Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 48

Would the following references be considered reliable? I have been informed that they are outdated references, but have been unable to get clarification as to what information trumps the below references.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

• Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992. False-positive antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ recipients. AIDS. 6:959-962.
• Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as a cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.
• Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity. Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.
• Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.
• Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1617-1621.
• Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.
• Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.
• Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identification of regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give "indeterminate" results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of long synthetic peptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.
• Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two commercially available anti-HIV ELISA's: Abbott HTLV-III ELA and DuPont HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.
• Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.
• Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects. West. J. Med. 159(2):214-215.
• Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du practicien. 40:2141.
• Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.
• Dock N, Lamberson H, O'Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation of atypical human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors. Transfusion. 28:142.
• Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 51:1071-1073.
• Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-III [HIV] in patients with terminal renal insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.
• Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in low-incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.
• Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.
• Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.
• Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination. JID. 167:989.
• Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.
• Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.
• Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive tests for HIV in a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.
• Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III [HIV] antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.
• Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.
• Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am. J. Clin. Path. 87:635.
• Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.
• Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet. 339:1060.
• Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al. 1990. Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico. 32:15.
• Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.
• Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed & Pharmacother. 46:1-2.
• Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986. False-positive tests for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in alcoholic patients with hepatitis. NEJM. 314:921.
• Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III [HIV] seropositivity in 1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers - a case of false-positives or evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.
• Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV [HIV] assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19, p873.
• Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III [HIV] serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.
• Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.
• Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects. J. Clin. Micro. 26:1496.
• Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo. 25:151.
• Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology. June 11:696-707.
• Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 118-805.
• Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure. 1986. JAMA. 255:2324.
• Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies after immune globulin. JAMA. 257:316.
• Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.
• Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35:1483.
• Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.
• Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a cause of false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type III [HIV]. Transfusion. 26(1):114.
• Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infected blood donors. Transfusion. 36:45.
• Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.
• Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodology and Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.
• Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.
• Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.
• Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1622-1626.
• Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.
• Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.
• Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only) are a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.
• Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun. Let. 22:35-40.
• Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III [HIV]. J. Vir. Meth. 12:329.
• Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.
• Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995. Evaluation of the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzyme immunoassays. J. Vir. Meth. 55:97.
• Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin preparations. Ann. Int. Med. 105:536.
• Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 69:769.
• Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.
• Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody reaction due to transfusion-induced HLA-DR4 sensitization. NEJM.320:1495.
• National Institue of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.

Neuromancer (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not with the sources themselves (except for the one reference to the Perth group, which is unreliable). The problem is that you use sources that predate modern AIDS/HIV denialism (or whatever euphemism you'd prefer to use), as well as sources that never mention AIDS denialism to

synthesize an article on HIV dissent. Someguy1221 (talk

) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion... Now, would you like to provide me with reliable sources of information that contradict the sources I have requested be reviewed? Or would you prefer just making a biased statement with no evidence to back it up? Neuromancer (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All of those sources are probably reliable. It does not follow, however, that you are using them acceptably. Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

List copied from here. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

From a quick sample, those would appear to be reliable sources, although a PubMed ID would make the task of checking each one easier. I see there is a sub-text here though. The articles are mainly related to a common theme: the problems of false positives when testing for HIV. As such, they would be suitable for an article with that (or similar) name, particularly in tracing the historical evolution of those testing methods (because of their age). I would naturally caution against drawing any conclusions beyond what is stated in the articles, owing to the concerns of

WP:SYNTH. --RexxS (talk

) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may be permitted a small digression into Bayesian reasoning, I think perhaps part of the problem may stem from a misunderstanding of the false positive rate. Take 10,000 people, 100 of whom (1%) are infected with HIV; for simplicity, assume that they are past the window period for this particular test. For the sake of example, let the probability that the test returns positive for an infected individual be 95%, and likewise the probability that the test returns negative for an individual who is not infected. Out of the myriad tested, then, 95 will have true positives, 5 will have false negatives, 9405 will have true negatives, and 495 will have false positives. Given the underlying low incidence, the probability that a particular negative result is a true negative is 9405/9410 = 99.95%, just shy of 4σ; the probability that a particular positive result is a true positive, on the other hand, is only 95/590 = 16%. Thus, without in any way casting doubt on the validity of the science underlying the test, a positive result on a good test is only weak evidence of infection. In reality, of course, we do not know the false positive and negative rates, and must search for sources of error and confounding factors such as other medical conditions. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this reasoning something that appears in a source... or is it your own

Original research? I agree with the comments above... the sources are, on their face, reliable... but it may well be that they are being used incorrectly. Blueboar (talk

) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in reference to an article that is continuously being reverted to a forward on the basis that the information is duplicitous of another article.

HIV dissent is the article in question if you are interested. Neuromancer (talk

) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Most editors would allow an example that is a "... relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce" (from the essay

cn}} on it! --RexxS (talk

) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The field of HIV/AIDS has understandably changed vastly since 1995, the date of the most current study listed above (most are mid 80s'/early 90's). See

WP:MEDRS a few times now. JoeSmack ^Talk

17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already read it, and reviewed a couple of times. The salient points I think you are not understanding are:

1. Alternative viewpoints on HIV are just that, alternative to the generally accepted viewpoints.
2. There is no evidence to contradict any of the references I have included above. I have been unable to find anything more recent on point, which suggests that the medical community doesn't feel a need to recreate those experiments. If you have knowledge of newer studies or papers, I am more than happy to look at them.
3. Even if, and assuming arguendo, that there were more recent, on point, contradictory materials, that is not a reason to delete the old references. You include a "information AAA was accepted until BBB was published." Not a hard concept. You cannot delete history.

Incidentally, the field HIV research has not moved forward by any great lengths. A perfect example would be the insert from the Abbott HIV EIA has 41 reference. One of them is from 2004, another from 2005. The other 39 references range from 1981 to 1994. Which seems to indicate that the science behind HIV, at least in the realm of testing methods procedures in relation to the HIV ELISA, hasn't changed "vastly" or anywhere near vastly.

Neuromancer (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're over reliant on confirmation rather than refutation (e.g. asserting claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa). Coupled with the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, you make it impossible to confirm your angles false (asserting that the mounds of current evidence do not satisfy the rigor of your demands). The result is page after page of debates where somehow the several people trying to talk this out with you all seem to be way wrong no matter what. In addition, you're trying to shout in as many places as possible to drudge up some kind of silent support which doesn't seem to be there. You are also seriously personalizing this issue, which is unnecessary. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources appear to be generally reliable. However, the quite real concern here is that they are being used for

• It's impossible to say whether the sources are reliable unless Neuromancer specifies what exact claim there are being used to reference. Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Thank you for your opinion... Now, would you like to provide me with reliable sources of information that contradict the sources I have requested be reviewed? Or would you prefer just making a biased statement with no evidence to back it up?" this reply along with the mass of sources (verging on TL;DR) along with the subject matter lead me to believe that RSN should not offer some blanket statement about reliability. Obviously the bulk (if not all) of these are published in peer reviewed journals (some, if the information is correct, which are quite reputable). Equally obvious is the method of presentation. We aren't being asked to evaluate a given source in context. We are being given a wall of important sounding publications and being told to refute their implied conclusions. No thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm recently in a edit war with a good editor. Michael Jacksons History has a range of reports on how much it sold worldwide. Some ranges are 18 million (36 million disc) to 20 million (40 million disc). I found on Michael Jackson's official site in the discography that the album sold 21 million (42 million disc). So the editor says its not reliable but I think it is. So can someone tell me if its reliable enough? A Star Is Here (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/blog/full-discography-michael-jackson-history-past-present-and-future-1995

It is not entirely reliable for this sort of thing (any artist has reason to inflate his sales figures), but it would seem reasonable to me to use it as one of several numbers, with inline text indicating the nature of the source, e.g. "Estimates of sales vary from a low of 18 million from [name of source] to a high of 21 million on Jackson's own web site," or just "Jackson's own web site puts the sales figure at 21 million." - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Who runs the michaeljackson.com website? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sony runs the page. From the home page though I cant seem to find a link to the discography page.

This source is not reliable because at the end of the article there is a link with an illegal download ( http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/blog/full-discography-michael-jackson-history-past-present-and-future-1995 ). It's a comment in his blog. The article claims also that HIStory sold 21 million copies only if you include the reissue of the 2001. Without this, sold 38 million units (18 million copies). In conclusion, it's not reliable and not updated. SJ (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It didnt say without the reissue it sold 38 million copies. It said each Cd separately made 38 million dollars. Nevrmind though I just reread the page and it had some writing errors so it seems unreliable but thanks everybody for help. A Star Is Here (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is some disagreement about the reliability of sources on the Brazil talk page. The dispute is basically between User:Lecen and User:Opinoso and has been going on for some good time. There have been various accusations of 'fabrication of sources' and POV-ing. User:Lecen is still appealing for help. If anyone could resolve the situation, it would be hugely appreciated. Thanks & Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would help greatly if someone could summarize the issues (or each side could summarize its view) in a few paragraphs. I suspect I'm typical in not wanting to slog through 10,000+ words to understand what might be going on there. - Jmabel | Talk 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. If it's complicated enough that even at the initial stage it requires RSN editors to see the article talk page, it's probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard. We're more used to questions on the order of "Is newspaper X reliable enough to use in article Y?" Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

List the two or three most controversial sources here and 25 words or less objections to them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I currently have a heap of

Are said magazines known for their editorial oversight? Do they have a good reputation for checking the facts? Gabbe (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They should be reliable for discussing kid culture stuff. Probably not for anything controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, both have been in publication for 15 years or more, highly publicised around Australia, and I was planning on using them for reviews for some of the older products, or maybe developer interviews, which I'm guessing would be reliable. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with those magazines, but it sounds like they would help the many thinly-sourced articles we have on kids' popular culture. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the

"The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 100-page magazine published 9 times per year in Washington, DC, that focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region.

"The Washington Report is published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.

"AET's Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright, and Republican Senator Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Members of AET's Board of Directors and advisory committees receive no fees for their services.

