Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 44

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

This source in support of this statement "In a The Ohio State Sentinel point-counterpoint, Matthew Thomas Gross felt that Charmander is superior to Bulbasaur, saying Bulbasaur has "shown evidence of sloth and laziness," and has lower speed rating than Charmander. In contrast, Clark Helmsley feels that Bulbasaur is superior, noting that it is higher in four of the six main Pokemon statistics (HP, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense). Helmsley also feels that Bulbasaur's loyalty is more important than Charmander's ability to evolve into the powerful Charizard." It has been pointed out they have satire articles, which have been categorized as commentary sometimes. See [1] [2][3]. Is the pokemon article reliable for an article on Bulbasaur? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They also have regular news articles, and commentary articles that are pretty normal.[4][5]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Pokemon, but this article reads like one of those satires that say outrageous things in purpose to anger people without a sense of humour?? At most a joke article full of

inside jokes

that I can't catch, or a parody of those fans who have endless in-universe discussions about which is the better pokemon.

Things like (in page 2) "(...) everybody knows that HP is the most important statistical category we have for evaluating Pokemon" or "my data comes from the National Pokedex, not from one of the lesser regional Pokedexes. The National Pokedex is recognized as the most authoritative source of information on Pokemon" or (in page 1) "Bulbasaur have a shown evidence of sloth and laziness. The official speed rating for Bulbasaur is 45, which is below average, (...) Bulbasaur, you see, is too lazy to move at a reasonable speed. (...) [We also learn that] 'Bulbasaur can be seen napping in bright sunlight.' It goes without saying that any Pokemon who sleeps during the day is hardly dependable." or "Just last week, I completed a full thesis on the virtues of Bulbasaur versus Squirtle, and now I have to do it all over again, but with stupid Charmander." --Enric Naval (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is written in a tounge in cheek type of way. The only untruth I think is the thesis part, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is for

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pokémon/Bulbasaur, right? If the editors in the pokemon wikiproject have independently checked that they got all the facts right, then I suppose that there is no problem. --Enric Naval (talk

) 03:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what they say, since I'm not a Pokemon expert. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In a content dispute Aristocide As a Force In History by

The relevant part of the talk page is

Talk:Communist_genocide#Sources_that_failed_verification_or_acceptable_sourcing_standards_for_their_claimsVsevolodKrolikov (talk

) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant article is

Communist genocide

The full citation is Nathaniel Weyl "Aristocide as a Force in History,"

Intercollegiate Review 1967: 237-245. Fifelfoo (talk

) 06:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is a very biased source, and any facts where it is used as a source should make it clear that the source is conservative.
  Taemyr (talk
  ) 11:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see how this can be considered reliable, and I doubt that Weyl of is sufficient importance to be notable enough to include despite his unreliability. Paul B (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Weyl has an article on Wikipedia, so the community clearly has found him notable enough for Wikipedia purposes. The question is if his opinions can be removed from Wikipedia in case he has something to say about the subject?--Termer (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Having an article does not automatically make his opinion notable on any specific subject. Paul B (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I quote, "Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:

WP:RS like you did? Comments on Weyl's WP:notability do not answer the question.--Termer (talk

) 05:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I quote, "Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way, the reason I'm interested in third opinions only is because I already know what your opinion is. There is no need to repeat it, I got it at the first time when you said it. But in case you insist, and this really bothers you that I ask questions here, feel free to add your opinion once more if you like.--Termer (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is your opinion should not be involved here, and that you are interrogating 3rd parties and putting your opinion to them argumentatively. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weyl appears to be a biased source, and Intercollegiate Review does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of Weyl or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the body that sponsors Intercollegiate Review. LK (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required. What's being cited is not controversial; most of the citation block is about the well-known purges in Soviet history, and that could be cited to other sources if this general knowledge even needs a citation. Then the citation block could be something like "Author used the term "aristocide" to refer to the various purges..." Really an undue weight issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have an argument about the sourcing of information regarding organizations supporting the Office Open XML file format in the Office Open XML article. An editor keeps removing fully sourced information (at least 20 removals of the information by now) on very obvious supporting organizations like the "Open XML Formats Developer Group" and the "Open XML Community". This is an example of such an removal edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=314061479 This editor current argument for that removal is that the information is not allowed because of

Also the removed information contains quite a few third party references like:

http://blogs.msdn.com/nzisv/archive/2007/06/19/open-xml-community-site.aspx

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-says-support-open-xml-growing-036

http://www.infoworld.com/%5Bprimary-term-alias-prefix%5D/%5Bprimary-term%5D/microsoft-escalates-odf-fight-openxml-group-483

http://unweary.com/2006/03/apple-an-openxml-developer.html

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/development/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=183701603

http://www.macworld.co.uk/procreative/news/index.cfm?newsid=16697&pagtype=allchandate

I have reverted these continouos removal edits quite a few times and have asked for mediation (but no mediator has come forward).

I am really desperate for outside opinion on the issue. Could anyone provide opinion on the sourcing of the material in dispute ? hAl (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Office Open XML#Advice and offer for meditation and Talk:Office Open XML#'Support' by Microsoft-run websites for some background. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably reliable, but this looks like a contentious debate over what "free" means in free software and what "support" means by vendors. Way to much to sort out here, maybe you should ask an opinion at one of the computing Wikiprojects. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I already tried to ask for mediation on the wikiproject page weeks ago but noone responded. hAl (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Would the Dana Foundation Press be a suitable source for medical articles? Would it be a suitable source for commentary from a psychiatrist on a controversial proposed syndrome? I'm thinking of Try to remember by

Why wouldn't it be? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike a university press or an entity like

_complex

14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is mis-stated. What you should be asking is: "Is Dana Foundation Press" a reputable publisher? We don't really judge reliability based on the publisher, but rather on the individual publication (and to a lesser extent on the reputation of the author) A publisher might publish one book that is solidly reliable, and another that is completely unreliable.

In this case, I see no indication that Dana Foundation Press wouldn't qualify as a reputable publisher. We certainly should not exclude sources simply because they were published by Dana. On the other hand... this is not to say that every thing they publish is reliable. Even reputable publishers can publish unreliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet some press are clearly reliable, correct? If it's a scholarly or university press with a policy of peer review of all publications? I'm asking in the abstract, I had always treated the publisher as the primary source of reliability and university press as sacrosanct.

_complex

10:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There’s a small dispute on this article regarding the nationality of this conductor. An editor provided a source, but I don’t agree it can be considered as such. The source is a “Biographical pamphlet of Tibor Kozma at the Tibor Kozma Library at Indiana University” which I think is vague and doesn’t meet the criteria of verifiability. Please visit Talk:Tibor Kozma. Can that be considered a source? Thank you for your time and your help.--Karljoos (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's in the Indiana University library, it's probably reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - good enough as an RS for a fact.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My question: Is this http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen considered a legitimate source to provide a counterbalance to other, lower numbers, since no official count of the protesters has been made? The math and the sources look correct to me, but I am being told that I cannot use it. Js2849 (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Scribd document is a

self-published source by a non-expert, and hence not acceptable as a a source on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk

) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Among the references used for the SPS are "Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum", "President Hussein's 2012 Resignation: A historical Prediction",

say that you love me

04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a RS, and it's quite likely plain wrong - the maths is one thing, but there are so many other assumptions that it's plain worthless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This site is used as a reference source in a number of articles relating to the occult and religion and is a personal website (registered to Matthew Ewing) that has been set up as an on-line occult/magic/chaos magick library. Not all the texts have a clear copyright status or attribution or dates or original source attribution and some are copies of informal emails where relevant text has been pasted within them.

Examples of usage:

• Chaos magic
• Illuminates of Thanateros
• Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth

As the site itself makes no warranty for the validity of the copies of texts it makes available and is not currently maintained (based on the home page announcement), it does not appear to be sufficiently independent or reliable to use as a reference site. An independent view would help with the rationale to retain or remove these references.—Ash (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source, so it can't be overused. These are the criteria for a reliable source of this kind:

1. The material cited is not unduly self-serving;

   It doesn't look like it is.

2. It does not involve claims about third parties;

   Haven't investigated but on first glance no.

3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

   Haven't investigated but on first glance no.

4. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity;

   Don't think there is.

5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

   None of your articles appear to be, except maybe Illuminates of Thanateros.

It appears to be a reasonably reliable primary source.--Patton123 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This bot thing found the website that has the content that I'm using in the article I've created. This is not a copyright infringement, which I can prove IF there warning notice provided some instruction on how to go about doing so!!

Wikipedia is unbearably convoluted; although it's a great concept in theory I understand now why it doesn't work in practice. I AM TIRED OF GOING IN CIRCLES.

If there is a way to prove that this is not copyright infringement please tell me. The page I'm referring to is called 'Megaregions'.

