Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 154

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

Archive 150

←

Archive 152

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

→

Archive 160

Over the years, apparently unhappy with the figures from the US Census quoted in

, a number of editors have tried to add other numbers, an order of magnitude larger that the Census figures, showing that there are more Azerbaijanis in the U.S. than the Census reports. Mostly these figures have come from obviously biased sources with a mission to promote the interests of Azerbaijanis, and have been removed for that reason.

The latest attempt is sourced to the a survey done in 2005 by the Iranian Studies Group at MIT. While the ISG describes itself in this manner:

The Iranian Studies Group at MIT (ISG) is a non-partisan, non-profit, academic organization with the aim of promoting Iranian civil society through conducting research on issues related to Iranian native and expatriate societies. Our research projects focus on the cultural, social, economic, and political development of the Iranian society. By actively publicizing our findings in a format that is accessible for the community at large, we aim to bridge the gap between research, public knowledge, and policy-making.[1]

it also says:

ISG is recognized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Association of Student Activities

which means that it is essentially a student organization.

I'd like some opinions on whether this organization should be considered a reliable source, and on whether the online survey behind the numbers is legitimate. The Survey Team consisted of two PhD candidates, a sophomore, and an "undergraduate", and their Advisory Group consist primarily of "Community Activists" and POV organizations. My feeling is that the survey does not appear to be academically rigorous, and probably should not be considered to be a reliable source, so I've removed the material from the article, until a consensus is reached here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do any reliable publications site this census?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

this source used

Iranian American. Iranian Azeris over have 200,000 population in America, but 40,400 Azeris from 378,000 Iranian in America (Census United States in 2000) who volunteer say WE ARE IRANIAN. sorry there is Anti-Iranain sentiment in America, and many Iranian in America example Azeris for discrimination they hide their identity.--91.99.133.112 (talk

) 12:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but did any publication other than Wikipedia ever use the source under discussion? This can help us determine how strong its reputation is. Please do keep in mind that all we want to try to do is summarise what is well published, so this is nothing about be "anti" or "for". We just want to judge the publication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not found any reliable sources which have quoted the study, only Iranian interest groups. I;d be interested to know if anyone else has. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1207915/Rehab-drinking-Courtney-Love-Owen-Wilsons-overdose-Steve-Coogan-confesses-all.html.

This is regarding Steve Coogans personal life, and the quote is for when he entered rehab. I understand that a gossip tabloid isn't reliable and goes against the BLP rules, but if the individual person has no problem being frank and openly provides and discusses such information, isn't it reliable as a source. It isn't being intrusive or spreading a claim, it is reporting a fact, and isn't inappropriately discussing thr persons life, as they have spoken publicly about this themselves. I'd appreciate the input. Thanks - Jak Fisher (talk) 01:57, 21 August, 2013 (UTC)

The issue here isn't reliability, but appropriateness. Not every 'fact' merits inclusion in a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But these "facts" are included in many articles on wikipedia, a point which you seem to be avoiding. So why aren't they appropriate then, if they are mentioned so often on wikipedia. - Jak Fisher (talk)

See

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. On what grounds are you arguing that this particular material merits inclusion in this particular biography? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 01:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Steve Coogan (2). --John (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This does not seem like a case for this forum?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It kind of was, but it has been solved at BLP/N. --cyclopia^speak! 16:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, WP is not considered a

) 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see what he did there. It's actually not even used as a source, but as an example of a page featuring that particular kind of tag. It's kind of harmless in this sense, at a first glance (be free to point me I'm wrong). But it doesn't strike me as good sourcing in general, because it's not a source, just an example link, and a not very clear one at that. If he linked some WP policy about this kind of tagging, it would be better. --cyclopia^speak! 14:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a valid source for the sentence it is attached to :) It is an example of someone using that sort of ORCID, but the cited page makes no comment about how many publishers make use of this form. For example, it could only be Wikipedia using that format. To support the sentence a source is required identifying the fact that "some publishers" use this format. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on finding reliable sources for

) 02:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No, they do not seem to any kind of reputation for accuracy and reliability. And I am highly skeptical of any site that claims to be India's Exclusive Education portal, and displays a picture of blonde blue eyed students. I made a brief web search and found sources claiming tulip, poppy, or none for national flower of Afghanistan, but none of them seemed to be particularly reliable. I suggest leaving it out of the list unless we find something better. --GRuban (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm inclined to agree if no corroborating reliable sources are known. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with some music knowledge care to give an opinion about whether the website http://www.operanostalgia.be/ is a RS? I'm having difficulty finding information about a deceased singer outside of a couple of newspaper obituaries, and this website appears to fill in the biographical gaps a bit. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears to fulfil the basic requirements. It has an editorial staff, does not seem to be based on reader contributions, and – in the two profiles I looked at – appears to cite sources. I see no immediate reason not to use it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing here because I came across an article for PROD, Nowhere Man. Sounds simple right? Well, first I noticed that the article had already been PRODed, so I had to remove that PROD. A look at the claims of sourcing and notability on the talk page showed that a lot of the sources were unusable in one context or another. Many of the quotes were insanely brief and were one-off lines, meaning that they can't show notability as they're trivial sources. Others I couldn't find at all and since the person claiming notability sort of misrepresented the weight of the quotes they listed, there's good reason to suspect how in-depth the other reviews/quotes actually were. I did find some sources, but I also found that the author (John M. Green) has written for a good many newspapers such as The Age and The Australian. That means that of course, any reviews or articles from them would be a primary source. However there is also the problem that the company that owns The Age also owns the Sydney Morning Herald. Does that make any sources from the SMH unusable since they're owned by the same company? I know that when I searched for sources on the sites for TA and SMH, the hit results were the same. I did find what I thought were enough sources to merit an article for Green, so I made that article and merged information from his publishing house Pantera Press into it. I noticed that an article for one of his authors, Sulari Gentill, needed work, so I began cleaning that as well since it looked like a spam article. However I then noticed that she works for ABC, which is one of the news sources that has provided a lot of coverage for Green.

So... the problem here is what, if any, of the sources are ultimately usable? Can we use any of the ABC stuff like this if stuff like this shows that one of his people works for one of the ABC branches? It's a little convoluted, so I thought I'd bring it up here.

10:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I myself would think that other comments from other publications owned by the same company would probably still be usable, unless, somehow, the author is more than a writer for them, such as maybe an editor or publisher or owner. The other sources from the same company would not necessarily have a bias toward anyone who has ever written for them. In fact, I know of at least a few reviews which have been, well, rather nasty toward someone who had formerly worked for that company. Granted, if there is some sort of clear indication that the author of the independent works is somehow personally biased for or against Green, but that is another matter entirely. Particularly taking into account what little I know of Australian publications, I would have to assume that it would be very unwise for us to disqualify all publications produced by a publisher who has previously employed an author based on alleged lack of independence, because by doing so we would probably rule out huge groups of publications. Maybe they could be used less heavily than other more independent sources, but unless the novel was also published by the same publisher, which for all I know could be the case, I would think the reviews would probably be independent enough for us to count as indepent. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

in the article

reference 35 links to a pdf file on the yale website

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

there is only one reference provided on the bottom of page 3 for the entire paper, no author is provided, and there is no Kennedy listed on the faculty of the macmillan center initiative on religion, politics and society Coasttrip (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no way that document can be cited as a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is so much arguing and debate on the ICOC talk page, and for a long time a lot of the links in the ICOC article were dead links. I don't know who is an authority on the ICOC. I don't know if any of the people that have modified the article or posted on the ICOC talk page are ICOC members or not. I am a former member of the ICOC, and to me, the ICOC article is confusing because the ICOC is such a secretive organization that I have no idea who is an accurate source and/or authority on the ICOC. When I first read the ICOC article it had a lot of information that was opinion and unverifiable. A lot of the information about the structure and facts on the ICOC are still unverifiable. Sometimes the ICOC article reads like an advertisement for the ICOC.

Qewr4231 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is some dispute as to whether AnimeCons.com is considered reliable or not for referencing attendance figures. The article that its being used on is List of attendance figures at anime conventions, and is the primary source for the article, referencing the majority of the article's attendance figures.

First of all, the website has a standing policy, to "not list any information which cannot be verified with the event's web site. This includes guest listings, programming, and registration rates." However, the website is also user-edited, and the information can be updated by anyone at anytime without a login, as evidenced at Ohayocon 2008's page which has a Update Information for Ohayocon 2008 link at the bottom of the page. So there is no way to verify if the information listed on the website came from the event's website or if it was just added by by someone else. The website has also not demonstrated a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.--十八 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Any updates made on that website by users need to be approved by the paid workers of that site and a source needs to be provided . Try updating the site yourself with data and with a source, it will say: "We are currently experiencing a rather significant backlog so it may take us some time to process your submission. Thank you for your patience.". They have paid people who review the information there. And all the info there that was approved was not necessarily done by users. it is therefore reliable--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Where's the proof that any of their staff is paid to review the information submitted?--十八 22:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not really necessary that an editing staff be paid, although it would be an indicator of "seriousness". Another approach is to look around and see if other sources cite them in a way which indicates that they have a reputation for accuracy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is reliable, it has been used by animenewsnetwork and about.com--

Priti.shetty (talk

) 17:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I searched "AnimeCons.com" in animenewsnetwork and all relevant results concern only press releases or forum posts. As i can tell "AnimeCons.com" was never used as a source for any less than 10 times between in 2006 and 2010 for news or article in animenewsnetwork. update : i made a more refined search using this search. Sorry my googlefoo is a bit rusty --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I also did the same with about.com and all results concern Comics & Anime Conventions where it's only mentioned in an Elsewhere on the Web paragraph. Again AnimeCons.com isn"t used a source.
Bottom line neither animenewsnetwork nor about.com use "AnimeCons.com" as a source for their news or articles --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I also searched and found that those website do use it as a source: http://manga.about.com/b/2009/01/26/animeconscom-lists-10-biggest-anime-conventions-of-2008.htm .--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

At the best informations coming from the AnimeCons.com staff members can be considered as reliable however this not enough to prove that their users editable conventions database is a reliable source. This is much like animenewsnetwork where staff articles and reviews are reliable while their users editable anime encyclopedia isn't. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Animecons has been used multiple times as a source, as seen by Levi's citations in Cinema Anime. As always, diligence is the best practice. It is a reliable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Which part of the website ? The whole website or just the staff published contents ? --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'll go out and say the reports are RSes because of their fact checking practices, which leads them be cited in academic works. Animecons mentions, "We verify all information with numerous sources (convention web sites, press releases, etc.) before being posted online. Submitting false or misleading information could result in your entire submission being invalidated and future submissions being ignored." It is quite clearly checked and regardless of whether or not a user can submit content to the site, things must be vetted by the staff prior to changes being made. Animecons holds an archival and historical purpose with a clear fact-checking focus that denotes it as an RS. For Knowledgekid 87's issue, see below. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• The question is what's make their database more reliable than the ANN encyclopedia or MyAnimeList as all rely on users contributions ? The point being that i have the very bad feeling that in the future some editors will argue that ANN encyclopedia or MyAnimeList are reliable sources using the very same argumentation. --KrebMarkt (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The fact it is cited and has editorial controls shows that it is a credible source in the eyes of academica. Just because users can submit information doesn't make it unreliable by nature. Huffington Post operates in an even looser manner, and Fox News, despite being a major news agency can make errors without being called unreliable. As someone who researches anime and manga, I can clearly state that not every line in our RSes are correct. With my pointing out of Dani Cavallaro's error in Castle of Cagliostro being the most recent "on-wiki" fuss I've made. The barrier line for me is "freely edited" versus "editorial control". If some information is contentious, we go from that on a case-by-case basis with official values presented as accurate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• A pity that we don't have access to the sources backing the informations in Animecons database. Unlike ANN encyclopedia, we won't have the chance to facepalm when finding an information citing Wikipedia as source (which happen way too often). --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but the official con tally is what is used. Take Anime Boston 2008.[2] "13,248 paid attendees (14,339 warm bodies)" and how that is different from the estimations of media. With 15,000 being the estimation in various places.[3][4] Most of these media ones can 404, but they are typically archived by various places. Though in Anime Boston's case, even if not cited on how they got the value, please check the Anime Boston cite for that.[5] So, is it your ideal, no. Probably not any researchers ideal citation sourcing, but with a few minutes of research one can typically find an estimate or the official tally. I see no reason that it places Animecons as an unreliable source - some of the arguments seem rather nitpicky when you look objectively at the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would prefer to point directly to the original source whenever possible. Because we don't have access to their sources, we can't asses the quality of their "editorial control", unfortunately. I think we (wikipedia) have grow too dependent to Animecons as a source thus questioning its reliability is like asking for a tidal wave over the conv related articles. --KrebMarkt (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think that animecons.com is unreliable take in case AM², animecons.com marked it as cancelled with no other sources stating this as fact nor the primary source saying anything about it. It is dubious at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

