refers to the memoirs of Atatürk’s waiter Cemal Granda: "at a party in İzmir Atatürk described how he had been taken by a friend to a masonic lodge in Beyoğlu (Pera) in Istanbul. He was initiated as a member, but he claimed never to have visited the lodge again or encountered any of the men he had met there (Granda, 294). According to the account, he walked under crossed swords during the initiation. This suggests that he was enrolled as a military member. In the words attributed to him, Atatürk played down the incident, which, he said, he had found boring." Zero^talk 06:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good find. Andrew Mango should be highly reliable on this subject. We see that he mentions the claim of initiation, citing a very good source (I don't mean the New York Times, of course, I mean Ataturk's waiter) but doesn't commit to it. Since Masonic membership has often been regarded as secret, a statement in a memoir by someone who knew the subject may sometimes be the only source one could trust. I wouldn't trust it 100%, any more than Mango does, but maybe 90% :)

Well done for trying to find the article he cited in the NYT. It's a pity there is apparently some error in the citation but it actually doesn't matter to us what this error is, I think. The NYT was merely citing the Grand Lodge of the State of New York (according to Mango) and therefore its fact-checking and its fabled reliability are not involved. All we know, and all we would know even if we found the article, is that the Grand Lodge made this claim and the NYT reported the claim. Andrew Dalby 08:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm I looked at Mango, but for some reason the word search on Google books came back empty on "mason", gues I had bad luck there. However Mango is exactly the kind of source we were in need for, he is a reputable historian who wrote a scholarly biography on Atatürk. If he assesses the freemason is for or likely, then that's certainly good enough for WP and we should use him as the main source on the issue and go with a formulation similar to his.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that Mango says this. Of course "appears to have joined" is tentative, and we still only have what amounts to hearsay with no actual records. Indeed Mango's own source is poor. Still, if he did attend just one meeting, this means that both "sides" here might be technically correct. It depends what counts as being a "member". If he never actually did more than 'check it out', as it were, it may or may not mean that he could be defined as a member. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So is this settled? Are we agreed that Mango is a reliable source or are their further objections? Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no plans to edit that article at all, but I wouldn't add Ataturk on this evidence if it was up to me. Mango is carefully guarded about it and gives a citation (yet another intra-masonic source) that doesn't seem to exist. So at best he is a reliable source for "maybe". Zero^talk 11:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. He says "appears to have joined the masons", and that's what he's a reliable source for. Whether that means we include Atatürk in a list of masons is no longer a reliable sources question, it seems to me, it's a question of Wikipedia's list policy. Andrew Dalby 12:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK... follow up question so I understand the reasoning here: why was Mango deemed reliable, but Hamill, Morris and Ridley not deemed reliable? Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Mango is considered more reliable because his reputation and expertise on Turkey and Ataturk seem to be clearly superior to those of Hamill, Morris and Ridley. Also he assesses freemasonry claims from an external view and more importantly his work has been positively reviewed by scholarly (=university academics) journals (for instance The International History Review, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 172-174).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] I'll try to answer too. Note, full disclosure, I have published a book in a series in which Mango has also published. I said above "since Masonic membership has often been regarded as secret, a statement in a memoir by someone who knew the subject may sometimes be the only source one could trust". I would add, in general, that if the records of a Lodge have been reliably published, one would no doubt trust that source also on the question of its own membership (but that hasn't happened here). OK. Those are primary sources. We prefer a secondary source. Mango is a good secondary source because he cites other sources, evaluates them, and comes out with a reasoned statement: also because he is an acknowledged expert on Atatürk's biography, which is what we need.

Ridley is, I think, in Wikipedia terms, reliable: Constable is a serious publisher. But on this specific issue (was X a member of Y secret organization) an expert on X's biography, who discusses this specific question and cites sources and draws a reasoned conclusion, is a much better source than a flat claim (un-footnoted so far as I know) in a general book about Y, especially since the flat claim has been flatly denied by others.