Thank you

I'm sorry you had to put up with that. For every dude who posts content that belongs to him (and is even willing to grant liberal permissions for its use), there are like ten thousand others who plagiarize. Anyways, if you can demonstrate that you own the content and are willing to license it under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA), you can email permissions-en [at] wikimedia.org stating so. @harej 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I went through this article and removed some of the "references" that did not support the text, self-published sources, blogs, social networking sites, and press releases. I was reverted without comment.[7] I'd appreciate if an uninvolved editor could look at a few of these sources and comment. Thanks. -

Is www.ar-15.us a reliable source? I only want to use it to show the rifling twist rate.--Patton123 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't an RS for rifling twist rate. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion. Besides the wikipedia article and a link to it, there are exactly two mentions of this "game" online, one is a youtube video of some drunks in Kentucky yelling at each other, and the other is on a novelist's site. It has been asserted on the afd that the novelist's site is both a reliable source and the one sentence there is enough to establish the game as notable and verifiable enough to merit an article. I do not think so. I find the assertion that one sentence articles can be created/copied from a single random mention online to be disturbing to say the least. I would appreciate it if other people took a look and offered their opinion on the reliability/notability/verifiability of the source and basing an article entirely on that one sentence source. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source, on the AFD it was pointed out the site was written by an anthropologist with expertise on Mongolia. However, a single source is not enough to justify notability. I suggested at the AFD that the article be redirected to Culture of Mongolia which had a brief and unsourced mention of the game. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can memoirs be considered a reliable source if the person tells about the facts and events he was not a witness of? Concretely, some WP articles cite Gen. Lebed's memoirs (Lebed, Alexander (Gen.), My Life and My Country, Regnery Publishing, Inc. (1997)

No, memoirs are not acceptable sources for general history. Memoirs are Primary Sources. Wikipedia, when it comes to history, must be based out of Secondary Sources: credible peer reviewed historical accounts written by historians in the academic press, or subject to equivalent stringency. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Memoirs could be considered primary sources in a sense, but primary sources may be used in articles subject to certain caveats. If memoirs are cited in a history article, they should be attributed as such. i.e. General X wrote in his memoirs Y that Z happened. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I treat them as primary sources, and generally will inline attribute. If it is a noncontentious fact that no one else has bothered with, and the individual has no reason to lie on this point, I might omit the inline cite (i.e., that no polls were taken in a congressional campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoor, primary sources are fine for making descriptive claims that could be checked by anyone (E.g. the Empire state building is 487 m in height). Secondary sources are reuired for saying stuff like "the Empire state building is quite tall" however.--Patton123 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On the third hand... primary sources are acceptable for quotes such as "Upon seeing the Empire State Building for the first time, Primary Author said 'Wow... That building sure is tall'<cite to primary source>" or "According to Primary Author the building is impressive"... of course, whether it is appropriate to quote a particular author, or mention a particular author's opinion, in a specific article depends on many factors (such who the author is, and what his/her connection to the topic is. for example, is the author a noted expert on tall buildings? etc.) Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(od)This is too general. My question was quite concrete: a person A in his memoirs states that the person B told him that he served in a penal unit and was convicted for being late twice. Can this source serve as a support for the statement that the penal units did exist during that time and that such a punishment was usual and widespread?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's probably too controversial, judging from this discussion and nothing else. Is it controversial? If it is, no, if it isn't, yes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editors are insisting in designating Tropical Depressions with numbers that are not found anywhere. They can't provide any evidence that such a designation has been assigned by an official agency. Therefore, it is clearly an original research.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? This is a noticeboard where we opine on sources with questioned reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I know we tell everyone to be bold, but I'm not convinced that applies to typefaces!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If the numbering system exists only on Wikipedia, and it's presented as an official name of the typhoon ( as opposed to a list that happens to have index numbers ), then yes, that's a problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Typhoon... Suggest you raise this issue at the No original research noticeboard (

WP:NORN). Blueboar (talk

) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This website is used as an unqualified reliable source in a number of articles and BLPs including:

• Jack Donovan
• Theistic Satanism
• Reginald Bretnor
• Giosuè Carducci
• Marc Almond

The site has various documents and guides for members, none of which seems to contain a clear editorial policy or standard terms of use for the website. The site is not an open forum or a blog/wiki but there are processes for members to publish publicly available articles on the site and add links to other (uncontrolled) sites, for example http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SIGARTLST.html and http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SETI.html (two of the special interest groups).

Pages on the site have been quoted in Wikipedia articles as if they were reliable sources (not just copies of the text from other reliable sources) or as if the text were an extract from a published Journal (which as original writing for the website they are not). I may have overlooked something here but if the site doesn't make it as a reliable source I would like a clear rationale for removing such references as any source in the area of religious topics is likely to be contentious (with the obvious exception of authors writing about themselves or celebrity interviews;

In the case of

L0b0t (talk

) 13:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The link in the reference is to http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html which in fact does not mention Donovan at all, so appears out of date - please read it before declaring it as okay here.—Ash (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And you should read the cite. As is clearly stated on the cite itself, the information is in the "news" section (scroll down the page about half-way) and it a press release announcing Donovan's departure.

L0b0t (talk

) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, found it eventually. I'd say it was about 15% of the way down the page and entitled "REV. 'JACK MALEBRANCHE' RESIGNS FROM CHURCH OF SATAN" (rather than Donovan), just a bit hard to find from the reference given.—Ash (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

L0b0t (talk

) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/RMCarducci.html in EL.—Ash (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that one. It is an EL and is not germane to this discussion page.

L0b0t (talk

) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

L0b0t (talk

) 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

L0b0t (talk

) 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the reference. This is a web citation, not a book citation. It links to http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/CShistory2MC.html which in turn mentions the book "The Church of Satan" as further reading at the end of the web article. The text of the web article referenced should be the facts under review, not the book which is mentioned in passing.—Ash (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The CoS website section that is cited contains an excerpt from the book itself. You are welcome to change the template to a {{cite book}} if it bothers you that much.

L0b0t (talk

) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes it bothers me because it is not an extract and was never a simple book citation. The article actually states that it is "condensed from" and "with supplemental material". This makes the text original rather than an extract.—Ash (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So far, all of the articles listed, with the exception of

L0b0t (talk

) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth,

George D. Chryssides in Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements listed this website as the first of three websites on page 486 in his section on "Useful Web Sites". Whether that makes it reliable is possibly a different matter, but I think that it probably qualifies as acceptable in most circumstances, even if not necessarily the best possible source. John Carter (talk

) 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

External links and references are not the same thing. External links are general information pages, put at the bottom of the article. References may often cost money to check - books for example, or subscription journals.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Using a reference that is not available online for free, is not a problem at all. Often the highest quality references (books, academic journals) fall in such a category. It is not ok to remove such references, unless you are confident that they are fraudulent or being misrepresented. If you believe that a particular reference, which you don't have access to, is dubious request the concerned editor for a quote and further details on the talk page, ask at

WP:Refdesk, or even here and someone may be able to look it up. Abecedare (talk

) 03:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• There isn't really a difference between having to buy a book (or journal access) and having to pay for lexis nexis. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Well there really is a difference but if you don't want to discuss it I can understand, this is probably the wrong place for that anyway. Thanks.--
  talk
  ) 04:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We are not promoting a news source or journal when we link to their website; we are just crediting them for spending resources on the actual reporting and writing that we (as a tertiary source) rely on, and telling the reader where to look in order to find further details. It would be unethical, and arguably illegal, to use their labor without credit, and a disservice to our readers to not provide a link if one is available - even if it requires payment. This is no different from our expecting that people who quote wikipedia articles at least acknowledge the source (as required by
    GFDL) and ideally link to it. Abecedare (talk
    ) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) What's the difference as far as we are concerned? I'm not sure where you get the impression I don't want to discuss it. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • madsci, are you referring to content that can only be obtained via internet and must be paid for? That might be a problem but is fortunately quite rare. In actual fact, you can verify most content for free by visiting your local library (or using our own
    WP:LIBRARY). If any source, webware or treeware, is pay-only we would prefer to replace it with a freely available source. Ultimately though, we trust our editors who have paid the money to accurately report what they have read. As noted, you can always ask the editor to provide quotations to back up their assertions on what is in the source. Franamax (talk
    ) 04:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's possible to contact the author(s) of a particular text and ask for confirmation of a quote.  Cs32en  08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This came up fairly recently. It is customary to add (fee for article) at the end of the ref. Aside from that, there is not much you can do. I've written several FA's about Nixon's early career, and much of that involved LA Times, NY Times, Wash Post articles not available for free online, but certainly available by visiting a library that has the paper on microfilm. A free source would be preferable, but is very often not possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd be unlikely to produce a quality encyclopedia if we limited our sources to those that are available online for free. Dlabtot (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually when I cite newspaper articles whose only online copies are behind for-pay barriers I just give the details that I have for the print article and omit any url. On the other hand for academic journal articles I do usually include a link, because that still would allow large numbers of Wikipedia readers to find the articles for no additional cost by using their employer's or their local university library's site license for the content. That all seems to me a reasonable balance between properly citing our sources and not promoting for-pay sites, but I'd welcome contrary opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I actually only do so because all of the newspaper database resources I find give some crufty url which appears to demand session data. If newspaper archives organized themselves like JSTOR or the nytimes (just click on a few of their old stories: Year/Date/Subject/title, it is perfect) I would feel more inclined to link to them, regardless of promotion concerns. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that legal commentary by this author is reliable, based on this article:

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

A cursory glance at the

The article was published two months ago, and has not yet been corrected. Bhimaji (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Radiantenergy:

• Please read the quote again it only says - "That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy" - this is not a wrong statement. If she had said "George W Bush extended for 10 years then it would have been a wrong statement. In 2006 George W Bush decided to extend this Act for 25 years.
• Secondly there was opposition from the Republicans in 2006 against renewing the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965'. What's this act? This Act outlawed the discriminatory voting practices on African Americans in the United States and its provisions prevented limited voting discriminations in the South. If George Bush didn't extend this act in 2006 it then there would have been discriminatory voting practices in the South. After 25 years there will be another round of debate about this act and it will be up to the President at that time to renew this act again.
• I don't see there is anything wrong in what Sandhya Jain reported above. Whether we agree or not this Act pretty much decides on the voting priviledge rights of the Black Americans living in the South. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The act precludes descriminatory measures on racial grounds. It would equally outlaw discrimination against whites if there were a black majority in a jurisdiction. It does not justify the claim that whites have a legally automatic right, but non-whites do not. Indeed the concept of an "automatic" right for any group is nonsensical. In theory, in the future any law might be passed changing voting rights. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How does this act helps Black Citizens and why is it so important to African Americans?