But Animecons is correct.[6] The Wikipedia article which you linked even cites the ANN source itself. The official website may not be updated, but Animecons is correct and the source comes from the official channels as well.[7] Bad organization for a con, but it not Animecons which messed up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Animecons was correct is the point before any other reliable source said it was and the source from that information was from users. So while it may have been correct the fact is still that the site is updated by user sent information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a bad argument. You first questioned its reliability by pointing out that it was incorrect based on the official website. The official Facebook page and forums say it is cancelled, but not the site, how does that make Animecons unreliable? It is completely accurate. Now that the issue is, because it is updated by user sent information it is unreliable? The editorial team determines whether or not it goes live, and while it has stricter controls than Wikipedia, this seems to be no different than your local paper which will correct mistakes or review information from its readers. If merely welcoming correcting mistakes or taking new information for editorial review is a sign of "unreliablity" than the entire media complex is unreliable by application of that view. I counter by stating it makes it more reliable instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

ANimecons is like a news website e.g cnn, bbc in the sense that they just parrot what other sources say. All their info is based on a source, if the soruce is not reliable they wont put it on their website as stated in their policy. Their info is generally correct and matches primary sources, why not leave it at that?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am the creator of AnimeCons.com. Although we do accept user submissions, we do not post any submissions without verifying the information. If someone sends in a new date and location for a convention, we won't post it unless the date and location is posted on the convention's own site or the date comes from a very reliable source at the convention (like direct from someone we know as the convention chairman...but not from someone who we don't know or is just someone like some random security staffer). Our user submission form is ONLY used to alert us to changes (rather than having to constantly check every convention's site every day for every possible change!) Consider it a "tip". Once we get that information, we'll go to the convention's site, verify it, and post it if it checks out. We reject A LOT of submissions. Often a guest will say they're attending a convention and try to update their profile. That may be true, but we won't post it until the convention itself announces them. Our attendance numbers are from multiple sources including announced at closing ceremonies at the con and one of our staffers heard it personally, a press release from the con, a submission from a reliable staff member (chairman, head of registration, head of PR, etc.), or from the convention's web site. We sometimes get attendance numbers from random people citing no source or Wikipedia and we ignore those. (Although if Wikipedia points to a reliable source like a page on the convention's site that we didn't notice, we'll use that.) We don't publish our sources since about half the time it's submitted from a convention staffer and we don't want to give out their e-mail addresses...but the sources ARE tracked in our database, just not exposed. --PatrickD (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian newspaper said that a recent document of the Holy See "described gay sex as inhuman". The document itself does not make this statement explicitly. Is the newspaper report a reliable source for saying in Wikipedia: "The document said that gay sex was inhuman", as here? Or is it only a reliable source for something on the lines of "a newspaper interpreted the document as saying gay sex was inhuman", as here? See also an initial discussion here. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The document does say "Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life." This follows on from a statement that emphatically makes the point (per the Holy See) that homosexual relations "lack the conjugal dimension" and also are not open to creating life. Thus to is logical to assume the latter relations are not human or "inhuman" as the Guardian states. I'm slightly uncomfortable simply having primary documentary text without a secondary source to add context. Otherwise it srikes me as bordering on original research. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources can make errors. If we say in text "The document said that gay sex was inhuman [footnote]" we are repeating the error: the document did indeed imply that, but it didn't say it. If we say in text "The Guardian interpreted the document as saying gay sex was inhuman [footnote]", that's fine, assuming the Grauniad's interpretation of this text is reasonably widely shared and therefore notable. Or, if other sources say essentially the same, we can say "some/many/most commentators have interpreted the document as saying gay sex is inhuman [footnote] [footnote]". Andrew Dalby 09:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt if many made the same mistake as the journalist of The Guardian who confused "not human" with "inhuman". (Many things are not human, but are not inhuman.) However, notable or not, it is correct, as Andrew Dalby says, to give her interpretation as what it is, without presenting it as fact. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The larger problem here is Esoglou's insistence that secondary sources can't be trusted and that only primary sources (slash his own personal interpretation of primary sources, cough cough) are usable. There's no "interpretation" by the Grauniad, and to say so would be far more misleading than to follow WP policy by using reliable sources; it's just that they recognize that their purpose is not to reprint the Vatican's words verbatim and so are paraphrasing. We could stand to follow that example. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

An article on The Guardian newspaper says that the document "described gay sex as inhuman". There is no need to put either "The Guardian interpreted the document as saying gay sex was inhuman [footnote]" or "The Guardian paraphrased the document as saying gay sex was inhuman [footnote]" Leaving aside remarks about Wikipedia editors rather than about edits, what The Guardian says may well be reported in Wikipedia as what The Guardian says. Andrew Dalby's statement that the document did not in fact say what the Guardian attributed to it remains uncontradicted. Esoglou (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My dictionary describes the word "inhuman" as "Not suited for human needs" or "Not of ordinary human form". Is that not indeed the argument that the Vatican document has made vis a vis gay sex? In which case I can see simply no reason for changing the text as is, and find the discussion slightly baffling ( - and suggest it should have been handled, in the first instance, on the article talk page).Contaldo80 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether you would or would not call the moon or a kitten inhuman, just because it isn't human, you know very well that it is not for us to synthesize a meaning and attribute it to the document discussed. The document does not in fact say what you want to make it say. Esoglou (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No-one has synthesized a meaning have they? I think you could quite reasonably make a statement to the effect that the moon offers "an inhuman terrain". The dictionary definition of inhuman is "not suited for human needs". The document sets out in great detail how sex between homosexuals cannot lead to procreation and is not conjugal and thus it is against the natural order. Gay sex is not suited for humain needs. It is inhuman. The Guardian use of the word seems logical and sensible to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This last comment contains another clear example of synthesizing, on the basis also of a mistaken idea of "the" dictionary definition of "inhuman" (as can be checked here and here). In effect, you are still only proposing the same synthesis that you put forward in your edit of 08:39, 16 August 2013. The document simply did not "say that gay sex was inhuman", which is what you want Wikipedia to state about the document. Esoglou (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is the (mis)interpretation of the source. Roscelese and Contaldo perceive the Guardian article of 2003 (10 years ago), incorrectly as a secondary source. As I have insisted in a similar discussion, some contributors confuse reliability of a source with its classification into primary, secondary or tertiary. It needs to be pointed out that the effects that the source will have on wikipedia will heavily depend on this classification.

Although the article of Rebecca Allison in the Guardian is a reliable source, it is still a primary one, because, according to

talk

) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's Contaldo80, and yes I do. Even if we did not have the Guardian article we would still be justified in making the statement in the article that the document said that gay sex was inhuman. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the word 'inhuman' does not apply. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Will someone please get Contaldo to accept the Wikipedia rule that "Sources must support the material clearly and directly" (

WP:V). The cited document does not clearly and directly say that anything is "inhuman". Esoglou (talk

) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is more or less to determine whether the source is reliable in context. I'm presuming that the article in question is

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, per the link in Esoglou's first comment. Based on what I can see, the source probably does meet the minimal standards for use on the topic, although I personally can't see that the quote, which uses a term "inhuman" in what seems a rather perjorative manner, is one that should be used in the article, as opposed to some other source which more clearly and neutrally describes the document. So, while it probably could be used, I would think that there is another question, whether it should be used, and the answer there is probably no, or, at least, that the word "inhuman" should be used only in late in the article and perhaps, given the dubious interpretation of the definition of the term, in text something like, the document, which describes homosexual sex as "inhuman', considering it does not meet some biological imperatives of procreative sex or something to that effect. John Carter (talk

) 16:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you say in reply to Andrew Dalby's statement that the Guardian is a reliable source in the abstract, but not for the statement that it is cited for? As Andrew Dalby said, "Reliable sources can make errors. If we say in text 'The document said that gay sex was inhuman [footnote]' we are repeating the error: the document did indeed imply that, but it didn't say it. If we say in text' The Guardian interpreted the document as saying gay sex was inhuman [footnote]', that's fine". We do not attribute to The Guardian an infallibility that we do not attribute to the pope. We can only say: "The Guardian says this is the case" or "The pope says this is the case". We can't say: "This is the case" and support the statement by citing The Guardian or the pope.

On second thoughts, I believe this is precisely what you mean, and that you do not support Contaldo's insistence on making the article say "This is the case", rather than "The Guardian says this is the case." Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You simply have not been able to refute the point that the document does describe gay sex as inhuman: ie not suited for human needs. The discussion about reliable sources is neither here nor there. A simple summarising of the Vatican document would support the use of the wod "inhuman". Unless and until someone can demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that gay sex is not being described as inhuman then I see no reason to remove it. I don't see why we only have to use the words found in the document, provided the meaning is the same. This isn't wikisource after all, where we just assemble a bunch of doucments together in one place. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof rests on an editor who wants to insert a claim. You claim that "the document does describe gay sex as inhuman". What part of the document clearly and directly - I repeat: "clearly and directly" (

WP:V) - says that? Your personal "simple summarising" is of course not enough. Esoglou (talk

) 15:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

valid sources?

Are sources from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; [8],[9], Astrophysics Data System; [10] and the American Institute of Physics [11]; [12] reliable? the sources support the statement that "the theory was introduced on some conferences". please see also Talk:Heim_theory#revert_august_17th.thanks for any comments.--Gravitophoton (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would we include a statement that "the theory was introduced on some conferences" in an article? Lots of things are 'introduced' at conferences. What matters (assuming that the conferences were of any significance) is whether anyone took any notice. From a look at the talk page, you seem to be trying to use this statement to imply notability. You can't do that - you need to demonstrate notability by citing sources that report on the conference, and discuss the relevant material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Being introduced at a conference is not something that we should normally use in an article. We also don't use conference papers as a source normally - I just found one being used in that way and asked the author if she had published a paper on it, and she said no and that it shouldn't be used as a source as it was problematic.

talk

) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, it has to be said that for some disciplines (e.g. engineering, if I remember correctly) conference proceedings can have the status that normal journal papers enjoy in most other disciplines. This often baffles many (it baffled me for sure). In physics however, AFAIK, the standard is the usual: peer reviewed journal papers.--cyclopia^speak! 16:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources are actually very clear, could you please be more specific on that (conference proceedings-engeneering ok/physics not?). conference proceedings by the American Institute of Physics seems to be qualified [13],[14]

.

what about the summary of the theory out of: Marc G.Millis, et al.: Frontiers of propulsion science. American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston 2009,

ISBN 978-1-56347-956-4, p.218-221,Heim´s Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion.? it is not any kind of conference proceeding and seems to be valid according to wp-content guidelines. the book (see also this) was authored by m. millis and others and was published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.thank you kindly for your comments so far:).--Gravitophoton (talk

) 07:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive a frank comment: the phrase "was introduced on some conferences" is a large part of the problem. It is slightly strange English, very vague, and doesn't shout "notability". I can propose a theory of mine at dinner at a conference -- or even in question-and-answer sessions at two conferences -- and the fact just isn't worth a mention on Wikipedia. And that's what this phrase sounds like.

But, if this theory was set out in papers accepted at (say) two scientific conferences, and afterwards included in the peer-reviewed conference proceedings ... all right then, if you say that, and you name the conferences, and editors think those conferences are reasonably notable, your claim is more likely to pass muster, I'd say. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

a thousand thanks for making that clear Andrew Dalby. the original[15] edit was: "Since 2001 Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser, professor and former head of the Aero- and Aerothermodynamics Department of the European Space Agency have introduced Heims Theory and their extension on conferences, like the AIAA- Joint Propulsion Conferences, SPESIF and STAIF-conferences". with the above refs. apologies, english is not my first language, i thought it would be ok;)--Gravitophoton (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise! I'd be happy if my comment is at all useful. Since it's not really about reliable sources, I'll add a further comment on your talk page. Andrew Dalby 09:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Article attracts a lot of pov editing. It looks here[16] as though the editor is referencing himself - I can't see anything on the website link and in any case it would have to be attributed. Not sure about the category change either but that isn't an RSN issue. Thanks.

) 09:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not a credible reference as it stands. Google searches of dawateislami.net for "Mumtaz Qadri" and "Akbar Attari" both yield no result. I see you've already removed it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd checked again and between that and the self-referencing went ahead. Glad to see someone agrees!

talk

) 11:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Pakistani Hindus worst victims of rape: US report
2. Article: Partition of India
3. Content:

   A 2013 study by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom found that Pakistani Hindus are the worst victims of rape.