This is going beyond what this board usually does, I admit, but a historian has to consider, with "reliable sources" on a highly private event, how the source knows. How did the Grand Lodge of New York know this? How did Ridley know this? Possibly from some intermediate source relying on Granda or on Armstrong. How did Armstrong know this? I don't think we know. How did Granda know this? Conceivably from Atatürk himself or from some very close associate; he surely wasn't there himself. But was he being told the exact truth? Is he embroidering? Memoirs are often remarkably revealing, and occasionally they are wrong. That, I would suppose, is why Mango phrased it the way he did. Andrew Dalby 14:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I understand (and would agree) that Mango has a reputation and expertize on Turkey... but Hamill, Morris and Ridley have a reputation and expertise on Freemasonry (I would argue that their expertise on that topic is greater than Mango's). I don't understand why their expertise and reputations were so quickly dismissed? Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not dismissed out of hand, the argument is merely that they alone may not be good enough for specific "iffy" claims and area where conspiracy theories and wild claims are not uncommon. That why confirmations assessment by external/neutral scholarly is needed. If for instance Hamill/Morris or Rider have been reviewed by external scholarly journals (not internal masonic publications) and assessed as reliable, they probably would be good enough but not without that. For Mango we have such an assessment (see above). So Hamill/Morris or Rider are not dismissed as sources in general, but they merely considered as most likely not sufficient on their own for specific disputed claims (such as the one regarding Ataturk).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK... I now understand the thought process. I don't completely agree with everything you say (I don't think you understand exactly how respected these guys are when it comes to Masonic scholarship) ... but at least I do understand why you say it. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Source: Janusz Radziejowski. (1976, English translation 1983) The Communist Party of Western Ukraine: 1919-1929. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press at the University of Toronto: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0920862241/ref=dp_proddesc_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155 (The translation is not a revised edition)

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland

Content:

"In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries...in Transcarpathian Ukraine the first Ukrainian school system was only in 1918, when this area was incorporated into the new Czechoslovakian state. But already by 1921-1922 89% of Ukrainian children were attending Ukrainian schools"

, pg.7

An editor insists on using Soviet era Communist propaganda that life was better generally in the USSR than in Poland, and education of Ukrainians was specifically better. It distorts the history the Second Polish Republic as part of “the defilement of everything Polish” and reducing education to communist propaganda under communism. (The Soviet Occupation of Poland , Free Europe Pamphlet #3, (1940) edited by Casimir Smogorzewski. http://felsztyn.tripod.com/id15.html) See also Marc Ferro, The Use and Abuse of History, or, How the Past is Taughtafter the Great Fire (2003) Chapter 8, Aspects and variations of Soviet history.

The comment is out of a larger context, but it appears to be used only as introductory or background information by the author, and is simply repeating Communist era propaganda against the Second Polish Republic. It was not the focus of the work. Nothing published under communism can be considered a reliable source unless it is independently confirmed. The fall of communism has allowed modern historians to reexamine the history of the era. Some here don't want to move away from the official Communist version of history.

According to the quote from Faustian, life was better for Ukrainians in the Soviet Union than it was in the Second Polish Republic. Now better is a subjective term, but considering the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor occurred in the Ukrainian S.S.R., it defies belief from anyone other than a communist apologist. So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported? You will note the response, or lack thereof, from the editor presently holding the page hostage to his POV.

Jan Gross also disagrees and note that Poles saw "in the marketplace how these Soviet people ate eggs, shell and all, horseradish, beets, and other produce. Country women rolled with laughter" Jan Gross, Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia (2002), pg. 46 We have other contemporary accounts:

"All witnesses are unanimous in stating that the Bolshevik troops on entering this part of Poland (which was generally regarded as a poor and backward region) were seized with admiration for the extraordinary wealth and abundance of the country into which they marched. …

The women," writes an eye-witness, " wore rags wrapped round their feet or felt slippers, instead of shoes: they brought all their family belongings in one battered suitcase, and sometimes even an iron bedstead. Bedding was not known to them and the luxury of fresh linen was never dreamed of in the Soviet Republic, even by dignitaries and important women commissars. The pick of the Soviets sent out for display to this bourgeois country were ignorant of the simplest arrangements of everyday life. Accustomed to being herded together, they did not understand the superfluous habit of enjoying individual lodgings: bathrooms and kitchens they considered as uncanny inventions, and their way of feeding and housekeeping could - by its extreme misery and primitivity - only make one think of the simplicity of requirements attributed to cave-dwellers." The Soviet Occupation of Poland , Free Europe Pamphlet #3, (1940) edited by Casimir Smogorzewski. http://felsztyn.tripod.com/id15.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk • contribs)

So here is the rest of the quote from Janusz Radziejowski: "In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries; in terms of employment and wages, Ukrainians and Belarussians were even worse off than they had been in tsarist Russia...”