• The Fifteenth Amendment prevented states from denying citizens the right to vote based on race. However this legislative act prevents states from enforcing discriminatory tactics aimed at preventing minorities fair opportunities to participate in the voting process. Earlier there were variety of ill-conceived tricks. Such was the “grandfather clause.” One had to descend from citizens who had the right to vote, which meant, in most cases, former slaves and their descendants couldn’t vote. Some states continued to disenfranchise blacks by requiring literacy tests.
• This Act protected citizens' right to vote primarily by forbidding covered states from using tests of any kind (like literacy tests) to determine eligibility to vote, by requiring these states to obtain federal approval before enacting any election laws, and by assigning federal officials to monitor the registration process in certain localities. Congress has amended the Act several times since 1965 to include other ethnic groups under its coverage.
• Pretty much this act re-enfranchised black southerners, helping elect African Americans at the local, state, and national levels. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Just a note, the quotation from the Daily Pioneer above is wrong in almost every detail. (1) The United States' black adult citizens do have the right to vote on the same basis as white adult citizens under the
    Voting Rights Act of 1965. (2) The Voting Rights Act contains provisions requiring certain states and localities to "pre-clear" changes to their election laws or policies with the Justice Department or a Federal court. These provisions are subject to expiration and renewal, and have been renewed several times, most recently for 25 years (not for 10 years). However, even if they were not renewed, black people would still have the right to vote. Other provisions of the Voting Rights Act are permanent and do not require periodic renewal. (3) The decision to renew the pre-clearance provisions is not made by the president unilaterally; it requires a regular act of Congress. (4) John F. Kennedy was not directly involved in the Voting Rights Act; it passed in 1965, almost two years after he was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson was the president who signed it into law. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
    00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient context. What do you want us to do? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This concerns the article Sathya Sai Baba, an Indian guru of disputed respectability. The Pioneer is a source used to include material defending Baba, which some editors want to remove. The source to be included is different from the one quoted here, which is unrelated to the Baba article and which is unly mentioned here to suggest that the journalist Sandhya Jain is not very reliable. Paul B (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, too late at night, forgot to include the link to this article.

I highlighted the voting rights act "confusion" because, quite honestly, I don't think that a source with such non-existent fact checking and editorial control should be part of Wikipedia. Bhimaji (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jain's writing is listed under op-ed. It represents her own opinions and the opinions of the Pioneer. It is not a work of factual journalism. It cannot be relied upon for facts outside of Jain's own mind.

Usage a, "However neither Sai Baba nor any organisation associated with him has been charged or implicated for sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that reputable media agencies and independent journalists have not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse linked to Sai Baba or his organisations." is a copyvio of the article quoted. Sandya jain (as the by-line is) in the article "Move to malign Sai Baba fails" is giving editorial opinion, not journalism. Usage a cannot be substantiated. The commentary and copyvio should be removed. Check entire article for copy vios from jain's article.

Usage b is factual, and can't be substantiated from an editorial.

Usage c is acceptable: fact of the matter is jain's commentary.

Usage d is contradictory: a withdrawn suit does not result in trial. Useage d goes to facts. Unacceptable as facts from an editorial.

Usage e is OR fantasy and lies, should be deleted as not substantiated in the source, even though the source is not RS for international law or US law.

Usage f is an incorrect use. Cite directly the papers involved.

Finally, the source is misformatted as a citation and appears incorrectly.

Source is only an RS for the opinion of Pioneer and Sandya jain. Source is not-SR for: facts of the case (its an op-ed), international law. All footnote subletters correct as of 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) diff read: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=314635012

Comments from Radiantenergy:

Bhimaji, did not present the facts correctly. He started with another article totally unrelated to the Sathya Sai Baba article by Sandhya Jain and about a totally different subject. I would like to clarify on a few things here.

• The Daily Pioneer article used in the Sathya Sai Baba article is this - http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html.
• The 'Daily Pioneer' article is mainly centered around the 'Alaya Rahm case filed in the Superior Court Of California in 2006'.
• This was already discussed in detail in the
  WP:RS
  discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question.

• It was a very long discussion between 4 experienced outside wikipedians who looked at the 'Alaya Rahm case covered in the Daily Pioneer article and the BBC documentary' for almost a week.
• It was concluded in that
  WP:RS
  discussion that the above 'Daily Pioneer' article related to the 'Alaya Rahm case' is reliable sourced. The above 'Daily Pioneer' has important refutations to 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba'.
• It was concluded in the
  WP:RS
  that 'The Daily Pioneer' article must be included in the Sathya Sai Baba article and removing it will be a violation of BLP.
• I don't see the point in discussing the same material that has already been discussed in detail for a week in the
  WP:RS board earlier and on which conclusions were already made. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk
  ) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pioneer article reported that the Alaya Rahm case was dropped. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. The article stated that there has been no charges of any kind against Sai Baba. This is a fact not an opinion. Most of the article is reporting not opinion.Sbs108 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• This Reliable Source notice board is for finding if a source is reliable or not from other outside wikipedians. In this case this source 'Daily Pioneer' had already been discussed for a week in the
  WP:RS board by 4 experienced wikipedians. This source was declared as reliable. I think there is no point in continuing this discussion about the same material which has already been dealt in detail. This only causes more confusion to the editors. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk
  ) 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I presented an example of factual inaccuracies from this source. Yes, the articles were on different subjects. So what? We're talking about the reliability of the source. I am arguing that Jain is not a reliable source. Articles on different subjects are completely relevant - if Jain is inaccurate about one topic, why should we trust articles on another subject? Bhimaji (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy:

• Bhimaji, just because you didn't want to implement the conclusions made in the previous
  WP:RS
  board.
• This source 'Daily Pioneer' was debated for a week by independent wikipedians and conclusions were made. That's has to be respected and implemented.
• Also you presented the case wrongly citing a different example. The 'Daily Pioneer' article revolves around 'Alaya Rahm case' and you did n't even mention anything about the 'Alaya Rahm' case above.
• The Other Sandhya Jain article has nothing to do with the Sathya Sai Baba article. The administrator Mfield already mentioned in the talk page that once a source is declared as reliable in the
  WP:RS
  its not up to the editors to second guess the source that amounts to Original research.
• BBC documentary which you speak high of had several wrong statements and incorrect facts. They called "Sai Baba is nothing but a mafia man, conning the people and making himself rich". This is factually inaccurate. There is no evidence to prove that he is a Mafia man. This is an absurd statement. So as per your argument every BBC reference by Tanya Dutta must be removed in this article and every other article in wikipedia right?.
• As per your arguments if BBC made factual inaccuracies in one documentary then why should BBC be trusted anywhere else?. Also there is a whole article criticising BBC in wikipedia as well as controversies. [8], [9]. Using your logic BBC should never ever be trusted again?
• To Conclude
  WP:RS
  already declared 'The Daily Pioneer' article covering the 'Alaya Rahm' case as reliably sourced. We have the court document links from the 'Superior Court of California Website' supporting it. As declared by Priyanath in the previous RS discussion this 'Daily Pioneer' should be included if the 'BBC documentary' is allowed in the article. Removing it will be a BLP violation.

Quote from User:Priyanath in the WP:RS discussion on why its important to include the 'Daily Pioneer' in the article.

IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

The other 'two sources' referred by Priyanath above are the 'Daily Pioneer' and the links to the 'Alaya Rahm case from Superior Court of California website'.

• I don't see any reason in continuing this discussion about a source 'Daily Pioneer' which has already been discussed before and recommendations were made in this same
  WP:RS to include it in the article. This topic should be marked as resolved and closed. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk
  ) 04:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Trying_to_move_forward_with_this

Is journalism of this nature worthy of being considered reputable? (See http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html) Ombudswiki (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Ombudswiki (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy:

User:Ombudswiki, is discussing about 'Opinionated Journalism' and asked - Is journalism of this nature worthy of being considered reputable inspite of being declared reputable?.

• Is the 2004 BBC documentary which is used in the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article - another example of 'opinionated journalism'? - Ofcourse - there were several strong statements.

• Does that make BBC 'Unreliable also' as per the above argument by User:Ombudswiki?. Here's a question to ponder?

• The 2004 BBC documentary 'Secret Swami' had dramatic dialogue and emotional statements building the 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba' slowly based on Alaya Rahm allegations. BBC documentary had very strong criticism on Sathya Sai Baba mainly projecting critics such as Premananda's views.

• The 2004 BBC documentary - reporter Tanya Datta was openly biased.

Some examples of strong statements from the BBC documentary criticising Sathya Sai Baba:

• "His distinctive 1960s orange robes and Afro hairstyle make him instantly recognisable...." -- This statement is indeed satirical.

• "He certainly has friends in high places, and throughout the scandal, his popularity has remained intact..."

• "number of former devotees who have turned away from his teachings, claiming he has ruined their lives..."

• "I remember him saying, if you don't do what I say, your life will be filled with pain and suffering." - dramatic statements and dialogues..

In the article Sai Baba: God-man or con man? by Tanya Dutta has the following strong statements. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm

• "Sai Baba is nothing but a mafia man, conning the people and making himself rich", he says of his bete noire ... Is this statement not opinionated?. Does it sound fair / impartial? Example of a sensational statement with factual inaccuracies.

• "But Brooke's allegations were dismissed out of hand by the tightly controlled Sai Baba Organisation..."

• "He believes that the country's biggest spiritual leader, Sri Satya Sai Baba, is a charlatan and must be exposed."

Inspite of all these above opinionated statements and conclusions in the BBC documentary by Tanya Dutta - BBC is still used as a source in the Sathya Sai Baba article. As per the above argument by User:Ombudswiki - BBC must be declared as 'unreliable'.

The editors who complained about 'Daily Pioneer' - Sandhya Jain's opinions did not have any problems with the opinionated statements from Tanya Dutta presented in the BBC documentary.

• In Conclusion: As I mentioned above 'Daily Pioneer' is a reputed reliable source as per the earlier
  WP:RS
  discussion and recommendation.

• The contents from the 'Daily Pioneer' has been presented neutrally in the article.

• There is no mention of Robert Priddy in the article. The 'Daily Pioneer' has important refutation to 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba'.

• 'Daily Pioneer' should be used in the article as per the earlier WP:RS recommendation and leaving it out because of objections by a few editors will lead to serious BLP violations in the article as pointed out by
  WP:RS
  discussion.

• The Earlier
  WP:RS
  recommendation on 'Daily Pioneer' must be respected and implemented to keep the article in balance.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Ombudswiki:

Radiantenergy, you are wandering again. The subject is the contents of the Pioneer article. The following statement (one of your "Conclusions") is meaningless but still indicates, among other things, that you have not even read my evidence (above): "The contents from the 'Daily Pioneer' has been presented neutrally in the article."

Far more worrying is your categorical statement: "There is no mention of Robert Priddy in the article". This is untrue, as can be seen by referring not only to the online article itself but to 2 specific quotes in my last posting:

“Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”.”

(Actually, as a consultation of the online comments on the Pioneer website will attest, Priddy denied it at the time: "Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM

"You wrote: Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. "You have not given any source, as ther is none which states this. It is totally untrue.)”