The above mentioned news article (source) cites this report for its claim, which further cites some blogs and news sources, some of which don't even say that the victims was raped. So can it be cited to make such a claim? --SMS ^Talk 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I would like to think the U.S.CIRF actually cross check and check what they write, I would say it is RS, any reason to discount it? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The USCIRF further cites its sources for individual incidents. Like they cite this as a source for one of the seven rape victims. Now this source does not even say that the girl was raped. This source for the second of the seven victims. This again same as the first. Same goes for third, fourth, fifth case. Besides I can only find six cases related to Hindus in the report, though the report initially says seven. How a report such faulty can be considered a reliable source. --SMS ^Talk 21:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read through it, it is not RS at all, it cites various news reports and seems to extrapolate from there, it is kinda crap really. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:No original research does not allow personal interpretations. If you do not trust the US Government report, then find a reliable source that questions its validity.--Pee3.14159 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary, Wikipedia contributors are expected to express opinions on whether a source is reliable or not. That isn't 'original research', it is editorial judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, could I ask this group if these references, this one and this one are acceptable for an encyclopidia such as this. They could not be described as in any way academic? Would it be possible to link this page to article "talk pages" as I had to follow a number of links to get here. --Dr Daly (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't use either of those sites to source material being added to articles. Is there a specific article or specific information that is being questioned or having these sites used to back it up? --Malerooster (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. My concern is the type of references used for an academic based encyclopedia and I'm glad that my thoughts are shared here. Could you also give me some opinion on a related topic. When a referenced source which is clearly acceptable is used incorrectly how should it be approached? I have encountered such a situation on an article I have opted to help improve. --Dr Daly (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You can find a lot of answers to your questions

here. Tom Reedy (talk

) 20:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources being used were added by me and are temporary at best whilst the article which was recently created by another editor gets better sources. Nothing controversial at all in them. Quite curious at this new account not long after another editor tried to nitpick at the creator of it SoS. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If needs be the stuff can be removed as it is not terribly important to the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Though in regards to Abebooks - it is a description of the WST organisation's own annual that they have for sale. How can that not be grounds for a good make-shift or reliable source? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you use a liquor ad as a source for an encyclopedia article about alcohol? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Those who write text on Abebooks often have expert knowledge about books. But at Wolfe Tone Societies Abebooks is being cited, not about books, but on the subject of a (controversial) political society. That's not a field in which we could expect Abebooks to be reliable. Andrew Dalby 11:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses and I share your thoughts and opinions. What would one normally do now on the article with the sources? I've suggested that they be removed and replaced with acceptable references that meet the standards required for this academic encyclopedia. If the person who added them dose not agree with the opinions of this group what would one do? Dr Daly (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Would I be right in categorizing this [17] as a primary source?Dr Daly (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well you talk things through first and foremost.

If the board feel that way, then I am happy enough to abide by their view. Hard to find sources for such an insignificant organisation.

In regards to this - that source was from the original page before it was moved to the current one so no clue who added it. It is a primary source as far as I can tell. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

These are definitely not reliable sources, and I have trouble understanding how they could have been added in the first place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

) 14:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No. From the fabpedigree.com front page: "PLEASE do not treat the information in this genealogy as authoritative. Just use it for hints, and research using some of the more reputable genealogical websites which I consulted." [18] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice that just using the other WP articles, the line agrees at first, but stops at

Dietrich I of Wettin, no 5, though the article here is more cautious re some other parentages. Johnbod (talk

) 15:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Using Facebook as a source, revisited

I know that the archives contain over three dozen instances wherein using Facebook as a primary source has been questioned (and that's just here in this noticeboard), with resulting reactions ranging from a very weak 'meh' to disallowance, but I would like some noticeboard clarification in regards to the Species in Defiance article and its use of Facebook as a primary source for its references.

Quick overview: Defiance is a science fiction tv show that has an MMPORG component; things that happen in the series affect the game, and vice versa. The 'Species' article is a split off the main article for the tv show (not the MMPORG, which presents its own issues in regards to sourcing) and details the different non-human races that populate the series, including appearance, culture, religion, etc.

A problem has arisen in that most of these details are being cited to YouTube and Facebook. Maybe I am reading our guidelines and policies incorrectly. What sorts of situations do we allow Facebook and YouTube to be utilized as primary sources? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding YouTube, it isn't a source at all - it is a website that hosts source material. The reliability of material hosted on YouTube is thus dependant entirely the reliability of the original publisher. Note however that we cannot even link material hosted on youTube and similar sites unless it is certain that it has been uploaded by the copyright holder : see Wikipedia:Video links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay. Can you link the relevant policy/guideline for that? I'd also like some feedback on the thornier of the two sources, Facebook. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Video links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an issue with overreliance on primary sources here too. While episodes are valid primary sources and the question on the facebook remains open, there's still a heck of a lot of pulling from primary sources and likely fails

WP:NOT#PLOT. --MASEM (t

) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel that as well, Masem, but another editor really wants these Facebook references to remain, and has resisted any attempt to remove them. I'm disinclined to make any more reverts, as I think it would only inflame the user. I've tried explaining the matter several times, but

to no avail. Granted, I'm not a tribble when it comes to dealing with unpleasant folks, and I've likely made a satisfactory resolution more difficult to find. Maybe someone else could take a stab at pointing this out in article talk? I'm just there to improve the reliability and stability of the article. Currently, it's going nowhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk

) 17:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding FaceBook, it certainly can't be cited for anything unless it can be determined that the person is who they claim to be (impersonation on social networking sites is common), and the reliability again comes down to the general reliability of the person concerned. Frankly, other than as a source for non-controversial self-published information about the user themselves (see WP:SELFPUB), I can't think of many occasions why FaceBook would need to be cited at at all. Reliable sources generally publish in more formal locations - this is one way we recognise their reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Facebook has many official pages for celebrities, companies and the like. As long as you are using an official page and NOT using a post by others, it could be used to source information on the subject as long as the Facebook page is the official page. Remember that Facebook has a lot of pages that look official but are not run by the subject or company so use of Facebook as a source must be done with extreme caution.--Mark 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, but way that FB is being used here is that different aspects of a given race are being culled from a large number episode summaries of the series. I haven't seen anything resembling a reference proving that the Facebook page is in fact the official page (though it may very well be). I am concerned that there isn't any way to verify the information independent of the Facebook page. As these sorts of show pages are often not static, i am afraid that an article using a lot of Fb sourcing would simply collapse, should the page be taken down. I'd prefer more independent sourcing, since there is also the issue of

advertising for the series. - Jack Sebastian (talk

) 17:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea how this article uses that source, but I will say that using any source online has that same potential for becoming a dead link, which is why offline, book or journal sources are considered more desirable.--Mark 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really - there's a reason we have accessdates on online sources and encourage editors to use webcite to save a cache for this. The issue here more is that the Facebook sources are directly tied with the show, and making them primary, where we rather have independent and/or secondary sources (and really need them here given how much is trying to be covered). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, really. regardless of the tools here that can be used to rescue the source, the fact is, yes, all online sources have the potential to become dead links. If the FB page is indeed an official page, it can be used to reference information on the subject. Sure, secondary sources are preferred but in the case of an official page is not required.--Mark 18:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With new media being mostly online we do not discriminate between online and offline sources - a online article from a reliable website is just as reasonable as a printed source from a reliable publication. The problem with Facebook here is that it is primary and dependent, working on the assumption it is the official account tied with the show. It is okay for some details but not sufficient for WP:V, WP:N, nor

WP:NOT#PLOT. --MASEM (t

) 18:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem, I never said anything about discriminating between online and offline sources. We also do not discriminate against offline sources that many editors seem to think is not fair because it is not immediately accessible to them. All official sites are primary in nature and still acceptable to cite information about the subject..even things that cannot be verified such as a name or DOB. The issue is first determining if said Facebook page is the official page.--Mark 18:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need to determine that as well, Mark. Additionally, I am concerned that information is being cherry-picked from various posts within the article to assemble an overview of a species within the series and drawing conclusions from that assemblage (which seems like

synthesis to me). Is it unreasonable of me to expect that a secondary, non-Facebook source be found to support statements within the article? My feeling is that if it isn't important enough to make an appearance in more reliable sources (like tv reviewers, etc.), it isn't notable enough for inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk

) 18:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that synthesis is a real problem. Although just because you don't find it in other sources does not mean the notability is lacking, although in this particular case you may be right if they have to stitch the facts together like that.--Mark 18:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the big thing with this article, even if you could replace all the FB links with episode links - it is simply far too much detailed to primary, dependent sources. This becomes a fan guide if one cannot show analysis and coverage from third-party/secondary/independent sources (which the few present barely scratch at the details). Notability is a major problem here, and much of this is simply better at a fan wiki that could (possibly) be linked as an EL, but not on WP at this level of detail. (Just as a note, Mark, you said "which is why offline, book or journal sources are considered more desirable" which is what I took as discriminating against online sources. I understand what you mean now). --MASEM (t) 03:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've discovered a three-figure-plus number pages using the Google Maps home page as a reference; and others using specific Google Maps URLs; and others citing specific locations on that site. Please see this discussion, about how to resolve this. If there's a better place to notify colleagues interested in referencing, than this noticeboard, please drop me a talkpage note, and/ or copy this notice there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A discussion of the reliability of a book titled No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident has just been archived in Archive 153. I would like to add these observations to that discussion:

Speaking as a PHD candidate researching the NGR Incident and other similar episodes (committed by ROK or KPA forces), who has read English and Korean documents on this, and visited and spoken to survivors and their families, I can shed some light on this. Contrary to WeldNeck's observations that critcisms of Bateman are based solely on Hanley's personal animosity, there are a number of obvious flaws in the book which render it suspicious. Furthermore, the Bateman/Hanley debate is well known to scholars of Korean War massacres, and Bateman's book is seldom used for a number of reasons, a few of which are as follows:

1. He did not visit or contact any of the victims from the massacre, nor does he consult any Korean government sources. Basic standards of objectivity suggests that this is a rather dubious approach to scholarship. Most scholars who cannot access a foreign language at least have the foresight to use an Research Assistant. In the debate that Hanley describes, Bateman excuses this on the grounds that he has a family, not a lot of money, etc. As a grad-student who is in a similar situation, I can tell you that this excuse would not be accepted by my PHD defence committee.

2. He claims that it is certain that guerrillas were among the refugees. This is a minority viewpoint within the veterans' testimony (in the US ARMY NGR report for example), and non-existent in the victims' version. While it is certainly plausible that fear of guerrilla infiltration was a major motivating factor in the massacre (as it is in the case of most civilian killings), the evidence for the actual existence of guerrillas is weak.

3. He claims without any evidence that the survivors all suffer from group think. Again, since he did not interview any of them, one is left to wonder how he arrived at this judgment.

4. He ignores (or didn't bother to do enough research) evidence of a number of memos, documents, and vet testimonials suggesting that a tacit, if not official, policy was in place by the last week of July to shoot refugees deemed suspicious. Most glaring is the absence of the "Muccio letter" (uncovered by Sahr Conway-Lanz). I would encourage readers to read Sarh-Conway Lanz's treatment of this issue published in the Journal of Diplomatic History. After reading this piece, it is difficult to take Bateman's work seriously, regardless of one's political persuasions. The reviews that WeldNeck refers to were all published prior to Lanz's work. He also does not mention that the 7th Cavalry journal was missing from the US archives, yet he claims that there is no evidence that kill orders existed. This is either remarkably careless scholarship or a deliberate distortion, given that other journals from similar locales were uncovered by the AP team indicating an understood policy to fire on refugees.

5. His low and inconsistent estimate of those killed (35 at times, 18-70 at others) does not appear to be based on any actual findings. While it is inevitable there is debate and ambiguity concerning the actual number of those killed, Bateman in his debate with Hanley comments that he arrived at this number through a "Ballpark" estimate. This is rather careless. In 2005, the "No Gun Ri Incident Review Report" was commissioned and determined the total number of victims to be 218 (150 killed, 13 missing, 55 disabled). This number was arrived at by searching censuses, family registers, visiting graves of families, victim testimonials, and a detailed, multi-step verification process. It has also uncovered the specific identity of many of those who died, and they have been officially registered with the South Korean government. While no methodology is perfect, this is clearly more useful than a "ballpark" estimate.

One of the above flaws alone ought to render any work of research seriously compromised. When taken as a whole, however, it is impossible for an impartial observer to claim that Bateman's work constitutes a legitimate work of scholarship, suitable as resource for an institution as integral to public understanding as Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BW5530 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2013‎

I will reproduce what was on the original post: A discussion is currently ongoing about the reliability of LtCol Robert Bateman’s book No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident

The book is published by Stackpole Books and has been well received. Some reviews:

• Journal of Cold War Studies
• Professor David Sneed Despite these few minor problems, Bateman has written a book that should be a valuable resource for scholars, the media, and the general public. He reveals the pitfalls of drawing conclusions from incomplete investigations and shows how true historical research should be conducted.
• James Irving Matray, The Journal of Military History Bateman skillfully uses photos, forensics, and numbers to make his case.
• Write in Salon.com. Goes into the debate in a fairly even handed manner.

AP author, Bateman critic, and article contributor Charles Hanley claims he’s is not a reliable source for the following reasons:

• He’s active duty US Army
• He was a former company commander in the 2Bn 7th cav (the 2-7 being responsible for the killings at No Gun Ri) in the 1990’s.
• Hanley’s personal observations (not documented in any
  WP:RS
  ) that Bateman’s writing on the subject are error ridden (not surprisingly a charge that Bateman makes about Hanley and the AP team)

I discount (in part) Hanley’s opinion on the subject because he seems to have a real grudge against Bateman. From a SF Gate article about the feud between the two:

Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. The letter is the kind of dark threat that gives free speech experts the chills -- "an effort at prior restraint," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists -- not to mention the fact that in this case, there is a certain reversal of roles. "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable."