"The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents. In general, the Washington Report supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play."[8]

WRMEA's website can be viewed here. Thoughts? ← George ^talk 09:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think to avoid a potential conflict, it should be cited along with another source when making a contentious claim. If a surprising or little known factoid can only be found here, it probably isn’t noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. WVBluefield (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks reliable to me. If it is being used for something controvercial, try quoting the material as a statement of opinion rather than fact, attributing the comment to WRMEA in the text of the article ... as in: According to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "blah blah blah"<cite to WRMEA>. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific article I'm thinking of is this one from 1991. The topic it's discussing, the

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), can be contentious at times. The article generally agrees with other sources, but those (more modern) sources usually mention WINEP in passing, while discussing some other topic (such as the Israel lobby in the United States, the Iraq war, or nuclear weapons in Iran). The appealing thing about this source is that it discusses many of the same things, but all in one place, instead of spread out over several sources, and in significantly greater detail. ← George ^talk

16:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it is an opinionated source, you can mention in text that "according to WRMEA" if fact is controversial. If facts are all together and several of them are also in other books, throw in those refs too. Yes, it's more work, but makes a better article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds RS to me; there's nothing wrong with citing think-tanks. As an aside, I'd have to take issue with the statement If a surprising or little known factoid can only be found here, it probably isn’t noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the ability to include details that might only be available in the more specialized sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to not find an already-completed discussion of Google Docs here. I guess this is it, then…

When can a file hosted at docs.google.com be considered a reliable source? For instance (probably a worst-case scenario), consider this article, used as a reference at The Construction Manager. Looking at it closely, I found:

• The owner of this Google doc is Jacob Apelbaum,
  COI
  with the article in question.
• The first page of the doc (the scanned magazine cover) does not match the remainder of the file (the scanned article). For example, note that the cover date is 20 May 1996, while the date on the article is 8 August 1994.
• Neither the magazine cover year (1996) nor the article year (1994) match the alleged year in the reference (1995).

Would this be considered a

Thanks! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Google docs are

self-published sources, no different than blogs, and generally considered not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And since it's not possible to verify the author of a document on Google docs, it's not even as good as (self-published) blogs by major public figures. LK (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor removed the following items, calling the sources "inappropriate." The sources don't look inappropriate to me. What do others think?

• Russian academic GG Pirogov asserted that LaRouche had, in 1959-60, forecast that a series of monetary shocks would lead to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system.
  • Reliable source: Lebedev Physical Institute (http://www.netda.ru/fian/fian2b.htm)
    • Accuracy of summary confirmed by Google Translate: [9]
• Russian economist and LaRouche movement member Stanislav Menshikov says that LaRouche is among those few economists who look at the root causes, and therefore see what others cannot see. Also: Russian economist Menshikov wrote that, in a July 25, 2007 webcast, LaRouche was the first to observe disorder in the mortgage sector and to conclude that the financial system was crumbling. LaRouche subsequently proposed legislation to halt foreclosures, freeze mortgage rates, and write off speculative debt obligations. Menshikov asserted that the proposal could have prevented the crisis had it been enacted.
  • Reliable source: essay by Stanislav Menshikov hosted on "Strategium" site (http://subscribe.ru/archive/media.news.review.cibhelion/200902/17090602.html)
    • Accuracy of summary confirmed by Google Translate: [10]
• Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, says that that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. LaRouche also urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation with the socialist countries like the Marshall Plan after World War II, which rebuilt Germany. Qazwini goes on to say that in recent years there has been a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia, calling him the spiritual father of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a massive industrial project which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been kept isolated and backward.
  • Reliable source: Qazwini, Iqbal, "Major International Crises Need a Giant Project to Overcome Them," http://www.aawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&issueno=8822&article=148496
    • Accuracy of summary confirmed by Google Translate: [11]
• According to China Youth Daily, the official newspaper of Communist Youth League of China, LaRouche warned in July of 2007 that unless US stopped monopolizing world finances, and united with China, Russia, and India to reorganize the world financial system, a new world wide credit crisis would be unavoidable.
  • Reliable source: China Youth Daily, http://zqb.cyol.com/content/2009-07/24/content_2771606.htm
    • Accuracy of summary confirmed by Google Translate: [12]
• Executive Intelligence Review Senior Editor Jeffrey Steinberg, writing in Belarus government newspaper Narodnaya Gazeta, says that LaRouche proposed a new system of international relations, built around the joint work of four leading powers—the United States, Russia, China and India. According to Steinberg, the proposal would create a core group of powerful nations whose activities would be based on respect for national sovereignty and aims to establish a rapid economic development through investment in large infrastructure development projects in Eurasia.
  • Reliable source: Narodnaya Gazeta (Belarus) http://www.ng.by/ru/issues?art_id=30436
    • Accuracy confirmed by Google Translate: [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.ng.by/ru/issues%3Fart_id%3D30436
• National Journal reports that LaRouche's solution to the crisis includes "fixed currency-exchange rates, massive spending on new nuclear reactors, and a rejection of all global-warming ideas" and that failure to follow his advice will result, according to LaRouche, in "a plunge of the planet into a mass-murderous new dark age."
  • Reliable source: National Journal Neil Munro, "Inside Washington", April 5, 2008. --Alejandro Spotless (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Commenting only on one of these: since Executive Intelligence Review is a LaRouche publication, what its editor writes, there or elsewhere, is doubtless an accurate statement of the LaRouche line, but is in no way the view of an independent observer. - Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be more socks pushing this material. While the sources may be reliable on topics in their own countries, I don't think that the American politicians are the speciualty of any of them. Further, I'm not aware of any involved editors who speak Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese, or Arabic, so we're mostly stuck using faulty machine translations. Finally, the article has several sub-articles, such as

Views of Lyndon LaRouche for material on his views.   Will Beback  talk

  03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that sources from other countries are unreliable for U.S. topics. That requires some additional explanation. However, your position is also inconsistent, because you have promoted the use of foreign sources when the depiction of LaRouche is negative. It seems to me that the policies should be applied in a consistent manner, rather than selectively when it suits your POV. --Alejandro Spartacus (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Another sock? Is this how Wikipedia editors gain the moral high ground?

I don't recall promoting the use of foreign-language sources anytime recently. I think they can be reliable within their fields of expertise if we have reliable translations and if we know something about the publisher and writer. Using a Belarus website as a source for Belarus politics is fine. Using it as a source for an American politician is not so great. Wikipedia policies call on us to use the best available sources. It's hard to see how these qualify.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They might technically be RS, but we have to watch out for cherry-picking. They may be more appropriate in a section on "perceptions of LaRouche in the former Soviet Union". Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources that was deemed "inappropriate" is Asharq Al-Awsat, considered to be (according to Wikipedia) "the leading Arabic international newspaper," based in London. I can assure you that there is no shortage of cherry-picking in the sources presently used at Lyndon LaRouche. In fact, these international sources are needed precisely to balance the article, which is otherwise highly biased. Looking at Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao, I see that these articles rely substantially on British and American sources. Is Will saying that it's all right to use American or British sources for a bio of a Russian or Chinese figure, but Russian and Chinese sources cannot be trusted for a bio of an American figure? This would seem to be either a textbook case of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, or else just another variety of cherry-picking. --Alexander Spotswood (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a heated Afd debate for Heather Harmon. It seems that if consensus believes the main sources are not reliable the article may get deleted despite its popularity. I would like verification for sources 3, 4, 6, 7, and opinions on #13 and #14. Please see the the Afd discussion for more information. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking #6 reference out of the request and putting links to the main 3 that are contentious. Discussion ends Saturday Nov 6th. Stillwaterising (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Heather Harmon - Afro-Squad Interview

4. Addams, Zach (2006-08-22). "Heather Harmon Interview". ErosZine. p. 1. Retrieved 2007-07-26. contains nudity

7. "IDT Review - Pornylittledevil.com". Retrieved 2009-10-31.

I'm withdrawing this discussion and reposted a single source from it below. -Stillwaterising (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I had some articles and books and I wanted to know if these sources could be used in the article persianization . Most of these sources can be downloaded or read in the google books. I would be merciful if sb. would answer.

• 1 1- Amir Hassanpour, May 1992 , Nationalism and Language in Kurdistan, 1918-1985 [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover) , Mellen University Press , Link to Google Books

• 2 , Beck, Lois, 1991 , Nomad : a Year in the Life of a Qashqa'I Tribesman in Iran

,Berkeley, Ca, U. S. A. University Of California Press ,Link to Google Books

• 3 , Brenda Shaffer , Borders and brethren: Iran and the challenge of Azerbaijani identity , MIT press , 2002 , Link to Google Books

• 4 ,
  Nikki R. Keddie , Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution , Yale University Press (October 1, 2003) , Link to Google Books

• 5 Dei, George J. Sefa; Asgharzadeh, Alireza , 2003 , Language, Education and Development: Case Studies from the Southern Contexts, Language and Education, v17 n6 , pages :424 427 435 436 437

• 7 , Saeed Rahnema , Sohrab Behdad , Iran After the Revolution: Crisis of an Islamic State , I. B. Tauris (September 15, 1996) , Link to Google Books

• 8 , Massoume Price , Iran's Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook (Ethnic Diversity Within Nations) , ABC-CLIO (July 26, 2005) , Link to Google Books Link to Google Books

• Communism and Communalism in Iran: The Tudah and the Firqah-I Dimukrat

Ervand Abrahamian International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Oct., 1970), In pages :298 , 300, 305 persianize has been used and refered to.

user:sicaspi 10:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please make this easy for us and give us a full citation in the format: Author, Work, Location: Publisher, Year. or Author, "Work" in Book, Location: Publisher, Year. or Author, "Journal Article" Journal Volume# Issue# Year: page numbers. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these sources are articles published in some journals and I wanted to publish the whole idea presented there in this article, but I bring here some links to the exact issue I mean:

Please give me some time to fill above citations. sicaspi 10:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen citation format asked for here at RSN. However, people who come here generally ask about only one or two sources that might have been challenged in an article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If something is published in a book and you can cite a page - accurately - in general there is not a problem. "Be bold." However, if the topic is controversial it is good to leave links - especially if books.google.com has a sufficent preview to show where you go the information. (I noted there were some references.) Or you can include the exact quote from the book with the book title. But if you also find information about objections to the use of the term, you should include that too, to be WP:NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor can cite in Author (Year) Title Location: Publisher if they like. Posting a bunch of uncontextualised links and expecting me to extract bibliographic information before I can begin to judge if they're RS probably indicates the editor isn't familiar with the need for citations, or with any of the common citation formats. Which is why I recommended a Chicago style citation, which is the style I prefer and recommend. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Titles should be fine for this noticeboard. However, when adding citations to an article then the full citation format with publisher, location, etc is preferable, especially if it's an online source that might be mistaken for a blog. But if your sources are published books, and they're not from a vanity press or making exceptional claims, just put them in. One of the mottos here is "be bold". Generally people ask on this noticeboard after one of their sources is challenged, and we coach them on whether the source is reliable enough to support what is claimed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Titles are not fine. Publishers and publication mode are the most important factors, then author. RS/N work takes a considerable amount of time and being given a link, or a title and a link, is insufficient material to work from. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I updated the list, added some fine titles as you had said, and also gave a link to the exact page in the google page, if possible. sicaspi 10:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On their surface, all of these seem to be reliable sources. However, do note that even reliable sources can be misused (For example: if you take what the author says out of context, or go beyond the source to make a point that the author does not make)... not saying that you are doing this, just expressing the caviat. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just want to confirm that The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (accessible online here) is a reliable source. I intend to use these entries: network goods, external economies, and externalities in the article on

