Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 151

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

The University of Westminster claims that "The University of Westminster currently has the largest... Scholarships Programmes in the UK"[1] may we use the given source to make the statement? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute at Priyadarshini Raje Scindia. Yogesh wants to say something like She is the patron of University of Westminster's scholarship programme, the programme claimed by the University to be the financially largest in the United Kingdom. (this is what the article said before I pruned it). I consider the claim itself to be (a) extraordinary and (b) not supporting the statement that we had made - "largest" has many meanings and the source does not say "financially largest". I'm reluctant to use a primary source for any statement of this type and I argue that even if the university's claim were valid, it is irrelevant to the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at that quote, and that source, the largest problem I see is that 'largest' isn't well-defined. Does it mean 'largest number of students', 'largest number of awards', 'largest individual awards (by cash value, per year or over four-year programme?)', 'largest average award (by cash value)', 'greatest average value per student', 'largest endowment', etc.? It would be far better to find an independent source – perhaps whatever survey or study the University of Westminster uses as the basis for its claim – that makes clear what is 'largest', and when and where it applies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is implicit that it is financially the largest from above, and it is explicitly mentioned here as such. That Scidia is the patron is extraneous to the present discussion as that isn't disputed,^{Agree that the context needs to be mentioned. Striking off the extraneous part. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)} the dispute as I understand is: "Whether we can rely on the University's claim of being the most moneyed scholarship". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RSN now require that we give the context in which the source is intended to be used. That's why I mentioned the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, this is an extraordinary claim and it impacts on other universities in the UK. As such, we really cannot use a primary source even if we can find some other page on the same website that clarifies "largest". - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you in that it is primary and not the best source, but is it good enough? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no. Such statements should be cited to third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I wonder if someone is modestly wanting to say that her money makes it the financially largest in the United Kingdom? That's the only way I can see in which the financial magnitude of the program could be relevant to her biography. Patron can mean various things. If I happen to have guessed right, to show the relevance of this information we'd want a source that says the relevant financial contribution is hers; without such a source, the information (setting aside its problems of definition) isn't relevant to her biography. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the University is not claiming to have the largest fund in terms of money but only in numbers of students. (Quote: "Currently over 1900 undergraduate students across the University, a figure far higher than most universities, are entitled to funding due to their financial circumstances." (from the link above)) Regardless, what does it mean to say you are a "patron" - that you donated £5 (and claimed tax relief)? I suspect there is another agenda here to promote the subject above their station and would be wary of including any mention of UofW until an actual amount can be established that shows Scidia has done something out of the ordinary in respect of this fund. Emeraude (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, UofW in 2013 is offering 412 National Scholarship Programme awards, by no means the greatest number in England (see Complete University Guide and follow link to spreadsheet grid). Of course, there are other bursaries and awards available, but this is certainly a good starting point from which to examine the claim. Emeraude (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) One version of the claim verbatim is "Westminster has the most generous scholarship fund of any UK university".[2] Generosity implies financial largess. (2) It also mentions that she is "the new patron" of the programme, that makes it clear that there is only one patron. (3) The University has exhibited their relationship with Scindia on their website and not the other way round, the University hasn't provided details as to why she has been nominated as the programmes patron by them, so it is not fruitful to speculate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we have established that we shouldn't be using UofW sources for statements regarding how 'generous' their scholarship fund is. The source is neither appropriate, nor unambiguous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity is a matter or interpretation. I would ask how about using "claimed by the University to be the "most generous"? That is a verifiable fact, isn't it?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It is verifiable that the university made the claim. Frankly, I can't see why this needs to be added to the article in question though - it looks to me to be padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The most relevant source - and the one that people seem to be quoting but not linking to - is this UoW press release] from 2011: "Westminster has the most generous scholarship fund of any UK university,...." . Unfortunately, it remains unclear what is meant by "most generous" - is it a few very high value awards or the greatest number of awards, but of low value? However, I tend to agree with AndyTheGrump that it seems to be no more than padding for the article. Emeraude (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Emeraude I've linked the said link twice above, we can always go for the greatest clarity I agree, the university hasn't given figures to answer your question, it is clear that the University claims that its programmes are the most generous, and the easiest interpretation is that it has the most valued scholarship fund. The reason I wish to use this "claim" in the article under discussion is to establish the subject's notability, it may not be the most elegant perhaps, what I'd like to know is whether using such a claim would be a foul under our RS rules. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not fruitful to speculate. Which is why I cannot understand why you do so in the very message that makes the comment. For example, "implies". - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The "patron" part is not in doubt; claim by both parties, non-controversial. The "largest" claim is unfortunately, problematic. Have tried a quick search of outside sources, which would be necessary for citation, and (I'm a little shocked), only find re-posting of UW's claim. Agree, it needs a better source.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is missed, that the "claim" has been made is sought to be verified and not whether the claim is accurate or not, the text is "Scindia is the patron of Westminster's programme it claims to be the largest in the UK" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced on the web does not make it correct and, as I said earlier, this is an extraordinary claim based on a primary source. Furthermore, as others have agreed, it is padding in the article that is being discussed. End, Of. Story. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No Sitush; "Scindia is the patron of Westminster's programme it claims to be the largest in the UK" isn't an extraordinary claim, this is about Scindia's patronship and not about the programme's size, also the text makes it clear that it is a "claim". We could further modify the statement to address the primaryness issue: "According to the University's website, Scindia is the patron of Westminster's scholarship programme it claims to be the largest in the UK ". The said position is part of the subject's notability, and thus this information should be in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't obfuscate. That she is patron is fine; that it claims to be the "largest" is not. The consensus is apparent above. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems you changed your mind after this. Good and the same will be incorporated in the article. I still would like to mention the size of the programme, the text of the sentence being (as above) "According to the University's website, Scindia is the patron of Westminster's scholarship programme it claims to be the largest in the UK "Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How about the "largest" part? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A follow-up of the lengthy

I've already commented on Buzz Aldrin above (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Organizational websites), but more sources are now offered. I'll leave it to others to comment this time. Andrew Dalby 11:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the last one should definitely be considered reliable. The specific web-page is a sub-page of the Grand Lodge of British Columbia & Yukon website... The Freemasonry WikiProject certainly considers the BC&Y website highly reliable, and its author/webmaster (Trevor McKeown) is highly respected as a Masonic historian (the Canadian equivalent of Brent Morris in the US, and John Hamill in the UK). Unlike your typical masonic website, McKeown cites his sources. (And in connection to this specific issue... he includes a citation to correspondence between Aldren and the head of the Scottish Rite where Aldren confirms that he carried a masonic flag to the Moon. It is highly unlikely that a non-mason would do this)

Note: If the BC&Y website is considered un-reliable it would have a huge impact for the Freemasonry Project... not only is it one of our main sources for the List of Freemasons series, we use it in multiple articles across the project. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

To continue... At this rate we will probably have to have a review of all the sources used in our List of Freemasons series... and used by the Freemasonry Project in general. The project relies heavily on certain Masonic websites that we trust (based on the reputation of the authors), and the same rational used in this challege could apply to just about all of them. We have to remember that Freemasonry isn't a topic that gets a lot of peer reviewed academic coverage, but there are trusted non-academic sources... sources written by people who are considered subject matter experts. So... To what extent do we trust our WikiProjects (editors who are familiar with the subject matter and the reputation of the sources) to know which sources are reliable and which sources are not? Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Going back and checking the sources used to compile these lists is a good idea, and necessary if they are to conform with

WP:RS because on the current standards every tom dick and harry can be said to have been a secret freemason based on one dodgy source from the Great Lodge of Hawaii and Greater Easter Island.--eh bien mon prince (talk

) 15:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have found several highly regarded reference books, generally regarding religion in some form and secret societies, which both have major articles on Freemasonry, and also, so far as I remember, rather substantive bibliographies in several of them. I acknowledge up front that some of those sources may overemphasize some aspects of Freemasonry, and may be themselves less than neutral, but I tend to think that the sources used by reference books are probably such as can be counted reliable, even if they themselves discuss the matter with perhaps greater emphasis on some aspects than others. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Over on the Needle Exchange Programme page a fellow contributor wishes to revert all text [3] which cites either Drug Free Australia or the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) as unreliable.

Re the JGDPP, this issue was discussed on RS/N two years ago here after which a JGDPP review was included as a reliable source chiefly because its review was one of the only four reviews considered rigorous enough by the 2010 Palmateer review of reviews for inclusion in their study. The aforementioned reverting contributor was not part of that discussion and seems not aware of it.

However the other issue is whether further analysis of these reviews by drug prevention organisation, Drug Free Australia (DFA), can be cited with attribution. Our reverting contributor believes only medical journals are permissible. This is where some other views will be helpful. My reasons for inclusion are 1. Drug Free Australia is the peak body for drug prevention organisations in Australia, with Australia’s previous drug Czar for a whole decade, Maj Brian Watters on their Board – it is therefore a notable and highly credible source 2. Its public statements are guided by its 24 Fellows who are medical practitioners, epidemiologists, addiction medicine specialists p24 here (all of whom have had numerous studies published in the best medical journals as outlined here and here) and along with social researchers with PhDs. Further, the lead author of the JGDPP Kall et al. study, one of the four rigorous reviews used by the same Palmateer cited in the Wikipedia article, is one of those 24 Fellows, so their statements are well-guided 3. In any case, my text is not addressing anything biomedical ie anything biological or physiological about the HIV or HCV viruses – only their relationship to cohort populations given clean needles or not ie statistical 4. It is the most cited source in an Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into drugs in 2007 [4], and all 19 times it is cited favourably 5. The source is reliable even if opinionated as per [5] and I have cited it with attribution according to advice of RS/N a number of years ago here and 6. Importantly, their analysis is quite self-evidently correct, as can be verified by anyone wanting to delve into the broad issue, and I have found no alternate reliable source which contradicts this critique. Talk page text is here. Any wisdom on what is a highly conflicted area of international drug policy? Minphie (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am uninvolved. Drug Free Australia and Drug Free America Foundation (publisher of JGDPP) are advocacy sources, not scientific sources, and do not have the standing to criticize material published in reliable scientific journals. It doesn't matter if their members are luminaries individually - if their findings stand up to the scrutiny we expect of expert material, they should be able to get them published in real venues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I venture that critiques of journal studies are not published by journals as such - the best they allow are letters on a correspondence page, and these are only accepted fairly immediately after a critiqued study has been published.Minphie (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, the position of Drug Free Australia and the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice has previously been discussed at this noticeboard in

caste and tribes of south india by edgar Thurston is considered as the reliable source or not . please let me know . When I want to write about an article I am taking the book as source . but an editor remarks this book is not an reliable source . please clarify me . --Suryavarman01 (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

H. H. Risley, he was trusted with surveying the communities of the country, with various areas being assigned to various people. The purpose of the exercise was political, not anthropological: it was based on a perceived need to understand the people so as to divide and rule in the aftermath of the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

The surveyors used the principles of scientific racism in order to conduct their surveys. For example, they used nasal and cranial measurements and colour charts to classify people. As a general rule, and certainly in Thurston's case, they had no understanding of the local languages and relied on native third-parties to translate the statements made by the small, statistically unsound sample groups that were selected. They adopted an uncritical approach, accepting what they were told as being true despite the problems that were then emerging with, for example, the process of sanskritisation. Their translators were not often specialists either.