I had actually brought this subject up at the

) 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Email as a source of reference

Is it possible to cite emails on Wikipedia? I received an email from a person and I would like to use it as a reference in an article about him. The information I want to add is the date of birth of Mr. Franz Gastler. I know we should only use "reliable, third-party published sources", but no source has such info. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we can't cite an email. Bad luck. If his date of birth hasn't appeared in any reliable published source, the presumption is that it just isn't notable (yet). Andrew Dalby 09:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

NB: I assume from what you say that he hasn't supplied this date on any public web page or site of his own. If he has, that might be OK: we could use that kind of source for non-controversial information about himself. Andrew Dalby 09:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Emails have the problem being something that regular readers cannot themselves access for

WP:SELFSOURCE. As long as usage criteria are met, self-sources such as an official tweet can and have been used for sourcing non-controversial information. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

07:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Right. Only solution is if the e-mail can be published somewhere. In fact, this could even be on webspace controlled by the person writing, or any reliable place. (We need to be sure the e-mail is real.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• good to know that Emails arent a RS. WeldNeck (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a website that has political leanings, but as

instructs "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.", and clarifies "the word "'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings

• the piece of work itself (the article, book);
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work

and even with other occasions where OpEdNews may have been disallowed, I thought to bring the question here as each instance is different, and I am using the opinion of the writer/journalist and not that of the website.

The instance in question

In the article on the controversial film Money as Debt, it was used to source opinions in the reception section:

In his personally written column in OpEdNews, Congressman Kucinich refers to the film as "an introduction to our monetary system," and "one that was "useful, though by no means definitive." In the contested OpEdNews source, Congressman Kucinich himself and personally wrote lengthily about the film. The segment being contested is his intro to the article he wrote, where he himself calls the film, "a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system."

My question: "Is a Congressman's specific and published public opinion quotable, no matter where he offers it?"

Thank you, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps acceptable as an alternate under
  WP:RSOPINION
  :

  In his authored article about the

  opining

  that the film was "a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system."[1]

  [1] ^ Dennis Kucinich, The Bailout and What's Next, October 1, 2008.OpEdNews. Retrieved August 25, 2013.

Opinions please?

• i would certainly try to stay well clear of sources with political bias on any issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• The issue is OpEdNews in this case due to their inherently self-published nature and poor formatting. It's impossible to tell whether that's actually his opinion or a paid advertisement for the film, and we don't need it for the article even so. We should avoid self-published articles whenever possible, especially when the claims cannot be independently confirmed when attributed to a living person. If this were verifiably actual text in the opinion piece, this wouldn't be an issue. It's clearly different in this instance, and we should proceed with caution. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw the question and request this be closed as moot.

...specially in seeing that the

whether the nomination is withdrawn or no.

And while I still feel that guideline instructs that the Congressman's opinion should be citable under

03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said at the talk page, you see a byline and an article, but you cannot verify that the oddly-formatted, advertisement-sounding paragraph that exists only on this source and reprints of it are actually Kucinich's words. That's the problem here. If you can confirm those are his words, my protests disappear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have also not stood over the shoulder of Roger Ebert to personally confirm that he has written any of his words, so what? I see the problem here being now more in your "contention per supposition" and not through your own offering any proof that the bylined article is not that of the congressman. And it does appear that he has authored 83 articles over several years for that ill-judged OpEdNews. A counter-thought here is that IF the many articles there attributed to him were somehow not his, I would think a congressman might have the ability and resources to sue the publisher for impersonation and fraud.

Again, and as your repeated efforts have had the OpEdNews article deleted, I withdraw this question and encourage that this be closed as moot. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any rationale for these sources to be rejected?

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

See relevant discussion: Talk:List_of_massacres_in_Turkey#McCarthy.27s_reliability Cavann (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The first book, Death and exile: the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 is from Darwin Press, which is a general publisher. The author,

weight that should be ascribed to these views. TFD (talk

) 04:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are massacres of muslims in Balkan vilayets being added to an article about massacres in Turkey? bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether this site fits our definition of a

 ]# ▄ 08:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Their "about us" provides some information on the founder and her wish to provide "English-language news relevant to Puerto Rico’s business community, in an all-digital format." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, that doesnt help me much. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be one person's commercial newsfeed. That person seems to have some notability (if the awards are genuine), but gets 0 hits on Google scholar. Personally, I'd use only with the greatest caution, or not at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is run by two journalists and is mentioned as a source of news by Puerto Rico's Development Bank.[24] It would seem reliable to me. However, you have not mentioned the article for which it is being used. Is it being used as a source for an article about a business in Puerto Rico, which is its area of specialization, or something totally unrelated? TFD (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, this website can be used for non-controversial information related to its specialized area of expertise. It should not be used as the sole source for exceptional claims. Andrew³²⁷ 19:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi all,
The

. Is a John Pilger column in Counterpunch a reliable source, or even a MEDRS, for cancer rates in Iraq? The disputed content is:

Iraqi doctors compare the cancer rates (projected to touch 50% in some areas) with the cancer epidemic after the nuclear strikes against Japan, with one US military physicist describing the use of DU shells as "a form of nuclear warfare."

The source is here: [25] bobrayner (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is not Pilger, but people quoted by Pilger, including an Iraqi doctor. The only complaint he can have regarding WP:MEDRS is that Pilger misquoted his medical and military interviewees, though I doubt any evidence will be forthcoming on that front. LudicrousTripe (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. The source is a column written by Pilger. The "Iraqi doctor" did not write the stuff that you keep on reverting into the article, and a polemic on Counterpunch is not a peer-reviewed medical paper. bobrayner (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a view on this? All suggestions welcomed. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're kinda doomed, since one has to cite secondary sources, not primary, or you'll get OR fired back at you. The Iraqi doctors say exactly as the article summaries them as saying: "Iraqi doctors compare the cancer rates (projected to touch 50% in some areas) with the cancer epidemic after the nuclear strikes against Japan". The views of Iraqi doctors and a quote of a physicist in the US military is hardly polemics.

I've still not heard anything as to why Pilger is no good. You obviously

don't like him for some reason or other, but that's hardly germane.
"one US military physicist describing the use of DU shells as 'a form of nuclear warfare.'"—That's a direct quote, not Pilger's interpretation of some paper or other or speculation in lieu of the same.

The crux if the matter is this: in the face of refusal by US–UK to undertake any studies, why shouldn't the views of Iraqi doctors and others be aired? And why shouldn't a Pilger article be used to source their views? LudicrousTripe (talk

) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not just rely on high quality peer reviewed material and leave the yellow journalism (and its interpretation of journal articles) out of the article? WeldNeck (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Iraq, the relevant section of the article, the US–UK refuse to carry out or fund peer-reviewed studies, so how do you propose I do that? And you haven't even attempted to justify your use of the term yellow. And again, there is not interpretation of journal articles going on, just a summary of the views of Iraqi doctors and a quote of a US military physicist.

Even if this non-existent interpretation you speak of were going on, following your line about not being allowed to use media reporting on journal articles would mean undertaking a truly awesome mass deletion of sourcing from Wikipedia, since such media reporting is used all the time without complaint. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory to explain why there aren't any sources to support your POV, other than an editorial? That's convenient. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a conspiracy, you just don't read enough. Would you like an article to prove that the US and UK refuse to carry out said studies? Do just ask me, I'd be happy to cure you of this particular piece of ignorance. LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yellow journalism seems to be Pilger's MO. Who was this "military physicist" Pilger quoted, he isnt named. It would certainly help the sources credibility of we could see who this individual was. This article should be primarily technical in nature and given the reams of peer reviewed material on this subject (a quick look at google scholar found dozens) I dont see why it should have to rely on opinion pieces from rags like Counterpunch. You asked for input, I gave it so take it or leave it. WeldNeck (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll definitely leave it, like I left your non-existent "interpretation of articles", since you obviously

just don't like CounterPunch or Pilger or likely anyone or any publication who does decent reporting on atrocities committed by Western governments and militaries. Even if you don't like the unnamed physicist in the US military, there's still the matter of Iraqi doctors. LudicrousTripe (talk

) 07:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but searching on Google Scholar for "depleted uranium iraq" since 2012 seems to give 704 results. It looks like at least a few scholarly papers have somehow managed to squeak by the conspiracy. Here's one from 2013: "Environmental pollution by depleted uranium in Iraq with special reference to Mosul and possible effects on cancer and birth defect rates"... --GRuban (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

My only claim was the UK-US refuse to carry out serious peer-reviewed studies; that's no conspiracy, simply a fact that I am happy to prove (just ask).

704 search results, you say! You didn't even, for example, put depleted uranium in double quotes! That alone more than halves your results. Here's an example of one of your 704 search results for depleted uranium and effects on civilian populations: "Natural and depleted uranium in the topsoil of Qatar: Is it something to worry about?" Qatar? Just about as irrelevant as you can get when the studies need to be of cities in Iraq. Quite aside from which your results will also pick up all the results of those on military personnel. So claiming 704 search results is rather misleading.

Anyway, overall, I have to concede. I'll go through Google scholar and other places, see what I can come up with. LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user [email protected] for alleged possession of child pornography.

There is a question as to whether the above violates our policy on reliable sources. Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm dealing with a rather... passionate editor over at the Ilias Kasidiaris article who is working from some, at least in my view, rather odd interpretations of wikipedia policy. It would be much appreciated if you could examine this article on the hope not hate website and let me know if you'd be happy that the second image presented there would be a reasonable source for stating that Mr Kasidiaris has a nice big swastika on his arm. Thanks in advance, everyone. Dolescum (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable. Here is another source if it helps: [26]. Formerip (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Should Exceptional People Magazine be used as a major source in Raul Julia-Levy article? It's an odd BLP article anyway, with a film director who a NY Times story in 2005 (which isn't in the article) says the BLP subject is actually an impostor called Salvador Fuentes. The whole thing is probably a BLP nightmare. But just on the one question, that magazine, Exceptional People Magazine should it be half the BLP's sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This page certainly doesn't give me any real reason to think that the source qualifies as a very good one. I don't see any real indication of any sort of peer-review, or, even, of much editorial supervision. I would guess it should be used if at all only very sparingly, in any article, let alone a BLP, and if there is any reason to believe that any of the material sourced from such a source is even remotely controversial or possibly non-neutral, I probably wouldn't include it at all. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Some anonymous IP editors want to include the text below in the article Monoamine oxidase inhibitor, in the section, List of MAOIs. I do not believe that the Journal of Student Research is a reliable source. I have opened a discussion on it here

. Journal of Student Research. 1 (1): 23–32.(/ref)

The text is supported by an article in the Journal of Student Research, the mainpage for which is here. I do not think anything from this journal should be considered a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Editorial policy, scope, etc is here. This is a journal of articles by students; the editorial page is not clear but one assumes the reviewers are other students. This is not professional science. Please weigh in! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If the reviewers are experts (eg, university lecturers) then it might be usable. I can't see any detail on who they are on the journal's website, however. The journal also doesn't appear to be sponsored by a university or other scholarly organisation, which is concerning. As such, I agree that this shouldn't be considered a reliable source on the basis of what's on its website. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

http://jofsr.com/index.php/path/pages/view/reviewers states that reviewers need a doctorate, and implies that they should be affiliated with an educational institution. --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the qualifications of reviewers as a deciding factor: we don't really know on what criteria they are judging. I suggest a better test would be whether the article is cited by other, reliably published, articles or books. I have a feeling this was discussed here a while back and a similar idea was proposed then (but, sorry, I haven't checked). Andrew Dalby 08:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I searched the archives before I posted this and found nothing. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this acceptable? When it has been concluded that a work is not a reliable source, can it then be moved to the further reading section? The manual of style seems to have very little in the way of guidance other than it being a list of "editor-recommended publications".

On

01:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Some context: as Hahnchen is well aware it has not been concluded that the work in question is not a reliable source. In fact the last time Hahnchen

battle-grounding to get his own way. -Thibbs (talk

) 02:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A link to the discussion where compromise was established can be found here. -Thibbs (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is consensus that a source is unreliable, I'd say it has no place in Wikipedia at all! Only one exception (I can think of)... Unless the unreliable source created controversy covered by reliable sources making it notable.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's too drastic. There are various web pages and websites that are likely to be useful to readers of a particular article, but that we can't accept as RS as sources for ourselves. Those kinds of links are candidates for the "external links" section: I don't see why we should change that.

Our definition of RS is a working tool: we need it to write better articles, but we don't need to impose it on our readers. If we did, we'd have to tell them not to read Wikipedia ... Andrew Dalby 09:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And there is certainly not a consensus that the source is unreliable. The author has been cited by academic and journalistic sources in dozens of established RSes for his opinions on video game topics. He's been specifically praised by several important RS journalists and his current website enjoys contributions from several other established RS journalists. The specific article that is the topic of the compromise is a comprehensive 104 page criticism of art games covering arguments made by numerous other RSes and it's been cited by an academic journal published by

Simon Frasier University. A month of nasty arguments over this issue has resulted in a workable compromise and Hahnchen is the only one still kicking his feet and holding his breath to get his own way. I'm frankly sick of continually re-litigating this issue so I'll just link the evidence concerning the source's reliability here. -Thibbs (talk

) 11:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is quite clearly unreliable. Or else

WP:SPS

that self-published authors must be established experts who have been published by reliable third-party publications.

That "comprehensive 104 page criticism" that Thibbs describes, is self-published, has not been reviewed. In it's entire publication history, it has been cited only once, in a paper which described it as "a lengthy, homophobic, pseudo-intellectual screed". That's what the only reliable source thinks of the book our editors have so tirelessly promoted.

