Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 165

For those interested, there is more about the specific problems with the article on Lucy Walter at talk:Lucy Walter, including the use of a self-published sources as a reference. -- PBS (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the question here - whether the DNB is a RS? Barnabypage (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The enquiry above was placed in an archive by an inexperienced Wikipedia editor (who presumably was looking for answers and did not realize that it was an achieve that was being edited). I thought that this was the best place to put it rather than just deleting it, and I think that talk:Lucy Walter will help explain the context of the [implied] question. -- PBS (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this page at CollegeAtlas.org a reliable source to support the claim that Brigham Young University is the third-largest private university in the U.S.? That page clearly makes that claim but it's unclear where that information came from or what substantiates it. The "about" page of CollegeAtlas.org doesn't seem to tell us anything helpful about where the information came from other than saying that "CollegeAtlas.org relies on feedback from schools, education professionals and students to help keep content up to date and accurate." (It's clear to me that a lot of the information in the website is taken from the Department of Education as much of it is verbatim from College Navigator, including the pie charts and graphs. But it also appears that some of that information is out-of-date and some of the information comes from other sources. I suspect that some of the verbage in some of the descriptions was written by the college or university in question.)

I contend that this source isn't reliable for this claim because it's clearly an incorrect statement. A quick glance at our own article on this topic shows how implausible it is that an institution with only 35,000 students isn't going to be at or near the top of any national enrollment chart unless that chart has some very significant constraints or narrow criteria well beyond "private." To double-check this, I glanced at the 2012 enrollment data in IPEDS and it shows that BYU comes up sixth in 2012 Fall FTE enrollment behind Liberty (72,904), NYU (44,516), Western Governors (40,320), USC (39,958), and Excelsior (34,563) with BYU reporting 34,409.

Another editor fervently disagrees with this analysis and insists that the statement remain in the article because it's found in this allegedly reliable source. It's not clear to me if this source is reliable for anything but it is clear that this particular statement is erroneous and not one we should be repeating unless much better evidence can be provided. Your thoughts and opinions are most welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that source should be thought that reliable, as it seems to have a certain crowd-sourced aspect to it. However, that doesn't mean what it say might not be true this time, as it all comes down to how online-only students are counted. If you measure just the ones with physical campuses and leave out online students then I think before last year New York University and USC were number one and two, with Brigham Young considered third. Then the Washington Post announced Liberty was number one here because they added all of their online admissions. Liberty only has about 12,000 offline students out of the 72,904 you quote. There are plenty of only-online universities like the University of Phoenix franchises (and your Western Governors and Excelsior examples) that exceed some of these numbers without having a physical campus, but I don't know if anybody's really checking how committed those students are to their online program, or if they're including a lot of low-fee/super-high-turnover students in order to have inflated numbers. So it is actually quiet likely that BYU is the third largest students-in-classes US private university, so I don't know if it's worth fighting in the article beyond noting the online/offline distinctions. I think BYU has the the third largest (traditionally defined) apple stand, compared to University of Phoenix's number one (full of online inflation) orange stand, in other words. I'd ask for another citation, but it might say something similar to this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 06:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither the cited source nor the article make any distinctions between online and face-to-face enrollment so the claim that is being made is completely untrue. ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Unclear, unsupported, not sufficiently qualified, in need of new citation, inappropriate for inclusion as currently written? Yes to all of these. Untrue? No, possibly and arguably true depending on the underlying assumptions of the source. But it should only be included if those qualifications are included. "Largest" is not a single empirical measurement and its inclusion should be qualified. "Large" could be an indication of measure of number of students overall, of total hours taught in person-hours, of number of instructors and staff, or even of volume.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a self-published source, with no named contributors or authors listed for the webpage cited and no indication for the website more generally of who the editors are or what process, if any, there is for verifying statements and correcting errors. The source is not reliable for the statement in contention. Dezastru (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm surprised there aren't reliable sources making this kind of comparison. I also agree with the point made above that 'largest' can mean a number of things.

talk

) 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor keeps add this, http://bayimg.com/CAieLAafC as a source. I have told them it is not reliable but they won't take my word for it. Is that a reliable source for anything? GB fan 11:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, obviously not reliable. There are problems with the article. Check the quality of all of the sourcing. The article should say in the first sentence what the subject is notable for. As an entrepreneur, I think, but it should read "an entrepreneur who has...", whatever it is. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree that this is not a reliable source. (For future reference, in the event the webpage linked above should no longer be accessible, the webpage shows what appears to be a slightly blurry photograph of a certificate which reads, "James A. McGibney has successfully completed Making Corporate Boards More Effective" with a signature of someone whose title is given as "faculty chair." The top of the certificate says Harvard Business School, with what appears to be the Harvard University emblem.)

Incidentally, the current rendering of one of the sentences in the article seems very misleading, given the article's edit history. An earlier version, which cited the source being discussed here (along with a second source), read, "McGibney received a Master of Criminal Justice degree from Boston University[9] and visited Harvard Business School for a three day seminar which was open to the public."[3] The version of the article as I write this reads, "McGibney received a Master of Criminal Justice degree from Boston University[9] and attended Harvard Business School for his executive education." Attending a three-day seminar at Harvard Business School may technically qualify as attending Harvard Business School, but it is extremely misleading to describe someone's educational background like that in an encyclopedia bio without further qualification. I haven't read through the source used for the current version of the sentence, but if that source is describing attendance at a 3-day seminar as if it were the same as attending a degree-earning course of study at Harvard Business School, it calls the reliability of that other source on the subject's bio into question as well. Dezastru (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That article has many unreliable sources (http://rumorfix.com/) as well as BLP material sourced to primary sources, including direct links to court documents. There's a bunch to get rid of there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to remove the bogus material. The subject of this article has been trying to edit it on a constant basis by creating numerous sock accounts. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BullyVille and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slingerville and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AceWriterOfFacts and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ViaView

Someone keeps adding false information here in an effort to inflate the resume claims of the article subject. Dead Goldfish (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the following webpages as sources:

• http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/arena-alinta-agree-funds-for-port-augusta-solar-thermal-study-76145
• http://sourceable.net/coalitions-million-solar-roofs-will-leave-arena-defunct/

My feeling is that they are good for supporting minor points in an article which also has proper reliable sources, but not as the main sources for an article. The websites don't appear to be news organisations per se, but they're serious sites which appear to be intended as news sources in their particular area.

Thanks. -- Chriswaterguy talk 03:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reneweconomy.com.au seems to be a professionally-edited specialist news site and I'd say it's fine for most purposes within its field. I'd be a little more cautious with Sourceable.net - though it has journalistic contributors it also seems to invite advertorial. But for minor non-contentious facts it's probably not a problem either. Barnabypage (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- Chriswaterguy talk 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Sources:

• I.B.Tauris
  , 2012), p. 185.
• Gordon Lynch, The Sacred in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 119.
• Micki McElya, "To "Choose Our Better History": Assessing the Obama Presidency in Real Time", American Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 1 (March 2011), p. 181.
• Liyakat Takim, "The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy: Implications for American Islam", Religions Vol. 2, No. 2 (2011), p. 136.

2. Article: Pamela Geller

3. Content: "Pamela Geller is right wing" --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

All are academic sources, therefore OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Provided that actually make that as a claim of fact, of course. "Encounters with Islam" deals with Geller only with reference to Breivik, and as a casual aside en passant as one of a number of "right wing commentators". Which is weak here. Takim's article and the Oxford cite only deal with the mosque controversy and do not seem to deal with Geller outside that specific issue whatsoever. So we might say she is seen as right wing with regard to the mosque controversy, but none of the sources is actually about Geller. When a source only mentions a person en passant, one generally does not ascribe huge weight thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

When a source only mentions a person en passant, one generally does not ascribe huge weight thereto.

Is that a Wikipedia policy, or a Collect policy? — goethean 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that a Wikipedia policy, or a Collect policy? – I think we can take some guidance from the description of defining characteristic in the Wikipedia

guideline for categorization

:

"A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: 'Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...', Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio." Accordingly, if Geller is commonly described as a right-wing blogger or right-wing political commentator, then those can be said to be defining characteristics for her, which seems to be the central question of the dispute. The defining characteristic explanation in that guideline makes no distinction between common descriptions given "en passant" and common descriptions given in other situations. Dezastru (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I like it. :-) The issue is that since the articles aren't really focusing on Geller, but on specific issues, so if, as is often the case with human beings, she happens to hold a range of views, extreme on some issues, moderate on others, the articles likely won't have noticed. (Is there really any person who is completely consistently of one view on all political issues?) I'd support "she has been called right wing"[ref][ref][ref] which is slightly more nuanced. --GRuban (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably even better to add "in the context of her positions on Islam <this and that>" unless there are [other] sources describing her [views] as right-wing in other contexts. Micki McElya appears to review one of Geller's books, so she might have more depth of coverage of Geller's views. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• The sources are of course reliable, certainly for the purpose indicated. Some of the other issues people are commenting on are not really best dealt with here. The main issue here is that the sources are fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Collect that it's an important consideration whether the source is writing about a topic or just mentioning it in passing. Here we have four academic sources, though, which increases the weight. If there is equally good sourcing for a different description then that must also be included. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone provide the relevant text from these sources? How anyone can make a determination without context is beyond me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • • In each case provided, single sentences are found using the adjective with the single usage of the person's name -- that is the very definition of "en passant" and the essence of "google mining" for sources. Where a reliable source is not about the claim being made but simply makes a single reference without any additional context to support its use for the claim it is impossible to assert the intent of the author of such a reference. Citing of partial sentences out of context to provide a basis for a contentious claim is not supportable logically. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Collect, how can you say that? Here is the text from McElya 2011 (I tried to fix some formatting lost in the copy-paste, but probably missed some), which is the most in-depth response to her political views that I have found in any academic source (and I believe I've read almost all of them at this point):

"Now, less than two years into Obama’s presidency, a spate of books attempting to establish the historical narrative of his life and early administration and his place in the larger American story, to choose his better history, have been published by a range of trade and academic presses. This review considers four of them: one by a historian of the post–1945 United States, two by prominent journalists, and one by a popular right-wing blogger. While disabusing their readers of any idea that a “post-race” America was revealed in Obama’s election, each author seeks to locate the president—his biography, his body, his family, his education, his politics, his hope, and his failures—within the history of race, liberalism, civil rights and social change, and progress. Each is aimed at a wide audience and popular culture that remains acutely engaged with the idea of American history and its political effects, in no small part due to the corporate-sponsored rise of the Tea Party movement and to Fox News’s Glenn Beck, who nightly decries his own worse history of the federal state, “progressivism,” and conspiracy from Wilson, Hitler, and FDR to Obama."