Despite all this, some sources in India - notably the critically panned The People of India series - have continued to cite Thurston et al in recent times, although as a rule they only select the favourable bits. This is the approach that often appears on Wikipedia also: contributors like Thurston when he is favourable to their community but kick up a fuss when he is not. He should not be relied upon because his methods are discredited, his motives were highly suspect and in many cases it seems he would not have recognised a member of X or Y caste if one of them had sat down with him for a cup of tea. He and his colleagues determined that there were around 1,000 castes in the country as a whole; the figure is now reckoned to be somewhere north of 4,500. The most we can really say is something along the lines of "Edgar Thurston mentions this community in volume X of Castes and Tribes of Southern India". - Sitush (talk

) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1. There are many sources out there covering this. I used ABC News, it a major long established news thing on one of the oldest American television broadcast channels. [6] [7]

2. The article being used in is

Management of cancer

3.The block quote the instructions say to have is below. The diff of what was there when it was removed is at [8].

Doctors have successfully taken millions of white blood cells from a then 6 year old girl with leukemia then used genetically altered HIV to change those cells into something that will target and destroy cancer cells. ^[1] One year later, she has no signs of cancer in body. The treatment was developed at the University of Pennsylvania. Clinical trial have thus far included 20 people, with an 80% success rate. ^[2]

• I would think this is relevant to the article's subject, it a treatment of cancer after all, but was told in the last edit summary "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Opinions please. Dream Focus 14:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

See

WP:MEDRS: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge". AndyTheGrump (talk

) 14:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't giving medical advice. Its stating they tested this new treatment on 20 people, with an 80% success rate. And many reliable, third-party sources do cover this. Dream Focus 14:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The popular press is absolutely worthless as a source for news on medical breakthroughs, as explained in

WP:MEDRS

. Actually, it is worse than useless. My advice is to take anything you read about medicine and science in the polular press with an enormous grain of salt. Most "breakthoughs" they report are flashes in the pan.

Furthermore, per

WP:MEDRS

compliant independent SECONDARY sources.

This is an extremely exceptional claim, and extremely exceptional claims require extremely exceptional sources, high up in the food chain of

WP:MEDRS

, namely independent peer-reviewed reviews and meta-studies.

Also,

WP:CRYSTALBALL apply. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 15:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither NOTNEWS or CRYSTALBALL apply. This is not routine coverage of a famous person doing something minor, and it is not predicting a future event at all. The article isn't complete without listing every legitimate way being used to manage/treat cancer. And REDFLAG doesn't apply either since it is covered by "multiple mainstream sources". Dream Focus 16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Those "multiple mainstream sources" have to, of course, be reliable, and popular press articles are not reliable for this topic, so

WP:REDFLAG most definitely applies. Sorry, but the information you wish to add is too prelimary to be of encyclopedic value. WP by its very nature is going to lag behind the secondary sources, and the secondary sources behind the primary sources, and the primary sources behind preliminary ones. You're putting the cart before the horse. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, if multiple experienced editors disagree with your position, it would be better to engage them on the article talk page and listen to what they have to say. Running to Daddy when Mommy says "no" is disrespectful of others' opinions and undermines constructive collaboration. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013

Two editors disagreed with me, so I took it here to the reliable sources noticeboard, which is the correct thing to do when when the validity of the reliable sources for the material referenced are in question. Dream Focus 20:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The correct thing to do would have been to open a discussion on the article talk page and discuss the matter with the editors who reverted you first, per

WP:BRD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 20:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like a clear MEDRS case to me. This is not the kind of thing we need to report on before it is well established in the medical literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• We do not know if the treatment cured the disease and will not know until other scientists have tried to replicate the results and formed an opinion on the treatment. And generally cancer is not considered "cured" until it has gone into remission for much longer than one year. It is providing advice, because it is saying there is a cure which could lead people to postpone treatment or increase their risk of developing cancer. TFD (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

While it's a neat result if it holds up in a larger clinical trial, all that's really being talked about is another lentiviral gene therapy treatment. An enthusiastic reporter and a PR-savvy research group got together on a slow news day; the 'HIV-derived' angle is technically true, but not really exciting. (There are literally dozens of lentiviral vectors for sale in the Invitrogen catalog and ready for use or modification for a variety of purposes; they're just another tool of the trade in a modern biology lab.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world’s largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.

Is bloomberg.com a reliable source? Hcobb (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bloomberg.com
  is reliable. Microsoft has their official spokesperson comment on this and confirm the information.

Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, said those releases occur in cooperation with multiple agencies and are designed to give government “an early start” on risk assessment and mitigation. In an e-mailed statement, Shaw said there are “several programs” through which such information is passed to the government, and named two which are public, run by Microsoft and for defensive purposes.

• Since the information is confirmed by an official spokesperson for Microsoft, then there is no reason to doubt that information. Dream Focus 15:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I recently made the following comment at an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation, suggesting that expert authority is more reliable / encyclopedic than mere institutional authority.

A1Candidate's reliance on the authority of UNESCO and dismissal of scholarly sources clarifies one crucial element in the current disagreement, the different sense in which we're taking the term "authoritative source."

• UNESCO is authoritative in the formal or institutional sense, but its publications are written by various people, sometimes by scholars and other experts on a topic, sometimes by bureaucrats, and sometimes by international diplomatic committees. Since UNESCO's authority comes from its institutional status, we can call its authority "institutional authority."
• Rüegg, Verger, and Makdisi are scholarly experts on the history of the university; their authority comes not from any administrative position but from their scholarly expertise. We can call their authority "expert authority."

It seems that for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, expert authority almost always trumps institutional authority as a

reliable source

.

I'd welcome comments on the merits of this distinction and how it can best be incorporated into

Or is it the other way round? The usual perception is exactly the opposite, that the authority of the

WP:OR? Justlettersandnumbers (talk

) 19:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'd have to do some thinking but on your first one I feel that one obtains membership in the Académie française, as in the

Royal Society of London

, because of one's professional expertise. The British Medical Association, if it's like its American counterpart, tends more to being a professional lobbying organization. Having written for UNESCO, I'd have to say its publications are a mixed bag, with political concerns even making their way into its more scholarly publications.

As to the second, I've always followed the view that when

WP:NOR opens by saying "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" it was referring to article-space. Policy pages and other pages in Wikipedia-space are the product of internal development by Wikipedia editors and are not stringently restricted to avoid Original Research. That being said, you have a point that this argument would be stronger if the distinction were defined in other sources. I'll do some digging as time allows. --SteveMcCluskey (talk

) 01:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A quick check turned up a number of interesting articles, including this abstract to an article that I can't freely download: Collier, Charles W. (1992). "Intellectual authority and Institutional authority". Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. 35 (2). Taylor & Francis: 145–181. The abstract follows:

This essay offers a defense of ‘intellectual authority’ [my "expert authority"], primarily by pointing out the untoward implications of its conceptual opposite, ‘institutional authority’, in a wide variety of contexts. An opening discussion explores conditions for the possibility of intellectual authority in legal, humanistic, and aesthetic disciplines. Social science literature documenting and describing the biasing influence of institutional authority is then canvassed and analyzed in some detail....

Since I found these so easily, I think we can document the priority of intellectual or expert authority in scholarship without too much trouble. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is just the kind of source I had in mind, it would be interesting to read it; and yes, I misapplied the concept of WP:OR, using it as a lazy abbreviation for "something you have thought up by yourself, rather than something that has been discussed and documented in reliable sources". Sorry about that. For the moment, I continue to be of the opinion that the authority of the individual is generally less than, and indeed often derived from, that of the institution. I'm also, for the moment, unconvinced that it would be helpful to try to incorporate the distinction in our sourcing guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Further digging shows there is a large amount of recent material on this subject in the legal and sociology of science literature that deals with the nature of intellectual or expert authority, some of it comparing it with institutional authority. Sorting one's way through the many subtle distinctions in the literature to make changes to

WP:Policy would require more time than this concept merits at the moment, and would probably be controversial if it were attempted. I'm going to put it aside for now. SteveMcCluskey (talk

) 19:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's an interesting question and well worth thinking about. Thank you for raising it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm in dispute with another editor at

I'm trying to bring reason to bear on Francesco Racanelli, but also to restrain my inclination to delete most of the content as pseudoscientific nonsense. So I'd appreciate the opinion of others on the sources, which are:

1. The Ancient Massage Foundation
2. this article, which I can't see
3. this book, which I can't see
4. this essay on scribd

Are those sources reliable for basic biographic details such as his place of birth or nickname? And are sources 1 and 2 reliable for this passage:

In Italy, Racanelli inaugurated the first zetetic research relating to animal magnetism and involving a doctor.[2] After having been examined and studied from every angle,[2] Racanelli managed to overcome all stages inherent in rational scepticism.[2] The findings of the aforementioned study revealed the presence of an “amazing fluid”[1][2] combined with “surprising curative properties”.[1][2]

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why no reply here? Sources 1 and 4 should be removed. Source 3 is unclear. Outrageous claims are being attributed to Source 2 and a quotation should be demanded. If Source 2 really says that, it is a notable claim that should be stated as a claim. Shii (tock) 08:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

At Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Quote from two nobodies an editor states that these authors and this publisher are not "notable or expert or influential" or "distinguished" enough to have this quote (or anything else?) included in Wikipedia.