• The Dictionary checks out via its editorial committee
• network goods is signed by Klemperer, Paul, a named chair
• external economies is signed by Bohm, Peter, a dead economist
• externalities is signed by Laffont, JJ, a dead economist

All sources check out. Please use full citations! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this blog which has been cited by news sources at least twice, as one of their sources of infomation, a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would normally say no, but there may be more to this blog than meets the eye. Why is Yukio Hatoyama talking to them? That interview may be reliable, if that's what the question is about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the question is are the articles/posts relating to the article

International parental abduction in Japan reliable sources? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is what I thought too. And the name "Japan Times + Herald" make it sound more official. Still, strictly speaking, I don't think this site can be regarded as "reliable" source. It looks like a collaborative personal weblog by several established Western Journalist active in Japan. Yet, the content of the interview is reported by several newsmedia. So how about adding a reference of this interview within the Hatoyama interview reference. In this way, we sort of keep it within the policy, yet provide useful info to those who care to read further. Vapour (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Would this be a reliable source for use on the

• CRNJapan (25 June 2009). "Koseki". Child Resource Network. Retrieved 27 October 2009.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The proper Japan Children's Rights Network is located at http://www.crnjapan.net for the proper information on Koseki please visit the following link. The Japan Children's Rights Network is a quoted source of information on International Parental Abduction to and from the country of Japan. Crn Japan is the closest to expert on the subject. http://www.crnjapan.net/The_Japan_Childrens_Rights_Network/res-koseki.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.64.103 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 October 2009

This is good information, thus why I asked here, whether others would consider it a RS, however, it has been questioned on the article in question by

third opinion. An additional opinion supporting it, IMHO, should be sufficient to bring back to the article with a fair amount of certainty that my initial belief of the source is true. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 00:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We allow watchdog groups to be quoted with attribution. Does this group have a reputation for being quoted as fact by reliable sources? Are they notable/famous? Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is barely mentioned in media or academia.

International parental abduction in Japan article is doing fine without them. Vapour (talk

) 23:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused with other site. At this point, the site doesn't have much content. Plus prominence of advertisement indicate that this is a personal website. Vapour (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I seriously think we need additional opinions on this source. Many newspaper websites carry advertisements, so advertisements alone doesn't discredit a source. They are an advocacy group, I don't think anyone doubts that, but being an advocacy group, doesn't automatically discredit a source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, true but not ads from Google. :) Looking at the content, I don't think this is an advocacy site. The information appear to be accurate but then I'm not a lawyer in Japan. It looks like an attempt by some individual(s) to create a go-to resource site for Japanese divorce and custody issues and to help people find fee charging lawyer. The prominence of ad link to lawyers indicate such motive not to mention the fact that the first section of the first page say, "The bottom line is that the right child custody lawyer can be the deciding factor in determining whether or not you get to keep your child!" There is a similar site created by a New York based lawyer. I used New York lawyer's site to check info or source but I avoid sourcing it directly from the site. Vapour (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

IS this reliable? [13]

If you mean is it a reliable source for the statistics it displays, I'd have to say no. It is a very popular site (Google page rank 7 and lots of visitors), but it admits here to this:

Please note that a lot of content on our site is user generated. For example, city photos, forum messages, city facts, and business profiles are all submitted by visitors.

There is no description of how that user-generated content is validated or moderated. Our policy for reliable sources requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and I can find no third party that attests to such a reputation. That's not to say that city-data.com doesn't have an editorial policy of vetting user submissions, or that no reliable third-party has confirmed its reputation for accuracy - I just can't find them. Please remember that the onus is on the editor adding material to show that the source they propose is reliable. Until such time as a source can be shown to be reliable, the default position is that it is not. --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those statistics come from Census data or other official sources. If it's mirroring Census data then that's reliable. Forum posts are generally not. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Although there is an advantage in using a central repository of data, it allows for errors in the collection and transcription of that data, so the concern about "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" will still need to be considered. I'd always suggest looking at official sources in preference. Does anybody know, for example, whether their "city facts" are user-generated or taken from official sources? --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's no indication of reliability here, in the sense that Wikipedia requires. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, as usual, is correct in that some data can be reliable in this website while other info is not. As many of us who have been here a long time know, it has been established many times that there is never any case in which a source is simply reliable or non-reliable, context of usage must be taken into consideration.Camelbinky (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that a lot of their stats is reliable. It sounds like we can't tell which parts are good though, so it's all suspect. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's a bad precedent to start throwing around. If a fact is true it doesnt matter if you source it to city-data.com, because it might be easier to use than sourcing it somewhere else. Do you know how upset I am when I see these town and village articles being generically sourced to that US census factfinder site homepage? You then have to fill in the correct info yourself and go through different steps to find what your looking for, its annoying. Sourcing to a less reliable source is sometimes advantagous, though I'm not endorsing it as a general rule of thumb. City-data.com actually already is used in MANY articles. Our decision now, though of course not binding on them, is a bad precedent to their removal. Truth over verifiability may not be popular, but it is really what is best.Camelbinky (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. It's not a "precedent" and it's not "bad". The very first words of the

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia editors aren't competent to decide the ultimate TRUTH™; likely no-one is. All we can do is report what reliable sources say on a subject. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on suite101, but I hate our blacklist. Someone spams a site once, and forever afterward it can't be used as a source or in ELs, except for individual exceptions. That system needs serious work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You could ask on the blacklist noticeboard ( there's a few different blacklists and their names escape me ) about moving it to the less restrictive XLinkBot list instead. Which causes a bot to revert the link the first time its added but editors can then revert the bot. I feel that some sites on the blacklist were added without anyone making a stong case as to why they were a problem. Maybe one site would be a problem and during the discussion someone would say, oh by the way, lets blacklist these too. If you can find where it was added and they didn't make a strong case, you can proposed it be removed and not have to bother with the whitelist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as getting them through RS, it doesn't look like they have an editorial process once a writer is initially approved. So you'd have to argue those documents are self-published by an expert. As the topic of Halloween celebrations in a particular town isn't an academic topic, you shouldn't be expected to show they have academic credentials on the topic. If the author is an event organizer or is in the local Chamber of Commerce, that should be enough, and being quoted in the town's local newspapers would help.

I would suggest if they be used, to be used with a very light weight. Such as "New Paltz has several Halloween traditions, such as haunted houses(cite), a parade(cite), and the 'Night of 1000 Pumpkins'(cite)." On Wikipedia, just as extraordinary or controversial claims require exceptionally strong sourcing, minor claims can be handled with light sourcing. At this level you'd be using them almost as a footnoted external link rather than a source per se. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

suite101.com does not appear to have editorial oversight, so it should be avoided as a source. If an article on it has been published by a recognized expert in their field of expertise, then it can be used with caution. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Suite101.com employs a team of editors who review every single article -- can't link there because of the blacklist, but go to the site -> "About us" -> "Suite101's team" Psb (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That section does give a list of topical editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that asking about articles on the notice board wasn't appropriate. My question was indeed about sources; however no comments were made. Anyway, I need an opinion on the following source. Is this a suitable source for a BLP? If so in what capacity?

A conversation about the reliability of ErosZine and it's publisher Darkside Media was started on Talk:Heather Harmon. It's out-of-print so I had to use web archive. A link to its masthead can be found here. Be warned - it contains nudity. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Addams, Zach (2006-08-22). "Heather Harmon Interview". ErosZine. p. 1. Retrieved 2007-07-26.

The archived editorial policy was selective

"[2 party based categories] Interviews with major models, writers, dancers, actors, actresses and other performers and creators in the world of fetish, BDSM, drag, erotica, film and adult video. Photos must accompany every article. 1,000 to 2,000 words. Payment: $100. These are the only categories in which we are currently soliciting content."

The archived article clearly links under this selective policy.

There is no indication ErosZine (eros-lasvegas.com) is a publication of note, or a publication which would indicate notability of a subject if included within the publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but is it both independant and reliable? Can it be used as a source of quotations?

It can be used for quotations. It can't be used to establish Notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are introductions to interviews regarded as a primary or secondary sources? They act like secondary sources because they are written by a third-party source about the subject and are not part of the "event taking place". How are the interviewer's comments made during the interview regarded? -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot depends on whether we are talking about the interview itself (ie a transcript or a visual or audio recording of the interview), or a news article written about the interview. The interview itself is primary material... the article written about it is secondary material. Now... neither is necessarily reliable. That depends more on the publisher of the interview. An interview (whether the primary transcript or secondary reporting based upon the interview) that is published by a major news outlet is certainly reliable (as they will check to see that what is published is accurate), while a similar interview published by joe blow on his blog is not. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears an editorial board selects the interview, i.e. it decides what is important and newsworthy, and writes an introduction to it. That makes it at least in part a secondary source, and that counts towards notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello dear Wikipedia peoples.

I am helping a friend who has recently re-published (in English, in self publication) a book called "WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS?". The book was originally published in Hebrew in 1974 (Under the name: מי היו הפיניקים?).

In order the better spread the book's research, the publisher has agreed to release several major chapters of the book under CC (see here), and released them for everyone to use on the website: http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/

The book can be used in articles such as Phoenicia (and probably many other related articles) with both text and images .

But as a Wikipedia member named Dougweller wrote to me in the discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phoenicia#Can_I_link_to_the_book.27s_website.3F

• I think it fails
  WP:RS

And as I wrote to him in reply:

• the book got letters from distinguished professor in the field, standing for the book's value. But the letter are written in Hebrew. (and also, are available to us in our e-mail box, but of course we could have forged them, which makes them a problematic source for reliability)

I then added the letters themselves (in Hebrew) to the discussion page. With links to the homepages of the people who wrote these letters, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phoenicia#Letters_supporting_the_book_authority_and_research

But I imagine none of this will be enough. I am wondering though what else can I do. Any advice from anyone ?