[...]

"Part of Alter’s motivation and reason for his methodological anxiety can be found in Pamela Geller’s The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, written with Robert Spencer, which covers the same first-year period. Geller proclaims America’s nearing destruction at Obama’s hand in his supposed quest for socialist, one-world governance and the global supremacy of Islam. Making various references to his “jihad presidency” (87) and “Islamophilia” (191), Geller claims that Obama is “committed to socialist internationalism and redistribution of American wealth” (xviii) and that “the chief beneficiaries of the redistribution of our wealth would be one continent and one religion: Africa and Islam” (15). John R. Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations appointed by George W. Bush, writes a foreword to the book in which he supports Geller’s claims and concludes that Obama’s policies and his rejection of “American exceptionalism” undermine national security (ix). The Post-American Presidency is a polemic that hews to the standards of neither journalism nor history. It is not a sustained or reasoned analysis of Obama’s governance, but merits inclusion here because it is built upon the same appeals to the moral power of history and the importance of Obama’s personal story to understanding his presidency. Geller’s book provides a glimpse into the funhouse mirror of far-right bombast and paranoia, and rides streams of conspiratorial argument now coursing through the center of national political discourse."

"Before the summer of 2010, Pamela Geller was known mostly to those on the far right who followed her blog, www.AtlasShrugs.com, or read her work in Newsmax. Geller has a background in mainstream journalism, working in the past for the New York Daily News and the New York Observer, before turning to advocacy after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Today, she is codirector, with Robert Spencer, of an organization called Stop Islamization of America that helped to create, publicize, and make national the controversy surrounding plans for the Park51 Islamic cultural center in Lower Manhattan, or, in the phrase Geller is credited with coining, the “Ground Zero Mosque.” Geller has since become a major media figure, prominent activist, and draw at Tea Party events."

"While Geller contends that Obama is “post-American” in his presidency, she is quite convinced that he did not begin as an American at all. Although flirting with “birther” claims and dropping references to them throughout her book, Geller finds the real source of illegitimacy in Obama’s parents’ rejection of Americanism or American values, resulting in the president’s own lack of American identity or patriotism. “You have to grow up in America to get America,” she writes. “Or you have to escape tyranny, oppression, and suppression and live the dream by emigrating to America. Obama is missing the DNA of the USA. It’s just not in him—through no fault of his own” (xv). To make this point, Geller argues that Obama’s Kenyan father and Indonesian stepfather were Muslims and says his American mother “was a communist,” all of which she equates with being anti-American. She writes of Obama’s “childhood homeland of Indonesia” (xiv) and claims that because Hawai‘i, where he spent the majority of his youth, was not on the mainland and had only recently become a state, it was essentially not America at all. Geller’s recourse to metaphors of the body and genetics to describe this failed generational transmission of national identity necessarily calls to mind Obama’s biracial birth, keeping race central to the equation of foreignness." (pp. 181 & 186–8.)--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• The sources are reliable for the statement that Geller "is an American right-wing blogger" or that Geller "is an American right-wing political commentator". There appear to be other sources which similarly describe her along those lines (for example, [4] [5] [6] [7]). Dezastru (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Addedum to 1. Sources:

• Sweeney and Opotow, "“Why There?” Islamophobia, Environmental Conflict, and Justice at Ground Zero",
  Social Justice Research
  Vol. 26, No. 4 (December 2013), p. 500.
• Robert Power, "45-51 Park Place: Transmitting Cordoba's Medieval Past in the Ground Zero Present", Irish Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2011), p. 26.
• Grynbaum, M. M. (2010, August 12). "Dispute over ad opposing Islamic center highlights limits of the MTA’s powers".New York Times, p. A22
• Grunert, Jeremy, "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia? Awad v. Ziriax and the Question of Sharia Law in America" (March 1, 2013). Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2013, pp. 698 & 699.
• Debbie Almontaser, "Khail Gibran International Academy: From Dream to Nightmare" in Lisa Arrastia, Marvin Hoffman (eds.) Starting Up: Critical Lessons from 10 New Schools Teachers College Press, 2012, p. 125.
• Eboo Patel, Sacred Ground: Pluralism, Prejudice, and the Promise of America (Beacon Press, 2012), p. xix.
• Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire (Haymarket Books, 2012), p. 166.
• John Feffer, "Crusade 2.0 (City Lights Books, 2012), p. 48.
• Julie M. Powell, "Triumph & Commemoration: Collective Imagination and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ Controversy", UCLA Historical Journal Vol. 24, No. 1 (2013), p. 21. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is any of those sources specifically about Geller's general position on the political spectrum? I rather think they are all primarily about the Islam issue, and mention her en passant with regard to that single issue. Which is what I pointed out a few times already. And in many countries, support of Islam is clearly right wing. Cheers, but the term is useless here, and especially since none of your googled sources make any such general statements about Geller. Collect (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Geller has also been referred to as "conservative,"[8][9] which is synonymous with "right-wing" in reference to American political ideologies (neither of those two sources mention her positions on Islamic politics), and her website Atlas Shrugs has been characterized as "far-right."[10]

Having said that, I agree with Nomoskedasticity that these other issues are beyond the scope of this board. Dezastru (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Multiple independent, reliable sources describe Geller as "right-wing" and as a "right-wing blogger". These include the New York Times, the Financial Times, and various academic works (all cited above). This material meets and exceeds the bar set by
  WP:BLP. Given the number and quality of sources proffered, I am at a loss to understand Collect's continued insistences, nor do I understand the increasingly odd and abstruse distinctions he's drawing. There appears to be clear consensus here that multiple reliable sources support the characterization of Geller as a "right-wing blogger". Whether this characterization is appropriate or ideal for the article is a separate consideration, but available reliable sources do support such a description. MastCell ^Talk
  20:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Geller is absolutely right-wing, according to many mainstream sources such as The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic monthly, etc. Other sources call Geller "far right", "extreme right" and "extremist". This resistance to the more moderate label of "right wing" is difficult to understand. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What really is at play here is a strange pissing match to state this label "in voice". Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

People should stop pissing then. It is clear from reading mainstream sources that Geller is right-wing. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It is also clear that we don't label people without attribution.Two kinds of pork (talk)

This forum is for discussion of sources, not to reiterate arguments from the talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is. Perhaps we can get the relevant text from each of the sources above to examine them in detail? I see a few of them that we have examined don't make the claim that has been suggested here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

TKOP makes an excellent point and absolutely vital (for the second time, I believe). The four sources at issue are the four sources mentioned at the top of the thread. Exactly what do the four sources say? Quoted would be very nice in order to satisfy

WP:BURDEN. – S. Rich (talk

) 05:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If

soup-spitting or a demand for a shrubbery than a serious effort to apply this site's content policies. MastCell ^Talk

07:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is still going on? I'm baffled. At this point, this isn't an issue of sources, it's an issue for mediation or Arbcom. Gamaliel (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey I just noticed that there are a lot of pages that are citing CNN's iReport as CNN itself. iReport is a CNN project where anybody can submit anything and it will produce a page under the CNN banner. The only indication that it's not CNN is a tag that says "Not vetted for CNN". Otherwise it is completely user-generated. Here's the about page. "The stories here are not edited fact-checked or screened before they post."
There are some stories that CNN vets and approves, but it looks like a tiny minority. Here's an example of a "vetted" story story. It's a woman's personal tribute to her own mother who really liked Shirley Temple. To give another example, consider this NY Art Dealer Tina Kim (art dealer) who has a citation to CNN, but when you look at the source, it's a press release submitted to the iReport page. Or look at just about any of the other search results, I think you'll still see the issue. This looks like it might need a systemic solution, or at least a focussed cleanup, considering the number of pages it affects. What do you think? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Another two examples, look at Jaerock Lee's supposed CNN coverage here, or for the article Javid Husain, the supposed CNN coverage here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove them all, especially for BLPs. Over 350 links. Needs to be added to our cleanup list [11]

talk

) 13:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have provided three sources for the random reboot issue of the Nokia Lumia 1520 but FDMS4 (talk) and Götz (talk) keep saying all three source are not reliable. I would like a third party opinion.

This is the content:

The phone freezes and hangs randomly, like other Lumia phones. Resetting the phone is good DIY method to take care of this problem. Nokia is already investigating the issue.

These are the sources:

• Poll: Are you seeing more random resets after installing Nokia App Folder? | Windows Phone Central
• Reset Nokia Lumia 1520
• Re: 1520 reboots - Nokia Support Discussions

three parties have already given you opinion, you're

WP:NOTHOWTO. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would consider wpcentral.com to be a reliable source, however, in this particular case, a user poll is being cited rather than a regular news article. There is no editorial oversight of a poll, so it's value is extremely limited, if not zero. I'm not familiar with the second source, but it seems like an

WP:SPS which would be not reliable for this particular content. The third source, an apparent forum comment by a Nokia representative is perhaps the best source out of the three. However, the content "The phone freezes and hangs randomly, like other Lumia phones." is not supported by the source. The source says "occasionally" and make no mention of other Lumia phones. Overall, I don't find any of these three sources to be reliable for the content proposed. Further, if there's a legitimate issue with the 1520, you would see significant coverage by mainstream news sources such as CNET, Engadget, PC World, etc.. The apparent dearth of such sources suggests that this is an undue weight issue as explained by The Red Pen of Doom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek adds that perhaps I shouldn't have added long quotes from the sources in "nb" format. I understand that, though the text explains the content added on what could be a contentious subject. Here is the diff for the sum of my additions so far. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My questioning was limited to Per Rudling, not to the other authors mentioned above (Umland and Shekhovtsov). Also, I did not claim Rudling's work was not reliable by wikipedia standards or should be excluded. I simply wrote that it ought to be used particularly carefully, because Rudling himself is demonstrably biased as I show here: [16]. He is not unique in being biased and in contentious topics such as Eastern European historical ones opposing sides ought to be scrutinized also.Faustian (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this list of neighborhoods from theeastsiderla.com a reliable source for which neighborhoods are part of the East side of Los Angeles sufficient to include all those neighborhoods in Eastside Los Angeles:

Angeleno Heights, Atwater Village, Boyle Heights, City Terrace, Cypress Park, Eagle Rock, East Hollywood, East Los Angeles, Echo Park, El Sereno, Elysian Heights, Elysian Valley, Garvanza, Glassell Park, Hermon, Highland Park, Historic Filipinotown, Lincoln Heights, Los Feliz, Montecito Heights, Monterey Hills, Mount Washington, Northeast L.A., Silver Lake, Solano Canyon, Victor Heights,

Their list contradicts the Los Angeles Times definition here at mappingLA and dozens of other reliable sources on the question. Furthermore, it strikes me that they're describing their coverage area rather than making actual reliable claims about which neighborhoods are on the East side. Thank you for your time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, you are asking whether that source and list would be reliable for a statement of fact in the

WP:NPOV) Dezastru (talk

) 19:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly was asking whether the source is reliable for such a statement of fact. Thanks for looking into it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no set or official definition of which neighborhoods constitute each region of

Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles Times "Mapping L.A." project is more authoritative than the above source, but the Times notes in its methodology that definitions do indeed differ. (For example, it notes that for some the easter boundary of the Westside is the San Diego Freeway, although they use a more expansive definition and go to La Cienega Boulevard

.