For this statement to have been true, for Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities to have been worse than in neighboring countries in terms of employment and wages, this would mean that Ukrainians and Belarussians in the Second Polish Republic would have been worse off than those it the Soviet Union. So I have asked Faustian this question: “So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported?”

He has not answered that question. He has given us a link to a discussion about how many died in the Holodomor, from which we may assume that he is now acknowledging that it did occur. Therefore, we must demand that he provide us evidence of a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported. We are waiting...

Lastly, even a respected academic is limited by the information which is available to him. When all that is available to him is official government propaganda, the conclusions which he tdraws from that information are unreliable. This should be obvious to anyone with any common sense, but those who have an agenda refuse to consider common sense.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

Do you know of any sources that contradict this claim? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)s,

Yes, Witold Staniewicz, The Agrarian Problem in Poland between the Two World Wars, The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 43, No. 100 (Dec., 1964), pp. 27-29 is very much to the contrary. He describes national land reform laws and policies that transferred over 3 million hectares of land from large land holders to peasants and "large scale agricultural credits", which resulted in a period of prosperity from 1926-1930 until the world economic crisis of the 1930's. He has criticisms of how things might have been better, but to state that the situation of minorities in Eastern Poland was worse than under tsarist times is clearly Soviet era propaganda against the Second Polish Republic designed to cover its collaboration with Hitler to destroy it.

Would the official website of an organization be reliable for saying that someone was a member of the organization? Specifically, would http://www.freemason.org - the official website of the Grand Lodge of California (and related sub-pages) be a reliable source for saying that someone is/was a Freemason? Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The website of the Grand Lodge of California can only make claims about its own members. Their existence as a masonic lodge doesn't give them an expertise about every historical personality who was ever claimed to be a Freemason at some point or another.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I think it may be a bit extreme... The Grand Lodge of California officially recognizes other Grand Lodges ... so when they say that someone like Buzz Aldren is a Mason in NJ, they are also saying that his membership is officially recognized in CA. That should count for something, shouldn't it? Especially when the same information is confirmed by multiple other Grand Lodge websites. (Note... The Grand Lodge of NJ does not have a list of famous masons on their website, so we can not look to them as a source). Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your initial question is a bit deceptive (forgive me for saying): the "organization" in the first part of the sentence is not the same as the "organization" in the second part. So, this is probably a reliable (primary) source for the Grand Lodge of California; we've no reason to suppose it's reliable beyond. Andrew Dalby 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

re: "we've no reason to suppose it's reliable beyond." Why not? The two Grand Lodges (CA and NJ) are directly connected. All it would take for CA to fact check is a phone call to NJ. Blueboar (talk)

Well, sorry, but we've no reason to suppose they made the phone call. Andrew Dalby 14:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do have reason to suppose they made the call (or confirmed the membership in some other way). If a Mason from NJ wishes to attend a lodge in CA, the CA Grand Lodge has to check with the NJ Grand Lodge to see whether the man is a member in good standing. They are not going to list someone on their website without double checking. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I might be able to get hold of the

No. That looks like a public record that should not be used as a source, per

WP:BLPPRIMARY. —C.Fred (talk

) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the quick response!

talk

) 21:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• DD214's are not public record. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a pop music TV program called Pops in Seoul on

However, another aditor argued that YouTube was not a reliable source [23] and pointed me to here to ask for your opinion.