Thanks, Talgalili (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clealry promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree... the book may, at some point in the future, end up crossing the line between an unreliable and reliable SPS (with the limitations there of) at some point in the future... but I don't see it as happening yet. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Slatersteven. I am not sure I follow you. I agree that what I am doing is trying to promote the book. But it is because it has relevant information for the article. Please explaing to me how is it a problem? (I am not being innocent, I am honestly asking)

Hello Blueboar. Could you please tell me what SPS means? Also, what type of proof do I need to arrange (In the sense of finding, not fabricating) for the book to be accepted as a source ?

Thanks for the two of you for responding Talgalili (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I was using Wikipedia jargon... SPS stands for "Self-Published Source", you can find out more about the limitations we put on such sources at

WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk

) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar, now I got it. I read the link you gave but it doesn't give much of a way for me to progress. For example, if a newspaper where to write about the book, would it help? What is researchers where to write about it on their websites? I need some more guidance. Talgalili (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The problom with this being promotional is A Conflict of interest, thus implying that your assertion that this is a valuable and notable book may be biased. Also the links you provide on the talk page are not to the letters. So we have no actual provenance to them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand Slatersteven. I could have wrote that the letters I gave are from unbiased people (yet, they are both in Hebrew, and copied from my e-mail box, thus not such a good proof). This leaves me in a need for help. I wish for someone from within Wikipedia who knows about the subject, to go and have a look at the book to make an opinion of their own and voice it. Is that possible? Talgalili (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait Slatersteven - are you saying that if the letters where in some other website that could help? Could you please expend? Maybe that could be arranged. Talgalili (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You would need to have an opinion from a notable expert in the field to review it and publish said review in a third party RS. To just hacve another Wikieditor look at it and judge its merits I don;t think would be enough in itself to render the book RS (after all anyone can claim to be an expert). As to the letters, its not where they are that counts, its who wrote then, and can this be established, for example if these were on the home pages of the writers they might be considers RS, but not on some random blog. I am also having trouble finding any referance to Dr Nissim R. Ganor.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I will search for 3'rd party reviews and present them once found. 2) Dr Ganor is not a doctor on this field (but a medical doctor). Also, he first published his book in Hebrew in 1974 (I think it was then). Not many blogs from that time ;) (not to say that blog ar a RS) Talgalili (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit of text relevant to this thread seems to have been posted within the post below. Graemedavis (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the web site (whowerethephoenicians.com) I see that the book is not self published but published by kip-kotarim that is a respected publisher in Israel, secondly it is sold on amazon. Third if you look at the introduction chapter it is written by Dr Meir Ben Dov one of Israel's most famous archeologists who's name is famous world wide. He is also quoted on the back cover of the book stating among other things :"I strongly recommend this book etc etc...

1 KIP does not appear to have this book listed on thier website, also it reads like a vanity publishing house [[14]]. 2 niether the book, not the author appear on the UK Amazon site, nor on google as being sold by Amazon [[15]] (nor on google books). 3 as we cannot see what he says in the introduction we canot jusdge what his views are (or even if it is the same person). This is why we need a third party relibale referance.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Slatersteven. 1) Regarding KIP, I don't know what to answer. 2) The book IS sold on amazon, see here. 3) You can see his introduction on both the amazon link, and in more detail here. But obviously none of this is enough, I understand the need for a third party reference, and I'll see what I can do. Talgalili (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Talgalili... Being sold on Amazon does not tell us much... they do sell books published by vanity presses. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it should say much. I only responded to the claim it wasn't on amazon.co.uk (but that it was still on amazon.com)

Amazon UK [[16]] No list for Dr Ganor, and this [[17]] no list for "WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS". So the question becomes why it it on Amazon.com, but not on Amazon.co.uk?. Tends to imply this is a very limited realease book, not in and of itself a problom but coupled with the other probloms tends to lend creadance to tghe idea that this is a vanity publication. The Introduction on Amazon.com appears to be edited, but seems to contain no actual endorsement. As to your link to page 33, it does not appear to work, just comes up blank, which was my ppoint about not being able to view it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please view the page with firefox or chrome. The page viwer uses google viwer, and is sometimes buggy on old IE's. If you are using one of the above browsers, please wait another moment for loading. (it loads well on my computer) Talgalili (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also - I agree with all your claims. I will see what can be done to find 3'rd party sources to validate the quality of the publication. Talgalili (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clearly self-published, one of the services offered is getting it into bookstores, etc [18].

talk

) 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it wasn't. Talgalili (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing a GA review of

It's tough to say "no," here because the site is very good. Are we sure that no magazine has ever pointed at the website and said "this is a pretty good website"? Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a number of books and magazines have said that the site is good, including The Rough Guide to Rock and Record Collector magazine. Even the official Roger McGuinn/Byrds web page endorses it by listing it on their links page (here [19]). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reliable. "self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability" Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's reassuring. Would another reliable sources regular please endorse this view as what I was hoping for was a consensus and so far only Hipocrite has chipped in. Somebody saying "I concur with Hipocrite" would be enough. SilkTork *^YES! 10:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree... I think we have a good case for calling Tim Connors an "acknowledged expert" on the Byrds... so the website can be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. SilkTork *^YES! 11:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the editorial policy of

To the extent that opinions are presented, if the writer is notable, cite the post as their opinion. If they are not notable, avoid them. This is a source of many problems on WP, to be sure. Collect (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I cant remember where the guideline is, but perhaps someone coming across this can point you to the exact one; but per blogs- blogs are not acceptable unless they are written by say a reporter at a newspaper on its website and there is some expectation that there is editorial oversight of some level. When in doubt doing what Collect says is the best bet, attribute the opinion to that of the person so you dont make it seem like its a true fact that you happen to be sourcing to a blog (which wouldnt be allowed anyways).Camelbinky (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies but it does not really help much. We generally do not accept letters to the editor as a reliable source, (unless the author of the letter is independent of the media recognised as an expert in their field, and even then we tend not to use them other than to say "50 experts signed an open letter..") but we do accept opinion pieces published in a reliable newspaper (because it falls under editorial control of the newspaper (

talk

) 11:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Guardian blogs are all opinion pieces or critical commentary and therefore only really suitable to discribe the views of the writer.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

11:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So people seem to think these Guardian blogs are good sources to describe somebody's views, but the text must be explicitly attributed as the views of the author. Is that a reasonable summary? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I know about that policy, but was surprised to find out that scienceblogs is considered a reliable source. ScienceBlogs is a "virtual network" where "Scienceblogs.com was launched last January by Seed Media Group, publishers of SEED magazine. Seed recruited 15 of the best known independent science bloggers, offered to compensate them based on traffic, and set them loose to blog about whatever they wanted." [[20]]. There is no editorial control. I thought that these blogs, like other blogs by experts would be evaluated on a case by case basis, but was surprised to find out that they are considered RS. stmrlbs|talk 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Who says that articles published there are considered reliable sources? Because AFAICT from the footnote that

talk

) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

See footnote six of

Some newspapers host interactive 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. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

This would be the relevant part of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

talk

) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The footnote has been there for a long time, not sure if it was discussed on the talk page. I don't think it should be moved to the body of the article, since these kinds of blogs are a tiny fraction of the blogs out there. Regarding the Guardian's blog, it would apply to the "Commentisfree" section of the Guardian website, but it's not clear to me that it applies to the rest of the blogs. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayjg, for pointing that out. This is good to know. stmrlbs|talk 03:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I found this page that discusses the Guardian blog process. The contributors are selected by the paper on the basis of "good ideas, relevance to current events and good writing." The paper states that they "very rarely publish unsolicited submissions from writers we have not published before." and that the blogs are edited before publication. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm could be used as a reliable source for an article on the first world. This site gathers information from reliable sites but people on the talk page don't feel its acceptable. Also would http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/indices/hdi/ be a reliable source for an article. I think so but others do not. Thanks for all your help. Mln30 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the page where the discussion is happening, so we can see context. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there is not really a discussion about the source. Its just that my teacher on this assignment did not know if the source was reliable and then someone went in and the article now says citations needed where i had originally posted the sources. The article is the First World if you want to look at it. Thanks for the help. Mln30 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your teacher was trying to hint that you can probably find a more reliable source with a bit more searching. I agree, we want our information cited to the most reliable sources possible, and not settle for "good enough". Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I look into SpeedyLook and it seems to be translating French wikipedia; at least gives credits to it: [21]. Not to say it is heavily loaded with adverts but lacks references. I guess its usage in wikipedia as sources is inadmissible and must be cleaned away. - Altenmann >t 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As a "mirror" site to the French version of Wikipedia, it should not be used as a cited source for information ... but it can be used as an "external link" in an article (the rules are different for those). Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we need to give a promotion no a non-original money-making source of unknown verifiability?

wikipedia is not a web directory. The ext link must be either trustworthy or have immediate connection to the subject. - Altenmann >t

22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably raise that question at WT:External links. Its not "our department". Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea which of dozens of links are ext links and which are refs. I find this dept. division rather dubious. - Altenmann >t 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:External links, it explains the difference. As for knowing which links to the web site in question are External links and which are used as a source, you have to check each article... and see how the link is being used. Blueboar (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry colleague, you read first, then give an advice.

WP:CITE in this respect: "Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." (Unless the policy was modified while we were chatting :-)- Altenmann >t

05:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wapsi Square is AFD for not being verified by reliable sources. One of the sites referenced is the Friends of Lulu weblog. That in turn is referred to on the web by a number of course, such as [22] this one.

Should the blog itself be considered a reliable source? Netmouse (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the official page of a notable award, it counts both as a source and for notability. Also, if one of its articles is cited in another source, then it becomes a primary source for that cite. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are

generally not considered to be reliable sources. Can you indicate why you think this specific blog might be an exception? Jayjg ^(talk)

01:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it in general should be an exception. However, if it is being used as a source for information about the awards given out by the organization whose blog it is, and those awards are one of, if not the, primary functions of the group, as I believe is true in this case, then it seems reasonable to assume that the information they themselves give out regarding their awards would qualify as reliable. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. It's still a blog, right? Self-published sources may be appropriate for information about themselves (so in this case, to gather information about the awards), but I would rather see third-party sources that cover that nominations, like we can easily find for the Oscars. That would establish the notability of the awards and the comic, I would think.--

otherlleft

02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC smears political opponents with the racism charge far too often for my liking. Unless this particular allegation by the SPLC has been picked up by the wider media world, I would leave it out of the article. WVBluefield (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor that Dougweller is speaking of. I removed the language sourcing the SPLC because it's completely unsourced opinion. Dougweller states that if we ignored opinions, then reviews of books would naturally be excluded. I understand his point, however, reviews of books are quite a different matter than attributing radical positions to individuals based on someone's opinion. It's also a different matter to state that it appears someone advocates for a position, and to unequivocally state they hold the position. The cited articles do the latter.