I would treat the above source as somewhat reliable, in that you could include in some articles of some of those neighborhoods or in the Eastside Los Angeles article, that those neighborhoods are sometimes considered to be in the Eastside as well. I wouldn't change the infobox though, for example, because "Mapping L.A." would still be more authoritative. --Precision123 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor

Not remotely reliable as a source - see their disclaimer: "OMG! Turkey publishes news, truth, rumors and speculation. This website is for entertainment, celebrity purposes only. This website may contain errors or inaccuracies, however we do our best to verify all stories and submissions. We make no warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the content." [20]

As for deleting other sources, that isn't really an issue for this notice board - though it would be advisable for GreenCross1982 to provide an explanation, as you have asked at User talk:GreenCross1982. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, i am the one same time publishing news on OMGTurkey. Purpose here give more information about Turkish Celebrity for Non-Turkish fans. If you will google it, u might have less or none information about them.

We do not provide the information alone. We only translate Turkish news from different daily newspapers or website in English. (Sabah, Milliyet, Hurriyet, Gecce.com) If our source is gives reliable content about celebrity so we can translate it as well also.

Why do we keep on editing some articles in the Wikipedia? Main reason for doing this is because we want to share what we know. Wikipedia provides information to the people around the globe. We help each other to give information to the people. If we can help you provide the right information, then we will do so. Wikipedia is helping us to give the right information to some of our articles; it's our way to pay you back from all the help that you provide. In order for us to have a good relationship, we need to follow the give and take policy. You are helping us so we would like to help you too.

Some of the articles in Wikipedia are not updated; some has incomplete details. Let us fill that space to make the article complete. Please let us help editing some of your articles. Anyway you are asking for help, and we are willing to reach out our hand to provide information for the benefit of all readers.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎GreenCross1982 (talk • contribs)

When you say "We," are you saying that you are either affiliated with OMGTurkey or that more than one person has access to this account? In any case, the disclaimer makes it clear that we can't consider OMGTurkey a reliable source. If they aren't willing to back it up, we shouldn't be using it here. --Onorem (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the above comments by GreenCross1982 seem to me to indicate a clear conflict of interest here - anyone affiliated with OMGTurkey.com has no business adding links to the website to Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, if the website is using Wikipedia as a source, it cannot under any circumstances be used as a source, per WP verifiability policy - specifically

WP:CIRCULAR. If the material being cited comes from a reliable source, it needs to be cited directly to the original source, not to OMGTurkey.com. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 23:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

GreenCross1982, your interest in helping to improve information about Turkey in the English-language Wikipedia is appreciated! Thank you! However, the way you have been trying to do it does not comply with Wikipedia rules. OMGTurkey.com itself does not meet our

policy on using non-English-language sources. Dezastru (talk

) 18:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with @

secondary sources), and that any material we add should have encyclopedic value. --Precision123 (talk

) 23:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In recently attempting to purchase a computer I went looking for one that met the specifications I desired. HP originally planned to create one and issued press releases. However, they never did. Someone prematurely wrote an article based on that press release implying that it existed, now a user, Indrek, has repeatedly reverted my edits to the zBook page claiming that the article with false information is a reliable source and therefore my accurate information should be removed. The article in question doesn't link to any of it's supposed sources, but I found a press release from HP here: [21] The entire article is written in present tense, but the section in question is written in future tense.

Source: [22] Article: HP_ZBook Diff: [23]

Thanks, Matthewslaney (talk

I'm glad to see you chose to follow my advice and take this to RSN. Permit me to rephrase the question in the form expected by this noticeboard (as it is, it reads more like you're trying to file a dispute at

WP:DRN

or similar).

Can this article at Geek.com be considered a reliable source for the following statement (specifically, the part in bold) in HP ZBook, per this revision?

Display options include a touch-sensitive screen on the ZBook 14, 3200×1800 resolution on the ZBook 15 and an HP DreamColor IPS panel on the ZBook 17.

Same question about this article at Engadget, while we're at it. Indrek (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Matthewslaney, the problem is that one of the quirks of Wikipedia is that the project's goal is to compile noteworthy information as described in reliable sources, rather than to compile noteworthy information that is true. So we sometimes (or often, depending on the topic) encounter situations in which we know or strongly suspect something is true but we can't say it in a Wikipedia article because the majority of sources don't say it. In this case, we don't have any particular reason to disbelieve that you contacted HP and verified that they never produced the model(s) being discussed. But in the absence of reliable sources saying that the models were never produced, the article can't include a statement that the models were never produced. (please read the Wikipedia policy that forbids using original research

Dezastru, thank you for your input. Would you consider the current revision (as quoted below, relevant part again bolded) to be acceptable, and an accurate representation of the cited sources?

Display options include a touch-sensitive screen on the ZBook 14 and an HP DreamColor IPS panel on the ZBook 17. Additionally, a 3200×1800 resolution option has been announced for the ZBook 15.

Regards, Indrek (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Saying that an option for a 3200x1800 display was announced would probably be fair. Dezastru (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Hopefully Matthewslaney will also find this agreeable. Indrek (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

New user:Jnordqvist appears to be CEO and chief editor of this site which appears to be blogish.

Articles:

• Silver
• Warren Buffet
• Impulse purchase, citing unsourced research
• WP:OR
• Criticism of Walmart, citing unsourced research

--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 08:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

-- I understand your concerns Loriendrew, although cannot help but feel like I'm being singled out, which may be the case as you are only being wary of newcomers - given the fact that your profile says your "duties" in this site involve page patrolling and minor fixing/repairs of established entries.

However, let me make something clear, I only want to enhance the reading experience for those who come across these articles - like I did - and feel they need more substance.

1. My impulse purchase edit was per an article that is one hundred percent based on a recent study titled “Environmental Disorder Leads to Self-Regulatory Failure,” published in the Journal of Consumer Research). I think the edit added interesting and relevant substance to a page which is riddled with outdated information.

2. My edit of the "Criticism of Wal-Mart" article was also based on an article which covered new research published in the British Journal of Criminology concerning crime rates associated with the number of Wal-Marts in US counties. Again, this is interesting and relevant substance for a reader.

I would like to make it clear to you and all other key members of the wiki community that those edits are based on "sourced research" which (in my opinion) adds value to the articles.

In a nutshell, the reason I joined is because I want to use my knowledge of certain topics to add quality content (backed with references) to this site (a great medium for people to learn). I am new here and I would like to contribute. I truly feel that my input (though it will not be substantial) will improve articles.

--☾Jnordqvist☽

Don't know if I'm a key member :) This is a comment on the

WP:COI. Andrew Dalby

12:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the slap on the wrist and clearing that up for me Loriendrew. --☾Jnordqvist☽

Hello. There's currently a discussion at

The page includes death dates of 2007 and 2010, so it has not been unchanged since 2005. Internet Archive finds no earlier versions. Evaluation of a source has nothing to do with OR. What we have here is the general question of whether an otherwise "reliable source" should still be used if the information in question has been unsourced in Wikipedia for some time and no definitely pre-Wikipedia source can be found, leaving the possibility (and, statistically, the certainty of having a certain amount) of circularly-sourced false information. Sure, we always have a certain amount of false information anyway - but it is particularly bad when false information is seemingly based on a reliable source. And this is not insignificant - I have come across hundreds of such cases already. It is always the same - once an information is in Wikipedia for any length of time, it will seep (perhaps in multiple stages) into "reliable sources". Let's face it - does anyone think the online editor who compiles such a list at Oxford DNB does original research to find a death year that appears nowhere else? The person in question evidently dropped into obscurity after 1980 and his death may only have been reported in some local paper. Mewulwe (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the biographies in ODNB show even more concern about sourcing than Wikipedia does, and I would be surprised to learn that any ODNB biographies borrow stuff from Wikipedia. But that's not relevant to this question: there is no ODNB biography of

Jack William Pithey. So I think Mewulwe raises a good question. This "theme" list on the ODNB website cites no sources, and I'm not sure whether we have previously considered the reliability of such marginal material on ODNB. Our assumption, since it's published by OUP, one of the more notable of academic presses, would be that it's reliable. But our assumption could be wrong. Andrew Dalby

12:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised too, but there you go, openly admitted: [25] [26]. One can only speculate how often facts are taken from Wikipedia without such attribution. Mewulwe (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree: ODNB is undoubtedly a reliable source and for all its biographies it does itself provide sources. However, this is not about an ODNB biography as such. Interestingly, there is no obituary in The Times or Daily Telegraph. Emeraude (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Without the proof you have supplied, I wouldn't have believed it. From the point of view of Wikipedia's place in the world this is of course good, but (as you know, Mewulwe) it doesn't make our reliable source decisions any easier ... Andrew Dalby 14:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've written to them, we'll see if they reply.

talk

) 15:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards yes, at least in this instance where the reviewer in question is one of the originators of the site, which has been around since 2007. The site in question is AV Maniacs, which previously went under the name DVD Maniacs. It's used on other pages on here under either name, but I wanted to get a second opinion on this since I'm not entirely familiar with this site (or just looked over it when I was looking for reviews).

• In other words, I think it's one of the rare exceptions to websites that may be considered blogs or bloggish since there does seem to be an editorial board and searching a little does seem to make it look fairly legitimate.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  11:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

AV Maniacs is probably not a reliable source, as it appears to be a self-published group blog. "Self-published media, such as books, ... personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources".

WP:BLOGS Dezastru (talk

) 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Link - [27]

I have checked

I personally haven't found anything to suggest it is unreliable, but let's see what others say......

talk

) 17:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The answer to whether it is reliable will likely depend on what the source would be used for. Can you provide more information? See the box near the top of the page that explains what information is necessary ("Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available").