Why do you behave in this way? Ombudswiki (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant. I said above that "There is no mention of Robert Priddy in the article" - I meant that "There is no mention of Robert Priddy name in the Sathya Sai Baba article". The 'Daily Pioneer' has been presented neutrally in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Wikipedia reports what other reliable sources reports. We cannot remove a reliable source - "Daily Pioneer covering Alaya Rahm trial" for the above reason you stated. We already had this discussion in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. Even the administrator MField replied that ProEdits / Robert Priddy's only basis for claiming the source is unreliable is the fact that is mentions his name and thus it must be in some way biased. Here's the link to the discussion MField added - [10] In wikipedia this cannot be used as a reason for removing a reliable source from the Sathya Sai Baba article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors actively involved in the article should not really be commenting here. I'd like to restate my assessment of Jain's article as quoted in the article in question here, "Jain's writing is listed under op-ed. It represents her own opinions and the opinions of the Pioneer. It is not a work of factual journalism. It cannot be relied upon for facts outside of Jain's own mind." I don't particularly case what past RS discussions found. OP-ED pieces do not present facts, but opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fifelfoo, I would like to just clarify on one thing. The article http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html by Sandhya Jain is not listed under OP-Ed - The Daily Pioneer has a separate link for Op-Ed articles here http://www.dailypioneer.com/OPED/oped.html. This article was published in the Sunday Pioneer Edition Newspaper. http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. An op-ed, is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. Sandhya Jain is a part of the 'Daily Pioneer's' editorial team. Here's the list of the editorial team from the Daily Pioneer - http://www.dailypioneer.com/COLUMNIST/Column.html. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, this isn't a news article. It is an editorial piece (whether or not it is technically called an "Op-Ed" is irrelevant). As such, it is not a reliable source for anything but the author's opinion, and
  WP:BLP must be taken into account because this editorial makes some rather extreme claims against named living people. I'd leave it out, myself. Surely there are reliable and unbiased news sources we can rely upon? *** Crotalus ***
  15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some facts about the Daily Pioneer.

• The Pioneer is a medium-sized English language newspaper in India. It is published from Delhi, Lucknow, Bhubaneswar, Bhopal, Chandigarh, Dehradun and Ranchi. The current editor of the newspaper is Chandan Mitra.
• Here's the website link to Daily Pioneer from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pioneer_(Indian_newspaper)
• Daily Pioneer Newspaper: "The Pioneer" - a well established Newspaper. Its been online since 10th May 1999. The daily Pioneer has epaper link: http://epaper.dailypioneer.com/Thepioneer/Pioneer/2009/04/14/index.shtml. The daily Pioneer website has 63,460 page views in the past 3 months. As per the traffic statistics this epaper is linked in 612 websites.
• 'The Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain' mainly covers the '2006 Alaya Rahm trial'. This source was already discussed for a week in
  WP:RS and declared as reliable. Also 2006 'Alaya Rahm's trial link' is available from the 'Superior Court of California' website. As I mentioned before it was recommended in that discussion that 'The Daily Pioneer article' is reliably sourced and removing it will be a BLP violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question
  .
• It does not make sense to change an already declared reliable source to unreliable status as per convenience. The main opposition to this source is because it mentions 'Robert Priddy' Name.
• Earlier
  WP:RS discussion about this source is not even being looked at. Radiantenergy (talk
  ) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me how these are "opinions".Sbs108 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an op-ed piece written by an unreliable writer. Maybe the Daily Pioneer news section is a reliable source, but this op-ed is not a valid source for anything other than the writer's opinion, and there is no evidence that this opinion is in any way notable. Our verifiability policies require sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and this writer has a proven track record of inaccuracy as demonstrated by the repetition of a voting rights urban legend. (See [11] for a specific debunking of Jain's ridiculous claim about black voting rights in the United States.) Moreover, this op-ed also contains claims against Alaya Rahm which violate BLP since they are negative statements against a living person that are not published in a reliable source. You are also citing this op-ed piece six different times which would be a textbook example of

WP:BLP. *** Crotalus ***

20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was fair and balanced before user ProEdits tried to tip the scales again and if gone unchecked would have turned the article into a replica of his website which by the way was done more than a few times in the past. One more time..it was already discussed and the majority of neutral editors stated that it was reliable enough to be in the article. Come on... its two paragraphs in a huge article,the WP:UNDUE argument doesn't hold up. We can't weigh sources against each other in order to refute a source with information that someone doesn't like.Sbs108 (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotalus: The Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain is not Op-ed piece. The Daily Pioneer article was published in the Sunday Pioneer Edition Newspaper. http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. It was published in the 'Sunday Pioneer Edition' on March 31st 2009. As I mentioned before they have a separate category of article which are op-ed here - http://www.dailypioneer.com/OPED/oped.html. Your above reasons does not justify removing the above reliable source from the Sathya Sai Baba article. You are not even willing to look at the earlier

• Your words were "and any further attempts to insert this crap". This is not how a source should be addressed. Your arguments seems biased and one-sided.
• You tried to remove this reliable source and edit-warred in the Sathya Sai Baba article inspite of this being an on-going discussion.
• This source was declared reliable in the earlier
  WP:RS
  discussion. The recommendations from that discussion must be upholded.
• It will be a BLP violation if this source is removed as it has very important refutation to Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba.

Quote from User:Priyanath in the WP:RS discussion on why its important to include the 'Daily Pioneer' in the article.

To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

The other 'two sources' referred by Priyanath above are the 'Daily Pioneer' and the links to the 'Alaya Rahm case from Superior Court of California website'.

• A reliable source cannot be changed as per convenienece so far your arguments have been one-sided. There is nothing above convincing to remove an important reliable source from the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Radiantenergy (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is

Hi User:Protonik: This source about the 'Voting Act Rights' is not used anywhere in the Sathya Sai Baba and is not even relevant to this article. Bhimaji who added the discussion mentioned it unneccessarily and lead to this confusion. We are talking about a different source http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html - which is actually used in the Sathya Sai Baba article. My point is that this source - 'Daily Pioneer on Sathya Sai Baba' was already discussed for a week earlier in the

This section is still at least 10x longer than it needs to be. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can summarise the issue quickly.

• The discussion is about an article published in the Newspaper "Daily Pioneer" and is being used as a source for the Sathya Sai Baba article. This source was extensively discussed here in the
  WP:RS. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question
  for a week and was declared as a reliable source by 3 wikipedians. This source has important refutations to Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. They mentioned in the earlier RS discussion that removing this source 'Daily Pioneer covering Alaya Rahm trial' will be a BLP violation to the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'.
• Some users who did not want to comply with the earlier recommendation started the above discussion. They did not provide correct links and facts. Their problem is that the article mentions "Robert Priddy's name". Who is Robert Priddy?. Robert Priddy is an 'Anti-Sai Baba activist' well known in th web. He started edit-warring in the wikipedia 'Sathya Sai Baba' article as User:ProEdits since his name is mentioned in the above 'Daily Pioneer' article and wanted this source declared unreliable. Above are the arguments and counter arguments about this source. It does not make any sense to me to continue discussion about a source which has already been declared reliable. Wikipedia publishes what other reliable sources publishes. We cannot change a source from reliable to unreliable because its being opposed by Priddy. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your summary is highly inaccurate:

1. You are confusing "source" and "article." The source is Sandhya Jain, writing in the Daily Pioneer. The source produces multiple articles. You can not say that one article is a reliable source and another article is not.

2. Sandhya Jain writes articles for the Daily Pioneer containing material that is demonstrably false - debunked by Snopes, no less.

If the facts in Jain's article are supported by other sources, then those other sources should be used. Anything that can not be found in other sources should not be used in the article. Bhimaji (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bhimaji, the source and article definition are quite clear to you. I see that you are defining your own new rules in wikipedia about a source and an article.

As per your argument then we must not look at the source "BBC" rather we have to look at works of Tanya Dutta who documented BBC and judge if her work is reliable. Then same applies with source 'Daily Telegraph' and with Salon.com source - You are saying we must look at every author and then decide if their work is reliable or not. If I want to include CNN as reference as per your statement we should judge if 'Lou Dobbs' work is reliable? Your explanation only shows your personal opinion. That's not the way wikipedia works. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandhya Jain writes, "The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba later. Key blogs in the defamation were robertpriddy.wordpress.com; barrypittard.wordrpess.com; briansteel.wordpress.com." On his own website, http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/pparthivisit08.htm Brian Steel talks about his visit to Puttaparthi in October 2008. Sathya Sai Baba's home town and abode. (On Robert Priddys website aka wikipedia editor, ProEdits... "Recently, Brian Steel returned from a surprise visit to Puttaparthi bearing a swag of documents and audiovisual material that, under his critical scrutiny, reveal far more mischief than their devotion-blinded authors surely ever dreamed would be perceptible to commonsense and reason." http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/revealing-materials-on-sai-baba-of-india/ " On a surprise visit to see the ashram, Brian Steel discovered that things are not as they were in various respects. Not least, the gaudy propaganda venue, the Chaitanya Jyoti "museum" is undergoing 'damage-limitation' http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/brian-steels-secret-visit-to-see-sathya-sai-baba/ ")

How is this reporting falicious? It seems to be accurate.

• Sandhya Jain further states, "a lingering, insidious smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba" Robert Priddy writes blogs almost daily about Sathya Sai Baba from topics like calling Sathya Sai Baba a tranvestite ("He is known for having been a transvestite in his youth, if not even nowadays in his gown with his ladylike motions." http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/) to topics like "Sathya Sai sees Hanuman as a real figure"... This is indeed a smear campaign and has been lingering... (Robert Priddy -ProEdits writes "what is the connection between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Sathya Sai Baba?") ? Robert Priddy-ProEdits, seems to be trying to fill the space on his website, it does seem to be a 'lingering' campaign...

Therefor Sandhya Jain's writing is again accurate.

• Brian Steel, -Ombudswiki, writes previously in this RS notice board, "

(Actually, as a consultation of the online comments on the Pioneer website will attest, Priddy denied it at the time: "Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM " Robert Priddy is quite vocal about his beliefs, http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/sathya-sai-baba-bhagavan-sri-sathya-sai-baba/posts/tag/robert+priddy/ so theres nothing new with his vocalising his opinion on a web page where his name is mentioned.