Moreover, opinions on individuals are wide and varied, and not necessarily based on fact. They're based on the perceptions of the individual espousing the opinion, whether they be rational or irrational. One may irrationally conclude their opinion regarding someone based on a spurious reading of their work. Is that opinion useful, or even valid? Certainly not.

I understand Dougweller's POV concern, but I'd like to allay that fear. People are not above being wrong, even drastically wrong. If one doesn't understand this, they fall into the trap of attributing to individuals an infalliability that prevents one from rationally considering their positions, but rather, wholesale accepting them simply because that person advanced it. I am not one of those. However, I'm not a fan of attributing positions to people that they didn't in reality hold in a thinly veiled bid to smear their name. I'm not assuming that this is Dougweller's aim but rather the aim of the cited sources. For these reasons, I have removed the material attributed to those sources. Shazbot85^Talk 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller provided some quotes that purportedly justify the conclusions made by the SPLC, but they clearly don't. Nowhere does Rushdoony advocate for racism, but rather speaks broadly about slavery as an institution. He's not specifically speaking of the Anglo-American form of very recent history. He's speaking of slavery as a whole, which is not restricted to the form that was based on racist ideaology. It's anachronism to read a relatively recent development, i.e. slavery based on ethnicity, into the entire history of slavery and then attribute it to someone writing on such a topic.

Moreover, the quote which purportedly justifies the accusation that Rushdoony said the Jews bore false witness against the Germans and denied the Holocaust is equally insufficient. 1. Nowhere does Rushdoony accuse the Jews of bearing false witness. 2. Nowhere does Rushdoony deny the Holocaust happened, he only questions the figures. To say that he said the Jews bore false witness and that he denied the Holocaust is an extreme overstatement of the case. Shazbot85^Talk 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source. They have many detractors in far right publications because they investigate the far right, but their accuracy is not challenged in mainstream sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLC can be a reliable source, depending on how they draw the information. However, as others have questioned its neutrality, then the text which is referenced to it, should attribute the information. Furthermore, if you are dealing with a Biography article, and the information is making an extraordinary claim, back it up with additional sources to show verification. That my two cents.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't say 'the holocaust didn't happen', but he clearly is denying it - he first suggests the real figure may be less than a million, then says many of those may have died in epidemics. Others have called him a Holocaust denier, eg [23]. He talks specifically of recent slavery, eg " Granted that some Negroes were mistreated as slaves, the fact still remains that nowhere in all history or in the world today has the Negro been better off. The life expectancy of the Negro increased when he was transported to America. He was not taken from freedom into slavery, but from a vicious slavery to degenerate chiefs to a generally benevolent slavery in the United States...The private ownership of slave labor in the American South has been the subject of extensive distortion. The Negroes were slaves to their tribal heads in Africa, or prisoner-slaves of other tribes. The monetary unit in black Africa was man, the slave. The Negro moved from an especially harsh slavery, which included cannibalism, to a milder form. Much is said about the horrors of the slave ships, many of which were very bad, but it is important to remember that slaves were valuable cargo and hence property normally handled with consideration."  :::His attitude towards blacks is, for instance, shown by "The background of the Negro culture is voodoo and magic; and the purposes the magic are control and power over God, man, nature and society. Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro" and refers to them as "inferior stock". He is clearly a segregationist and racist.

Just to make it clear, he died in 2001.

talk

) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My goal, is not to defend the subject of the article. Honestly, I could careless what he had thought, regardless of how repugnant that thought maybe. That being said, the reason for this noticeboard is whether the SPLC is a reliable source. As I have said, most of the time it is. However, because it is being contested, I would suggest that its statements be backed up by additional third party sources, for increased verification purposes. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, you appear to be arguing from ad hominem. "Just to be clear, he died in 2001" really can't be viewed as anything other than a personal attack on the man, as it implies his ideas were unfit for modern society. I dare point out that the moral sentimentalities of modern society are carbon-copy repeats of past civilizations. No side, right or left, has a lock on "modern" morality. It's all been done before and its rank arrogance to think "modern" ideas are somehow innovative or progressive in the grand scheme of history.

I believe that information may have been added to indicate that

WP:BLP does not apply in this case. That is a policy which specifically states that statements about living people must be extremely well sourced, and there might be some question whether this material would be well enough sourced for inclusion were the subject living. However, considering the subject has been dead for about eight years, there is no reason to believe that those extraordinary sourcing requirements need be met in this case. John Carter (talk

) 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same type of marginalization from you that I see from the SPLC. You see something you don't like, you act obtusely, remain in intentional ignorance, and make no attempt to understand what Rushdoony is actually saying, in context, and then twist what he said in an effort to marginalize him and label him. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I'm having difficulty doing so considering some of the comments you've made and the way you've seemingly manipulated quotes and sources. You may despise the man, but please try to understand what he's saying, in context, without the hued glasses of "political correctness".

My apologies to you if I seem a bit frustrated. Good night. Shazbot85^Talk 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I stated this on the

Rushdoony talk page, and I'll state it again, disputing the amount of deaths in the Holocaust is not denying the Holocaust, it's disputing the figures. It doesn't make a rip of difference in 100,000 died or 6 million, the Holocaust still happened, and Rushdoony doesn't contest that. You're being disingenuous with his words. Shazbot85^Talk

02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is not the claim that no Jews were killed, but rather:

• "Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term "Holocaust denial." Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." (Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004.
• "In part III we directly address the three major foundations upon which Holocaust denial rests, including... the claim that gas chambers and crematoria were used not for mass extermination but rather for delousing clothing and disposing of people who died of disease and overwork; ... the claim that the six million figure is an exaggeration by an order of magnitude - that about six hundred thousand, not six million, died at the hands of the Nazis; ... the claim that there was no intention on the part of the Nazis to exterminate European Jewry and that the Holocaust was nothing more than the unfortunate by-produce of the vicissitudes of war." Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman. Denying History: : who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and why Do They Say It?, University of California Press, 2000,
  ISBN 0520234693
  , p. 3.

In other words, saying only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed is Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg,thanks for the information, I was wondering why Dougweller was so emphatic about the claim. However, your definition espouses a three part test. A quote has only been produced which questions the number of Jews killed, purportedly fulfilling the third requirement. I have not seen a sourced quote, or any quote for that matter, from Rushdoony which would support the view that he didn't think there was an official Nazi policy to exterminate Jews, nor homicidal gas chambers. I'm not saying with knowledge that he isn't a holocaust denier; I haven't exhaustively read Rushdoony. From what I have read though, this seems to be an extreme claim about him. As a result, I'm very suspicious as to whether he actually is. Perhaps you're more knowledgeable than I am, in which case, you might be able to provide some sourced, contextual quotes that fulfill all of the prongs of the holocaust denier test you set forth. In any case, thanks for the helpful information. Shazbot85^Talk 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't. It points to holocaust denial in general as being based on those three points, but it doesn't specifically state that each and every one of those points must be met for the term to be used. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. " That's what the definition says, not "It points to holocaust denial in general as being based on those three points, but it doesn't specifically state that each and every one of those points must be met for the term to be used." Holocaust deniers, based on the definition, question all three points. Proof is provided for questioning one. You can't change definitions because it suits you. Shazbot85^Talk 19:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources indicate that those three are the most popular Holocaust denial claims. They don't indicate that every Holocaust denier must make every single one of them in order to be defined as a Holocaust denier. More importantly, reliable sources describe him as such, and that's all we need. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) It's actually the

Do you have any sources that verify the extraordinary claims? Testimony before Congress doesn't make a lick of difference so far as the reliability of the testimony goes. Moreover, the polemic nature of the history you've outlined shows a pattern of circular logic and marginalization of political enemies through ad hominem labeling. All you've seemed to do with the history is cement the idea that the SPLC performs political character assassination on people they don't agree with, which is exactly my point. Shazbot85^Talk 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source on extremists and Holocaust deniers. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, didactic assertion doesn't pass the test of verifiability. The SPLC isn't reliable because you happen to agree with them. As it stands, there don't seem to be quotes that support the hasty conclusions they make, unless you twist them and inject NPOV. Shazbot85^Talk 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "reliable" in "reliable sources" can be and sometimes is misconstrued by people. A reliable source is one that meets the criteria set forward in

WP:RS, whether the specific statements from that source are themselves specifically "reliable" or not. In this case, the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so far as I can tell. This is not saying that its statements of opinikon, or conclusions, are necessarily "reliable", although they are in general considered notable enough for at least potential inclusion in some way. Regarding the matters relating to the holocaust and slavery, the best experts are probably to be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. Regarding these particular matters, holocaust denial and being at the extreme end of opinion ("extremists"), the first seems independently verifiable based on the definition and the statements of the subject himself, and the second, while more a statement of opinion, is probably also reliable enough for inclusion, if possibly with attribution to the SLPC. John Carter (talk

) 14:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source, as they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Verbal chat 14:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that SPLC is a reliable source for facts about particular individuals and groups in the U.S., though possibly more questionable on whether the general trend of right-wing and racist activity is upward or downward, because that gets a bit closer to their own fundraising. - Jmabel | Talk 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that SPLC comments on controvercial issues... they do have a bias. That does not mean it is unreliable. Even though it sometimes shows a bias, the SPLC has a good reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The fact that SPLC has a bias simply means that, when the issue is controvercial, we should state what it says as an opinion, and contrast what it says with other reliable sources that may have a differing opinion. It does not mean we should not discuss what it says. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this approach is far more neutral than the approach suggested by some of the more extreme editors. The article as it was didactically asserted that Rushdoony was a holocaust denier, racist, and segregationist. The quotes provided do not bore this out. I am more amenable to presenting the opinion as just that, an opinion. If you'll refer to the

Rushdoony article, I have left in the portion regarding the accusation that Rushdoony denied the holocaust, with the fact that Chalcedon disputes it presented beside it. Shazbot85^Talk

17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm getting a bit tired of these personal comments coming from someone who has complained about ad hominem. Who is an extreme editor? I made one edit [27] and my edit summary said "The SPLC is considered a reliable source, particularly for its own opinions..." Shazbot also accused me of arguing from ad hominem when I pointed out that he was dead (which was to make it clear that this was not a BLP - I noted that it was mentioned that it was a biography and the distinction between being alive and dead is relevant), and he then launch into a series of personal attacks on me, saying I'm twisting things, remaining in intentional ignorance, etc. It ill behoves someone so concerned about character assassination and ad hominem to speak of another editor in such terms. I also fail to see how removing any criticism of Rushdoony's racial views helps make the article NPOV. The SPLC is not the only source that considers him to have been a racist. I also found a number of quotes by him in response to the complaint that statements weren't based on things he said. His own statements clearly make him a segregationist and I'm happy to have them used. I think I've also seen some shifting of the goal posts. For instance, on the talk page when I wrote that Rushdoony said "The background of the Negro culture is voodoo and magic; and the purposes the magic are control and power over God, man, nature and society. Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro" , Shazbot replies ", how is stating that African-American spirituality has been historically steeped in mysticism the attitude of a segregationist???" which is clearly not what Rushdoony said.