Incidentally, there appears to be some background information on how that website got started, and what the owner's (or manager's?) vision for it is, in an interview on a different site.[28] Dezastru (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be used primarily for news posts and reviews of songs and albums, such as this:

talk

18:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's run by

SpinMedia

, the heirs of Spin magazine. I guess they're somewhere between just some guys blog and Rolling Stone. I guess that there's two separate issues, statements of fact and statements of opinion. Statements of fact are stuff like "Before joining the Angry Young Popes, Smith was the drummer for the Inbred Cannibal Rats". Statements of opinion are stuff like "James Shotwell of Under The Gun called called the album "their best since Hey We Made A Record"". The second is not a question of reliability but of standing. That is, are James Shotwell, and the reviewers at Under The Gun generally, people worth citing for their opinions? Are they expert enough, or well-known enough, or read by enough people, for that?

Yeah probably, I guess. It's pretty borderline. Here's] Shotwell's resume. He gets paid for this (probably), but only part-time (he also works for Haulix). He might not actually know more about music than your roomate's cousin, hard to tell. That particular review sounds like he's pretty savvy. He's a professional music reviewer so I suppose you can cite him if you like. I'm assuming that the Under The Gun folks are similar. (I only looked at that one M&M review).

Going back to statements of fact, stuff like when a band member left, the order of albums released by a band, stuff like that... I'd try to avoid using them too much myself. Looking at that page again. Suppose Shotwell said "Their first album, Greatest Hits Volume 2, came out in 2006", how confident can we be that that's true, and we can state it as fact in an article? Not very. He's just a part-timer, just a kid, we don't know if anyone goes over the facts in his articles (doubt it), we don't know if he's just relying on memory or actually going online or looking at the CD... it depends on the fact being cited. I'd look for better references for statements of fact, mostly. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have always seen it as an unreliable blog, it being published by Spin Media does not make it either reliable or a notable review site. Spin Media also publishes other blogs such as Buzznet, Celebslam, Celebuzz, GoFugYourself, JustJared, KimKardashian, KhloeKardashian, KourtneyKardashian, and RADAR Online, which I am pretty sure no one would consider reliable sources or notable reviewers for anything. There is no indication that the reviewers are professionals with years of experience, where their opinions would be notable and or useful in an encyclopedia. It also does not make it any better that SPA IPs frequently spam album articles with reviews from this site, I have even thought of starting a thread to add it to the blacklist before. Examples of this behavior include this IP. STATic message me! 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah that's sensible. As to reviews and opinions... I'm not sure how we deal with that and I don't know if there is a rule. It's complicated by the fact that we have articles on fairly obscure bands that aren't going to be reviewed by Rolling Stone etc., and you have to get get material on these people from somewhere. I guess a rubric could be "if the person earns a living as music reviewer and that's his main fulltime job, then his has standing to be quoted from or linked to in an article, at least for fairly obscure bands". Looking at the first two named Under The Gun reviewers I saw, James Shotwell and Tyler Osborne, they're not fulltime pro's, they seem to be more like intern types or get-some-side-cash guys. So I can see the point of not using them, and since we can't always look at every individual reviewer, I can see saying

"Under The Gun reviewers are amateurs, so let's not use Under The Gun". That's reasonable.

And if they're spamming us, fuck 'em. Blacklist them or just delete links to them. I'd go along with that. Herostratus (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So should the site be classes as unreliable or reliable with conditions of use on the reliable sources page? And also what's to become of the sources that rely on them, such as

talk

14:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am all for blacklisting them, I am pretty sick of the spamming. That IP is one of many that pops up every couple months. I would say mark it as unreliable on the record and on

WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, unless anyone has opposition to that idea. Also SilentDan297, if it was blacklisted then yes, if it is decided to be unreliable then all controversial BLP or opinion claims would have to be removed that use the source. But simple things like album releases or stuff like that, no harm to use it. STATic message me!

17:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

At Talk:Puerto Rico#RfC:Can the existence of the PR status controversy be admitted to the article?, I propose the language, “While government sources list Puerto Rico as an "unincorporated" territory, it has also been referred to as "incorporated" into the United States during scholarly disputes over Puerto Rican status.”

I source the existence of a scholarly controversy over the status of Puerto Rico at Burnett and Marshall, Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p.15, 17.

Puerto Rico’s transition into “commonwealth” status in 1952 raised these questions in a debate that continues today. … Whether this means the island ceased to be an unincorporated territory… remain the sources of considerable disagreement. p.15

, and an element of the controversy “incorporated” at Lawson and Sloane, Boston College Law Review, p.1175 which is not currently reflected in the article.

… regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art. p.1175.

I am told here and in prior discussion that there is no controversy but my disruption and soapboxing, I am not being concise, there is no such controversy in Puerto Rican politics, it does not meet significance, and the Boston College Law Review is a self-published unreliable source. I am unsure how to procede. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak to the argument of how significant this is in the context of the article, but "Foreign in a Domestic Sense" appears to be a scholarly book published by a reputable academic publisher (Duke University Press), and Boston College Law Review appears to be a peer-reviewed academic journal (they publish both scholarly works by law professors and local student essays, so one needs to be careful, but the one you want to cite is indeed by professors not affiliated with Boston College). Both look reliable to me, for sourcing scholarly opinion on the status of PR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It turns out a) "incorporated" is not treated in the main body of the article, so it cannot be introduced into the introduction, and b) the information is not allowed into the main article by consensus because "political questions" are relegated to Political status of Puerto Rico. So my RfC failed, but I learned something. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As with most "Law Review"s, it is a student publication, though competitive and highly supervised/edited. It also publishes articles by outside non-student legal experts. Which type of article/note is being referred to is important. See its description here [[30]]Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with all. The Boston College Law Review is a reliable scholarly publication. In addition, from the looks of it (though I have not investigated your dispute), your suggested edit seems like a reasonable reflection of the source. @TheVirginiaHistorian:. --Precision123 (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The controversy surrounding PR incorporation and unincorporation may be more appropriately discussed at Territories of the U.S. or United States, where different sides of a controversy are admitted. The argument at Puerto Rico is that there is no controversy since it is not discussed in Puerto Rican politics, and there can be only one right answer. Much emphasis on the community consensus at Puerto Rico alone. --- notice of the RfC at project noticeboards for Puerto Rico, Latin America, and United States where the article is rated a priority, were either demoted and buried in alternate headings, or they simply disappeared. I'm relatively new at WP editing disputes, so I only discovered these after conceding this year.

My last country dispute was a year ago where PR was included in the U.S. at a DRN, but the administrator reverted it as badly written. Having been outmanuevered again this year, I do not mean to enter another country controversy for another year until do more research and i learn more of the ropes here at WP. This year I learned this page is an important source. I have confirmation that a) I am not the dispute, there is a scholarly controversy, --- and b) Lawson and Sloane have a scholarly position other than the "OR" I am accused of. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is being added to some BLPs - the problem I have is that it appears less sourced than the corresponding Wikipedia articles. In the case of

Other views? Collect (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As a wiki, it's not reliable as a citation. Might be an indication, like Wikipedia itself, of where to find citations. I personally wouldn't erase material cited to it before looking to see if it was backed up by something that we'd consider reliable, and then change the citation. But it shouldn't be cited as a source by itself. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In the case at hand, it was given as "further reading" bust since it seems actually less useful than the WP article, I considered that use risible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That might be covered in the proposed Wikipedia:Further reading. Some opinionated sources are fine but only if balanced appropriately by other sources per NPOV? And if there isn't agreement, it's probably better to not have the Further Reading section? For reliability specifically, it advises that further reading can sometimes have links to places considered generally unreliable, but When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation. I think the decision to use it is probably a consensus one on the talk page, and if it's linked that way at all, there should be an brief explanation of its wiki-ness. I don't have an opinion about its usefulness in that specific example though; it sounds contentious. But we have plenty of generally unreliable sources linked to in the Further Reading sections of articles, with local consensus for their inclusion. One example is all of the Find-A-Grave links. (and a local consensus should take still take BLP policy into especial consideration, of course). __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify Collect's first statement, I added it to the Further reading section of

WP:POINTY. 71.23.178.214 (talk

) 20:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As for his "submit your bio" remark, that is exactly what Project Vote Smart does, along with all the rest of the political transparency sources. None of them publish any material "as is", but they ask politicians and the general public for information which they then verify. The most respected news media (TV, newspapers, radio) do "candidate questionnaires". This is standard practice. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the Ballotpedia section I am referring to, similar to the resources which were previously included in Template:GovLinks. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not a RS for BLPs, I think that should be pretty clear. For the same reason, should not be contained in 'further reading' (it's actually an external link and should be an EL if included). Dubious about it's use for anything else as we should be able to find original sources for any of it. This is a

talk

) 06:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been around since 2007 and claims to have ~8000 editors, so it may pass the "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" exemption from

WP:ELNO #12. As such it can probably be included as an external link even though it should not be used as an actual source. —David Eppstein (talk

) 18:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of that line from

WP:ELNO #12 is unclear. Does it mean that the specific wiki page (in this case, the Rick Scott page at Ballotpedia[31]), or does it mean the whole wiki (Ballotpedia), as I think you are saying. The latter would seem to me to be an inappropriate criterion for supporting inclusion as an external link for a BLP. Dezastru (talk

) 20:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Elaqueate that "As a wiki, it's not reliable as a citation. Might be an indication, like Wikipedia itself, of where to find citations." Dezastru (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be used as a source in BLPs. I'd add that it shouldn't appear in any form in any article that's reasonably well referenced and nearing WP:GA quality. --

talk

) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of trying to participate in a discussion and consensus if Ronz is determined to go off on his own "cleansing" efforts regardless? Ballotpedia is not an "open" wiki, there was never any attempt to use it as a citation or source, and it fits the requirements of

WP:FURTHER. Financial information is important, and it's ongoing. 71.23.178.214 (talk

) 13:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I ask you once again, are you continuing to spam Ballotpedia to articles? --

talk

) 18:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is wargs.com[32] a reliable source for saying "[Ron Paul's] paternal grandfather emigrated from Germany, as did his paternal grandmother's parents, while his mother was of three quarters German and one quarter Irish ancestry" in Ron Paul? Dezastru (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a personal web site, and has no claim to meeting

WP:RS. Collect (talk

) 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact it is by William Addams Reitwiesner, who was an extremely notable amateur genealogist. But it is a self-published source and it even says it is a "first draft." Even if it were rs, the information in it is unimportant unless cited by secondary sources. TFD (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with @The Four Deuces:. Reitwiesner was a notable genealogist, but we should always be wary of first drafts and of sources that explicitly say should not be considered definitive. However, I did find a source for you here. It is Ron Paul's own book and he talks about grandfather and his grandmother's parents immigrating from Germany. Let me know what you think, @Dezastru:. --Precision123 (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen the source, but will assume you are faithfully representing what it says. Dezastru (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a mistaken belief that professor Moriarty's first name is James. In all references to "Professor Moriarty" never is a first name listed. The confusion is because on the first page of "The Final Problem" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Dr. Watson references some writings by Colonel James Moriarty the brother of professor Moriarty as shown below:

"My hand has been forced, however, by the recent letters in which Colonel James Moriarty defends the memory of his brother, and I have no choice but to lay the facts before the public exactly as they occurred."