• This entire discusion began with "Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do." This has nothing to do with the Sathya Sai Baba article. the article in question wasn't even cited by Bhamaji until six edits later. it seems like he forgot the topic.

• If a mistake in presenting some articles deems an entire source unusable, please consider the BBC has made errors in reporting.

• 2001: the Ten O'Clock News broadcast an apology for wrongly calling a director of the Oryx Natural Resources company of Oman a "convicted terrorist". • 2003: the BBC apologised for the radio broadcast in which the reporter Andrew Gilligan said that Downing Street had "sexed up" the Iraq dossier which alleged Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes. • 2007: the BBC was fined £50,000 for doctoring the results of a phone-in on the children's programme Blue Peter. (doctoring results!!)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557285/Other-BBC-apologies.html

"The pair (Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross of the BBC) left answerphone messages for the 78-year-old Fawlty Towers star in which they told him Brand had slept with his granddaughter and joked that the actor might kill himself as a result."http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/68155/BBC-apologies-for-tasteless-radio-prank- is the BBC considered reliable by Wikipedia?

• This source, Daily Pioneer/Sandhya Jain, was alreday deemed reliable http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question

• Refrences in the Sathya Sai Baba article to the Daily Pioneer are in context with the article subject, Sai Baba.

• Robert Priddy says the Daily pioneer is false in reporting his words, "I have never written any such thing in any blog, basta! In promoting this lie by the Daily Pioneer, this entry is chiefly an insidious extension of Gerald Moreno's massive highly visible web agenda to assassinate my character without any reliable evidence." Who is Gerald Moreno? Why is Robert Priddy blaming him? why do other editors have to discuss such off topics?

• i agree with editor:Protonk "This section is still at least 10x longer than it needs to be."

and Sandhya Jain's comment "The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees" seems relevant on this discussion. (begun by an editor who forgot the topic)

Thanks!

J929 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bhimaji writes "The source is Sandhya Jain, writing in the Daily Pioneer. The source produces multiple articles." The source is the Daily Pioneer. The BBC is the source for Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, in the way the statement "(Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross of the BBC)" is worded. The BBC (source) had to apologise for Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross. http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/68155/BBC-apologies-for-tasteless-radio-prank- if her article "US unequal to India" http://www.dailypioneer.com/190509/US-unequal-to-India.html is wrong, the Daily Pioneer will have to apologise for her.

J929 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this book

Peter Davis (1996).

ISBN 1869401395

.

cites a women, presumably a prostitute, talking

"A lot of people are starting to like pearl necklace because you don't use a condom for it. It feels like sex but no condom...if you've got big ones"

That passage is being used as a source to support this text

"(Mammary intercourse) is one of the activities that prostitutes use as safe sex alternatives for clients who refuse to wear a condom, because mammary intercourse on large breasted women can feel like penetrative sex."

For me, it looks like a

Original research (making conclusions from the text), specially compared with what reliable sources

talk about the subject.

But the other user disagrees, so I'm bring this issue to the noticeboard.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic sociology accepts the concept of discussants and interview. "The Social Order in New Zealand" paints this source as sociology. The Auckland University Press is a reputable University Press, ie, an academic press. There is nothing wrong with the document, as it has passed under the eyes of an academic sociology and an academic press reviewing process, it isn't OR or SELF. The problem is that the quotation does not substantiate the claim. The sex worker was talking about client preference for simulation of "real sex". The wikipedia article is claiming sex workers prefer the act for Occupational Health and Safety reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Source acceptable per wikipedia conclusion. Recommend: improve encyclopedic language, "sex worker," seriously reconsider "large breasted women" with possibly, "women with large breasts" due to objectification. Expand use of Davis, According to Davis (1996)... Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The context in the book is safe-sex practices that do not require condoms. I don't think the passage is stretching Davis, though it could maybe be tweaked. Clearly these practices are only more popular in this context for "Health and Safety" reasons, since an insistence on condoms in 'normal' sex is the only meaningful context of the phrase "becoming more popular with clients as a way of not having to wear a condom." Paul B (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not "self published" by any stretch of the imagination, since it's from a book published by Auckland University Press. Though the author does not use the actual word 'prostitute' to describe the individual speaker, the context is clear that he is summarising inteviews with prostitutes (though he politly simply uses the term 'women' and refers to their 'clients'). The author Peter Davis summarises: "these actiivities were becoming more popular with clients as a way of not having to wear a condom." and then illustates this with two quotations from prostitutes, one of whom refers to an increased preference for "pearl necklaces" and the other to mammary sex. In other words the quotations are not the source, the conclusions of the author are. The author has simplt picked out these quotations (presumably from many interviews) to illustrate his point. The text in the article seems to be an accurate summary of Davis' conclusions. The source is not the random assertion of an unnamed prostitute. It is Davis. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not assuming the book is self published, but when a book cites someones opinion, it doesn't mean the book supports that opinion, it just cites it, without taking much criteria about that since it's clear that's someone else opinion. In that sense I see that opinion in the same level of a self-published source, since there isn't the same level of editorial control over it. So it is as reliable as the prostitute is.

In that sense I find that source (the prostitute talking), very unreliable to say that "It feels like sex but no condom...if you've got big ones" and if a condom is necessary or not.

In the sense of original research she doesn't say

pearl necklaces which is a sexual term with a different meaning that doesn't necessarily need mammary intercourse. She also doesn't define the specific kind of sex it feels like. To who it "feels like sex" (to both?). And she also doesn't say what's big (the mouth, the hands, the fake genitalia, ...). And who is the "you"? The client who has big hands or a "big doll"? This is all interpretative and so original research.--Nutriveg (talk

) 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reliable source, but its being misused. This woman is not an expert, and even if she were, it seems to be an OR summary or what she said. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is good: original research conducted and published by journalists or academics is not forbidden OR by our rules, in fact quite the opposite. I have already reworded the referenced section in response to an earlier deletion of it by

Yes, the editor's motivations are fairly clear. The absurd suggestion that the woman does not "say what's big" is just muddying the waters. It's very clear that she is talking about breasts and about rubbing a penis between them to achieve ejaculation at the neck area - hence the "pearl necklace". It is not original research to interpret the obvious meaning of a text. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that the OR is in the desperate attempt to construct wildly implausible alternative readings simply to exclude legitimate information. OR is a problem of exclusion as well as inclusion. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My motivation is to reflect reliable sources, like this. I don't oppose the use of reliable sources and citing their conclusions. Implying motivations won't help.

Still on the

WP:OR where does she say that it's like penetrative sex? How she could reach that conclusion? Is she an authoritative opinion or is just bias advertising a specific service she provides? Beyond that mammary intercourse is less sensible and invasive for a woman than vaginal sex, so a prostitute would favor that practice instead, where we have another conflict of interest. Is she an authoritative opinion to say what needs condoms or not?--Nutriveg (talk

) 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(see my comment below). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem here is one of

Just to make clear "Simon Speed" claims that he "already reworded the referenced section": The text and references on the top of this section are exactly those of the article's last version.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the word "can" which Nutriveg had used as a pretext to delete the entire section on the grounds that it was "advice". --Simon Speed (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

about synthesis, see the author's text in page 125 [12] (the paragraph above "Results", see also the end of page 127 and the start of 128. Those are the author's own words and conclusions. The prostitute's quote in page 127 is preceded by an author's comment: "If a client could not be persuaded to wear a condom, there were safer alternatives that could be practiced. These activities were becoming more popular with clients as a way of not having to wear a condom. As one woman said:" and later on "One of the rules set by all of the women was to practice safe sex at all times with clients. All the women stated that if a client refused to use a condom or practise a safer alternative (...)". The quotes were picked by the author as examples of what he is saying, chosen from "semi-structured interviews" with 45 women. The chapter is actually called "Safe sex and parlour work". Please read the actual source and don't comment only on the quote presented here.

Anyways, I tried this. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If a sociologist who has conducted discourse / interview research published in a peer reviewed manner or under a respectable Academic press has used a respondant's quote to typify an attitude or behaviour, the sociologist has elevated the quote from being a single opinion, to being the sociologist's opinion. Its called illustrative quoting. Better context is needed, ie, ' In the opinion of Sociologist X, respondent Y is correct in saying, "foo" ' Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

See [13]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the particular fact being referenced is terribly controversial, given the number of prostitutes adverts you can see for "French". It has made it into this sociological survey and there doesn't seem to be any source to the contrary or even an argued POV. This whole thing is just another of User:Nutriveg's little games. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If this book is directed for prostitutes that citation reflects at best their POV, promoting "mammary intercourse" to "fell like sex", "no need to use a condom" and "safe sex". I don't see how it could be safe to rub a unprotected penis in the same place someone else (another client) just ejaculated.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please.... the book is not directed at prostitutes.... the preface of the book has the background and motivations of the ediotr (page xii), it's about researching HIV and AIDS impact in New Zealand. If you scroll up to page viii you will see "[The editor's] current research interests are in health policy and health services, and he convenes the post-graduate programme in public health at Auckland", and he is a "'senior lecturer in medical sociology (...) trained in sociology and statistics (...) completed a doctorate in community health (...) published in the sociology of dentistry and in class and stratification studies." .... This is guy is making research into health stuff and sociological stuff, and the book tries to cover the research made in NZ.

I also noticed that Davis is the editor, and the author of the specific chapter is actually Austen Woods (I'll fix the citation now) "[She] is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Auckland. Her research interests include the social construction of sexuality, and the impact of HIV/AIDS on sex-worker communities in New Zealand and the US. Both her doctoral field work and and her dissertation have been supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. In 1993-94 she attended the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, and in 1994-95 she worked at the Centre for AIDS Prevention Studies in San Francisco. (...)"[14]. Again, this looks like serious research into HIV and AIDS impact. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Enric's last edit made that article text look much better, I've posted comments in that article talk page. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've contributed to several articles on old cars, and an issue here Austin Montego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has started me thinking. This issue is a general one on old vehicles, the article cited (and historical edits) are to illustrate this.

When a vehicle manufacturer is either

• no longer trading
• no longer promoting or supporting users of a vehicle

is it appropriate to provide links to an owner's club instead?