You're misrepresenting the situation.

(1) While you pointed out he was dead, you seemed to clearly mean the statement as a contrast between the year he died, and his views. I interpreted that as an ad hominem attack. If it was not, and I was hasty, then please forgive me. I assumed too much and you meant something innocuous.

(2) I went to great pains to first point out that I thought the SPLC was twisting quote.s You then provided a litany of quotes that failed to prove any of your positions. I explained why they didn't and you occasionally responded with equally uncompelling quotes and arguments. All of them assumed facts and words not in the quotes, or sought to over-extend the topic Rushdoony was speaking of. I'm sorry, but that's twisting. It may have been unintentional, I'll assume it was, but it's still twisting his words. If this offends you, I can't help that.

(3) You wrote that when Rushdoony said, "The background of the Negro culture is voodoo and magic; and the purposes the magic are control and power over God, man, nature and society. Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro", he was making a generalization, seeking to ignore Christianity's impact on the culture. The quote, however, makes it clear he was speaking of the Background of the African-American, which makes it clear he's not addressing the impact of Christianity, but rather religion while they were in Africa. That's not a generalization, and you're reading Rushdoony wrong, either because of intentional or unintentional bias. When one speaks specifically, you can't then argue they're speaking generally. That defies logic.

Again, for any perceived ad hominem, I apologize. You've acted in bad faith on several occasions though. Shazbot85^Talk 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, my comment on his death was solely to point out he was dead. Your personal attacks are continuing - I see you've called me a liar on the article's talk page.

Maybe I've misunderstood " Voodoo and magic was the religion and life of America's Negro" - perhaps he somewhere points out that Christianity was also part of the life of 'America's Negro'.

Just out of curiousity, are you really saying he wasn't a segregationist?

talk

) 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) The sentences says (WAS) the life, which immediately succeeds a sentence where he says he's talking about (BACKGROUND). Read plainly, he was talking about the background of the "American Negro". (2) It's irrelevant if I say that or not. My point is that you haven't proven he was. Quit skirting the issue because you can't meet it. Shazbot85^Talk 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you've removed the 'lying' comment -- good move but it looks, coupled with your lack of Good Faith, as though you may think I'm lying. Another question - do you think he wasn't a racist? (I guess that depends upon your definition, of course).

talk

) 19:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually scolding me for making a mistake and removing it? "I see you made a mistake, and then removed it. Good job idiot!" That's hardly productive, or even rational. Regarding your question: That's irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant what you think, and what the SPLC thinks. The quotes you've provided don't prove the case, and that's what matters. Shazbot85^Talk 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please revert this edit [28]? It is muy idiotic. I have no intention of edit-warring with this dude, so I request that someone else step in to revert him. -- Y not? 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this how things function, no improvement, no substantiation, just shouting other people down who disagree or want to hold you to the proper standard? Shazbot85^Talk 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Where we are thus far:

(1) Definition for holocaust denier has been provided, and only a quote to fulfill one of the three requisite positions to fit the definition has been provided.

(2) No suitable quote where Rushdoony states African-Americans are an inferior race has been produced. The only quote that's been produced explains Rushdoony's views on the background of African-American spirituality and religion, i.e. in Africa. There's no compelling reason to reject the plain reading of the text and assume he's generalizing all African-Americans up to the present time, as it's clear he's speaking of times past.

(3) The claims of the SPLC, as a result, remain unsubstantiated. If they're a reliable source, and Rushdoony is clearly a racist holocaust denier, then surely Rushdoony must have said it somewhere. Due to the extreme nature of these claims, I can't really find a reason for how quickly people are jumping on the bandwagon to label him, relying on implications they draw from ambiguous quotes. Can the quotes be read two ways? Possibly, which is why I'm so surprised at how quickly people are ready to assume the most vile conclusion. Shazbot85^Talk 22:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, as I have said on your talk page you are at 3RR and I've reverted your recent removal. Rushdoony doesn't have to say 'I'm a racist holocaust denier' to be one. And these are not extraordinary claims as you've said in your edit summaries.

talk

) 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller is right. For people who are not living, it is reasonable and even expected that comments from other reliable sources regarding their conduct is sufficient for inclusion, particularly if they fall within the mainstream of opinion, as those comments do. The statement that the claims of the SPLC remain unsubstantiated is almost laughable. The absurd logical fallacy that we can only use the exact statements of deceased people as a basis for inclusion of material in an article is absurd, has absolutely no substantiation in policy or basic logic. The mainstream opinion seems to be that he was a holocaust denier. His own statements are such that those statements constitute a form of holocaust denial, making the further identification of him as a denier very well based. I would urge the newer editor to perhaps better acquaint himself with wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making such unsubstantiated and unfounded statements again. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, John Carter, and others here are right. In addition, while removing SPLC as an unreliable source, you (Shazbot) had no qualms about citing a blog posting. Also, you can't insert whatever you like in front of a source, regardless of whether or not the source has the material in it, as you did here. In any event, I've shortened the section to four sentences, and added three reliable sources attesting to Rushdoony's Holocaust denial and racism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the SLPC too often fails to cite sources, other than to say "a New York Times article said" or "someone who infiltrated one of their mailing lists or meetings said" or "we have info this person was at a conference some one racist attended and therefore they are one too", etc. So as others have said, unless their source is clear and WP:RS, it should be used only when not challenged and then it should be identified as the source of the info in the text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Carol, can you provide sources for any of your claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We allow watchdog groups such as the SPLC. SPLC has an editorial process and isn't a selfpub. However, I am leery of citing it for derogatory information in a biography. Furthermore the SPLC article Casting Stones is about his son and has only a trivial mention of the father's views. Jayjg found a better source in the Mother Jones article A Nation Under God which explains how the controversy came from the 1973 book Institutes of Biblical Law. I would suggest replacing the SPLC cite with the Mother Jones cite, and I'd also suggest looking for any book reviews which may weigh in on the issue more directly. Also, the family-edited Chalcedon material should be a valid cite for a rebuttal as long as it is attributed as a primary source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears Jayjg has made the edits you indicated, but has also removed the Chalcedon source that contests them. Is there anyone who can revert his edit, as it seems to be consensus that the Chalcedon article was reliable, and served to validly rebutt the SPLC claim? Shazbot85^Talk 08:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "consensus that the Chalcedon article was reliable". The source is http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2005/11/did-rushdoony-deny-holocaust.php - did you notice the word "blog" in the url? That indicates that it is a

reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

May anyone post on the Chalcedon blog? Or is it a press release from the organization, edited by the family? Just as a newspaper's staff "blog" is still a valid secondary source if the newspaper is an RS, an organization's press release "blog" is a valid primary source for articles about the organization. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Shazbot, consensus hadn't been reached yet, just another opinion was added to the debate. I don't generally get involved in the articles I help with on the noticeboards, but it would not be edit-warring if you were making compromise edits as opposed to reverts, especially given that several days were elapsing between the changes. The replacing of the SPLC article with the more topical Mother Jones article is the way RSN is supposed to work. Editors question a source, both sides analyze the issue, and a better source is found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg writes above: can you provide sources for any of your claims? People rarely source opinions here, do they? Anyway, SPLC is an advocacy group that has been frequently criticized for its fundraising (see Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Fundraising) and by at least two academic sources (below) for its questionable assertions for political and/or fundraising purposes:

This source was removed from is in the article, though it specifically mentions SPLC’s Klanwatch Intelligence reports:

Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (

The Johns Hopkins University Press

, 2000, 1-3.

This is a new source of criticism I just found: Searching for a demon: the media construction of the militia movement by Steven M. Chermak (an Assoc Prof of Criminology) UPNE, 2002 which has a number of pages referring to SPLC’s methods. Of particular interest: p. 104: SPLC claimed a militia group was racist but the group eader told a reporter this was false and that they worked with a black militia group that visited his home; p. 124-126: Questions about whether statistics trumped up; p. 126-127: SPLC claimed a Utah Mormon historical preservation group is an active right wing militia group; Militia informant comments on sloppy scholarship by SPLC; p. 135: SPLC/ADL use the “racist” and "growing threat" frames to demonize groups.

Given these criticisms, at the very least any use of their info has to be attributed to them in the article. If it is sourced, look for the original source, if possible. And if they make very defamatory accusations against individuals which they do not back up with any sourcing at all, these should not be included in an article. For examples of unevenly sourced or unsourced accusations, see articles 1, 2, 3, 4. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This criticism - by one person - shows itself that the SPLC is widely considered reliable. "About 50 percent of the statistical estimates provided in stories about the militia movement were provided by experts from either the SPLC or the ADL." Your various cites are unreliable, however. On page 104, a militia member swears he's not a racist. He's unreliable. He also belies his own point - here in america, where the movement comment is, we've decided "seperate but equal" isn't equal. The racist writes "...we've got a unit of blacks..." He dosen't say he's got blacks in his unit, but rather, in a racially segregated unit. Oops! The second quote isn't anythting but hearsay - in this case, hearsay hearsay from YET ANOTHER MILITIA MEMBER (and I bet you he got it from CNN, which told that exact same anecdote - except in 1997!) The third quote? Dosen't even alledge that the SPLC is wrong, merely that unreliable Militia members state they've got Spanish - WAIT I MEAN MEXICANS! in their units. I suggest you stop googling for dollars on this one - the SPLC is obviously reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

First, obviously Chermak's relevant pages have to be read carefully and summarized accurately, not cherry picked for conclusions, like you do in your first quote about 50%. Just because a lot of news sources and even the author quote SPLC doesn't mean they are always correct, which is the whole point of the author's comments.