Additional confusion is also due to the PBS/BBC production of "Sherlock" which also refers to professor Moriarty as "James" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.39.60 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You may well be right as far as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is concerned. But other do state his given name is James: For instance Michael Kurland, who wrote several books based on Professor Moriarty's character refers to him as "Professor James Moriarty" [33], and Rolf J. Canton [34]. Therefore, even if Conan Doyle himself did not attribute that first name to professor Moriarty, others have. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Sometime when you have a year or two to spare I commend to you the study of Professor Moriarty." __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles such as Buddhism by country or List of religious populations have been constructed through misuse of sources and original research (for example combining statistics of different religions), in order to enormously inflate the number of Buddhists in the world.

For example, in the article Buddhism by country statistics of Buddhism have been mixed with those of other religions of East Asia (Chinese folk religion, Taoism, Shinto, Dao Mau), that have more followers than Buddhism in the respective countries, claiming that they are "related" to Buddhism, when this is utterly false. In the case of China and Vietnam, where Buddhism is followed by little more than 10% of the population (see religion in China, religion in Vietnam), mixing this statistics with that of indigenous religions, the article says that these countries are 50% to 80% Buddhist. In the case of Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Mongolia, where according to censuses or surveys the Buddhists are, respectively, 35%, 22%, around 30% and 53%, the article says that they are over 90%, 50%, 90% and 90% respectively. The authors of this type of edits also use unreliable sources (tourist and travel websites, for example). The same hyper-inflated fake numbers (over 1 billion Buddhists in the world) have been cited also in the main article, Buddhism (which even reports 1.6 billion Buddhists!).

In other cases, List of religious populations#Buddhists, the same author uses reliable survey statistics (those reorting lower numbers) claiming that thair count is only of "practicing Buddhists", while uses the hyper inflated numbers claiming that they represent both practicing and non-practicing Buddhists. East Asian Buddhism has been created using the same type of unreliable sources mentioned above to sustain the high statistics, claiming that East Asians practice "mixed religions" ultimately resulting in this "East Asian Buddhism". Also, many charts have been created by the same authors: I have inserted some of them here on the left.--79.54.76.129 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem comes from two directions. One is the lack of good quality sources in Buddhism by country. Neither World Christian Database nor buddhanet seem to be reliable. The other is that maximum estimate levels have been used in the graphics. The estimates in the article are wildly variant so it is understandable in a way that an editor would choose to use all high estimates for comparability, the alternative being to use all low estimates. I very much doubt that anyone actually wants to mislead, so can you find better sources that could go into maps, and discuss this with the authors of the current maps? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism can also be confounding due to a long history of yes-and missionary activity. A lot of early Buddhist missionaries gained acceptance by telling locals that Buddhism was complementary to their extant faiths. As a result there are people who practice (for example) Chinese folk religion, Taoism and Buddhism simultaneously. However whether somebody should be called a Buddhist when they wear a Guanyin pendant and pray at Buddhist temples when appropriate, but are otherwise uninvolved in Sangha is a thorny question. So even if we had good reliable sources I think there would be problems associated with the ambiguity of what makes somebody Buddhist to begin with. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is already a note about this problem on one of those pages: see List of religious populations#Notes. I don't see how we can do more than note it -- and use the best sources we can find. There's no logical reason why statistics for religious believers shouldn't add up to more than 100% of a population. Andrew Dalby 10:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also discussed at some length within the Buddhism by country article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You haven't got the point. Good quality sources on the real number of Buddhists in East Asia exist: they are the surveys and reports from censuses, mostly corresponding to the lower numbers. What they tell is that Buddhism is a minor, yet significant, religion in East Asian countries (with a strong visual presence, a lot of temples, a numerous clergy, but a level of adherents not exceeding the 20%). In fact, Buddhism has had a tremendous influence in East Asia, but it has never been the total majority religion there (unlike Southeast Asia), and it has been on the decline for the last centuries, at least until recently. Indigenous religions have taken prevalence in China and Vietnam, while post-war Japan has gone more towards secularism and Korea towards Christianity due to Westernization.

A Chinese who worships

Dao Mau

isn't a Buddhist!

The problem here is that: articles such as Buddhism by country wrongfully mix the number of Buddhists with the number of followers of other religions, finally saying that the totals represent "Buddhism by country", while they represent "East Asian religions lumped together, by country", which is a lie. --79.45.84.211 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want help from this board, you need to be specific about how the problem might be corrected. Please forgive me if the questions seem silly, but I don't see them answered above.

1. Are you suggesting that we should rely on a better source? Which one? Have you tried using that source to correct one or more of the articles? What has been the result?
2. Are there specific sources, currently used, that you consider we should not be using? Which ones? Have you tried removing material deriving from those sources? What has been the result? Andrew Dalby 13:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes. Reliable sources, such as the Pew Forum Report and local surveys or census data. I have not tried to fix the articles since the same issues I have proposed here have been discussed various times in the past (see: [35], [36], [37]) but it seems impossible to reason with the author(s) who have constructed this type of information.
2. Yes. Web posts like this, press articles like this, data from touristic websites like this or this, maps like this which don't say anything specific about Buddhism. This kind of sources are totally unreliable, yet they constitute 90% if not more of the sources used in articles like Buddhism by country. I have not tried removing this type of sources, for the same reasons given above.--79.7.78.58 (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Sources. The book or web page being used as the source.
a. Reference 1. Sutherland, A. The Man behind the music:(2008). There is one well-known and one lesser-known book by this name, but no evidence that this exists. No publisher information given.
b. Reference 4 & 9. Williams, S. (2001), "Cecil Jay Roberts: My Life, My Story, My Words", Johnson & J. Wood, Akana Press, Pitoria. I find no evidence of "Akana Press". "Pitoria" seems like a typo, at best.
c. References 5. and 8. Both of these articles were written by "QueStar Management", which appears to be Cecil Jay Roberts management company. It seems they should be treated as an

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSperrazza (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 February 2014‎

I too can't find evidence that the 2001 and 2008 books exist, or that Pitoria is a real place. Andrew Dalby 08:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The books aren't in the British Library. They may well have been published in Ghana. The author who suggested using them should help us out with that, and then we could find someone who has access to libraries in Ghana to confirm it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The

A user with a dynamic IP (most recently on the talk page as 178.8.155.17) reverted (r1 r2 r3). A discussion formed on the talk page, so I self-reverted to remove the text again until we could figure it out given a cited BLP issue.

There's

Two quotes from Tor representatives from a Washington Post blog. If that's all that's taken from it, I don't think it matters even if the author was looking for dirt. To me this is an obvious one, but as nobody else has weighed in on the talk page, I come here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty clearly a reliable source on this one.

WP:NEWSBLOG is the guidance here. Thargor Orlando (talk

) 15:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

By reading the thread, you will find that the "should we trust it?" is a gross mischaracterization of the discussion so far. The self-revert by Rhododendrites was on my request because he warned me that I would be blocked if I removed the material again. I'm very surprised to find this thread here. I think his argument is that if it is a reliable source and an editor or group wants it there, it must stay. I haven't gone into much detail yet on the poor reliability of this source, but that is a secondary issue. 94.222.99.148 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

On the question of whether the source is reliable for the statement in contention (namely, "One of the founders of the project, Roger Dingledine, stated that the DoD funds are less similar to being a

research grant

. Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the US federal government, the Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users."), the source is reliable. The author is a journalist who covers technology topics for the Washington Post, and the statement proposed for the Wikipedia article is drawn from interviews he had with the Tor project members he is quoting.

(If reliable sources have discussed the issue of whether Tor might be untrustworthy, in the sense of questioning whether government surveillance agencies might have backdoor access to electronic communications sent through Tor, then that topic may be appropriate for inclusion in the article. But that more general question is outside the scope of this board, which is intended to provide comment on the reliability of specific sources for specific statements in Wikipedia articles.) Dezastru (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While we're here, I do have questions on sourcing. 1)

opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")"? 94.222.99.148 (talk

) 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As has been explained to you several times, WP:BLP isn't a magic word that allows you to get your way in any content dispute. Multiple editors (including some administrators) have evaluated your claims of BLP violations and have concluded that they do not exist. Therefor, getting back to the topic of this noticeboard, yes, BLP sets a higher threshold for sources, but no, that does not apply to the source we are discussing. Most Wikipedia articles involve people in one way or another, but that does not imply that BLP applies to most Wikipedia articles. I say this as someone who take a very conservative position on BLPs, removing material that might or might not qualify as a BLP violation just to be on the safe side. BTW, I think Herostratus is on the right track here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please allow me to apologize to Rhododendrites. Upon re-reading what he wrote, I now see that I misread it. He was not saying that my argument for not including the material was "should we trust it?", but rather it was that I did not like the fact that it posed a similar question in the blog post's title, "Can users trust it?", referring to NSA bribing Tor leadership to install a secret backdoor for them. While not completely encapsulating my arguments against it, it did not grossly mischaracterize them as I said. I am really very sorry for that. I hope you can understand my thoughts when I mistakenly believed that our discussion was being presented in that way. On the subject of the blog post title, whether or not we can trust Tor can only be a matter of opinion, and should be treated as such. Since it involves the reputation of those individuals, it must be left out if there is no supporting evidence from a reliable source. 94.222.99.148 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this the proper place for guidance regarding the question above? Also, I'm aware of that newsgroups fail

WP:V, but what about Internet mailing lists? 88.75.125.199 (talk

) 10:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

They're probably true. It says here "Brian Fung is the technology writer at National Journal. He was previously an associate editor at The Atlantic and has written for Foreign Policy and The Washington Post". Here's his resume or what he claims is his resume.

So he's a real journalist with a real career. That gives him a strong incentive to not make up quotes, especially quotes that significantly mischaracterize his sources, since doing that regularly would endanger his career. He also appears to have the experience, education, and intelligence to have the technical ability be able to take proper notes and get quotes more or less right. He's even less likely to say things like "Andrew Lewman is the executive director of Tor" if it's not true, because that's the sort of thing that can be easily found out.