In fact, the "further reading" section was created solely to promote this self-published work. -

11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was commenting above on Iknow23's general remark, not on this specific case. There is a "proposed policy" on Wikipedia:Further reading sections. The majority of articles don't have them at all. I quote briefly from the policy: "Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation." So if the book has had no other review than the one you quote, and isn't from a known reliable academic publisher, and isn't discussed in our article, the strong presumption would be that it doesn't merit listing under "Further reading". Andrew Dalby 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that an article whose premise is that artgames constitute legitimate art would negatively characterize the arguments of a book that makes the case for the opposite. The relevant point for us is that the academic article saw fit to mention the criticism at all. The author has received sufficient praise and third party RS citation to meet the strictures of WP:SPS and the use to which the book is put in the Wikipedia article in question is almost precisely the same as the use to which it is put in the academic article - namely to provide a counterpoint in the interest of

neutrality

. A review of the materials covering this topic clearly shows that this is the most comprehensive source on the topic of art game criticism. This is almost certainly the reason the academic article cites it. Whereas the academic opinion piece argues against its thesis, Wikipedia's approach is, if anything, more conservative - merely listing it as a relevant book on the topic. Again if any other comparable source can be located by Hahnchen or anyone else that covers this notable perspective in anywhere near the same degree of depth then it will be gladly accepted in place of the Kierkegaard article.

This has already been discussed ad nauseam and I'd encourage anyone interested in the discussion to review the numerous arguments that Hahnchen has made against the source during the last month. They span the gamut from accusations of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE violations to simple failure to meet WP:RS to accusations of WP:PROMOTION and WP:BOOKSPAM. They start

here, carry on here, travel next to here, and then here, and now we're here again. The upshot of all this discussion has been that a rough consensus has been achieved by all parties except Hahnchen who is fighting tooth and nail to remove the source. The constant badfaith accusations of promotion are extremely tiresome as is the revert warring (Hahnchen has now reverted 7 times at "art game" alone). If a single iota of evidence can be furnished that anybody is trying to promote the source unduly then I ask Hahnchen to furnish it. Otherwise I again repeat my request that Hahnchen stop using this inflammatory and false language and instead work to de-escalate the conflict by proposing constructive solutions rather than by entrenching himself in the battleground mentality and revert warring to establish his counter-consensus vision. -Thibbs (talk

) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thibbs' assertion that the author meets

n

19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the author's views have been published in RSes where they have been the subject of discussion (both in praise of and in opposition to). SPS doesn't effect a bar for opinion based references that are not cited. This one is merely included in a Further Reading section per consensus, in the interest of NPOV, and based on the fact that the author has gained a degree of notability by being cited by, discussed, and praised by dozens of RSes. You've paid lip service to concerns regarding reliability but you are anxious for some reason to avoid applying WP:RS (where WP:RSOPINION is clearly the closest on point). Instead you prefer to use WP:V's section on SPSes, recurrently comparing this source to a pseudoscientific source on the physics of time where SPS would indeed be closest on point. The Kierkegaard source is an opinion piece. It's written by a repeatedly RS-cited author. It's the most in-depth work on the topic of art game criticism currently available. It's being included in the interest of neutrality and it's being placed unreffed at the end of the article in a small "further reading" section. The consensus for this compromise (the third suggested) was achieved after a month of your battlegrounding the issue. We're now discussing matters at the fifth (!!) talk page you've expanded to in an apparent attempt to fish for support. Is this really your best effort at collaborating constructively with your peers, Hahnchen? -Thibbs (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I argued for the applicability of

WP:RSOPINION

allows for any opinion, as they are by definition "reliable as to the author's opinion". We are discussing this on the 5th page, partyly because every time it's discussed - you've shut it down with walls of text, yet failed convinced a single uninvolved editor on any of these pages that a self-published book by a non-expert is worthy of promotion on Wikipedia.

Conclusion: Editors at

n

13:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Further reading is not "anything goes". As you know the author of this source has been cited by dozens of RSes and praised by established RS journalists and the blog he runs has been written-for by established RS journalists. Although the source was characterized negatively by an academic journal, this is clearly due to the opposing thesis of the academic article rather than that the author happened to find an "internet nobody" (your words) that he wanted to promote. Just as Simon Frasier University's Felan Parker non-promotionally discussed Kierkegaard as a counterpoint to his thesis, Wikipedia should non-promotionally list some kind of a source as the counterpoint to what will otherwise be the sole and non-neutral thesis of its further reading section.

five pillars, you know? If you had spent a fraction of your time doing the research to find an equivalent or superior alternative source instead of searching for new fora to fish for support for your draconian approach then perhaps we could have buried this whole issue long ago. I have tried to locate such a source some time in early August but I was unsuccessful. I truly hope you will be successful in finding a replacement if you're willing to try. Again this author is not broadly considered homophobic or pseudo-intellectual by the RSes and your attempt to cast him in this light is nonsense. Please see the evidence you yourself anchored to here (Key words: "delightfully well-written and geeky", "unfairly ignored", "interesting", "cogent", etc., etc.). That an academic journal author saw fit to dispute the opinion of this dozens-of-times-RS-cited author is clear evidence that the author represents a notable perspective within the art game discourse. That the editors who have actually invested the time to create art game seem to agree that the source is useful and informative for readers is more indicative of the fact that actual research on the topic shows the source to be appropriate to an encyclopedic coverage of the topic rather than that a secret plot exists to promote the author. -Thibbs (talk

) 15:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Valid Source?

Could something from here be used as a valid source? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52880310Z07x10 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See the note at the top of this page. You need to let us know the article concerned, the source material (you've only linked the front page), and the proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Can the various Youtube links cited as references in Dan Meyer (performer) be regarded as reliable sources for the details of the life and achievements of the subject? My own inclination is to remove them all forthwith, but I'd like to get the opinion of others before I do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not inherently unreliable. It's a medium like a television program, radio broadcast, or newspaper. The question to ask yourself when evaluating a YouTube source is what is the actual origin of the video. There are three situations that are commonly encountered in reviewing citations to YouTube.

1. If YouTube is being used by an official source as a way to broadcast official claims (e.g. if CNN uses YouTube to host some online interviews) then we can rely on CNN's reliability to allow the source. This kind of ref is perfectly fine, although it may be susceptible to link rot and a hard-copy source may be preferable.
2. If the actual source is JohnnyReb74723 or something like that then clearly it's just a single person's interpretation and it's most likely a non-RS. This kind of ref should definitely be removed.
3. It's a little more tricky if JohnnyReb74723 is mirroring a video originally created by CNN (especially if the CNN video was recorded off the TV from a TV program), but Wikipedia's policy in this case has been to avoid linking to the video as it is a copyright violation on YouTube and such a link would represent Contributory copyright infringement on Wikipedia's part. The solution in this third case is to simply cite the original CNN program without linking to JohnnyReb74723's YouTube video.

I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a very complete and helpful reply, thank you, and confirms my own less clearly formulated thoughts. It seems to me that a video such as this, apparently posted by Dan Meyer, falls into the second and possibly also into the third category. It also gives no information at all relevant to the article about him. Does that seem to be a correct evaluation? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If it could be established that this really is Dan Meyer's official channel then potentially it could be used to cite claims in the Dan Meyer Wikipedia article as a

original research. This is a pretty hardline way of looking at it, though, and there may be resistance to edits removing those kinds of claims especially if the amount of interpretation the editor has to make is very small. -Thibbs (talk

) 20:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Straits Times Communities

An editor has asked at

) 20:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Facebook post

I wanted to know if a Facebook post by

) 02:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• As a rule, no. Facebook Twitter and other social media posts are
  self-published sources and primary sources at best, and there is little transparency (easy to change or remove without any trace). If we come across a "reliable" journal citing sources such as this, we can make reference to the journal having so reported. That way, at least an element of objectivity and traceability is maintained. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?}
  02:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you for your response.

☎ • ✎

) 02:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Working papers in Employee stock ownership plan

source in question is used in the article several times in article

. The paper is someone's research based on their review of primary and secondary sources, although our policies seem to indicate that prior publication is expected. The source is used to support points in "some people say..." "scholars say..." . Some sources within this source, such as NCEO.org(think tank) and esca.us(lobbying group) as described in reliable media like CNN Money and BusinessWeek are clearly biased.

• Claim 1:

" Scholars estimate that annual contributions to employees of S ESOPs total around $14 billion"

• Claim 2:

"ESOPs were developed as a way to encourage capital expansion and economic equality. Many of the early proponents of ESOPs believed that capitalism’s viability depended upon continued growth, and that there was no better way for economies to grow than by distributing the benefits of that growth to the workforce"

• Claim 3:

"One study estimates that the net U.S. economic benefit from S ESOP savings, job stability and productivity totals $33 billion per year"

Should unpublished working paper that cites think tank and advocates be used for supporting claims of advantages, specifically the ones made above. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By "someone's research" you mean two academics with a published track-record in the field [29] [30]. Your site ban needs to come soon.

Real soon. Someone not using his real name (talk

) 18:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Major dictionaries and word usage lists

Is Webster's Third New International Dictionary a reliable source for supporting entries in a list such as List of ethnic slurs? The thread is Talk:List of ethnic slurs#Dubious. Rivertorch (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As a major, reputable dictionary, I'd think it's clearly a reliable source on the usage of words. Barnabypage (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute over the appropriateness of certain sources used for the number of Serbs. Two editors in particular have been engaged in an edit war over whether the sources are appropriate, with one saying they are unreliable because they are nationalist, the other claiming they are valid. The article has since been locked (expires on the 9th), and with some persuasion a bit of discussion has taken place, but it has already descended into personal attacks so I don't really have much faith in the ability of the involved editors to solve it. I am afraid that once the block expires, the edit warring will just continue. I don't think I can contribute much to this personally, I have tried mostly to mediate the discussion. So I hope that someone who knows more about these issues can help steer things in a more productive direction. I think it's best if the discussion is continued at

) 00:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The following has again been deleted from the Gospel of Matthew

• Today, some modern scholars believe the Papias reference, preserved by Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy and interpret it to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic. (David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303) Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” ( Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101)

However, Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey and the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are said to be on the fringe of Biblical scholarship and NOT reliable sources. Particular hostility seems reserved for Ehrman.

Requests

1. Do any of the aforementioned qualify as reliable sources re Biblical scholarship and New Testament studies?
2. Do they adequately support the above edit?

I have supplied links and I am available to answer any questions. Thanks, Ret.Prof (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I would accept Ehrmann and Duling (writing in Blackwell) as reliable sources. I don't know Casey, and Continuum has published some questionable crap. On the other hand, Casey's qualification is not too shabby. However, I have a hard time getting the proposed text from the sources. For example, Duling says that Papias is in general regarded as fairly reliable, not in particular, and immediately and strongly argues against the thesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Of the sources listed, the one which would seem most likely to merit the least objections would be the Blackwell, although I haven't, at this time, seen reviews of it, and they can be important, because even reference books, at times, contain articles or material which falls outside the academic mainstream. When they do, that is generally indicated in the reviews. However, there are additional details beyond simply being reliable sources. The Blackwell, for instance, seems to run some 16 pages or so of printed article text at least on the topic of the Gospel of Matthew. That being the case

WP:FTN, and that this same editor has already been recently discussed there, in the past month in fact, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Gospel of Matthew. I think it would probably be useful for anyone involved to review the material there as well. John Carter (talk

) 21:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've also been involved in a another noticeboard discussion about this recently, although I can't remember where. I think the Ehrmann reference may have been introduced since then.

The main issue here is that there doesn't seem to be any reliably sourced scholarship supporting the idea, via Papias, that Matthew wrote Matthew or a version thereof. The extract above combines bits of information from here and there so as to give the impression that this is a credible theory (though without directly saying that). Without a source that explicitly backs the theory, that's original research. Formerip (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, these three sources are reliable.
2. No way! The material you quote, in the context in which it appeared, distorts these sources, all three of which say that the document described by Papias is a lost book and certainly not our Gospel of Matthew. Blackwell and Casey further say that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek (Blackwell cites this as the consensus view of "modern specialists in language"), with Casey declaring the view promoted by this paragraph "complete nonsense". - Cal Engime (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, at least to my eyes, given the fact that the same editor raised the same point on another board in the past month, in the link to RSN I provided above, this section here raises serious questions in at least my eyes regarding

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. John Carter (talk

) 22:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, glad to have your input. As always you make a number of good points. However, I do not think

)

With the fringe theory issue resolved the debate shifted to the reliable sources issue where you debated User:Smeat75 and User:Ignocrates over the past month. I must say you held your own.

It was at the conclusion of this debate (I even remember some other discussions with User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz) that I sought help here carefully following all WP policy guidelines. My position is that Casey, Ehrman and Blackwells are clearly reliable sources. The main issue is to what degree do they support the trustworthiness of Papias re Matthew's early account in Hebrew (Aramaic).

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101

• And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.
• This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Issues

1. Trustworthiness: After reading pp 98-101 carefully, the central theme is that the testimony of Papias is trustworthy for it is testimony that "is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves."
2. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel: It is true that Papias “knows” that there was a "collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew". Nothing is said to challenge this fact.
3. BUT "there is no reason to think that he is referring to the book that we call...Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." Therfore, although Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not the same as the Gospel of Matthew, there was a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew!