The potential problems here are that

• there are more likely to be editing errors on a non-commercial site
• there could be unbalanced opinions
• some content could be a "primary" rather than "secondary" source
• some "clubs" are nothing more than internet forums

However the potential advantages are

• possibly the only secondary source that is easily verifiable
• for more obscure vehicles, there may not be any books or reviews summarising production
• technical data may be taken from "primary" manufacturer's documentation
• production histories may be summarised from "primary" manufacturer's promotional materials
• some owners' clubs are members of wider "historic vehicle federations"

So - are the websites of vehicle owners' clubs a reliable source? Are there some simple rules that could be applied here? The general Wikipedia advice on fanclubs appears to be written for biographical and entertainment articles, not semi-technical ones on older vehicles. Wikiwayman (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong question. Whilst it's a high standard for an owner's club to meet to be seen as an authoritative source (although some do meet this), the

WP:ELNO

rightly warns against.

If we phrase this question too narrowly as "Are owner's clubs

WP:RS?" then we ask too much of them. Not _all_ clubs will be. Nor do we expect most uses of the club on Wikipedia to require this: use as a source might, use as a link doesn't. Andy Dingley (talk

) 10:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also that a fansite is defined thus:

"A fansite, fan site, or fanpage is a website created and maintained by a fan(s) or devotee(s) interested in a celebrity, thing, [...] or the like."

There are thus many car-related

WP:EL

. This much is agreed.

However we're discussing "owners' clubs" here. The reason these don't fall foul of

WP:ELNO

.

There are also the exceptions to

WP:ELNO#EL11, as noted within it. There are certainly a number of restoration or kit-car build blogs that are highly valuable resources within this context. Andy Dingley (talk

) 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really glad this is being debated. To answer a point raised so far, most owner's clubs don't just fall foul of

WP:ELNO#EL11, they fall foul of the very first of the criteria which states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." That's a really important point. Clearly there are owners clubs which are notable, especially those which are now the chief source of information for a model or marque no longer in production. In these cases I think the question of whether a club can be considered a reliable source goes hand-in-had with the question of whether the club is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in its own right. Take the MG Car Club as an example. It is a long-established club (1930s) which at one time was owned by the company itself. One of its officers, Wilson McComb, has published a definitive history of the marque

. The club clearly has a wealth of information in its possession about the marque and the models which are long out of production. In my opinion the club is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article and to be considered as a reliable source. Unfortunately the club's website contains little that can be referenced – the majority of its content needs membership of the club and registration on the website, so the only output from the club that can be referenced are its printed publications, or the few PDF's that do exist in the public facing sections of the site.

I do support the idea that some owners clubs should be accepted as reliable sources. However, I would propose that the first question to be asked when considering whether a club is a reliable source is whether it is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. The second question is whether the club actually has any referenceable publications i.e. those in print, or those online which do not require registration for a Wikipedia reader to view.--Biker Biker (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." isn't hard to achieve - frequently because of copyright issues. I link to many external sites where they have a photograph (or indeed own an exhibit) where I can't

otherwise source a similar image

. Sometimes I can travel to visit them to take my own photo that I can then put onto the Commons, but this isn't always practical.

I'm certainly not disputing any of the points of

Secondly you seem to be confusing

WP:RS

policy an excuse for their removal. I'm concerned that this question has been raised in this particular forum, as that's already prejudicial in holding links to the higher standard of sources.

Thirdly (and this seems to be the crux of your deletions) you're confusing "clubs and forums and fan sites" (c.f. your commit messages). These are clubs. They're not forums. They're not fansites. We have policies against forums, we have policies against fansites, we do not have policies against real-world clubs with a concrete and relevance presence off-line.

As to why I only addressed #11, that would be because that's the one I was asked to expand upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confused about my confusion. I was discussing

WP:ELNO criteria #1 is a catch-all. If a link doesn't add anything that would be in the article were it to be of FA quality, then it isn't warranted as an external link. --Biker Biker (talk

) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Another possible EL / RS confusion: There is no requirement that RS's have to be freely accessible. That content, like that from the MG Car Club may need registration and membership to be accessed does not prevent it from being referenced on wikipedia.John Z (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will make one comment. For almost all of these cars, there are better sources available. Morgans, Allards, Austin-Healeys, MG's, Triumphs, etc. all have hundreds of books about their creation, their creators and their internals. Anything you find on one of those club websites w/ respect to the creation or function of those cars can be found in one of those published works. That's not by itself a reason to exclude club websites as sources, but we shouldn't be including the sources because they are claimed to be "the only ones out there". For 99% of all the claims which can be made about these cars, that simply isn't true. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, we're confusing

WP:EL condition. Andy Dingley (talk

) 09:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to

WP:RS - but I can't explain why! Wikiwayman (talk

) 09:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds terrible. "at least two of " , ""AND" , "has media on it that cannot be included in an FA article" implies that all WP:EL can now be deleted from any organisation, no matter how relevant, that _doesn't_ include media with a copyright issue. That's carte blanche for the deletionists! For one thing it precludes links to any organisation that observes copyright as strictly as WP does, solely on that ground.

There is no reason at all to take two policy-based justifactions for why a link _may_ be included and then wrap them in a spurious combinatorial requirement to claim that they're then forbidden unless all of these requirements are met simultaneously. That's without even looking at the additional "at least two of" constraint.

We already have WP:policy. What's wrong with that policy? Why does it have to be restricted even further? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the policy; that's why I made my second point. I suggested the first point to clarify what absolutely should never be deleted on the grounds of WP policy, because it clearly shows the site isn't a fansite and provides something extra to what can go in the article. If you don't think my suggestion is helpful because it could be (mis)used in reverse, then I can understand that. In any event, as a personal choice, I now intend to improve the description text of any EL's I add. Wikiwayman (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 official Sathya Sai Baba websites, which have been set up in the past 10 years:

www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation (1999-).

www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation.

www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division).

www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony.

www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos).

All official information can be obtained from these extensive sites, or from those run by official branches of the worldwide Sathya Sai Organisation. All of these bear official responsibility for what they say (for example if any of their information is incorrect or misleading).

All other websites and blogs which deal with Sathya Sai Baba from a devotional point of view (and there are increasingly large numbers of them, some of them very big and popular), are unofficial devotee sites run by individual devotees or groups. Many of these unofficial devotee sites promote a miscellaneous variety of devotee information and promotional material of many kinds - for which they bear no official responsibility. Although the largest of them often also relay much of the official information to devotees (e.g. the translated and edited Discourses of Sathya Sai Baba), this is already available on the extensive official websites listed above.

I suggest that, in the light of the above, the 5 official websites and Sathya Sai Organisation sites are Reliable Sources (within the specialised Wikipedia definition) and that unofficial devotee websites and blogs cannot automatically be assumed to be Reliable and that references to them should be reassessed and judged. Special attention should be paid to existing Wikipedia references to the largest and most popular websites or blogs mentioned at some time or another in various articles about Sathya Sai Baba, for example:

www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com (which, amongst a plethora of devotee information about experiences with Sathya Sai Baba, quotations from devotee books, bhajans, photographs, etc., includes a separate section specifically devoted to attacking critics of Sathya Sai Baba).

To regularise the situation for the main Sathya Sai Baba article and the several others about him, his mission and his Organisation, I therefore suggest that it is time to re-examine all references to unofficial devotee Internet sources, with a view to converting the references to official ones, where possible, or deleting them. Ombudswiki (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Official sites are self-published. Devotional sites are self-published of the movement. Both are only RS for, respectively, the opinion of the official organisation, and the opinion of the devotional culture of the movement. None are RS for anything but opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• We need to standardize and clean up. We may not be able to do in a day but we can start the process. Better references should be used. We should not use either pro-websites nor negative attack websites in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
• I was looking at another religious group "United_Church_of_Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ. This has used references to all their official websites. If we want to write an article pertaining to the details of a religious organisation or a group their beliefs etc the official websites need to be used. You won't find this information in other secondary sources like a Newspaper.
• Sathya Sai Baba article is another religious article. This article has to be treated in par with other religious movement articles. If in other religious articles if there is no problem in using their respective official sites I don't see why this article should be treated with an exception. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a false argument to claim that because Fred does ill, that Susan should do likewise. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. See

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk

) 12:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have information on obtaining information from Cuba on Athletes which are considered "Desertors" by the Cuban Government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.102.39 (talk • contribs)

• I'm assuming you have a particular athlete in mind and you are trying to find information about this athlete's sports activities when they were still in Cuba. My recommendation would be to figure out what the major newspapers were in Cuba when this athlete was competing and try to figure out what libraries in your country would have those newspapers on microfilm. Since copies of these newspapers were sent outside Cuba to other countries, it would be impossible for the Cuban government to suppress the earlier coverage of those athletes from before they defected. Similarly, the Cuban sports federations probably compiled newsletters, yearbooks or other records of their athletic championships and sent some copies abroad. They may be locatable in your country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