The interview with the racist group was to make the [author Mr. Chermak's] point that SPLC and even reporters quoting it does NOT fact check with actual groups, like it did not with the Mormon group, another evidence they aren't a real NEWS source but an advocacy group.

Also, the alleged racist militia leader doesn't say anything about separate or equal or segregation like you allege above. He says his group is not racist and he doesn't know why the groups are separate. In my experience in my lefty-progressive peace group, members would say the same thing about the fact there were hardly any blacks in our group and that the blacks preferred to organize in their own group and only network with us. So SPLC should write up all the primarily white peace groups as racists?

Also note that in page 95 Chermak writes that reporters tend to ignore academics - I guess having a more accurate and/or balanced viewpoint, they don't sell as many newspapers. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you alledge the SPLC is unrelible because they don't give the Militia perspective on Militia racism like the author you googled for does? Thanks for your opinion! Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the author does, as one of several examples. I've made that more clear above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The author does no such thing. The author has expressed mild disagreement with the SPLC on some fairly innocuous matters, no more. Disagreements are rife among reliable sources, and, in particular, in the academic world. That doesn't make the sources unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So far third party sources have been provided to show that the

Intelligence Report

is a reliable source. But the editors arguing against are unable to provide reliable sources that show the Report is unreliable, just arguments why they do not see it as reliable.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Carol's source which is critical of media coverage of the Militia Movement, notes that newspapers and law enforcement rely on SPLC. The book does not mention or comment on the Intelligence Report however which is the source that has been challenged. There is no indication that the Report is less reliable than mainstream media. Unless we decide that MSM is unreliable, it is logical to consider the Report RS. I would though mention that when writing about non-current events, journalism contemporary to the events should not be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Following on from some lengthy (and sometimes heated) discussions on my

I am not sure how a physical object such as an automotive part could answer the question of whether Volkswagen Group is abreviated as "VWAG" ... A VW catelogue of parts, or the website of a dealer, perhaps... but the part itself? Does the company stamp "VWAG" on it's carborators or something? Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, most (though not all) parts have 'VWAG' on them (they are either cast into them when they are molded from molten metal - engines, transmissions, major components; or they are stamped into them in thing like pressed steel body panels). And the VW parts catalogue is now just an electronic version - ETKA, and that has no abbreviations at all - even when you look on the 'help > about' window. But my fundamental question remains - if a genuine Volkswagen Group part had the "VWAG" initials on them (or similar parts from other original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts manufacturers), could those actual parts be classed as a reliable source? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it is on packaging of their products, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not on the packaging - the "VWAG" is on the actual physical parts - be they on the parts when the car left the factory production line, or parts obtained from genuine Volkswagen (or Audi, Seat or Skoda) dealerships. Their boxes are generally labled with the German language "Volkswagen Original Teile", along with English, and various other language translations. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look into the specific dispute in any great detail, but I would suggest trying to find sources other than automotive parts. This site appears to be the "Trademark Usage Guide" for Volkswagen of America, identifying what they have trademark claims on. On that page, they refer to their parent company, Volkswagen AG, using the abbreviation VWAG. That would indicate to me that the company itself, at the very least, sometimes uses the abbreviation VWAG. A Google Books search for "VWAG" also indicates that the abbreviation is used, especially in legal proceedings. That said, I've also seen some of their legal documents that use "Volkswagen AG" throughout, so your mileage may vary. ← George ^talk 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, in matters of corporate identity, there's no need to resort to examining inscriptions cast or stamped into car components, when car manufacturers produce copious quantities of printed and electronic material which provide perfectly good reliable (primary) sources for such things. Unless, of course, you were being disingenuous! Letdorf (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

Letdorf, I fully agree that we should not be resorting to examining car parts. But I honestly didn't know where else to look. And I'm sorry if you think I was not being sincere - which is why I raised the issue as a genuine concern here. And I also agree that we should be able to find such info on the net/books/publications etc, but I honestly drew a blank! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the sources George has mentioned, it's common practise in legal documents to invent ad hoc abbreviations for entities referred to in the document for the purposes of brevity; I wouldn't use these as evidence of official corporate identity policy. Letdorf (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

(ec) To be clear, I'm not saying that what I linked to is "evidence of official corporate identity policy". I'm unsure of the details of the dispute, but my feeling would be that (a) it's okay to use VWAG as an abbreviation for Volkswagen AG in the article, as it's sometimes used, and (b) it's probably not okay to claim that it's an official abbreviation, without better sourcing at least. ← George ^talk 18:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

George, I (naturally) agree with your point (a), and could I therefore assume (with regards to your agreement of point a) that you would agree, and think it reasonable to use the VWAG abbreviation for other related Volkswagen Group articles (providing that the salient points on abbreviations/acronyms in the

MOS are followed)? With your point (b), again I agree that better sourcing should be used - but until now, I had sadly drawn a blank on the sourcing issue. However, in my defence, dispite what a certain editor is trying to state, VWAG definately is a 'common abbreviation', and is very well known within the wider Volkswagen Group 'arena' - and I thought that for 'common abbreviations', then Wikipedias policy was that these did not need sourcing (so like it is common knowledge that USA is common abbreviation, as is UK, GB, PAN-AM, etc). But moving on, and running with your comment on 'better sourcing', you have thankfully provided one source for official trademark representation in the United States, and I have now also found an additional official source here for the same VWAG trademark in the United Kingdom - so lets hope this now proves (in the two major English language territories) that VWAG is the official abbreviation for Volkswagen Group. And sincerest thanks for your help, George. 78.32.143.113 (talk

) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are joking? "VWAG" is registered as an official trademark by "Volkswagen AG" - so how can you NOT accept these as official? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to link to a source that identifies VWAG as "an official trademark". ← George ^talk 18:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The bare fact that a registered trademark exists doesn't really prove very much with respect to corporate identity. Companies often have registered trademarks than they never, or no longer, actually use. For instance, "V.A.G." is currently registered with the UK IPO to Volkswagen AG,[29] even though they haven't used that for years, AFAIK. Another random automotive example is the "Triumph" trademark, which is currently registered in the UK to BMW,[30] but I don't recall them ever using it at all. Letdorf (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

"The bare fact that a registered trademark exists doesn't really prove very much with respect to corporate identity" - what planet are you on? The fundamental purpose of registering a trademark is categorically to be able to prove some kind of "identity"! And your comment on the "V.A.G." is wrong about it not being in use - because it still is (well it definately is in the UK, for identifying 'generic' Volkswagen Group UK parts - though I can not comment on its use in other countries). And I find it very strange that you went to lengths to find a Volkswagen Group trademark which (you say) isn't in use, yet you completely failed to apply the same level of diligence to search for VWAG - which is the specific purpose of this discussion. An increadibly simple search of the UK IPO site which you listed above brings up Case details for Community Trade Mark E1064997 - VWAG. This trademark filing is still valid, it relates to "VOLKSWAGEN AG" (ie, Volkswagen Group, and not the actual

marque of cars it sells). Furthermore, it categorically states; under class 07: "motor parts for land vehicles", under class 12: "Apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water including their parts; including; vehicles and their parts, automobiles and their parts, engines for land vehicles.", and class 37: "Repair and maintenance of vehicles; including; vehicle repair in the course of vehicle breakdown service, cleaning, repairing, maintenance and varnishing of vehicles." I re-iterate my comment that this trademark covers the 'Group', and not individual marques - and is therefore, categorically 100% a valid and legitimate abbreviation for "Volkswagen Group". And like I mentioned on my talk page, I feel that you are being bloody minded in your attitude on this issue - you personally can not, and will not accept that VWAG is an official abbreviation of Volkswagen Group, and that you are determined in your personal quest to obliterate it from Wikipedia! Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk

) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just one further point: www.volkswagenag.com is the official corporate website of Volkswagen AG/Volkswagen Group, providing access to hundreds of publications, reports, presentations etc. relating to the Group, and hence presumably an authoritative primary source for all things Volkswagen Group. If you use that website's search facility to search for "VWAG", you get only six results [31]: three PowerPoint investor presentations, two Japanese stock exchange filings, and one environmental report in French. I stand by my assertion that the abbreviation "VWAG" is not widely used by the Group. Letdorf (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Again, you are being 'selective', and trying to prove a negative! Try again, and use a space "VW AG" as also discussed on my talk page, and you get 333 hits! I think that has trashed your 'opinion'. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, ignoring the fact that it is "VWAG" and not "VW AG" that you have been using in WP articles (and in this discussion until now), I'm afraid your 333 hits appear to include documents that have "VW" and "AG" somewhere in them, but not necessarily "VW AG". Actually searching for the text "VW AG" returns only 43 hits, compared to 665 for "Volkswagen Group". Oh, and by the way, is "trashing" another editor's opinion your idea of

building consensus? Letdorf (talk

) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Erm, look at the search terms - it is clearly VW plus AG, and those 333 hits have BOTH, not either/or as you state! And you also FAILED to acknowledge that on my talk page (where your comments were verging on

personal attacks and harrasment), I clearly stated either "VWAG", and/or "VW AG". And again, you are muddying the water by dragging in 'off-topic' issues - we are discussing the acronym, not the full English language name - the latter of which we both agree on! 78.32.143.113 (talk

) 09:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Like a lot of search engines, to search for a phrase containing spaces, you need to put the phrase in quotation marks. To quote the website help page:

If you enter several terms in your search, the search function will automatically only display content containing all these terms. You can search for a fixed combination of words by putting several words in inverted commas. The search function shows results that exactly match the words you have entered.

And since this whole discussion has arisen from a debate about whether it's a good idea to refer to Volkswagen Group as "VWAG", I'm not sure why you think the comparison is "off-topic". I also take great care to remain civil and refrain from using abusive language in any talk page discussion, and so I am very concerned about your allegations of "personal attacks". Please could you point out to me which of my comments on your talk page you consider to be in violation of Wikiquette? Letdorf (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

I am still a bit confused as to why this is being questioned in the first place... you do not need a reliable source to abreviate a name in an article... it can be done on purely editorial grounds without pointing to a reliable source. Many of our articles abreviate names purely for simplicity sake. I see no reason why you could not use the abreviation "VWAG" in this article, whether Volkswagen uses it or not. Or am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the

MoS

includes a few caveats regarding the use of abbreviations in articles, viz:

• Always consider whether an abbreviation may be better simply written out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with it - we do not have the same space constraints as paper.
• Avoid abbreviations when they would be confusing to the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal or lazy.
• Generally avoid making up new abbreviations, especially acronyms. For example, while it is reasonable to provide World Union of Billiards as a translation of Union Mondiale de Billard, the former is not the organization's name, and the organization does not use the acronym or initialism WUB; when referring to it in short form, use the official abbreviation UMB.