The information that needs to be added to the article is

The TV Show is a reliable source. There is an appropriate format to cite the television show. The only question is if you can include the URL to the youtube video, though as long as you are award of all the other appropriate details (broadcast date, etc.) the URL doesn't matter, so yes, you can use the TV show as a reliable source. You don't need the URL for that. Now, if you know that the copyright holder of the show is the same as the uploader on Youtube, and that in fact you are sure on the identity on YouTube, then it is okay to link to that in the URL. But you need to be sure about that. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm sure cause Arirang TV links the YouTube channel from their official website: [25]. (There's a YouTube icon, select "Arirang Entertainment".) --

talk

) 20:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick click-through of your sources indicate that, though unusual, you have connected the dots adequately (well done - easy to follow). TV show can be cited (sources do not have to be in writing), and the direct link to the official online version (yes, the official online version appears to be the youtube channel) is appropriate. Birth dates did not seem to be controversial or disputed to begin with. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Masem and Anonymous209.6. Most YouTube videos are not reliable, but a video uploaded by the official YouTube account of a reliable source is one of the exceptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone off-wiki brought this to my attention yesterday: there's something odd about FamousLogos.net

Consider this page:

They claim to have a "highly professional and dedicated team of experts working with us who have immense knowledge and years of experience in the design industry"[26] but anyone can claim to be an expert and publish a website. I don't see any evidence that this website is has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, there are about 24 other articles that cite this source.[27] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I working on Lock and Key (Rush song) to be a good article. I was wondering if songfacts.com would be a reliable source for this article. The songfacts source [28] is being used to described used to say that Lee used a 5-string bass for the song, and there also a quote about it by Geddy from the source that is used here. Thanks. EditorE (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I' say not - see the 'About Songfacts' page: "How can I contribute to Songfacts? You can contribute to Songfacts by clicking "Add Songfacts," and entering anything you know about a song into the form and where you found the information. We will review your entries and enter them into the database if wee deem them appropriate". [29] User-generated content, with minimal editorial control, by the look of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

AlJazeera.com I think was not

If a subject is a speaker at an event, and on the event website they have a list of speakers... Can this be used as a citation? I don't see why it couldn't. Cap020570 (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It may depend on the context - why would one wish to state that someone spoke at an event though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

X person is involved in science, X person attends non-professional conferences and either presents or is on panels. I'm just writing X was here then the citation. It's part of an overview of the public outreach that X does. Cap020570 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the event website would be considered a primary source - which then makes me wonder whether such attendance needs comment in the article. If it had been discussed in a secondary source, one would have better grounds to include it. 'X attended Y conference' seems a rather stark statement to include, unless one were to indicate why it was seen as significant. I think we'd be better off not discussing abstractions though - what is the article in question, and which conference(s) are you wishing to include in the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it sounds like it would be OK. For example, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to cite this source[30] to say that Brad Anderson gave the keynote presentation at TechEd North America 2013. But can you give us a specific example? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I got made this moot.. I found local media coverage of the event. WIN! But it's good to know you all are available for questions. Cap020570 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to use this source in Bank of Lucas, Turner & Co., specifically for the image of the plaque attached to the building; however the site itself doesn't seem reliable. Is it acceptable to use this one part for this article? --TKK ^{bark !} 20:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a fun example, since I don't think the people who wrote the rules had something like this in mind. If you intend to use the writing on the plaque only, and not what the website writes about it, the issue reduces to whether the web site is reliable for the fact that the plaque is there and looks like that. As it happens, you can check that independently, using Google Street View. Try this link to start. By stepping around a bit and zooming in, you can almost read the plaque. Certainly you can see it well enough to read the larger letters and remove any reasonable doubt that this is the plaque on the web site. Some would disagree, but in my opinion: go for it. It would be good to explicitly cite the plaque for the information you take from it (sometimes plaques are wrong). Zero^talk 10:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Your source is the plaque, not the photograph of the plaque. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not the issue. There is a group of American gun control opponents who use of the examples of gun control in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as arguments against gun control. The reliable sources provided mention this, and that experts see their arguments as fallacious. Gaijin42 wants to present these fringe views in the article as if they were mainstream. TFD (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The more fundamental problem seems to be that we have two articles on the same subject (see

gun politics) both seem to be discussing the subject of the regulation of access to firearms, and I have yet to see an adequate explanation of why we need two articles at all. Certainly the 'totalitarianism' argument is fringe, but the entire gun control article seems to be skewed towards a US-centred perspective despite supposedly presenting a world view. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 19:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Editorials are not journalism, and so only represent a reliable source for quoting or summarizing the opinion of the writer alone, and not for general statements of fact. That being said, the article you linked appears to be journalism and not editorial, that is it is a normal news article, and not part of an OP/ED; it is reporting on the positions of various politicians on an issue, and not a statement of the writers own opinion. Whether or not the source itself is enough to justify the inclusion of the text you wish to include is another matter entirely, as reliable sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition to include some bit of text. By my reading, this source is reliable, but you still have other hurdles to meet in order to include the text beyond this source, including most importantly establishing consensus that the material is relevant and not