Where conservative scholars (and for that matther user:John Carter and friends) go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about our Gospel of Matthew when he is really talking about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. British historian Maurice Casey comes to the same conclusion.

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

• Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
• It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. On the other extreme are those who believe the Gospel of Matthew is a Christian deception as it had nothing to do with Matthew because the Hebrew Gospel spoken of by Papias never existed.

All of the following tertiary sources discuss the trustworthiness of the Papias tradition.

• Blackwells (2010) p 301,

• Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus (2008) p 256,

• New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) p 357

• ESV Study Bible (2012) p 1815,

• Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (1990) p 558

• The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (2013) p 891,

• The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. p 281

Over 179 reference books in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew, devote a section to Papias, and the trustworthiness of his testimony re Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303

I have chosen Blackwell as my main tertiary source as it is 1) up to date, 2) has an online preview to verify 3) is representative of tertiary sources on topic.

Author and Setting: The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)

As I said we are close to consensus re Casey, Ehrman & Blackwell being reliable sources but do they support the deleted edit? If the edit goes beyond the sources, Why?...and how can we fix it? 13:35, 31 August 2013‎ Ret.Prof (talk | contribs)‎ .

Ret.Prof, I thought you had recused yourself.

The enormous mass of these posts, and the continued reappearance of the same arguments again and again and again and again and again are incredibly tiring. As far as I have been able to follow the issue is not whether (A) Bart Ehrman, (B) Maurice Casey and (C) Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are reliable, but whether the use to which quoted extracts are put to get "Lost Hebrew Matthew" "Authentic Matthew" etc. into key Wikipedia articles to promote a view 180 degrees the opposite of modern scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is Ret prof at it again? I can't be bothered to read the wall of text, but can I assume this is more of the same, namely an effort to include an argument supported with citations to respected authors who explicitly reject the argument? If so, let's file at AN/I right away and solicit a topic ban. Enough is enough. Eusebeus (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi - I am overjoyed. Are you saying that you agree (A) Bart Ehrman, (B) Maurice Casey and (C) Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are reliable sources. If so then I agree with you on the other issues and will let you do the honors of editing "The Gospel of Matthew" from a NPOV!

@ Eusebeus - No need for a topic ban. I have made my point and will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• SERIOUS BREACH OF WP POLICY - Eusebius: This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof., it is not your place to say that. If other editors do have serious reservations about the matter of your conduct, possibly including misuse of noticeboards or other forms of tendentious editing, which multiple editors have now expressed, it is not unreasonable for them to do so here. It is probably not the optimal way to do so, but it is generally accepted. It most certainly is not your place to misuse this noticeboard with such prejudicial, judgmental statements either. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, to the OP: WHAT!? Can you cite a reliable source written by a secular scholar that says Ehrman is "fringe"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The site http://bollywoodboxofficenews.com/ has been used as a reference in a large number of articles about Bollywood films and movie stars. As an example, this subpage was used as a source for statements like "[actor's name] is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential actors in the history of Indian cinema", for instance in Mithun Chakraborty and Amitabh Bachchan. I do not dispute the claim that these actors are among the most important Indian movie stars, it's not an unreasonable claim to make. But up until a day or two ago, the site's disclaimer included the text

Film posters and celebrity images on this website are free and open for public use. All Informations Provided in this website are Purely based on unconfirmed media reports, news channel programs and gossips! Some of the compiled data includes Wikipedia statements. Statements and commentaries in this website can be entirely personal opinions and may differ from facts. BOLLYWOODBOXOFFICENEWS.COM will not be held responsible or liable in any loss resulting from the use of the compiled data and associated information.

This can be verified in archive.org; here's the version from Aug 24. Since that rather blatantly signals a non-RS, I went through some 40 articles a couple of days ago and removed all refs to bollywoodboxofficenews.com. Now a few of the refs have been returned with comments like "seems well-researched" and seemingly irrelevant statements about the disclaimer ([32], [33]) and when I look at the site again the footer has been changed to read

Film posters and celebrity images on this website are free and open for public use. Our film experts and analysts have tried their best to compile the data as acurately as possible and have made honest efforts to keep it factually correct. still, the data is for only informational purpose and BollywoodBoxOfficeNews will not be held responsible or liable in any loss resulting from the use of the compiled data and associated information.

It could be a coincidence that they have changed this right now.... but I really don't think so. The site does not have any hallmarks of being a reliable source, the anonymous "film experts" write very much like gossip columnists or fanboys, and I suspect serious refspamming and tweaking of the disclaimer to seem more trustworthy for the purpose of inserting links on Wikipedia pages. The content is still the same as it was before the tweak of the footer. I would like to see the site blacklisted, but since it's used as a reference I think this noticeboard is where the report needs to be posted, if for no other reason than to check if I'm right in my assessment of the source. --bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment of unreliability is valid. If I were a gambling man, I'd think that the disclaimer has been changed in order to keep refs on Wikipedia and promote traffic to the site. No way can they have vetted all their prior published content and, if nothing else, using our articles as a source would make it a circular reference/mirror. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the research. Clearly not something we should be using, especially for

talk

) 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point there's no evidence of widespread linkspamming/promotion, right? Isn't it just a few reverts by presumably goodfaith editors? I'd certainly be open to the idea of blacklisting it, but I consider the blacklist to be a final response to

spam, not just a way to bar non-RS material (even if it's on BLPs). I'd be in favor of waiting and watching for now. For now editors adding or restoring links to the website can be reverted and pointed to this thread, but if the links become a problem again (40 refs is certainly problematic in this case) then blacklisting is a very viable option. -Thibbs (talk

) 13:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, spamming of one of the links was going on a couple of weeks back, I had to remove this "greatest actress links" as a source from many many articles, and they were repeatedly added back in. This action was separate from Bonadea's. The site is clearly a spam site and at that time they even had a "promote our website and share this article on other sites including Facebook, Twitter" etc, when I brought it to the notice of the person adding it, it disappeared. Once is a coincidence, twice likely not. —SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know other people's opinion about bdmilitary.com, a "source" that is the only source on a large number of weapons related articles here on en-WP for claims about the types of weapon systems, and the number of weapons/vehicles/aircraft etc of each system, that are used by the Bangladesh Armed Forces. Claims and figures that in most cases aren't supported by other sites on the 'Net, or are only partially supported (such as for the BTR-80 where sources known to be reliable say 132 vehicles while bdmilitary.com claim over 500...). One such example is a Chinese-made self-propelled artillery piece designated PLZ-45 where bdmilitary.com claims that the Bangladesh Army has a number of battalions of that gun, a claim that is not supported by any other site on the 'Net (a search on Google for "Bangladesh" and "PLZ-45" lists only the WP article, where the source is bdmilitary.com, and a Pakistani forum that states that it got its info from bdmilitary.com). And the Sipri armstrade register has nothing on it, even though they list several other systems that Bangladesh has bought from China (the claimed PLZ-45 deal is not said to be a new deal, but an order placed in 2009 and delivered in 2010-2011, but Sipri still doesn't have anything on it). In addition to that bdmilitary.com has no information about where it gets its material from. As for the site itself the only info that I can find about it is that it is a private site, and not a government site. So what do you think? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can add that according to Sinodefence.com the only export customers for the PLZ-45 are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, not Bangladesh. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Two other sources, Global Security & Strategy Page also mention Bangladesh as a user. Sinodefence is a private website & there are many mistakes/errors in their PLZ-45 article. It was last updated in October 2008. According to bdmilitary.com, the Bangladesh army ordered PLZ-45's in 2009. The Policy Research Group in a January 2010 article stated: "Plans are afoot to acquire 155mm PLZ-45/Type -88 (including transfer of technology)". Aren't these three sources enough to prove the use of PLZ-45 by Bangladesh? I find nothing unreliable in that bdmilitary.com report (now a dead link but its text was copied & pasted on this forum). Maxx786 (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Policy Research Group article you link to is dated 2010 and says that "plans are afoot to...", and thus does not in any way support the claim made on bdmilitary.com that Bangladesh signed a firm order in 2009 for a considerable number of PLZ-45s, and doesn't even support claims about Bangladesh ever having ordered any such systems. I would also like to point out that User:Maxx786 is one of the most notable/prolific supporters of bdmilitary.com as a source, and the seemingly incorrect, or at least very inflated, claims made there. Over the past year or so there has been a big problem on articles relating to military weapons and weapon systems here on en-WP, with IP editors geolocating to Bangladesh making exaggerated claims on multiple articles about the military strength of Bangladesh. And then bdmilitary.com, a domain owned by Ashiqur Rahman of Sydney, Australia (whois), with according to their Facebook page the motto "In Allah we trust & all others we dominate", suddenly starts to support those claims. Which makes me even more suspicious. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I agree with you about the lack of authenticity of bdmilitary.com. However, your figure regarding BTR-80 is not accurate. According to SIPRI arms register, Bangladesh Armed Forces has 232 BTR-80: 14 received in 1994, 78 received between 2001-2002, 60 received in 2006 and 80 received in 2011. Also, the most circulated Bangladeshi newspaper named "Prothom Alo" reported on August 24, 2013 that the government has bought 260 APC, 18 ARV, 15 APC ambulance, 44 3rd generation MBT, 2 helicopters, 18 SPAG and unknown number of Radar for Bangladesh Army in their 4.5 years. A details of the procurement has also been given on the same newspaper: Year 2008-2009 184 x truck - 3 ton - Japan - BDT 79.82 crore ২০০৮-০৯

Year 2009-2010 120 x APC, 10 x ARV, 10 x APC ambulance - Russia - BDT 510.95 crore

Year 2010-2011 44 x MBT-2000 Tank, 3 x Type Type-654 ARV - China - BDT 1201.81 crore 2 x Eurocopter AS365 N3+ Dauphin helicopters - France - BDT 179.42 crore ? X Radar - China - BDT 136.39 crore

Year 2011-2012 18 x Nora B52 SPAG - Serbia - BDT 541.34 crore 113 x Anti-Tank weapon System (unknown type) - Russia - BDT 222.07 crore 140 x APC, 5 x ARV, 5 x APC ambulance - Russia - BDT 651.45 crore

The same source also indicates that the Army also has an ongoing plan to procure"

2 x Aircraft, 3 x missile detection radar, Radio equipment, Multiple Launch Rocket System, lot of Anti-Tank weapons systems, ATGM and more APC.

Source: Prothom Alo. It is a Bengali news paper. Please translate it in English in google translator. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamrul512 (talk • contribs) 11:32UTC, 3 September 2013

• I've already tried to translate that article through translate.google.com, but it doesn't work. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

=> No issue. My translator worked. I am pasting the translated text as it is for you. Thanks.

Please note that the article in The Policy Research Group website was written by an analyst in 2010. So, the line "Plans are afoot to acquire 155mm PLZ-45/Type -88 (including transfer of technology)" is appropriate as (if we believe bdmilitary.com), the order was placed in 2009 and deliveries were expected in 2011. And If we consider the report of "Prothom Alo" (newspaper), are we in a position to ignore the other two sources ,i.e., Global Security & Strategy Page ??