Letdorf (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

As usual Letdorf, you have been highly selective in your quoting of the Manual of Style! The very first comment states:

"Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence

When introducing a new name in an article, it is good practice to use the full name on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in parentheses."

So, working from the quoted correct example, Volkswagen Group (VWAG) is the correct way to do it, and can be followed on by just using the acronym.

Now to answer your quotes above. Your first point is a non-starter - because in all the articles I've edited, I've always written the full name, and immediately followed it by including the abbreviation in brackets (thus complying with the MOS). And your third comment is also a non-starter - VWAG is not a made up or new abbreviation! It is an official abbreviation, and has been established since 1999!

But it is your second point which I have the greatest concern with - and again this is where you have been highly selective. Allow me to 'complete' your sentance: "Avoid abbreviations when they would be confusing to the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal or lazy. For example, approx. for approximate or approximately should generally not be used, although it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data, or in a technical passage in which the term occurs many times." So, with the whole MOS section on 'Acronyms and abbreviations' taken into account - it is perfectly reasonable, and acceptable to use the VWAG acronym, providing it has been correctly identified (from the full name) earlier in the article. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Car parts aren't reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems quite a stretch to me to start using a code that might be stamped on some car parts as the preferred abbreviation for Volkswagen. It's possible they might use VWAG, but if we're only looking for an abbreviation to use in our own prose we should use whatever's most common in the literature, which is probably going to be VW. Besides, the AG seems redundant. Most German businesses are either a GmbH or an AG. It would be like a U.S. corporation appending Inc, LLC, or L.P. to an abbreviation.

The idea of prefixing a part number by an alphabetic manufacturer code is common in some industries. Semiconductors (for integrated circuits) and locksmithing (for key blanks) come to mind. I haven't noticed this in auto parts but it's not impossible. Would also be worth seeing what Volkswagen uses for its manufacturer number in a car's VIN code. But if VWAG is not in popular usage it might merit only a brief mention in a page about the company, together with stock ticker symbols (VOW, VLK ) and other abbreviations one might come across. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, I think you are slightly missing the point (and please forgive me if I presume wrong). I only started the discussion on VWAG being on 'car parts' simply because I hadn't (then) found any alternative proof for the VWAG acronym. And the "VWAG" does not refer to the marque of car which goes by the name of '

marques of cars which belong to the Volkswagen Group

. And whilst I fully accept that the parts often have the Audi 'four rings' logo, or the circular 'VW' logo to identify the particular marque of car, they also have 'VWAG' to indicate they are from the larger, 'top-tier' parent company. So I do not support the VWAG being used for the Volkswagen marque - 'VW' is for that - but VWAG (a formal registered trademark in both the UK and USA) is only used for the parent company.

And whilst I understand and respect your comment on U.S. companies not using LLC for their own acronyms, in Germany, they do actually seem to incorporate AG into their acronyms (well Volkswagen Group have proven that they do).

To answer your slightly irrelivent (IMVHO) comment on the

World Manufacturer Identifier

codes for their four mainstream marques:

• WVWZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by, and/or for bearing the 'Volkswagen' marque,
• WAUZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by, and/or for bearing the 'Audi' marque,
• WUAZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by
  quattro GmbH
  , for bearing the 'Audi' marque,
• WSEZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by, and/or for bearing the 'SEAT' marque, and,
• WSKZZZ... is used for cars manufactured by, and/or for bearing the 'Škoda' marque.

Finally, your last comment on the 'popular usage' of VWAG - I categorically state that it is in popular useage (for the Group), but Letdorf seems to take the diametrically oposite point of view. But the simple fact remains - VWAG is a registered trademark, and it is also adorned on parts/vehicles manufactured by the Group (or its subsidies for the Group). 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"AG" (Aktiengesellschaft) is the German equivalent of "Inc." in the US or "Ltd." in Britain. Collect (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed - and I think that all 'parties' understand that particular point. But thanks for pointing it out to other readers. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, using "VW" to refer to Volkswagen Group can be ambiguous as we should be able to differentiate between Volkswagen (the brand) and Volkswagen Group (which comprises several different brands). But then, IMHO, "Volkswagen Group" isn't a particularly cumbersome appellation anyway. Letdorf (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

And I totally agree with your first comment. "VW" (which is both a trademark, as well as a 'stylised icon') should only be used to refer to Volkswagen cars, and not the Group. And I also agree with you that Volkswagen Group isn't cumbersome either - however, I do feel that the VWAG acronym has a rightful place in articles too (again, providing that the relevent MOS has been complied with). Kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions - is VWAG an accepted abbreviation

So can we have a consensus on this? And just to provide further evidence that VWAG is a common abbreviation, BMW owners in America use it - here. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is UN Watch a reliable source for an article on

At least Holocaust Deniers visit the sites of the crime and try to do some kind of research! UN Watch has no existence other desperately trying to blur the evidence and testimony of others. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the press release is a reliable source but the blog is not. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be used so long as whatever is said is attributed to UN Watch in the article. UN Watch clearly has some agenda -- but so do all other NGOs, and there is no difficulty in citing them. However, per the comment by IP Address 80.44.225.228 if there are reliable sources which discredit or challenge UN Watch's findings/assertions then they too should be included in the article. But one person's personal opinion that "UN Watch [does nothing but] blur the evidence and testimony..." is not sufficient reason to exclude it, in my opinion. One thing which may be relevant here is that it seems that UN Watch has been cited in a variety of academic material.[32] Sstr (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sentences that cite UN Watch in the article are NEVER formulated as a statement of fact (which is a prerogative of RS), but are always attributed to UN Watch (and if, by chance, I omitted something - point out and I'll fix it immediately myself). It's blog is an iherent part of their site. No one has ever claimed and not even intended to claim that UN Watch is RS, there's no need for that. UN Watch is NGO, a notable one, and its teatment is no different than any other NGO, be it Human Rights Watch (which is not RS, but a highly notable org) or else. As I see it, this request is merely a misunderstanding of the wiki policies regarding reliable and notable sources and should never be invoked in the 1st place. If though anyone still needs a proof UN Watch is a notable source, dedicated to matters connected to UN, especially UN Human Rights Council - it is in their site and if this is still not enough - I'll post here numerous publications in RSs that refer to opinions of UN Watch on the matters above. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable position to me.Sstr (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The blog is probably RS if it's under the editorial control of the site and the site itself is RS, just like with newspapers. That press release would be a valid source for The watchdog group U.N. Watch wrote a letter of protest asking that person xyz be removed from the panel, but per BLP may not be a valid source to their reasons why they wanted the person removed. Also there should be material from other sources about the person in question, say at least a paragraph in the article. Otherwise, unless the person is independently notable, it may be best not to mention them by name. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: is UN Watch a notable group? Is it simply an fringe "attack dog" type of organization? If so, I would find their material doubtful, just as Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch were deemed unreliable. Ngchen (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Squidfryerchef: the UN Watch blog is under the control of the UN Watch site - it is simply a tool to post material. However, as I tried to explain above, UN Watch site is not a RS in itself - as true for all NGOs. By simple analogy, Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a notable human-rights organization, but it is not RS in itself. Being a notable org. in the field of human-rights, it is permissable to quote them directly in the cases when their statements were not reported by secondary source. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that not all NGO's are equal. The

ICRC, for example, is usually considered a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 10:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very bad. I'll show you why.
But first I want to answer Ngchen. Here are just three (and it could have been 133) publications mentioning UN Watch on a subject of

Human Rights Council without a single word involving Israel: from The Hindu, from The Korea Herald and from AFP. I hope it removes the question of notability. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk

) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now a word about ICRC. Consider the following matter. In June 2009, ICRC issued a comprehensive guide on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under IHL. It says among many things that civilians attempting to voluntarily shield a military objective by their presence do not amount to being qualified as civilians who directly participate in hostilities (and thus it is illegal to attack them/such site). However, the ICRC report the report is not legally binding, but merely an opinion of ICRC; moreover, (and ICRC fails to mention it) many experts in the field of International Humanitarian Law (laws of war) objected such definition and criticized the report and the conduct of ICRC.
No doubt ICRC is one of the more notable organizations and deserves to be quoted. But it is still an organization devoted much to the matters of human-rights - and the field of human rights is highly politicized. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have serious doubts regarding this source, reinserted here and here, after notifying the author? I looked for the content and for the title but no real source came up. How can we make sure that the source is legitimate or not? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the citation says the information was taken from a Wall St. Journal article, I would check the archives of the Wall St. Journal itself, rather than relying on a google search. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, how are you going to do that? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, one way is to spend a little bit of money and subscribe to the Journal's online archive(here). If you do not wish to do that, you can go to any major public library (which should have either their own archives of all major newspapers, or public access to the archives sites run by the newspapers themselves.) A third way is to ask at the Wikipedia help desk and see if someone who does has a subscription can verify the article for you. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the wsj link, for the moment I asked them here. Thank you very much! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, which is set up explicitly to help with such verification tasks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Uau, great, I'll check it out. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I got a response from wsj.com: "Wall Street Journal Online subscribers can access WSJ.com articles that have appeared within the past 2 years. Through the advanced search feature, WSJ.com subscribers can browse past print and online editions via Factiva; there is no charge to view headlines, and a charge of $2.95 to view articles. WSJ print articles going back to 1979 and WSJ.com articles to November 8, 2006, are available. Please visit wsj.com. Current print subscribers receive a discounted Wall Street Journal Online rate of $49.00 for the first year. Should you have any questions, please contact The Wall Street Journal Online at [email protected] or by phone at 1-800-JOURNAL (568-7625). Factiva provides access to The Wall Street Journal print edition database via a Factiva subscription. Visit Factiva at http://www.factiva.com for subscription details or call 1-800-369-0166." Now I did search via factiva, see here, does this mean that it is safe to say that this article just simply does not exists? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Old articles can be hard to find. Usually we

assume good faith. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 08:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks it seems that the article did checked out OK, see: here. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)