Andre Azevedo Alves and Jose Moreira state that Huerta de Soto is one of the main economists of the Austrian school and that he has written the "most complete and integrated analysis of the theories of banking" of the sixteenth century Jesuit School of Salamanca.

Reference: Andre Azevedo Alves, Jose Moreira, The Salamanca School, from series "Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers",

ISBN 9780826429827

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 12:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say fully reliable for citation within their field of specialisation. Both authors have published in the Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia (available through JSTOR), and the publishing house is a reputable academic one. Whether the sentence you quote is an asset to the article is a different question entirely ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] In my simple thinking, the publisher contributes works that appear likely valid reliable sources. The publisher was taken over by Bloomsbury for 20 M pounds (source). Sounds like a serious publishing house. Two academics specializing in the Salamanca School (based on the title of their publication) published their work with this publishing house. They make a statement that is traceable. Text shows links the quote to the source. Looks verifiable and reliable to me. Rwos (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This really is not a RS disagreement at the article. There's no question that these two individuals wrote those words. The issue at the article is whether to include the opinion of the two authors, a graduate student and a junior non-notable academic. For this WP article about noted academic Jesus de Soto we should cite opinions of individuals whose expertise or stature is commensurate with the claim. There is no reason to deny the source, but the content is trivial and undue. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, when you insult the source as "two nobodies" in your section header, the RS issue looms larger than any thing else. It's hard not to see this as a POV deletion given your expressed distaste for for certain Austrians in which category you place Huerta de Soto. Yet you are willing to use Gary North, who you otherwise despise, to criticize Huerta de Soto. And massive WP:Undue amounts of criticism from another source. I guess your pov pushing/editing warring really only can be addressed properly elsewhere. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that User:Specifico clarified this is not a WP:RSN issue, have added it and other things to the long list of POV problems on this article in yet another new section at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:Undue_criticism_issue_vs._Wikipedia:BLP.23Balance. Thanks for your help. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is

Excuse me if I misunderstood the point of your mocking the authors! Plus I only added as one of several examples of

WP:Undue criticism vs. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance which I was doing anyway. Dispute resolution says bring issues elsewhere if no one else is responding to dispute between two editors. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽

18:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:HEAR Please take a breather. SPECIFICO talk
  18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason academic books are more reliable is that they have undergone

Blackwell Publishing. It is fairly common for a professor writing a book to be assisted by a graduate student. The statement by Alves and Moreira writing in a textbook should be seen as an unquestioned expert opinion - it is how experts see the book. TFD (talk

) 20:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, there has never been any question as to the opinion of the authors regarding Soto. We have this published source in which they state their own opinion. The prominence of the authors is of no importance as to whether we accept their statement of their own opinion. The prominence of the authors is, however, a key factor with respect to any decision to cite their opinion in an article about Soto. It would be helpful if you could tell us the names of the experts who see this book as unquestioned expert opinion? Because there is no RS question in dispute here, I suggest this discussion be copied and continued on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind, this is a textbook. Textbooks are written to explain subjects not to present the views of the authors. If a textbook says a book on a topic is the most complete written, one expects that statement to be true. Otherwise, one would expect it to be qualified by "in our opinion." If you think their statement is false, and there are false statements in even the most reliable sources, then you should be able to find another source that says so. TFD (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I would not call this a textbook in the colloquial sense, but that's not the central issue. Whatever the form of the book, I think we agree this represents -- not to imply anything pejorative about it -- an opinion, judgment, preference, or other personal viewpoint, stated by the authors. A very broad statement without explanation, qualification, or citation, has little meat on the bone. I have studied the subject in some detail, as I know you too may have done, and I will state that there are other, more widely respected scholars on the School of Salmanca discussion of banking: Murray Rothbard and Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson for starters. At any rate, once again, I don't see any RS issue here and I invite you to continue the discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO. You often have mentioned your having weighty academic credentials and made it clear you think a number of economists are crackpots; you thus have to "correct" their articles, but in effect remove evidence they have credibility. Wikipedians don't let themselves get intimidated by alleged credentials or allow a such an editor to violate POV policy with impunity. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Spotted on the blogs this morning:

In doing a little research today, I noticed that the Wikipedia pages for Charles Richet and Cesare Lombroso both include the same claim: that each man had a sexual affair with medium Eusapia Palladino. The source of this claim, in both cases, is the book The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero, a sensationalistic volume that also claims Houdini's death was actually a murder plot organized by spiritualists under the direction of Arthur Conan Doyle! [9]

I request permission to remove this source from about 2 dozen Wikipedia articles which use it as a citation. Shii (tock) 03:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Prescott is a quack spiritualist who moans at anything anti-spiritual, Prescott believes ectoplasm is real, his BlogSpot is not a reliable source. He believes the fraud medium Eusapia Palladino was genuine so obviously he is going to criticize any skeptical material. He has not even read the book he is moaning about. The book The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero is a reliable source and is used in some references throughout Wikipedia on spiritualism. It is well known that Lombroso and Richet were in a sexual relationship with Palladino. Other references can confirm it. Doubter12 (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is some more information on Prescott [10] as I said he not a reliable source! Your rant does not belong on Wikipedia. Doubter12 (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What sort of reply is this? You think I didn't know I was quoting a blog? First you attack the blogger's character, and then mine. Is this supposed to be a "rational" response to my "rant"? The Houdini book seems to make some outlandish claims, and I think it needs closer scrutiny. Shii (tock) 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's go back to the specific claim being made. Here's the citation the book uses for the claim that psychic researchers had sex with Eusapia Palladino: "Eric Dingwall to James Randi, October 10, 1979. From the archives of the James Randi Educational Foundation."

Pull up the Wikipedia article on Eric Dingwall, and what do we see? Go take a look for yourself. Is this letter to Randi good enough to make this claim downright factual? Shii (tock) 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Shii it is well known that Michael Prescott is a spiritualist crank, who cares what he says? He is very desperate to vandalize Wikipedia and import his spiritualist POV, he even told some of his followers on his blog to get involved in Wikipedia and delete criticism of various mediums including Palladino! Are you one of his regular blog posters on his "spiritual" blog? If you believe the source is unreliable I can delete it and add another source? I still don't understand why you are taking Prescott seriously. Doubter12 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me put your mind at rest Shii, I have deleted the references to the book. I will find some other reliable sources. Doubter12 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to wonder, is this your attitude towards all people who offer constructive commentary about Wikipedia? You dismiss them as "vandals" if they don't match your religious views? Are you not aware that one of our most longstanding rules is "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? I'm not going to investigate your edit history or anything, but your attitude here is really worrying. Shii (tock) 14:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What religious views? I have not called anyone a vandal, I am asking why you are taking the words of a crackpot seriously? [11] You are obviously a long time poster on Michael Prescott's blog. I already told you Prescott is not a reliable source, he is a fringe thinker spiritualist who also has intelligent design beliefs. I have deleted the reference to the book you/Prescott have moaned about. Doubter12 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I belong to a traditional religion, I find much of Prescott's writing to be superficial and unscientific, and neither of those facts is relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to examine challenges to articles no matter what "side" they come from. A spiritualist saying our coverage of spiritualism is erroneous -- that's a good thing. We benefit from that criticism, because we can examine the content of the criticism and rewrite the article instantaneously. The irony of linking to RationalWiki on Wikipedia's own reliable sources noticeboard apparently escapes you, as you've done it multiple times now. Shii (tock) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw this issue was raised at

"an opinion published by a reliable source" -- sorry, what does this mean? I don't think every outlandish statement in every mass-market book needs to be in an article. I recently had a discussion about

WP:WEIGHT which suggested that even academic publications don't belong if they are making extreme claims. Shii (tock)

22:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridding the article of sources that make extreme claims and outlandish statements is certainly a worthwhile discussion the involved editors can pursue on the article's Talk page, since many sources (such as "Revelations of a Spirit Medium" etc.) will likely be affected. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is currently two RfC's concerning the use of sources at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is a realtor's web site [12] considered a reliable source for house prices? I reverted an edit from an IP editor [13] that quoted a realtor's site, which they they re-reverted [14] claiming that they are verified by the Multiple listing service. --Drm310 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... I've got a number of concerns about this suggested content change by the IP.

WT:RS

archives (I was amazed to discover).

• I don't actually have reason to doubt the accuracy of information hosted on a web site of a sales office associated with a large real estate firm like Century 21 Real Estate, especially when that information is independently verifiable by competitors. The website states at the bottom "MLS® System data provided by The Saskatoon Region Association of REALTORS®, copyright© 2012". So, I don't have reason to doubt that the information stated on the website "Average Home Sale Price, 2012: $298,280" is correct.
• The first serious problem is that the proposed edit would make the article state "an average dwelling value of $298,220" which is not correct. The website cited doesn't give the average dwelling value, it gives the average home sale price, and they're totally different things.
• The second problem is that it leaves the 2006 City Planning report (not available online) to support "with an average family income of $67,170" alongside 2012 data. The way the sentence is constructed it would place this 2006 government data alongside the 2012 MLS data inappropriately. If we're to use the 2012 MLS data, at the very least the sources and dates for each piece of information need to be specified.
• The third problem is that the way the edit is done introduces an
  WP:INTEGRITY
  problem, with both cites at the end of the sentence and you can't tell which parts of the sentence are sourced to which refs.