At Multi-level marketing another editor believes that this USA today article is an an acceptable source for the single quote uncontextualised paragraph "While earning potential varies by company and sales ability, DSA says the median annual income for those in direct sales is $2,400." In the USAToday article, the sentence is a wrap around from a quote from the DSA, in a bullet point, in a life-style section. I do not believe that an unattributed dot-point quote from an involved organisation in a lifestyle section of a minor tabloid newspaper is an appropriate source for commenting on median annual incomes in the contemporary United States, or to imply that Multi-level marketing is a stupid occupation on wikipedia (no matter how true that may be). Fifelfoo (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's a peculiar characterization of USA Today. I dispute it. Also, as a matter for discussion, who else is going to survey income of direct salespeople? Plenty of surveys of consumer confidence and producer inventories are done by trade organizations. What is wrong with attributing the figure (which I imagine is 24,000 not 2,400) to DSA and calling it a day? Protonk (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Attribution sounds good, but I don't see why it would be 24000 and not 2400. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • you don't see why median annual income for a particular profession wouldn't be less than 5000 dollars? That means half of the answers in the survey reported income below 2400 dollars. I guess the median income would be very low if the DS job was a 2nd or third, but it pretty unbeleiveable that median income would be that low. BLS.gov says median income for telemarketers is 24,770. So in that case the USA today is literally wrong (though I suspect it is a transcription error). Protonk (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know a lot about MSM or whatever, but I thought it was a part time job thing (frequently), like Avon Products. Telemarketers work in a cubicle full time, don't they? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Maybe that is better described by this group, but the median income there is higher. I don't know. This is one reason why surveys from trade groups are sometimes helpful to newspapers--they can pick out a sample group with much smaller granularity than BLS does. But I still don't believe the 2,400 figure. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
          • The people I've know doing MLM haven't even really tried to sell me anything, they just want me to become a seller (of vitamins and stuff). I think it's kind of a scam, so some people make a ton, and most do not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm not confident enough in my skepticism to stand in the way of using that figure, but I just felt I should air some doubts about it and offer some competing publicly available figures (BLS.gov is awesome). Protonk (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Well, USA Today only reports that "DSA says". Digging around DSA's website turns up the 2004 State of the Industry Address by the DSA CEO. In that, he claims a mean of US$ 14,500, and a median of US$2500. Allowing for year-to-year variation and rounding, this is compatible with the USA today article. So the question is if the DSA is reliable (well, they are certainly not disinterested) or notable. I'd say there info can be used with attribution ("Acording to DSA, median income..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
                • I guess I could have done that. <sheepish> If the reported mean is 15,000 then I can believe a median of 2400. Protonk (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • Well, I could have provided a link. Added now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Source in question

• Self, Jane (November 1992). 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard: How America's Top Rated Television Show Was Used in an Attempt to Destroy a Man Who Was Making A Difference. Breakthru Publishing.
  ISBN 0942540239
  .

1. The book is biased: the author self-admits in the book to being involved with Erhard's training for several years prior to writing the book.

   Jane Self describes her association with Erhard's trainings as such: In 1988, I started a lifelong relationship with Landmark Education, a corporation designed for ongoing personal growth and development (it was called Werner Erhard and Associates when I started).

2. The publisher is biased: The publishing company is associated with an individual named "Walter Maksym", who has acted directly as the attorney for Werner Erhard when Erhard sued individuals discussed in the book itself.

   • The publishing company "Breakthru Publishing" publishes the same books as company "Walter Maksym Publishing". Compare this: About Walter Maksym: Publisher of Perfect Pleasure: Beyond the One Hour Orgasm, The New York Times Best Seller Diets Don't Work!, with this list of books published by Breakthru Publishing [19] = the series of "Diets Don't Work" books.
   • Walter Maksym represented Werner Erhard as his attorney, when Erhard sued 20 different defendants after a critical broadcast of
     San Jose Mercury News article, which states: Erhard's attorney, Walter Maksym of Illinois, could not be reached for comment.

3. "Breakthru Publishing" is not regarded as a publishing company respected for editorial review, and has no standing within any of the fields related to this book's subject, such as journalism, psychology, or religion.

   • When attempting to check if their website lists any form of editorial review - it appears that the website is itself abandoned [20].
   • A listing of other books published by Breakthru Publishing yields only "Diet's Don't Work" and other series of marketing/sales to self-help clientele - nothing related to investigative journalism, see [21].

4. There are no independent reliable secondary sources that significantly discuss the book.

   • The wiki article about the book was deleted essentially for this very reason: (AfD discussion).
   • Search in books show it is not cited as a resource [22].

I present this issue here to see if previously uninvolved editors can help make a determination if this book is an independent reliable secondary source. Than you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to the actual quality of the writing (although if you say its subpar, I'll believe you). But given the close relationship of the publisher and Erhard, the type of fare the publisher usually puts out and the fact that the book has not apparently been reviewed or analysed by any reputable entity I'd say that any mention of the source in a Wikipedia article, and especially wrt claims about a living person, should require at least a couple of sentences describing its background and doubtful reliability. Without such caveats I don't think it would be an appropriate source for any article except one about the book or the author. Nathan ^T 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such caveats in prior sentences before the source would then itself be

WP:OR in article mainspace, as such, the source should probably not be used/mentioned in article mainspace at all. Cirt (talk

) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the book is basically a

WP:SELFPUB source. If the person's view is already shown to be notable then it could be used as a source for what his opinions are, but the book cannot demonstrate notability or be used to support facts. DreamGuy (talk

) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldnt play both sides against the middle. If the book was written and published by people associated with the group, then SPS specifically allows it as a source in articles about the group. Its opinions may be cited with attribution; I would recommend mentioning not only the title of the book but the publisher, which lets readers know it came from a specialized source. Language about the author's and publisher's association with the group, far from being original research, should be included if citable to reliable sources. In fact, the deleted articles could have been resolved as a merge/redirect to the article about the group. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

GRBerry (talk · contribs) concluded that: this is not the variety of self-published source that can be used in articles about subjects other than the author of the source. As the community came to a consensus to delete the article about the author, the source should not be used. Cirt (talk

) 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If Breakthru Publishing is run by the group's attorney, then the source would be citable as a press release from the group. I would also suggest looking into a deletion review to create a merge-redirect for the deleted articles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The source cannot be properly attributed as such, which would be

WP:OR on a main-article space page but plainly obvious as demonstrated above. Thus, the source should not be used. As there is a lack of independent reliable secondary sources on the book and on the author, there is no sourced material to merge, thus delete was the proper outcome. Cirt (talk

) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The title itself violates these limitations, so it seems clear that the book is not suitable as a reference under any circumstances. Nathan ^T 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• We've concluded, and I see no reason to revisit that, that it is effectively a self-published source by the group. What we haven't yet done here, is examine its use to support specific claims in specific articles. In part, that is because the query raised here was quite broad and didn't list specific claims for review. But digging into what I can find, I see the following specific issues:
  1. Whether the book itself can be listed in Werner Erhard#Other books. (Formerly, it was in a "Related publications" sub-section. That header is no longer is used.) In that section, the claim effectively is that "This is a book about Ernhard." This is not resolved by determining whether this book is a reliable source, and arguments that the book is/is not a reliable source are not relevant to the decision to list it. What is relevant is if a reliable source can be found to assert that the book is a significant one about him. That would be a question about a different source, not yet presented here. Editors looking for such a source should be looking for one that is not self-published.
  2. Whether the book can be used to support two claims removed here in Scientology and Werner Erhard. In this article, these are claims about Scientologists/whatever the official name of the Scientology thingy is. Since this book is a self-published source, it should not be used in this article.
  3. In
     Landmark Education
     I don't find that it is used or in dispute at all, so there is nothing to comment on currently.
  4. Whether the book itself can be listed in Erhard Seminars Training#Related publications (the "Books" subsection). The claim effectively is that "This is a book related to Erhard Seminars Training." Again, this is not resolved by determining whether the book is a reliable source, and arguments that the book is/is not a reliable source aren't relevant. What is relevant is if a reliable source can be found to assert that the book is a significant one about E.S.T. That would be a question about a different source, not yet presented here. Editors looking for such a source should be looking for one that is not self-published.
  5. If there is any other claim at issue, I failed to find it. Feel free to ping me again if another specific claim is identified.
     GRBerry
     15:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anybody at this point is suggesting the book be cited for facts, but it may be appropriate to mention that the book exists. Perhaps when writing about the 60 Minutes piece, we could say something like "A book entitled XYZ appeared soon afterwards from Breakthru Publishing, which had published several other books related to the Human Potential movement". Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To look at it more deeply:

• I'm not sure it's possible for a source, if it was otherwise a reliable secondary source, to fall into a limbo where it's too closely tied to its subject to be a secondary source but not closely tied enough to be citable as a primary source. Seems to me that primary/secondariness can be a sliding scale where a source can have some aspects of both and can be cited with some of the caveats are both. Disallowing the middle would exclude for instance a lot of material published by think-tanks.
• That wouldn't necessarily be true if the original source was self-published. For instance, if something is self-published by friends or fans of a group, it may not be citable in an article about the group. But on the other hand, if the self-published source was endorsed by the subject of the article, then it may be citable.
• Has anybody bothered to look up Breakthru in a corporate database to see who its president, etc are? That could settle the question of whether it's closely tied enough to be used as a primary source in an article about itself.
• A few of Breakthru's titles were known outside the Human Potential movement. Such as Diets Don't Work by Dr. Bob Schwartz, which was in a number of news articles,[23] and How to Make the 33 Ruthless Rules of Local Advertising Work for You[24] by Michael Corbett, which was republished by Pinnacle.[25] It occurs to me if these books came out in today's media environment instead of in the 1980s, we'd have no problem finding enough sources for an article about the publisher.
• I'm not sure how the Texas corporations website works, but I did find "Breakthru" and "Breakthru Training" registered as a trademark[26], #73276395 for a weight loss seminar to a Robert M. Schwartz. Perhaps Breakthru Publishing began with the 1982 diet book.
• Diets Don't Work starts off with an acknowledgement to Erhard.[27] There's also a review of the "Outrageous Betrayal" book on Amazon by a user called "Michael Corbett" which speaks positively of attending the EST seminars.[28]
• While it's difficult to say what the relationship between Breakthru and the lawyer's company is ( or a company called The Media Source which also has some of the same books ), it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that the publisher published a number of books related to the Human Potential movement, and such a statement could be backed up by a couple of Worldcat entries.
• However, apparently there are a couple of secondary sources making a connection. Google Books is showing a journal called The Cult Observer (p.12, vol 11-13, 1994) which has "Steven Pressman, author of Outrageous Betrayal (St. Martin's), a recent book highly critical of Erhard, says that Breakthru Press has ties to Erhard"[29]
• So I'm convinced that a brief mention that such a book exists would be relevant in the Erhard bio in relation to the 60 Minutes controversy. Per mention of the publisher in the secondary sources immediately above, plus mention of the book in what appears to be a primary source by the subject of the article, at www.wernererhard.com/controversy.html Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this excellent research - now that we have a reliable source for some explanation of the source's bias, it could be included very briefly as you suggest, with a caveat and explanation. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel this www.bvbuzz.com is a reliable source. It is an AOL run webite on content important to AfricanAmericans. AOL also has an hispanic version with information important to Hispanics. Some feel that AOL BV Buzz is a blog and delete it as a source citing not a WP:RS. If so then:

-Ausiello (http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/) too must be not a WP:RS as well as. It is a blog posted on ew.com (formerly tvguide).