WP:UNDUE and other possible problems. More reliable sources could help you with convincing others of that. --Jayron32

03:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinion in the article includes, "challenging a pillar of constitutional law erected nearly 130 years ago", "the guarantee of citizenship extended by the 14th Amendment to all persons born or naturalized in the United States" (this is actually flat out wrong, the 14th did not grant citizenship to children born as citizens of foreign powers - such as members of Native American tribes), "During that debate, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? he asked on the Senate floor. Senator John Conness of California said the answer should be yes." is biased and misrepresents the debate. In short, this article is heavily biased and opinionated. It is an editorial.-65.189.245.24 (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what you state above is flat out wrong, I shall quote directly from the constitution for the full context: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Bolded is the remainder of the sentence being quoted in the NYT piece, which the author had cut off. Underlined is the critical part of that sentence, which to my understanding has always been the part fought over (in what circumstances might someone born within the borders of the US not be under its jurisdiction?). As you mention, this has historically been the basis for claims that Native Americans untaxed were not citizens, nor were children of invading soldiers or visiting ambassadors. So it's kind of odd for the NYT piece to leave that bit out. That said, I would ask 65.189.245.24 to present me with a source that lacks bias. I for one don't demand that every single sentence within a source be utterly objective for me to consider it reliable. You just have to use a little common sense and not draw from a source what is clearly the author's opinion. Fuzzy descriptions like "a pillar of law" is an opinion no matter where its found, and this need not be a cause for argument. But then, there remains the question of whether the factual claims in the article are accurate, which would certainly impact its reliability. I'm not familiar with the debate involving Cowan and Conness, so perhaps 65 could explain in more detail why this depiction of the debate is biased and unrepresentative. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear from the article that the substance of the debate (that is, the positions of the different politicians so involved) is fairly reliably sourced. We have no reason to believe that the news article has misrepresented what any cited politician has advanced as their position. Whether or not any of those politicians is, or is not, justified in their position based on any particular interpretation of the relevant laws or constitutional principles isn't really relevant; just whether or not the news article accurately presented their positions. Again, that's just on the reliability of the source, NOT on whether or not either participant in the debate was "correct" or whether even mentioning said debate is justified based on other principles noted above. But the news source does seem to reliably report the positions of different politicians accurately, and I have no reason to think it has misrepresented those positions, so just on the question of reliability for that narrow purpose, 65.189 has not presented any argument to refute that. --Jayron32 04:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It meets rs because it is a news article. But we should be using the "best" sources. A newspaper article from 1996 is not the best source for an article about constitutional law. TFD (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, if someone can come up with a better source (or sources), it/they could be used here. But then it will become a question of whether or not to replace this NYT story with something else (or perhaps to use something else in addition to it). Nothing in our policies or guidelines, as I understand them, would say that we should remove this NYT story as a source because there is (or presumably may be) a "better" source, without first identifying some specific other source to use in its place. If people want to search for better sources to use in this article, btw, the discussion of the Citizenship Clause's legislative history in United States v. Wong Kim Ark might provide some useful material. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The following edit has been disputed:

Modern scholars now believe the Papias tradition to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret the tradition to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. Blackwell 2010 p 301-302 Maurice Casey states that it is "genuinely true" that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect, Casey, 2010 pp 87-88 as the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves. Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101 Edwards 2009. pp 2-3

Therefore we need to know if any of the following are reliable sources?