The edit proposed by the IP cannot stand as-is, but if it were changed to something like "A 2006 city planning report described the neighbourhood as middle-income area, with an average family income of $67,170, an average dwelling value of $251,560 and a home ownership rate of 77.7%.(sourced to 2006 city planning report) According to MLS data, the average home sale price in 2012 was $298,280.(sourced to website)" then that might be closer to acceptable, although there'd be a question of whether it's appropriate use of primary source data. Zad68 17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Small note: Website actually says "$298,280" and the IP edit said "$298,220", probably just a typo but needs to fixed. Zad68 18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a new editor with limited understanding of

WP:RS and basic syntax. They ended up ruining the original named citation with their edits. I've now split off the sale price into a separate sentence and restored the rest. Hopefully that will settle it - thanks for your input. --Drm310 (talk

) 18:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted an article on a Russian computer science conference/symposium for deletion. One of the two editors for the page have submitted a few links that may or may not be usable. If they are, they would be a big help in showing notability. The issue (other than them being in Russian and my using Google Translate) is that I can't really verify how reliable the sources are. Both are from online newspapers in the IT world. The big problem is that I can't verify what the editorial process is. The second link does have mention of an actual editor, whereas the first doesn't seem to. The problem with the first one is that it looks like the type of place where anyone can submit a tip, although I don't know if this means that they write the article or the tip giver does. You can kind of see the issue here. In any case, here are the two links: [15] and [16]

The first one has no editorial control that I can find, the second one has an email to contact the editorial team so that seems OK to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Aggie80 is making a statement about Wikipedia being too inclusionary by creating a stub article for every individual listed on this web page. Can that site be considered a reliable source for the creation of this many articles? Andrew³²⁷ 01:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to use another source. It was split out by districts so it was convenient. I'm sure I can find multitudes of sources for the list of names. Actually, Wikipedia has a number of lists with red Wikilinks. And I was actually surprised at how many of the stubs were already Wikilinked to existing pages.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(

RS. Political Graveyard has been discussed here before without a consensus whether or not it should be treated as a reliable source. I only noticed the new articles because I'm trying to clear the backlog of dead end pages. Would you be willing to add at least one wikilink to each stub you create? It would save time for other editors. Andrew³²⁷

02:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a question of notability, not RS, doesn't it? It may be helpful to refer to Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you can find non-trivial coverage in a couple independent sources, I think it's fine to assume that the person deserves an article. Andrew's suggestion to add more wikilinks is also a good one. TheBlueCanoe 02:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The notability issue is sort of the whole point. I was firmly slapped down when I suggested some politicians that had stub pages weren't notability just because they were elected to a state legislature. It was clearly conveyed that I was not experienced enough to make that decision and told that the individuals are presumed to be notable because of that under

WP:POLITICIANS and that one reference was enough. So I'm trying to make a dent in the 80,000 or so missing state legislature. Or they change the criteria. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk

) 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

that number you give explains exactly the reason why we have this rule: would anyone prefer 80,000 AfD discussions? DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not concerned with the notability aspect right now. I've seen a bunch of the stubs and found sources in JSTOR and Google Books that more than satisfy

WP:GNG. I honestly don't have the time to add sources to all of them. My only question is whether or not the Political Graveyard is reliable as the only source for an article. Andrew³²⁷

04:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

For the information that it would be used to support, I think this is fine and uncontroversial.TheBlueCanoe 03:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am no longer watching here. If there are further issues, ping me.--

WP:FOUR

) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm trying to get more feedback about reliable sources for the Starcounter Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Starcounter

I was in a help chat with +Huon and he suggested that I ask a question here, specifically about the 451 Group blogs. Are these an issue? If so, can someone explain why? These analyst blogs are extremely reputable in the tech industry so I'm confused as to why they would be a problem. I would appreciate any insight on this and/or other sources listed.

Thanks!

Rachelamarshall (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)rachelamarshall

Commonwealth realm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is a speech made by Enoch Powell, 3 March, 1953, in Westminister against his govenments' Royal Style and Titles Act a reliable source that "The term realm was formally used with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and was adopted for the modern royal styles and titles"? There is a discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm#Powell on the Royal Titles Bill. Also, since neither the act nor Powell use the phrase "Commonwealth Realm", is it relevant to the article? TFD (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As "realm" is not used as a proper noun here, but a common noun, and simply means a place with a monarch, I do not see exactly what the problem is. If a nation of whatever type describes itself as having a monarch, then it is a realm. Sources are not needed for ordinary nouns. Collect (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The question is not what "realm" means but how the term is used. For example, Canada and each of its provinces have always had a monarch, but it is not clear when it became a realm. TFD (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please explain the importance of the point in time for Canada and other countries in connection with the specific question as put above. Qexigator (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to explain the importance in order to justify including it in the article. TFD (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify to what "it" is referring - which is not self-evident from the way you have been replying and asserting, which seems inadvertently to create ambiguities or equivocations, making it difficult to follow your sometimes elusive reasoning. And to whom is "you" addressed? Is it everyone else except your own goodself? Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

--Given that per Dominion

1_"Over the decades after 1930, the British dominions each became independent of the United Kingdom. Those that became sovereign constitutional monarchies within the Commonwealth of Nations and maintained as their own the same royal house and royal succession from before independence became known after 1953 as Commonwealth realms." and

2_"In English common law the Dominions of the British Crown referred to all the realms and territories under the sovereignty of the Crown.]]",

is that being contested here, directly or indirectly? Also, is the question raised here applicable to the content in the second and third columns of the List of Dominions[42] which represent that in 1953 Canada and six other countries "Became Commonwealth Realm"? Qexigator (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

See

WP:THREAD: "When you reply to a statement, you should use one more colon than the number that appear in the statement you're replying to." The statement in Dominion is unsourced and not a reliable source for this article. The problem is that you there are no sources to support what is in the article - it is just original research about what "Commonwealth Realm" means and how it came into use. TFD (talk

) 16:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

'The problem is that you there are no sources to support what is in the article ... original research about what "Commonwealth Realm" means and how it came into use" '. I am afraid that leaves what you are asserting no clearer, and you fail to answer questions seeking clarification to see what it is you are complaining about without making positive input. Not helpful. Qexigator (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that except for say for the statement that Commonwealth realms are realms that are members of the Commonwealth, none of the sources provided for the article are about Commonwealth realms and the whole article is original research. I suggest you read

WP:RS which explain why relevant sources are required for articles. TFD (talk

) 17:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Using a dictionary is not "original research". Really. Collect (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Powell argued that that the wording of the Royal Titles Act 1953 incorrectly recognized the nations in allegiance to the Crown as separate realms, while he believed they were one realm. Could you explain how your dictionary definition resolves this? When for example did Canada become a realm? TFD (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Like all the others, except the realm of the kingdom of England, later the united kingdom of Great Britain, at one time it was a colony/dominion/dependency not a separate sovereign realm, now it is. Of course, it would be unencyclopedic to develop an argument in the article in the way Powell's speech did. Qexigator (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What year did Canada become a realm? TFD (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need this information? Qexigator (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Delusional?

The published website for the Queen, and the report of the debate in Parliament (UK) on the Perth Agreemant legislation, use the term Commonwealth realm: TFD's objection seems to imply that the Queen, or her Royal Household, and her cabinet ministers, are delusional about this. Even on that supposition the phrase is indisputably being used. Qexigator (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I said above, "except for say for the statement that Commonwealth realms are realms that are members of the Commonwealth, none of the sources provided for the article are about Commonwealth realms and the whole article is original research." (17:45, 4 July 2013) The published website of the Queen says that Commonwealth realms are members of the Commonwealth that share the monarchy, and enumerates them. But the rest of the article, saying when each realm became a realm, citing various laws and usages that are often primary sources and none of which refer to "Commonwealth Realms" is original research and has no place in this article.

To return to the original posting, the comments by Powell say nothing about Commonwealth Realms and therefore have no place in the article.

TFD (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sea draws some statistics on ocean temperature from [43], a Santa Barbara City College online course page. Is this a reliable source? It is from a college course, but I'm also not sure that it has the editorial oversight of a textbook, etc. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I would not use it and it is certainly not the best source because we cannot tell where they got their information. TFD (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wusun lead section (current):

The Wūsūn (Chinese: 烏孫; literally "Grandchildren of The Crow") were either a Turkic speaking[1][2][3][4][5] or Indo-European speaking[6]...

Cited sources for Turkic-speaking claim:

1. Jila, N., "Myths and traditional beliefs about the wolf and the crow in Central Asia: examples from the Turkic Wu-Sun and the Mongols", Asian Folklore Studies, V65, i2, p161, 2006.
2. Denis Sinor, The legendary Origin of the Türks, in Egle Victoria Zygas, Peter Voorheis Folklorica: Festschrift for Felix J. Oinas, Indiana 1982, p. 240 verweist auf den Nachweis von O. Franke Beiträge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen Zentralasiens, Berlin 1904, p. 17-19.
3. 王明哲, 王炳華 (Mingzhe Wang & Binhua Wang): 蘇聯的烏孫考古情況簡述. In: 烏孫研究 (Wusun research), 1, Ürümqi: 新疆人民出版社 (Sincan Halkyayınevi) 1983
4. Zuev, Yu. A. (2002), Early Türks: Essays on history and ideology, sayfa 35.
5. Wolfram Eberhard, Çin Tarihi, Ankara 1947, sayfa 33.

Cited sources for Indo-European claim:

1. "Zhang Qian". Encyclopedia Britannica online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 28 October 2012.

1-5 (Turkic claim) are very dubious and I think they are unverifiable and unreliable sources. Indo-European claim cited an article from online version of Britannica:

• ...Seven years later he was sent on another mission, this time to the Wusun, another Indo-European people living in the Ili River valley north of the Tarim Basin...