On the other hand, since it's a WaPo blog and not a proper article, I don't know if its been gone over by a fact checker. (A fact checker would do stuff like call up Dinglidine and Lewman and ask "We have you down as saying such-and-such, is that correct?"). Probably not, is my uneducated guess; even for actual articles this isn't usually done at newspapers I don't think. So we're relying entirely on the incentives, technical ability, and reputation of Fung, and also on the reputation of WaPo of not employing liars or incompetents. My opinion is that these are sufficient for the material, provided that there's no contraindication (such as Dinglidine or Lewman claiming to have been misquoted or mischaracterized, or sources showing them saying opposite things, and provided there's no argument that Fung has some incentive (ideological, sensationalist, whatever) to make or up or twist the quotes, and I haven't seen any of that presented. Herostratus (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who've contributed so far. To respond to Dezastru and Herostratus, I also thought the material was from interviews until I took a closer look. The quote from Andrew Lewman was actually taken from a post on the tor-talk mailing list. In the thread "[tor-talk] Tor and Financial Transparency", Lewman wrote, "And to address the next question, the parts of the US and Swedish Governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future. Don't assume that 'the government' is one coherent entity with one mindset." This was quoted directly and then expanded upon in the blog as "Tor Executive Director Andrew Lewman wrote in an e-mail to users that just because the project accepts federal funding does not mean it collaborated with the NSA to unmask people's online identities." This was then placed on Wikipedia as "Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the US federal government, the Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users." Since the Internet discussion group doesn't even mention the NSA, let alone de-anonymizing users for them, I would say that this source doesn't meet the quality threshold for

WP:BLP

, as these words have been inserted into Lewman's quote by multiple editors.

I know this isn't the place for it, but could somebody with an account please remove the contentious content at least while this is being discussed? They've protected the page to include it and I don't have an account. 88.75.161.131 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. The problem isn't that the source isn't reliable (don't know, but it looks to be) but that the editor mischaracterized the source. Tsk tsk. Lewman (reportedly) said "just because the project accepts federal funding does not mean it collaborated with the NSA to unmask people's online identities" and the article characterizes this as him saying "Even though it accepts funds from the US federal government, the Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users" when of course he said no such thing. He said getting the government funds doesn't prove anything. That's very different. He could have said "Tor did not collaborate" but he specifically refrained from saying that, for whatever reason. There may not be anything sinister about that, that just might be the way he writes; we can't get inside his head, we just have to go with what he did say.

Based on this I changed the Lewman material from "the Tor service did not collaborate" to "the Tor service did not necessarily collaborate"; does that seem reasonable? I haven't looked at the Dingledine material. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the actual quote was "And to address the next question, the parts of the US and Swedish Governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future. Don't assume that 'the government' is one coherent entity with one mindset." Remember, we have to be careful with material dealing with people's reputations. I don't think it's a reasonable paraphrase. 88.75.161.131 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the rephrasing should have been placed in the article. The content should be removed until a consensus emerges. While it's closer to what Brian Fung wrote, and

WP:NEWSBLOG says that opinion pieces in blogs are to be attributed to the writer, and are to be used with caution, it's unlikly that Andrew Lewman ever said anything like it. To me, you've clearly shown why this source is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Also, is this source in your opinion a primary source? I would also like to hear what people think about the quality of this source. 88.75.161.131 (talk

) 05:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

88.75.161.131, you are right to challenge the citation of the Fung article for the statement that was added to the Wikipedia article. Fung clearly overreached with the line, "Tor Executive Director Andrew Lewman wrote in an e-mail to users that just because the project accepts federal funding does not mean it collaborated with the NSA to unmask people's online identities." Lewman did not mention NSA in the mailing-list post and did not say, "Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users," or anything of the sort. The Fung article is not a reliable source for such a statement. The Fung article is probably still reliable for the statements apparently drawn from his interview with Dingledine. I would favor removing from the Wikipedia article anything about Lewman that is sourced to the Fung article, and I would probably avoid using the primary source (Lewman's mailing-list post) in the Wikipedia article, unless it can be shown to be of paramount significance (has any reliable source referred to or commented on Lewman's mailing-list post besides Fung?). Dezastru (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the link where Lewman is supposed to have said "And to address the next question, the parts of the US and Swedish Governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future. Don't assume that 'the government' is one coherent entity with one mindset." points to different post where he says an entirely different thing, so the URL is wrong. And Fung called his source an email, and I assume that Fung knows the difference between an email and a forum thread post (granted he might call a forum post an email if writing to a lay audience. I suppose). But if we can get the right link and he did say that, a fair way of describing that is "Don't assume that because we took government money we left a backdoor for the government. Maybe we did, maybe we didn't, but don't assume it", which Fung reported as "Lewman wrote in an e-mail to users that just because the project accepts federal funding does not mean it collaborated with the NSA to unmask people's online identities" which is another fair way of putting it, and since in the article we've now changed "we did not..." to "we did not necessarily..." that's also a fair summary of what he said, so Bob's your uncle it looks like to me (at least as regards the Lewman material). Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, this is the link you're looking for. oops94.222.96.136 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Would we attribute that to Fung or Lewman? 92.78.115.171 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tor_.28anonymity_network.29. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In response to Herostratus, I dispute its fairness, and even its context. Why not just use a direct quote? 92.78.115.171 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Herostratus, on your point about the word choice of "wrote in an e-mail to users", he actually did use "Tor-related e-mail list" elsewhere in the article to describe tor-talk, so I don't think the factual error can be attributed to writing to a lay audience as you suggesgted. It's not even a technical term. It's a serious misstatement of fact for the following reasons:

• It demonstrates, at the very least, a lack of fact checking that affects its reliability as a source.
• It makes it look like Andrew took an unusual step, lending credibility to the author's concerns, which aren't even really addressed.
• It discourages readers from fact checking the source. Email is normally private and not publicly archived.
• Taken literally, it indicates that Tor is not anonymous. How could it be if they know the users' email addresses?

Are there any aspects of this that aren't controversial that we can have consensus about?

1. This was not in The Washington Post newspaper.
2. This was on The Switch blog on the Washington Post Website.
3. The Switch is a
   WP:NEWSBLOG
   .
4. This is an opinion piece.

My next step will be to take whatever consensus I can and consult

WP:BLPNB, on its usability on Wikipedia. Would that be reasonable? I will be away from the Internet for a while; I hope this thread doesn't disappear. 94.222.99.19 (talk

) 15:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point I think I've lost track of what you are asking.

The Fung article is a part of the Washington Post's digital newspaper. To suggest that it is an entirely separate offering that only happens to be published by the same company as that which publishes the rest of the Washington Post would be misleading.

The Fung article is a newsblog; the relevant

policy

says that "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. 'Jane Smith wrote...')." Since the Fung article is mostly an opinion piece, expressing Fung's opinion on the question of whether Tor network users should be concerned about government surveillance through backdoor accesspoints, opinions expressed by Fung in his article could potentially be cited in Wikipedia if accompanied by an attribution statement (such as, "Brian Fung of the Washington Post wrote that ...").

Along with offering opinions in the article, Fung makes several statements of fact. Sources may or may not be reliable for statements of fact.

One of Fung's statements of fact is that "Tor Executive Director Andrew Lewman wrote in an e-mail to users that just because the project accepts federal funding does not mean it collaborated with the NSA to unmask people's online identities." Fung is NOT reliable for that statement because his paraphrase of what Lewman wrote in the mailing-list email does not faithfully represent what Lewman actually wrote. For this reason, the Fung article should not be cited in Wikipedia for a statement about Lewman's views or what Lewman said.

Fung also makes statements of fact based on his communications with Dingledine.

Fung should be considered reliable for the direct quotes of Dingledine (one being with "They aren't 'buying products' from us...."; the other begins with "I think this is mainly due to two reasons"); and it would be fair to consider citing Fung in Wikipedia as a source for those specific statements by Dingledine.

There are two other lines in the Fung article that I would probably avoid citing in Wikipedia given that Fung was writing an opinion piece and there is a problem with how he paraphrased what Lewman wrote. One is the line that reads, "And Roger Dingledine, a founder of the Tor Project, says that the Defense Department money is much more like a research grant than a procurement contract." Is that statement (ie, "more like a research grant than a procurement grant") an accurate paraphrase of what Dingledine said, or is it just Fung's interpretation, an interpretation which may be unreliable, as Fung was on what Lewman wrote? The other is the section that reads, "[O]ne of the major advantages of open-source software is that the product can be inspected by anyone for defects, which raises its security somewhat. There'd only be a problem if the NSA were somehow able to insert malicious code that nobody recognized." It is not clear from how that part of the article is written whether Fung is accurately paraphrasing Dingledine there vs giving his own opinion. Dezastru (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. My thoughts about the newspaper vs website was from a web citation template I read that says:

The

publisher

is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher).

I can totally see how not having the news agency as part of the citation would be misleading. I was concerned about being misleading in the other direction and confusing people who check news archives, but the URL would be there in any case. Now I'm really off for a while (unless I can find an affordable cyber cafe). 88.75.123.244 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

... yeah, I kind of lost the thread on this one... The answer to any questioning of a source, anytime, anywhere, is: "it depends". Brian Fung and The Switch are not AAA-level. But they are probably A or B level for matters in which Fung has standing to report on, which is good enough for most purposes. That, is they are generally reasonably reliable, probably. Whether Fung made a mistake (misquote, mischaracterization, whatever) in this particular case, dunno. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Are these bits from

WP:RS#Quotations

relevant?

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to

make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article

.

The restatement substantially changes the the meaning and context, as well as inserts Fung's allegation into what was said. What about citing Lewman with the actual quote? 89.101.247.110 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Such as,

As of 2012, 80% of the Tor Project's $2M annual budget comes from the United States government, with the Swedish government and other organizations providing the rest,[16] including NGOs and thousands of individual sponsors. The executive director of the Tor Project Andrew Lewman said "the parts of the US and Swedish governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future."

while sourcing the second sentence to the mailing list post. Is the part about government having one mindset important or relevant? I have even more concerns about the current source. It uses weasel words in a couple of places, and once to cite a poster on the list who routed the message through an anonymity service called bitmessage. This is addressed in

WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." 89.101.247.110 (talk

) 12:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This concerns the use of the following study (here or here) on the article Haaretz.

1. Is this study a primary source?
2. As a primary source, should it be used? If so, which description is a more reliable reflection of the author's specific finding?

• Option 1 (quoting p. 117):

  A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz was "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" than the Palestinian side.

• Option 2 (written by another editor, using language similar to what is only in the abstract):

  A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians.

No similar conclusion appears in the article's conclusion section. The closest finding is the quote from page 117 used in Option 1.