• David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. This reference book is a detailed introduction to the New Testament, written by more than 40 scholars from a variety of Christian denominations.
• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. Maurice Casey is one of Britain's most noted historians.
• Bart D. Ehrman, "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins 2012. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. He is a Bruner-Welch Professor of Theology, an Ordained Presbyterian minister, a contributing editor of Christianity Today, and member of the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton.

Thanks, Ret.Prof (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say, reliable, all four. Now then:

There's an error in the use of the first source. If you read the text carefully, you'll see that the claim is, not that modern scholars generally consider the "Papias tradition" to be fairly trustworthy, but that modern scholars generally consider Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy. I see no statement on how trustworthy modern scholars consider the "Papias tradition" to be.

There's also an error in the use of the second source. The two relevant sentences by Casey, which I am laboriously typing out for you from the Google page (but this stuff is fun, isn't it!), read thus:

"It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/interpreted them as he was able.'"

So Casey is not saying that this is genuinely true: he is saying that Papias meant it was genuinely true.

I can't see full views of the other two sources. On this evidence, I would want to see longer quotations before I could feel confident that the writer of the passage you quote from Wikipedia has understood them. Andrew Dalby 20:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am adding the two sources below to the list to take care of this problem all at once:

• ISBN 978-0-8028-2400-4
  .
• ISBN 978-0-86554-989-0
  .

I also have a separate request in process at WP:Notability/Noticeboard#George Howard (Hebraist). Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A Hebrew text of Matthew was published by the Spanish Jewish polemicist Ibn Shaprut in the 14th century. Although it has usually been considered to be his own translation, there are various signs pointing to the possibility that he was using a preexisting text based on something older than our present Greek text.

Above is the relevant content in the article based on Howard's work. Ignocrates (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I can't see page views of those books. Perhaps someone else can.

Thanks for mentioning your request at WP:NN. Do you think it's relevant to Ret.Prof's question here? Andrew Dalby 14:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is relevant. The implication behind the question of reliability of the aforementioned published works is that the authors themselves are pseudo-scholars and not to be taken seriously. Ignocrates (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you are wasting other Wikipedians' time in order to make a debating point. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Andrew Dalby 18:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am stunned by your response. Who are you to question my motives? Bottom line - can the sources listed here be used for the intended purpose of supporting the content of this article or not? Ignocrates (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've answered that above. Yes, reliable, but, in the Wikipedia passage quoted, the two sources I can see have been misreported. Happy for anyone else to comment -- perhaps someone who can see all four sources. Andrew Dalby 11:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the review. Ignocrates (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Would someone else who can see the rest of the above sources comment on those as well? Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

To follow up on the problem using Aune Blackwell 2010 p 301-302, in the ( WP:RS, without possible dispute). Aune does not even say that the Papias tradition is reliable, the notice is on the reliability of the INTERPRETATION of what Eusebius says. The very next section (and the previous as well) definitively say that modern scholars have some sort of consensus that Matthew was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. The small section on Eusebius' seemingly contradictory note is there to support but to debunk. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification about Blackwell above, here is the complete citation:

• Duling, Dennis C. (2010). "The Gospel of Matthew". In Aune, David E. (ed.). The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 296–318.
  ISBN 978-1-4051-0825-6
  .

Duling is the author of the chapter being cited; David E. Aune is the editor of Blackwell. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• duly noted, never disputed. Just FYI, the notion that Matthew was composed in Hebrew is not considered wrong, just not the consensus opinion. Just can't say that modern scholars agree; it's a minority opinion.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Ignocrates (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There were no comments on Persian Heritage (magazine) except for the two parties.

• Source: Rahni, Davood N. (2005). "Persian Parade Iranian Flag: A National Historical Perspective".
  ISSN 1094-494X. Archived
  from the original on 11 January 2005. citing Ghavami, Zia (2005) "تاریخچه پرچم ایران" ("History of Iranian Flag") Persian Heritage (magazine), January 2005.
• Wikipedia article: Ghaznavids
• Supporting in infobox: File:Old Ghaznavid Flag.svg Flag Flag of Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznavi.
• DIFF
• Text from cited article: Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznavi, the founder of the first Persian dynasty after the Arab invasion who reinstated the use of symbolic expressions on the Iranian Flag. This solid rectangular black Flag had in its center inscribed a golden moon.