And Thomas.W, the motto you got from the Facebook page seems to be a religious line rather than a challenge to dominate others (other websites about BD Defence) as you suspect. I think the line refers to Khilafah. I didn't find it (the motto) anywhere in their Facebook Page's details... You may help .. Maxx786 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And for your BTR-80 claims, BTR-80 > Operator:Bangladesh on Wikipedia (which is adequately referenced) puts the number at 502. An news article on Bangla News 24 website states: "Dimidyuk informed that Russia had already sold over 600 BTR-80 APC’s to the Bangladesh Army already." Something similar is in this article by Jane's Defence Weekly. Maxx786 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So, Your first claim to prove bdmilitary.com numbers about BTR-80 "inflated" are proven wrong. And for the PLZ-45 question, I believe bdmilitary.com as what it claimed was Bangladesh ordered three battalions of PLZ-45's for BD Army's Artillery units based at Chittagong, Ghatail and Savar cantonments. The Policy Research Group also reported the plans to "acquire" PLZ-45's in 2010, and two other sources (Global Security & Strategy Page) state that Bangladesh bought PLZ 45s in the last decade. I think it refers to the order placed in 2009. No source (including bdmilitary) claims that those howitzers were delivered (till date) ... Maxx786 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The motto is in big block letters at the top of the Facebook page, in the image. How could you possibly miss it? As for The Policy Research Group article it's no longer plans to aquire if an order has already been placed. Not in English at least. As for the Strategy page that you keep referring to it's a community where just about anyone can write, and not a serious newssource. Just check their guidelines for contributors: Facts, as best you know them, and analysis, as best you can do it, are what our readers want. Which disqualifies it as a reliable source. But this discussion is about the reliability of bdmilitary.com, not about the Strategy page or any of the other sites that you keep writing about in order to pull the discussion away from the subject. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The question remains about the authenticity of that bdmilitary.com report. What was claimed by bdmilitary.com is also suggested by Global Security. And it is possible that the deal suffered delays as nothing else came out since then. BTR-80 issue has been resolved as I have provided concrete sources some lines above... Maxx786 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. This discussion is about the reliability of bdmilitary.com as a source for anything. We are in other words not discussing that particular report, we're discussing bdmilitary.com as a whole. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been visiting the website for years and never found any material incorrect. So far, at least in this discussion, everything (from bdmilitary.com)has been proven correct by comparing with other sources. This makes me believe it is a reliable source. What do you think ? And what opinion do other Wikipedia users / admins have about bdmilitary.com ?? Maxx786 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems you're finally beginning to understand why I started this discussion. Next time read the first post before jumping in. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just answering the examples you provided to dispute the reliability of this website .. Maxx786 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"I have been visiting the website for years and never found any material incorrect"? Is that how we determine the reliability of sources here? I don't think so. If Bangladesh has purchased substantial quantities of matériel the fact will almost certainly have been reported in the press, at the very least of the vendor country. Those reports would be better sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

bdmilitary website has been mentioned / cited on: United Press International here and on some books. Nowhere else. Maxx786 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen maps used as reliable source before and there is no specific guidance on

) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The way the maps in footnotes 1 and 2 are used looks like original research/synthesis to me. It might be fine to have those maps linked under "external links", but if we are going to state the area of a local government unit, we need a source that states the area: we don't calculate it ourselves. Andrew Dalby 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The article states state the area was taken off old maps of the area. It is quite common for areas to be explicitly stated on Ordnance Survey maps - a 1931 OS map that I have showing a property that I once owned had the area of the original plot on it (3.146 acres). If the map to which you are referring had the area written on it, not only is it in order to retain it, it is disruptive to remove it. I suggest that you leave it as it is until you can get a copy of the map itself. Maybe add a comment to this effect. Martinvl (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of that possibility, but I'm still concerned that to add up all the areas of a parish, etc., from the areas of individual parcels, is synthesis. If the map somewhere states, as a single item, the total area that we want to give in our article, that's quite different and I see no objection. Andrew Dalby 15:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And what do you think of the Google maps? ww2censor (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the sourcing of information on Google Maps, so I'd rather someone else commented on that :) Andrew Dalby 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding up all the areas on different parcels of lands is not necessarily synthesis - if it is purely mechanical and can be repeated by anybody, then this is explicitly permitted. However, in many cases, the area of a parish is available from gazetteers. Martinvl (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it. They may do things differently over there, but the section maps I'm used to often don't state if a parcel area is of a parcel itself or of a complex of several parcels. For instance, if Section 1, Block I, Nowhere Survey District has an area of 40.4686 ha, but is intersected by a road line, each half of the section may be labelled 40.4686 ha and only experience with reading and interpreting such maps would enable you to tell the difference. And such interpretation of the map may well constitute original research. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading a map is no different to reading a foreign language. As long as you repeat what the original editors/authors wrote and the meaning is unambiguous to a person skilled ion that language, no WP:OR is involved. Martinvl (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of the "Controversies" in the Zayed University article are sourced to The National (Abu Dhabi). After reading through the article for the latter I'm wondering if the experts here have a sense for the reliability of this news outlet. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's a source of negative comments.

talk

) 13:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I used it as a source recently without hesitation. It apparently meets the requisites to be regarded as a reliable source here. But as Doug points out, the possibility of non-neutral reporting should probably be kept in mind, especially on contentious issues. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you both. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Over the past few days, multiple users (myself excluded) have been removing and re-adding sourced information about cast additions, hosts, etc, while debating over whether said sources are reliable. I'm on the fence on the reliability; would anyone else like to look at this? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Are these sources

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333858/Right-wing-Buddhist-leading-campaign-force-Muslims-Burma-says-wants-group-like-English-Defence-League.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312807/Burma-riots-Horrifying-moment-Buddhists-set-Muslim-man.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22023830
• http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/saydaw-wirathu-myanmar-969-burma-450375.html
• http://www.vice.com/read/is-burmas-anti-muslim-violence-led-by-buddhist-neo-nazis
• http://www.dvb.no/news/features-news/the-monks-behind-burma%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9C969%E2%80%9Dmovement-2/28079
• http://www.smh.com.au/world/antimuslim-movement-grows-in-myanmar-20130415-2huze.html
• http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/10-Apr-2013/myanmar-s-extremist-buddhists-get-free-rein
• http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/saydaw-wirathu-myanmar-969-burma-450375.html

enough to be able to call the 969 Movement anti-Muslim and/or islamophobic without using weasel words like "critics charge that"? // Liftarn (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this site considered reliable? It is a blogspot, but it is operated by Douglas Pucci, who works for TV Media Insights, which is owned by Cross MediaWorks Inc.. All of the information that he posts that can be cross-referenced is factually accurate. He also cites Nielsen as his source. I'd like to use his site to reference ratings numbers for cable shows whose ratings haven't been posted by other sites like Futon Critic or TV by the Numbers.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no. There would be a stronger claim for being a reliable source if the blog were directly hosted by TV Media Insights instead of just being the personal blog of one of its employees contributors. Nothing on the blog itself identifies who the blogger is so this is an anonymous blog. See

WP:BLOGS. I don't see how this blog meets the standard of "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication". Are there by-lined articles somewhere showing expertise? TV Media Insights itself looks to be marginal as a reliable source based on "Marc Berman mines dozens of media resources, researches and gathers the information and metrics and delivers to our readers" from http://www.tvmediainsights.com/. --Geraldo Perez (talk

) 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I was guessing it wasn't, but I thought I'd ask just in case. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Source: Sweetman, B, Religion and Science: An Introduction, Continuum, 2010, pp. 12, 147 [34]
• Article: Teleological argument, but the edits involve clearly also link to debates on Intelligent design
• Content: In the first paragraph, the term "Argument from Intelligent Design" was removed from the list of common names for the subject of the article (not such a big issue, there are lots of names) and then a sentence was adapted further down to say that:

  The [teleological argument] is central to creation science [I agree], which was relabeled intelligent design in 1988 [I think this irrelevant for the lead], and in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design [this is the concern to be discussed here at RSN].

Looking at the source, the concern is that it does not appear to say what it is being used to say. It is apparently simply one example of a book which uses the term "argument from intelligent design" to the refer to "the contemporary argument from intelligent design" on page 147 and does not mention the term anywhere else as far I can make out. Can one example be used to make Wikipedia make an absolute statement as seems to be the case here? P.S. Just as some off-article OR to test how likely this apparent synthesis is to be correct I can find the following in a very quick google books search, and just as a few quick examples (trying to pick respectable looking authors and publishers):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here it is used to discuss Giambattista Vico (18th century).
• Here it is used to refer to Socrates (quite some time back).
• [35] Francisco Ayala, who I believe to have some expertise in this area, talking about William Paley (1802), and saying "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively.
• [36] Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Volume 28, Issue 2, talking about Plato
• [37] Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity using this exact term to translate the name of the fifth proof of the existence of God (see
  quinque viae) used by Thomas Aquinas
  (14th century).
• [38] Used to name a subject handled within
  Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
  (late 18th century)
• [39] Again being used to refer to Paley.

I have occasionally dipped into the time-sink at

Talk:Intelligent Design, but I still cannot understand what this report is about. Please clarify: Is anyone suggesting that "in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design" is not correct? What is the issue? Is it that two editors agree the text is correct but disagree on whether the source verifies it? Johnuniq (talk

) 10:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try to explain. In isolation it is true that "in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design" and any source like this does indeed show it. But in the context of the lead, the intention of this change to wording is to say that it is ONLY in this context and never in other contexts. Actually this appears to be untrue. So this is why I say that my question is concerning whether this one source which is ONE EXAMPLE of such a context, is enough for Wikipedia to tell readers that ALL EXAMPLES are in this context? Please note: Wording change proposals to avoid any ambiguity should normally be easy in a case like this, but that idea has been rejected on the talk page. So it is clear that the discussion is about drawing an ALL out of ONE example. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PS Johnuniq, I know you were looking at this subject more broadly today so just to remark what I think you misunderstood on another talkpage: There is a similar concern with absolute (or at least ambiguous and apparently absolute) conclusions being drawn from non-absolute evidence on

WP:NOTDICT to me, and yet it does not insist on using the chosen article title term in a way which recognizes no potential confusion. This is better for readers and editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved with this since I first (I think) used this source and another to say that "argument from INTELLIGENT design, as a phrase meaning the same as the Teleological argument, is a contemporary concept. (While "argument from design" began with Paley in 1802.) My edits were deleted by the reporting editor as being OR. It might be worth taking a squint at the relevant talk page - which is becoming much like the ID one, though with fewer people involved. In this case two concerned editors think the citations should stay and one other thinks they should go. You will also see that I asked for a Third Opinion who said my edits should stay and were not OR. I think that the phrase with 'intelligent' has only become widespread since the ID movement. I have said on the talk page that using post-1988 sources that use the 'intelligent' phrase does not provide evidence for the view that the exact phrase is old. People after 1988 would know the ID term and use it to seem modern. I don't think any of the sources above actually say that eg. Vico (in Italian presumably) used "argument from intelligent design". They say things like "For contemporaries [(Vico's)], the argument from intelligent design presumed ..."' but the book was published in 2011. I have checked most of the mentioned sources, and they are all post-1988. I could dig out the other source of mine and post it here. Myrvin (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The other words of mine deleted as OR said: "The exact phrase, "argument from intelligent design" refers to a more contemporary version of the teleological argument. Ariew writes: The contemporary concept of the argument from intelligent design varies little from William Paley’s argument written in 1802. Both argue that nature exhibits too much complexity to be explained by ‘‘mindless’’ natural forces alone. Both conclude the need to postulate the existence of an intelligent designer, a creator with forethought and purpose. But there are differences between Paley’s argument and the modern argument from ID [(Intelligent Design)]. Paley concluded that the Christian God exists, while modern ID supporters claim to be silent about the features of the creator." It's a bit big, and I was going to cut it down, but it was deleted. Myrvin (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Myrvin, a reason for using this noticeboard is to isolate out specific questions related to sourcing, one at a time. You have swamped this with a whole bunch of points that would need extensive discussion. Can't you stick to the one above? I feel compelled to give some comment because you are clearly trying to give an impression:

• The 3o was writing about another section. He gave a VERY brief reply including the words "is directly quoting the source, so it can't all be OR". Say no more.
• "I have said on the talk page that using post-1988 sources that use the 'intelligent' phrase does not provide evidence for the view that the exact phrase is old." I have doubts about that but anyway why do you want WP to be doing OR about when the term was first used in the first place? If no good sources are writing about this, why should WP? Let's avoid making any statement about things we can not source?
• "People after 1988 would know the ID term and use it to seem modern. [...] I have checked most of the mentioned sources, and they are all post-1988." So what? They are the experts even if they are just trying to seem modern. Terminology changes, and different experts use different terms. What I understand that you are in fact arguing for is to use OR to "prove" that the term "intelligent design" is uniquely used to refer to things associated with the intelligent design movement. We can use OR on a talkpage to show something should NOT be used, but we should never use OR in order to create a strong statement in WP's name.
• You final paragraph about how to use an Ariew passage, is similar to the case here. I think you are stretching the source far beyond what it says.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you are right; the term "argument from intelligent design" or, presumably, its equivalent in other languages, is not limited to modern crypto-creationist thought. Others are also right, in that that specific English phrase has been used to label a specific modern approach (trying to get creationism into US school programmes, using newer discoveries about living things as examples). However, the modern argument is very little different from the longstanding one, and without reliable sources we should not state that the term is limited to modern times or to a specific political programme. Perhaps "the modern Intelligent Design movement" or some variant might be useful somewhere. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I at least agree with all of that. (Including what the "others" also think.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard, could I draw your attention to the words "But there are differences between Paley’s argument and the modern argument from ID [(Intelligent Design)]. Paley concluded that the Christian God exists, while modern ID supporters claim to be silent about the features of the creator." Ariew may be wrong, but he is another source, like Sweetman, who uses the ID term to talk about only the modern view. Ariew also refers to: "the traditional argument from design for the existence of God.", as well as saying: "Some of the recent advocates of ‘‘intelligent design’’ creationism have tried to use the special and mysterious properties of information to mount anti-Darwinian arguments ... These arguments have no real force. Indeed, the resulting views tend to be less plausible than earlier versions of the argument from design", he also says: "organic features that were at the heart of the traditional argument from design for the existence of God." Myrvin (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Myrvin you are highjacking this thread! If you want to raise other questions for this noticeboard or others, please post them separately!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying that I am "clearly trying to give an impression" is another insult to add to the many you have made to me on the Talk page. I have asked you to stop doing this. Why can't you just be polite for once? I am pointing to the problem at hand and giving a citation that supports my view. You gave 7 sources above to support yours. The Third opinion User:Jackmcbarn wrote: "At least some of [the deletion in question] is directly quoting the source, so it can't all be OR, and at least some of it should be on the page." Myrvin (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not an insult Myrvin and you keep using that word the wrong way. It was an accusation relevant to editing WP, and you have yourself made lots of accusations about me. Is anyone keeping count? Thing is though, if I make an accusation I try to make sure I can back it up, and show the relevance to editing, should anyone say I was being unfair. When you accuse me falsely of insulting you, you are making quite false accusations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask for more un-involved remarks specifically about the Sweetman source and how it has currently been used in order to imply that the term "argument from intelligent design" is only ever used in the context of the intelligent design movement please? (Does anyone think it appropriate to move some of the above discussion to a new thread, or to hat it?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• This seems to be a fuss about nothing: on 27 August Andrew changed the first sentence to add "intelllgent", giving "also called an argument from [intelligent] design". At some stage this was moved to become a third alternative, Sweetman (2010) was added as a source, then [later?] in recognition of the date it was shown as "more recently, the argument from intelligent design". On 1 September Andrew removed "more recently" with the edit summary no source given for this chronology. There has been discussion at intelligent design (ID) about how all sources for "argument from intelligent design" seemed to follow after the wide publicity given to neo-creationist ID. When looking for examples of this phrase applied to the wider teleological argument, I looked at the online views of Sweetman, and found that the phrase is used in the book to refer to ID, not to the earlier argument, so could not support its general use. On 5 September I moved the source to follow on from mention of ID, saying "and in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design". Later that day Andrew objected on the talk page, proposing additional sources, and I replied "The wording accurately reflected the source, as Sweetman specifically placed the phrase in relation to ID: it's unlikely that Paley ever commented on microbiology. Provide a new source, and adjust the wording accordingly, though note that the phrase "argument from intelligent design" still seems to only appear after 1990." Rather than doing that, Andrew decided to take the issue here.
  To recap, Sweetman only supports usage in the context of ID, other sources can [apparently] be used to show that the wording has been used in a wider context. Andrew is welcome to add a different source and change the wording accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being called a highjacker again, have we all noticed that the report heading says "Sourcing for "argument from intelligent design" only ever being used in the context of creation science", while the sentence in question says, "The argument is central to creation science, which was relabeled intelligent design in 1988, and in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design."? Now, that does not say that the term is ONLY used in connection with ID. It says it "has been" used in this context - oh, and BTW, here is Sweetman to say so. Therefore, this is a non-question. As Dave says, it can be broader. A writer can use the exact phrase and not know what the ID movement is (unlikely), or not mean "argument from that-thing-the-IDM-goes-on-about". I would like my "more recently" to come back too. Myrvin (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Although it extends the lead, might I suggest that we add something like:"However, this phrase can be used, even in modern texts, simply as being synonymous with "argument from design." - with some citation? Myrvin (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is, of course, what is that citation? It has to be post-IDM and yet not be talking about IDM. Otherwise, the phrase will look like "argument from that-thing-the-IDM-goes-on-about". Myrvin (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Myrvin. Maybe I misunderstand your point but I've given sources above which all use the terminology "post-IDM and yet not be talking about IDM". I think as far as this noticeboard is concerned Dave has recognized the problem, and so unless you see an error in his WP:RS reasoning (or mine or Richard Keatinga's) then we should probably move back to the talkpage. Please note: concerning your other RS-related questions inserted above, these can also be discussed here of course but then please open a new section for each one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed

) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a

Japanese era names -- and many other articles about Japanese events, places, government, history and historical figures -- are congruent in the similar foundation of research and cited sources which supports them. The array of articles is based on classic sources which are put in context by the Wikipedia article on Historiography of Japan. For example, when the reliable sources below are cited here

, the reader is presented with links to other Wikipedia articles, including articles about the cited text itself, about its original author and about the translator:

• 1834 -- date that Annales des empereurs du japon was published by
  Royal Asiatic Society, Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. OCLC 5850691

• Nihon odai ichiran (日本王代一覧) written circa 1650 by Hayashi Gahō
  , also known as Siyun-sai Rin-siyo

• 1979 -- date that Gukanshō: The Future and the Past by
  ISBN 978-0-520-03460-0; OCLC 251325323

• Gukanshō (愚管抄) written circa 1220 by Jien

• 1980 -- date that Jinnō Shōtōki: A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns. by
  ISBN 978-0-231-04940-5; OCLC 59145842

• Jinnō Shōtōki (神皇正統記) written circa 1343 by Kitabatake Chikafusa

In this thread and elsewhere, Hijiri88's broad brush complaints and pretext are not justified. The analysis is not consistent with the cumulative edit histories of articles I have helped to improve. In these related articles, time and thought are invested in the structure of complementary, mutually reinforcing reliable sources. In contrast, for example, see

A>' diff 02:46, 31 August 2013‎ Hijiri88 . . (46,587 bytes) (-133)‎ . . (Not in source. Enkyo, can you stop piling sources that say different things on top of each other like this??)

B> diff 00:53, 1 September 2013‎ Enkyo2 (46,720 bytes) (+133)‎ . . (Undid revision 570891967 by Hijiri88restore cite with embedded link; see WP:Citing sources#Bundling citations)

C> diff 03:46, 1 September 2013‎ Hijiri88 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,587 bytes) (-133)‎ . . (Revert revenge edit by Enkyo2. It's not in the source.) (bold emphasis added)

The striking use of the term "revenge" in the edit summary above is worrisome.

Another unrelated use of the term "revenge" here was not encouraged by acknowledgment or response; but Hijiri88 continues

"pointy"

provocation.

A> diff 18:25, 28 August 2013‎ Enkyo2 ‎ . . (18,592 bytes) (+111)‎ . . (cite Kunaicho in infobox?)

B> diff 04:50, 1 September 2013‎ Hijiri88 ‎ . . (18,481 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Enkyo, if you don't like the traditional dates, bring it up on the talk page. Also, revert WP:POINTY citation of the ONLY IHA page that happens to spells it "Jimmu".)

Can we not agree that Wikipedia needs more light, less heat. -Enkyo2 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This thread has been linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Reliable sources. --Enkyo2 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo, your 600+ word rant above doesn't address why you have been using a primary source from before 1868 as your source for the statement that "Until 1868 Empress Jingu was considered to be ...". I have not said that any of the three sources you list are not notable or that their opinions should not be included in articles where they are relevant. But they don't meet the standards of modern historiography and so cannot be used the way you have been using them. Please address the issue with a coherent argument, rather than inadvertently proving me right. On to your individual points:

1. Your initial assertion that this is personal is ironic, since you are the one who is making it personal.
2. Yes, you quote a source that proves that your source is essentially a 400-year-old primary source that says nothing about the modern scholarly consensus and can only be used as a source on its own opinions (which, as I have stated, are notable and should be included).
3. I don't know what "congruent in the similar foundation of research and cited sources which supports them" means. Can you rephrase it in an intelligible manner? Anyway, you are just piling up sources on top of each other, when they don't say the same thing and don't match the text of the article. A good example is where the article mentions "120 -- 1817–1846 -- Emperor Ninkō -- Ayahito -- Traditional dates[130 - Titsingh, p. 421.]" -- how can Titsingh be a source for the statement that this emperor's reign's dates are traditional, when said reign ended 34 years after Titsingh died an 12 years after his book was published??????
4. Your citations of notable, interesting primary sources from the 13th, 14th and 17th centuries are irrelevant, as none of them can possibly be used as sources for 2013 academic consensus. Of the three translations, one is a translation into another European language, which seems pretty useless in articles about Japan for an English-speaking audience, and is itself 200 years old. The other two are reliable sources, but you can't cite a single instance when I have removed these sources inappropriately. Additionally, since they are translations I would question whether they give any significant coverage to any topic other than their own source texts. In at least one case, you have cited a source that appeared to directly contradict your statement.[40]
5. What does "the analysis is not consistent with the cumulative edit histories of articles I have helped to improve" mean? Please stop dismissing all my edits. You have misrepresented the content of your sources, and when I point out specifically in my edit summaries that this isn't in the source you revert me again, apparently just because you don't like me and dismiss my reasoning, forcing me to revert you again and directly state that you are making revenge edits.
6. You refer to this thread, but carefully neglect to point out how with one exception every single participant in that discussion agreed that your edits were problematic and should be dealt with. But again, why are you bringing up unrelated ANI threads here on RSN?? Please stop complaining about user contact.
7. User:Oda Mari mistakenly opposed an RM I had started. Apart from one unrelated user who had no history of editing in the area, you were the only other user opposing that RM, and you had clearly done it as revenge against me.[41][42][43][44] OM's reasoning for opposing was that they had misinterpreted what the IHA's website said (they officially prefer my proposed spelling, but in one document accidentally used your preferred spelling, and they had inadvertently come across the latter document first). You then removed some relevant information from the infobox of the page, so that you could include a link to that one document and call it a "source" (it didn't back up the relevant information you removed).

Can we please focus on the subject at hand rather than bring in Enkyo's personal grudge against me? I have specified numerous times that I like most of Enkyo's edits and consider them to be constructive, but that some are problematic. Enkyo has consistently refused to engage me on this in any coherent manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A primary source can be cited as a primary source, which Enkyo appears to do in some contexts. The primary sources Enkyo is using, including Annales, are not outside of the mainstream, as evidenced by the high-quality and reliable translations available. If Enkyo desires to use these to make sources other than "the traditional dates", etc., he should justify that with other sources. The rest of this discussion appears to be a personal spat. Shii (tock) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the places where I removed the primary sources. Enkyo2 had used them as sources for statements about what happened after they were written. Admittedly, these references had mostly been added years ago, but he reverted me in at least one case, and my removals seem to have been what prompted Enkyo2 to dismiss all of my edits as "pretexts". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Article: Denise Crosby Source: link Content: Can the link be used to reference why Crosby left Star Trek: The Next Generation?

A couple editors and I are having a discussion on the talk page of the article about whether we can find a reliable source that says that Crosby was let go by the producers of the show due to her posing for Playboy magazine. The above source was suggested as a possible source for the claim that she was fired but there's some hesitation when it comes to the idea of whether the source itself is reliable. Another editor has said that it reads like a "rant" and I tend to agree but would like another opinion. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like the author is just guessing to be honest rather than reporting a fact. As a Trekkie I don't think it is true she was fired, at least not over Playboy: the Playboy pics were just reprinted from a spread she had done several years earlier, so it's likely that the Trek producers already knew about the photos so why hire her in the first place? It's not as if she did them after getting the part. Also, she returned as a special guest star in a later episode set in an alternate reality, and I don't think they would have asked her back if they had fired her. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed a number of flags for US towns uploaded to Commons and put on various pages here by User:Illegitimate Barrister that are sourced exclusively to "Flags of the World. The site's homepage explicitly says "Pages are edited by volunteer editors — qualifications include a keen interest in flags and a willingness to learn html editing"—it's essentially a wiki, and those are generally not treated as reliable. The site even comes with a disclaimer stating: "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." I suspect that many flags uploaded to that website are nothing more than inventive fabrications made by overeager editors.

For instance, take File:Flag of Smith Island, Maryland.png. Running a Google search on it excluding Wikipedia and FOTW reveals nothing much, and a search-by-image very little in the way of similar images—only flags derived from the FOTW source—and no webpage on Smith Island (e.g. [45], [46]) shows any similar sort of flag. Moreover, I spent several days on the island this past August, and did not see it or anything resembling it even once. Either I've missed something major both on the web and in real life, or this isn't a real flag. IB seems to have uploaded dozens of similar files, and I am suspicious that a number of them are similarly fabricated.

Now, I realise that Commons has its own set of rules and what happens here often has little effect there. However, I would like for these questionable flags to be removed from our pages until they can be properly vetted (I have already done so for Smith Island), and perhaps a decision here could hasten action on Commons to have these flags, which are currently marked as "official", marked as unofficial/fanciful. ~~

) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problematic source. It's part of a broader problem - editors want there to be a flag for some geographical entity, so they go out and find the best "flag" they can, but... that isn't necessarily the most encyclopædic solution. We also have a lot of historical articles which use fanciful "flags" from the less reliable parts of the Catalan Atlas &c. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Koreanindie.com is an acceptable source? It includes a blog section, but I'm not sure whether the entire website would count as a blog or not. It does include a staff [47], though I don't know whether the website is their full time job or just something they volunteer for. The bottom of the page includes the text "Designed by WPSHOWER". I'm not familiar with WPSHOWER, but its website [48] says that it creates "Wordpress themes". I know that Wordpress is more or less a blog, so I assume that this would make anything designed by WPSHOWER unreliable, but wanted to check to see if anyone knows more about this first. --Jpcase (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Figshare a reliable source for wikipedia entries?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c:4d80:30d:3d2a:62ba:fefb:233c (talk • contribs)

Everything on

self-published source. So whether figshare is reliable would depend on who authored that particular piece and what it is being used as a source for. Even in the best case scenario, where the piece on figshare was published by a recognized expert in the field, the work would only be a reliable source for uncontroversial content. Someguy1221 (talk

) 04:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

While I like the intent of figshare, I don't see anything that prevents me from creating an account and uploading anything I want, including my own original research or crackpot fringe science theories. I see no evidence of editorial oversight. I agree with Someguy1221, if the author is someone notable and respected in a field who is publishing material related to that field, it could be cited, although the reliability would be no different than the author's own personal blog. ~

talk

) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

added section of Uttarakhand controversy in BLP of Narendra Modi

In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) of BLP.

Apart from being poorly sourced, the section is an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it The sources linked to the article are [49] [50] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)‎