Are these 6 cited sources are reliable for those specific claims (both Turkic and Indo-European)? I don't find anything about 1-5 and I need to know your opinions about the reliability of Britannica's article for this claim.

My opinion: None of these cited sources are specialized sources for this case and claims.

talk

) 11:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where did you come up with that conclusion, but citation 3 is definitely written by an expert Chinese archeologist who spent considerable time on the study of Wusun (the caveat being that the author is only summarizing his findings of Soviet Union's archeological studies on Wusun in the source cited)...Unless you meant to say that Chinese/Soviet Union's archeological research on the matter is deemed invalid by majority of Central Asian academics. Jim101 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the claim that the "Turkic speaking Wusun" is unverifiable, I cite page 186 of citation 3 (Wusun Yanjiu as referred in English publications): "By the second half of 19th Century, Russian scholars had already conducted studies on Wusun. [La De Luo Fu, Chinese transliteration of Russian name] and [Er Li Si Tuo Fu, transliteration] viewed Wusun as Turkic speaking ethnicity at the end of previous century. Between the 1920s and the 1930s, majority of Soviet archeologist, represented by the viewpoint of [Bo En Tuo Tan Mu, transliteration], believed the Wusun possibly belonged to the Indo-Iranian speaking ethnicity of the Indo-European language family..." All it took me was 5 minutes of Google search. Jim101 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Article: A questioner at the

Source: The reference is given as "Awakening the Silent Soul: Treating Eating Disorders From the Inside Out. Jennifer Nardozzi, PsyD" - the Ref Desk established that this is a workshop/oral presentation[44], not a published work.

Content: The statement in the article:

Just as religion influences addiction counselling, it has also influenced other therapies. Some eating disorder therapists argue that bulimia and anorexia are caused in part by "spiritual emptiness, recognized as “hunger” of the soul", in which women who face "isolation, emptiness, pain, fear and a profound sense of disembodiment" become an "empty vessel, devoid of life" which needs to be filled with comfort-giving food.[14] People who have an "empty self" may try to "fill up on food, excitement, substances, relationships, [or] consumer products".

Question: If this can't serve as a source, what should I do? Remove the entire paragraph? Thanks, 184.147.144.173 (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a health realted claim, and the source does not even come close to meeting the requirements of

WP:MEDRS. Deletion of the entire paragraph would be justified, as it is extremely unlikely that adequate sourcing will ever be found for this material. It's patent BS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 11:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't want to comment on the validity of the statement itself. But if the source is not adequate, there we go. I've taken it out diff/ Thanks for your help! 184.147.144.173 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Barma, Sukhbilasa (2004) Bhāwāiyā: Ethnomusicological Study Global Vision Publishing House ([45])
2. Article: Kamarupi Prakrit
3. Content:

   "Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of

   North Bengali

   ."

4. Issues:
   1. The quote from the source is: "Based on the materials of the Linguistic Survey of India, Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay has divided Eastern Magadhi Prakrit and Apabhramsa into four dialect groups (1) Radha-the language of West Bengal and Orissa (2) Varendra-dialect of North Central Bengal (3) Kamrupi-dialect of Northern Bengal and Assam and (4) Vanga-dialect of East Bengal." (p101) (emphasis mine)
   2. This is a misquote from Chattopadhyay's tome, "The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language", where Chatterji is referring to "Kamarupa dialects" of the Magadha Apabhramsa. The tree that Chattopadhyay draws of the Apabhramsa dialects is faithfully reproduced in Tomlin's 2006 thesis on the
      Kamatapuri lects ([46]
      , Fig 7.3, p302).
   3. The misspelling in Barma is used in the article
      Kamrupi dialect
      .
5. Can the quote from Barma be used to make this claim?

Chaipau (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a chance someone might take a look at this? Chaipau (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 01:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections to the points raised at

talk

) 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Acording to another user, Blabbermouth is reliable to the point that it is used as a reference by other reliable sources. I don't see it as unreliable. What happens is that the website mostly posts material based on other sources - much like Wikipedia. Most of their news come from other magazines, radios, press releases, etc. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 23:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

So its about as reliable a source as Wikipedia? Something like this doesn't credit any source, yet claims to be reporting Nielsen SoundScan figures? And it's a blog run by only one person, who has admitted to getting rumors "half right or not at all" ([47]), so how does it have a reputation for "checking the facts" or "meaningful editorial oversight" (

talk

) 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. My main concern is actually the number of articles in which me and other editors have used it as a source. The addition of Blabbermouth.net in the list of bad sources would result in many articles having it removed and, whenever possible, replaced with the original source. In case there isn't any credit, than the source will have to be removed, and I fear some articles will become candidates for deletion for lack of good sources, and, well, that would be too bad. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to prove that Blabbermouth is untrustable, you'll have to indicate at least one concrete post by Blabbermouth which is refuted by some other more reliable source. I haven't seen any information distributed by Blabbermouth which is proven to be inaccurate. The main concern is the good faith of it's editors, but as Victor said, the posted material is based on other sources.--

talk

) 09:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No I don't. I have to cite the relevant guidelines to show that it is a questionable source, which I clearly have (otherwise, what's the point of having

talk

) 14:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As I posted

WP:QS applies either. While you use a partial quote taken out of context, "getting rumors half right or not at all", here is the full quote, in context, showing that the site does put in the effort to check its facts: "Whenever I hear a rumor about a band, I do some digging around to see if there is any truth to it. Since it's usually very difficult to get any kind of confirmation on these things, I often have to make a judgment call and decide whether or not to run a story based on the available information (which at times could be very limited). Most of the time, the rumors turn out to be correct, but there are those occasions when I only get it half right or not right at all. When that happens, I make it a point to run a follow-up item either quoting a band representative refuting the original story or simply informing the readers that the information contained in the previous article was incorrect and hopefully offering some newly confirmed correct information (if possible)." That looks to me like the editor (Bori) puts in the work to prevent posting incorrect information, and will retract the article or correct it if it does end up being incorrect. Certainly in the small handful of cases where the site gets it wrong, if another source can confirm that the Blabbermouth article is wrong, then that source should be used instead. But this should be done on a case-by-case basis, instead of simply deciding that Blabbermouth is not reliable at all. MrMoustacheMM (talk

) 22:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it a blog? (It's not; it's a news site.) Bori is the editor, he's the one who provides the editorial oversight (as users can submit news stories, but he would be the editor deciding if that information should be added). Again, nothing you have said has shown that this is not reliable, and I notice that you could not refute anything I said above.

Also, do not edit other editors' comments. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A personal website with reverse chronological (unauthored) posts. So user-submitted news stories? (

talk

) 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see that it's a "personal website". Look through the CD reviews, there are plenty of other authors besides Bori. The site may have started out with just him, but there are obviously more contributors now. Also, the fact that it is hosted by Roadrunner Records, and not, say, Blogspot.com, shows that it is more than a "personal" website.

And yes, other people can submit news stories, which are then added after going through editorial oversight. In other words, they aren't just added as soon as they are submitted, but rather added after an editor (Bori) adds them (again supporting the fact that this site passes

WP:RS

).

So we can show editorial oversight, we can show that the site has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and while you continue to claim this is a "blog", it isn't. It passes

WP:RS, it is reliable, and I really think it's time to move on to more productive things. MrMoustacheMM (talk

) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a "blog of Roadrunner", it's hosted by them. You still haven't shown that this is a blog. Your only arguments appear to be: it lists its posts in reverse-chronological order, which many news sites do; and that the author of any one article is not named, which many news sites do (see [cbc.ca cbc.ca], many of its articles do not have an author named, yet it's not a blog, and is a reliable source...also, it presents its articles in reverse-chronological order). You haven't proven that this is a blog, whereas I have shown that it clearly passes

WP:RS. MrMoustacheMM (talk

) 18:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the posts have authors; what news sites have posts, let alone reverse-chronological posts? Where does cbc.ca not credit an author? ([48])

talk

) 02:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a few minutes to look at the Canada news page, and you'll see several news articles do not have specific authors. Also look at what news is currently being posted on there; you'll notice that it is current information (not articles from 6 years ago mixed with articles from yesterday and January and 3 years ago). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dan asked me (a randomly selected RSN regular) to comment on this question.

The website is being used to support statements like these: Mustaine, who went on to found Megadeth, has expressed his dislike for Hammett in interviews. He said Hammett "stole my job." This clearly is a contentious, even potentially libelous, statement about a living person. It is also used to support fairly uncontroversial statements about activities by the organization (the band).

According to our policies and guidelines, a reliable source has these characteristics:

1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
3. It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
4. It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest.
5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as
   editorial oversight or peer review
   processes.

So in short, I would definitely not accept this for BLP-related statements. It is possible that the source, although weak in some areas, would be barely good enough for relatively lightweight and non-controversial statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this look like Judas Priest take Blabbermouth seriously? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it seems reasonable that using it for BLP claims is a bad idea, and should not be used then. And it sounds like for non-controversial statements, it can still be used (although if another, better source exists, it should be used instead). Does that sound about right? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. And like I proposed before, it doesn't have to be removed from each article. A

talk

) 04:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, sounds like we've got a general consensus here for its use. I've added a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources pointing here (which I guess will have to be updated once this moves into an archive), take a look and modify as needed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether a source is considered reputable and reliable within its own field should matter. Within the heavy metal scene few would question that Blabbermouth is well established and one of the leading sources of news. Consensus should not be hard to find on that point. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

According to whom is it a leading source of news in the heavy metal scene? Blabbermouth has barely any third-party coverage, which was one of the reasons I originally questioned it as a reliable source, particularly at a BLP (and FA) article like

talk

) 18:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit late into this, but here are my thoughts on the issue (I contribute to this noticeboard every once and a while):

1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Reputation, I don't know, but it is frequently cited by other reliable sources, including info that would fall under the BLP category on Wikipedia: Rolling Stone, Billboard, Alt Press, Metal Hammer, Revolver, Consequence of Sound, Noise Creep, Pop Matters.
2. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). - hosted by Roadrunner Records.
3. It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. - This would depend on individual articles.
4. It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest. - No problems here as far as I can see.
5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as
   editorial oversight or peer review
   processes. - A little sticky here. It certainly has a professional structure, but it's unclear whether all of the news, both authorship and editing, is handled by Krgin. If it is, this presents a bit of a problem, since no-one else would oversee Krgin. Reviews are fine, since they often are handled by staff and outside contributors overseen by Krgin. The user contributions I think are fine as they seem more like news tips, since Krgin actually writes and edits the content.