-Marc Malkin (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/index.html) too must be not a WP:RS as well. It is a blog posted on eonline.com. Marc even has 'blog' in the url, but it is accepted?

Above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jake_Tapper_ABC_News_White_House_Correspondent.27s_Blog) Hullaballoo says ...columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control....

AOL BV Buzz isnt a blog, but it does follow this rule Hullaballo wrote in that what is reported has to be sourced. The authors answer to AOL editors. If there are any lies it is retracted & AOL apologises.

Please weigh in. Thank You. 70.108.121.71 (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the use of that particular source, it is posted blog style and doesn't seem to indicate that it isn't a blog. There is a source in place to an accepted reliable source rendering this source unnecessary. I also see that there are questions regarding

WP:COI and identity of the IP that questions this in the insertion of the source. [30] eonline.com and ew.com are acceptable reliable sources. Using the word "blog" in urls isn't a point of question at sites considered reliable sources otherwise. I can't see that it is unquestionably reliable or even necessary. LaVidaLoca (talk

) 00:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks reliable to me. It seems to be one of those online newspapers that thinks it's cool to call itself a blog. I think they pay their bloggers, have editors, and are part of a company with a legal department. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there links that you found that would confirm this? I find it a bit disconcerting to see how hard the poster has pushed this link over the reliable sources already present. LaVidaLoca (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying its better than other sources. I don't really know what this is all about. The page says "AOL Black Voices is the premiere site for African American news, viewpoints, and community." so it looks to be AOL's black news site, and they're a part of Time Warner. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it is all about either, but when I checked into what was spurring the request, I saw several direct questions about the poster being Jawn Murray, the author of the piece, and the IP refusing to answer the questions. Seemed interesting. LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What is interesting? The question is whether or not AOLbvbuzz.com is a WP RS. There is no COI. Equally I ask wild/pink 's motives in their pushing for tvguide to be the sole source, does that make you question whether they are related to matt or work for tvguide? AOLBVBuzz is a reliable source. It is run by AOL, who answers to

Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia behavioral guidelines, including

WP:AGF. I saw no pushing of a specific source on the part of either of two long term editors with literally 10s of thousands of edits and thousands of articles. There is no validity in your assertion that other editors are pushing POV on given sources, just questions regarding your identity and the source in question, which are interesting when they aren't answered. Saying there is no COI and not responding to a direct question are two entirely different things. From what I can see, there is no need for the second source because the statement needed is reliably sourced. LaVidaLoca (talk

) 23:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is

• I suspect that we will be behind the curve on this. Where there is some reliable verification that a twitter account is connected to a human, that twitter feed can be used in accordance with
  biographies of living persons prevents us from using "blogs", broadly defined. However I will add two words of caution. First, there have been no shortage of "fake" celebrity twitter accounts, even ones that lasted for some time. Second, just because that twitter post is known to be from person XYZ doesn't mean that what they have to say is important enough to go in the article. Protonk (talk
  ) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Twitter isn't overall considered a reliable source. Tweets from verified sources only should be used sparingly, and in the same way a personal website is used - to source statements made by a celebrity about something pertaining only to the celebrity. In almost every case, there is no reason why a tweet is necessary and sources that are widely considered reliable should be used. I'm not certain I'm entirely secure about even verified accounts. Sometimes, one celebrity account verifies another and it isn't clear that this isn't a questionable practice. For instance, I noted that Alyssa Milano spoke up for an account for Christina Applegate. Their verification process isn't exactly streamlined and standard at this point. It seems to me that anything notable should always be related to a reliable source, not just tweeted. Perez Hilton should never be used as a source. LaVidaLoca (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconding LaVidaLoca; however, people should consider if a 140 character message is capable of being relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is the issue of being certain that the tweet is actually by the person it supposedly is from. We can deal with that on a case by case basis. But it would be extremely, extremely rare for a tweet to be sufficiently relevant to merit mention in an encyclopedia article without it first having been recorded and discussed in a reliable secondary source. So I would tend to believe that if no better source than twitter can be found it is very strong evidence that the material does not belong in an article.

GRBerry

15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Are tweets reliably archived somewhere? If not, not matter how reliable they are, they fail verifiability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good observation Stephan. I've got no clue whether or not there is a reliable archive.

GRBerry

13:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no central archive for tweets and any poster is free to delete a post at any given time. There is little in the way of long term structure, nor an intent to provide one. It's tantamount to instant messaging in an open forum and thus, I can see no way that Twitter could be considered a reliable source, both for archive reasons as well as ongoing issues regarding verification of some accounts and the proliferation of imposter accounts. LaVidaLoca (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The creator of the article

They're all primary sources. The catalogue is not a secondary source. A librarian generated published catalogue (ie: Joyce Reason: A retrospective) would be a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed "military history of Cuba" didn't cover Invasion of Grenada and My English not great but I want let you know and hop if someone can help to edit to add Invasion of Grenada to that one. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.107.121 (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does such a collation count as a suitable secondary source in order to build an article around, or is there a valid argument to consider the source as equivalent to a primary source? A lengthy discussion on the matter has not reached any firm conclusion on the article talk page.—Ash (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes in a secondary source about primary accounts can only be considered primary accounts. Secondary sources are academics or journalists that interpret primary sources and use evidence and references. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ottava, if the source uses the primary source in its analysis that is one thing, but just repeating the primary source a second time does not make it a secondary source. nableezy - 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No a secondary source gathers its use through its thorough and masterly analysis. A compilation or source book does not display this. An academic historical source cool may contain essays or introductions of journal article length, but the level of peer review is usually less than that of a collected volume of papers. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Some context that may bear consideration. I'm actively involved in editing the article whose (presently single) source is being challenged by Ash. A review of the current talk page of the article under discussion may be informative here. The material that Ash is challenging is actually a single chapter in a book consisting of papers submitted by acknowledged academic specialists in an admittedly rather esoteric subject, that of "UFO cults". The material in the book itself was vetted and edited by a well known (at least in his field) specialist in new religions and popular culture named Christopher Hugh Partridge, whose editing work appears in books published by several well known academic presses, including Oxford. "Worldcat" notes that Partridge's work as a specialized editor occurs in "35 works in 45 publications in 6 languages [within] 3,045 library holdings" worldwide.[31]. If someone cares enough to check the academic credentials of the individual contributors to the book currently under discussion, each of them in turn will be discovered to be an acknowledged mainstream "authority" in their field of study, who are in turn cited by their peers, including Christopher Helland the author of the specific chapter being challenged. Despite its title, this book is not a haphazard collection of self published essays thrown together by unknown writers, it's a professionally vetted and edited academic volume from a respectable mainstream publishing house, that has itself been cited in other works and favourably reviewed in academic journals[32]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Glancing at page 162, it looks like a normal, reliable, secondary source to me. I wouldn't go using quotes from the book as facts, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making any extraordinary claims regarding the authority of this source. I'm simply maintaining that it meets a basic level of acceptable reliability according to our policies pertaining to reliable sources

What exactly are you using it to say? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was utilizing it as what I considered a contextually reliably sourced and innocuous chronological baseline 'frame work' for further reliably sourced additions to the material. Other sources have subsequently been added to help to substantiate it. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page, there is a discussion on whether the description of "consensual" can be used in the article. Please feel free to weigh in. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversial statements should not be paraphrased, they should be quoted and attributed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And People magazine is not an acceptable source for a

L0b0t (talk

) 03:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? a lot of the featured BLP articles seem to use People. It's not

The National Enquirer or the Daily Mail which are basically never reliable. People is not without problems but it can be reliable depending on what it's used for, ie, they don't have a reputation for making up direct quotes from celebrities or their representatives. Siawase (talk

) 16:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

People is reliable, per our definition. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there's an Arbcom ruling out there that basically says all LaRouche-associated publications are unreliable, and you can only cite them when talking about the LaRouche movement. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Can someone provide a link to where this codified? Thanks in advance. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's here, point 1 under Remedies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! Yilloslime ^T_C 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is related to NGO above. Are Opp-Edd pieces RS in BLP's. I can find nothing that says they are not but it has become another sticking point on Marc Garlasco.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is who is the source and how notable he and the body who puclished his opinion. Criticism which appears on multiple major news sources areclearly addmittable into a biography regardless if they are opinion pieces. Off course, the opinion needs to be attributed to its writer so that there won't be confusion between opinion and fact. Also, the language used on wikipedai should be a bit conservative to fit the neature of the encuclopedic medium. It would be an easier discussion and review of relevance here, btw, if the text and the used citation are provided. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning#Modern_burnings Contain a section with explicit anti-Russian libel from Victor Rezun (known also as Victor Suvorov) - a man accused of high treason in Russia, by the way. It is well known that in fact people convicted to death in USSR were executed in much more humane way - by a pistol shot to the head. So - Suvorov's book should be considered a work of fiction - not a historical source - as there is no other confirmation of his claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.159.71 (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Request goes to source content, not reliablity, can't be actioned Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as pertinent info for the Jimmy Hoffa page? Since I can't add it in, maybe someone else would like to. --Spectre7277 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/20911524/index.html

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/090914_hoffa_book

http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story/FBI-Continues-Mysterious-Dig-in-Detroit/Fo44poqS-UKCVXrJ6RYBLA.cspx

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-confirm-dig-search-jimmy-hoffa-body/Story?id=8583134&page=2

The ones that speculate that maybe the FBI's dig in Detroit is possibly a search for Hoffa aren't appropriate, as there's no verifiable facts involved. Some of the other links may be appropriate, but I'll leave it to others to review the best use of those links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The dig in Detroit has nothing to do with Hoffa, that's just the Detroit media spin on it all. The links that talk about the cemetery, especially the Detroit Free Press Article linked below is the newest information in the case that was turned over to the FBI. Thanks for the quick response. --Spectre7277 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/090914_hoffa_book

http://www.freep.com/article/20090914/NEWS06/909140312/1202/RSS

== IS THIS WIKIWORTHY ENOUGH??? LATEST INFORMATION ABOUT HOFFA INVESTIGATION ==--Spectre7277 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=9876538&referralPlaylistId=playlist

Hi- I was wondering if I could get some more input on a number of references used in