Primary sources: It seems clear that this is a primary source. See

It is a primary source. The problem is that scholars could question the methology or find that its findings could not be replicated. It is also important to explain what is meant by bias, which one would find in secondary sources. An American paper is more likely to give more space to U.S. victims of terrorism than foreign victims, which is a pro-U.S. bias. But that does not mean that the coverage is inaccurate. TFD (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

FFS -- this source has already been discussed, and Precision123 didn't get the answer he/she wanted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the substance of the matter:

WP:PSTS explicitly says that primary sources can be used. Yes, with care -- and Precision123's assertion that it is not currently being used with care can safely be set aside as the product of an energetic ideological bias that pervades this editor's engagement at Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 11:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was not clearly discussed this way; that posting was only about the reliability of abstracts. As to your allegation that I did not "get the answer" I wanted, I was actually very pleased with the discussion. Most editors were cooperative, and most agreed to cite specific findings in the article. So please keep your assumptions and baseless accusations of "energetic bias" to yourself. --Precision123 (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It meets rs, there is not doubt that the authors carried out their tests and made the conclusions they reported. But it does not mean that their conclusions can be stated as fact. We can say x concluded Haaretz was biased but we cannot say Haaretz is biased. But it does not meet

WP:WEIGHT

("represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"), because significance can only be established in secondary sources.

Saying that something can be used is not the same as saying it should be used. Normally primary sources are used for basic information or to illustrate information provided in secondary sources. It is not a license to add views we think should be in the article but that secondary sources have ignored.

TFD (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to sort some things out. This source is not in fact a primary source. Precision123 relies on an essay to try to claim that it is, but in fact

WP:PSTS does not support his POV here, and the guidance it offers does not support the idea that the source is best considered primary. We already avoid stating the source's view as fact (we do not say anything like "Haaretz is biased"), so all set there as well. It is also undoubtedly a high quality source. The notion that we should wait until another source discusses what it says is fairly ridiculous; this is very far from normal practice regarding use of academic publications on Wikipedia. We should be encouraging use of such sources, not putting down obstacles here. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 16:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is a primary source. It does not report on what other researchers have found, which a secondary source would do. Hence you need to show why this specific study should be mentioned. Primary sources are described in

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences): "A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles." While this is social not natural science, the same definition applies. TFD (talk

) 17:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Another essay, and another attempt to make it more difficult to use high-quality academic sources. I don't need to show why it should be mentioned --

WP:PSTS imposes no such requirement; it merely says care should be exercised. For context here, I recommend looking at the user-talk page of the person who started this section, e.g. here. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The natural sciences work quite differently from the social sciences. If you want to extend the natural science definition to the social sciences we will become unable to use the work of any historian who analyzes primary documents and then writes analyses of them. This article is parallel to that. We use biographers as sources all the time who read the letters of their subjects and then write narrative prose describing the conclusions they draw. This article, in which an academic analyzed a bunch of news articles to draw conclusions, is no different from those examples. It's very different from, e.g. using Millikan's original papers on the electron effect (bad, primary sources) rather than sources which discuss those papers. If what you're asserting is true, TFD, there is essentially no such thing as a secondary source in the social sciences.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. Original writers develop original theories and later scholars explain the degree of acceptance they have. For example,

WP:WEIGHT

would have no application. It may be that social sciences are garbage, that one theory is as good as another, but that is not policy.

Furthermore, studies that use statistical information are similar to studies in natural sciences. If a study shows that Israeli sources are quoted more often than Palestinian sources, it is possible to replicate the study and determine whether the sample selected was representative. It is the same as in medicine, where one study may show that people who eat carrots every day live longer. Later studies may not replicate the results, and it would be irresponsible to report the study in an article about carrots, until it had hit secondary sources and scientists could comment on the results.

TFD (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here ya go. I find your view really counterproductive (and not only because you are providing aid and comfort to a POV-pusher) -- a well-known complaint about journalists reporting on scientific research is that they often misrepresent findings (especially via distortion and emphasis of "sensational" elements), and your perspective would lead us to prefer their glosses over use of the original scholarly publication. But in this instance the fact that there are more than a dozen later citations of the article in question means that we don't have to continue this stupid argument. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Viser's article isn't a primary source: it's an evaluation of content published by the New York Times and Haaretz, and in this case the content from those newspapers is the primary literature (those articles themselves include interviews, etc. as primary sources, and commentary). Just because it's a secondary source doesn't mean that Viser's opinions need by accepted without qualification by Wikipedia, of course. -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Some editors need to remember to please comment on the content, not the contributor.

This study is Visers's own new research. The "event" here, so to speak, would be his empirical research results. There is no one (or more) step removed from that event. This is his publication of his research results. Reliable sources state clearly that journal articles of original research and ones that report new experimental research results are primary sources. Looking this up on both Wikipedia guidelines and other other reliable sources on point all state the same thing ("A journal article reporting new research or findings is a primary source.").[42] See also [43] [44]. --Precision123 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop being so fucking tiresome. The relevant points have been made, and you would do well to show awareness of them. The source in question has received attention from other scholarly sources, and so if people want to be pedantic about it we can cite those other sources to note what Viser found. Apart from that, there is no bar on using primary sources. No-one is arguing here that the source is not reliable. We are at RSN, after all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As Darouet says, Viser has written an analysis (ie, secondary source) of the original documents (ie, primary sources), which are Haaretz and the New York Times from the period of interest. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."(

WP:PSTS

) As the discussion between Nomoskedasticity and TFD above suggests, this is a grey area. What might be considered a primary source in one context, in one academic disciple, might be considered a secondary source in a different context or in a different discipline.

Whether Viser's analysis should be considered a primary source or a secondary source is just a diversionary issue. (And especially so if the line for the Wikipedia article were to attribute the findings of the analysis as has been proposed: 'An article in such-and-such journal concluded that' – or something along those lines.) There is no Wikipedia policy that says primary sources cannot be used.

Option 1 and option 2, as listed in the original post, are both accurate statements, but Option 2 is the more faithful to the Viser source of the two options. Option 1 only mentions a single measure that was examined, while option 2 is a summary of a group of measures. Dezastru (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, but if we are supposed to rely on a source that discusses the allegedly primary source, then we'd be interested in this: "For example, according to Matt Viser, when the New York Times and Ha’aretz, an Israeli publication, were assessed for their portrayals of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it was found that both newspapers were more favorable towards the Israelis", [45]. And anyway, summarising the range of measures Viser examined (as per Option 2) is surely better than focusing on just one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles in academic journals can be cited in Wikipedia. There is no rule against it, the

relevant policy says they are "usually the most reliable sources", and the presence of tens of thousands of examples shows an overwhelming community consensus on it. The rules only tell us that we can't make our own interpretations of them. The discussion above just emphasises (again) that the primary/secondary division makes more trouble than it's worth. Trying to apply the same rule to a scientific paper and a handwritten letter sitting in some archive in Moldovia, just because both are "primary sources", is absurd. Zero^talk

00:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a little bit lost. This is a secondary source. This is published work providing different analysis of primary materials (articles from Ha'aretz and NYT). I cannot answer for the quality of this.
Anyway, I have at home a tertiary source about the same topic (bias in media coverage of the I-P conflict and in particular in Newspayer): Jérôme Bourdon, Le récit impossible : le conflit israélo-palestinien et les médias, de boeck. His conclusions are nevertheless at the opposite. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming Banal at this point. The argument of that talk page is slipping over here. Is it a reliable source? Is it a primary or secondary source? It seems to me those are the only questions that should be asked here. Anything beyond that you should be left to that talk page.

Pluto it would be great if you would share that source if you have the time.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the question of whether it is a primary or secondary source is useless and has no effect on the important question of how it can be used. It is obviously a reliable source that can be cited. We aren't allowed to make a novel interpretation of it, but that is true for all sources. Zero^talk 12:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is a primary source then its significance needs to be established in order to present it. For example if a single primary study said carrots cause cancer we would not add that to the carrot article unless it had been mentioned in secondary sources, such as books on human nutrition. The secondary sources could say for example that the study was deeply flawed or unrepresentative. Or it could say it was generally accepted. In either case we could mention it because its significance had been established. But if it is ignored in mainstream writing then we should ignore it too. TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In Health sciences, papers are primary sources because researchers publish results from experiments. In our case, it is an analysis of primary documents (newspaper) and therefore it is a secondary source. There is not a single doubt about this.

Anyway, it is also perfectly reliable. It is published in review. If this cannot be considered reliable or notorious, nothing can. Even if, as I said, I have a tertiary source stating the contrary of what it seems to me that they say.

@Serialjoepsycho: I lack time but if your read French, the information from this source is partially used here: [46].

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an academic source. In the natural sciences individual papers are regarded as primary sources, but in the social sciences that isn't the case. Therefore treat as a reliable secondary source. It would be prudent to attribute. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

AllthePigs Theatre Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this an appropriate reference for AllthePigs aims to support the Equity Fringe Theatre Agreement and pay their actors and creative teams at least minimum wage in the article? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it is, no. It's classic

WP:UGC.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk

) 02:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. FB is so rarely usable at all that one is better off avoiding it entirely. Collect (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=historysubmit&diff=596034615&oldid=596033920

Dismisses the

I'm curious which Global Times article the Washington Times is referring to. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Both sources are reliable in principle. But I can't find the article either. There is a title and a date, but searching in the search box of globaltimes.cn yields nothing. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't find it on their Chinese site either. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So is this a specific failure of the WT, or are they uncovering PRC censorship? Hcobb (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: 2014 Venezuelan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There has been some editwarring going on over there that largely seems grounded in multiple ongoing RS disputes (with some contradictions between contested sources and primary sources thrown in the mix for extra fun). Multiple eyes needed. Suggest people who can read spanish, understand Latin American media issues and hopefully don't have political axes to grind on either side. I have my own biases in this matter and am largely recusing myself from editing as I'm not certain I could keep my own POV entirely out of it but I recognize that problematic current events need many eyes and figure I can help this way. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Are

• "After Ramleela, Ranveer Singh and Deepika Padukone to share screen space in Finding Fanny Fernandes". Daily News and Analysis. 10 October 2013. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
• "Saif Ali Khan, Deepika Padukone Starrer 'Finding Fanny Fernandes' Gets Bigger!". Business of Cinema. 15 November 2013. Retrieved 15 February 2014.
• "Kill Dil: Yash Raj Films". Yash Raj Films. Retrieved 2 January 2014.
• "Shaad Ali to direct a film on grandmother's life". The Times of India. The Times Group. 5 August 2012. Retrieved 24 August 2012.

reliable sources for presenting

or is it a more appropriate range of their reliability per

References

Additional discussion (and personal attacks) can be seen Talk:Ranveer_Singh#Kill_Dil -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Movies can always be delayed or cancelled. There is no reliable source for if a movie will actually come out when people want it to.