My conclusion: Blabbermouth.net is reliable for general news, but with BLP info it should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Reviews certainly are fine. Finally, if the story is found elsewhere by a more established agency, that agency takes preference. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't the BLP guidelines apply to band members and not the band itself? In other words, if Blabbermouth makes a comment about the style of Metallica's music, that is not a BLP statement, while a statement about Lars Ulrich would be a BLP statement.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How is Roadrunner Records a reputable publishing house? If a record label is the host, and the site deals with music news, there's no issue of COI? None of the news posts are authored, but we should assume it's all by Krigin, who has no credentials in music or news reporting? Don't services such as AP credit their source of info? A post like this doesn't. I don't think unauthored, reverse-chronological news posts with scattered boldface seems professional either, and there's essentially no third-party coverage of this source (would it even be used as much as it is if

talk

) 02:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you paid attention to any of this discussion at all? After a very lengthy discussion in which other editors, including myself, have addressed the points you brought up, you are still making the exact same argument that you started with. Why did you even bother bringing this here? You seem to have already come to your conclusion before even bringing the discussion here, regardless of the opinion of other editors. Unless you actually develop your arguments further in light of what other editors have said, there is no point continuing this discussion.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not cool, bro. My questions are valid.

talk

) 12:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

They were when you first asked them, but you keep asking them again and again, even though myself and other editors have already answered them. But I'll answer them again to make you happy:

There is no COI issue, anymore than any other publisher would have with the authors they publish. All that Roadrunner Records does is host the site, they don't influence the content. Of course Roadrunner Records will promote Blabbermouth.net, as all publishers promote the works that they publish.

The posts with no author credit can be considered to be Krgin's. As for Krgin's credentials, that hinges on how respected Blabbermouth is as a source.

Your statement that there is no third-party coverage of Blabbermouth is false. I already listed Rolling Stone, Billboard, Alt Press, Metal Hammer, Revolver, Consequence of Sound, Noise Creep, and Pop Matters as sources which use Blabbermouth to get their info. Now, if by third-party coverage you meant sources talking about Blabbermouth itself at length, that is not crucial to this discussion. Reliability is different from notability - whether Blabbermouth.net deserves an article is a separate issue from whether it's a reliable news source.

I don't know what you hang-up is with "reverse-chronological order." How does that affect Blabbermouth.net's reliability at all?

The scattered boldface argument I don't understand either. I've seen other sources use highlighting on band names and similar things.

I think that's all of the points you made, please let me know if I missed one.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"I don't know what your hang-up is with "reverse-chronological order." How does that affect Blabbermouth.net's reliability at all?" – I have to agree with this, despite being shown above that other news sites also post their news in reverse-chronological order (which makes sense, so that the newest news is the first thing you see visiting the site), you seem to think this is somehow a bad thing. Can you explain why it is a bad thing? And should we then be disallowing other news sites that do this? (CNN, CBC, Reuters, etc) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The

talk

) 08:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree: If Krgin is Blabbermouth (which other than the reviews seems to be the case), then he would fall under a self-published source.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topiclist/Indian-people-of-Bangladeshi-descent Source
2. Article: Bangladeshi Indian
3. Content: "Notable Indians of Bangladeshi descent" and "Below is a list of prominent Indians of Bangladeshi descent".
4. Issues: It cannot be ascertained as to the purpose or the author of the list. There is also no certainity of the list being ever published in the actual newspaper, The Economic Times. It comes across as a personal opinion of one author and as such, I doubt the reliability of it.

Shovon (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see any confusion here as the source (official website of The Economic Times) clearly states "Indian people of Bangladeshi descent" and lists some notable figures under it. Surely, the list is not created by an ordinary reader rather by the staff of that newspaper.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there any possibility of anyone looking in to this? Shovon (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I doubt that this list is a mirror of the articles listed under Category:Indian people of Bangladeshi descent. Not only does the name and number of items (25 in each case, if we exclude "Bangladeshi Indian") match, the entry "Asit Sen (director)" in Economic Times prove that it is a pure copy of the Wikipedia category. Even for Category:British people of Bangladeshi descent, the Economic Times maintain a mirror page [49]. Surely this is a case of circular reference and therefore can't be considered a secondary reliable source. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that it looks like a mirror of the category. Regardless, since it is a list with no provenance indicated, it is not a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 01:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

See

It's a religious tome, on the same level of reliability as the Ussher chronology.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not by a long shot. It's a religious work, not a historical one. Religious geneologies are seldom factual. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's usable within context. This is being presented as the traditional religious account, and the sources given are sufficient for that. That this is the traditional account, and not a scientific historical geneology is fairly obvious to me, but it might be well to say so. It is important that we have this information, sourced as the tradition sources it. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  That's true. Doug's question was whether this source would support the presentation of the information as factual. No, it wouldn't. It's a primary source on the tradition, and allows us, without comment or interpretation, to say what the tradition says about these genealogies. Andrew Dalby 08:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The article in question,

It seems legitimate to me. There is an article about them in the Huffington Post.[50] According to their website, there is no fee to present a claim to them, only a $20 fee for a copy of a certificate. Of course holding a record with the company does not mean one holds the world record, only the company's world record. Someone could hold a better record but chose not to register it with the company. The company is a reliable source for whom it has assessed to hold its record and so long as we are clear on this it does not seem to violate rs. TFD (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Colour me "dubious." The "Book of Alternative Records" was published by "John Blake" which does not, on its face, appear to be a major RS publisher at all. The author includes some of his own records <g>. Absent a reliable real secondary source, nope. Collect (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Collect. At best, we can say that "person X holds a Record Holders Republic World Record for Y". This really isn't any indication that the 'record' receives any general recognition. The Huff Post piece seems to be using Record Holders Republic as a source for trivia more than anything more definite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

To judge by TFD's useful quote, this site does not claim to certify real records, only claims made to itself. Are those claims notable? I don't see any reason to think so. So I don't see any reason why we should mention it. Andrew Dalby 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Record Holders Republic "records" do not require independent verification. Propose a stunt/challenge, perform stunt/challenge, send in some paperwork = record. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Or pay 100 quid plus travel expenses to get a famous head-balancer to come and watch you do it? They deserve marks for trying it on, they really do. Obviously not reliable, in my view. Is there a consensus here? Because if so there are a dozen or more articles that will need some attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable, even just on the face of it. I think there's a consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I made some edits. But this seems to be a fairly large tin of invertebrate burrowers. What about this one? Or indeed this one? Does this deserve any different treatment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This one [51] is considered a reliable organisation as per this article RecordSetter. While [52], [53] and [54] do not even have articles about them in WP. I think an article can not be approved if its based only on links of such sites which do not have an article about them in WP. But I think information based on links of such sites can be added as an additional information in articles if those have reliable news paper or other references. --Musicindia1 (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced that having an article in this wiki makes the RecordSetter any more reliable than the others. Anyone else have an opinion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like some advice. Does any of these:

• Grad, B., Cadoret, R. J., & Paul, G. I. (1961). The influence of an unorthodox method of treatment on wound healing in mice. International Journal of Parapsychology, 3, 5–24.
• Grad. B. (1965). Some biological effects of laying on of hands: A review of experiments with animals and plants. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 59, 95–127.
• Grad, B. (1976). The biological effects of “laying on of hands” on animals and plants: Implications for biology. In Schmeidler, Gertrude (Ed.), Parapsychology: Its relation to physics, biology, psychology and psychiatry (pp. 76–89). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

pass muster as a reliable source for a statement that "scientific research into animal magnetism has also been performed in this century"? Has any one of them been cited in an article in a notable peer-reviewed journal, for example? The titles of the publications suggest at first sight that this is unlikely, but I'd appreciate some input from others. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say all of those are

WP:FRINGE topic. Gaijin42 (talk

) 19:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The three articles you mention have been cited 89, 126, and 28 times, respectively. However, a more accurate summary would be "B. Grad wrote three papers related to the subject between 1961 and 1976." You don't want to risk making the fringe claim that the field is a part of science. Andrew³²⁷ 19:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Most helpful, thanks to both. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been doing some assessment on watch project articles, and I came across g-shock. There were several citation needed tags, so I googled the phrases and added references. The main one is this timezone article http://people.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml631728462093125000 but user Dr-K flew through removing the references replacing them with cn tags. In the talk page he requested I provide credentials for the author. The timezone source was used for this text

around the triple ten concept, the concept for a watch that has a 10 year battery life, is water resistant to 10 bars, and can survive a 10m fall, 200 prototypes were tested by dropping them from rooftops, or third story windows^[5]. It's shock resistant design has 10 layers protecting the quartz time mechanism, the major ones being the urethane rubber outer bumper protecting the steel watch case, the stainless steel case, the hardened mineral glass watch crystal, the stainless steel screwed down caseback, and the "floating module" concept where the quartz mechanism floated free in a urethane foam cradle, with things like the outer buttons, and LCD module attached with flexible cables, with the buttons mounted to the watchcase, rather than the quartz module.

, as well as referencing that the DW-5600E is space qualified by NASA. I'd also like to Dr-K to provide credentials for all the authors of all the books cited in the featured article on Operation Charnwood, and credentials for all websites cited in featured article SheiKraTeeTylerToe (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some of that info (the triple ten) can be found here: [55] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't provide credentials for Ryan Thompson either.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• You don't need to. He was published in the reliable source.. Timezone may or may not be a RS. men's health is a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

By what standard? Do they fact check? Do they print corrections? Do they have a reputation for accuracy?TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. I'm starting to sense that you're not really interested in improving the article as much as you're interested in being right. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I provided you with a source that has been accepted many times on Wikipedia, in an attempt to assist you, you've been nothing but adversarial. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• timezone.com is a source that has been accepted many times on Wikipedia. This is the first time I've had to defend a source against another editor demanding that I provide credentials for the author of an online published article. I don't know any of the "rules". I don't know why mens health would be a good reference, or why it would be a bad reference, I don't know why timezone would be a good reference or a bad reference. From my point of view, there's no reason Dr K couldn't demand me to provide credentials of the author of the menshealth article if he can demand that I provide credentials for the author of a timezone article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not Dr. K, so whatever battle you're having with him, keep it between you two. Men's Health is an actual magazine available on newsstands everywhere. As a general rule of thumb, print publications usually meet RS. There are exceptions of course, like World Weekly News. You can also use the search feature here to see previous discussions about it. Just because a source has been used on Wikipedia doesn't mean it actually passes RS. It may very well mean that nobody has challenged it. Regardless, I've tried to help you and have no intention of "defending" what is clearly an RS. Good day sir. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• On the homepage of menshealth, under "today's highlights", is "the ultimate beach-body workout"... What if it ISN'T the ultimate beach-body workout? What if there's a better beach-body workout? And is that title really better than "unbreakable"? Is there no reliable source with a title that employs hyperbole?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently I wasn't clear. I tried to help you, but you want to argue with me about some stuff between you and Dr. K. I'm not going to defend what I clearly know to be correct just to feed your need for dispute. I will not be responding further to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• As Niteshift explains, an actual magazine is usually considered a reliable source. A magazine by virtue of being an organisation with paid staff which controls the material being published is better than a single enthusiast who publishes his opinions on his own website. The organisation which controls the magazine has quality safeguards and editorial standards which make it credible to its readers and the general public. Such safeguards are lacking or at least are not apparent in a website published by a single enthusiast who titles his article "Unbreakable", a clearly POV approach to publishing. Having said that, if my explanations are still not enough I am not interested in continuing explaining this further because I think the matter has
  counterproductive. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις}
  16:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

here I have just been told that the use of academic articles for an incident in 2002 are "academic crap which make up stories long after the incident" That the acdemices are "conspiracy theorists" That sources such as Princeton University Press, Oxford & The Johns Hopkins are "biased academic crap" And rather that use any academic sources we should use newspapers from the period which covered the incident. I would like a few editors to pop over and explain which sources are the better here on Wikipedia. BTW this is what was removed in favour of PRIMARY sourcesm opinion pieces, and newspaper reports from the time of the incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure this is best handled as a straightforward black/white policy issue. At a first reading the discussion could be improved by both sides not treating the other's position as more extreme than it is. It is clear that concerning recent events, academic sources are not always automatically the best, or in any case do not always give a full picture as per

WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 09:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not really a recent event Andrew, and it has been covered extensively by academic publishers. The article before I tried to fix it had as sources primary documents, interviews for statements of fact, sources from the period of the incident. These are not good sources by any stretch of the imagination. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Article

talk

) 09:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? So I am pushing a POV because I am using the best sources available? Why do you not point out where exactly is it I am pushing this POV, name one thing POV about my edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I for one do not want to take a side in this discussion. I simply mention that both sides in the discussion are using words that do not give much chance for discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines along with User:Dlv999 are inventing a new guideline in wikipedia that we have to only use academic sources and that also western academic sources neglecting what tenured Indian scholars or columnists have said. I will not say that the sources are partisan but they are cherrypicked sources as evident by his various recent page move requests. The Legend of Zorro 09:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Rally? Where did anyone say that then? And guess what, a lot of the sources I used are written by Indian scholars. Please do not say I have said something when I have not. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am saying it per my experience. Either Western authors or a highly select group of self identifying leftist Indian historians. The Legend of Zorro 10:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think talking about specific sources and the claim made by them would be more useful. To start with, which sources do you feel are self identifying leftist Indian historians? Rahul Jain (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the only reason you are here is stalking the edits of

this section. The Legend of Zorro

10:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Even that sections says All opinions are from either Leftist historians or western scholars. Can you name one or two sources which are leftist historians placed in one of the recent edits on the article

2002 Gujarat Violence? Rahul Jain (talk

) 10:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat difficult to do Andrew as all the other guys are saying is that the academic sources are crap. They have not even brought any sources to the table, just screaming that I am pushing a POV. Funny how it is always me pushing the wrong POV and never them Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources will normally be reliable for this article, although they may need balancing. If you want further comments you will need to be more specific. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Judith, if by balancing you mean putting in opposing viewpoints I have been doing that, all one has to do is look at the work I have been doing in userspace and that, I hope, will be obvious. I have spent around six days reading and finding the best possible sources for this article, I have spent hours searching for opposing views, the problem is the only opposing views are from the same people who orchestrated, or at the least allowed the attacks to carry on. Click on the extended content, those sections I believe are more or less wrapped up, the rest is still being researched. I would appreciate any feedback on the content I have written, I have worked damn hard on this and have done my best to show both POVs. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at your version and it looks very useful work, thanks. You may still need to defend the sources you're using. It's better to raise the questions here one by one rather than en bloc. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Now if questions had been asked I would be able to do that, but all I am getting is the familiar mantra of "POV POV POV" See this thread, four/five times I asked what was wrong with the content, only one thing was put forward which was instantly disproved. That was the end result of discussions yesterday, one supposed POV issue was was easily refuted. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to work line by line and be prepared to discuss every change on the talk page. If you think existing material is poorly sourced you can come back here. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A site hosted on

Mr. Pucci's blog might qualify for the "expert exemption"... but why rely on him when we can cite directly to Neilsen for the viewing figures? That would be a much better (more reliable) source. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I had thought of this, but wasn't exactly sure how exactly a direct citation to Nielsen would be formatted; perhaps the report citation template is most appropriate. Any other suggestions? Holiday56 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is

The ADL is being used as a source for (a) Shabazz's birth name and date of birth, the fact (b) that he established Black Lawyers for Justice, (c) that he promotes antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theories, and (d) that the ADL considers him an antisemite. The article has nine other sources—including The Final Call—that are used a total of 18 times. I don't see what the problem is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the source in question being used "liberally without caution", but rather carefully, in a balanced way, and I also note that the article incorporarates a variety of other sources as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, because i edited it out. Obviously user Malik Shabazz does not see the problem, but let us just agree then, that does not mean there is not a problem. ;-]--Inayity (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

ADL is a reliable source for facts and for their own opinions. As long as we distinguish between the two, it should not be a problem. TFD (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Are these two posts reliable sources?:

• Alaska Business News
• Denver Business Journal

I believe they are basically press release reposts being used in a very controversial area, where much better sources are available. Another editor alleges they are proper secondary sources. I believe that this source is indeed reliable. I have a disclosed COI.

Hoping to get more input. See related discussion here. Also note, I have annotated the article with Better source needed templates where I believe press releases are used as sources in the controversy, though I certainly know there are enough reliable sources to author a substantial body of content that are based on secondary sources.CorporateM (Talk) 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Many newspaper articles especially about business are based on press releases. While the press releases are not rs, the articles are because the newspaper has made a judgment on how credible the press release is. OTOH, we are supposed to use the best sources available, which would be business sections of major newspapers or national business journals, which often would have a legal correspondent who would have read the legal documents. If major news sources do not cover the case, then it becomes an issue of

neutrality. Generally if these sources ignore a story then it is hard to justify inclusion for a story about a company with a high national profile. If you think that any of the information in the articles is inaccurate, then you can compare them with the written agreement, provided it is available. TFD (talk

) 13:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

State press releases are not "best source" and the source you proffer is, indeed, a better source. The "written agreement" is, of course, a "primary source" on Wikipedia. I notice the NYT ignored this particular case. Collect (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the subject-matter expertise to contest the facts. I think you are right, that it is actually a neutrality complaint, because my issue is that the material is written from the plaintiff's point-of-view, since it is written on the basis of the plaintiff's press releases. The "more reliable" source certainly carries a much different (and more neutral) tone. And I'm sure press releases from PCH would be equally bias. It is also a substantial body of material sourced to mediocre sources, creating a very overt weight issue.

Anyways, I have proposed on Talk that the paragraph and five bullets should be replaced with a couple sentences based on the "more reliable" source[60]. Does that seem like the right approach? CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the press may not be neutral and it is possible they cannot be neutral because they select which stories to cover or ignore, and whose opinions to include. But the neutrality policy only requires that we reflect what sources say. So any lack of neutrality in the media will be reflected here. I will comment further on the talk page. TFD (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• . I think its usable. They're not a RSf for notability purposes, but they're a RS for the material they include unless contested by better sources. But as CM says, there are probably better sourcesi n this area, so why not use them? DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, the lawsuit is very small ($3.5 million) and the only available sources are a few brief blurbs - that is for this 2010 lawsuit specifically - yet we have an entire paragraph and five bullets devoted to it, where a sentence would do. A few editors have pointed out that it is actually more of a weight issue, so I may have taken it to the wrong board in that regard. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the WP:RS aspect is just one component of several. Second is actual reliability with respect to the items which cited it. Actual reliability is a total different topic than being a wp:reliable source.....to its credit this noticeboard usually addresses that as well. Finally, two more question are whether the material is wp:undue, and whether it summarizes what in the sources. The two noted articles I believe meet the letter of wp:rs but, if as you say ( I did not immediately see that/ look into it) , they are basically based only on press releases from the plaintiffs, then I would consider their actual reliability in discretionary areas (wording, spin, choice of emphasis) to be low. The source that you provided at first glance looks pretty good. But I would also deal with this at a content level, not just source credentials. E.G. what is the statement in question? Is it a summary of what is in best available sources? Etc. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the content in question:

CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to respond to this, but this is a lot more simple to determine. If a press release is an RS, then these are fine sources. My general understanding is that press releases are not considered RS. Just because a media outlet decides to use a press release as an article, does not make it reliable if there is no original reporting involved. It is very easy to determine if it is just a reprinted press release, just take the first paragraph, copy it and google it. If you can find that on multiple sites, they did not even bother to do anything other than just print a press release. Which is the case in both of these sources. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There's been a large number of mass edits to BLPs by

It does appear that it is a RS for WP as a whole (of course, BLPs are a special case), albeit one that you need to treat with more caution than most (i.e. evaluate on a case-by-case basis). There have been a bunch of discussions around the subject,[61][62][63][64][65][66][67] but this is perhaps the most pertinent (as it is relatively recent and had a vote):

• Time to axe the Daily Mail (Oct 2011) Support 4, Undecided 1 , Oppose 5.