WP:NFF? __ E L A Q U E A T E

18:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

the general response is "We have always put the year of future releases and every other article is doin it too!!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We should always take this stuff out. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Take it out of FAs as well. What do people think about saying that a film is shooting, or scheduled to be released, if sourced? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFF is good on this, even though it's for articles. If there's an article that's explicitly about the film's on-the-ground production, then we can certainly have that in the article with a citation. We can say a Hunger Games sequel is shooting when sourced, for instance. But a problem with announcing future release dates is that things still happen, those dates can move, or the movie can be scrapped.
The worst problem that I notice is that a lot of articles on films and corporate products suffer "date rot", where the article will, in 2014, still say something like "This product is scheduled for release in 2012" because someone sourced and inserted it a good faith in 2011. For many of these "scheduled to be released" announcements there's no indication in 2014 if it happened at all, even when the original prediction is impeccably sourced. Because of this, putting in an announcement of intent means that someone will have to update the text of the article whether it happened or not. Guaranteed double work. If we stick to "what verifiably happened" then we won't have stale announcements that need updating a year later. For articles where we haven't done that updating, it highlights where Wikipedia looks stale and uncared for. When Alice Munro won the Nobel Prize, everyone went to an article that I think was excited that she would be releasing a book in 2008, instead of an article that listed her accomplishments up to that point. Predictions often stay in the article for years afterward, despite intentions.__ E L A Q U E A T E

15:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

just try telling that to the film fan crowd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the website here [47] is a self-published source ineligible to be used in the Alger Hiss article.

My opinion is supported by a 2001 news report about the site which says:

Even the site's address has not been without controversy. An N.Y.U. spokesman said that after the online magazine Slate published a column about the Hiss site in March, the university asked Tony Hiss to use a different Web address to designate it more clearly as a personal site rather than an academic one. The spokesman, John Beckman, said that the university felt that the old address, www.nyu.edu/hiss, suggested that the site was sponsored by the university."It wasn't a judgment about content," Mr. Beckman said. "The issue was whether it was official work of the university's."

Because "my understanding is that he doesn't teach anything with regard to his father's case," the spokesman added, "this is a matter of personal scholarship, and it belongs on a personal home page."

Given its passion and point of view, how can the Hiss site be viewed? In publishing the column about the site in March, Slate had Sam Tanenhaus, the author of "Whittaker Chambers: A Biography" (Random House, 1997), look it over. "I think this belongs in the 'it's a free country' category, and Hiss's supporters have every right to push his case by whatever means pleases them," Slate quoted him as saying. "My only concern would be that the academic/institutional aegis, and the educational angle, might mislead some into supposing this is a balanced, scholarly Web site." [48]

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article.

Right now the website's author is being used to rebut a legitimate scholarly source, particularly in this paragraph:

Historian Jeff Kisseloff questions Haynes and Klehr's conclusion that Vassiliev's notes support Hede Massing's story about talking to Hiss at a party in 1935 about recruiting their mutual friend and host Noel Field into the Communist underground. According to Kisseloff, "all that the files Vassiliev saw really indicate is that she was telling yet another version of her story in the 1930s. Haynes and Klehr never consider that, as an agent in Washington, D.C., who was having little success in the tasks assigned to her, she may have felt pressure back then to make up a few triumphs to reassure her superiors."[115] Kisseloff also disputes Haynes and Klehr's linking of Hiss with former Treasury Department official Harold Glasser, whom they allege was a Soviet agent.[116] Finally, Kisseloff states that some of the evidence compiled by Haynes and Klehr actually tends to exonerate rather than convict Hiss. For example, their book cites a KGB report from 1938 in which Iskhak Akhmerov, New York station chief, writes, "I don't know for sure who Hiss is connected with."[117]

CJK (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As CJK has pointed out, the website is a reliable source for Kisseloff's opinions, which is the only use made of it in this article. The issue is what

weight

should be assigned his views. Scholarly sources on Hiss refer extensively to the website, Kisseloff or other contributors:

Tanenhaus's screed, informed by the obsessiveness that characterizes almost every scholar of the Hiss case, elicited an equally impassioned counterblast from Jeff Kisselhoff, editor of the pro-Hiss Web site sponsered by the Nation Institute at New York University. (Susan Jacoby, Alger Hiss and the Battle for History, Yale University Press, 2009 p. 194)[49]

Hiss's defenders launched a full-scale assault on Weinstein's methods, data and conclusions that has continued for nearly twenty years. No one has been more vehement than Victor Navasky, editor of The Nation and a professor at Coumbia University...." (John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage, Encounter Books, 2005, p. 142.)[50]

If Haynes and Klehr spend an entire chapter rebutting the website and its authors, then if we think that their opinions have significance, so too does the website. What prominence these views should be given is however weight, not rs.

TFD (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD is also a party to this dispute and has been for some time.

His statement about Haynes and Klehr is incorrect. Haynes and Klehr do not "spend an entire chapter rebutting the website and its authors" in any of their books.

Also, I would like to note that my complaint here is restricted to Kisseloff, the website manager, and not necessarily other authors on the website. Per

CJK (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain what in that passage you consider unreliable? "Historian Jeff Kisseloff questions Haynes and Klehr's conclusion...." Seems reliable to me and the other sources support that statement. "According to Kisseloff, [direct quote]." Any doubt that is an accurate quote? "Kisseloff also disputes...." "Finally, Kisseloff states...." Do you doubt that he actually disputed and stated? TFD (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This source is a partisan site run by a former member or the legal defense team of the article's subject. I think it is a notable site. It is RS for the opnions of the author. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You admit it is "a partisan site run by a former member or the legal defense team of the article's subject" but still think it is okay for inclusion? The reader as of now is completely mislead into believing that it is scholarly material on par with Haynes and Klehrs' book.

And actually, it isn't run by a member of Hiss's legal team. It is run by Hiss's son and a freelance journalist with a oral history degree.

CJK (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A website is self-evidently reliable for the opinions of the person writing the content. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. As to whether these opinions are worthy of inclusion in the article, that isn't an issue for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(In theory, an unregistered website hosted on a public site such as this one, could be a spoof or counterfeit (whether in sympathy with certain views or against) so I wouldn't even say a website is always reliable for indicating the views of a subject. But your point is good.).__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the opinions expressed in the website should be included, or to what extent they should be mentioned, is a matter of neutrality, which is a different policy. But there is no question that they are a reliable source for the authors' opinions. Whether or not it is reliable for the facts about the case is another issue. You have presented evidence it is not, although other editors have challenged you on that. But since it is not used as a source of facts, and no one has suggested that it be used as one, that issue is moot. This is really an issue of weight, hence you picked the wrong notice board. TFD (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

AndytheGrump was also a party to this dispute.

He is expressing his "opinion" about the facts of the case. The authors "opinion" about an issue unrelated to their personal lives is only of note if it complies with

18:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As explained to you, your website would be rs for your opinions, but would probably fail significance, unless secondary sources mentioned it. In fact many sources that would fail rs for facts are used in the article Moon landing conspiracy theories to illustrate the view that the moon-landing was faked. TFD (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding

And even so, the article and section is about academic discussion of Alger Hiss, not Alger Hiss conspiracy theories.

19:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A good deal of the article is about whether or not Hiss was involved in a conspiracy. Surely you do not want to remove that. Whether or not the view that opposes that theory should be excluded has nothing to do with whether or not the Hiss website is a reliable source for the opinions of its authors. TFD (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

His "opinion" is about the facts of the case, not about himself personally. As such, it falls under a straightforward

20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard really works best when the discussion focuses on specific content questions. Please see the request box near the top of the page that says, "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available." I suspect one of the reasons this discussion is dragging on is that the exact statement(s) proposed for inclusion in the Wikipedia article has not been made clear here. Dezastru (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a specific content question. The question is, should references to historian Jeff Kisseloff in the text and citations be scrubbed from the article, as he is not a reliable source for wikipedia. I strongly disagree.

Jeff Kisseloff is a recognized subject matter expert on Alger Hiss. His work on the subject has been published by the New York University Center for the United States and the Cold War. His views on the Hiss case have been discussed in the New York Times and on Slate.com. He is also the archivist for The Nation magazine and author of several books on 20th century American history.

The idea that Kisseloff be scrubbed from the article was discussed at length in TALK last year and roundly rejected by the editors. Now editor CJK, the sole supporter of the idea, has returned in 2014 to re-test the waters. Note that CJK is not suggesting that Kisseloff is unreliable because he has made patently false assertions rejected by other experts, but only because CJK's unique, very "lawyerly" reading of wikipedia policies suggests to him that Kisseloff be disqualified as a "self-published source" and (unless I'm mistaken) also because he is not a true expert. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The "support", characterized by Susan Jacobi as a "screed", for CKJ's demand to bar Jeff Kisseloff from the pages of wikipedia, dates back to a 2001 news story and can itself be considered (a very biased) opinion. Kisseloff is a journalist and popular historian with a graduate degree in journalism from Columbia University. His books have been published by Penguin, Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, Cricket Press, The Viking Press, and the University Press of Kentucky, and appear on various Wikipedia articles as references. He thus meets all the Wikipedia criteria for reliability. Furthermore, one of his books, his history of broadcasting, dealt to a not-inconsiderable extent with the 1950s Red Scare, making him an expert in that era, in which Hiss and Nixon were pivotal actors. Moreover, since 2001, when the "screed" against him was written, Kisseloff was considered expert enough to be invited to participate in the Wilson Center Conference on Hiss. Thus Kisseloff’s opinions are notable (pace Tanenhaus, who is himself a journalist and popular historian), wherever they are published. All this was brought up when CJK initiated the edit war about this in August 2013 which months later was resolved in his disfavor.

It is also possible, and indeed likely, that sources within or overly sympathetic to the military intelligence community, can, though emotions of institutional loyalty, become invested in their own biases, and, though reliable (in the wikipedia sense of admissible), the views they express may, over time, become fossilized, narrow, hidebound, and/or affected by their own POV's and prejudices, not to say intolerant of different thinking. In 2007, CIA historian, John Ehrman, even warned his colleagues of the ludicrous example of the French Secret Service, which, more than a century after the case, still obstinately maintains that Dreyfus was guilty of espionage. In short, a variety of historical and journalistic opinion is wanted here, as elsewhere on wikipedia.

We know that in previous talk pages CJK also questioned the reliability of respected academic historian of the Cold War, Fraser J. Harbutt, because Harbutt's views differ somewhat from his own. In fact the conclusions of John Haynes (who has been employed all his life outside academia as an archivist and only writes on one topic), are the only ones CJK appears willing to countenance. Historian and author Bruce Craig, on the other hand, is known to have skewered Haynes and to have called Allen Weinstein's work POV garbage, and Craig's biography of Hiss is due to be published shortly. One can only conclude that historians disagree and that is what the discipline is all about. 173.77.75.221 (talk)

Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a 
WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes.... Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

Dezastru (talk