John's expanded WP:BLPSOURCES point was this: "

The result has been the removal of notable but not contentious points in the Sally Bercow article. Along with some points that shouldn't be there; I'm not pretending that everything they've done is wrong, just that the points have not been considered on their merits. If that's happened on the Sally Bercow page, it's likely happened somewhere else (i.e.

Other examples are John's removal of content because it had a Daily Mail reference, when 5 seconds of searching found a BBC cite to replace it and Hillbilly's removal of a source written by the person in question. These were examples I found quickly (i.e. they were both found in the first articles I looked at).

There seem to be two issues (please feel free to edit this if I've got the format/process wrong). Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay to use it for non-contentious statements?

Things like confirming middle names and other non-contentious material. Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, BUT - define contentious. The positive, neutral or negative wording is used to exclude material that may or may not be, in the public sphere, contentious (such as middle name, or something you might think is harmless), but which an EDITOR on WP may doubt is correct. The editor who removes has an obligation to state what they dispute, otherwise you are free to assume they have no such dispute. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis for contentious statements?

Things like detailed interviews with the subject, especially when directly quoted, vs. Daily Mail statements about immigrants. Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is RS for almost everything other than likely slander or libel - thus almost all factual claims are pretty solid in the DM. It is not all that good for "Hilda Gnarph has secret love child by Prince William" or the like. Investigative reports on MP spending etc. have been shown to be accurate, and there is no real reason to disparage it as a source for such matters. Collect (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Collect. At the very least it will often be useful. As a general remark I would add that I believe there is wide consensus on WP for the fact that reliability in sources can be very context sensitive. Of course there can be special cases, but normally it is not going to be widely acceptable to delete things just based on the source being used and no discussion about the case. This newspaper is not quite that bad!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• It meets rs and should be treated no differently than any other newspaper. In general however one should use broadsheets and if they do not cover a story, then consideration should be given whether it is significant. TFD (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• In links to past discussions you will see me arguing the same position as Andrew and TFD here. But my view of the DM has shifted somewhat - after consulting it more frequently. It is a tabloid rather than mid-market. If apparently factual content is only in the DM then it is likely to be gossip, unless it is part of a major investigation. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)_

Agreeing with opinions given above, I'd put it like this: it is legitimate, and often a good idea, to replace a citation of the DM with a citation of a "broadsheet" such as Telegraph, Times, Independent, Guardian, Observer. It isn't legitimate to remove material sourced to the Daily Mail just because of the sourcing.

The Daily Mail has enviable reach (as shown by the fact that Judith is consulting it more frequently!) Which means that any worthwhile story it prints is likely to be taken up by those other papers fast, and their reports will make better sources in the long run. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• No - I support its wholesale removal from Wikipedia articles. We tolerate poor fact checking more than we should, but when newspapers move on to story fabrication (which we caught the Daily Mail doing in the past) that revokes RS status in my eyes. If something is worth mentioning then just find another source. Enough is enough. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns Itsmejudith and Betty Logan, but keep in mind that asking for case by case discussion, and being against wholesale deletions, is not the same as saying we should in fact use the DM for any specific purpose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. We've "caught" even the
  New York Times in story fabrication (Jayson Blair); evaluate case by case for contentious material (though with a bias towards exclusion, especially of gossip). --GRuban (talk
  ) 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Totally agree with this. "Evaluate on a case by case basis" is a good rule for evaluating the reliability of all news sources. Even solidly respected news sources (BBC, New York Times, etc) can be deemed unreliable in certain cases... and even the least respected sources (National Enquirer, New York Post) can be considered reliable in certain cases. Sure, there may be more instances where the Daily Mail ends up being deemed unreliable when compared to other news sources... but that does not mean it is always unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: the United States Supreme Court Specifically, in footnote 8 of United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 (1980)(6-3 decision; dissent did not dispute law in footnote)

2. Article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

3. Content: I want to say in the article:

The United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 n. 8 (1980) that the Miller case held "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Appellate courts from 1942-1997 concurred.

I've been told that I may not mention the Lewis case in the article in any context.

4. Context: United States v. Lewis , 455 U.S. 55 (1980) [68] was a case in which the Supreme Court found a conviction of a defendant who had no attorney may still be the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by a criminal sanction. The court also found in footnote 8 that this legislative restriction on the use of firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.

Footnote 8 is provided in full below (emphasis added):

"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines , 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson , 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States , 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied , 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment)."

The debate over whether to include Lewis in the otherwise lengthy article comes in the context of the question of what the law was in 1980. I contend the Supreme Court believed in 1980 what they said they did, as did the 11 circuits of the United States Court of Appeals from 1942 to 1997 who said the same thing or used even stronger language. See, e.g.:

Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942);

United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1997); Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1993); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1978); and

United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)

The opposition to including this information claims the Supreme Court and these eleven appellate courts are unreliable sources. Instead they claim the decision was "ambiguous" in these years because some commentators (although no court decisions) say so. (I'm fine with including the commentators' opinions, as long as they are stated as opinions and not fact.) The opposition also claims that the Lewis case cannot be cited because it did not primarily concern the Second Amendment, even though some of the appellate cases did. They also contend that because the Supreme Court disavowed Lewis 28 years later in 2008 that the Supreme Court's holding in Lewis regarding the Second Amendment cannot be mentioned in wikipedia. I contend that in the context of an article purporting to be about the history of the interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is OK to state what the law was in 1980 and for 60+ years.

[Although this is a more a NPOV issue, I should note there is a plenty of room in the article. The Second Amendment article focuses at extensive length on one-sided opinion while editors have expressly refused commentators who disagree with this opinion to be represented. There is also extensive 17th Century and 18th Century history prior to adoption of the Amendment and a little bit of 19th Century as well. But the 70 years from 1939-2008 are played down in a brief poorly sourced paragraph at the end of the article that editors have not allowed, after extensive talk page discussion for more than six months, to mention Lewis or these appellate cases. I contend the actual 20th Century law is at least as relevant as the pre-Revolution commentators to the history of the Second Amendment and that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the appellate courts in those years are reliable sources for what the law was during these years.]

We've reached an impasse. Please advise.GreekParadise (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court's comment in Lewis is relevant information on how the Justices of the Court viewed the Second Amendment in 1980. It is not completely authoritative, because as has been noted the Second Amendment was peripheral to the case (in lawyerspeak, the comment was dictum rather than part of the holding of the case). If there were a more relevant Supreme Court case from that era to cite about the Second Amendment one would cite that one instead, but (to the best of my knowledge there isn't). So I think it is permissible to mention the case, but the fact that this was a comment in a case primarily about another topic could also be mentioned. To call a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States an "unreliable source" as to what the law was as of the date of the decision would be to go too far. And to say that because the law has changed since 1980 means that the law as of 1980 can't be mentioned, would be to say that Plessy v. Ferguson is a candidate for deletion, which cannot be correct. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with Newyorkbrad's assessment, the concern that seems most salient to me in this instance is no

OR. Is there possibly a secondary source that makes note of this decision and the comment in question? siafu (talk

) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of them, including the American Bar Association here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/u_s_supreme_court.html, but they have rejected all my secondary sources including some I consider reliable such as the New York Times and the Library of Congress as "unreliable" so I thought the safest bet was to quote the decision directly itself.GreekParadise (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court Footnotes largely come in two varieties: citations and explanations. Citation footnotes simply cite a source that was referenced in the main text of a document and are rarely employed by the Court. Analysis of the modern court’s use of footnotes is difficult because most Justices do not write their own opinions. In the Lewis case footnote 8 refers to another case that supposedly refers to Miller. The problem is that quoting this footnote, as an excerpt of Miller gives a distorted view of Miller. The Lewis opinion did not argue the 2nd Amendment or Miller as this was not a 2nd Amendment case. As Scalia pointed out in Heller:

Miller was briefly mentioned in our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), an appeal from a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The challenge was based on the contention that the prior felony conviction had been unconstitutional. No Second Amendment claim was raised or briefed by any party. In the course of rejecting the asserted challenge, the Court commented gratuitously, in a footnote, that “[t]hese legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller … (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Id., at 65–66, n. 8. The footnote then cites several Court of Appeals cases to the same effect. It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued.

The secondary sources, given by GreekParadise, do not comment on the case or its meaning but rather just quote the footnote. Trying to present it otherwise is

OR. Grahamboat (talk

) 04:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing a primary source is perfectly ok, a secondary source is never mandatory. All that needs to be done is to present the footnote as it is written without any explanation or expansion on what the footnote means. If it is stated in a neutral fashion of what the footnote says it is not a violation of OR. I don't know why some think simply using a primary source means its OR, to take a primary or multiple primaries and come to your own conclusion is OR. Simply stating what a primary source says is not.Camelbinky (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If an issue of law mentioned in a court case is essential to the decision then it becomes a precedent and is binding on future courts. If it is not, then it is

original research to interpret court decisions, we should rely on secondary sources. Unfortunately this whole article relies far too much on primary sources, i.e., court cases. TFD (talk

) 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)